Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

Sports Corner Rules
Sports Corner Resource
  

FM Forums | Sports Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              6      
7
       8       end
  

Archive 2011 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent
  
 
Methodical
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #1 · p.7 #1 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


David vs Goliath


Oct 30, 2014 at 10:36 PM
Focus Locus
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #2 · p.7 #2 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


Soon after filing his patent, Peter Wolf joined some photography forums, and announced that his company was posting pictures on what he called the "WEB". In one of his earliest posts, around January of 2001, he capitalized the term "WEB" at every instance he mentioned, as if the "WEB" was a big new deal, in . Not. The world wide web had been established for 10 years by that time. And the internet? Long before that. I received my first email in 1981. The internet, and the world wide web moniker, metastasized into a household noun between 1992-1996.

Peter Wolf, on February 28, 2001, admitted that he didn't even pick up a camera (or start photography) until 1998.

Not surprisingly, Peter's braggadocio posts regarding his hosting images online were for the most part ignored as ho hum, also ran. At that time, he was trying to solicit the business of other photographers to host their pictures on his photocrazy website, and to use his "software." But the photographers didn't bite. Why? Because there were plenty of more established alternatives (prior art) already in existence to publish pictures for inspection, selection, and distribution online.

While many of those previously established software and hosting solutions have long since shuttered over the years, in what we can all agree is a difficult business to survive in, here is a brief look down memory lane for the those who might remember:

KODAK (who can forget Kodak?)

Kodak had several products directed toward helping event photographers publish pictures for inspection, selection, and distribution.

- Kodak's PC EVENT system
- Kodak's PC PRO system
- Kodak's PORTRAITS & MORE system (a derivative of PC EVENT)
- Kodak's PRO SHOTS (the domain "PRO SHOTS" is now owned by another party unrelated to Kodak)

In addition, Kodak pioneered digital photography (and their own demise) with ground breaking cameras such as the DC2000, the NC2000, the DCS520, DCS620, DCS720, DCS760. And, Kodak supplied the event photography community printers, including the ever popular high volume ML-500.

Beyond what was available over the counter, Kodak helped develop embedded proprietary systems for one of the largest event photography operations in the world.... Disney. At Disney theme parks and properties, there had already been a system for taking pictures of guests, and publishing those pictures for inspection, selection, and distribution over a computer network... even when that network was only a LAN and/or a WLAN extending from the ride/photographer location to the other side of the Disney themepark where the customer viewing, ordering, and printing offices were located. However, Kodak also hosted these photos online (yes, on the "WEB") for customer inspection, ordering, and most important to Kodak... printing.

Over the last 20 years, Disney has greatly revised and expanded their methods of publishing pictures for selection, inspection, and distribution over a computer network, by linking all of their theme parks worldwide over the internet, and linking the customer ID to the "Magic" bracelet worn by entrants to their properties.

It is interesting to note that Wolf didn't try to go after Disney, but instead chose to selectively attack smaller event photography entities who were significant enough to produce meaningful licensing revenue, and yet too small for the math of litigation to pencil out. It is my opinion that had he attempted to sue Disney in the first place, he himself would have been buried in prosecutorial legal fees that would exceed any realistic risk/reward ratio of a contingency fee agreement.

For those who read the recent summary judgement, you may have noticed where the judge pointed out that Wolf's pleadings tried to emphasize the limitation in the scope of his patent to just sporting events, in order meet a legal test to prevail against Capstone's rebuttal of the alleged infringement. Yet all over Wolf's website, and in his certified letters (a verbatim copy of which is posted above), and in his cryptically veiled posts on this forum, and even in the summary abstract of the patent itself, Wolf attempts to imply a broader scope of patent coverage, encompassing the entirety of event photography. But in front of a judge, it's a down to the brass tacks. Just sports. OK. But Disney still hosts a very active onsite/online sports event photography business at Disneyworld, where event photographers shoot youth sports competition pictures, and publish those pictures for inspection, selection, and distribution over a computer network, both online and onsite. Yet Disney was not targeted. Hmmm

On with more prior art...


TRIPRISM SOFTWARE

Still in business today, Tri-Prism began in 1993. It's fame in the event photography online solutions market lies in one of it's long time flagship products called TEPS-X. The suffix "X" has changed over the years since TEPS was first released in 1998... well prior to Peter's filing. At the time Peter surfaced online, TriPrism's then current revision was called TEPS-2000. Photographers like Roger Wilderotter used this system happily.


CERIOUS SOFTWARE

Cerious software introduced "Digicam" in 1992, and the more popular " THUMBSPLUS " aka " THUMBS+ " software in 1994. Thumbsplus was an image database sorting program that used Microsoft Database Access Components (MDACs). To any extent that Wolf took credit for using database tag techniques for resorting images online, he will find that others have been there, done that, years before Wolf even took up photography. Search ThumbsPlus and Philip Crews for more information.


ACDSEE

ACDSee was an immensely popular event photography software solution.


BREEZE SYSTEMS

Chris Breeze established what became Breeze Systems in the 90's, writing software tools that help digital event sports photographers browze and sort through the high volumes of image data endemic to our industry. His most popular product, Breeze Browser, is still sold today, but he had other more specific niche products that were less known, but were adopted to publish images for inspection, selections, and distribution over a computer network.


SNAPSYNC

An event photography sorting identification software product developed by Giant Leap Solutions for Multi Visual Products (aka MVP), one of the largest youth sports trading card photo companies, established in 1993, and greatly expanded in 1996.


VIVIDOT

Today, "Vivi Dot" is a small fashion accessories button maker. But back in the day, VIVIDOT was an event photography system that involved issuing an identifying tag to each participant at an event, where these participants could be shot at random times by random photographers, and yet the images would still be sorted for the participant to easily find online following the conclusion of the event. The system was demonstrated by Canon at a public event, and became the subject of a broadcast TV news segment that is still visible on YouTube. In that instance, the identifying tag was a small label adhered to the outer garment of the participant.

Besides VIVIDOT, there were other iterations of this automated sorting and selecting of images of thousands of participants at events, like autoshows, for example. In the autoshows, participants whose photo was taken were given a bar coded piece of plastic the size of a credit card. They would simply have to go the website address on the card, and enter the number, and voila, all of their pictures would appear. The implementations of these types of systems that I have seen have been since model year 2000... however there may have been earlier deployments, due to the depth of development already in place by the time I saw them. These things don't spring up over night.


EXPRESS DIGITAL

An early pioneer in streamlining the digital picture taking, editing, selecting, and producing processes, Express Digital was the defacto standard for independent (and independently wealthy) event photographers at the flowering of the digital event photography phenomenon. I say "independently wealthy" because ED was expensive, at $4,000 per license, with additional fees charged for each "dongle" plugged into subsequent computers to expand the system.

The high acquisition costs of ED is probably responsible for inspiring the explosion of alternative event photography software solutions that IT techs turned photographers, and photographers turned IT techs, turned to. The line was blurring between the two professions, creating newly minted freshmen in both fields, much to the consternation of long time professionals in either field.

From Express Digital was associated with the photo hosting and sales site

PHOTOREFLECT

On this note, I just realized that to write details about every single player in the online image hosting and posting photography field is way beyond the scope of necessity at this point. But I am going to post a host of names, most of which are now out of business, but who were actively in business in the very late 90's, as the mirage of a business opportunity in event photography self presented itself to everyone interested in the endeavor. The sheer number of players who saw these opportunities with equal simultaneity as the enabling technology and expansion of infrastructure rapidly evolved, as did the obvious means and methods available at the time to capitalize on them, is a strong indicator of how little Wolf even contributed to the art, much less "revolutionized", as his letter claimed.

Even Wolf himself publicly stated, over 13 years ago, that he "found many services that will allow (sports event photographers) to post pictures (online) and if you want, take care of the fulfillment process as well." The context was a post where Peter was trying engage the interests of other event photographers to use his photocrazy website to host their pictures, instead of the other established services that he "found", because he felt his was better.

Many of the domain names listed below are now parked awaiting resale, and some have been resold and repurposed for new endeavors. And a couple here and there might still be active in their original form. However, the purpose of this list of event photography online picture presentation software, hosting, and business names below is to serve as a discovery index to many of the established entities already engaged in the business of publishing pictures for inspection, selection, and distribution over a computer network, prior to 1999.

So here is the rest of the trip down memory lane. By all means, if you remember using any of these legacy event photography software programs or online hosting services listed below at any point in your career, post a few comments about it. Combined with an entirely different list of prior artisans that I posted several pages ago in this thread, It will serve the greater good of our sports event photographic community at large if the prior arts are better excavated from your personal experiences and memories... as many of them otherwise lay well buried in the tombs of dissolved domain businesses that were based on unviable digital dreams reminiscent of the Gold Rush.

ORDERPICTURES (since 1996, used lab counter software to extract EXIF data. Still in business)
QIMAGE (since 1998)
MOREPHOTOS
PROEVENTLAB
EVENTFOCUS
CLUBPHOTO (later became DIGIPROOFS)
EPROOFS
PHOTOACCESS
DOTPHOTO
PHOTOZONE
FOTANGO
PICKEEPER
SPORTSSHOT
SPORTZSHOTZ
SHOOTANDSHARE
SHOOTINGSTARSSPORTPHOTO
ARLES (image web page creator)
EVENTSLITE (software)
IMATCH (image sorting software)
PHOTOGRAFIC (an equestrian photo website)
EVERYBODYSMILE.CO.UK (just one UK site, there were many, but not listed due to jurisdiction of US patent)

Some sports event photographer websites back in the day (1999 and prior)

PROMOTIONPHOTO Cecil Walker
ACTION-FOTOS Bob Branam
PODIUMFOTOS Doug Sheppard
HEADONPHOTOS Norm Cabana (passed away in 2008), sorted photos by car number
THESPORTSECTION Ken Brooke (since 1996)
SETHRESNICK (need more be said?)
SPORTSACTIONPHOTS Gregory Rice
ACTIONPIXS Robert Longhitano
CYCLINGPHOTOS Jeff
ICONPHOTOGRAPHICS Jaime Wright
RAPIDSHOOTERS (since 1985, owner deceased)

Some other sports event photographers who reported having active websites prior to 1999...

Mark Lumaye (since 1993, but didn't post online until June 1999)
Joe Starkey (since 1998, shoots marathons)
Norbert Bissinger
Gene Sowell
Pete Halsted
Tom Robinson
Bill Dewey
Robert Cummings
Tim Chipman
Delane B Rouse (popular and active Sportsshooter member, see his profile for CV)


One must step back into the time frame of the late nineties, when the idea of photos on the net was still met with resistance from those harboring concerns for participant privacy and photographer copyright. It was a bigger deal then, and photographers especially faced a lot of risk and resistance. Parents would demand that their kids be taken down. NCAA athletic directors would demand that their athletes be taken down (affected eligibility rules newly enacted in 1999... why? Perhaps because photographers where hosting and posting photos in 1998).

Of course, in the meantime, beginning in 1995, Getty and Corbis were simultaneously swallowing up sport stock agencies, and publishing their newly conglomerated image vaults for inspection, selection, and distribution online.

Looks like the central ideas involved here were obvious to a lot of people. Only some gained more out of them than others. Think about all the photos that were hosted by GEOCITIES (not specifically for photographers, GeoCities is where everyday man practiced the art of posting pics)

Another historical resource that doesn't specifically predate 1999, but evolved at the same time:

EVENTPHOTOMARKET Jim Roshan, who also started
IAPEP (International Association of Professional Event Photographers) which later evolved to
SEP (Society of Event Photographers) which became subsumed under
PPA

I hope this historical information is of some use in the event that Wolf attempts to double down to mount an of appeal this decision. If he had just left Capstone alone, and not sued anyone else, he could have enjoyed an unchallenged patent that Brightroom and MarathonFoto already signed onto as licensees. But greed has it's cost.

You see, both Brightroom and MarathonFoto were acquired by an investment group that made 14 other strategic event photography related acquisitions to form a group under one roof that generates $100 MILLION in annual sales, servicing over 3,000 event sponsors while shooting over 5 million athlete/participants in over 5,000 distinct events... every year. Not just trivial events either. We are talking New York City Marathon, Boston Marathon, etc etc. Wolf appears to have had a lot to loose. And yet not surprisingly, it appears that Wolf wanted more.

No wonder he was following Michael Skelps posts all over the internet, pleading for Michael to contact him to work things out. If the licensing agreements that Wolf worked out with MarathonFoto and Brightroom (now morphed into BackPrint, the fulfillment arm of the group) are dependent upon his patents being VALID, and now, after their very first court test, these patents were resolutely found to be INVALID, in summary judgement no less... this could be a problem for Wolf, as the invalidation could render the licensing agreements null and void.

And it's about time, too.






Oct 30, 2014 at 10:47 PM
Priusjames
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #3 · p.7 #3 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


This is great news, glad I learned it so soon after the decision.

I imagine there will be a lot less photo and a lot more crazy in this guy's future.

He's alienated pretty much every photographer in the world, as they learn the story. Guess he'll have to find another community to screw over.

I imagine he'll forever be known for being a cyber-bully...perhaps people will start using the term "Wolfed" to describe asking the community for input under dishonest circumstances, and/or people who turn out to be litigious, or in other ways completely offensive.

I'm just sayin'




Oct 31, 2014 at 04:39 PM
Methodical
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #4 · p.7 #4 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


So those other photographers got "Wolfed," while, CapStone "Wolfed" him.


Nov 01, 2014 at 04:25 AM
Focus Locus
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #5 · p.7 #5 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


FightForRight... here is some more "right" you can fight for:

(Adapted from eletronista gadgets for geeks post of 10/14/14)...

Northern District of California Court Judge Claudia Wilken has ruled that Linex Technologies must pay Apple, Aruba, Meru, Ruckus, and HP a total of $18.6 million in attorney fees after relentlessly pursuing a vague and meritless patent claim against them. Apple and HP sought $3.6 million each, while the other three companies sought $3.8 million. The ruling forces patent troll (Linex) to reimburse $18.6 million in defense attorney fees.

In April, the US Supreme Court allowed for "fee shifting" in a revision of the Patent Act. The ruling alllowed for legal fees to be assessed against complainants that have baseless claims from the start, at the discretion of the presiding judge. This ruling is the third ruling in the Northern District of California shifting fees, with claims in three others denied.

Linex is the patent holder for spread spectrum signal communication, which allows higher capacities of data to be transmitted wirelessly over Wi-Fi without interference from other transmissions on nearby frequencies. The initial suit against 15 companies was launched in 2007 in the Eastern District of Texas, notoriously called the "rocket docket" for patent complaints. Linex settled with the original defendants after some issues with the trial, and attempted to widen the scope of its held patents with the US Patent and Trade Office.

The original case specifically targeted the defendants for breaking US patents 6,757,322 and RE 42,219, titled "Space diversity and coding, spectrum antenna and method" and "Multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) spread spectrum system and method," respectively. Offending Apple products named in court documents included the MacBook, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, AirPort Extreme and Time Capsule. The HP products mentioned cover servers, consumer-level PCs and the MediaSmart LCD TV.

Linex then immediately sued Apple, Aruba, Meru, Ruckus, and HP through the International Trade Commission, but dropped that suit following a staff attorney declaring infringement unlikely. Linex then sued in the Northern District of California, where Judge Wilken summarily judged that the patents weren't infringed.

Following this summary judgement, the five tech companies who were sued by Linex then petitioned for attorney fees to cover the expenses for their defense.

As a result of previous failed court ventures with the US patent system, Judge Wilken ruled that "two other fora, the Eastern District of Texas and the ITC, previously decided against Linex," so the company should have known that it could not use the patent claims in such a manner. The judge wrote that "Linex nevertheless continued to press those patent claims against Defendants in the present suit."

The judge declared that "Linex was not free to pursue another case targeting the same technology with impunity. Patent litigation is a burdensome venture for all parties involved." The judge has ordered all five tech companies to "compile an accounting of fees limited to work on these claims, in sufficient detail to satisfy the Ninth Circuit's standard for fee awards" including hourly rate and justifications of same in 14 days.


Something to consider, Mr. Wolf, should you decide to sue someone else.



Nov 12, 2014 at 06:38 PM
Methodical
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #6 · p.7 #6 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


Hey Focus, Maxpreps has a similar system, too. I don't think he would say anything to them as they may not back down from him either.

Edited on Nov 12, 2014 at 09:50 PM · View previous versions



Nov 12, 2014 at 07:57 PM
Ralph Thompson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #7 · p.7 #7 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


MaxPreps doesn't use uniform number to search for a player, we use uniform numbers to tag a player.. There is no search by uniform numbers


Nov 12, 2014 at 09:18 PM
Methodical
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #8 · p.7 #8 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


Ralph Thompson wrote:
MaxPreps doesn't use uniform number to search for a player, we use uniform numbers to tag a player.. There is no search by uniform numbers


Are you sure? Maybe I am misinterpreting Todd's message. How do you read the message below?

Directly from Todd's email.

All,

I wanted to remind everyone that it's VERY important that you spend the time to tag the images (by jersey number) in the galleries you post as this helps greatly for parents/others searching for all the available images of that one athlete to purchase instead of having to go through each gallery to locate them.

It's also important because media clients looking for images of a certain athlete go directly to their player page on the MaxPreps site to see what images we have available to license.

I'm working with Athlon Sports right now on its 2014 high school football preview edition as they plan to license a great number of the photos they publish in it from us as they did last year. The photo editor from Athlon is requesting all the images he is interested in using by going directly to the player pages to see what images are available of each athlete.

I also just recently licensed some images to ESPN The Magazine for an upcoming college football issue as well as some photos to a book publisher and both of them requested the images they wanted to license through the player pages.

If you do not take the time to tag your images then there is a great chance you are missing out on photo sales as well license requests.






Nov 12, 2014 at 09:39 PM
innaeddy1
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #9 · p.7 #9 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


On MP You are not looking up a player by number but by name. Search the name not the number, when Athlon looks for players on MP's site they type the name in not the number, If you dont tag a player then they cant be found.

Andy



Nov 13, 2014 at 03:29 AM
Methodical
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #10 · p.7 #10 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


innaeddy1 wrote:
On MP You are not looking up a player by number but by name. Search the name not the number, when Athlon looks for players on MP's site they type the name in not the number, If you dont tag a player then they cant be found.

Andy


Got it. I'm fairly new to MP and the email message is a bit vague.

Thanks




Nov 13, 2014 at 07:02 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



kzoockof
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #11 · p.7 #11 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


All I have to say is that it is nice when the slime balls of this world get what they deserve. Peter Wolfe, if only one person in this world ever utters a positive comment about your character and your ethics, it will be one too many. I can imagine how proud your kids are of you! Not


Nov 15, 2014 at 03:52 AM
CW100
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #12 · p.7 #12 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


Focus Locus wrote:
FightForRight... here is some more "right" you can fight for:

.

In April, the US Supreme Court allowed for "fee shifting" in a revision of the Patent Act. The ruling alllowed for legal fees to be assessed against complainants that have baseless claims from the start, at the discretion of the presiding judge.
Something to consider, Mr. Wolf, should you decide to sue someone else.


hopefully that will affect some of the frivolous lawsuits




Nov 15, 2014 at 12:06 PM
FightForRight
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #13 · p.7 #13 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


Update: Fighting for Patent Reform Continues
As you probably know, I was the defendant in this ridiculous case. I'm proud to be the one responsible for overturning these weak patents that were used against so many photographers.

This case has become the poster child of what's wrong with our patent system. I have been approached by Application Developer Alliance and United for Patent Reform, and I'm joining the lobbying efforts of those two groups. As part of that coordinated effort, I have written my congressmen (again), and written an Op-Ed piece that will run in Connecticut newspapers next week. Pandora.com will be running pro-patent-reform ads using my name and story.

The House Judiciary Committee has requested my testimony as well. I've filmed a video which will be watched by members of Congress in the near future. Finally, a meeting is being planned between myself and Senator Blumenthal. I hope some good will come of all this so other photographers do not suffer what I had to endure.

If you haven't donated, PLEASE consider making a small donation at www.endpatentabuse.com. This cost $100,000 to defend and to correct a wrong in our industry. We're still reeling from those expenses. Won't you help?

Thank goodness that in the end, our legal system worked. From the bottom of my heart, I thank all of you for your support as we stood up for what's right!



Mar 06, 2015 at 08:20 PM
Trey Neal
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #14 · p.7 #14 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


It seems Peter is still listing his now overturned patents on his website - photocrazy(dot)com/Promo/WhyLicenseHtml.html and on his FAQ page


Mar 06, 2015 at 10:34 PM
femike99
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #15 · p.7 #15 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


http://www.google.com/patents/US7327383

I have several patents in this space while at Kodak. As best I can tell they are now owned by Google.

My patent applications preceded all but one of those granted to Mr. Wolf. Our patent search before application found others' applications, and it was suggested to us by Kodak lawyers that, even if our patents were granted, they'd be difficult to defend in court (it's a different story as to why one would continue to patent even when you have this information).

If you read my patent, and others in this space for that matter, we've essentially tried to patent an interaction with the Internet, thus making the defense of the patent difficult to prove that the "prior art" didn't exist.

We demonstrated these patents at many events from 2001 - 2003 including the 2003 Ironman in Hawaii. In addition, we attended several photo and endurance sports industry conferences in the 2000's pimping the patents and requisite equipment and software bundles.

After I was laid off and started shooting events on my own, I was approached by a couple of people claiming they had patents. Knowing that I knew my work preceded most of the other work, I ignored them.

And though I'm not shooting now, I plan to resume when I retire and expect to get the same emails saying that I will be served! I am likely to ignore then too.

BTW - ignore at your own risk! The problem with patent law is if you're served, at best you have lawyer fees, and at worst you have those fees and more.



Mar 07, 2015 at 11:58 AM
FightForRight
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #16 · p.7 #16 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


Trey Neal, yes, isn't it ironic? It's actually an outrage! But how can that be enforced and by whom? Those links are clearly not going to be removed by his own accord.


Mar 07, 2015 at 03:41 PM
GravelGrinder
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #17 · p.7 #17 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


While I have no concern or compassion for him, I have been hoping for some sort of comment from Peter Wolf in the aftermath of the Court's finding but I have not seen nor heard anything.

I would have thought one of the photo associations, a major blogger or someone would have put together a semi-definitive piece on the ruling.



Mar 08, 2015 at 07:56 PM
FightForRight
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #18 · p.7 #18 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


Aside from the weak patents and how photographers were targeted, there's an equally outrageous facet to this. And that's how large photography players (like Brightroom) and trade associations like PPA and PMA conducted themselves.
You'd like to think that someone would try to defend the industry. Brightroom knew it was in their own best interest to have the active threat of lawsuit in the background. It scared other photographers from using their own in-house solutions and drove them to use Brightroom's Backprint service. Good business sense, right? Surely a contributing factor to why they rolled over on this lawsuit in 2008.
And don't even get me started on PMA and PPA. Again, you would think those guys would stand up for their members and their industry. Did they? Not even remotely? SEP did some half-baked legal analysis and said "Photographers, you'll have to evaluate your own risk in this matter." Thanks a lot. That's a lot of help. I personally contacted every major trade association and photography companies in the country to ask them to BAND TOGETHER. But no one wanted to lift a finger, no one wanted to stand up for the industry. Everyone wanted to stay out of it and stay off the radar.

And so it was left to us, a small, struggling company in small-town Connecticut to fight this. I don't mean to sound bitter, but the lack of support from these organizations was disheartening. I don't know... maybe they wanted us out of business as well. This is one reason I'm publicly appealing for help. We took it on the chin for the ENTIRE photography industry. We were happy to open up free and fair competition, which is good for EVERYONE. So please help me get the word out. Please donate if you can at www.endpatentabuse.com. It's not clear if we'll be able to survive this $100K hit without your help.



Mar 09, 2015 at 01:08 PM
FightForRight
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #19 · p.7 #19 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


Somehow I thought that once the patents were invalidated, this ordeal would be over. However, the patent reform initiatives in Congress have given this case a new meaning. It has become the poster-child for patent abuse, and it's attracting a lot of attention. I have been invited to testify at a House Judiciary Committee meeting in Washington DC in less than two weeks. Congress wants to hear and understand these problems first-hand so that the patent system can be corrected. I ask for your continued support as I advocate for photographers and small businesses who should never be subjected to abuse of our patent system.

www.endpatentabuse.com

... Now to find what to wear to a Congressional hearing. Have a great day everyone.



Mar 12, 2015 at 03:35 PM
gschlact
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #20 · p.7 #20 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent


Do they at least pay for your travel related expenses to attend the Congressional hearing so as to not increase your financial burden?


Mar 12, 2015 at 03:42 PM
1       2       3              6      
7
       8       end






FM Forums | Sports Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              6      
7
       8       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password