Scribbling On Digital Photos

JagsLive notes a patent application filed in the US by Nokia for a way to 'scribble on the back' of digital photos. Nokia's approach is similar to the iPod's Cover Flow, except that Nokia users will be able to flip through their snaps, select one, and then turn it over and annotate the back just using SMS-like text entry. The scribble becomes an integral part of the saved photo.

Comments

PenguinScribbles.

[Ostracus]

I seem to remember an experimental Linux desktop that allowed you to flip a window and annotate on the back.

Re:PenguinScribbles.

[incubuz1980]

Maybe you are thinking of Sun's Project Looking Glass

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXv8VlpoK_g

Skip forward to 03:00

Wow...

[geekmux]

Steg with a patent. Seems that even 5-year old ideas can be "new" when wrapped with juicy patent goodness!

I thought we were past that

[modemboy]

Man, I thought we were past the days of "well established process" + "the internet" or + "a computer" = brand new shiny patent.
Clearly the patent office hasn't learned anything, and apparently we have yet to exhaust the pool of basic processes that can be "reinvented" for a computer. Sad.

Re:I thought we were past that

[bgillespie]

Hey now, it's not directly the patent office's fault... yet. They do it wrong from time to time (I understate), but until it's more than just an application, don't go casting false aspersions.

Although one must note that the history of the patent office of granting shoddy software patents probably does contribute to the piles of dreck that show up at their doorstep. After all, companies basically have to file for stupid patents in order to remain competitive against other companies with stupid patents.

Re:I thought we were past that

[ceoyoyo]

We are. Now it's "+ a smart phone."

Geez, keep up, hey?

Just checking... what's the primary anger here?

[compumike]

Yes, this is crazy, but from reading the comments I think there are two things that need to be separated.

1) This is bad because there is massive prior art,
OR
2) This is bad because it is a patent on a software concept.

Which one is it? Number one seems to indicate legitimacy of the current patent system, and number two does not -- very different ideas, but I think slashdotters are conflating the two at the moment.

--
Hey code monkey... learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digital generation.

Re:Just checking... what's the primary anger here?

[Nursie]

There's a third -

This is bad because it's trivial.

Utterly trivial. The combination of something obvious (annotating pictures, been done since photography came around) and combining it with a little gui flip-trick. FUCKING WOW. I'M IMPRESSED.

This is just dumb.

Re:Just checking... what's the primary anger here?

[lysergic.acid]

i think you're missing the point.

any moderately intelligent computer user sees how absurd this patent is because this is a trivial and non-innovative function. it's like patenting a drop down menu, 1-click checkout, or a pop-up window.

patents were legally established to encourage innovation in a way that rewards inventors but would ultimately serve the public good. that is why they were designed to give inventors a financial incentives to provide ingenious solutions to complex problems, which would then be released into the public domain after the patent expired. and in this way, the patent system would nurture the spirit of innovation and grow the public corpus of technological knowledge.

you can't claim a patent on self-apparent software features because they are obvious to any programmer who is looking to solve the same problem and thus do not qualify as personal inventions. whether it there is prior art plays no importance in this issue.

if it's an obvious feature, and it's a common problem, then of course there will be prior art. but that's an incidental result. a patent for an obvious solution to a trivial but uncommon problem would be equally invalid regardless of whether there is prior art or not. so it has neither to do with prior art nor any fundamental issue against software patents.

patents as these contribute nothing to society, nor do they add anything of value to the public corpus of human knowledge shared by our society.

Already exists.

[Boogaroo]

This already exists as EXIF comments in the jpegs. I can add these remarks and sort them using the comments in most modern photo viewing programs.

The only "innovation" I can see here is the fact it makes a nice animation flipping the photo over. Hardly patent-worthy.
Seriously, we need to have people that grant patents with some experience in the field they're granting patents.

Re:Already exists.

[AscianBound]

Seriously, we need to have people that grant patents with some experience in the field they're granting patents.

It hasn't been granted yet. It has simply been applied for, according to the summary. Patents do get denied sometimes (though definitely not as often as they should).

You know, I am usually a big defender of IP

[BitterOldGUy]

laws, but in regards to software patents, I have to agree with you. I remember a day when software was covered by copyright and only copyright. So, if you could do the same function, only with completely different code, you had no problem. Of course now, with patents, "Hello world" could have been patented when it was first written. Or to extrapolate to physical inventions, Diesel would have run afoul of the internal combustion engine patents - if he didn't when he came out with his invention - my business history is a little fuzzy in this area.

Re:You know, I am usually a big defender of IP

[ed333]

There is a decision coming down soon from the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, In re Bilski, that may severely limit the scope of patentable subject matter. Hopefully, this will put an end to most software and business method patents, but we will have to wait until sometime in October to find out. Keep your fingers crossed...

Re:You know, I am usually a big defender of IP

[arb phd slp]

Of course now, with patents, "Hello world" could have been patented when it was first written.

A method operating on a digital computer for greeting the planet Earth, or alternatively the metaphysical universe, through text parameters sent to the computer's standard output.

Then, of course, a separate application for the above "on the Internet."

Re:You know, I am usually a big defender of IP

[fireman sam]

std::cerr "Hello World\n";

There you go, bypassed your patent.

Re:You know, I am usually a big defender of IP

[cibyr]

The epic fail is that it should've been

std::cerr << "Hello World\n";

Dunno how you'd miss that now that previewing is mandatory.

Re:Exif? Flip? Software Patents Suck.

[ceoyoyo]

Hey, it's a great idea! Photographers especially are going to love it. They'll be able to jot down the f-stop, aperture, time, date, camera, lens, whether they used a flash... you could even tag your photo with GPS coordinates! Imagine the possibilities!

Er, or go to Flickr and look at them realized.

Circles and Arrows

[pintpusher]

Until it can make 8x10 color glossy photos with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was...

AND

output to a braille tty, well then, I'm just not interested.

Re:Exif? Flip? Software Patents Suck.

[Skater]

the future, is YEARS AGO!

Fixed that for you. :)

Nokia probably don't care if they get this or not

[Mr. Roadkill]

Whether we like them or not, software patents have become a familiar and potentially damaging part of the legal landscape.

Nokia obviously want to use this feature in their software, and don't want to be sued. Nobody else has staked out a claim for this particular concept, so Nokia filed a patent. If it's granted, Nokia get to use this feature and can claim a little bit of money from anyone else who chooses to do so. If it's knocked back on the grounds that it's obvious or that there's prior art and it's therefore unpatentable, then Nokia still get to use that feature without the risk of being sued. They win either way.

Re:Exif? Flip? Software Patents Suck.

[dgatwood]

Exactly what I was thinking. Oh, and of course, I was also thinking that the place to do this is on REAL CAMERAS, not crappy cell phone cameras. Have a touch screen on the back of your DSLR and write with a stylus. That would actually be useful. This is a complete and utter waste of the patent office's time and energy.

Basically, this is a beautiful, easy-to-understand example of why software patents are inherently wrong. First, it ensures that a potentially useful technology will only be available on the most utterly useless hardware. Second, it stifles further innovation in this area and harms the market as a whole by producing a host of competing standards that will not be interoperable. Third, it harms the public good by denying them access to what appears to be nothing more than a trivial lipstick-on-a-pig treatment to the EXIF comment tag because most people are locked into their phones and couldn't switch to Nokia even if they wanted to. Finally, it guarantees that few peope will bother to use the technology even on Nokia handsets because the people they send the photos to won't be able to decode the notes....

Repeat after me: Thou shalt not patent thine file formats, nor thine XML dialects, nor thine EXIF tags.

Re:Exif? Flip? Software Patents Suck.

[Sparr0]

why uuencode or mime? exif can contain binary blobs. see jpeg thumbnails.

Re:Exif? Flip? Software Patents Suck.

[indifferent children]

Close. They're enforcing LOLspeak. We'll have LOLCats, LOLBrats, LOLandscapes, LOLis-this-thing-on, LOLflowers, and (of course), LOLporn.