Would the invention be obvious, given prior art, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains?
Yes, as far as I can tell. A photographer would not find the invention functionally different than what they probably already do. I suspect Amazon would claim that their specific camera settings (lens size, ISO, aperture, etc.) are non-obvious, but it's not clear how those specific settings are useful.
I suspect that this patent would be easily rejected in Europe because it does not contain an inventive step.
Why then would Amazon file such a patent? Surely they don't expect to be able to enforce it? It's a horrendously limited patent because to infringe you'd have to use very similar camera settings. Much of the web falsely believes that Amazon can now sue all photographers, but I am grateful for the knowledge I learned from class, which makes it clear that the patent is not at all broad.
All in all, a bizarre patent. It's not clear why Amazon would want such a patent if not to inflate the number of patents it owns and it's strange that the examiner let the patent be granted. Presumably Amazon wants to protect the way it takes product photos, but this patent looks like overkill.
Steven Colbert has mocked the patent on The Colbert Report.
Wow, that is so interesting that Amazon decided to file suggest a strange patent. What's even more strange is that it was granted through the courts. I understand that maybe the specifics of how their photographs were taken is part of the brand image of the company but I don't understand why it's so important to amazon as it is not a core value of the company and that it isn't that obvious of a difference. Like you said, the inventive step also seems to be missing in the patent, I'm not sure at all what nonobvious function this achieves. It just seems silly!
ReplyDelete