fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

Sports Corner Rules
Sports Corner Resource

FM Forums | Sports Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3

5 … 7 8 end

Archive 2011 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent

FotoCrazy
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #1 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent

As the patent creator, I would presume you could explain it to me in layman's terms.

Hey Bob, you don�t give up easy so let me try to explain a little further. Patents are all about describing an invention very clearly using the English written language. Those descriptions are the claims within a patent. Pretty much everything hinges on how those claims were written and how they are interpreted.

Not everyone will agree on the interpretation of the claims, especially when a lot of money and pride is at stake. Each attorney will have a chance to �interpret� the claims his or her way and then a judge will decide at some interpretation. That process is called "claim construction".

I paid my attorneys a lot of money to write the claims of the patent as they are written. All their education, training and skills were used to properly write the claims as they are written. If I were to interpret them for you as you requested, I could negate what has been carefully worded in the patents. Needless to say, I won�t and really can�t do that.

Now, in case you or anyone else has some concerns about the way you are doing business and these patents, I would invite anyone to contact me privately by email and explain their work flow to me. I may then send you a confidential license agreement where we agree on the terms and any appropriate royalty payments. This process has occurred many times with licensees and many have returned the agreement within a few days signed and executed after seeing the details. Generally no lawyers were ever involved because the language of the agreement is pretty straight forward and simple to understand.

Besides, the royalties are generally minimal and very affordable.

Peter Wolf

Sep 30, 2014 at 11:22 AM

Focus Locus
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #2 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent

FotoCrazy wrote:
So, for six long years I sat there and saw my ideas being used and couldn�t do a thing.

Clearly then, they weren't just your ideas.

BTW, I ran 10K's to marathons regularly in 1996 & 1997, and the event photographers sorted and sold the images by bib numbers. They didn't know the runner's names to sort alphabetically. Bib numbers were the only obvious way for me to find my pictures, just like bib numbers were the only obvious way for results to be determined and for me to find my ranking in the race. That's why we wore bib numbers.

After reading your long post, I had to look up one word:

Merriam Webster Dictionary:

hy�poc�ri�sy noun \hi-ˈp�-krə-sē also hī-\

: the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel

: a feigning to be what one is not, or to believe what one does not

Let's take a look at your post, to find that word defined by examples:

FotoCrazy wrote:
I contacted Michael Skelps at Capstone in 2008 and we had a cordial phone conversation.

I personally followed it up with a polite email explaining the situation.

So you have established here that you are both willing and able to "cordially" and "politely" "converse" and "personally" "explain" your patent situation.

Prevelige wrote:
Is it true that the nature of your patent prevents photographers at an event from identifying pictures by the rider's bib numbers?

And you respond with:

FotoCrazy wrote:
I can't really respond to this other than say you should read the claims of the patents or have someone help you properly interpret them.

Now all of a sudden you can no longer cordially converse? You can no longer personally explain?

FotoCrazy wrote:
I think you can understand my position with active litigation going on.

No, we can't understand actually. Because you said:

FotoCrazy wrote:
Recently I personally contacted him (Michael Skelps) again by phone and email.

So here it is clearly established that you have no problem personally initiating contact, recently, with someone who you actually ARE actively engaged in litigation with.

Reminding you once again that you are not in litigation with him, Prevelige tries once more to have a cordial conversation with you:

Prevelige wrote:
Peter, I think you misunderstand. I have no interest in sides, or claims, litigators or attorneys. I simply want to understand from the person who filed the patent, if it's basic premise prohibits an event photographer from identifying participants by bib number for the purpose of finding images of themselves.

Having been on both sides of the coin, both as a competitive cyclist, and now as an amateur photographer, if I took pictures of a cycling event, identified participants by their jerseys numbers and offer to sell them images, do I then owe you royalties?

That's conversational, not confrontational. That's a simple, direct question. Did you answer? Did you "sit down and talk?" Let's see...

FotoCrazy wrote:
Hey, I am not an attorney and your question needs to be answered by an attorney who is qualified to properly interpret patents and your specific situation.

Wait a second... didn't you earlier say this whole thing was YOUR IDEA? And you aren't "qualified" to "explain" your own idea?

And as to "specific situation", is this not specific? "if I took pictures of a cycling event, identified participants by their jerseys numbers and offer to sell them images, do I then owe you royalties?"

FotoCrazy wrote:
I don't mean to sound evasive but what you are asking requires the answer from a qualified attorney.

- EVASIVE. Now there's a novel idea. You must have read our minds. Time to file another patent? Let's listen to your argument first:

FotoCrazy wrote:
My argument boils down to "let's sit down and talk" like civilized human beings instead of hide behind attorneys.

Um.. did you "sit down and talk" in response to Prevelidge's question, or did you hide behind the word attorney?

FotoCrazy wrote:
Naturally if someone chooses to communicate only through attorneys, the costs at $500/hr attorney fees will go through the roof.

So you already know how expensive it will be for Prevelige to obtain the answer to his question about your patent that you refuse to answer.

FotoCrazy wrote:
I don�t wish anyone to go out of business or bankrupt but Mr. Skelps will NOT communicate. What can you do if someone doesn�t want to talk or communicate accept through his lawyers?

We filed a claim against Capstone in 2013 and he had to respond through attorneys. That is a VERY expensive way to communicate.

The noose is tightening more and more around his business and personal finances. Can anyone talk some sense into Michael? I really hate to see what he is doing to himself.

You hate to see what he is doing to himself? Come again? Who filed the claim? Who initiated litigation?

FotoCrazy wrote:
His recent filing of a Motion For a Judgment on The Pleadings is a feudal and VERY expensive way to invalidate the patents.

PLEASE, someone talk some sense to Michael and tell him he doesn't have to go down this road. Michael, call any time if you want to talk.

-Oh, so you CAN talk... even with "active litigation" going on? Directly to your opposing side? Not through your attorneys?

And "PLEASE"? Sounds like Michael might have you up against the ropes. THAT's reason enough to send a Michael a donation right there. Perhaps the end of this patent trolling tyranny is near...

FotoCrazy wrote:
Doesn't he realize that even if the patents were invalidated he would still be stuck with the legal fees. Are bragging rights that valuable? I don't think so.

No. We wouldn't expect you to think so. It is quite clear that you look at "value" only in terms of a dollar, not in terms of principle, character, or the common good of the community.
From what has been revealed so far, you want that dollar for every photo that any photographer takes of any event where the photos are sorted and sold by the most obvious and available means. And you have demonstrated that you will go after that dollar by hiring attorneys to sue other photographers who employ the obvious ideas that you yourself admitted you were not the only person to invent.

Anyone who crash photographs a race he wasn't invited to, against the organizer's explicit wishes, in spite of another official event photographer being contracted to do the work, and who trespasses on private property to do so, and then has the temerity to prevent the official photographer and the event organizer from making their own photos available to the participants, the details all of which are explained in the story and links James Broome, the original poster of this thread, called our attention to... clearly sees value only in terms of a dollar, not in terms of character.

How hypocritical is your post above? How devoid of principle is your behavior in the story that originated this thread? How corrupt are these indications of your character? How much is your dollar worth, when all the interest paid on that dollar is your being despised in the photographic community for the rest of your life? And beyond?

And on the subject of "bragging rights", what have you contributed to this community worth bragging about? What "value" have you added? What have you truly "invented" that people did not universally see for themselves? Is capitalizing on the weaknesses in the administration of our patent system to extort fellow photographers in your community... worth bragging about?

No dollar derived from such despicable practices is "that valuable." I'd rather EARN dollars with dignity, and will donate them with pride.

Sep 30, 2014 at 11:47 AM

FotoCrazy
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #3 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent

Clearly then, they weren't just your ideas.

Wow! That must have taken a lot of time and trouble to piece all these things together. I don't think I have ever seen anyone take so much out of context and misinterpret what was said, as you have. Truly amazing.

Peter

Sep 30, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Prevelige
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #4 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent

Peter,

Please understand, I'm trying to wrap my head around the basic premise of your patent. I would have no reason to call or reach out to you, if I have no sense that what I'm doing COULD be construed as a breach of your patent. If you cannot explain it to me, then I have to consult with your attorney or hire my own to understand if my actions are a potential breach?

If the language is common sense, then please explain. If it takes a law degree to interpret, then I could stand to be in breach of a variety of patents that I had no knowledge or understanding of. That's a concern for me. Actually, it's not really a concern for me, as I really am an amateur, and have no interest in changing that, but it's an academic concern for me.

Bob

Sep 30, 2014 at 12:36 PM

FotoCrazy
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #5 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent

[If the language is common sense, then please explain.

Bob, The language is meant to be simple and common sense and shouldn't need any explanation but if you have difficulty with it and need help, by all means hire an attorney to help you. The claims make perfect sense to me.

Peter

Sep 30, 2014 at 02:07 PM

Prevelige
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #6 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent

Peter,

Thanks for the help.

Sep 30, 2014 at 02:17 PM

Focus Locus
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #7 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent

FotoCrazy wrote:
I don't think I have ever seen anyone take so much out of context and misinterpret what was said

Your quotes speak for themselves, the context is self evident, and the hypocrisy continues unabated...

On the one hand:

FotoCrazy wrote:
I paid my attorneys a lot of money to write the claims of the patent as they are written. All their education, training and skills were used to properly write the claims as they are written. If I were to interpret them for you as you requested, I could negate what has been carefully worded in the patents. Needless to say, I won�t and really can�t do that.

Yet on the other hand:

FotoCrazy wrote:
In case you or anyone else has some concerns about the way you are doing business and these patents, I would invite anyone to contact me privately by email and explain their work flow to me. I may then send you a confidential license agreement where we agree on the terms and any appropriate royalty payments. Generally no lawyers were ever involved because the language of the agreement is pretty straight forward and simple to understand.

Basically, you just want money...

[Peter Wolf wrote: My intentions are to get a fair compensation (licensing fee) from anyone who wants to use my patented processes.

And what are these "patented processes"?

PhotoCrazy FAQ wroteThe process of offering event photos for inspection, selection and distribution via the Internet is protected by U.S. Patents No. 6,985,875 and No. 7,047,214.

In the years between 2002 and 2004, before you filed your second patent application on October 27, 2005, you peppered the event photography community with questions like "what does the term 'event photography' mean to you" and "how would you define 'event photography". You used the very helpful community of event photographers to help you and your attorneys fine tune and define the very "interpretations" of the English language which you now use to extort them by, and will not dare re-explain, but are all too happy to mail out a fee agreement for.

Sep 30, 2014 at 02:49 PM

FotoCrazy
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #8 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent

In the years between 2002 and 2004, before you filed your second patent application on October 27, 2005, you peppered the event photography community with questions like "what does the term 'event photography' mean to you" and "how would you define 'event photography". You used the very helpful community of event photographers to help you and your attorneys fine tune and define the very "interpretations" of the English language which you now use to extort them by, and will not dare re-explain, but are all too happy to mail out a fee agreement for.

Sorry, what you are saying is total nonsense. Please understand how patents are filed or have someone help you understand before you post such gibberish.

Unfortunately it is people like yourself who do not take the time to understand patent law and then write disparaging comments based on misinformation.

Google "patent law" and check it out. Start with Wikipedia for an overview and then go to www.uspto.gov. Really, you should study up a bit before continuing to embarrass yourself like this in public.

Peter

Sep 30, 2014 at 03:17 PM

dmontague
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #9 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent

Let's all help fund Capstone in their fight against this absurdity. Capstone has set up a crowd funding site to help with the legal fees.

http://www.endpatentabuse.com/

I know that I will be donating!

Sep 30, 2014 at 05:00 PM

FotoCrazy
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #10 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent

I know that I will be donating!

Interesting, just because you don�t understand patent law and you don�t want to take the time to learn more about it you will put money towards fighting against it. I guess that makes sense to some folks � if you don�t understand it, fight it. Go for it, it�s your money.

Sep 30, 2014 at 05:35 PM

Mark Peters
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #11 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent

No Peter. We would like to see this issue fully litigated once and for all. Let your patents stand or fall on their own merits in a court of law, rather than the defendants being bullied into settlement under the threat of financial ruin.

While I am far from a patent expert I am aware that with the recent rulings in Alice v. CLS and Limelight v. Akamai the validity of "with a computer" type patents or that have multiple parties performing part of the process are more than a little suspect.

If you have that level of confidence in the validity of your patents you should be welcoming your day in court.

Sep 30, 2014 at 06:25 PM

Michael White
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #12 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent

Peter are you in politics? If not you should be you say a lot without saying anything in you two step posts. It reminds me of a song from the best little whorehouse in Texas. But you and the oldest profession has a lot in common imo. I'm donating to the fight against you for sure.

Sep 30, 2014 at 06:36 PM

Focus Locus
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #13 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent

FotoCrazy wrote:
Sorry, what you are saying is total nonsense. Please understand how patents are filed or have someone help you understand before you post such gibberish.

Unfortunately it is people like yourself who do not take the time to understand patent law and then write disparaging comments based on misinformation.

Google "patent law" and check it out. Start with Wikipedia for an overview and then go to www.uspto.gov. Really, you should study up a bit before continuing to embarrass yourself like this in public.

Peter

What does a knowledge of patent law have to do with reading and attempting to understand the double talk in your quotes? That's what my posts have been talking about.. not your patent, but your words. You suggest I need to "study up a bit" on "patent law" before being able to read your words?

You yourself stated that not even you have that knowledge...

FotoCrazy wrote:
Hey, I am not an attorney and your question needs to be answered by an attorney who is qualified to properly interpret patents... Kind of like asking a lay person about some medical situation. The only person to properly answer your medical needs is a qualified physician. BTW, most patent attorneys go to school even longer than some physicians. Patent law is extremely complex.

Really? And so you suggest Wikipedia for an overview?

You'll probably be pleased to know that my printer puts a date stamp on all documents printed from it. I printed two complete full text and image abstracts of your first patent on January 18, 2006. The patent was granted January 10, 2006. That's within a week. I "exhaustively" researched you way back then, as well as the many online photo business in existence during the time of your application filing on August 17, 2000, and your provisional filing on November 5 1999...

Examples include, but are not limited to (add ".com" to each name)

envirosports
shutterfly
swapfish
ofoto
phototrust
photoaccess
photoprint
photopoint
clubphoto
photoloft
ememories
zing
eprints (1997)
primeshot
jumpshot

What is especially humorous, figuratively speaking, about your patent is Figures 1 and 2.

Now I recall your saying that patent law is extremely complex, and that you are not a patent attorney. OK. But most patents, including yours, have figures included to help the patent examiners visualize the claims of the invention that are being patented. So let's look at your two figures, describing the "process" that you invented and sought protection for:

The Illustrations of Peter H. Wolf's Patented Process of Event Photography

Figure 1 - A flow chart illustrating the general steps taken with the present invention

100 - Event Picture is Taken
102 - Picture is processed and posted on WEB site
104 - Event participant selects picture from WEB site
106 - Picture is printed per customer request
108 - Picture and/or products are mailed to customer

Figure 2 - A flow chart illustrating the steps taken in the preferred embodiment of the present invention

200 - Event Picture is taken with a digital or film camera
202 - The digitally recorded pictures are transferred directly to a computer. Film pictures are first digitized.
204 - The date and time when the pictures were taken is extracted from the digitally recorded pictures. Digitized film pictures are assigned a date and time.
206 - Thumbnail images of the pictures are organized by time for convenient viewing on the Internet
208 - A time index and menu are added to each picture page to conveniently link to pictures for any given time
210 - Additional hyperlinks are created on each picture page to allow convenient viewing of the next, previous, or home pages
212 - Each thumbnail image is hyperlinked to a proprietary e-commerce shopping cart program owned by host which allows ordering of goods and credit card or payment processing
214 - The shopping cart pages contain hyperlinks to view additional pictures, edit orders, or check out.

These are the flow charts illustrating your novel ideas. Is this what you call "gibberish"? I couldn't possibly make this stuff up.

This is the first time I've actually talked about your patent. Before, I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy, which yet continues with more double talk, wherein you state, on the one hand:

FotoCrazy wrote:
The language is meant to be simple and common sense and shouldn't need any explanation.... The claims make perfect sense to me.

Yet on the other hand, you implore...

FotoCrazy wrote:
Please understand how patents are filed or have someone help you understand... Unfortunately it is people like yourself who do not take the time to understand patent law and then write disparaging comments based on misinformation. Google "patent law" and check it out. Start with Wikipedia for an overview and then go to www.uspto.gov. Really, you should study up a bit...

Ok, let's do that, then, starting with the "English language" in your patent, since "this language is meant to be simple and common sense and shouldn't need any explanation."

Patent # 6,985,875

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION:

"The present invention resides in a process for providing event photographs for inspection, selection, and distribution via a computer network, such as a website server of the world wide web. Event photographs are first taken and identifying data is associated with each photograph."

"The identifying data can take one of several forms, including a number corresponding to a number worn by an event participant, the date and time the photograph was taken, and/or a name of an event participant."

Don't worry, I won't type out the entire patent summary. From here some "preferred embodiments" are additionally summarized, and described in detail in the patent text, but I note that despite some of the particulars of the preferred embodiments, the patent summary closes with...

Patent # 6,985,875

"Although several embodiments have been described in detail for purposes of illustration, various modifications may be made without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention. Accordingly, the invention is not to be limited, except as by the appended claims."

And the USPTO records indicate that you did file an appended claim... on October 27, 2005.

Sep 30, 2014 at 07:03 PM

FotoCrazy
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #14 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent

We would like to see this issue fully litigated once and for all.

A patent is presumed valid unless by clear and convincing evidence it is proven invalid. �Clear and convincing� evidence take a fortune in legal fees.

What will Michael Skelps achieve even if the patents are shown invalid? From a business point of view it makes absolutely no sense. We have never asked for unreasonable royalty fees or placed undue burdens on any of our licensees.

Michael�s financial struggles are completely self-imposed and he is looking for others to support his insane efforts. Most people sit down, talk things out, resolve differences and move on with life. Not Michael, he refuses to talk!

By the time the patents are fully litigated, the legal fees will far exceed any royalty payments that might have been paid. Michael could be out of business and bankrupt.

Knowing what I know about patents and litigating patents I would never in my wildest dreams try to fight the validity of a patent. There are many work-around solutions to resolve patent infringement issues (including mine) and life is too precious and too short to be sucked into such quack mire.

Yes, the playing field has changed with Alice and Limelight but we believe we can overcome those new challenges and we will know soon enough if the court agrees.

Peter Wolf

Sep 30, 2014 at 07:42 PM

Mark Peters
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #15 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent

Like I said - your argument boils down to its cheaper to pay me than to fight for what one believes is right. I can understand your trepidation in seeing this through to the end since you have obviously developed a nice cash flow stream which would evaporate if the patents are invalidated.

Sep 30, 2014 at 07:54 PM

Focus Locus
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #16 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent

Poetic justice would be Wolf having to refund all fees previously demanded under patent claims found to be invalid.

Sep 30, 2014 at 08:02 PM

FotoCrazy
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #17 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent

I "exhaustively" researched you way back then, ...

Great, the USPTO conducted "exhaustive" research as well for six long years and didn't find anything (including many of your citations) that indicated ANY prior art for these patents. Don't you think that means something for trained patent examiners to search and find nothing?

Again, read up on patent law and you will better understand the system. Your comments suggest that you don't.

Peter

Sep 30, 2014 at 08:02 PM

kzoockof
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #18 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent

"I would invite anyone to contact me privately by email and explain their work flow to me."

That sounds like a terrific idea. If somebody has a novel, unique, terrific idea they should send it to you so you can independently determine a: if it violates your patent (which you have repeatedly indicated you are unqualified to do) or b: steal the idea and try to patent it and then charge them (or preferably threaten to sue them) for their own idea.

To anybody who wants to incorporate a simple search on their website, all they need to do is purchase a database program that provides for searching by any field, such as by an alpha numeric identifier, by name, by whatever can be entered into the database. By buying said software, you have a license to use it. If Peter doesn't like that you have used the software you purchased and are licensed to use to its full capabilities, then his complaint is with the software manufacturer, not you.

If Peter still tries to sue you, fine. Simply show up at court with your purchased software and submit a action that the manufacturer of the software be "joined" in the case as a defendant based on the fact that you have done nothing individually other than use the software as it was designed and is capable of doing, and are licensed to do so. If you use a Microsoft product and they agree to settle with Peter, technically, they have settled on your behalf as you own the software to which you paid the manufacturer for the rights of use. My guess is Peter won't like this thought and request, once again, that the thread be removed so such information can once again be hidden.

Ironically, an identification number can be called many different things, a RIN (rider identification number), a PIN (particpant identification number), or anything else you want to refer to it as on your purchased, licensed software. It's not like anybody is going to be confused if you don't call it a BIB number.

Sep 30, 2014 at 08:10 PM

FotoCrazy
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #19 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent

Focus Locus wrote:
Poetic justice would be Wolf having to refund all fees previously demanded under patent claims found to be invalid.

Yikes, that would put me in a bind for sure. Nah! Not to worry, that's not how things work. Sorry that you would wish something like that on anyone. I sure don't wish hardship on anyone, especially Michael Skelps from Capstone.

Unfortunately Michael refuses to communicate and won't even listen to what we would or could do to resolve these issues. I would welcome any suggestions from anyone how to get Michael to communicate with me.

Peter Wolf

Sep 30, 2014 at 08:11 PM

FotoCrazy
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #20 · Peter Wolf / PhotoCrazy patent

kzoockof wrote:
That sounds like a terrific idea.

You must think I am a really crazy bad guy. I am not. Please google "patent law", read up on it a little and you'll quickly understand that I have a right to own Intellectual Property and when appropriate get some royalty payments for it.

Peter Wolf

Sep 30, 2014 at 08:18 PM

1 2 3 4 5 … 7 8 end
FM Forums \| Sports Corner \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 8 end