7 ms·

This kind of public shaming needs to happen more often. Someone should build an anonymous (to avoid lawsuits) public index of assholes like these.

neom 12y ago
It's not supposed to be a shaming, just important to see the people who submitted the patent. The most troubling thing is that this diagram: http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=08676045&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-adv.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPALL%2526S1%3D08676045%2526OS%3DPN%2F08676045%2526RS%3DPN%2F08676045&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=08676045&homeurl=http%3A%... Depicts pretty standard butterfly/paramount lighting (less the lower reflector) that is taught in every college photography program in the world. I also worry that they appear to be photographers outside of their jobs at Amazon, what kind of a competitive advantage is this? I have no clue as I'm not a lawyer.
hnnewguy 12y ago
>public index of assholes like these. It's hard for me to upset with these specific individuals, because I don't know their plans or agenda. In reality, if it wasn't them, at this point, it would be someone else at some other point. From that perspective, companies are almost forced to do this to protect themselves. What would happen if they were beat to the patent? All you can do is hope the the patent holder is the most benign option. The real idiots are the regulators. This system is broken.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  What would happen if they were beat to the patent? In this case there is no "Beat to the patent." to consider. This is basic photography. Knocking out a background nicely with backlighting and an infinity curve so that the back is brighter than your foreground highlights, so you can then tune the camera to get the back all white and just chop out your subject easily is a technique that predates digital photography. You may note that the advance they describe is that this technique negates the need for computer processing. There is a very good reason for that, and that is because when this technique was developed, computer processing was done on hand cranked adding machines.
  - hnnewguy 12y ago
    >In this case there is no "Beat to the patent." The fact that they were issued a patent says otherwise.
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      No it doesn't. It just means that money has been spent needlessly on something that should it ever actually end up in court will just be a colossal waste of time and money for everyone concerned. Merely being issued a patent doesn't prove if the patent is worth a damn, there was a patent issued for a method of swinging on a swing http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6368227 http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6368227
      - hnnewguy 12y ago
        >No it doesn't. Yes, it does. They got a patent for the process, meaning had they not, someone else might have. Hence them "beating" others to the patent. I'm not arguing about the validity of the patent, or really, the system in general. I'm saying, it's better to have the patent yourself then be sued by a troll holding a patent for a ridiculous process you're using, resulting in a "colossal waste of time and money for everyone concerned." Unfortunately, this is the state of the world; some players filing over-arching, stupid patents, others filing defensive patents for leverage and protection. Until they sue someone for this, it's impossible to know the intent. Regardless, it corrupts the system.
cookiecaper 12y ago
Ah yes, because nothing's better than a repository of dox for script kiddies to reference on impulse and without a balanced arrangement of facts or even independent confirmation that the listed persons were actually involved. I can't think of a single instance where that's gone horrifically wrong! We have a concept called "rule of law" to address such grievances. Vigilante "justice" should not be facilitated, especially not against people who got their names slapped on a patent. If the patent is illegitimate, bring suit under all applicable charges, including considerations for the malicious intent you so obviously believe the inventors held. Let's never build a list like the one you've proposed.
- jjoonathan 12y ago
  > We have a concept called "rule of law" to address such grievances. No it doesn't, and that's the problem. Vigilante justice is a slippery slope and tends to do more harm than good, but let's not pretend the motivation doesn't exist. Because it does. In spades.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  The law goes after people that do illegal things. Public shaming goes after people that do immoral things. This is not about vigilantism.
  - cookiecaper 12y ago
    There are multiple types of law, but all of it addresses the public's sense of acceptable tolerances of moral behavior. If someone immorally acquired a patent, there are or should be legal functions to provide redress. If the legal structure necessary does not yet exist, that's why you have representatives. Call them. "Public shaming" is not a good behavior in civilized society. Think about the patent from the perspective of the authors. Consider their motives. It's very unlikely that the motive is "I'm going to sue everyone who takes a picture on a white background." Consider the importance of a defensive patent portfolio and the likelihood that a case that actually did cite this patent would fail. It's entirely plausible that the patent was acquired for purely defensive purposes ("If we don't claim it, a less-good entity will, and they'll use it irresponsibly"). Even after all this, perhaps the authors simply have a different perspective than many on HN. It's not actually objectively evil to have differing or uncommon beliefs on what comprises a valid patent. Does that disagreement really justify the complete obliteration of the person's privacy? I keep posting about this on HN and people keep ignoring it, but this is just another example of the rapid deterioration of civil society. If people can't even disagree on a matter as blase as intellectual property law without getting doxxed and run out of their homes, we have a very serious problem with major ramifications for the continued existence of free society.
pduszak 12y ago
Can you be the first asshole on the list? It's not like these people operated without consent of Amazon. If anyone is an asshole here, it's Amazon.
- ronaldx 12y ago
  Amazon is a company run by people. People at Amazon are not absolved of making poor ethical decisions, just because they are doing it in the name of a corporation.
id 12y ago
This kind of public shaming shouldn't happen at all. Maybe it was only patented to be able to defend against patent trolls. The patent system is the problem, not the companies using it to their advantage. Because that's what companies in capitalism do, using everything to their advantage.
- bullseye 12y ago
  >> Maybe it was only patented to be able to defend against patent trolls. It seems like this has been the standard rationale given by companies when they are awarded these kinds of patents. A few years later, we see lawsuits "defending" these ludicrous patents. The system is certainly broken, but a broken lock does not justify a burglar's actions.
  - zo1 12y ago
    "The system is certainly broken, but a broken lock does not justify a burglar's actions." Wow, that's such a loaded analogy. You're basically saying that they must willingly sacrifice themselves on the alter of the competition just because you don't agree that this is how the system is to be used. The system isn't "broken" in the conventional sense that it doesn't do what it was built to do. It's doing it perfectly, it's just that you didn't consider the implications of someone taking your laws and systems to their logical conclusion. All the "moral" companies that agree with your usage of the patent system have not taken advantage of the patent system. The ones you do see are the ones that don't agree with your usage. And for all we know, the former is struggling because it wasn't using all the potential advantages at its disposal like the "immoral" companies did.
    - bullseye 12y ago
      In the context of the conversation, we've been talking about Amazon. You're right... I don't agree with their usage. This isn't some small little guy bravely trying to fight off the wolves with a few patents they got their hands on. I don't see many examples of them using patent system to do "what it was built to do". I don't care if you want to call it moral vs. immoral. Software at the high level has become a game of who can get a patent and sue everyone else. I think it sucks, and yes, I think it is broken.

neom 12y ago

It's not supposed to be a shaming, just important to see the people who submitted the patent. The most troubling thing is that this diagram: http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=08676045&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-adv.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPALL%2526S1%3D08676045%2526OS%3DPN%2F08676045%2526RS%3DPN%2F08676045&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=08676045&homeurl=http%3A%... Depicts pretty standard butterfly/paramount lighting (less the lower reflector) that is taught in every college photography program in the world. I also worry that they appear to be photographers outside of their jobs at Amazon, what kind of a competitive advantage is this? I have no clue as I'm not a lawyer.

hnnewguy 12y ago

>public index of assholes like these. It's hard for me to upset with these specific individuals, because I don't know their plans or agenda. In reality, if it wasn't them, at this point, it would be someone else at some other point. From that perspective, companies are almost forced to do this to protect themselves. What would happen if they were beat to the patent? All you can do is hope the the patent holder is the most benign option. The real idiots are the regulators. This system is broken.

lotsofmangos 12y ago
What would happen if they were beat to the patent? In this case there is no "Beat to the patent." to consider. This is basic photography. Knocking out a background nicely with backlighting and an infinity curve so that the back is brighter than your foreground highlights, so you can then tune the camera to get the back all white and just chop out your subject easily is a technique that predates digital photography. You may note that the advance they describe is that this technique negates the need for computer processing. There is a very good reason for that, and that is because when this technique was developed, computer processing was done on hand cranked adding machines.
- hnnewguy 12y ago
  >In this case there is no "Beat to the patent." The fact that they were issued a patent says otherwise.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    No it doesn't. It just means that money has been spent needlessly on something that should it ever actually end up in court will just be a colossal waste of time and money for everyone concerned. Merely being issued a patent doesn't prove if the patent is worth a damn, there was a patent issued for a method of swinging on a swing http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6368227 http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6368227
    - hnnewguy 12y ago
      >No it doesn't. Yes, it does. They got a patent for the process, meaning had they not, someone else might have. Hence them "beating" others to the patent. I'm not arguing about the validity of the patent, or really, the system in general. I'm saying, it's better to have the patent yourself then be sued by a troll holding a patent for a ridiculous process you're using, resulting in a "colossal waste of time and money for everyone concerned." Unfortunately, this is the state of the world; some players filing over-arching, stupid patents, others filing defensive patents for leverage and protection. Until they sue someone for this, it's impossible to know the intent. Regardless, it corrupts the system.

cookiecaper 12y ago

Ah yes, because nothing's better than a repository of dox for script kiddies to reference on impulse and without a balanced arrangement of facts or even independent confirmation that the listed persons were actually involved. I can't think of a single instance where that's gone horrifically wrong! We have a concept called "rule of law" to address such grievances. Vigilante "justice" should not be facilitated, especially not against people who got their names slapped on a patent. If the patent is illegitimate, bring suit under all applicable charges, including considerations for the malicious intent you so obviously believe the inventors held. Let's never build a list like the one you've proposed.

jjoonathan 12y ago
> We have a concept called "rule of law" to address such grievances. No it doesn't, and that's the problem. Vigilante justice is a slippery slope and tends to do more harm than good, but let's not pretend the motivation doesn't exist. Because it does. In spades.
Dylan16807 12y ago
The law goes after people that do illegal things. Public shaming goes after people that do immoral things. This is not about vigilantism.
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  There are multiple types of law, but all of it addresses the public's sense of acceptable tolerances of moral behavior. If someone immorally acquired a patent, there are or should be legal functions to provide redress. If the legal structure necessary does not yet exist, that's why you have representatives. Call them. "Public shaming" is not a good behavior in civilized society. Think about the patent from the perspective of the authors. Consider their motives. It's very unlikely that the motive is "I'm going to sue everyone who takes a picture on a white background." Consider the importance of a defensive patent portfolio and the likelihood that a case that actually did cite this patent would fail. It's entirely plausible that the patent was acquired for purely defensive purposes ("If we don't claim it, a less-good entity will, and they'll use it irresponsibly"). Even after all this, perhaps the authors simply have a different perspective than many on HN. It's not actually objectively evil to have differing or uncommon beliefs on what comprises a valid patent. Does that disagreement really justify the complete obliteration of the person's privacy? I keep posting about this on HN and people keep ignoring it, but this is just another example of the rapid deterioration of civil society. If people can't even disagree on a matter as blase as intellectual property law without getting doxxed and run out of their homes, we have a very serious problem with major ramifications for the continued existence of free society.

pduszak 12y ago

Can you be the first asshole on the list? It's not like these people operated without consent of Amazon. If anyone is an asshole here, it's Amazon.

ronaldx 12y ago
Amazon is a company run by people. People at Amazon are not absolved of making poor ethical decisions, just because they are doing it in the name of a corporation.

id 12y ago

This kind of public shaming shouldn't happen at all. Maybe it was only patented to be able to defend against patent trolls. The patent system is the problem, not the companies using it to their advantage. Because that's what companies in capitalism do, using everything to their advantage.

bullseye 12y ago
>> Maybe it was only patented to be able to defend against patent trolls. It seems like this has been the standard rationale given by companies when they are awarded these kinds of patents. A few years later, we see lawsuits "defending" these ludicrous patents. The system is certainly broken, but a broken lock does not justify a burglar's actions.
- zo1 12y ago
  "The system is certainly broken, but a broken lock does not justify a burglar's actions." Wow, that's such a loaded analogy. You're basically saying that they must willingly sacrifice themselves on the alter of the competition just because you don't agree that this is how the system is to be used. The system isn't "broken" in the conventional sense that it doesn't do what it was built to do. It's doing it perfectly, it's just that you didn't consider the implications of someone taking your laws and systems to their logical conclusion. All the "moral" companies that agree with your usage of the patent system have not taken advantage of the patent system. The ones you do see are the ones that don't agree with your usage. And for all we know, the former is struggling because it wasn't using all the potential advantages at its disposal like the "immoral" companies did.
  - bullseye 12y ago
    In the context of the conversation, we've been talking about Amazon. You're right... I don't agree with their usage. This isn't some small little guy bravely trying to fight off the wolves with a few patents they got their hands on. I don't see many examples of them using patent system to do "what it was built to do". I don't care if you want to call it moral vs. immoral. Software at the high level has become a game of who can get a patent and sue everyone else. I think it sucks, and yes, I think it is broken.