Amazon Granted 'Photography Against A White Background' Patent

ShamisOMally said:
Face it, this is a fucking stupid patent, and it passing shows how terrible the patent office is ATM
Click to expand...

What part of my post made you think I believed otherwise? I explicitly said that it might not be defensible.

I'm advocating that people remain sane when understanding what a particular patent may or may not cover. I don't blame Steve for all the terrible headlines he writes I blame the readers who pay him to do so.
 
Dreaz said:
"I don't blame the murderer, I blame the government for allowing guns to be so easily bought"

Nice corporate apologetic logic you have there.
Click to expand...
We like Amazon around here and it's a vendor affiliate, do you think any of the [H] staff is going to criticize them?
 
evilsofa said:
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.

Here's your prior art: the Get A Mac ad campaign, which started in May 2006. It's shocking that Apple isn't the one who applied for this patent. I'm sure it was done before that, but I think Apple is the one that made it famous.
Click to expand...

You know, just to piss off apple is the only thing that makes sense regarding this patent.

How the fuck can you patent an arrangement of commercial lighting?
 
raz-0 said:
You know, just to piss off apple is the only thing that makes sense regarding this patent.

How the fuck can you patent an arrangement of commercial lighting?
Click to expand...

You could if you set up the arrangement to do something novel, innovative, and non-obvious to one skilled in the art.

If you take a standard lighting setup and swap one of the lights for blue, you have NOT created a novel arrangement. You've done something that would be obvious to someone skilled in photography to achieve something.

If you re-arrange the same set of lights to make the picture a little brighter, you haven't done something novel.

If you re-arrange all the light sources so all of a sudden infrared light becomes visible and can be photographed with an ordinary camera (sarcasm, I'm not saying this is feasible), then perhaps you've accomplished something novel and non-obvious using existing technology. That's why patents allow for novel examples of methodology and apparatus.

I don't have to create an entirely new object, but if I use existing objects in novel ways, I could still be granted a patent.

Amazon's patent is none of those. It's like taking a 12" tape measure, making it an inch longer, and trying to patent the 13" tape measure. It's (literally and figuratively) an extension of existing ideas with nothing novel accomplished.
 
Oh man... and just when you thought people couldn't get any more stupid.... you see Amazon pull some crap like this...!
I... AM...AMAZED!
 
Wow, we're in an age common sense has went the dodo.
So if you want to patent something, anything now you just file and pay off the guy?
Nice!
I blame the lawyers for destroying the world and everything remotely resembling intelligence.
 
jimmyb said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good job at being an idiot yourself. News flash for you: shooting with a plexiglass floor/stage (as described in the patent) IS NOT NEW. I MYSELF HAVE BEEN DOING IT SINCE 2005. The person that taught me that trick had been doing it for 20 years prior too. Hell you don't even need the damned platform to do it. In other words, they took a standard method that's been used for ages and put a slight twist to it that isn't new and patented it.

I love it when people who haven't got a friggin clue what they're talking about try to interject their opinion. Let's see how bright you are (pun intended). Go on and read the patent and tell me how many f/stops the background light is metered at and how many feet or meters the lights are placed away from it. I'll give you an animal cookie if you can find it in that patent. :p :D
 
Fifth Horseman said:
Good job at being an idiot yourself. News flash for you: shooting with a plexiglass floor/stage (as described in the patent) IS NOT NEW. I MYSELF HAVE BEEN DOING IT SINCE 2005. The person that taught me that trick had been doing it for 20 years prior too. Hell you don't even need the damned platform to do it. In other words, they took a standard method that's been used for ages and put a slight twist to it that isn't new and patented it.
Click to expand...

That's first to file for you, you don't have to be the first to use it, you just have to be the first to file.
 
Fifth Horseman said:
Good job at being an idiot yourself. News flash for you: shooting with a plexiglass floor/stage (as described in the patent)
Click to expand...

The patent covers a circumstance far more specific than shooting with a plexiglass stage.

For posterity, let me again state that I'm not claiming the patent is defensible.
 
I'll show those bastards...
I'm going to patent taking pictures of famous landmarks with or without people in said picture in varying amounts of light just so when people post their vacation pics they owe me royalties....
Who do I have to bribe to make it happen?
If only I knew an attorney that worked for Apple or Amazon...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top