[kristiandupont]

If I may play the devil's advocate for a moment here, what if the filer really did come up with a new way of filming yoga classes that actually is much better, which everyone then proceeded to copy? I don't know if that's the case here, and I am not sure exactly how I feel even if it is. Should any idea be free for anyone to copy once it's "out there"?

[ipsin]

The problem with the YogaGlo patent is that covered basically what you would do if you wanted to film a yoga class and thought about it for five minutes... and there was plenty of "prior art" using the same strategy.

If it was a truly novel thing involving (say) a camera rig for capturing more angles, or using 3d modeling to highlight specific body angles and positions, I might be sympathetic, but this patent was approximately "put a camera in a yoga studio".

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/octobers-very-bad-no-g...

[pizza234]

This kind of patent is nothing more than what clever and dedicated people could do. I'm sure that in the history of filming one could find such setup - for how many decades have instructional videos be produced?

They just, as good weasels, found a weaselly way to patent an not-so-special idea, and patented it, with the assumption that if somebody finds a similar way of filming, say, 4 feet from the ground instead of 3, he certainly not going to have a few million dollars to proceed in court - we're talking about yoga, not android devices (ahem...).

Keep in mind, most importantly, that asserting that this patent is ridiculous doesn't equal or implies that any idea should be free for anyone to copy.

[darkstar999]

> nothing more than what clever and dedicated people could do

_All_ patents are "nothing more than what clever and dedicated people could do".

I'm not defending this particular patent, I just wanted to refute that part of your argument.

[al2o3cr]

Depends on what you read into "clever", I'd say. The standard for novelty that the USPTO uses makes anything "obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains" non-patentable.

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

[oh_sigh]

I can't imagine why film shots should be patentable. It's just using a camera in a certain way. For example, imagine if someone patented the dolly zoom[1]. It would be similar to patenting using a tennis racket to swat at bees.

[1]: http://youtu.be/rW23RsUTb2Y?t=2m1s

[kstrauser]

What's the precedent for Hollywood directors copying each other's interesting new techniques? I ask because I genuinely don't know, but it seems like that would be a decent analogy. If Cameron invents/discovers/whatever a new shot or method or angle, can Bay use it without paying? If so, I think that's your answer.

[lotsofmangos]

You just reminded me of this comparative analysis of Bay's shooting techniques. http://vimeo.com/99798626

edit - no really, watch it. It is much better than it sounds.

[computer]

Yes, since it doesn't seem like something that costs billians in R&D and needs a patent for a government-enforced monopoly to make back those costs.

[kristiandupont]

(wow, -4! I guess I need to choose my wording even more carefully! Sorry about seemingly not taking the right side here, people!)