Amazon granted patent for taking photos against a white background

[Felya]

To patent troll other online product distributors by suing them for using absurdly common professional methods of photographing the products.

I've never seen a device that does that... I guess like those photo booth apps, but if it works like that... The feature is not as impressive as I'm thinking...

[Jester Joe]

After the patent for "multi touch gestures" a certain company filed, this one actually seems pretty sane.

Definitely more sane than trying to patent "Candy" and "Saga". Not point any fingers or anything.

Maybe Amazon took advantage of this situation and knew people would deem it more sane?

[Gheld]

I've never seen a device that does that... I guess like those photo booth apps, but if it works like that... The feature is not as impressive as I'm thinking...

The patent in the OP isn't for a device. It's for a photo studio setup. Which is bullshit. Of course people who have a photo studio set up for a specific purpose are all going to have similar setups based on what works the best.

[Kujako]

Definitely more sane than trying to patent "Candy" and "Saga".

They trademarked "candy", which while despicable is not a patent.

[Gheld]

Oh, after some further number crunching.
They talk about an 85mm lens, with an Fstop of 5.6. Which at 6 feet gives you a Depth of Field of almost exactly 6" (0.49ft)
Which is coincidentally close to say if you had a cheaper APS-C DSLR Camera (as opposed to full format), and took the photo from 6 feet away with a 50mm portrait lens (Which gives you the equivalent focal length of 80mm, and a depth of field of 0.56ft. With a seemingly blank white background it would actually be impossible to determine how far the depth of field goes beyond the object itself.

This would basically give them grounds to "believe" that any photo of an object less than 6" deep that is fully in focus in front of a blank white background violates their patent.

So in other words every product photo on every product distribution website that does or will exist.

Like I said. The ONLY purpose of this patent is patent trolling.

[EventHorizon]

Screw you if you need a passport photo and look like an inanimate object.

Seriously though... it's a patent on that specific picture taking method which makes an object look like it's floating, and all the technical aspects behind it...

[Felya]

This would basically give them grounds to "believe" that any photo of an object less than 6" deep that is fully in focus in front of a blank white background violates their patent.

So in other words every product photo on every product distribution website that does or will exist.

Like I said. The ONLY purpose of this patent is patent trolling.

The way you tell is not by the picture, but the technology they used to take take the picture. This isn't trolling for pictures with white backgrounds, but as you called it 'photo studio setup'. The picture wouldn't be cause for patent infringement, but the set up used. In the case of Amazon, that set up is most likely a feature set for the Kindle. Amazon does not run photo studios...

[Gheld]

Seriously though... it's a patent on that specific picture taking method which makes an object look like it's floating, and all the technical aspects behind it...

Like I said. Those technical aspects make it impossible to discern whether or not their patent was in fact violated. Which gives their legal department the green light to bombard any website with a fully focused object in front of a white background with cease and desist letters (and demands for money).

[Felya]

Like I said. Those technical aspects make it impossible to discern whether or not their patent was in fact violated. Which gives their legal department the green light to bombard any website with a fully focused object in front of a white background with cease and desist letters (and demands for money).

Those technical specs is what defines the patent. It doesn't let them do that, unless the patented specs are used. This isn't like the patent that nuked Blackberries, which was a spec-less, broad patent for secure email over mobile devices.

[Deleted]

Good thing the rest of the world rarely cares about US patents.

I wonder if it would be breaking this particular patent to you take a picture of an object against an otherwise white background except for a faint text in it saying "Fuck you, Amazon."

[Gheld]

Those technical specs is what defines the patent. It doesn't let them do that, unless the patented specs are used. This isn't like the patent that nuked Blackberries, which was a spec-less, broad patent for secure email over mobile devices.

Patent trolling doesn't depend on the validity of the patent or whether or not people actually violate it.

My sister in law for example sells crafts online on her own website. She photographs her stuff in front of a white background with an APS-C camera using a 50mm portrait lens. The photos on her website can , in good faith, be mistaken to use the process Amazon just patented.

So they can legally harass her. If her skin isn't thick enough she might cave.

[Felya]

Patent trolling doesn't depend on the validity of the patent or whether or not people actually violate it.

My sister in law for example sells crafts online on her own website. She photographs her stuff in front of a white background with an APS-C camera using a 50mm portrait lens. The photos on her website can , in good faith, be mistaken to use the process Amazon just patented.

So they can legally harass her. If her skin isn't thick enough she might cave.

The bold part is why specs are listed. They can't legally harass her...

[Novx]

I love when people read a thread title and nothing else and just ramble on like incoherent idiots. They did not patent the action of taking a photo on a white background, the OP just phrased it horribly or doesn't understand what he actually read.

[Deleted]

I love when people read a thread title and nothing else and just ramble on like incoherent idiots. They did not patent the action of taking a photo on a white background, the OP just phrased it horribly or doesn't understand what he actually read.

Well, in all fairness, all pertinent information should be in the post. Expecting people to click on links is asinine at best.

[Felya]

Well, in all fairness, all pertinent information should be in the post. Expecting people to click on links is asinine at best.

There are a lot of very broad and over extending patents that deserve the sensationalism of this thread. I just don't see this as one of them... I actually think it sounds cool if they can pull it off... I'd set my sites on medicine, if I were to make a thread about how shitty patents are.

[Jester Joe]

They trademarked "candy", which while despicable is not a patent.

Yes, that's right, slip of the terms. They did try for Saga though too, because they were harassing some other company about their Viking Saga game I believe.

Still silly compared to this though.

[Deleted]

There are a lot of very broad and over extending patents that deserve the sensationalism of this thread. I just don't see this as one of them... I actually think it sounds cool if they can pull it off... I'd set my sites on medicine, if I were to make a thread about how shitty patents are.

You're not supposed to patent an existing, widely used thing. That's just greed and nothing else.

Patents are supposed to go to innovations and things invented by you yourself. I have a very hard time believing this is a thing invented by Amazon.

This shit is no different from me walking to a patent office and patenting a selfie. Guess what world? You're no longer allowed to hold a camera in one hand pointing back at yourself and snap a picture. Have a nice day.

[Felya]

You're not supposed to patent an existing, widely used thing. That's just greed and nothing else.

Patents are supposed to go to innovations and things invented by you yourself. I have a very hard time believing this is a thing invented by Amazon.

Confirmation bias and all that, but I've never seen it and it seems like you have not either.

This shit is no different from me walking to a patent office and patenting a selfie. Guess what world? You're no longer allowed to hold a camera in one hand pointing back at yourself and snap a picture. Have a nice day.

No it's not. If I believed that I could patent what you are describing, I'd do it already...

[Novx]

You're not supposed to patent an existing, widely used thing. That's just greed and nothing else.

Patents are supposed to go to innovations and things invented by you yourself. I have a very hard time believing this is a thing invented by Amazon.

This shit is no different from me walking to a patent office and patenting a selfie. Guess what world? You're no longer allowed to hold a camera in one hand pointing back at yourself and snap a picture. Have a nice day.

Congrats, you managed to read a biased thread title and nothing else about what they actually patented.

[Deleted]

Confirmation bias and all that, but I've never seen it and it seems like you have not either.

In code, there's only one way to write a specific thing and make it as pure as possible. Similarly, in taking a picture, drawing a picture, and such, there's only one way to create it as purely as possible, if you're aiming to do a specific thing. Taking away that method with a patent is really no different than saying you can't write your if else statement like that.

Congrats, you managed to read a biased thread title and nothing else about what they actually patented.

Like I said already, expecting people to click on links is asinine. The post should contain the pertinent information. Blame the OP, then.