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

gjl711 wrote in post #17187868
Wow.. comparing patents to slavery...

Like comparing patents to copyrights.

You will find bats a very similar to giraffes because it suits your world view and I will find them different because it suits mine.

Patents don't protect IP, patents allow those with money to protect IP.

gjl711 wrote in post #17187673
Show the prior work, case over.

http://www.wintechblog​.com …ng-against-patent-trolls/

...not as simple as you make out. Its more like: show the prior work, have over a million in the bank to cover litigation, then hope the courts are on your side on the day, because you are only going to get one shot. It was a patent that should never have been granted in the first place: fortunately I live somewhere where I can operate my event business and not have to worry about ridiculous patents.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #17120345
Has anyone actually found a case of prior art that could be used to overturn the patent?

I doubt prior art is going to do it because it's obvious, and nobody patents or documents obvious stuff. I think it's a lot more likely to be overturned on the grounds that it's obvious rather than prior art.

Does someone have a breakdown of this magical patented process so that I can avoid doing something similar and having the patent police knocking on my door?

archer1960 wrote in post #17188419
I doubt prior art is going to do it because it's obvious, and nobody patents or documents obvious stuff. I think it's a lot more likely to be overturned on the grounds that it's obvious rather than prior art.

It may be obvious now but it wasn't when the internet was new and people were just starting out using it. It was previously impossible to do an online search of images by athlete bib number, because the technology simply didn't exist. At some point someone created a system to do it. The issue is whether or not this person was the first to do that.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #17189006
It may be obvious now but it wasn't when the internet was new and people were just starting out using it. It was previously impossible to do an online search of images by athlete bib number, because the technology simply didn't exist. At some point someone created a system to do it. The issue is whether or not this person was the first to do that.

If anyone will look at the several patents that have been cited, the first one might have actually been unique in it's time (issued in 1999 as I recall). There have been 2 subsequent patents issued which are nothing more than a slight rewording of the first, these were definitely not unique and probably should not have been issued. This is exactly what drug companies do when a patent is set to expire, it allows them to keep prices up on their drugs and to keep generic drugs from competing, they change one tiny little bit of the formulation and get a new patent.

And here's the thing... after a close reading of those patents I'm of the opinion that the people who are selling prints from athletic events online probably are not infringing and that the patent holder is merely extorting money from them. What makes this possible is the high cost to fight a claim of infringement in court, it's always easier to settle than to fight and that's what patent trolls are counting on.

WhidbeyHiker wrote in post #17187641
I just patented the exact manner in which I conduct my morning constitution. Anyone caught doing the same is infringing and will be sued.

Now that is what I am talking about!

Luckless wrote in post #17187684
I don't need to show valid work. This is the kind of thing that should NEVER have been granted a patent in the first place. Your argument is akin to saying "Show prior examples" when calling for women's rights and social change.

Granting patents for things this stupidly simply and obvious are exceptionally harmful to development of digital technologies. We are allowing a minefield to be planted and are now at risk of the only players who are able to navigate it safely and survive economocially are the larger and established companies, which is the exact OPPOSITE of what patents are intended for.

lawyers, Lawyers, Lawyers.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #17189006
It may be obvious now but it wasn't when the internet was new and people were just starting out using it. It was previously impossible to do an online search of images by athlete bib number, because the technology simply didn't exist. At some point someone created a system to do it. The issue is whether or not this person was the first to do that.

You mean people never searched through event pictures by bib number before the advent of digital photography? I sincerely doubt that. The courts have already ruled that just using a computer to do something that had previously been done in some other way is not patentable.

I was reading another thread and had a realization.... This guy could very well be trolling online forums to find people to sue Someone in another thread was talking about shooting an event, selling his photos online and so on, and it dawned on me that these people would be easy pickings (except that the particular thread was about an event not in the US). If you do sporting event photography and post about it you'd probably better make sure there's no way to trace your screen name to your location or your business name.

groundloop wrote in post #17193095
This guy could very well be trolling online forums to find people to sue

...he's probably just set up a google alert for his business name. It takes less than a minute to do. I have one set up for my business name: but the only person that mentions me is myself in my own blog!

archer1960 wrote in post #17188419
I doubt prior art is going to do it because it's obvious, and nobody patents or documents obvious stuff. I think it's a lot more likely to be overturned on the grounds that it's obvious rather than prior art.

Yeah this is one of those "do what people did anyway BUT ON THE INTERNET SO IT'S MAGICAL NOW" things.

It's like: write things in a file at a medical office and tag them and file them away.. BUT ON YOUR NETWORK ON A SERVER!

And you don't have to enforce patents for them to be valid. That's trademarks (ie kleenex vs tissue, etc).

As a corollary, here's what a real patent of an actually new novel idea looks like:

http://www.google.com/​patents/US5877715

Sibil wrote in post #17116197
... "exposing to the right", blah, blah,

Now you hold on there, I hold the patent on HAMSTTR ©
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=8534003#p​ost8534003


See you in court sonny!

gjl711 wrote in post #17187868
Wow.. comparing patents to slavery.. yikes. ....

At the risk of getting waaaay too political, you may want to read up on South American farmers and Monsanto.. the comparison stops looking so over the top.

woos wrote in post #17193714
...

As a corollary, here's what a real patent of an actually new novel idea looks like:

http://www.google.com/​patents/US5877715

Cool, I'm stealing that idea!