6 ms·

I like how all the comments so far are defending the fact that the patent isn't quite as broad as the title suggests. Sure, they are patenting taking a picture

I like how all the comments so far are defending the fact that the patent isn't quite as broad as the title suggests. Sure, they are patenting taking a picture against a white background when perpendicular against a... Who gives a fuck. This is a patent to take a picture against a whit background. There is no invention here. The only thing novel or unique is the fact is that some genius realized that with enough legal terms, you could patent a photo shoot. Shit America, get it together.

ZenPro 12y ago
Upvoted for being cuttingly accurate and making me laugh out loud. >> Sure, they are patenting taking a picture against a white background when perpendicular against a... Who gives a fuck. PMSL. Come work for me.
polshaw 12y ago
What strikes me about it is how pointless it is. Do we really believe Amazon are going to file a suit against anyone based on this patent?
- ludamad 12y ago
  They can certainly counter-bully people using it, say if someone has a legitimate claim against Amazon, but happens to violate this patent.
  - salem 12y ago
    That is basically what it all boils down to. Patent as much as you can so you can defend yourself, and eventually make a cross-license deal that doesn't cost too much money. And just maybe, it might make you a little money. My personal favorite is the patent on a cell phone ringing and vibrating at the same time. For a long time most other phones would alternate.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
They do have this clause to try and expand the breadth of the claims: It should be emphasized that the above-described embodiments of the present disclosure are merely possible examples of implementations set forth for a clear understanding of the principles of the disclosure. Many variations and modifications may be made to the above-described embodiment(s) without departing substantially from the spirit and principles of the disclosure. All such modifications and variations are intended to be included herein within the scope of this disclosure and protected by the following claims. I am not a lawyer so do not know how much weight such clauses have, but it would seem to be trying for a lot more than just the specifically described arrangement.
- bsenftner 12y ago
  Patent author & holder here: this is a standard and necessary clause with the purpose of generalizing the examples given in the patent claims and description. Without such a clause, it could be argued a slight variation away from the examples cited are outside of the patent's claims. This clause removes that capability.
  - u124556 12y ago
    But what if the patent itself is a slight variation of a more general and public notpatent?
bjelkeman-again 12y ago
Looks very much like the photography that Dorling Kindersley has been doing for 30-40 years for their books.
higherpurpose 12y ago
Apparently, approving such patents makes the USPTO "efficient", by getting rid of the backlog (as if that should be the main goal of the Patent Office?!): http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140505/11310627129/yes-president-obamas-patent-office-started-approving-basically-all-patent-applications-again.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140505/11310627129/yes-pr... You know what would make USPTO even more efficient than approving almost everything? Rejecting almost everything.
- bo1024 12y ago
  Unfortunately not, because when applications are rejected, the lawyers simply change some parts and send them back in. The only way to get rid of an application forever (as far as I know) is to accept it.
  - VonGuard 12y ago
    Well, guess we'll be spending the day invalidating this. Instead of getting angry, just invalidate! It's easy! Find some prior art. This one should be a fucking dawdle.
  - Crito 12y ago
    I bet I can slam a "No." stamp down on stacks of paper faster than a lawyer can generate stacks of paper. At the very least I have postal service latency on my side.
  - josaka 12y ago
    It doesn't fully contradict your point, but FWIW, Applicants do have to pay the USPTO $1,200 to $1,700 (with some exceptions) every other time they send the application back in. And of course, "changing some parts" typically involves reducing the scope of rights you're seeking, which most folks would regard as progress for the public's interest.
    - salem 12y ago
      That is peanuts to a large firm who has now pushed a large legal burden on it's competitors. If this is about saving money and clearing the backlog, then the government is externalizing the cost back to the tech industry.

ZenPro 12y ago

Upvoted for being cuttingly accurate and making me laugh out loud. >> Sure, they are patenting taking a picture against a white background when perpendicular against a... Who gives a fuck. PMSL. Come work for me.

polshaw 12y ago

What strikes me about it is how pointless it is. Do we really believe Amazon are going to file a suit against anyone based on this patent?

ludamad 12y ago
They can certainly counter-bully people using it, say if someone has a legitimate claim against Amazon, but happens to violate this patent.
- salem 12y ago
  That is basically what it all boils down to. Patent as much as you can so you can defend yourself, and eventually make a cross-license deal that doesn't cost too much money. And just maybe, it might make you a little money. My personal favorite is the patent on a cell phone ringing and vibrating at the same time. For a long time most other phones would alternate.

lotsofmangos 12y ago

They do have this clause to try and expand the breadth of the claims: It should be emphasized that the above-described embodiments of the present disclosure are merely possible examples of implementations set forth for a clear understanding of the principles of the disclosure. Many variations and modifications may be made to the above-described embodiment(s) without departing substantially from the spirit and principles of the disclosure. All such modifications and variations are intended to be included herein within the scope of this disclosure and protected by the following claims. I am not a lawyer so do not know how much weight such clauses have, but it would seem to be trying for a lot more than just the specifically described arrangement.

bsenftner 12y ago
Patent author & holder here: this is a standard and necessary clause with the purpose of generalizing the examples given in the patent claims and description. Without such a clause, it could be argued a slight variation away from the examples cited are outside of the patent's claims. This clause removes that capability.
- u124556 12y ago
  But what if the patent itself is a slight variation of a more general and public notpatent?

bjelkeman-again 12y ago

Looks very much like the photography that Dorling Kindersley has been doing for 30-40 years for their books.

higherpurpose 12y ago

Apparently, approving such patents makes the USPTO "efficient", by getting rid of the backlog (as if that should be the main goal of the Patent Office?!): http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140505/11310627129/yes-president-obamas-patent-office-started-approving-basically-all-patent-applications-again.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140505/11310627129/yes-pr... You know what would make USPTO even more efficient than approving almost everything? Rejecting almost everything.

bo1024 12y ago
Unfortunately not, because when applications are rejected, the lawyers simply change some parts and send them back in. The only way to get rid of an application forever (as far as I know) is to accept it.
- VonGuard 12y ago
  Well, guess we'll be spending the day invalidating this. Instead of getting angry, just invalidate! It's easy! Find some prior art. This one should be a fucking dawdle.
- Crito 12y ago
  I bet I can slam a "No." stamp down on stacks of paper faster than a lawyer can generate stacks of paper. At the very least I have postal service latency on my side.
- josaka 12y ago
  It doesn't fully contradict your point, but FWIW, Applicants do have to pay the USPTO $1,200 to $1,700 (with some exceptions) every other time they send the application back in. And of course, "changing some parts" typically involves reducing the scope of rights you're seeking, which most folks would regard as progress for the public's interest.
  - salem 12y ago
    That is peanuts to a large firm who has now pushed a large legal burden on it's competitors. If this is about saving money and clearing the backlog, then the government is externalizing the cost back to the tech industry.