"A system and method for distributing at least one digital photographic image is presented, the system and method comprising at least one capturing device and at least one receiving device disposed in a communicative relation with one another via at least one wireless network. In particular, the capturing device is structured to capture the at least one digital photographic image via, for example, a capture assembly, whereas the receiving device is cooperatively structured to receive the digital photographic image via, for example, the at least one wireless network. In addition, the capturing device(s) and receiving device(s) may be disposed in a selectively paired relationship via one or more common pre-defined pairing criteria. Further, the at least one digital photographic image may be filtered via at least one pre-defined transfer criteria disposed on the capturing device and/or receiving device."
These kind of claims should yield further investigations into the rest of the patents of the companies that have too many patents. Especially if their only source of income is patents. If found that they hold invalid patents to things that have prior "art" or implementations, those specific patents should be revoked.
At the very least the company must show damages to sales or something like that.
The whole patent system in general is a massive drag on innovation and the economy. Sure it's supposed to do the opposite, but that the difference between theory and practice.
The way it is now it's harms technological progress with this sort of nonsense.
I wish there was an organization of non-patent holders (to reduce risks of retaliation) that does nothing but work to find prior art in patent troll portfolios, invalidating them and destroying their business. There are so many obviously shady patents that these trolls hold onto, it should be pretty easy to get the low hanging fruit.
The fee is something like $16K to start either a post-grant or inter partes review, and even if you win you don't get that money back. There's no reward other than being in a more sane industry.
The abstract is irrelevant. It's the claims that matter, especially the top level claims (1 and 4). In this patent they are both about "an image-capturing mobile device", which Shotwell pretty clearly isn't. They stand zero chance of winning this.
the abstract/summary portion of a patent is worthless. It's just a executive summary.
You have to look at the steps.
A patent is a recipe for 'creating' the invention. You do A, and B, and C, and then D, and then furthermore E... etc etc. You have to look at those steps and understand what they mean to see what the actual patent is about.
So if the patent says 'You need to do A, B, C, and D' and Gnome does "A, B, and D", but not C... then Gnome doesn't violate the patent.
Changing the behavior of the application or showing how the application doesn't follow all the steps outlined in the patent is probably the most effective way to 'defeat' a patent.
But regardless it's a frivolous lawsuit that will likely cost Gnome a lot of money and time for no good reason.
> ...a frivolous lawsuit that will likely cost Gnome a lot of money
I would be very surprised if an org like the EFF didn't step in and do a lot of free work. I'd gladly pay into a legal defence fund specifically to ensure that the word on the street is that patent trolls going after open-source developers get taken to the cleaners.
Something changed recently, making the US "first to file". Did that totally eliminate the concept of prior art?
I mean, if you're looking for that, the Viking lander in 1976 did the same thing: transmit a digital image from the capture device, filter and save it at the other end. Even Mariner 4, in 1964 might fit those criteria.
> Something changed recently, making the US "first to file". Did that totally eliminate the concept of prior art?
No, it just removes the question of when an invention happened. Under first to invent, if two similar patents are filed, there is some effort required to determine which was invented first, and gets priority. Under first to file, it's much simpler to determine.
Prior art is still a reason to deny a patent, and patent examiners are still likely to miss it.
Then what exactly does first to file even mean? If you and I both invent something, but I invent it a month after you do and file for a patent first, would it be granted since I'm the first to file, or could you invalidate the claim by showing that there was prior art - specifically, your prior invention of the same thing?
It depends. If I invented it, and kept it to myself, and don't get around to filing a patent until after you; first to file means you get the patent. I may have rights to continue to use the invention as a prior user, but I'm not familiar with the details there.
If I published it before you filed though, that's prior art. Again, I'm not super familiar with details here of if it had to be published for some time or just the day before is fine.
I love this as prior art. The Viking lander was definitely "a mobile device", was wireless and transferred images. I think the only question might be if the "filtering" involved qualifies.
I wonder when we started sending digital images from space. Apollo did not use them but sent analog signals. But I think Voyager used digital images.
Commercial digital TV was first introduced in the US in 1994, also predating this patent. That's fairly well known and widespread, also all of the TVs all of us own and which are part of FCC standards violate this patent.
"A system and method for distributing at least one digital photographic image is presented, the system and method comprising at least one capturing device and at least one receiving device disposed in a communicative relation with one another via at least one wireless network. In particular, the capturing device is structured to capture the at least one digital photographic image via, for example, a capture assembly, whereas the receiving device is cooperatively structured to receive the digital photographic image via, for example, the at least one wireless network. In addition, the capturing device(s) and receiving device(s) may be disposed in a selectively paired relationship via one or more common pre-defined pairing criteria. Further, the at least one digital photographic image may be filtered via at least one pre-defined transfer criteria disposed on the capturing device and/or receiving device."