Upload & Sell: Off
First- I wish you success and hope you will report back to us on your outcome.
Did you research the outcome of the Original Poster of this thread? (just curious)
I assume you have found this site and tried to contact? http://wolfpatents.blogspot.com/
I'll share my thoughts:
I think your argument of invalidating the patents due to lack of "inventive concept" is the best approach. Other ways of saying it would be "existing prior art," "obvious to those skilled in the field or practice" , not novel as it is not materially different from all previous inventions or public domain art (called "prior art") in one or more of its constituent elements. Additionally, a patent only remains valid if it is defended when violated in the public eye (see bottom of this post regarding eBay)
Specifically- he process is so broad, that the is the magical element that does not capture the actual method of associating known data with a specific photo. Had he provided detailed claims for such association and automation, he would likely then have a patent that truly held water (ie: image recognition, rfid, automated db association from registration data etc). His patent simply says "associate."
His patents were issued in 2006. I would discuss with your attorney ways to prove "lack of inventive concept." Think about all the ways things were displayed and sold on the web prior to 2006. Everyone of them had a way to be identified. Hence the individual items could be searched for purchased with globally (internet) or within a given server environment. Each item also often had a photograph or image associated with it for viewing / downloading / purchasing (free) etc.
- Stocks / reports / graphs / charts
- Retail consumer or industrial items
- Auctions (ebay, auction houses, etc)
- Media sites (for-sale advertisements, services, media content (entertainment, security, journalistic etc)
Everything was cataloged / tagged / filed such that it was searchable by some known piece or pieces of data.
What makes applying:
a- known db association methods (labels, fields, tags, descriptions)
b- known search methods (engine / db / query)
Inventive in and of itself?
The fact that they are photographs should not matter as they represent a widget with visual content item for sale that has been cataloged. The fact that they are tied to a sports event is not materially different than any other identifying piece of individual data. (this has nothing to do with the challenge of the act of associating the data to the object, however, this is not addressed in the patent).
Find anything that was sold on EBAY that was an image / poster / photograph before 2006 and I think you prove. It becomes more of a slam-dunk if that image is from a sporting event.
Find a friend or subpoena Ebay for past completed Auctions prior to 2006. Enter search term(s) Michael Jordan Photo and I bet you will have it made!!! In face, do it with today's actions (http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&LH_Complete=1&_nkw=photo+michael+jordan&_sop=14 ). Part of a Patent maintenance (preservation of rights), I believe is related to defending it against infringors. IF PhotoCrazy has not sued Ebay, you might have an angle with this too.