Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The patent is specific to a certain light setup.  While many of us use a similar setup, we don't necessarily use the EXACT same setup.  Quite frankly, it's just a bunch of noise that makes no difference to 99.9% of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What utter nonsense.

 

I agree totally with the quote in the article:

 

"Sometimes I feel that the patent system is a common sense–free zone"

 

What next, patenting naturally occuring organisms-or-part-thereof? . . . oh . . . ummm . . .

 

dd

Edited by dustydingo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Patents used to have to be "non obvious" and novel to someone "skilled in the art" - there seems little attention paid to "prior art" these days until it comes up in court at least.

 

And they have patented the genome for various natural life forms and I think disocvered creatures/ plants/bacteria. Patents also used to be for invention not discovery.

Edited by Martin P Wilson
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's no concern. It exists to stop former employees replicating Amazon's standard studio if they want to set up a rival warehouse/online sales system. It is so specific you would have to be a very bad photographer, or still using Fuji S5 cameras, to copy it by mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that this was done to protect the unique appearance of their images and to avoid ex employees replicating the presentation for commercial gain. More money than sense springs to mind. 

 

 

dov

Link to post
Share on other sites

Righty-o - don't know what happened but I thought I had posted a response to Martin (quoting parts) but it doesn't seem to have shown up....hmmm.  Upshot was that, yes, patents still do have to be novel and inventive (non-obvious) but that the changes over the prior art can often be quite nuanced.  Claim 1, which is usually the broadest claim, is very specific, no doubt to distinguish it from any prior art that was considered.   The more specific the claim, the harder it is to find prior art right on point. But the flip side is, the easier it is to avoid the claim (i.e. not infringe) because generally only one feature needs to be different to avoid infringement.  I think the intriguing thing is, as others have noted, why bother? The only commercial benefit would be asserting against other online retailers, not individual photographers.  Silly patent though.

 

Edited by KerinF
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.