Mark Peters wrote:
you have obviously developed a nice cash flow stream which would evaporate if the patents are invalidated.
You are so wrong. If you only knew.
Here are some preliminary specs of what I am working on to generate some revenue. Here is an event where we used this new system: Lighthouse Century
We photographed bikers climbing up a hill in the morning and then flying down the hill at 40mph in the afternoon. No easy task to take pictures with fill flash at that speed. Been covering this event every year since 1999! It was one of my first major events with my new ideas.
As Peter says himself: " There are many work-around solutions to resolve patent infringement issues (including mine) ..."
And he is right, there are a ton of work around actions that allow you or anyone to use a database search program with various forms of data, name, number, date, race, etc. . .
If you are worried you don't know all the riders names, that is no big deal. You simply name them J Doe 1, J Doe 2, etc. . . along with any other relevant information (numbers, dates, races, heats, etc. ). The searching individual simply clicks on the name of the rider, J Doe 47 and all the information in that data field (number, race, date, etc. . . ) that matches shows up as photos for review. Of course, one can place whatever importance one wants on any specific piece of that data field and still consider that the search was conducted by Name - as that is the click point hyperlink for the website visitor to use.
The work around are endless. . . the easiest is always to buy somebody else's product to which you receive a license to use said product to its full capability and capacity.
FotoCrazy wrote:
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.
People wish far worse for you, Peter.
Example:
anselwannab wrote:
Here's hoping Wolff gets a horrible, painful disease that can only be cured by a patented drug that the maker refuses to produce.
That type of disdain for you is the ultimate dividend of your demands. And it will follow you forever. Any and every new person you meet or attempt to do business with will search your name, and discover your nature.
I wish nothing for or against you. I wish for justice. I don't expect justice. But I wish for poetic justice all the same... on behalf of all the folks whom I feel your tactics have extorted over the years. I wish that they be repaid, in full, by you.
FotoCrazy wrote:
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
Your incessant appeals to this forum to help you "get Michael to communicate with you" sounds like you have another "settlement" offer in mind to make him stand down and sit still, and you are attempting to use us and these forums (why does this come as no surprise) to reach him.
I don't know Michael, but maybe, this time, you messed with the wrong guy.
Try going after Disney. Disney does just about everything you claim in your patent. Time/date stamp sorting, unique identification number issuance, computer network upload, sort, identification, select, review, download, and purchase associated items with the images taken... all over the world, all over the world wide web.. If you believe your patent claims are that strong, have you tried defending them against Disney?
How dare you even pretend to feign concern over the "hardship" of a fellow photographer whom you, by your own admission, have been harassing since 2008. Your constant references to Michael's 'bankruptcy" and "personal financial ruin" sound more like veiled threats, and or tactics used to bully other mom and pop event photographers to cave into paying you fees.
Your argument that it is cheaper to settle than it is to fight may well be valid. And the other posters argument that there are many ways around your patents is also right. But there is also a point in time when someone stands higher than the lowest cost option crowd. A time when someone with stones swinging in there sling decides to do something.
Focus Locus wrote:
I wish nothing for or against you. I wish for justice. I don't expect justice. But I wish for poetic justice all the same... on behalf of all the folks whom I feel your tactics have extorted over the years. I wish that they be repaid, in full, by you.
You couldn’t be more wrong! You and others make disparaging remarks because Michael Skelps and others generate a lot of misinformation.
I don’t harass, extort or demand anyone or anything. That’s all hearsay and misinterpretations. People feed on that hearsay to villainize me.
Let’s look at some facts. I am a one man operation – have been for years. I was awarded some patents and tried in a professional manner have others who infringed, license with me. None of my royalty demands were unreasonable or caused significant burdens on others. On the contrary, many of my licensees got extra business through us.
Capstone, claimed to be the largest event photography company in the country, boasted 450+ nationwide photographers, full and part-time employees, a spacious office and hired one of the largest patent law firms in Los Angeles to represent them. Capstone snubbed their nose at us and ignored and still ignores any attempts by me to communicate with them.
Capstone pleads poverty and asks for donations to fight “injustice”. I think everyone is being played big time by Capstone and many have signed up and contributed their money. Pretty clever publicity stunt by Capstone - get some recognition and money at the same time. Doesn’t anyone see through that farce?
Peter yes you do have a right to intellectual property but it should be yours and not those that were trying to help you out in good faith when you asked those questions years ago. I too would like to see you to have to pay back those royalties that imo you have stolen. Yes In my opinion you took something you didn't deserve. If you wasn't so worried about it you would just let it go and not hunt down those that you fill have infringed upon your patents. Let the photographers who did the work earn their money. You didn't invent anything you stole it imo.
Peter yes you do have a right to intellectual property but it should be yours and not those that were trying to help you out in good faith when you asked those questions years ago. I too would like to see you to have to pay back those royalties that imo you have stolen. Yes In my opinion you took something you didn't deserve. If you wasn't so worried about it you would just let it go and not hunt down those that you fill have infringed upon your patents. Let the photographers who did the work earn their money. You didn't invent anything you stole it imo.
Michael White wrote:
... those that were trying to help you out in good faith when you asked those questions years ago.
What nonsense are you now referring to? Who helped me years ago in good faith?
This is what I mean, someone posts misleading and hearsay information and you guys jump all over it as if it was factual and publish disparaging comments. Absolutely amazing!
You must have something better to do than perpetuate this nonsense. The initial filing of the patent was in 1999 and there was no one except myself who contributed to the patent.
I am trying to be responsive to everyone's inquiries but this is reaching a level of absurdity.
FotoCrazy wrote:
What nonsense are you now referring to? Who helped me years ago in good faith? This is what I mean, someone posts misleading and hearsay information and you guys jump all over it as if it was factual and publish disparaging comments. Absolutely amazing!
You must have something better to do than perpetuate this nonsense. The initial filing of the patent was in 1999 and there was no one except myself who contributed to the patent. I am trying to be responsive to everyone's inquiries but this is reaching a level of absurdity.
Peter Wolf
What some of us find absurd is how one can claim that posting photos for sale online in an organized, searchable manner is the sole result of their intellectual genius.
Some of us didn't just hear about your questions about what terminology we would use to describe what we do... we read your questions with our own eyes, contemporaneously when you posted them years ago. Those forums may be gone, and some of the people who answered your questions may be gone, of gone out of business, or gone from this world, but there are still some of us around who remember.
In the 5 and a half years between your patent filing date in August of 2000, to your patent grant in January of 2006, how many times was your application denied? How many amendments did you make to your claims? Does the record at the USPTO not reflect the dates of each of your submissions and amendments?
TD Paulius wrote:
Wolf has obtained process claims, commonly referred to as “method” claim, and most of you have all read about business method patents. In order to infringe, one must, in a competing process, utilize each and every element (or its equivalent) called for in claim 1. Wolf also spent 5.4 years prosecuting his application before the US Patent Office, and in doing so, filed what are known as amendments to his claims and also supplied other, rather interesting supporting documentation as evidence of the patentability of his claims. Every time a patentee makes an amendment to his claims, he also submits arguments to the Patent Office and every claim amendment and every argument then may be subsequently used against him. Wolf filed many amendments and made arguments with each submittal so that a good patent should be able to sift through the file of this patent and with proper interpretation, wisely guide his client to avoid infringement of it....Show more →
FotoCrazy wrote:
I don’t harass, extort or demand anyone or anything. That’s all hearsay and misinterpretations. People feed on that hearsay to villainize me.
Peter Wolf
Peter, were the email exchanges at the beginning of this thread (with Levi's organization) accurate? Were they quotes, or paraphrasing? They appear to be quotes, and if that's true, that would appear to be a contradiction to your words above.
My issue is not the enforceability of the patent. But whether it's morally justifiable (to me) in the first place. Some very specific process of searching for images that was or is novel should be patentable, but your process, as I understand it, isn't novel, and hasn't ever been in my estimation.
I don’t harass, extort or demand anyone or anything. That’s all hearsay and misinterpretations. People feed on that hearsay to villainize me.
Your Cease & Desist letters are not "hearsay." They are real. We have seen them. They are harassing. They threaten legal action. In them, you make demands... either cease, or license with you. In other words, pay you money for work you have no material involvement or investment in. Pay you, or stop posting images on the internet for sale. How is this not extortion? No one is "villainizing" you. Your letters and demands villainized yourself.
FotoCrazy wrote:
The processes of offering event photos for inspection, selection and distribution via the Internet are protected by U.S. Patent No. 6,985,875 and U.S. Patent No. 7,047,214. Photographers performing event photography services in a manner covered by these patents need to be licensed. In some circumstances, those working in association with the photographer, such as event organizers or web hosting companies may also be found to infringe the patent.
Not only do you threaten event photographers, but you further threaten event producers. That's why people don't like you. You want a cut from everyone, for an obvious and universal idea that occurred to everyone simultaneously at the turn of the century... when digital slr's and the internet became both ubiquitously available and affordable.
But you say it's just a small cut...
FotoCrazy wrote:
"None of my royalty demands were unreasonable or caused significant burdens on others."
There you go. You yourself said "demands". That's not "hearsay." There is no "misinterpretation" as to your intent. Yet, you don't want much. Nothing too burdensome. Just a dollar, like iTunes. Or even less. You'll negotiate. Just contact you. (How could we not, after being threatened with legal action in your cease and desist demand?).
FotoCrazy wrote:
I think everyone is being played big time by Capstone and many have signed up and contributed their money. Pretty clever publicity stunt by Capstone - get some recognition and money at the same time. Doesn’t anyone see through that farce?
Farce or force, here's the bottom line:
I'd rather (and have) VOLUNTARILY pay Capstone $100.00 to invalidate an inappropriately granted patent, then be forced to pay you $1.00, or even one penny, per picture. Period.
SAllem wrote:
+1
This is what I was thinking as well.
BTW..in his abstract and filing he uses the term 'event', so it is not limited to races.
Another way around it I see, is if you post images from an event, but don't offer a way for the buyer to 'look up' their photo, then you're not infringing. If you give out the URL and the buyers scroll through the listing until they find themselves, his patent doesn't cover that.
If they'd approved that, we all would have to put our nickels and dimes together to establish a class action suit. We'd all be in violation of the patent.
Dude was slick and the US Patent office was naive.
"After considering the parties’ arguments, the Court concludes that the motion should be granted for the reasons explained below."
"Thus, the court finds that all three of the patents in suit are directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas, and lack an inventive concept that would make them patent-eligible applications of those ideas."
FotoCrazy wrote:
What nonsense are you now referring to? Who helped me years ago in good faith?
This is what I mean, someone posts misleading and hearsay information and you guys jump all over it as if it was factual and publish disparaging comments. Absolutely amazing!
You must have something better to do than perpetuate this nonsense. The initial filing of the patent was in 1999 and there was no one except myself who contributed to the patent.
I am trying to be responsive to everyone's inquiries but this is reaching a level of absurdity.
Peter Wolf
No, sir, absurdity was the Patent Office issuing the original patent which is now NULL and VOID!
As it should be.
->> "Thus, the court finds that all three of the patents in suit are directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas, and lack an inventive concept that would make them patent-eligible applications of those ideas."
"V. CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.
IT IS SO ORDERED."
