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

 
Colorblinded
Goldmember
Colorblinded's Avatar
Joined Jul 2007
Oct 29, 2014 19:35 |  #76

That's good to hear. 3 patents down, so many more bogus patents to go.


http://www.colorblinde​dphoto.comexternal link
http://www.thecolorbli​ndphotographer.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
FightForRight
Hatchling
7 posts
Joined Sep 2014
Oct 29, 2014 20:01 |  #77

Here is a link to the Court Order: https://www.eff.org ...ment_on_the_pleadin​gs.pdfexternal link




LOG IN TO REPLY
groundloop
Senior Member
974 posts
Joined Jun 2012
Oct 30, 2014 07:12 |  #78

FightForRight wrote in post #17240177external link
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

GREAT NEWS!!!! I'm so glad someone has stood up to such an obvious abuser of the patent system and prevailed. I wonder if you're going to go after legal costs (though I'd imagine there'd be a bankruptcy filing shortly thereafter).




LOG IN TO REPLY
Sibil
Goldmember
3,939 posts
Joined Jan 2009
SoCal
Oct 30, 2014 12:26 |  #79

FightForRight wrote in post #17240702external link
Here is a link to the Court Order: https://www.eff.org ...ment_on_the_pleadin​gs.pdfexternal link

Thanks. I read (tried to) the whole thing. My brain hurts.


Lots of gear, with lagging skills

LOG IN TO REPLY
monkey44
Senior Member
monkey44's Avatar
724 posts
Joined Jul 2003
Oct 30, 2014 17:08 |  #80

I read the entire pleading and the opinion -- and smiled all the way. BTW: The attorney who wrote that brief is very good, in case anyone ever needs one (and can afford him) -- I never heard of him, and don't know him, but have read a lot of court proceedings. This one cut right to the bone, and is probably why this ruling came down so quickly. It was right there in front of the judge. Hats Off!!




LOG IN TO REPLY
RWJP
Member
RWJP's Avatar
120 posts
Joined Sep 2013
Dorset, UK
Oct 30, 2014 18:13 |  #81

Well that is an excellent result. I look forward to seeing what Mr Wolf's response to this is... Something tells me he won't be so confident next time he posts here, if he ever shows his face again.

It is a real shame that it took thousands of dollars and a court case to clear this issue up, especially as the US patent office should never have granted them in the first place.


Gear:
EOS 600D w/ BG-E8| EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III | EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 III | EF 50mm f/1.8 II | Speedlite 430EX II
Visit my Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
NewEnglandPhotographer
Goldmember
2,343 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Oct 30, 2014 20:21 |  #82

Here is the website to donateexternal link to Michael Skelps to help him recover over $100,000 in court fees that he will not be able to recoup from Peter Wolf.


Canon 7D | 70-200mm f2.8is II L | 24-70mm f2.8 L | 50mm f1.8 | 28mm f1.8 | Canon 1.4x TC II | 580EX II

LOG IN TO REPLY
HappySnapper90
Cream of the Crop
5,145 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Cleveland, Ohio
Nov 08, 2014 09:27 |  #83

golfecho wrote in post #17113093external link
Absurd. It's like patenting the process of using a motor vehicle to go from one place to another while sitting in the most forward, left side seat. How can you patent a common process?


I sure hope this whole patent gets reviewed and thrown out.

Kodak has/had the patent for sharing/hosting digital photos on websites.




LOG IN TO REPLY
monkey44
Senior Member
monkey44's Avatar
724 posts
Joined Jul 2003
Nov 08, 2014 10:32 |  #84

RWJP Quote: "Well that is an excellent result. I look forward to seeing what Mr Wolf's response to this is..."

Looks like he has no response -- you're supposed to shake hands after a fight, and congratulate the winner. :) :) :)

Kinda wonder though too, if Capstone got sued, why didn't his insurance company defend it > That's why we buy insurance.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
2,986 posts
Joined Mar 2012
PEI, Canada
Nov 08, 2014 10:53 |  #85

monkey44 wrote in post #17259361external link
Kinda wonder though too, if Capstone got sued, why didn't his insurance company defend it > That's why we buy insurance.

Depends on the policy. One of the companies I work with has a clause that greatly limits how far the insurance company will go with regards to IP law. They won't back you on violation lawsuits unless their in-house lawyers feel the case is a total slam dunk and they can turn around and counter sue. Their expectation is that if you're stepping on copyright or patent issues, then you settle them.

It also protects the insurance company from having to fight a battle where you blatantly infringe on someone's stuff in the hopes you don't get caught, and then dropping the issue on your insurance company's lap if you get caught.


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
monkey44
Senior Member
monkey44's Avatar
724 posts
Joined Jul 2003
Nov 08, 2014 12:23 |  #86

Luckless wrote in post #17259385external link
Depends on the policy. One of the companies I work with has a clause that greatly limits how far the insurance company will go with regards to IP law. They won't back you on violation lawsuits unless their in-house lawyers feel the case is a total slam dunk and they can turn around and counter sue. Their expectation is that if you're stepping on copyright or patent issues, then you settle them.

It also protects the insurance company from having to fight a battle where you blatantly infringe on someone's stuff in the hopes you don't get caught, and then dropping the issue on your insurance company's lap if you get caught.

True enough -- insurance companies always attempt to sell you coverage for your business, and the exclude as much as possible.

In another life - as a builder - I got sued only once, and my insurance company (at about $20k per year premium) found some obscure 'interpretation' of the policy that excluded the suit.

Get this: We had flooding in the basement of a commercial building couple years after I built it -- came from underground water in the town drainage systems. The insurance company claimed a "rain exclusion" -- eg, rain damage is not insured under liability. OK, I said, "Not true, It's underground water." They said, "It used to be rain." Took me eight months and three appeals to make them cover it - and the regional headquarters finally said I was right, and covered it.

SO, insurance has its good and bad components -- interesting, looking at this lawsuit tho, it certainly seems the insurance company should have seen it as win-able, and defended Capstone. Course, what do we peons know?




LOG IN TO REPLY
photoguy6405
Cream of the Crop
photoguy6405's Avatar
Joined Feb 2008
US Midwest
Nov 16, 2014 22:22 |  #87

monkey44 wrote in post #17259510external link
True enough -- insurance companies always attempt to sell you coverage for your business, and the exclude as much as possible.

In another life - as a builder - I got sued only once, and my insurance company (at about $20k per year premium) found some obscure 'interpretation' of the policy that excluded the suit.

Get this: We had flooding in the basement of a commercial building couple years after I built it -- came from underground water in the town drainage systems. The insurance company claimed a "rain exclusion" -- eg, rain damage is not insured under liability. OK, I said, "Not true, It's underground water." They said, "It used to be rain." Took me eight months and three appeals to make them cover it - and the regional headquarters finally said I was right, and covered it.

SO, insurance has its good and bad components -- interesting, looking at this lawsuit tho, it certainly seems the insurance company should have seen it as win-able, and defended Capstone. Course, what do we peons know?

Right. An insurance company's purpose is to make money, not pay claims. We should never forget that.


Website: Iowa Landscape Photography (external link) | Blog (external link) | Gear List & Feedback
Equipment For Sale: Canon PowerShot A95

LOG IN TO REPLY
waterrockets
Goldmember
waterrockets's Avatar
3,781 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Austin (near TX)
Nov 17, 2014 09:00 |  #88

photoguy6405 wrote in post #17276339external link
Right. An insurance company's purpose is to make money, not pay claims. We should never forget that.

Yep, I was at a presentation from a senior VP at United Health Care. He said, in no uncertain terms that the companies main goal is to collect premiums and keep as much of that money as possible, and everything they do should be to that end. So you pay just enough claims to keep your customers, but no more.


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
FightForRight
Hatchling
7 posts
Joined Sep 2014
Mar 06, 2015 14:26 |  #89

Update: Fighting for Patent Reform Continues
I was the defendant in this ridiculous case. I'm proud to be the one responsible for overturning these weak patents that were used against so many photographers.

This case has become the poster child of what's wrong with our patent system. I have been approached by Application Developer Alliance and United for Patent Reform, and I'm joining the lobbying efforts of those two groups. As part of that coordinated effort, I have written my congressmen (again), and written an Op-Ed piece that will run in Connecticut newspapers next week. Pandora.com will be running pro-patent-reform ads using my name and story.

The House Judiciary Committee has requested my testimony as well. I've filmed a video which will be watched by members of Congress in the near future. Finally, a meeting is being planned between myself and Senator Blumenthal. I hope some good will come of all this so other photographers do not suffer what I had to endure.

If you haven't donated, PLEASE consider making a small donation at www.endpatentabuse.comexternal link. This cost $100,000 to defend and to correct a wrong in our industry. We're still reeling from those expenses. Won't you help?

Thank goodness that in the end, our legal system worked. From the bottom of my heart, I thank all of you for your support as we stood up for what's right!




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

14,590 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 0.00267 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is Motaw
1131 guests, 393 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016