HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
I don't blame Amazon for applying for stupid patents like this, I blame the US Patent and Trademark Office for granting stupid patents like this.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why not post a prior art that reads on the claim before telling the world how dumb patents are.
It's pretty specific about the studio stuff. Sizes, light intensity and such.
Still, it's a picture against a white background. I don't get it. Why? Unless they have a good reason to patent it and make money, I don't see why they would do it...
I love this site for most articles, but they don't seem to understand patents at all. This isn't a patent on "photography against a white background".
Why not post a prior art that reads on the claim before telling the world how dumb patents are.
I love this site for most articles, but they don't seem to understand patents at all. This isn't a patent on "photography against a white background".
[...]
Why not post a prior art that reads on the claim before telling the world how dumb patents are.
I love this site for most articles, but they don't seem to understand patents at all. This isn't a patent on "photography against a white background".
Check what it really covers:
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.
and the spec describes why this is different and beneficial
"With reference to FIGS. 1-2, shown is a studio arrangement 100 according to various embodiments. FIG. 1 illustrates a top plan view of a studio arrangement 100 according to an embodiment of the disclosure, and FIG. 2 illustrates a side view of the studio arrangement 100. As shown in FIG. 1, the studio arrangement 100 also includes an elevated platform 101 on which a subject 104 can be positioned and be photographed and/or filmed in front of a background 102. A subject 104 can comprise a model, product, or any object desired to be photographed and/or filmed in the studio arrangement 100 as appearing on a true white background. The elevated platform 101 is configured with a top surface made of a material that can include, but is not limited to a plastic, such as Poly(methyl methacrylate), which is commonly known as "plexiglass," and/or any other materials that possess a degree of transparency as well as reflectivity. Such a material produces an effect in images and/or video of the subject 104 such that a reflection of the subject 104 appears beneath the subject 104, but where the top surface of the elevated platform 101 blends seamlessly into a true white background. "
Why not post a prior art that reads on the claim before telling the world how dumb patents are.
This will never hold up in the court battles it will have to undergo.
Why not post a prior art that reads on the claim before telling the world how dumb patents are.
I'm honestly surprised that Apple doesn't already have this patented...
[Tripod]MajorPayne;1040818495 said:I don't see anything novel or innovative about this methodology.
It's like they've attempted to patent a set of instructions on how to use existing technology, which isn't really patentable. They haven't developed a new piece of equipment or a new method of producing something unique, they've effectively just "changed the settings" on their stock equipment to a particular setting and called it a patentable method.
I simply don't see how this is even remotely appropriate to issue a patent for. If they want to claim that it's an identifying characteristic of their company, they should be using a trademark for that particular form of display. If they want to keep others from using it, they should treat it as a trade secret.
I don't see how you can patent basic setups of lights and gear; nothing "novel" is coming out of this. If they were setting up these existing lights and gear so you could see X-rays or something, then I would say that's a 'novel' method for viewing X-rays, but there's nothing novel or innovative about using 3 lights to get a background white.
First to file baby, fuck prior art. Did anyone ever file a patent for this obvious method? No? Well then ..
What I'd like to see Amazon do is make the patent open. Although they patented it, they could claim they did it to prevent trolls from abusing the patent system. Allow the patented technique to be used as a open license for all.
Exactly, I thought this was common sense, and we've been doing this for ages at my work where we broadcast the North America director from our HQ conference room to all the various buildings CRs, couple soft lights on him and a light background with five bright floor lights aimed at it and two high lights aimed down at the background. This way the presenter pops... should have pattented it.If you want to get past all the technical detail of the patent, it's just that useful photography trick #77 where a person or product is illuminated by one light with the background light being a stop more powerful.
I love this site for most articles, but they don't seem to understand patents at all. This isn't a patent on "photography against a white background".
Check what it really covers:
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.
and the spec describes why this is different and beneficial
"With reference to FIGS. 1-2, shown is a studio arrangement 100 according to various embodiments. FIG. 1 illustrates a top plan view of a studio arrangement 100 according to an embodiment of the disclosure, and FIG. 2 illustrates a side view of the studio arrangement 100. As shown in FIG. 1, the studio arrangement 100 also includes an elevated platform 101 on which a subject 104 can be positioned and be photographed and/or filmed in front of a background 102. A subject 104 can comprise a model, product, or any object desired to be photographed and/or filmed in the studio arrangement 100 as appearing on a true white background. The elevated platform 101 is configured with a top surface made of a material that can include, but is not limited to a plastic, such as Poly(methyl methacrylate), which is commonly known as "plexiglass," and/or any other materials that possess a degree of transparency as well as reflectivity. Such a material produces an effect in images and/or video of the subject 104 such that a reflection of the subject 104 appears beneath the subject 104, but where the top surface of the elevated platform 101 blends seamlessly into a true white background. "
Why not post a prior art that reads on the claim before telling the world how dumb patents are.
You mean the prior art that consists of techniques taught in tens of thousands of photography classes for the last 50 years, readily available as instructions provided on the internet for 15 years and in photography magazines for 50 years, and used in millions of people and product shots taken by professional an amateur photographers in the last 50 years?
Or are you talking about some other ridiculously common prior art?
Not that it matters much. The patent it idiotic because it specifies a white background. You can actually do it with a gray background and make it look white if you just use slightly brighter lights. So I would love to see them try to enforce this when they could never prove what color background was used for a given shot.
I love this site for most articles, but they don't seem to understand patents at all. This isn't a patent on "photography against a white background".
Why not post a prior art that reads on the claim before telling the world how dumb patents are.
The elevated platform 101 is configured with a top surface made of a material that can include, but is not limited to a plastic, such as Poly(methyl methacrylate), which is commonly known as "plexiglass," and/or any other materials that possess a degree of transparency as well as reflectivity. Such a material produces an effect in images and/or video of the subject 104 such that a reflection of the subject 104 appears beneath the subject 104, but where the top surface of the elevated platform 101 blends seamlessly into a true white background.
I love this site for most articles, but they don't seem to understand patents at all. This isn't a patent on "photography against a white background".
Check what it really covers:
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.
and the spec describes why this is different and beneficial
"With reference to FIGS. 1-2, shown is a studio arrangement 100 according to various embodiments. FIG. 1 illustrates a top plan view of a studio arrangement 100 according to an embodiment of the disclosure, and FIG. 2 illustrates a side view of the studio arrangement 100. As shown in FIG. 1, the studio arrangement 100 also includes an elevated platform 101 on which a subject 104 can be positioned and be photographed and/or filmed in front of a background 102. A subject 104 can comprise a model, product, or any object desired to be photographed and/or filmed in the studio arrangement 100 as appearing on a true white background. The elevated platform 101 is configured with a top surface made of a material that can include, but is not limited to a plastic, such as Poly(methyl methacrylate), which is commonly known as "plexiglass," and/or any other materials that possess a degree of transparency as well as reflectivity. Such a material produces an effect in images and/or video of the subject 104 such that a reflection of the subject 104 appears beneath the subject 104, but where the top surface of the elevated platform 101 blends seamlessly into a true white background. "
Why not post a prior art that reads on the claim before telling the world how dumb patents are.
OK, I can use my own work to substantiate this. *goes on to describes a setup which isn't covered by the patent*
Good job.
I'm not sure the patent is defensible, but equating it with "photographing against a white background" is retardedly ignorant and pretty commonplace on these forums.