USPTO Approves Amazon Patent For Taking Pictures

An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. Patent Office granted Amazon a patent in March that basically describes taking a picture with a white background. Amazon claims that their method is unique to current photography methods because they can achieve the effect of a true white background without retouching the photo or using any sort of post-processing technique. Some professional photographers disagree, claiming that plenty of prior art exists embodying Amazon's described method and furthermore that this pre-existing method is what the photography industry calls 'shooting against a seamless white backdrop.'"

Comments

Our patent system is totally broken

[Trailer Trash]

Seriously. Did the examiner on this even consider asking anyone who knows anything about photography? I'm not a photographer but I've had my picture taken for "promotional" reasons and already knew about this. I've even created a similar setup here when posting stuff online.

Took me 10 seconds to find this page:

http://www.raydobbins.com/phot...

What, exactly, are they trying to "patent" and why does this examiner still have a job? It's obvious that we need to have crowdsourcing prior art as an official part of the patent process.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent also lights up the back of the white background. Which in the case of your link, it's not lit. And after all, what they are claiming is that the rear light is what enhances the picture.

But yes, I've seen similar setups before too.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[geekoid]

That's not even close to the way they are doing it.

But rant on.

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[pipedwho]

Like when a studio photographer points an umbrella flash at the white backdrop, or puts a slave flash behind the subject to soften or remove shadowing on the background.

This is definitely an example of an examiner failing in their public duty.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[dreamchaser]

There needs to be some sort of appeal or review process whereby the public can object to patents like this and many others that have been granted.

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[SuperTechnoNerd]

This is definitely an example of an examiner failing in their public duty.

They are doing their duty. They are making sure that large corps are making plenty of profit, thereby strengthening our economy! Win win for all!

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[ljw1004]

Seriously. Did the examiner on this even consider asking anyone who knows anything about photography? I'm not a photographer but I've had my picture taken for "promotional" reasons and already knew about this. I've even created a similar setup here when posting stuff online. Took me 10 seconds to find this page: http://www.raydobbins.com/phot... What, exactly, are they trying to "patent" and why does this examiner still have a job? It's obvious that we need to have crowdsourcing prior art as an official part of the patent process.

"What exactly are they trying to patent?" -- it says so right there in the first claim, and it's stupid that you spent more time looking up prior art of what you *ASSUMED* the patent was about, rather than actually reading the patent.

They patented the combination of a white cyclorama background, with the object on an elevated platform, the combination of four rear light sources in a particular geometry behind the elevated platform, and some technical tricks to make the elevated platform be imperceptible.

I sincerely doubt that your promotional picture was taken on an elevated platform with four lights behind you and some looking down onto the platform. The website you linked was nothing like what the patent is doing either.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[ColdWetDog]

Exactly this. You can, however, achieve exactly the same effect by dozens of minor variations on the theme. 72 mm lens, slower iso (really, 320, WTF?), differing positioning of lights, etc.

While it hardly seems novel or non obvious, it's also so narrow as to be essentially useless.

Color me confused. Or maybe it's just a black and white issue.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[thedonger]

I don't care if no one in history prior to know has taken a photo of someone with a white sheet behind them. Is that really worthy of a patent?

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[DRJlaw]

Took me 10 seconds to find this page:

It took me about 30 seconds to glance at this:

1. A studio arrangement, comprising: a background comprising a white cyclorama; a front light source positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting the background, the longitudinal axis further being substantially perpendicular to a surface of the white cyclorama; an image capture position located between the background and the front light source in the longitudinal axis, the image capture position comprising at least one image capture device equipped with an eighty-five millimeter lens, the at least one image capture device further configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty and an f-stop value of about 5.6; an elevated platform positioned between the image capture position and the background in the longitudinal axis, the front light source being directed toward a subject on the elevated platform; a first rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the first rear light source positioned below a top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at an upward angle relative to a floor level; a second rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the second rear light source positioned above the top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at a downward angle relative to the floor level; a third rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in a lateral axis intersecting the elevated platform and being substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the third rear light source further positioned adjacent to a side of the elevated platform; and a fourth rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in the lateral axis adjacent to an opposing side of the elevated platform relative to the third rear light source; wherein a top surface of the elevated platform reflects light emanating from the background such that the elevated platform appears white and a rear edge of the elevated platform is substantially imperceptible to the image capture device; and the first rear light source, the second rear light source, the third rear light source, and the fourth rear light source comprise a combined intensity greater than the front light source according to about a 10:3 ratio.

Then to look at your linked page and see that this Mr. Dobbins used at most 4 work lights, set alongside the camera tripod, which bounced light off the ceiling and onto the backdrop.

Now you tell me... is the camera between the lights and the screen along the same longitudinal axis? Where are the rear light sources? Any of them?

What, exactly, are they trying to "patent" and why does this examiner still have a job? It's obvious that we need to have crowdsourcing prior art as an official part of the patent process.

Question, meet answer (above). Another thing that's obvious is that you have not read the claims or found anything that's more than background-relevant to whether the idea is patentable or not.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[ljw1004]

Claims 2 and 25 aren't that specific...

It's a kind of patent-drafter's game, mixing specific claims (like claim 1) and general claims (2, 25) and then making progressively narrower claims from the general ones (3 -- 24). They do this to cover their bases, to make it more likely to have the patent granted, and to help them have something they can fight in court.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[DRJlaw]

There needs to be some sort of appeal or review process whereby the public can object to patents like this and many others that have been granted.

It's as if Title 35, Part III, Chapters 30, 31, and 32 never even existed...

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[mrbester]

Prior art: infinity cove. Patent dismissed. End of story. Thanks for playing.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[dreamchaser]

Nobody bothers though.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[AK Marc]

Great, but in practice, someone who does the same (and has done for 100 years) will be sued 5 years from now, though their setup doesn't include the elevated platform.

So it wasn't "prior art" because it didn't have the elevated platform, but is actionable because it's close enough to be infringing.

There's nothing wrong with patents. There's just something wrong with obvious ones. White cycloramas are common. Elevated platforms is common. Multiple light sources is common. Geometry is common. If they are patenting that *exact* combination of those common and non-novel devices, then they should also be banned from going after the guy doing the same thing with 6 lights, or any other geometry.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[dreamchaser]

I should elaborate. There should be an easy and open mechanism for objections. The process as it stands is broken and very obscure.

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[Anonymous Coward]

My brother is a patent examiner. When he uncovers something that invalidates a patent application (and he's hard pressed for time. The patent office is over worked, understaffed, and runs on quotas) he's supposed to help the company reword the patent to make it acceptable. Almost no patents are simply rejected. The examiners and companies tweak each patent until it fits.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[alvinrod]

It's very likely that there are dozens of other ways of achieving a similar effect, much like there are loads of different designs (and patents) for internal combustion engines.

Even if this patent is worthless in the sense that anyone can get around it, it provides protection for Amazon as it's significantly more difficult for anyone else to sue them for anything related to cameras when Amazon can point out that they received their own patent for the method that they're using which is legally recognized as different from existing methods. Considering the legal fees associated with patent litigation, this patent is far from worthless if it prevents millions of dollars spent fighting a court battle.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[DRJlaw]

Prior art: infinity cove. Patent dismissed. End of story. Thanks for playing.

No decription of lighting.

Does not anticipate.

All limitations must be shown to be obvious.

Dismissal reversed upon appeal to the PTAB. Back to the examiner.

Don't tell me the rules of a game I play for a living, son. I know them better than you ever will.

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[suutar]

Where's my "depressing but informative" mod option when I need it?

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[DRJlaw]

There should be an easy and open mechanism for objections. The process as it stands is broken and very obscure.

Translation: It should take no knowlege, cost nothing, and preferably involve some charitable group that carries out my wants, unbidden, before I've even appreciated that I have them. Just like in everything else in life.

Rebuttal:

Citation of prior art and written statements

"Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing... prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent... [and] If the person citing prior art or written statements... explains in writing the pertinence and manner of applying the prior art or written statements to at least 1 claim of the patent, the citation of the prior art or written statements and the explanation thereof shall become a part of the official file of the patent."

That seems easy, open, to cost nothing (but time and a stamp), and not particularly obscure. But then, if you can't be bothered to Google how to submit prior art and then read one of the top 5 links, everything is obscure.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[SourceFrog]

No, the entire patent system needs to be thrown out. It's not just broken, it's not really ethical to allow forcibly banning second inventors from independently inventing.

Also, it's not an exaggeration to say the patent system is killing people. E.g.:
- http://archive.mises.org/15365/update-patents-kill-compulsory-licenses-and-genzymes-life-saving-drug/
- "Why Aren’t There More Cancer Vaccines? Blame America’s lousy patent system."
- A case to abolish patents - Two authors from the Federal Reserve lay bare the patent myths

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[pauljlucas]

There needs to be some sort of appeal or review process whereby the public can object to patents like this and many others that have been granted.

There is. Also see this for some more background information.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[Charliemopps]

I sincerely doubt that your promotional picture was taken on an elevated platform with four lights behind you and some looking down onto the platform.

Blah blah blah... who cares. You shouldn't be able to patent arranging some lights and positioning a camera. Just like you shouldn't be able to patent swipe to unlock or how you shave your mustache. I know! I always put my french fries on my cheeseburger before I eat it because it makes it crunchy and adds salt. Let's patent that... oh right, I can't because that would be fucking stupid.

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[Smerta]

The patent office is over worked, understaffed, and runs on quotas) he's supposed to help the company reword the patent to make it acceptable. Almost no patents are simply rejected. The examiners and companies tweak each patent until it fits.

I've heard this from 2 EE (electrical engineering) colleagues I went to school with. One of them is a patent examiner, the other is a patent attorney. Of the 3 of us, I think I'm probably the happiest. (I'm you're typical working engineer, although I work for myself, not a corporation. That might have something to do with it...)

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[ljw1004]

You shouldn't be able to patent arranging some lights and positioning a camera.

Amazon didn't patent "arranging some lights and positioning a camera" in general.

They patented ONE SPECIFIC arrangement of lights and camera position. Presumably a particular arrangement that they spent a lot of time and effort to achieve, and wasn't obvious to them when they started, and one that they hadn't found documented or explained or taught elsewhere.

When you patent a machine, you're patenting "arranging some gears and positioning some cogs". When you patent a drug, you're patenting "arranging some atoms and positioning them right".

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[gnupun]

Well, professionals who take these types of photos care, outsiders don't care. Maybe you should at least skim through all the patent claims before saying it's just a camera in front of a white sheet.

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[pipedwho]

Win win for all ... patent lawyers!

Sadly it is true that they are doing their duty to their customers. Customers who unfortunately are not the general public, but a small conclave of large corporations.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[gnupun]

Perhaps it just sits there or perhaps they invalidate the relevant claims, who knows. What we do know is that come litigation time, when the patent holder is suing the patent infringer, the infringer can show your prior art and either reduce his penalty or completely eliminate it and also help other so-called infringers in a patent lawsuit.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[jrumney]

Having seen this patent, now professional photographers will now be rushing out to order off-camera flashes from Amazon so they can reproduce the technique. I'd better get in quick and patent my idea of an umbrella like unfolding curved reflector for those flashes to increase the amount of light they throw onto the background, before Amazon gets in first.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[angst_ridden_hipster]

Yeah, ONE SPECIFIC arrangement that photographers have been using for many, many decades.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[BillX]

It looks like there is only one extremely narrow independent claim (calling out a specific ISO and lens) - claim 1 - but it's a red herring. The real meat of it is Claim 2, which is much more broad and from which every subsequent claim through Claim 24 derives. Claim 25, the only remaining independent claim, is also much more broad.

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[dbIII]

No it's an example of those who set policy failing in their public duty. Money has been paid, the papers approved and the system working as designed.
However the new design sucks immensely for everyone apart from those who can afford to run out the clock in court with patent lawyers. The Apple vs Samsung examples should be enough to demonstrate that.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[dbIII]

So more complicated - like a light box used in macro photography since at least the 1920s maybe?

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[PaddyM]

Well, time and stamp and possibly a 5% royalty to me for my recently patented method of submitting prior art to the patent office in a white envelope. I'm working on the different colors, but that's a trade secret.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[viperidaenz]

like a lightbox.... but bigger!
Wait right there, I'm going to patent a smaller lightbox.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[Patent Lover]

What's the publication date of this web page? Is it before the filing date of the application? Does it meet all the limitations of the claims? Try doing that in about 6 hours. There are other reasons to reject the claims but it's not always so simple.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[Khyber]

"Maybe you should at least skim through all the patent claims before saying it's just a camera in front of a white sheet."

As a photographer (and someone that build light boxes) it's a fucking light box with a light BEHIND and AROUND it.

Which I've been building and selling for over a decade. In fact I'm making one for one of my forum admins right now.

Perhaps you should be a photographer before you open your mouth, eh?

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[Khyber]

"They patented the combination of a white cyclorama background, with the object on an elevated platform, the combination of four rear light sources in a particular geometry behind the elevated platform, and some technical tricks to make the elevated platform be imperceptible."

Oh, exactly like what I've been building for over a decade.

Oh, and there's no particular geometry to overpower shadow. 4 lights? I can do it with two. Make the elevated platform imperceptible? Clear acrylic and oversaturation of the area, or use a white cloth matching the lightbox and oversaturate it and shoot at lower ISO. All of this shit is known to anyone that took a fucking photography elective in high school, and in fact this is EXACTLY what Amazon is trying to patent.

Go back to school.

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[Frobnicator]

Actually, Amazon claims it was for defensive purposes only.

They noticed that there was very little prior art and they used the process for a huge number of photos on their site. Amazon claims they were concerned that a patent troll would get a patent and then sue Amazon.

In some ways that is a good thing. If their patent was denied for prior art, then it means the patent system (or at least one clerk) understood that there was prior art, and Amazon could have said "We tried to patent it, USPTO denied it, so the troll's patent is invalid."

Instead, since the patent came through, it means the USPTO could have just as easily given the patent to a troll, so it was a hopefully correct action to prevent them from fighting a patent battle later.

Time will tell, but considering the nature of how Amazon has been using its patents, this is probably fairly safe.

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey boss! I have an idea!

Boss: Go ahead --- Old Tricky Ricky: lets patent everything that is widely used...

Boss: HUH?

Old Tricky Ricky: Lets patent methods used in everyday life that have NOT been patented.

Boss: Hmmm go on, what did you have in mind?

Old Tricky Ricky: We could patent OJ, the term used for Orange Juice, we could patent a rectangle with rounded edges.

Boss::The Patent Office cannot be that stupid!!
 

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[flopsquad]

Err, there is some truth in that in a roundabout way. Though some of those facts are backwards. I don't have the stats handy unfortunately, and no time to dig them up. But as I understand it (grain of salt, IANAPPAY: I am not a practicing patent attorney yet):

>Almost no utility patent is granted straight away—it takes a series of office actions == non-final rejections, under 35 USC 101, 102, 103, 112, etc. There are often quite a few office actions before a patent gets issued, if it gets issued at all.

>The patent examiner's job not to get patents out to hungry corps, it's to make sure a patent should validly issue over the prior art (and meets other reqs like WD, best mode, etc.). You could say that makes it the examiner's job to help companies craft the right language for their claims, but only in the sense that they tell the applicant, "No, you can't claim 'Widget A doing X' because that's in the prior art."

>It is then the applicant's job to rewrite the claim to say, "OK examiner, how about, 'Widget A with limitation B doing X.'" This office action rewriting process goes on (and on, and on, have you ever heard a patent attorney complain about all the rejections they get?). This is probably the tweaking process you're talking about, and that's how it is supposed to work. The alternative would be for applicants to spend a bunch of time and money drafting a patent app and then when the PTO doesn't like it, say, "Start over, and write it better this time."

>IIRC, patent examiners get brownie points for issuing office actions. Yes, they are backlogged, but the Guidance from above is not to just let crappo patents issue because they have too much to do. See the latest, very strict, guidance on bio/DNA stuff post-Myriad, that will probably get smacked down in the Federal Circuit for being too strict.

>I don't know all the details of the prosecution process of TFA Amazon patent, but you can find out for yourself. A quick glance tells me there was at least one rejection and amendment to this patent.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[rtb61]

"It's as if", the USPTO has been completely corrupted by lobbyists working on behalf of patent lawyers into approving anything, pretty much absolutely anything, as long as it hasn't been patented yet. The purpose, not to generate income via that patent, but to generate income via the litigation of that patent both for and against and always in favour of patent lawyers. How long will it be before other countries start rejecting out of hand USPTO patents. They are approving everything from data base schemas, to transfer of existing applications from one size of device to another size of device, to device shapes etc. etc. etc. This is beyond USPTO laziness and well into blatant corruption of the patent process by the US government in order to extort payments from all other countries under threat of military and or economic sanctions.

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[kegon]

Actually, Amazon claims it was for defensive purposes only.

In that case they only had to publish a blog post to generate prior art. And it would have been a lot cheaper. Or are you suggesting that Amazon don't know how patents work ?

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[hankwang]

"he's hard pressed for time. The patent office is over worked, understaffed, and runs on quotas"

I'm actually amazed about what these examiners can achieve. Depending on what you assume for the hourly rate of an examiner, including all organizational overhead, they have 4 to 8 hours to read and understand the application, search prior art, and write their response.

I sometimes have to proofread draft patent applications of my own inventions, and it takes me typically 4 hours to review those (check that what the attorney wrote is a correct description of what I think the invention is). They turn my 2-page description of an idea into 25 pages of dense legalese, but at least I believe that I should have some advantage in understanding the idea, compared to the examiner.

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[MaskedSlacker]

None of that changes the fact that the USPTO is incompetent and worthless.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[gnupun]

Okay, Mr. lightbox, go thru the claims and list all the claims that you have already implemented after building light boxes for over a decade -- perhaps with photos of implementations.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[molnarcs]

I'm a pro photographer (mostly portraiture and travel) and I'm doing product photography on the side - just basic products, nothing fancy. What Amazon claims is complete bullshit. They imply that white background product photos need retouching to make the background completely white. This is definitely not the case. Even with the simple setup I have for products (completely DIY setup - a cardboard box, a white roll of paper clipped to the a piece of plastic) I can get completely white background in camera without any retouching. Most cameras have a playback screen that shows white clipping - blown out highlights flashing in red indicating areas completely white. I play around with my lights (2 lights plus reflectors) until I get everything blinking except the product I'm shooting. Been doing this for years. With a proper plexiglass shooting table, this is s cinch. And let's not forget those $25 shooting tents that are designed precisely for this, and allows even amateurs to do it easily (well, with some practice in light placement and power levels).

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[molnarcs]

There are literally thousands of ways to set up your lights to create a complete white background in camera without the need of retouching. You can bet good money that this setup (white cyclorama background, object on elevated platform, 4 lights) have been used thousands of times. It's hilariously simple. By the way, the patent claims at least 1 light source hitting the background ("at least one rear light source positioned between the elevated platform and the background) which is far more vague than the diagram supplied with the patent. Disclaimer: I'm a pro photographer doing mostly portraiture and travel (http://molnarcs.500px.com) but I do take product photos on the side (nothing complicated like jewellery or glassware, just basic products). I'm telling you this patent is complete bullshit.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[DRJlaw]

Saying that the word " infinity cove" doesn't include a description of lighting doesn't add much value, and frankly I am not going to waste my time researching which of 16,000 search results they meant when they can't even provide their own link.

The burden of persuasion lies with the person citing (if you can even call it that) the prior art...

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[flyneye]

Does no one count on good old fashioned bribery or extortion? Even suspect it?
It would go a long way towards explaining silly patents over the years, silly laws over the years, silly SCOTUS decisions, etc. All perfectly understandable as these institutions are run by fallible people, with weaknesses and vulnerabilities.
I'm sure the denialist camp is made of the optomistic faithful suffering cranial-rectumitis, so we know where they stand. What about the rest of us?
Isn't it time to suspect that a spade is a spade?

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[parkinglot777]

Even though it is kind of funny, the example of OJ is not for patent but rather trademark. ;-)

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[parkinglot777]

Don't tell me the rules of a game I play for a living, son.

Yes, that is the problem of patent nowadays - argue the uniqueness (and try to be non-obvious) when getting a patent, but try to cover everything and make it similar when suing. In other words, the patent owner would argue their way that the claims are not the same with prior arts by comparing as a whole. But when the patent owner wants to sue, their attorney will dissect his/her patent into each claim and use the specific value of each parameter as key for infringement.

This studio arrangement patent is one of them (look at its claims). For example, looking at a specific parameter value of claim 1 - "the image capture position comprising at least one image capture device equipped with an eighty-five millimeter lens" - you can see a few things here. 1) the word "eighty-five" is used with a hyphen which could throw off keyword search for inexperience searchers. 2)Even though it has a specific number, one may infringe the patent if other criteria are met but not the lens.

Patent attorneys know the rules and they play them well by inventing new English words to avoid keyword search. They sometimes classify their patent application to something else which could be close but not exactly obvious classification. If they really play on the rules straight, their patent applications would very likely not be issued.

To me, a technique of taking photos in a studio should not be patentable. Yes, there are varieties of doing so, but there are a few techniques that will give the best result with certain set and value of parameters. I would rather see it as "trade secret" instead of patent.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[kimvette]

I and millions of others have been using this exact technique to shoot product photos for years. This is not new, innovative, novel, or anything remotely otherwise worthy of a patent.

My prediction: they will next patent a method of shooting photos in a translucent box with lighting around the outside. I propose they call that invention a "lightbox." Oh hell, I've been building lightboxes for years too and so have others, so maybe I should patent the lightbox.

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[kimvette]

> They noticed that there was very little prior art

Bullshit. Most high quality product photos you see are shot with this method (Apple's products most definitely are based on how clean and free of hot spots the photos are), and ANY prior art at ALL is enough to render any alleged "invention" unpatentable, as is obviousness to those skilled in the art.

This is Photography 101, and any good photography lighting author worth his salt mentions this technique in his book.

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[ndavis]

Actually, Amazon claims it was for defensive purposes only.

In that case they only had to publish a blog post to generate prior art. And it would have been a lot cheaper. Or are you suggesting that Amazon don't know how patents work ?

Actually the real problem is the USPTO doesn't seem to know how patents should work anymore. My Father-in-law worked there for years and retired early because he liked to do research and prove patents had prior art. The new guys coming in would approve patents faster without checking for prior art or really checking into the claims. Granted my father-in-law was not a fun guy to work with as he liked invalidating patents with prior art, or not able being able to prove the patent works to the point he is convinced a few of the auto "accidents" he was in were not accidents

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[kimvette]

I'm going to patent a reflective umbrella where the flash will face forward, will have a translucent filter inside the umbrella, and a translucent filter on the front of the umbrella to make it a solid shape. The purpose will be to soften the light via both internal reflection and diffusion. I shall call this novel invention the "softbox" since it softens light, and will specify they may come in a variety of shapes including round, square, pentagonal, hexagonal, octagonal, etc. and also in varying sizes.

I will also cover the fact that it shall optionally have a method by which one may have an adjustable, optionally always-on lamp included in a flash (in either either a pack-and-head or monolight source) for the purpose of "modeling" the light so that it may be previewed by either eye or through the camera's viewfinder, so that you can see exactly how the lighting affects shadowing and highlighting. I shall call this feature a "modeling lamp."

I am always seeking to innovate new novel, never-heard-of-before methods of lighting. Following those innovative patents, I shall follow up with yet another new innovation no one has heard of: a dominant flash in a multi-flash setup, where the flash will be brighter than the rest to add desirable highlighting and shadowing - it will "key in" the lighting effect, if you will. I shall call this invention of mine "key lighting."

I will then patent a method by which you can take the photograph digitally so you no longer need film, then patent "$SAME, but on a smartphone" and also a method by which the photograph may then be "uploaded" (another innovation I must patent now that I think about it) to the Internet. I will then patent a "product description" which may optionally include an "image gallery" (see previous patents) so that users may then browse photographic representations of the product.

Then, I will sue Apple, Samsung, Mitsubishi, LG, GM, Ford, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, Sony, and of course Amazon (among many others) for infringing upon my inventions.

>_>

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[kimvette]

This is EXACTLY how product photography is normally done - key lighting, then fill lighting hitting the backdrop, and optionally fill lighting at other angles to fill in and remove other shadows and keep a nice even light, and possibly a additional light to add highlighting in addition to the key light.

Every good photography lighting book covers this exact method.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[kimvette]

Exactly. I have bought many sheets of white seamless at Calumet (may Calumet R.I.P.) and have made "elevated platforms" of white foam for shooting product with this same exact lighting configuration for ten years, and many other photographers (pro, semi-pro and even amateurs alike) have been doing the same exact thing for a hell of a lot longer than I have. Key lighting and multiple fill lights - this is hardly new or innovative by any stretch of the imagination - even the "fill light" behind the subject/product to light up the backdrop to eliminate shadows.

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[Tamerlin]

It's also an example of a technology company's arrogance. They're too stupid to understand that they're not breaking new ground (when I joined there, my first impression was that their technology was antique by government contracting standards), but they're arrogant enough to think that they're innovative.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[gnupun]

Take a look at Fig. 1 of the patent. Don't you think elements 119, 121, 131, 133 seem different from what's typically described in your lighting book?

Re: Our patent system is totally broken

[Frobnicator]

any good photography lighting author worth his salt mentions this technique in his book.

And yet the patent still went through.

Patent officers reportedly only check existing patents. They cannot be experts in all fields, but searching the patent database is easy.

Yes, I would prefer the patent office said "That is standard art". But on the other hand, they DID issue the patent.

Given the choice, would you prefer Amazon hold the patent, or the patent be held by "XYZ Technology Holdings", a shell company of "SueEmAll Inc", a shell company of "TrollCentral", all existing to sue everybody? Amazon is most likely to just sit on the patent until it expires. The same is not true for patent trolls.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[kimvette]

Not at all.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[Khyber]

Uh, yea. six-sided box, enclosed or open on any side - done

Illuminated with geometric patterns (a light at corners, a light only on sides/tops/bottoms of the boxe) - done

Hiding the shadow of the raised platform - BEEN FUCKING DONE SINCE/WHEN I HAD ECOGROLED, every one of my products was photographed IN THAT MANNER.

Give me a fucking break. There's nothing new about any of these nonsensical claims, and nothing novel. It's been done for DECADES.

Re:Our patent system is totally broken

[thedonger]

Well, professionals who take these types of photos care, outsiders don't care. Maybe you should at least skim through all the patent claims before saying it's just a camera in front of a white sheet.

I wasn't responding directly to the details of this patent application; rather, the notion that such a thing can be patented (and yes, I did read the claims). Presumably, if one can patent the white sheet with a specific lighting pattern, then previously one would have been able to patent just the white sheet, and that is ridiculous.

Consider it another way: I am a photographer using a white sheet as a backdrop. As I take a series of photos, thanks to digital photography I can immediately look at the results and move my lights around to remove shadows. At some point I happen to hit Amazon's patented light configuration, and I am now violating their patent. Dumb. Maybe they should also patent looking at the digital output and adjusting lighting? After all, that is part of the process for which they applied for the patent currently in question.

time to Patent useing the sky as a backround

[Joe_Dragon]

fees are $0.01 per use.

Re:time to Patent useing the sky as a backround

[Joe_Dragon]

I patent others fixing my spelling you must pay me $0.50

Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

That means my patent for taking photo images with the subject in the foreground of a solid green motif backdrop will surely be approved!

New Patent

[mfh]

The way I breathe air and take it into my body is unique. You all have to stop breathing, okay? Or pony up.

Re:New Patent

[Sarten-X]

Sure, just as soon as you describe the process exactly, highlighting exactly what makes your method unique.

Re:New Patent

[viperidaenz]

Prior art: Your mother.
I have circumstantial evidence she was breathing before you existed.

for the love of god

[log0n]

Is it going to take violence to get things fixed?

Seriously. The only thing that's going to accomplish anything anymore is outright violence. Maybe then 'the people who need to know' (whoever they are) will start taking notice at the bullshit that's going on in our patent system (hell, any dysfunctional system). Talk doesn't work. Diplomacy doesn't work. The democratic process no longer works. Peaceful protest doesn't work. What else is there? These patents are directly attacking damn near everyone in commercial and professional photography. And when a bullshit patent is used to attack a person's livelihood or their means of supporting their family or their passion, and the result can leave them destitute, how is that any different than a violent attack against that person?

Patenting something like this with this much prior art (fuck photography, anyone who has ever applied 3 point lighting and used the plain white background in 3d studio project preferences has prior art) is outright bullshit.

Re:for the love of god

[machineghost]

Yes, let's kill everyone who disagrees with us. History has shown that that approach ALWAYS works ...

Re:for the love of god

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

Citizen, your identity has been noted. Please continue to provide us with your thoughts.

Re:for the love of god

[log0n]

I chose my words carefully.

Re:for the love of god

[ColdWetDog]

If you win, it always works. Problem is, you don't always win.

Re:for the love of god

[log0n]

So what should be done when a corrupt system cataclysmically fails the citizens it represents and all of the methods for fixing that system and addressing those grievances are completely fucked over?

Our entire system is broken and nearly everyone is too busy circle jerking to care.

Re:for the love of god

[Type44Q]

Is it going to take violence to get things fixed?

We were warned that it would.

Re:for the love of god

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

Yes, we've noticed that you're literate. Have you considered the happiness that lobotomization can bring, citizen? All of those worries about stringing words together in a way that's technically legal while getting your point across will just melt away, and you won't be bothered with sympathy and outrage for other citizens any more! What do you think?

Re:for the love of god

[baker_tony]

You American's all have guns to protect yourselves, right?
Put 1 and 1 together here... ;-)

Re:for the love of god

[log0n]

You I like :D

Re:for the love of god

[zedaroca]

Yes, let's try to scare the few people that are still talking about the need to do something. That will make the world better.

Re:for the love of god

[Sarten-X]

So what should be done when a corrupt system cataclysmically fails the citizens it represents and all of the methods for fixing that system and addressing those grievances are completely fucked over?

First, you embark on a decade-long series of protests and political movements to express your grievances. Throughout that time, you write hundreds of essays, supported by the most influential and well-educated people in the country. Then you maintain peace as long as possible, allowing the oppressive government to show their nature to potential allies. When violence does break out, make sure that you keep to a very limited amount of aggression, solidifying your place as the underdog. After six years of bloody fighting in the streets and houses of your home villages, facing starvation, torture, and public execution if you fail, if you can manage to hold out long enough for allies to come to your aid, and if you can take advantage of your oppressor's reliance on transoceanic trade, you can finally earn the right to call yourself the United States of America.

Then two hundred years later, the citizens you fought so bravely for can start more violence because they can't be bothered to understand how your new government works, but they do understand that you gave them guns.

Re:for the love of god

[am 2k]

It worked fine in the French revolution.

Re:for the love of god

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I believe that that has been patented already.

Re:for the love of god

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

++good, citizen. What have you done today to scare people who think and talk too much?

Hmmm... I did this for Christmas pictures at home

[0x537461746943]

I did a very similar thing this past Christmas. I used a white sheet and put a very bright white light bulb behind it. We were dressing up with funny hats and such with the family. It seemed like a very obvious thing to do to get a white background to me. I am no photographer... I just was wanting a nice white background.

Re:Hmmm... I did this for Christmas pictures at ho

[BigSlowTarget]

I'm sure you could mail your payment to Amazon or possibly use a credit card but don't use a 1-click system or other charges may apply.

Silly Peasants

[rogoshen1]

Prior art only exists when it's one of the big guys trying to invalidate or ignore a commoner's patent.

Have patents always been this broad? it sounds as if they were devised to cover *physical* objects which were non-obvious and all that.. but that train of thought has been lawyered (mutilated) to extend to things like math (software), genes, and god damn geometric shapes or colors.

I've got one of these

[Rob the Bold]

I've got one of those no-horizon white backdrop things, cheapo-style. I saw a big one at a photographer's studio that you could put a whole family on for a portrait. I thought it would be a good idea for shooting ebay stuff, so I "made" one by partially rolling up a large sheet (#102 on the patent diagrams) of white cardstock. And lights. I borrowed everyone's bedside lamps (106, 107, 115, 117) in the house. I just figured I was stealing a standard photographic technique. Didn't occur to me that the photographer whose studio technique I cribbed was one of those unknown geniuses who didn't know what a gold mine he was sitting on.

Re:I've got one of these

[ColdWetDog]

Not to worry, then. You did not follow the specific processes in the patent. If you used a 50 mm lens, you're off the hook. If you didn't elevate the lights, likewise. The one thing going for this patent in terms of the ludicrousness of patenting a background in any way, shape or form, is that it is highly specific to their setup.

Slashdot troll

[Anonymous Coward]

The formula for trolling slashdot is simple.

1) Find a recent patent given to a big company
2) Dumb down the claims to the point of being trivial and nearly unrelated to the actual legal bounds of the patent
3) Sit back and enjoy the endless stream of people claiming prior art exists while:
      c) not actually pointing out anything specific
      b) the prior art is comically NOT prior art

Please, let's not feed the trolls by following this formula.

Patent examiners should be liable for bad patents.

[InvalidError]

Give them a motivation to actually try to make a half-decent effort at weeding out the obvious and not evaluating patents related to domains they clearly have not got a damned clue about.

Re:Douchebag web designer...

[thedonger]

What's with the blockquote text being #888888? Why not make it #FFFFFF and have done with it? Fucking asshole.

Amazon patented blockquotes with #FFFFFF.

What they have is pretty standard

[Chirs]

There are two possibilities.

1) They're using it for purely defensive purposes.

2) Either it's broad enough to be dangerous to others doing anything similar, or someone else could go and get a bunch of patents on slight variations of light positioning, ISO level, aperture, etc.

In the case of 1, the problem is that it's basically obvious and shouldn't have been patentable. In the case of 2, professional product photographers are in trouble.

Does no one on Slashdot understand patents?

[harvestsun]

This is NOT a big deal. The patent is very specific, to the point where it would be almost impossible to infringe (and equally difficult to find prior art). They didn't patent "take a picture with a white background.". They patented having a studio arrangement with a background comprising a white cyclorama, captured with an 85mm lens, configured with an ISO settings of 320 and f-stop value of 5.6, with an elevated platform positioned between the platform and background, with front and rear light sources in the longitudinal axis... and it goes on for several pages.

There is NO WAY anyone will be hurt by this patent. It's business as usual. I know you guys love getting mad at big companies, but cool it, you just look silly.

Re:Does no one on Slashdot understand patents?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. And you can save most of that half million dollars by holding a patent, with a prior filing date, that describes exactly what you're doing. Whether this patent is "bogus" or not, it establishes a date on which Amazon (a huge company, and therefore a target for patent trolls) publicly announced how they photograph their products. Since it's so narrow as to be useless in an offensive capacity, it gives them good protection against future trolls, while not giving them much scope for trolling themselves.

Why is the USPTO mentally challenged?

[AdamHarrison]

My original Canon Digital Rebel had a feature, where you would shoot a white/neutral item, like a white sheet of paper or a grey card, and the camera would auto-set the white balance based off this. This feature is in many digital cameras. What kind of people does the USPTO hire, that they can not even spot obvious and common cases of prior art, like this? The USPTO does not need reform. It need to be burnt to the ground, and restarted from scratch. I do not think the existing system works,or is salvageable.

Cue me

[Anonymous Coward]

This is my cue to remind you that the US is a cesspool of corruption. Indeed, one can only assume that someone is at this moment patenting a system whereby a politician may be bribed anonymously to allow patenting of the concept of corruption.

Read the patent!

[sootman]

The patent is actually for taking a photo on a seamless white background with one click. So, yeah, totally legit. :-)

Re:Great! How to evade the Amazon patent

[elwinc]

The workflow goes

Start

Activate Rear Light Source

Activate Front Light Source

Position Subject

...

To evade the patent, you could switch on both lights at once!

Or you could position the subject before you turn on all the lights!

Or you could vary the order in many other ways. It's a really stupid patent because it's so easy to evade.

Read the claims

[Yumi Saotome]

1. A studio arrangement, comprising: a background comprising a white cyclorama; a front light source positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting the background, the longitudinal axis further being substantially perpendicular to a surface of the white cyclorama; an image capture position located between the background and the front light source in the longitudinal axis, the image capture position comprising at least one image capture device equipped with an eighty-five millimeter lens, the at least one image capture device further configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty and an f-stop value of about 5.6; an elevated platform positioned between the image capture position and the background in the longitudinal axis, the front light source being directed toward a subject on the elevated platform; a first rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the first rear light source positioned below a top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at an upward angle relative to a floor level; a second rear light source aimed at the background and positioned between the elevated platform and the background in the longitudinal axis, the second rear light source positioned above the top surface of the elevated platform and oriented at a downward angle relative to the floor level; a third rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in a lateral axis intersecting the elevated platform and being substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the third rear light source further positioned adjacent to a side of the elevated platform; and a fourth rear light source aimed at the background and positioned in the lateral axis adjacent to an opposing side of the elevated platform relative to the third rear light source; wherein a top surface of the elevated platform reflects light emanating from the background such that the elevated platform appears white and a rear edge of the elevated platform is substantially imperceptible to the image capture device; and the first rear light source, the second rear light source, the third rear light source, and the fourth rear light source comprise a combined intensity greater than the front light source according to about a 10:3 ratio.

If you did all that, then yes, Amazon should sue you.

Patent system is now just spellchecking

[dbIII]

Seriously. Did the examiner on this even consider asking anyone who knows anything about photography

They don't do that stuff any more. They check that it fits the rules for submissions, collect the fee and leave it to courts to sort out validity, prior art etc.
It's called "running government like a business". The patent office makes their money and do not give a shit that it's a drain on the economy to move the service they used to perform to the courts.

Re:For those who aren't photographers...

[macbeth66]

It's sort of like patenting the application of ink to paper using a pen.

NOOOOO! I have been working on this for years and just sent in my patent application for this. I was sure this would make millions when I solved the problem of the pen leaking when I had it in my front shirt pocket. At this point, the basic solution was to take a Ziploc bag and refit it to the pocket.

You take the small road

[John.Banister]

And I'll patent taking a photo in morning fog while sunlight is reflecting off the bottom of clouds.

i thought ..

[Anonymous Coward]

"how to" patents were invalid.. ya know, like swinging sideways and such.

where's the physical product being patented? a light.. a flash reflector.. anything?

positioning items in a certain way in a room to take a picture is NOT A PATENTABLE concept.

and oh, by the way, photographers have been using similar setup for decades....

amazon loves the white backdrop for its online storefront because they can compress the hell out of those images.. but here's a tip, amazon... for some things, though, such as clothing, bodies floating on a page, or with their heads cut off, are NOT THE BEST WAY TO PRESENT A PRODUCT. a light or neutral background color that complements the model (with head attached!) and/or item(s) is much more aesthetically pleasing than plain white backdrop or chopped off heads. (and dont get me started on the morons that butcher the shit out of catalog shots to 'erase' a background)

Wait... There's more!

[Futurepower(R)]

And... Will there be a patent on one-click photos?

one-click patent

[tommeke100]

Says the company who sued for breaching their obvious "one-click patent".
We can also trust them to correct benefits to employees in their distribution centers, right?

Impossible to enforce this

[iblink]

I have been a professional studio photographer for the past thirty years. Photographers have been shooting objects and people on plain white backgrounds since well before the arrival of Amazon, or even the introduction of desktop computers (see Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, David Bailey, albert Watson for starters). If Amazon ever tries to bring an action the defendant will have no trouble proving the patent should not have been issued. What is Amazon going to claim next? A patent that explains how to turn off the background lights in order to create a black background?

Re:Prior Art No Longer Relevant in the US

[0x537461746943]

I think a lot of people are confused with what first to file really covers. First to invent claims are mainly based on stuff not publicly available. Even with the new first-to-file there are still protections for prior art that is publicly available. If you published or had a product already in the public that matched a patent that was filed later then you would still get protection. I am not lawyer... this is just what I have read after going over many articles on the web... so take with a grain of salt :).

Re:Prior Art No Longer Relevant in the US

[0x537461746943]

I meant.... " First to file claims are mainly based on stuff not publicly available"

Re:Prior Art No Longer Relevant in the US

[0x537461746943]

Thanks for that info.

Old News

[Jonah Hex]

http://slashdot.org/submission... oh nevermind

Re:Prior Art No Longer Relevant in the US

[robsku]

One would think that just by being able to prove you had invented (and implemented, although at least with software patents it's not required at all, and even the patent claims are less useful than just knowing the idea itself) it before the time patent applicant claims for inventing it to at least give you the same rights for the patent (but that's not how they grant patents) and maybe even cast a doubt to whether the patent claim even is anything novel and innovative enough to merit a patent....

But then one would think that filtering wikipedia description of internal combustion engine filtered through patent lawyers would ever have a chance of getting a patent, but it does seem to work for software patents - and a second one for "internal combustion engine for two-wheel transport apparatus". Off-topic, I know.