Amazon patents photographing against white background
W9GFO
Posts: 4,010
I can't help but wonder if Amazon is serious about this or making a point on how broken the patent system is.
http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/09/amazon-studio-arrangement-patent/
http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/09/amazon-studio-arrangement-patent/
Comments
The patent is certainly getting attention. Even Stephen Colbert spent a good five minutes lampooning it this week.
Studio flashes are rated in watt seconds. Assuming they meant watt seconds, 40,000 watt seconds is a ton of light, and I bet most photographers don't have that many units. The background unit alone is stipulated at "about 10 kw." A large studio unit is rated at maybe 1kw/s.
The "consuming 40kw" notation may be an obfuscation, since the consumption of energy does not specifically indicate a level of light -- halogen bulbs versus photoflash versus LED for example. However, this is academic as elsewhere they mention tungsten lamps and not photoflash; either way it's still a lot of light, IMO. In any case, as Rick notes the "plurality" of fairly rigid specifics suggests to me this is Amazon protecting a very specific business process.
Mostly I used even the 300ws at about 50%, just for faster recycling times.
The 900ws light was mostly for my 5' octadome, the 300ws lights were plenty for 2'x3' softboxes or umbrellas.
I was shooting against seamless white paper as far back as 2000 (maybe even 97, I'd have to check my old files) ... others for many decades before that.
It is not difficult to do the seamless blown out background, with as little as one strobe for the background, a strobe for the subject, and a reflector.
More strobes make it easier of course.
This notion that Amazon has filed an absurd patent to protect themselves from a competitor filing an absurd patent shines a 40kW light on how broken the patent system is.
It probably boils down to one four-letter word: patent trolls.
And here's another four-letter word for you: copyright trolls. Google that and see what kind of scams those type of trolls pull on random everyday people.
I filed a patent for a general anti-troll device: it's basically a trap door that you install in your office and it drops open into a moat full of hungry crocodiles. (It does, however, raise the question of whether or not reptiles are cannibalistic.)
The US has moved to a first to file system, rather than first to invent. So the first (inventor) to file gets the patent. Assuming Amazon filed to protect a business interest, there's a very good reason to do it if they have developed a business around this technique, and suspect a competitor could find out about it, "invent" it themselves, and make a prior claim. By patenting a very specific approach Amazon is protected, even if someone else now comes and patents a different technique for photographing against a white background.
Gaggles of filings is one of the by-products that critics have leveled against the move to FTF. They have warned the change, which went into effect last year, will bring a ton of fairly meaningless patents. While Amazon filed this before the changeover, their IP lawyers would have known about the impending move at the patent office. I'm sure there are dozens if not hundreds more like this one in the pipeline. The move to FTF was one step to try to fix the patent system, and bring it into line with other countries, but here in the US it will probably have the reverse effect.
The "novelty" can be in the various claims. I once worked for a Hollywood film lab that for years was under siege because a competitor filed -- and got -- a patent that merely combined two everyday activities.
In the first-to-invent system, which had its pitfalls, most of this stuff was taken care of as trade secrets. The inventor kept a very good (and notarized) notebook. This is no longer considered a viable approach. IP experts are urging companies that rely on a trade secret that run a critical part of their business to seek a patent.
Amazon's patent may be this, or it may be one of Jeff Bezos' jokes.
Your point is completely valid. However, such arguments can be legally made only in court, and the way the Troll works is by threatening you with court action. You, as the defendant, might be entirely 100% safe in your argument, but you often can not even make that argument until you are dragged into a court, in which the whole freaking process of discovery, evidence, etc. must take place. Since the mere process can cost you tens of thousands of dollars, the Troll offers to settle out of court for some fraction of that. So, as a defendant, you are faced with paying what amounts to legalized extortion money or be forced to go to court and spend even more money presenting your case. This is the power of a patent troll. And in the case of copyright trolls, because the mere accusation can be so defaming, they can legally extort people for lots of money because the only way to prove your innocence is to spend even more money defending yourself. So, what you say is correct, but you don't get to say it without spending tons of money in court. That is the evil power of the Trolls.
It is a common misconception that the title of the patent broadly applies to the invention. It's just a way to name the invention, and the claims themselves spell out what is actually covered. If you read the Amazon patent, what seems as obscenely generic is actually so specific and unique to them that it is practically meaningless to the photographic art as a whole. It's insurance for Amazon, and little more.