Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
 Subscribe
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

Please don't shoot the messenger!
Norm Cabana, Photographer
Milpitas | CA | USA | Posted: 3:52 PM on 01.12.06
->> On the event forum portion of www.robgailbraith.com there was a posting yesterday about a new patent that has been issued that may effect you if you are an event photographer or if you take photos, in a certain way, and post them on the web for later sale. I am not an attorney nor do I play one on tv or radio. I bring this to your attention so that you may become informed about something that might possibly affect you. I have no interest in this patent nor am I associated in any way with the patent holder.

The patent number is 6,985,875 and was awarded on Jan. 10, 2006 to Peter Wolf of Thousand Oaks California. You can view it online by going to www.uspto.gov and doing a patent search by patent number. After reviewing this patent, if you think that it might apply to you in any way, I strongly suggest that you do NOT discuss it here, but instead contact an attorney that is familiar with patent law.

Good luck to everyone.!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (2) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Will Powers, Photographer
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 4:23 PM on 01.12.06
->> mispelling on Galbraith takes you one to any advertising site.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Damon Moritz, Photographer, Photo Editor
Woodbridge | Va. | USA | Posted: 4:31 PM on 01.12.06
->> http://tinyurl.com/bj7om
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Norm Cabana, Photographer
Milpitas | CA | USA | Posted: 4:32 PM on 01.12.06
->> Ok, the spelling is http://www.robgalbraith.com. That site isn't the important one, it's the US Patent Office that you should be concerned with.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jason Orth, Photographer
Lincoln | NE | USA | Posted: 4:33 PM on 01.12.06
->> Peter Wolf of the J.Geils band? Talk about "Freeze Frame"

*rimshot*

Shortcut to patent info:
http://tinyurl.com/bj7om
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (1) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jody Gomez, Photographer
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 4:38 PM on 01.12.06
->> I may be wrong, but it seems to me that this guy has come up with a new way to catalog images so we don't have to go back and add the athlete's number in each file name. Or did I totally miss the mark?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mike Last, Student/Intern, Photographer
London | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 4:56 PM on 01.12.06
->> I read it that there was some sort of identification system on the network.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Wesley R. Bush, Photographer
Nashville | TN | U.S. | Posted: 5:22 PM on 01.12.06
->> I'm surprised you can patent a process like that. Basically it's referring to the way a lot of companies shoot and store photos for resale. A participant registers with a number and you take that number and apply it to any photo taken of that person. He/she can search for the number, and all the photos stored by that number show up. It's done every day. So this guy owns that process?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

William Jurasz, Photographer, Assistant
Cedar Park | TX | USA | Posted: 6:08 PM on 01.12.06
->> You'd be surprised what the patent office will grant. It can get ridiculous. The cheesehead is actually patented. I could understand a trademark or copyright or something, but a patent? For a cheesehead hat? One lawyer patented a particular manner in which his daughter uses a playground swing (if not mistaken, he got this patent as a means of showing how absurd the system is). Some of the patents filed in the hi-tech arena can get pretty silly as well. While I haven't had time to read the actual patent, my gut instinct tells me there will be enough prior art that this patent will get revoked.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Smith, Photographer
Elk City | OK | USA | Posted: 6:36 PM on 01.12.06
->> Y'all are in big trouble cuz I'm going to patent the "process through which a photo is taken".
I'll be the only photographer and that is going to make price negotiations much easier.

(ahh, crap, I probably should have done it first, then bragged.)
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (3) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Hudson, Photographer
Redondo Beach | CA | USA | Posted: 7:37 PM on 01.12.06
->> Well, you hope people will fight it, but fighting a patent can be a long and expensive process. Say this guy fires off some cease and desists to a ton of photogs, asking for like $5000/each to "license" the patent. Sadly, the chances are that people might pay it, rather than go into a long, expensive legal battle.

Patents like this are killing the software industry, and now it sounds like they're extending to other fields as well.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
Washington, DC & Seattle | WA | US | Posted: 7:58 PM on 01.12.06
->> he can fire off all the cease and desist letters in the world...you can't squeeze blood from a turnip, and it would only make sense to go after those that actaully have the pockets to pay i.e. larger companies. A larger company would have a legal staff (or the resources to hire one), and would effectively fight the battle for us small guys.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Scheuern, Photographer
Grand Blanc | MI | USA | Posted: 8:40 PM on 01.12.06
->> The really stunning part is that he can estimate the time a photo was taken if he knows the starting and ending times, the distance the photographer is from the start, and assumes the subject moves equal distances in equal times. The heck with a patent, this guy should be collecting a physics Nobel prize!

An interesting article here on how easy it is to abuse the system by patenting obvious things:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_02/b3966086.htm

Mark
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Greg Ferguson, Photographer
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 9:26 PM on 01.12.06
->> The main "invention" is his use of an "active or passive" device worn by the contestant that triggers a remote camera as that person passes by.

Otherwise it's all about process, most of which is common-sense, and didn't require any inventive thinking or creation of a new and unique method of presenting photographs.

Well... let me rephrase that... his only other creative thing was how he derives his time value for naming or IDing a photo - he's using a relative time for the contestant, not an absolute time-of-day.

Maybe it's a runner thing, but as a cyclist I never cared how LONG I'd been riding, it was how FAR I'd been riding so his scheme would never work for me.

The only disturbing part of the patent after reading through it, is the final line...

"Although several embodiments have been described in detail for purposes of illustration, various modifications may be made without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention. Accordingly, the invention is not to be limited, except as by the appended claims"

That's very open-ended and nebulous and probably would be easy to tear apart since most of the rest of the claim is based on "No! DUH!" common-sense ways of doing things that predate his claim.

The whole idea of a patent is to improve technology by standing on the shoulders of the giants that preceded the inventor, not by standing on the toes of everyone around them.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Amir Gamzu, Photographer
Ann Arbor | MI | USA | Posted: 9:55 PM on 01.12.06
->> Ok, I tried to read the actual patent but it was all greek to me. But I did learn one thing ...

We are all in the wrong business, I'm going to start getting patents on everything and anything.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer, Photo Editor
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 11:10 PM on 01.12.06
->> In a previous life, I was "there at the creation" so to speak when Unisys started enforcing its LZW patent on software programmers that created programs that displayed or used .GIF format images. LZW is the compression algorithm used in .GIF files, and try as they might, no one has really come up with a better algorithm for lossless compression.

The thing with .GIF is that Unisys never bothered to enforce the patent (in fact, no one really knew it existed) until long after .GIF had become an industry standard...and come into a second life as a format for web graphics after .JPG had effectively killed it for use with photographic images.

The .PNG format was, in fact, a direct response to the Unisys patent...but it failed as a replacement format because .PNG files just didn't compress as much as .GIF would, despite its many other advantages, and in the early web days size meant everything.

One thing that's interesting: supposedly, algorithms can't be patented. But no one ever really tried to challenge the Unisys patent to my knowledge.

To their credit, Unisys made paying royalties VERY easy (I signed an agreement and paid royalties for the last couple of years I was an independent software developer) and didn't ask an arm and a leg. But my guess is they made (and still make) a ton of money...

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how this patent is interpreted.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 11:41 PM on 01.12.06
->> Amir:

I have to agree. Tomorrow I'm calling a patent attorney to help me obtain a process patent for creating, maintaining, posting, displaying, and archiving messages on forums just like this one. Then I'm going after blogs! I'll be rich, rich I tell you. The best part is I'll share! 600mm f4 lenses for everyone! Yippee!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (1) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Pablo Galvez, Photographer
Calgary | AB | CANADA | Posted: 12:13 AM on 01.13.06
->> I think some people need to read the patent application more closely. He is not trying to patent the process of taking pictures of people and selling it to them... he is trying to patent a "system" which is similar to the triggering method already used in Marathons that allows a computer to record the runner's time using a transmitting "chip" worn by the runner. When the "chip" with the runner crosses the finish line, a signal is sent to the main server that stops the time for that individual.

What this person is proposing is that each runner (or cyclist or whatever) wears another "chip" which would trigger a remote camera at a certain point in the race. The main computer would associate that photo with the person's bib number automatically so there is no work to be done by the photographer in trying to identify bib numbers in all the photos and match up a bib number to the photo number and allow the participants to view/purchase photos.

Personally, I think it's a wonderful idea and if he wants to patent the idea or the "system" - go for it! I hope he makes millions... although he probably won't.

Regardless... the average event photographer has nothing to worry about. It's not like he's trying to patent a typical photography workflow or anything.

-Pablo
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Wayne Short, Photographer
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 12:26 AM on 01.13.06
->> http://www.photocrazy.com/about.html
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Coons, Student/Intern, Photographer
Los Angeles | Ca | | Posted: 1:05 AM on 01.13.06
->> I've seen his setup at races in Southern California. He has a pretty elaborate setup with pocket wizards and optical triggers firing cameras at the finish line of running races. Wolf's idea is great for running and cycling races where everyone has to pass through a finish line. You could setup a couple of cameras and have them shoot and send to a server without needing to be at the finish line. The same could also be done on other parts of the course where optical triggers might be fooled by spectators. The automatic sorting of the photos by name or bib number would save hours after a race.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Robert Benson, Photographer
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 1:24 AM on 01.13.06
->> This is interesting. I was doing similar race shooting in Virginia about four years ago - posting thumbnails of the athletes on a now non-existent website, and received an email saying something to the effect that I would be sued for each infraction (each photo) where I used a system like his; a system that grouped athletes according to their bib number.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Norm Cabana, Photographer
Milpitas | CA | USA | Posted: 1:30 AM on 01.13.06
->> You guys are not reading this correctly. Read the Claims section and instead of reading "What is claimed is:" substitute in common language "My invention is:"

My Invention is:

A process for providing event photographs of a sporting event for inspection, selection and distribution via a computer network with the steps of the process being:

1. Taking photographs of at least one participant of a sporting event along at least one point of a course or field.

2. Associating identifying data with each photograph taken where the identifying data is AT LEAST ONE of the following:

a. A number corresponding to a number worn by a participant (, i.e. a bib number)
b. A participants name
c. A code acquired from a component worn by a participant
d. A date and time, including hour and minute the photograph was taken (automatically included in the EXIF data for digital images taken with today's equipment)

3. Informing the sporting participants of the identifying data

4. Transferring the photographs to a computer network server.

5. Cataloging each of the photographs in a web-site server according to the identifying data

6. Accessing the server at a location other than the sporting event and searching for a photograph of a particular sporting event participant utilitzing the identifying data

7. Displaying the photograph of the sporting event particpant for inspection and ordering.

If you're going through the patent, the majority if the Claims section is the description of each step.

The problem with this patent, as I see it, is not the parts that are clearly associated with his method of work. He does things that I don't think most event shooters do and that makes him unique. Whether or not those things give him a competitive advantage is pretty much moot. I don't even see where his methods are much of a competitve advantage.

The parts that bother me are the ones that are general in nature, i.e. the uploading of images to a network server, the cataloging of images by identifying data (if you catalog your images by the date and time they were taken, he's got you.) the finding and displaying of images and finally the ordering. I have a sneaking suspicion that if these are not already covered by some other protection, he now owns those processes because he would be the first one to get a patent with these items included in it. You don't get a patent by being the first one to do something, you get it by being the first with proof and the first to file.

Is this a cause for panic? No, but if you are an event photographer that does anything similar, you should be speaking with an attorney just to make sure your butt is covered. There is such a thing as a partial infringement.

We have already heard of at least one event organizer preventing a guy from covering an event because of the fear the possibility of a law suit from Mr. Wolf. There may be nothing to fear, but unless you can prove this to the organizer, they may just cut you off. Having your lawyer provide bullet points showing that this doesn't affect you could be the difference between working and not working.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Norm Cabana, Photographer
Milpitas | CA | USA | Posted: 1:49 AM on 01.13.06
->> Oh, by the way. This isn't a patent application. He has an approved and issued patent. He's not supposing or trying or thinking about anything. He has done it. He owns this process and he can prevent you from using HIS process! It is just like a copyright.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer, Photo Editor
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 6:43 AM on 01.13.06
->> Here's the danger:

2. Associating identifying data with each photograph taken where the identifying data is AT LEAST ONE of the following:

a. A number corresponding to a number worn by a participant (, i.e. a bib number)
b. A participants name
c. A code acquired from a component worn by a participant
d. A date and time, including hour and minute the photograph was taken (automatically included in the EXIF data for digital images taken with today's equipment)


"at least one" allows him to claim "d" ONLY is also covered, which basically means any digital photo. This is hooey...this guy didn't invent THAT process. Every digital event photographer does this.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Scheuern, Photographer
Grand Blanc | MI | USA | Posted: 7:45 AM on 01.13.06
->> Exactly, it's the "AT LEAST ONE" that makes it ridiculously general. This patent apparently covers cases where you ask the person their name, write it down, and then offer a picture for sale on Printroom or whatever, or, like Chuck said, the camera records the date and time. Coming up with some whiz-bang scheme with transponders and such is (maybe) one thing but he's pretty much patented anything any event photographer would normally do.

Mark
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jack Howard, Photographer
Somerville | NJ | USA | Posted: 12:29 PM on 01.13.06
->> So, just out of curiosity, is this Peter Wolf fellow paying a royalty to Al Gore, since Al Gore invented the internet?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (3) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mitchell Clinton, Photographer
Carlsbad | CA | USA | Posted: 1:45 PM on 01.13.06
->> I've got a patent on the wearing of clothing while taking event photos! So all you guys and girls... STRIP!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (3) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jason Jenkins, Photographer
Las Vegas | NV | USA | Posted: 2:17 PM on 01.13.06
->> "->> I've got a patent on the wearing of clothing while taking event photos! So all you guys and girls... STRIP!"

I really do not think that that is in your best interest.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (1) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jim Comeau, Student/Intern, Photographer
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 2:37 PM on 01.13.06
->> screw that, I'm going to register millions of photographs that are only 1 pixel. Each photograph will have a different shade. Have a 12 megapixel camera? hah thats 12 million instances of copyright infringement. I'm joking by the way.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Smith, Photographer
Elk City | OK | USA | Posted: 3:43 PM on 01.13.06
->> I'd advise ignoring Michell's post, there seems to be a legal precedent that does not bode well for photography in the buff.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/29/d8dhlgqo0.html
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Matthew Bush, Student/Intern, Photographer
Ellisville | MS | USA | Posted: 5:58 PM on 01.13.06
->> Hey I may be wrong, but maybe its a program similar to the system Disney used last year as a pilot program at some of there parks, I read about because it was part of there advanced photojournalism internship, supposedly it was called leave your camera at home or something like that, and your family was giving uniquely colored id badges to be worn in plain site. Then photographers were dispatched to key areas of the park, and would shoot candid photos, the images were then uploaded and the program then compiled the images of that family into a folder and made a web site. It seemed really cool, I didn't attend the Internship so it may have all been propaganda but just something to think about.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Manning, Photographer
Orlando | FL | | Posted: 7:24 AM on 01.14.06
->> Matthew.... That wasnt an advanced PJ internship at Disney, in actuallity it was just people doing theme-park photography, meet & greet, grip and grins. Candid photos were frowned upon.

As for Disney's system, (Called Photopass) all they do is basically tag images so they match up with a barcoded card that they give you and people can view them online after they get home.

You did good to skip the propaganda and avoid that sort of internship.....
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Wayne Short, Photographer
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 8:57 PM on 01.17.06
->> Just an update.

I have a friend that owns an event photography business in So Cal that received a letter today via registered mail from the patent holder requesting a licensing fee. In a nutshell, he states that the patent is for the process of shooting and posting event images for sell online.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Norm Cabana, Photographer
Milpitas | CA | USA | Posted: 9:24 PM on 01.17.06
->> Thus it starts! I am so glad that I stopped selling photos over the web three years ago!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Osamu Chiba, Photographer
Vista | CA | U.S.A. | Posted: 9:58 PM on 01.17.06
->> Wayne,

Did your friend tell you how much the license fee is?

O
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Wayne Short, Photographer
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 10:45 PM on 01.17.06
->> Osamu - I sent you an email.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Les Stukenberg, Photographer, Photo Editor
Prescott | AZ | USA | Posted: 11:07 PM on 01.17.06
->> Wayne,
How about sharing a little more information with the rest of us. I'd like to know what types of events your friend shoots and how he sells online and yes also the amount of the licensing fee...

Les
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Wayne Short, Photographer
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 12:10 AM on 01.18.06
->> Les & Everyone,

I'm sorry for being so vague about the details, but the person that I know is not a member here, and I would prefer not too go into the details of his letter without him having a way to respond to questions.

In retrospect, I should have probably just kept quiet. I'm sure there are many members here that will be affected by this, and will go into more detail in the near future.

I hope everyone understands my reason for not giving specifics.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jody Gomez, Photographer
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 10:53 PM on 01.20.06
->> I read the patent in it's entirety (was sent to me by a SS.com member earlier today). My first thought was akin to what I said earlier about it being some sort of software, or a device that automatically assigns identifying information to the photograph. However, I now think this guy patented the common-knowledge process of displaying our photos for sale online. How can someone do this legally? If that's the case, I'm going to patent the process by which my alarm clock wakes me each morning and I throw back the covers and get out of bed.

If you can't copyright an idea, how can you patent a method?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jody Gomez, Photographer
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 10:57 PM on 01.20.06
->> Oh yeah, has anyone called this guy and asked him what this is all about?

If not, I will if you want me to.

Jody
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Norm Cabana, Photographer
Milpitas | CA | USA | Posted: 11:05 PM on 01.20.06
->> Jody,

Just go here:

http://forums.robgalbraith.com/showflat.php?cat=0&number=394529&an=0&page=0...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jody Gomez, Photographer
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 11:15 PM on 01.20.06
->> You know, another thought...weren't all the amusement parks (Disneyland, Magic Mountain, Knott's Berry Farm) the first ones to do this sort of photo taking/displaying/selling thing?

I remember as a kid going on a roller coaster then going back later and finding the photo of my friends and me just before the big drop, and they were sorted by time...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 2:03 PM on 01.21.06
->> Jody:
You can legally apply for a patent for any process as long as it is unique and novel. The USPTO does cursory research before approving or denying patents. In this case I don't believe they did their job, but that could be because during the process Mr. Wolfe did not provide information that would have led to the denial of his patent.

At any rate you might read this article to help understand the process:
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectid/c2dbff26-7097-4b7b-ae36da00499851e.../
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
Washington, DC & Seattle | WA | US | Posted: 2:09 PM on 01.21.06
->> from nolo.com

"What happens if a competing business claims that it was already using the particular method that is the subject of a patent application? If Business A files for a business method patent, but Business B can show that it was using the method publicly more than a year prior to the filing, Business B can thwart the patent application or, if necessary, invalidate the patent later. The key is that Business B's use of the method must have been public. If Business B used the method confidentially, the patent will be issued to Business A. However, under a 1999 amendment to the patent law, if Business B used the method confidentially before Business A filed for a patent, it can continue using the method without liability for infringement."
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

TD Paulius, Photographer
Orland Park | IL | USA | Posted: 3:52 PM on 01.24.06
->> This is an interesting thread and deserving of some comment and keep in mind that what follows is not legal advice, but is more words to the wise. Keep in mind that all comments on this board are publicly accessible.

The patentee, Peter Wolf, who filed his patent application on August 17, 2000. That means that if you want to dig up prior art to invalidate his patent claims, you must go back to August 16, 1999. Who doing event photography on that date or earlier was using the process set forth in his claim, namely, shooting the event and associating identifying data such as a number, a name, a code and time the shoot was taken and then cataloging it? If someone was doing it, then some or all of the claims would be held invalid. It seems to me that a number of marathon shooters may have been using such a system in the relevant time frame.

Wolf has obtained process claims, commonly referred to as “method” claim, and most of you have all read about business method patents. In order to infringe, one must, in a competing process, utilize each and every element (or its equivalent) called for in claim 1. Wolf also spent 5.4 years prosecuting his application before the US Patent Office, and in doing so, filed what are known as amendments to his claims and also supplied other, rather interesting supporting documentation as evidence of the patentability of his claims. Every time a patentee makes an amendment to his claims, he also submits arguments to the Patent Office and every claim amendment and every argument then may be subsequently used against him. Wolf filed many amendments and made arguments with each submittal so that a good patent should be able to sift through the file of this patent and with proper interpretation, wisely guide his client to avoid infringement of it. That is one of the benefits of the patent system.

On the surface, it appears his claims are directed to a process, wherein he uniquely identifies a participant in an event and carries that identifier through to the cataloging and posting aspect of his shoot. If so, it appears as if he assigns a certain indentifier, such as 9904A to player wearing No. 72, and 9905A to player 66, and 9906A to player 52, etc. Later that index number is catalogued so that an event participant can look himself up on a website rather than page through 300-400 images of a football game to thousands of marathon images. The cataloging of the index number may have been patentable as of August 1999, and so he is deserving of a patent.

However, what may be troubling is the possible interpretation of his claims (claim interpretation is a process in patent law that is difficult and long and requires a separate court hearing known as a “Markman” hearing to determine what his claims actually cover as properly construed) to cover a system that many may use, such as shoot an event and then manually go through all of the images and separate them into separate folders, albums, galleries, etc. so a participant can go directly to his or her (or player’s) pictures. If such broad interpretation of the claims is permitted, it indeed could be problematic for event shooters that break down the event into discrete components, each of which contains images of one particpant.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Ed J. Szalajeski, Photographer
Portland | ME | USA | Posted: 4:20 PM on 01.24.06
->> Do you think he could make a claim against a PhotoShelter type of business sorting of images?

Searchable through specific means, such as a game or player name?

EJS
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

William Jurasz, Photographer, Assistant
Cedar Park | TX | USA | Posted: 5:16 PM on 01.24.06
->> Quote: The cataloging of the index number may have been patentable as of August 1999, and so he is deserving of a patent.

There is nothing inherintly patentable about identifying people, such as by their bib number, race car number, jersey number, etc. so they can be searched. This is called "obvious", and obvious things are not patentable. The entire PURPOSE of that bib number, car number or whatever is precisely to identify something. Another problem with this patent is it is just too freakin' broad.

Part of his claim involves items that are simple data base stuff and could be readily duplicated using SQL commands. Any idea how long SQL has been around? Certainly before 1999. Thus prior art for that part of the claim.

His mathematical formulas listed as simple Classical Newtonian physics that any high school physics student should be able to derive. For that matter any math student. Remember the "one train is travelling east at 60mph, the other is travelling west at 50 mph" problems we all loved?

Tagging images by date/time: prior art. Date back film cameras did this, as did APS cameras, as do all digital cameras. Nothing to patent there.

Tagging images by bib number: obvious. Only patentable thing might be special software to "see" the identifying number through character recognition, etc. Now that would be a cool and useful trick (except that he has not invented character recognition, so I guess that is out as well). But if I look at my images manually and manually apply a tag in iVMP to the metadata that corresponds to the race car number that is not patentable.

His patent would also seem to cover the system Disney World uses to photograph riders on a roller coaster and allow them to quickly find their photo. And Disney has been doing that long before 1999. Again, prior art for part of the patent.

Quote: wherein he uniquely identifies a participant in an event and carries that identifier through to the cataloging and posting aspect of his shoot.

Which sounds exactly the way any manufacturer catalogs the products he makes so that customers can then purchase his widgets. Again, prior art. Peter just applies it to photos instead of widgets. Yawn.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Osamu Chiba, Photographer
Vista | CA | USA | Posted: 2:14 PM on 11.22.06
->> So..., 2 days ago I got an e-mail from Mr. PhotoCrazy, which simply contains this link:

http://www.photocrazy.com/promo/whylicensehtml.html

I've already read those patents and some threads about them here SS.com. I'm not using his great "invention" (yeah, right), which calculates what time an athlete goes by a photographer. But like so many other
photographers, I do sort images and sell prints online, and I understand this is part of his claims.

It's been a while since this was discussed here, and I'd like to know what's going on now.

Anyone got the same e-mail from him? If so, how did you deal with him?

O
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 1:38 PM on 11.26.06
->> I don't do this kind of work but I love the link to photocrazy...check out the timeline BREAKTHROUGH TECHNOLOGY--PATENT PENDING--2010 !! wow this dude can see the future..........he should really invest in the stock market or something else...maybe buy a winning lottery ticket, since he MUST know the numbers already. I mean he's already got a patent pending on something that isn't invented yet according to his graph...shhheeeeeesh!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jody Gomez, Photographer
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 2:13 PM on 11.26.06
->> Here's what the IAPEP's attorneys have to say about it:

http://www.iapep.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3429

Jody
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]



Return to --> Message Board Main Index
No ticket for the World Series? World without a ticket ::..