Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography
Thread started 23 Aug 2014 (Saturday) 09:38
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Article: patent troll sues photographer for infringement on patent for workflow

 
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
CyberDyneSystems's Avatar
48,053 posts
Gallery: 78 photos
Joined Apr 2003
Rhode Island USA
Oct 04, 2014 16:23 |  #61

Dan Marchant wrote in post #17120959external link
At least one of the patents was for an automated way to search for an image in an online database by bib number. Now unless someone can show that they had such a system prior to that then he will win his case.

I look up my very obscure perverted Japanese fetish pron using an online search and the catalog number. Cuts down on false hits 100%, no keywords that would cause lots of headache and likely viruses (virii?)

can I patent that?


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
waterrockets
Goldmember
waterrockets's Avatar
3,858 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Austin (near TX)
Oct 06, 2014 15:29 |  #62

Photo509 wrote in post #17185185external link
Forum contributors, PLEASE read the patents in question and try to understand some of the legal and technical details before judging the validity or anything else associated with the patents. Wrong information is misleading and confusing. Mr. Skelps is fueling misinformation on these forums and websites he has published.

The invention occurred and was filed with the Patent Office in 1999. No one has ever found any prior art before that date – including the USPTO. Unfortunately the patents didn’t issue until 2006 and by that time many event photography businesses used the invention including Capstone. A patent owner can’t really do much until the patent issues. So, for six long years I sat there and saw my ideas being used and couldn’t do a thing.

Once the patent issued we contacted some event photography companies and several, including the largest in the industry, MarathonFoto, licensed with us immediately. Some refused to license and we filed our first law suit against 8 infringers, including Brightroom. Within a short time they all settled and/or licensed with us. There were a few more lawsuits and the end was the same – they settled and/or licensed.

I contacted Michael Skelps at Capstone in 2008 and we had a cordial phone conversation. I personally followed it up with a polite email explaining the situation. He didn’t respond! We contacted him again in 2011, he didn’t respond. We filed a claim against Capstone in 2013 and he had to respond through attorneys. That is a VERY expensive way to communicate.

Recently I personally contacted him again by phone and email but Michael Skelps doesn’t respond. Michael seems to be fixated in fighting until the bitter end. It makes absolutely no sense, especially from a business point of view.

I believe Mr. Skelps has a really bad case of pride or stubbornness and he may very well go out of business and bankrupt before conceding that he could be wrong or resolve our differences.

I don’t wish anyone to go out of business or bankrupt but Mr. Skelps will NOT communicate. What can you do if someone doesn’t want to talk or communicate accept through his lawyers? The noose is tightening more and more around his business and personal finances. Can anyone talk some sense into Michael? I really hate to see what he is doing to himself.

His recent filing of a Motion For a Judgment on The Pleadings is a feudal and VERY expensive way to invalidate the patents. We have filed a response and his motion will be denied. PLEASE, someone talk some sense to Michael and tell him he doesn't have to go down this road. Doesn't he realize that even if the patents were invalidated he would still be stuck with the legal fees. Are bragging rights that valuable? I don't think so. Michael, call any time if you want to talk: (805) 492-0562

On a more positive note we are making some headway in developing really slick automated cameras. Here are some preliminary specificationsexternal link.

We recently tried out the new system at a bicycling eventexternal link and captured every biker climbing a hill in the morning and flying down the hill at nearly 40 mph in the afternoon. No easy feat with cameras and fill flash.

Peter Wolf

This is an obvious solution, and the patent should not have been granted. There was no innovation in this process. Anyone looking to hop into sports photography would come up with this process in their first 15 minutes of thinking about it.

You did nothing more than write it down first, and you should be ashamed.


1D MkIV | 1D MkIII | 550D w/grip & ML| EF 70-200mm f2.8L| EF 24-105mm f4L IS | Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC | 430EXii | EF 50mm f1.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Oct 08, 2014 10:37 |  #63

waterrockets wrote in post #17197390external link
This is an obvious solution, and the patent should not have been granted. There was no innovation in this process. Anyone looking to hop into sports photography would come up with this process in their first 15 minutes of thinking about it.

You did nothing more than write it down first, and you should be ashamed.

I absolutely agree. There is nothing innovative or inventive whatsoever about the process that is patented. The patent holder is just trying to use a faulty system to suck money out of people.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

LOG IN TO REPLY
kb9tdj
Senior Member
kb9tdj's Avatar
Joined Mar 2008
Shelbyville, indiana
Oct 29, 2014 11:32 |  #64

Looks like Mr. Wolf has lost.

http://endpatentabuse.​com ...ment_On_The_Pleadin​gs.pdfexternal link


Scott
1D Mk IV | 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 | 1.4x Extender
www.scottrichardsonpho​tography.com (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
Goldmember
archer1960's Avatar
Joined Jul 2010
Oct 29, 2014 11:51 |  #65

Yup, and the decision was based on what I suggested it would be: courts have continued to find that computerizing a conventional method is not patentable.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

LOG IN TO REPLY
wanyc
Senior Member
255 posts
Joined Mar 2009
New York
Oct 29, 2014 12:14 |  #66

That's not a decision in post 64, just a brief in support of a motion by the defendants.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Scatterbrained's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Chula Vista, CA
Oct 29, 2014 12:25 |  #67

wanyc wrote in post #17239888external link
That's not a decision in post 64, just a brief in support of a motion by the defendants.

A judgment on the pleadings was filed yesterday. Of course you have to pay to download it and I'm not going to do that. . . but if you want to or have access to it you can find it here:
http://www.plainsite.o​rg ...ne-photography-inc-et-al/external link

Of course, the judge could have rejected the argument, but I can't verify that.


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,051 posts
Joined Mar 2012
PEI, Canada
Oct 29, 2014 12:46 |  #68

I'm rather curious to hear what the actual final ruling was.


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Lucklessexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
waterrockets
Goldmember
waterrockets's Avatar
3,858 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Austin (near TX)
Oct 29, 2014 12:48 |  #69

(ascii since it's not an image... since it's not my image...)

█▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░​░░░░▄▄███
███▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░​░░▄██████
█████▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░​░▄███████
███████▄░░░░▄▄▄▄▄░░░░▄​█████████
█████████▄▀▀░░░░░▀▀▀▄█​█████████
▀█████▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀​████████░
░▀██▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░​░░▀████▌░
░░██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░​░░░░███░░
░░█▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░​░░░░░██░░
░░█░░▄████▄░░░░░▄████▄​░░░░░░█░░
░░█░░█▐▄█▐█░░░░░█▐▄█▐█​░░░░░░█▄░
░░█░░██▄▄██░░░░░██▄▄██​░░░░░░░█░
░▐▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░​░░░░░░░▐▌
░▐▌░░░░░░░▀▄▄▄▄▀░░░░░░​░░░░░░░▐▌
░▐▌░░░░░░░░░▐▌░░░░░░░░​░░░░░░░▐▌
░▐▌░░░░░░░▄▀▀▀▀▄░░░░░░​░░░░░░░▐▌
░░█▄░░░░░▀░░░░░░▀░░░░░​░░░░░░░█▌
░░▐█▀▄▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░​░░░▄▄▀▀░█
░▐▌░░░░▀▀▄▄░░░░░░░░▄▄▄​▄▀▀░░░░░█
░█░░░░░░░░░▀▀▄▄▄▀▀▀░░░​░░░░░░░░█
▐▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░​░░░░░░░░█
▐▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░​░░░░░░░░█


Good.


1D MkIV | 1D MkIII | 550D w/grip & ML| EF 70-200mm f2.8L| EF 24-105mm f4L IS | Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC | 430EXii | EF 50mm f1.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
kb9tdj
Senior Member
kb9tdj's Avatar
Joined Mar 2008
Shelbyville, indiana
Oct 29, 2014 12:56 |  #70

wanyc wrote in post #17239888external link
That's not a decision in post 64, just a brief in support of a motion by the defendants.


Oops, my bad....guess that's why I'm not a lawyer!

thanks for the clarification.


Scott
1D Mk IV | 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 | 1.4x Extender
www.scottrichardsonpho​tography.com (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Scatterbrained's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Chula Vista, CA
Oct 29, 2014 13:00 |  #71

Luckless wrote in post #17239946external link
I'm rather curious to hear what the actual final ruling was.

All three patents are invalidated. (I sent an e-mail to clarify)


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
nathancarter
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Oct 29, 2014 14:14 |  #72

It'll be interesting to hear if Mr. Wolf comes back to this thread to give his side of the story. While I disagree that the patents should have ever been granted, I do like hearing both sides.


http://www.avidchick.c​om (external link) for business stuff
http://www.facebook.co​m/VictorVoyeur (external link) for fun stuff

LOG IN TO REPLY
cory1848
Goldmember
cory1848's Avatar
1,884 posts
Joined Nov 2007
Kissimmee, FL
Oct 29, 2014 14:37 |  #73

Scatterbrained wrote in post #17239974external link
All three patents are invalidated. (I sent an e-mail to clarify)

That is great news! So what happens to all of the companies that have licensed with him?


Gear List
"Those are some mighty fine pots and pans you have, they must make a great dinner!

LOG IN TO REPLY
FightForRight
Hatchling
7 posts
Joined Sep 2014
Oct 29, 2014 14:59 |  #74

BREAKING NEWS: A Federal Judge in the Central District of California has struck down all three patents in the lawsuit in which Capstone Photography is a defendant. The Court ruled "that all three of the patents in suit are directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas, and lack an inventive concept that would make them patent-eligible applications of those ideas." The case is over and Capstone has prevailed. We are excited to have this issue resolved in our favor! However, the legal expenses are very steep and our small business will take quite a long time to recover from the $100,000 in legal expenses we have incurred. If you feel that we have helped your business or if you simply want to support the side of RIGHT, please consider donating at www.endpatentabuse.comexternal link




LOG IN TO REPLY
monkey44
Senior Member
monkey44's Avatar
724 posts
Joined Jul 2003
Oct 29, 2014 15:09 |  #75

cory1848 wrote in post #17240153external link
That is great news! So what happens to all of the companies that have licensed with him?

One, I'd guess (without knowing for certain) that he will have to refund the patent license fee.

Two: If I was in Capstone shoes, I'd sue him for court costs and lost business. We need to teach these opportunists a lesson, and this is a start.

We all work for our money in this country (USA) and should never allow this kind of extortion to prevail -- especially with a lot of independent photographers out there trying to earn a living and support a family.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

17,843 views & 1 like for this thread
Article: patent troll sues photographer for infringement on patent for workflow
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00226 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.09s
Latest registered member is zhumiao23
913 guests, 382 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017