Noticed Something interesting in Smugmug's TOS

I just noticed this little notice at the bottom of Smugmug's TOS :

"Notice for Professional Account holders:
Uploading more than 500 photographs of participants in a single
sporting event may require a License from PhotoCrazy, Inc.
To avoid patent infringement, please contact:

PhotoCrazy, Inc.
Attn: Peter Wolf
509 Raindance Street
Thousand Oaks, California 91360-1219
Email: eter@photocrazy.com "

After looking into it a bit, all I can say is that that is CRAZY .

Has there been any recent info regarding these ridiculous so called patents?

once a patent is granted it is considered valid, until it has been successfully challenged in US District Court, then there is the appellate issue, as the looser can choose to appeal. Now whether the Appellate court hears the appeal is another mater.

Therefore I would conclude that the patents are currently valid, even if they are strange.

Wayne

tfd888 wrote in post #9011938
I just noticed this little notice at the bottom of Smugmug's TOS :

After looking into it a bit, all I can say is that that is CRAZY .

Has there been any recent info regarding these ridiculous so called patents?

It's been discussed here before (sorry, don't have links) and AFAIK is currently in litigation.

CannedHeat wrote in post #9012881
It's been discussed here before (sorry, don't have links) and AFAIK is currently in litigation.

It does seem to be in Litigation

http://santabarbarapix​.com/pixblog/?page_id=​953

This also might affect the previously mentioned litigation

http://www.reuters.com …ualBrandChannel​=0&sp=true

Wayne

CannedHeat wrote in post #9012881
It's been discussed here before (sorry, don't have links) and AFAIK is currently in litigation.

I had found a few discussion threads over on Dgrin and FM but had a hard time finding anything here on POTN about it.

tfd888 wrote in post #9013764
I had found a few discussion threads over on Dgrin and FM but had a hard time finding anything here on POTN about it.

Yea, I know. Don't know why. Perhaps they were removed. Before I made the post I searched here and could find nothing either. Funny, because I know darn good and well there was one... I was involved in it.

WMS wrote in post #9013136
This also might affect the previously mentioned litigation

http://www.reuters.com …ualBrandChannel​=0&sp=true

Wayne

Appreciate the links. Problem is, the patent mentioned (that was rejected) was being sought. The patent that restricts search and catalog procedures for event photogs has already been issued. Would that retroactively remove all "process" patents that have already been issued? Don't know, I'm not an attorney. But it seems to me revoking an existing patent would be a different can of worms.

I really pity you guys in "litigation world" Unfortunately it's rapidly reaching the UK.

Here's one of the more recent threads on this here at POTN:
https://photography-on-the.net …750&highlight=w​olf+patent

jhcanon wrote in post #9014222
I really pity you guys in "litigation world" Unfortunately it's rapidly reaching the UK.

What the heck are you talking about?! Many of us over here think it's gone too far over there! A camera for every fifteen people in some major cities? And there was a recent thread here on POTN about some sort of new UK law that is being passed that would make it illegal just to snap a shot of a cop?

CannedHeat wrote in post #9014019
Yea, I know. Don't know why. Perhaps they were removed. Before I made the post I searched here and could find nothing either. Funny, because I know darn good and well there was one... I was involved in it.

NickJushchyshyn wrote in post #9014481
Here's one of the more recent threads on this here at POTN:
https://photography-on-the.net …750&highlight=w​olf+patent

That's the thread! Thanks!