Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tech Dirt)   Example #6801469 of how US IP law is broken   (techdirt.com) divider line 102
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

6817 clicks; posted to Geek » on 08 May 2014 at 2:41 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



102 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-08 01:17:35 PM  
Whatever patent examiner granted that needs a camera shoved up their ass.
 
2014-05-08 01:29:05 PM  
I. P. Freely.
 
2014-05-08 01:38:34 PM  
I predict lots of thoughtful discourse and not a single "I patented ...." post in this thread.
 
2014-05-08 01:39:31 PM  
Wow, that patent is so specific as to be completely useless. Change the ISO to 400? Not infringing. Change the f-stop to 4? not infringing. Heck, if instead of angling the backlight upward, you point it straight and use a mirror, you're not infringing.
 
2014-05-08 01:45:04 PM  
I love how the article goes into how specific the claim is and that being the reason it was allowed, but then still goes with the complete click-bait headline "US Patent Office Grants 'Photography Against A White Background' Patent To Amazon"


Farking morons.
 
2014-05-08 02:01:39 PM  

nmrsnr: Wow, that patent is so specific as to be completely useless. Change the ISO to 400? Not infringing. Change the f-stop to 4? not infringing. Heck, if instead of angling the backlight upward, you point it straight and use a mirror, you're not infringing.


It would be interesting to see what happened if you submitted the same application with a different f-stop.
 
2014-05-08 02:15:47 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: It would be interesting to see what happened if you submitted the same application with a different f-stop.


It'd be rejected as being obvious, since everything else is the same, unless they could show why changing it to that specific f-stop would have an unpredictable result.

Now, if you did the same thing, but changed all the parameters, and argued why those specific parameters were critical, then you'd probably get another patent.
 
2014-05-08 02:57:29 PM  

hammer85: I love how the article goes into how specific the claim is and that being the reason it was allowed, but then still goes with the complete click-bait headline "US Patent Office Grants 'Photography Against A White Background' Patent To Amazon"


Farking morons.


Headlines typically aren't the place for specifics. Some specifics are allowed but it is designed to draw you in to the article. I don't have a problem with the headline.
 
2014-05-08 03:00:56 PM  

cptjeff: Whatever patent examiner granted that needs a camera shoved up their ass.


i'm sure somebody already has that patented too
 
2014-05-08 03:03:50 PM  

Tobin_Lam: hammer85: I love how the article goes into how specific the claim is and that being the reason it was allowed, but then still goes with the complete click-bait headline "US Patent Office Grants 'Photography Against A White Background' Patent To Amazon"


Farking morons.

Headlines typically aren't the place for specifics. Some specifics are allowed but it is designed to draw you in to the article. I don't have a problem with the headline.


No, the headline is dumbass click bait.  Like articles like "dark souls 2: worst game ever?"

The proper headline would be "USPTO patents completely unenforceable studio application to amazon"
 
2014-05-08 03:06:36 PM  

nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: It would be interesting to see what happened if you submitted the same application with a different f-stop.

It'd be rejected as being obvious, since everything else is the same, unless they could show why changing it to that specific f-stop would have an unpredictable result.

Now, if you did the same thing, but changed all the parameters, and argued why those specific parameters were critical, then you'd probably get another patent.


f-stop of -1 opens a portal to hell on the platform.
 
2014-05-08 03:08:42 PM  

hammer85: Tobin_Lam: hammer85: I love how the article goes into how specific the claim is and that being the reason it was allowed, but then still goes with the complete click-bait headline "US Patent Office Grants 'Photography Against A White Background' Patent To Amazon"


Farking morons.

Headlines typically aren't the place for specifics. Some specifics are allowed but it is designed to draw you in to the article. I don't have a problem with the headline.

No, the headline is dumbass click bait.  Like articles like "dark souls 2: worst game ever?"

The proper headline would be "USPTO patents completely unenforceable studio application to amazon"


You're headlines suck. Nobody would read the article with your headlines. "dark souls 2: worst game ever?" is just fine for an opinion piece but still pretty weak. "USPTO patents completely unenforceable studio application to amazon" is boring, no one cares about that.
 
2014-05-08 03:11:41 PM  

Tobin_Lam: hammer85: Tobin_Lam: hammer85: I love how the article goes into how specific the claim is and that being the reason it was allowed, but then still goes with the complete click-bait headline "US Patent Office Grants 'Photography Against A White Background' Patent To Amazon"


Farking morons.

Headlines typically aren't the place for specifics. Some specifics are allowed but it is designed to draw you in to the article. I don't have a problem with the headline.

No, the headline is dumbass click bait.  Like articles like "dark souls 2: worst game ever?"

The proper headline would be "USPTO patents completely unenforceable studio application to amazon"

You're headlines suck. Nobody would read the article with your headlines. "dark souls 2: worst game ever?" is just fine for an opinion piece but still pretty weak. "USPTO patents completely unenforceable studio application to amazon" is boring, no one cares about that.


Well yes...that's the point.  The headline was useless click bait.  Like half of fark headlines, is completely inaccurate when paired with the article.
 
2014-05-08 03:20:09 PM  
Uhm, haven't people been doing this, with evidence of such, long before Amazon existed?
 
2014-05-08 03:21:41 PM  
What, was the "no.555123456723 , method for a patent examiner thinking critically rather than getting giddy about being asked to assess a patent for amazon (while possibly being handed a briefcase full of cash)" patent denied?
 
2014-05-08 03:23:13 PM  

nmrsnr: Wow, that patent is so specific as to be completely useless. Change the ISO to 400? Not infringing. Change the f-stop to 4? not infringing. Heck, if instead of angling the backlight upward, you point it straight and use a mirror, you're not infringing.


The most ridiculous part of it is that it's so specific as to be nearly unenforceable, making it a gigantic waste of money.
I guess some lawyer made a couple extra payments on his Porsche though.
 
2014-05-08 03:25:02 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Uhm, haven't people been doing this, with evidence of such, long before Amazon existed?


If so, I'm sure you'll be able to provide such evidence of

A studio arrangement, comprising: a background comprising a white cyclorama; a front light source positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting the background, the longitudinal axis further being substantially perpendicular to a surface of the white cyclorama; an image capture position located between the background and the front light source in the longitudinal axis, the image capture position comprising at least one image capture device equipped with an eighty-five millimeter lens, the at least one image capture device further configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty and an f-stop value of about 5.6; an elevated platform positioned between the image capture position and the background in the longitudinal axis, the front light source being directed toward a subject on the elevated platform; a first rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the first rear light source positioned below a top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at an upward angle relative to a floor level; a second rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the second rear light source positioned above the top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at a downward angle relative to the floor level; a third rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in a lateral axis intersecting the elevated platform and being substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the third rear light source further positioned adjacent to a side of the elevated platform; and a fourth rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in the lateral axis adjacent to an opposing side of the elevated platform relative to the third rear light source; wherein a top surface of the elevated platform reflects light emanating from the background such that the elevated platform appears white and a rear edge of the elevated platform is substantially imperceptible to the image capture device; and the first rear light source, the second rear light source, the third rear light source, and the fourth rear light source comprise a combined intensity greater than the front light source according to about a 10:3 ratio.

All in the same image/studio design.  The patent was allowed because of its complete specificity and is pretty much unenforceable nature since any minor detraction from this exact design overcomes this patent.
 
2014-05-08 03:28:13 PM  

nmrsnr: Wow, that patent is so specific as to be completely useless. Change the ISO to 400? Not infringing. Change the f-stop to 4? not infringing. Heck, if instead of angling the backlight upward, you point it straight and use a mirror, you're not infringing.


Why should anybody have to change anything to get around it? The setup is blindingly obvious, with about 150 years of prior art. It does not even come close to meeting the standards for patentability.

hammer85: I love how the article goes into how specific the claim is and that being the reason it was allowed, but then still goes with the complete click-bait headline "US Patent Office Grants 'Photography Against A White Background' Patent To Amazon"



You did notice the dripping sarcasm when the article was describing what supposedly differentiated it from every photo studio in the history of ever, right? The things Amazon were claiming differentiated their process were in no way special, nor are they any basis for allowing the patent. The patent was allowed because they found the appropriate moron at the patent office, and the headline is perfectly reasonable given the content. This is a really stupid patent that should never have been granted, and that's the point of TFA.
 
2014-05-08 03:29:48 PM  

cptjeff: nmrsnr: Wow, that patent is so specific as to be completely useless. Change the ISO to 400? Not infringing. Change the f-stop to 4? not infringing. Heck, if instead of angling the backlight upward, you point it straight and use a mirror, you're not infringing.

Why should anybody have to change anything to get around it? The setup is blindingly obvious, with about 150 years of prior art. It does not even come close to meeting the standards for patentability.

hammer85: I love how the article goes into how specific the claim is and that being the reason it was allowed, but then still goes with the complete click-bait headline "US Patent Office Grants 'Photography Against A White Background' Patent To Amazon"

You did notice the dripping sarcasm when the article was describing what supposedly differentiated it from every photo studio in the history of ever, right? The things Amazon were claiming differentiated their process were in no way special, nor are they any basis for allowing the patent. The patent was allowed because they found the appropriate moron at the patent office, and the headline is perfectly reasonable given the content. This is a really stupid patent that should never have been granted, and that's the point of TFA.


If there's 150 years of prior art, you should be able to show me one that meets the above listed claim IN ITS ENTIRETY fairly quickly right?

I'm not holding my breath.
 
2014-05-08 03:32:45 PM  

hammer85: ReverendJynxed: Uhm, haven't people been doing this, with evidence of such, long before Amazon existed?

If so, I'm sure you'll be able to provide such evidence of

A studio arrangement, comprising: a background comprising a white cyclorama; a front light source positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting the background, the longitudinal axis further being substantially perpendicular to a surface of the white cyclorama; an image capture position located between the background and the front light source in the longitudinal axis, the image capture position comprising at least one image capture device equipped with an eighty-five millimeter lens, the at least one image capture device further configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty and an f-stop value of about 5.6; an elevated platform positioned between the image capture position and the background in the longitudinal axis, the front light source being directed toward a subject on the elevated platform; a first rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the first rear light source positioned below a top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at an upward angle relative to a floor level; a second rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the second rear light source positioned above the top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at a downward angle relative to the floor level; a third rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in a lateral axis intersecting the elevated platform and being substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the third rear light source further positioned adjacent to a side of the elevated platform; and a fourth rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in the lateral axis adjacent to an opposing side of the elevated platform relative to the thir ...


That's just a lot of fancy wording to describe a pretty standard studio setup. It's not novel, and it's incredibly obvious to any studio photographer. You could get evidence of prior art incredibly easily.
 
2014-05-08 03:34:36 PM  

cptjeff: hammer85: ReverendJynxed: Uhm, haven't people been doing this, with evidence of such, long before Amazon existed?

If so, I'm sure you'll be able to provide such evidence of

A studio arrangement, comprising: a background comprising a white cyclorama; a front light source positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting the background, the longitudinal axis further being substantially perpendicular to a surface of the white cyclorama; an image capture position located between the background and the front light source in the longitudinal axis, the image capture position comprising at least one image capture device equipped with an eighty-five millimeter lens, the at least one image capture device further configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty and an f-stop value of about 5.6; an elevated platform positioned between the image capture position and the background in the longitudinal axis, the front light source being directed toward a subject on the elevated platform; a first rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the first rear light source positioned below a top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at an upward angle relative to a floor level; a second rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the second rear light source positioned above the top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at a downward angle relative to the floor level; a third rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in a lateral axis intersecting the elevated platform and being substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the third rear light source further positioned adjacent to a side of the elevated platform; and a fourth rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in the lateral axis adjacent to an opposing side of the elevated platform relative t ...


Okay then, I'm waiting?

I mean, if you're going to run your mouth, back it up.  Unfortunately, patent law requires evidence to make a rejection, not random internet retards totes serious I've seen it words.
 
2014-05-08 03:34:38 PM  

hammer85: All in the same image/studio design.  The patent was allowed because of its complete specificity and is pretty much unenforceable nature since any minor detraction from this exact design overcomes this patent.


claim 25 is a big turd in the punch bowl though. I guess even then, regular skill in the art of taking glamour shots might not get you "a top surface of the elevated platform reflects light emanating from the background such that the elevated platform appears a substantially similar color as the background and a rear edge of the elevated platform is substantially imperceptible to the image capture device"
 
2014-05-08 03:38:41 PM  

Robin Hoodie: hammer85: All in the same image/studio design.  The patent was allowed because of its complete specificity and is pretty much unenforceable nature since any minor detraction from this exact design overcomes this patent.

claim 25 is a big turd in the punch bowl though. I guess even then, regular skill in the art of taking glamour shots might not get you "a top surface of the elevated platform reflects light emanating from the background such that the elevated platform appears a substantially similar color as the background and a rear edge of the elevated platform is substantially imperceptible to the image capture device"


The order of the lightning probably mattered too.  Not many "prior arts" would say the order of the lights being illuminated.  Then there's the shielding the subject from the rear lights part.  They are all just super specific and probably not listed in any "studio" handbook.
 
2014-05-08 03:44:47 PM  

hammer85: Robin Hoodie: hammer85: All in the same image/studio design.  The patent was allowed because of its complete specificity and is pretty much unenforceable nature since any minor detraction from this exact design overcomes this patent.

claim 25 is a big turd in the punch bowl though. I guess even then, regular skill in the art of taking glamour shots might not get you "a top surface of the elevated platform reflects light emanating from the background such that the elevated platform appears a substantially similar color as the background and a rear edge of the elevated platform is substantially imperceptible to the image capture device"

The order of the lightning probably mattered too.  Not many "prior arts" would say the order of the lights being illuminated.  Then there's the shielding the subject from the rear lights part.  They are all just super specific and probably not listed in any "studio" handbook.


order of lighting isn't claimed as such. MPEP 2111.01 II. That aside, I agree that the claim is probably still too specific to matter, and too petty to enforce
 
2014-05-08 03:45:27 PM  

hammer85: cptjeff: nmrsnr: Wow, that patent is so specific as to be completely useless. Change the ISO to 400? Not infringing. Change the f-stop to 4? not infringing. Heck, if instead of angling the backlight upward, you point it straight and use a mirror, you're not infringing.

Why should anybody have to change anything to get around it? The setup is blindingly obvious, with about 150 years of prior art. It does not even come close to meeting the standards for patentability.

hammer85: I love how the article goes into how specific the claim is and that being the reason it was allowed, but then still goes with the complete click-bait headline "US Patent Office Grants 'Photography Against A White Background' Patent To Amazon"

You did notice the dripping sarcasm when the article was describing what supposedly differentiated it from every photo studio in the history of ever, right? The things Amazon were claiming differentiated their process were in no way special, nor are they any basis for allowing the patent. The patent was allowed because they found the appropriate moron at the patent office, and the headline is perfectly reasonable given the content. This is a really stupid patent that should never have been granted, and that's the point of TFA.

If there's 150 years of prior art, you should be able to show me one that meets the above listed claim IN ITS ENTIRETY fairly quickly right?

I'm not holding my breath.


*headdesk*

Shooting seamless white backdrops is a common technique that's been used for 150 years, and photographers will use fiddle around with variations of lighting angle, F stop, and ISO, including those particular combinations, constantly, and without documenting it- because there's never been any reason to. It's like trying to patent a guitar chord. It's one particular obvious variation within an overall system that has been commonly used by everyone for a very long time.
 
2014-05-08 03:46:43 PM  
Example #6801469 of how US IP law is broken gullible Fark morons will assume a headline is factual if it fits their prejudices
 
2014-05-08 03:49:27 PM  

cptjeff: and without documenting it- because there's never been any reason to.


BINGO.

That's like saying "man, the justice system sucks because we couldn't convict a guy everybody knows did it, because we didn't have any evidence."

Yeah, it may be out there, but without any EVIDENCE, the patent office can't just say "this looks like somebody might have done it, so no."
 
2014-05-08 03:50:28 PM  
The Patent Office really should keep track of these obviously horrible parents, and fire anyone who has more than 2 in a year.

// 2 is really, really lenient.
 
2014-05-08 03:51:10 PM  

Robin Hoodie: hammer85: Robin Hoodie: hammer85: All in the same image/studio design.  The patent was allowed because of its complete specificity and is pretty much unenforceable nature since any minor detraction from this exact design overcomes this patent.

claim 25 is a big turd in the punch bowl though. I guess even then, regular skill in the art of taking glamour shots might not get you "a top surface of the elevated platform reflects light emanating from the background such that the elevated platform appears a substantially similar color as the background and a rear edge of the elevated platform is substantially imperceptible to the image capture device"

The order of the lightning probably mattered too.  Not many "prior arts" would say the order of the lights being illuminated.  Then there's the shielding the subject from the rear lights part.  They are all just super specific and probably not listed in any "studio" handbook.

order of lighting isn't claimed as such. MPEP 2111.01 II. That aside, I agree that the claim is probably still too specific to matter, and too petty to enforce


What do you mean?  The method requires activation of the back lighting, then front, then capturing.  How the shielding takes place after the image capture I'd take issue with though.
 
2014-05-08 03:52:40 PM  

cptjeff: hammer85: cptjeff: nmrsnr: Wow, that patent is so specific as to be completely useless. Change the ISO to 400? Not infringing. Change the f-stop to 4? not infringing. Heck, if instead of angling the backlight upward, you point it straight and use a mirror, you're not infringing.

Why should anybody have to change anything to get around it? The setup is blindingly obvious, with about 150 years of prior art. It does not even come close to meeting the standards for patentability.

hammer85: I love how the article goes into how specific the claim is and that being the reason it was allowed, but then still goes with the complete click-bait headline "US Patent Office Grants 'Photography Against A White Background' Patent To Amazon"

You did notice the dripping sarcasm when the article was describing what supposedly differentiated it from every photo studio in the history of ever, right? The things Amazon were claiming differentiated their process were in no way special, nor are they any basis for allowing the patent. The patent was allowed because they found the appropriate moron at the patent office, and the headline is perfectly reasonable given the content. This is a really stupid patent that should never have been granted, and that's the point of TFA.

If there's 150 years of prior art, you should be able to show me one that meets the above listed claim IN ITS ENTIRETY fairly quickly right?

I'm not holding my breath.

*headdesk*

Shooting seamless white backdrops is a common technique that's been used for 150 years, and photographers will use fiddle around with variations of lighting angle, F stop, and ISO, including those particular combinations, constantly, and without documenting it- because there's never been any reason to. It's like trying to patent a guitar chord. It's one particular obvious variation within an overall system that has been commonly used by everyone for a very long time.


So what you're saying is...there's no evidence of that claim in the 150 years of prior art?  Okay then, you agree it should be patented then?  Or are you a mouthbreathing moron that has no idea how evidence works.
 
2014-05-08 03:55:24 PM  
hammer85:

If there's 150 years of prior art, you should be able to show me one that meets the above listed claim IN ITS ENTIRETY fairly quickly right?

I'm not holding my breath.


Maybe you should. You're way more entertaining when you're unconscious.
 
2014-05-08 03:55:45 PM  

cptjeff: hammer85: cptjeff: nmrsnr: Wow, that patent is so specific as to be completely useless. Change the ISO to 400? Not infringing. Change the f-stop to 4? not infringing. Heck, if instead of angling the backlight upward, you point it straight and use a mirror, you're not infringing.

Why should anybody have to change anything to get around it? The setup is blindingly obvious, with about 150 years of prior art. It does not even come close to meeting the standards for patentability.

hammer85: I love how the article goes into how specific the claim is and that being the reason it was allowed, but then still goes with the complete click-bait headline "US Patent Office Grants 'Photography Against A White Background' Patent To Amazon"

You did notice the dripping sarcasm when the article was describing what supposedly differentiated it from every photo studio in the history of ever, right? The things Amazon were claiming differentiated their process were in no way special, nor are they any basis for allowing the patent. The patent was allowed because they found the appropriate moron at the patent office, and the headline is perfectly reasonable given the content. This is a really stupid patent that should never have been granted, and that's the point of TFA.

If there's 150 years of prior art, you should be able to show me one that meets the above listed claim IN ITS ENTIRETY fairly quickly right?

I'm not holding my breath.

*headdesk*

Shooting seamless white backdrops is a common technique that's been used for 150 years, and photographers will use fiddle around with variations of lighting angle, F stop, and ISO, including those particular combinations, constantly, and without documenting it- because there's never been any reason to. It's like trying to patent a guitar chord. It's one particular obvious variation within an overall system that has been commonly used by everyone for a very long time.


I'm filing for a patent for Drop D tuning.
 
2014-05-08 03:57:15 PM  
I about to not knowing anything about patent law. Is it possible that Amazon uses this as their standard setup and they filed it to prevent a troll from suing them?
 
2014-05-08 03:57:21 PM  

hammer85: Unfortunately, patent law requires evidence to make a rejection,


Expert testimony counts as evidence, no? I'm sure you could line up 20 professors who teach photography and lighting design to say how stupid this is. They are patenting one obvious variation of a standard system. That's not supposed to be allowed, but here it is. That's the problem with a lot of, if not most, software patents as well.

Also, I'm not your research monkey. Usually on fark if you do present evidence, the person won't change their mind, they'll either ignore it, or they'll kick and scream and pretend it doesn't apply, based on absurd semantics. The demands are usually just ways to deflect from the fact that they've lost the argument and don't really want to admit it. Sorry bub, but you're not worth my time. If I'm going to spend time doing research, I'm going to do the research I'm paid to do.
 
2014-05-08 04:00:12 PM  

hammer85: So what you're saying is...there's no evidence of that claim in the 150 years of prior art?  Okay then, you agree it should be patented then?  Or are you a mouthbreathing moron that has no idea how evidence works.


Evidence takes more than one form. Expert testimony is evidence, and you will find no shortage of photography experts willing to say that this has been used before.

Also, even if you can't prove prior art, there's still the obviousness standard. And this is very, very obvious.
 
2014-05-08 04:01:03 PM  

cptjeff: hammer85: Unfortunately, patent law requires evidence to make a rejection,

Expert testimony counts as evidence, no? I'm sure you could line up 20 professors who teach photography and lighting design to say how stupid this is. They are patenting one obvious variation of a standard system. That's not supposed to be allowed, but here it is. That's the problem with a lot of, if not most, software patents as well.

Also, I'm not your research monkey. Usually on fark if you do present evidence, the person won't change their mind, they'll either ignore it, or they'll kick and scream and pretend it doesn't apply, based on absurd semantics. The demands are usually just ways to deflect from the fact that they've lost the argument and don't really want to admit it. Sorry bub, but you're not worth my time. If I'm going to spend time doing research, I'm going to do the research I'm paid to do.


When you're the one arguing that there's 150 years of prior art to choose from, and then someone goes "prove it", and then you stomp your feet like a child and go NO WAY I KNOW ITS THERE.  I'm not the one that has lost the argument.

My argument is that it's new, useful, and non-obvious.  Here's my evidence *shows patent*.
 
2014-05-08 04:01:18 PM  
I hold a patent on a biological system to extract oxygen from air.

See you and the rest of you deadbeat thieving aerobics in court!
 
2014-05-08 04:02:53 PM  

hammer85: Tobin_Lam: hammer85: Tobin_Lam: hammer85: I love how the article goes into how specific the claim is and that being the reason it was allowed, but then still goes with the complete click-bait headline "US Patent Office Grants 'Photography Against A White Background' Patent To Amazon"


Farking morons.

Headlines typically aren't the place for specifics. Some specifics are allowed but it is designed to draw you in to the article. I don't have a problem with the headline.

No, the headline is dumbass click bait.  Like articles like "dark souls 2: worst game ever?"

The proper headline would be "USPTO patents completely unenforceable studio application to amazon"

You're headlines suck. Nobody would read the article with your headlines. "dark souls 2: worst game ever?" is just fine for an opinion piece but still pretty weak. "USPTO patents completely unenforceable studio application to amazon" is boring, no one cares about that.

Well yes...that's the point.  The headline was useless click bait.  Like half of fark headlines, is completely inaccurate when paired with the article.


Useless? It got you to click. No one would click your headline, you'd make no money, and you'd get fired. If every headline was like yours, no one would know anything because the headline made it sound so boring that they would just move on to the next headline.
 
2014-05-08 04:02:55 PM  

cptjeff: Expert testimony counts as evidence, no? I'm sure you could line up 20 professors who teach photography and lighting design to say how stupid this is.


Actually, no. Since the applications are confidential, examiners can't call experts to ask about it, because that could tip off competition about what the applicant is doing before the patent comes through.

Lawyers can do that to invalidate it, but before it's a patent that's not an option. You need documentary evidence. Which, as you said, doesn't exist since nobody bothers to write those specifications down. Without evidence, there's no rejection to be made.
 
2014-05-08 04:04:13 PM  
Get rid of the patent office.
 
2014-05-08 04:05:45 PM  

Big Merl: I about to not knowing anything about patent law. Is it possible that Amazon uses this as their standard setup and they filed it to prevent a troll from suing them?


That's probably what it is- a defensive move in case somebody got the idea of trying to get a broad patent for a common lighting setup to sue every retailer on the planet. Everybody in the tech world knows that the Patent office regularly grants comically absurd patents, so they try and get as many comically absurd patents as they can to defend themselves against the trolls. It's a drain of billions of dollars from our economy (and is part of why your smartphone costs so much), and benefits nobody but patent lawyers. They make bank off of this, though.
 
2014-05-08 04:16:34 PM  

hammer85: My argument is that it's new, useful, and non-obvious.  Here's my evidence *shows patent*.


So you're incapable of critical evaluation? It is incredibly common knowledge that patents these days are not evidence of any of those things. The patent is not sufficient evidence.

hammer85: When you're the one arguing that there's 150 years of prior art to choose from, and then someone goes "prove it", and then you stomp your feet like a child and go NO WAY I KNOW ITS THERE.  I'm not the one that has lost the argument.


I said the sky is blue. You asked for proof. I told you that you can find it by looking at the sky. You didn't bother looking.

Just because a lot of prior art exists doesn't mean hard data is easy to find. Contrary to public belief, there is a lot of stuff that's hard to find on the internet- technical specs for variations on a common setup being one of those things. And out of 150 years, probably only 10 is digitally searchable. The assertions I made qualify as common knowledge, stuff that doesn't normally require a citation, and TFA (and a bunch of other article on this) simply assume as fact. You're asking for one anyway, and I directed you to where you could find it.
 
2014-05-08 04:17:33 PM  

hammer85: cptjeff: hammer85: Unfortunately, patent law requires evidence to make a rejection,

Expert testimony counts as evidence, no? I'm sure you could line up 20 professors who teach photography and lighting design to say how stupid this is. They are patenting one obvious variation of a standard system. That's not supposed to be allowed, but here it is. That's the problem with a lot of, if not most, software patents as well.

Also, I'm not your research monkey. Usually on fark if you do present evidence, the person won't change their mind, they'll either ignore it, or they'll kick and scream and pretend it doesn't apply, based on absurd semantics. The demands are usually just ways to deflect from the fact that they've lost the argument and don't really want to admit it. Sorry bub, but you're not worth my time. If I'm going to spend time doing research, I'm going to do the research I'm paid to do.

When you're the one arguing that there's 150 years of prior art to choose from, and then someone goes "prove it", and then you stomp your feet like a child and go NO WAY I KNOW ITS THERE.  I'm not the one that has lost the argument.

My argument is that it's new, useful, and non-obvious.  Here's my evidence *shows patent*.


Logical fallacies, how do they work?
 
2014-05-08 04:31:07 PM  

cptjeff: The assertions I made qualify as common knowledge, stuff that doesn't normally require a citation,


Too bad none of that qualifies as evidence when attempting to reject a patent application. Laws require evidence. You're angry that an examiner didn't reject this patent based on things that you admit can't be found. "Common knowledge" is not permissible evidence.
 
2014-05-08 04:38:17 PM  
WTF? is amazon paying some one at the patent office under the table?
 
2014-05-08 04:43:04 PM  

hammer85: If there's 150 years of prior art, you should be able to show me one that meets the above listed claim IN ITS ENTIRETY fairly quickly right?


So, you're basically saying that I can patent anything if I put enough specific elements in it?

Cool, I'm off to patent my entirely unique method of reading a book where the book is positioned precisely 10.34" away from my eyes at a 35.6 degree angle under a 60 watt bulb set precisely 13.652 feet way.

I'm positive that no one will ever find prior art for that.
 
2014-05-08 04:54:31 PM  
If someone had told me earlier that this is the day I'd see the Patent Office white-knighted on Fark I would not have believed them.

/we're through the looking-glass, people
 
2014-05-08 04:55:20 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: hammer85: If there's 150 years of prior art, you should be able to show me one that meets the above listed claim IN ITS ENTIRETY fairly quickly right?

So, you're basically saying that I can patent anything if I put enough specific elements in it?

Cool, I'm off to patent my entirely unique method of reading a book where the book is positioned precisely 10.34" away from my eyes at a 35.6 degree angle under a 60 watt bulb set precisely 13.652 feet way.

I'm positive that no one will ever find prior art for that.


 That and it has to have some criticality. or as MPEP 2144.05 III puts it:
"The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range."  In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

most anybody can get a patent, it's really just a question of if it's worth it
 
2014-05-08 05:03:47 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: hammer85: If there's 150 years of prior art, you should be able to show me one that meets the above listed claim IN ITS ENTIRETY fairly quickly right?

So, you're basically saying that I can patent anything if I put enough specific elements in it?

Cool, I'm off to patent my entirely unique method of reading a book where the book is positioned precisely 10.34" away from my eyes at a 35.6 degree angle under a 60 watt bulb set precisely 13.652 feet way.

I'm positive that no one will ever find prior art for that.


Yup, you pretty much just have to assert that it's better for some reason than reading a book in some other orientation, or with some other lighting, that make those values special. Then you will have a patent that is worth less than the paper it's printed on, and that cost you significantly more.
 
2014-05-08 05:07:17 PM  

AdamK: cptjeff: Whatever patent examiner granted that needs a camera shoved up their ass.

i'm sure somebody already has that patented too


WHAT?!?!? Dammit, three years of research down the tubes. OK, Trixie, go rinse off the camera. I'll undo your chains, you can get dressed and go home, I suppose.
 
Displayed 50 of 102 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report