Patents: What is the world coming too?

The US Patent Office has always been ridiculous, and allowed people to take patents on things which have already been invented or in common use. They are piracy enablers.
 
I'm going to go with "Internet Myth", for the moment. The idea that anyone daft enough to try this is not in a suitable institute for the permanently bewildered...

Still, very large companies do have many nooks and crannies, in which pond life can hide.
 
... they could live to regret that one ... or not

kray-twins.jpg
 
Correct but it assumes that you know somebody is infringing your patent in the first place.
With very deep pockets, how many people are you going to sue for taking pictures in front of a white sheet before realizing that the gain is only for the lawyers?
 
No doubt lawyers will make money on this, but so will Amazon as long as you go after photographers who don't have the money to deal with this, but do have the money to settle out of court. That's major problem with most Patents these days.

This podcast from This American Life points it out

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack

BTW - did you know that idea behind Podcasts was patented?
And many a folks have been sued over it? To the tune of millions made by the patent owners?

JRminox said:
Correct but it assumes that you know somebody is infringing your patent in the first place.
With very deep pockets, how many people are you going to sue for taking pictures in front of a white sheet before realizing that the gain is only for the lawyers?
Click to expand...
 
A friend of mine is a systems analyst that's been out of work. When he threw a party celebrating his new job, I asked him about it.
"This company in Bellevue, in the tech law industry. It pays extremely well--it seems like tech is the only way to go these days."
What is it called, I asked.
"Intellectual Ventures, they're about 800 people."
"And what do they do? I mean, that's not a really obvious name."
And that's when his face sunk as he described the patent troll industry.
I feel bad for him. He loves his job, is able to afford to restoring an old house in Seattle, but it was hard watching him try and hide his disgust over the practice.
 
At least patents expire after 20 years. It's not like copyrights where a few exceptionally lazy and bratty entitled millionaires make their money off work done by people who've been dead for decades.

Unfortunately patent trolling has been around since patents have existed. Buying useless patents to stall competitors bankrupted the original GM. Ansco bought the patent for celluloid film and sued Kodak who had been making it relying on their earlier less specific roll film patents. Gillette patented hundreds of absurd inventions related to shaving and sat on them (including stainless steel razor blades) just so competitors might have less success developing new products. There is unfortunately a side of patents that caters well to a combination of stupidity and greed.

The interesting thing about the Amazon patent is it is extremely specific, whereas the "best" patents for trolling purposes are written to be as broad as possible so as to trip up and kill as many barely related ideas as possible.
 
Despite all the headlines, it's not about photographing a product against a white backdrop, it's quite specific about Amazon's product photography set up, goes into detail about numerous lights, specific ISO etc.

I'm not a fan of Amazon's business practice by any means, but the story here isn't "taking photos on a white background".
 
BlackXList said:
Despite all the headlines, it's not about photographing a product against a white backdrop, it's quite specific about Amazon's product photography set up, goes into detail about numerous lights, specific ISO etc.

I'm not a fan of Amazon's business practice by any means, but the story here isn't "taking photos on a white background".
Click to expand...
It is however sufficiently close that it might as well be. Look at the patent itself. Where is the "inventive step"? Ummm... a seamless background and... umm... lights.

What intrigues me is how they could enforce it, even if it were a valid patent (which I seriously doubt).

Cheers,

R.
 
I was taught in college a patent was supposed to be something "novel" that "had never been done before". It's simplistic, but that's the basis. "Reverse engineering something people have done for decades" isn't patentable. Or didn't used to be. Next they'll patent eating with forks. Or chopsticks. Insanity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom