Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scribbling On Digital Photos

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the oh-so-clever dept.

Patents 134

JagsLive notes a patent application filed in the US by Nokia for a way to 'scribble on the back' of digital photos. Nokia's approach is similar to the iPod's Cover Flow, except that Nokia users will be able to flip through their snaps, select one, and then turn it over and annotate the back just using SMS-like text entry. The scribble becomes an integral part of the saved photo.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Exif? Flip? Software Patents Suck. (1, Insightful)

GNUChop (1310629) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019141)

An integral part of the photo, like Exif? Why didn't I think of that?

Perhaps they are patenting the GUI flip? No one has done that before, except a GUI for every OS years ago.

I know, it's a patent for a computer system that does all of the above! Brillian1.

Someone please end software patents.

You know, I am usually a big defender of IP (4, Interesting)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019415)

laws, but in regards to software patents, I have to agree with you. I remember a day when software was covered by copyright and only copyright. So, if you could do the same function, only with completely different code, you had no problem. Of course now, with patents, "Hello world" could have been patented when it was first written. Or to extrapolate to physical inventions, Diesel would have run afoul of the internal combustion engine patents - if he didn't when he came out with his invention - my business history is a little fuzzy in this area.

Re:You know, I am usually a big defender of IP (4, Interesting)

ed333 (684843) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019595)

There is a decision coming down soon from the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, In re Bilski, that may severely limit the scope of patentable subject matter. Hopefully, this will put an end to most software and business method patents, but we will have to wait until sometime in October to find out. Keep your fingers crossed...

Re:You know, I am usually a big defender of IP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25021369)

...and the decision will be declared unconstitutional, don't you think?

Re:You know, I am usually a big defender of IP (5, Funny)

arb phd slp (1144717) | more than 6 years ago | (#25020159)

Of course now, with patents, "Hello world" could have been patented when it was first written.

A method operating on a digital computer for greeting the planet Earth, or alternatively the metaphysical universe, through text parameters sent to the computer's standard output.

Then, of course, a separate application for the above "on the Internet."

Re:You know, I am usually a big defender of IP (4, Funny)

fireman sam (662213) | more than 6 years ago | (#25020587)

std::cerr "Hello World\n";

There you go, bypassed your patent.

Re:You know, I am usually a big defender of IP (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25021607)

Epic fail

Re:You know, I am usually a big defender of IP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25021783)

woosh. [wikipedia.org]
stdout != stderr

Re:You know, I am usually a big defender of IP (3, Informative)

cibyr (898667) | more than 6 years ago | (#25023175)

The epic fail is that it should've been

std::cerr << "Hello World\n";

Dunno how you'd miss that now that previewing is mandatory.

Re:You know, I am usually a big defender of IP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25021037)

Or to extrapolate to physical inventions, Diesel would have run afoul of the internal combustion engine patents - if he didn't when he came out with his invention - my business history is a little fuzzy in this area.

I don't believe Diesel had any problems - his design was probably different enough from other engine design patents at the time to not cause problems - but that is exactly how the Atkinson Cycle engine came about. James Atkinson came up with a unique crankshaft design that made his engine sufficiently different from an Otto Cycle engine to bypass the patents on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle

Re:Exif? Flip? Software Patents Suck. (5, Funny)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019547)

Hey, it's a great idea! Photographers especially are going to love it. They'll be able to jot down the f-stop, aperture, time, date, camera, lens, whether they used a flash... you could even tag your photo with GPS coordinates! Imagine the possibilities!

Er, or go to Flickr and look at them realized.

Re:Exif? Flip? Software Patents Suck. (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019717)

the future, is NOW!

Re:Exif? Flip? Software Patents Suck. (3, Insightful)

Skater (41976) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019877)

the future, is YEARS AGO!

Fixed that for you. :)

Re:Exif? Flip? Software Patents Suck. (1)

Repton (60818) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019837)

It says "SMS-like text entry". Maybe they're enforcing text-speak :-)

Re:Exif? Flip? Software Patents Suck. (1)

slashtivus (1162793) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019893)

So correct. I slapped together a scribble application in a matter of hours just a month ago and thought nothing of it. Admittedly it was for fire inspections on the Pocket PC so they could jot down the location / rough floor-plan of certain items, but it isn't that much of a stretch to apply it here. This does not fit into the 'not obvious to someone skilled in the art' clause of getting a patent at all.

Re:Exif? Flip? Software Patents Suck. (1)

Speare (84249) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019957)

Now, if they had allowed scribbled "ink" to be stored in the EXIF, that might be interesting. Yes, you could see how to do it: take the ink bitmap or vectors for the annotation, uuencode or otherwise mime-like wrap it, and then stick that into the EXIF. But have you actually done it? That's non-trivial and non-obvious (until it's described). That would have been interesting. I just hope this posting serves as prior art to kill any such filing in the future.

Re:Exif? Flip? Software Patents Suck. (3, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 6 years ago | (#25021095)

Exactly what I was thinking. Oh, and of course, I was also thinking that the place to do this is on REAL CAMERAS, not crappy cell phone cameras. Have a touch screen on the back of your DSLR and write with a stylus. That would actually be useful. This is a complete and utter waste of the patent office's time and energy.

Basically, this is a beautiful, easy-to-understand example of why software patents are inherently wrong. First, it ensures that a potentially useful technology will only be available on the most utterly useless hardware. Second, it stifles further innovation in this area and harms the market as a whole by producing a host of competing standards that will not be interoperable. Third, it harms the public good by denying them access to what appears to be nothing more than a trivial lipstick-on-a-pig treatment to the EXIF comment tag because most people are locked into their phones and couldn't switch to Nokia even if they wanted to. Finally, it guarantees that few peope will bother to use the technology even on Nokia handsets because the people they send the photos to won't be able to decode the notes....

Repeat after me: Thou shalt not patent thine file formats, nor thine XML dialects, nor thine EXIF tags.

Re:Exif? Flip? Software Patents Suck. (3, Informative)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 6 years ago | (#25021935)

why uuencode or mime? exif can contain binary blobs. see jpeg thumbnails.

Re:Exif? Flip? Software Patents Suck. (2, Interesting)

DustyShadow (691635) | more than 6 years ago | (#25020537)

An integral part of the photo, like Exif? Why didn't I think of that?

Perhaps they are patenting the GUI flip? No one has done that before, except a GUI for every OS years ago.

I know, it's a patent for a computer system that does all of the above! Brillian1.

Someone please end software patents.

First off, this is a patent application. That means it has not been granted yet. Second, I don't believe the problem is cause by software patents. The problem is that the examiners at the USPTO have very little time (I think less than a day per application) to decide whether to grant it or not. That usually isn't enough time to decide if there is prior art. Of course, this "invention" seems pretty obvious to everyone here. But who knows what kind of background the examiner has...

So my point is that there may be other issues with software patents but your complaint that this is obvious isn't a problem with only software patents. It's a problem with the entire system that can be fixed only by giving the USPTO more resources.

Re:Exif? Flip? Software Patents Suck. (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 6 years ago | (#25023349)

It's a problem with the entire system that can be fixed only by giving the USPTO more resources.

or getting rid of software patents ?

Re:Exif? Flip? Software Patents Suck. (1)

MadnessASAP (1052274) | more than 6 years ago | (#25020741)

I am intrigued by you application of the Exif-comments tag for the use of comments and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Gaming Slashdot for fun and profit (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25022079)

Re:Gaming Slashdot for fun and profit (1)

KGIII (973947) | more than 6 years ago | (#25022703)

twitter It's rather amazing the resources devoted to trolling isn't it? It's like someone's full time job.

Priceless.

Re:Exif? Flip? Software Patents Suck. (1)

Mr2cents (323101) | more than 6 years ago | (#25022263)

Indeed, I think they have just patented a methaphor.

Re:Exif? Flip? Software Patents Suck. (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 6 years ago | (#25022617)

Besides, I can very well see being exciting virtually flipping my first 10 "photographs" to "see" what is written on the "back".

Stop modding sockpuppets up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25022793)

Embedded comment! (0, Redundant)

Chris Rhodes (1059906) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019145)

Wow, that's novel.

How can this be a serious patent? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25019163)

How is this a novel invention? It sounds like little more than a graphical way to represent metadata.

Re:How can this be a serious patent? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25019721)

Horses are somewhat different from other animals in the way their cock head works. When a horse is fully erect and excited and ready to mount, his cock head is somewhat pointed and not as thick as might be normally observed. This is to facilatate an easier entry into the mare. After the horse has entered and reaches a climax the head swells (though it is more spongy then hard) into a fist sized mass as he ejacultates. It is thought that this serves as a plug to force the semen deep into the mare rather then allowing it to leak out. It will take quite a few spurts to accomplish this. Each time his tail will raise and lower in a brief flick. The final few jets are of a thick gelatinous substance. This serves to "seal" the mares pussy so that the semen has time to do it's thing before leaking out. Horse semen is extremely viscous, if you touch your finger to a pool of it you can draw a thin string of it five to six feet long! Horse cum has a nice flat taste to it...not at all bitter like man's cum.

Mares can be quite satisfactory for the average well endowed male. If you are somewhat less developed you might find better pleasure with a pony or Miniature Horse. Fucking any horse will depend on the horse. Some will be ready right away...some will take coaxing. Pet the animal, talk to it softly, spend time with it gaining it's trust. If something you are doing upsets it then don't force it. Talk to it and calm it. If you work slowly you can make an animal accept anything. It is just a question of helping it overcome it's fears.

When the filly reaches weaning age, seperate her from her dam. If you have limited time to spend then she should be put to pasture. If you have plenty of time then you should keep her in a stall. I have walked up on a pen full of strange fillys at night and they came right up to me and I petted them and felt up their pussies and they just lifted their tails and seemed to enjoy it. These fillies didn't even know me but they were young, inexperienced and bored...also since they were penned they were used to the presence of people and did not fear me.

Wild mares are used to violent horsecock and the others have had peoples arms in their cunts so they can be apprehensive about sexual events. Start rubbing ,scratching, etc in different areas and observe the mare to see what she likes. If she reacts to this well she might raise her tail somewhat. Gently rub her pussy and see how she reacts. Standing directly in front of a horse is hazardous as it can raise on it's hind legs and come down with a front hoof on your head. I have had mare that welcomed me...pushed back every time I shoved, and contracted her cunt to milk my cock dry. Horses are some of the best pussy I have ever tried! Treat her as she wants and she will give you all.

Stallions that have succesfully coupled in the wild are somewhat resistant from seduction by humans. If they are isolated, tempted and trained, then they will become more acquiessent but the best ones are those that have been raised in a human enviroment since weaning, since they have not had sex with other horses they are more amenable to having sex with humans when their hormones kick in and they are looking for some release. Bringing a wild horse to orgasm can be more difficult. They are used to a mares pussy which is several degrees hotter then a humans body heat. A person could fuck or suck them and not bring them to the point of orgasm unless they had been isolated and deprived and unable to help but cut loose with a load. Stallions are aroused by the scent of mares in heat and then an artificial vagina filled with warm water is slipped over their cock and they reach orgasm. The stallions soon learn the routine and just be leading them into the proper barn they know what is coming and obtain an erection. Stallions are aroused by the smell of horse pussy above all else.

If you have access to a mare, then gentle her till she will let you finger her...then coat your fingers with her juice. Now rub your fingers across the stallions nose! He will react even if she is not in heat! He knows the smell! I have done this to geldings! Horses that have been castrated and they still got a hardon!!! Also pet & rub the horse and rub his cock...don't pull on it hard.. be gentle...big as it is it is still tender! If you rub his belly and sheath slowly and gently and let him smell some horse pussy juice then he will erect. If you can find a horse in heat then grab some urine and refrigerate it. Take some out and thaw it when you want it. Rubbing some hot mare piss on a stallions nose will make him horny as hell! He will be all over you! Once a stallion smells that he doesn't care what he fucks! He just wants a hot hole. Make sure there are no other horses around...otherwise he will jump them instead of you!

Some horses have been trained too react to certain cues, others react to their own natural cues...I remember a $1,000,000.00 Arabian stallion I trained.. He stuck his tounge out about 1/2 inch...when someone would rub this small crescent he would instantly get a raging hardon...more proof that stallions are very oral. This stallion had never had sex with a mare...he had only climaxed through the intervention of humans and was quite happy with having sex in a artificial vagina with the help of humans...training does wonders.

Nobody should attempt intercourse with a stallion unless they are experienced in fist-fucking or they have taken a large dog in to the max (knot and all). Hint: A large dog can stretch you where a horse can fit if you make the switch before the hole shrivels.

Country boys - you know where the animals are and how to get them.

City Boys - Drive out to the suburbs and find some horses. Try to get them used to you and then return at night to have some fun. IF there are stables around then spend some time there. You can help run the show by day and return for sex at night. Just be careful, there is less privacy in the city as compared to the country. You sure don't want to be caught!

Re:How can this be a serious patent? (1)

DustyShadow (691635) | more than 6 years ago | (#25020543)

It's not a patent. It's a patent application.

Re:How can this be a serious patent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25021751)

So taking two existing things and coming up with a way to integrate the two? No offence, but that is exactly what patents are for.

I'm not saying that is what this patent is doing, but that description is a very valid patent.

They are not seriously patenting embedded metadata (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25019169)

If I had ever bought Nokia, I would stop now.

PenguinScribbles. (5, Informative)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019171)

I seem to remember an experimental Linux desktop that allowed you to flip a window and annotate on the back.

Wow... (3, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019177)

Steg with a patent. Seems that even 5-year old ideas can be "new" when wrapped with juicy patent goodness!

Re:Wow... (1)

Pofy (471469) | more than 6 years ago | (#25022259)

Any old idea can turn into a new patent simply by adding "with a computer" or "on the internet" to the old idea. I thought that was common knowledge...

I thought we were past that (5, Insightful)

modemboy (233342) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019183)

Man, I thought we were past the days of "well established process" + "the internet" or + "a computer" = brand new shiny patent.
Clearly the patent office hasn't learned anything, and apparently we have yet to exhaust the pool of basic processes that can be "reinvented" for a computer. Sad.

Re:I thought we were past that (3, Interesting)

bgillespie (1228056) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019405)

Hey now, it's not directly the patent office's fault... yet. They do it wrong from time to time (I understate), but until it's more than just an application, don't go casting false aspersions.

Although one must note that the history of the patent office of granting shoddy software patents probably does contribute to the piles of dreck that show up at their doorstep. After all, companies basically have to file for stupid patents in order to remain competitive against other companies with stupid patents.

Re:I thought we were past that (2, Insightful)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019733)

Similar to all the totally unbelievable scams you get in email today. You ask yourself if anyone is dumb enough to fall for that.

Usually the answer is no. But someone was dumb enough to fall for a different scam but this is a shoddy imitation of it.

I also love how all of them mention God like 8*10^32 times because they think we're all religious wackos in America (to be fair, statistically...)

Re:I thought we were past that (4, Funny)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019559)

We are. Now it's "+ a smart phone."

Geez, keep up, hey?

Re:I thought we were past that (1)

i_liek_turtles (1110703) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019963)

You mean "internet communications device."

Re:I thought we were past that (1)

ecavalli (1216014) | more than 6 years ago | (#25021335)

We are. Now it's "+ a smart phone."

Geez, keep up, hey?

... or "+ a Nike shoe." [slashdot.org]

Patent? *sigh* (1)

JeremyBanks (1036532) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019193)

Being able to attach descriptions to digital photos isn't a new concept. It may not have been done before on phones, but that's miles away from being significant enough to warrant a patent.

Re:Patent? *sigh* (2, Funny)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019307)

now if it only came equipped with a bot who could sit through tedious hours of Uncle Fred and Aunt Tillie's vacation at Atlantic City and toss out pithy random thoughts to write on the back of each one. Think of the advances in civilization we would have!

Re:Patent? *sigh* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25022303)

I'd settle for a bot that sifts through tedious hours of /. comments and mod them appropriately. 'Cause humans mostly don't cut it.

Prior art de luxe (1, Redundant)

sunny256 (448951) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019197)

We've had this for years. It's called EXIF data and file comments. I doubt my sloppy handwriting adds value to the data.

Re:Prior art de luxe (2, Interesting)

mcsqueak (1043736) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019401)

We've had this for years. It's called EXIF data and file comments. I doubt my sloppy handwriting adds value to the data.

Exactly. Furthermore, I somehow doubt Nokia's photo flip/comment idea will be used by every device you view pictures on. What happens when you take a picture with your Nikon camera and then post it on Facebook, or send it to your in-law's email address? Will the comments show up as text below the image if the 'flip' function is not suppoted? EXIF is already wildly supported. This to me seems rather silly and pointless.

Note to application designers: just because you can do it "real life", doesn't mean you need to be able to do it on the computer. Please please please don't invent a "digital" Polaroid where I have to 'shake' the images with my mouse to have them show up on my screen...

Re:Prior art de luxe (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#25021915)

Note to application designers: just because you can do it "real life", doesn't mean you need to be able to do it on the computer. Please please please don't invent a "digital" Polaroid where I have to 'shake' the images with my mouse to have them show up on my screen...

No, that would be ridiculous. Instead, you have to move your photos to the digital darkroom and run them through carefully mixed solutions to fix the image, hanging them up on a clothesline under the glare of a red light.

Re:Prior art de luxe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25019509)

> I doubt my sloppy handwriting adds value to the data.

But my elegant hand makes it priceless.

Re:Prior art de luxe (1)

systemeng (998953) | more than 6 years ago | (#25022367)

The JPEG standard itself (without EXIF) actually has a has a rarely used comments field. I built a web store management system that used it to caption photographs in the early 90's.

Just checking... what's the primary anger here? (4, Interesting)

compumike (454538) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019299)

Yes, this is crazy, but from reading the comments I think there are two things that need to be separated.

1) This is bad because there is massive prior art,
OR
2) This is bad because it is a patent on a software concept.

Which one is it? Number one seems to indicate legitimacy of the current patent system, and number two does not -- very different ideas, but I think slashdotters are conflating the two at the moment.

--
Hey code monkey... learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digital generation. [nerdkits.com]

Re:Just checking... what's the primary anger here? (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019661)

Can we say this is bad because it is a patent on a software concept that has massive prior art?

Re:Just checking... what's the primary anger here? (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019693)

Can we say this is bad because it is a patent on a software concept that has massive prior art?

No, because it's not a patent. It's just a patent application.

Re:Just checking... what's the primary anger here? (3, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019697)

There's a third -

This is bad because it's trivial.

Utterly trivial. The combination of something obvious (annotating pictures, been done since photography came around) and combining it with a little gui flip-trick. FUCKING WOW. I'M IMPRESSED.

This is just dumb.

Re:Just checking... what's the primary anger here? (2, Insightful)

amirulbahr (1216502) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019955)

Number two implies number one implies number two?

Re:Just checking... what's the primary anger here? (1)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 6 years ago | (#25020087)

I think the key is that both #1 and 2 are correct. Patent clerks evidently think anything performed by a computer is completely separate and distinct from the physical world, and creative.

They've lost their minds.

Re:Just checking... what's the primary anger here? (5, Insightful)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 6 years ago | (#25020345)

i think you're missing the point.

any moderately intelligent computer user sees how absurd this patent is because this is a trivial and non-innovative function. it's like patenting a drop down menu, 1-click checkout, or a pop-up window.

patents were legally established to encourage innovation in a way that rewards inventors but would ultimately serve the public good. that is why they were designed to give inventors a financial incentives to provide ingenious solutions to complex problems, which would then be released into the public domain after the patent expired. and in this way, the patent system would nurture the spirit of innovation and grow the public corpus of technological knowledge.

you can't claim a patent on self-apparent software features because they are obvious to any programmer who is looking to solve the same problem and thus do not qualify as personal inventions. whether it there is prior art plays no importance in this issue.

if it's an obvious feature, and it's a common problem, then of course there will be prior art. but that's an incidental result. a patent for an obvious solution to a trivial but uncommon problem would be equally invalid regardless of whether there is prior art or not. so it has neither to do with prior art nor any fundamental issue against software patents.

patents as these contribute nothing to society, nor do they add anything of value to the public corpus of human knowledge shared by our society.

Re:Just checking... what's the primary anger here? (1)

SlashWombat (1227578) | more than 6 years ago | (#25020769)

It seems that half wit managers think everything they see coming from their "genius" workers is new and patentable. Any school child with an IQ below moron would be able to come up with Nokia's "ingenius" solution.

Surely, attempting to patent something that is so obvious should actually atract huge fines, since even a patent application will waste an examiners time.

Any computer application that just duplicates something from the analogue domain is plainly not patentable. This includes the mathematics/arithmetic that is employed. (IE: the maths used in demodulation, the maths used in compression (video and audio). etc, etc.

. Patents should only be for physical processes/devices. (As they originally were ... including a WORKING model!)

Re:Just checking... what's the primary anger here? (1)

KGIII (973947) | more than 6 years ago | (#25022803)

First I will say that I'm a fan of the patent system in theory. In practice, in today's environment, I think it is flawed. However...

It seems that half wit managers think everything they see coming from their "genius" workers is new and patentable. Any school child with an IQ below moron would be able to come up with Nokia's "ingenius" [SIC] solution.

Err... They didn't. What do you base that assumption on? That they have the skillset? They have the code and mentality?

I don't know what world you live on but on this one I am a parent, a good one it seems, and the best I can get is asking them, "Why did you call the teacher 'an idiot' loud enough so that she could hear you?" To which they respond, "I don't know, because she is?"

This is not brilliance. This is not technologically capable of finding the solutions to any problem that requires more than brute force, name calling, and tantrums.

Re:Just checking... what's the primary anger here? (1)

yetanotherforgottenl (1068684) | more than 6 years ago | (#25022813)

Here's a note for what it's worth. I didn't read your post -- which I probably would otherwise have read, as it seems pithy enough -- because I couldn't be bothered to wade through the uncapitalized sentences. You might consider it a missed opportunity for someone to appreciate your thoughts. You also might not, up to you. :-)

Re:Just checking... what's the primary anger here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25020603)

Which one is it? Number one seems to indicate legitimacy of the current patent system, and number two does not -- very different ideas, but I think slashdotters are conflating the two at the moment.

That's because slashdotters are a group made up of individuals.

Re:Just checking... what's the primary anger here? (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 6 years ago | (#25021069)

Why can't it be both? We know the second, but the first is a practical means of getting as close to the second as we can for this patent.

Re:Just checking... what's the primary anger here? (1)

niteshifter (1252200) | more than 6 years ago | (#25021225)

It's not conflation. It's the A-Team classic pincer manuever.

Re:Just checking... what's the primary anger here? (1)

mazarin5 (309432) | more than 6 years ago | (#25021651)

I don't think there's any conflict in saying "You aren't playing by your own rules, which are stupid in the first place."

Re:Just checking... what's the primary anger here? (1)

Tom (822) | more than 6 years ago | (#25022587)

Strawman

You can't seperate these two, really. The problem with software patents is the prior art thing. Software is like LEGO - you build new and cool things out of old and boring pieces. Except that in Software, your final result then becomes another LEGO piece for the next guy.

Patents break the way that software evolves through and because of prior art. That's why they are bad.

Re:Just checking... what's the primary anger here? (1)

plumby (179557) | more than 6 years ago | (#25023449)

There is a third option somewhere between the two - even if it's not actually been done before, it's a clearly obvious extension of something that been (storing graphical metadata rather than just text metadata).

Assuming that you agree with the idea of patents at all, there is possibly a place for software patents (there's plenty on here who will call foul when a company "steals" an idea that a small developer has just brought to the market) but if there is it needs to be for something a little more original than this.

Already exists. (4, Insightful)

Boogaroo (604901) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019329)

This already exists as EXIF comments in the jpegs. I can add these remarks and sort them using the comments in most modern photo viewing programs.

The only "innovation" I can see here is the fact it makes a nice animation flipping the photo over. Hardly patent-worthy.
Seriously, we need to have people that grant patents with some experience in the field they're granting patents.

Re:Already exists. (2, Funny)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019513)

Seriously, we need to have people that grant patents with some experience in the field they're granting patents.

Next thing you know, we'll be asking for those running for President of the United States to have like, you know, some real experience.

Thank you, I'll be here all night.

Re:Already exists. (3, Informative)

AscianBound (1359727) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019705)

Seriously, we need to have people that grant patents with some experience in the field they're granting patents.

It hasn't been granted yet. It has simply been applied for, according to the summary. Patents do get denied sometimes (though definitely not as often as they should).

Re:Already exists. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25020075)

Airtight's TiltViewer [airtightinteractive.com] has done the nicely animated flip-over-for-details thing for a while.

Re:Already exists. (1)

krunk4ever (856261) | more than 6 years ago | (#25020273)

Does EXIF support an image? I'm not saying this is patent worthy, but its capabilities aren't truly covered by all of EXIF if EXIF only contains text. If I understand "scribbling" correctly, that would mean I can draw (basically append an image to my existing photo). Say I want to draw a map on how to get to this place where the photo is taken. I don't think EXIF currently supports that today.

Re:Already exists. (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 6 years ago | (#25021033)

that's not what they are talking about.

scribble in this case, means they want to annotate using an sms-style text entry.

EXIF certainly supports that. I don't believe nokia's patent will be granted.

Re:Already exists. (1)

xigxag (167441) | more than 6 years ago | (#25021807)

No, it's more than just EXIF/SMS data ... the second link mentions using a stylus to scribble something in one's own handwriting.

My own feeling is there is enough here which is non-obvious to easily be patented, if it turns out it hasn't been done before.

Other options are:

It has been done before, in which case someone can come up with prior art, the end.
It hasn't been done before, because it's too stupid. In which case, no harm no foul if it's patented.

Finally, I'd like to point out as others have done in previous threads, that the history of patents is replete with things that we as non-inventors assume to be "trivial" or "obvious" but really aren't, in terms of the USPTO. Look up the history of barbed wire and paper clips.

Re:Already exists. (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 6 years ago | (#25023383)

should every data type that could ever be put in, let's say database, be patentable ?

"patent for putting sound in dabase"
"patent for putting picture in dabase"
"patent for putting smell signature in dabase"
"patent for putting visible colour range in dabase"

and, um, to answer your original question, exif metadata tags include thumbnail ;)

Open Source Applications/tests are the only answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25021293)

If every patent APPLICATION was put up on a public web-site, with ANYONE able to post a link+comment to prior art, THEN the patent system might be able to cope. ( there'd need to be a Vote Up / Vote Down system, too, so that spammers/astroturfers couldn't render the system utterly bogged )

IT ISN'T POSSIBLE for the patent examiners to wade through thousands of pages of research every hour, to decide if the current application is negated by prior art.

It isn't even possible for patent examiners to DISCOVER which thousands of pages of research to look into!

Change The Algorithm, Not The Implementation!

Let US ( anyone, anywhere in the world ) do the searching, let them simply *judge* the validity of the application.

its truly amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25019569)

that we as creatures still crave tangible comforts like scribbling. er, can be exploited to use it at all. there are far more efficient and powerful ways of tagging images in cyberspace (relational databases, embedded data, etc...) but we still crave the outmoded.

perhaps its why things like fax machines and notaries still persist today. if anything, this just shows nokia is pedaling us backwards at an ever faster rate.

Brrrr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25019649)

I'm really afraid to know that I could get a bus or a metro and to be next to one of these evil genius patent trolls.

Another example... (1)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019801)

Spore beat them to it, and of course others too. Spore's png files also has the creature's save file in it as well, probably located just beyond the end of the file png's file. You can literally drag and drop a png picture from a webpage into spore and it'll add it.

Hardly a novel idea. Pretty much any combination file type encompasses this patent. Adding text to a picture is by far the most basic usage possible.

Circles and Arrows (3, Funny)

pintpusher (854001) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019821)

Until it can make 8x10 color glossy photos with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was...

AND

output to a braille tty, well then, I'm just not interested.

Re:Circles and Arrows (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 6 years ago | (#25020491)

If I had mod points I would mod you up.

I could have posted but you beat me to it with the 8x10 color glossy photos.

I wonder how many other people would even get that reference?

Re:Circles and Arrows (1)

PatDev (1344467) | more than 6 years ago | (#25021437)

I wonder how many other people would even get that reference?

At least one. And if this patent gets approved, it will be a typical case of American blind justice. ;-)

Re:Circles and Arrows (1)

SpooForBrains (771537) | more than 6 years ago | (#25021963)

Onto the group W bench with you!

Re:Circles and Arrows (1)

EGenius007 (1125395) | more than 6 years ago | (#25022787)

Oh no, the FATHER rapers.

Re:Circles and Arrows (1)

KGIII (973947) | more than 6 years ago | (#25022831)

This is off topic sort of but, it is worth the hit, check out Rueben Clamzo from Arlo.

Arlo Guthrie /Reuben Clamzo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo9TxeqeDCE [youtube.com]

Enjoy. ;)

Prior art (1)

Lookin' for work (1317901) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019847)

The old 1997-era Nikon Coolpix 300 would let you scribble notes attached to an image:
http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/9711dcs.html [epi-centre.com]

I guess they didn't have the "back of the photo" function... ...whatever.

Send this commentary to the USPTO (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019887)

How about somebody give the dust time to settle on this thread and then send it to the USPTO for their enlightenment?

Re:Send this commentary to the USPTO (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 6 years ago | (#25020791)

It's only an application, and if it isn't laughed out of the USPTO, we need disband the USPTO.

Re:Send this commentary to the USPTO (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 6 years ago | (#25021377)

They're well past the point of that decision, aren't they? They've approved applications for so many moronic patents at this point that no one can keep track, not even them. I say we send them our "advice" purely on the reasonable assumption that they still haven't learned how to do a competent job of it.

in a tech bubble, anything is a breakthrough (1)

heroine (1220) | more than 6 years ago | (#25019951)

What does it look like? A 3D animation of a photo flipping over? Amazing how a tech bubble can make the smallest piece of software be worth billions & billions of dollars and employ thousands of people.

Better idea (1)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 6 years ago | (#25020031)

Boy, that's just what I want to do when I'm on the run... take the time to flip the phone over, take out a stylus, and sloooooooowly scrawl a note using archaic gesture that might or might not be legible later.

What I'd rather have is voice recognition in the phone that will annotate the photos for me. *snap* "Goose Rock Beach at sunset." *snap* "That tea shop on Front that I want to check out later." etc.

Par for the course (1)

actionbastard (1206160) | more than 6 years ago | (#25020163)

Every software company that has an 'idea' will file a patent with the knowledge that the USPTO has so many idiots working for it that it would grant a patent for a 'character-based communication system comprised of a graphite based inscription utensil and fibrous, cellulose based, recording medium'.

Nokia probably don't care if they get this or not (3, Insightful)

Mr. Roadkill (731328) | more than 6 years ago | (#25020191)

Whether we like them or not, software patents have become a familiar and potentially damaging part of the legal landscape.

Nokia obviously want to use this feature in their software, and don't want to be sued. Nobody else has staked out a claim for this particular concept, so Nokia filed a patent. If it's granted, Nokia get to use this feature and can claim a little bit of money from anyone else who chooses to do so. If it's knocked back on the grounds that it's obvious or that there's prior art and it's therefore unpatentable, then Nokia still get to use that feature without the risk of being sued. They win either way.

PalmOS (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25020401)

The very first thing which came to my mind is PalmOS. Its media viewer allows one to add a comment to the picture (saved in an annoying non-standard format; why can't it use EXIF?), by simply chosing "Info" on the menu while viewing it and filling the comment field. And you can even say it's "scribbling", since it's Graffiti 2.

It doesn't have a flip effect, but adding a flip (or worse, rotating cube) effect to something shouldn't be enough to make it original.

Vodafon/Sharp already half way tn nullifying that (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 6 years ago | (#25021395)

Several phones, such as the V 402-SH (from year 2004) enabled the user to annotate pics shot via the phone. That is only halfway to the other side of the photo. Sharp also had in Dec 04 cellphones with haptics, with auto rotating displays, and with displays that turned silver ro normal an Harajuku girls could pretty-up without looking for a separate mirror. I saw/felt these first-hand in Tokyo. The USPTO better wake up and stop taking greed money, or else...

Sounds like LookingGlass to me... (1)

Black Art (3335) | more than 6 years ago | (#25021411)

This was in Sun's LookingGlass interface already. (Among other things.)

Too many patent lawyers, too few salt-covered bullets.

Wow, this is a great patent (1)

Tanuki64 (989726) | more than 6 years ago | (#25022095)

But Nokia is so short sighted. Far too attached to the physical world. I will at once file a patent for displaying different data depending on how the photo was flipped. Left to right, right to left, up/down, down/up and of course depending on the weekday and the current moon phase. Oh boy I will be soooo rich.

Encryption in jpeg data (1)

bencollier (1156337) | more than 6 years ago | (#25023011)

Maybe I missed it in the patent text, but this would be much more interesting if it was a way of inserting metadata by minutely altering encoding of a jpeg image. There's plenty of room for noise in a jpeg file, and this way the pictures could be posted and copied elsewhere whilst maintaining the notes *and* compatibility.

Re:Encryption in jpeg data (1)

Tanuki64 (989726) | more than 6 years ago | (#25023021)

Still would not be worth a patent. This technique is called steganography and certainly nothing new.

Irfanview plug in? (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 6 years ago | (#25023063)

Open a photo in Irfanview, press i and select Comment, now you can scribble as if you had a next gen Nokia.

It just requires a new plug in to make the gui do a flip and display an empty sheet of paper with textures and all.

Nokia; simplicity at management level.

Why did this get reported on Slashdot? (1)

giles hogben (1145597) | more than 6 years ago | (#25023205)

I think we're all agreed that this is an absolute non-idea (displaying metadata - WOW!!!). But the post doesn't say that - it's reported as though it might be of interest to slashdotters. I'm intrigued because it was also reported in New Scientist as though it was some kind of big new idea and I thought exactly the same thing when I read it there - WTF!! Is it a plant by some tricksy press department or something?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?