After reading a few sentences, it all started sounding the same to me. I still came away from this with the perception that they patented a camera angle. This will not win back any points for them.
They are definitely soliciting people to respond on that statement page, I'm sure of it. That, or they're making accounts to validate themselves against the people who ARE real.
Or people really just don't care, which is entirely possible, but I won't let my faith sink that low just yet. If you'd patent a camera angle then you'd probably have no problem creating accounts to bolster your ego.
That is the point of the patent, isn't it? They have the patent so that no one else can use the same filming style. They don't intend to sue anyone, but if someone is filming in ways that are too similar to theirs, they will try to get them to stop. That can range from polite emails to cease-and-desists.
So basically, they don't intend to sue anyone over the patent unless they can? How exactly would you sue people who stop the infringing behavior upon request?
They are also wording their defense very carefully:
"[people claim] YogaGlo will now try to shut down any business or individual teacher that films a yoga class, which again is not true. There are many ways to film a class as evidenced by the many videos that currently exist that do not violate our patent."
Note how the overall tone here is "it's incorrect to suggest we're going to shut down all yoga class filming," (incidentally, a suggestion nobody is making) and the subtext is "so long as you film in a way that doesn't violate our patents."
edit: This post of theirs really seems to just dig them in deeper. They look like clueless assholes.
They claim their patent is very specific, then list points that amount to 'a camera on the back of the room, with a view of the instructor, and students around the room who aren't blocking the camera'. The supposedly non-infringing examples are silly, too - a bunch of videos with people standing in the way of the instructor. Can they realistically assert that not having students stand in the way, blocking view of the instructor, in an instructional/exercise video is novel, non-trivial, non-obvious and not done before?
Ha, and here I thought they were going to apologize and release the patent as the nonsense it is. Nope! Even better, a self-righteous screed about how there is nothing to worry about... for most of you.
The really upsetting thing is that the patent seems to center around a certain photographic composition. They've just added "oh and we stream it too". Couldn't this be extended to also cover non-yoga courses with the same composition technique?
> Below are a few visual examples of what our patent protects. Note, there are many other ways companies and teachers can create yoga classes that do not look anything like YogaGlo’s classes:
I discounted every single word they said after seeing the pictures! I cannot believe any sane person, much less a patent official, can believe that those ought to be patentable.
What came to mind was a Sanskrit proverb many Indians would be aware of: "Vinaash Kale, Vipreet Buddhi", which roughly translates to, "When the hour of destruction is near, the brain abandons all logic."
I hope (against hope) the end of the patent system as we know it is nigh :)
Their style reminds me of the expertsexchange guys after it had gotten obvious that StackOverflow pwned their asses. They sounded genuinely offended about their own asshole behavior biting them back.
That assumes people are working together to fight them, and that the court systems and judges aren't unreasonable. You could spend $ millions in court fees, and they could uphold it.
NBA broadcasters sometimes describe a play using phrases like "his patented turn-around jump-shot". Imagine if you really could patent such a thing? The YogaGlo patent seems to be in the same vein.
That looks pretty close (although I can't tell if the camera is at a height of 3 feet), but it was uploaded in 2011. This patent has a priority date of 27 Aug 2010, so to invalidate this patent, any videos like this from before that date would be needed.
The patent says "about 3 feet" instead of 3 feet, and while that's vague enough to be stupid they've helpfully provided images of their classes that represent a camera at that height in the post. Skimming that video it looks to be a very close match.
I'd be interested to know whether arguments used defending against prior art are legally binding afterward. For example if they said "nope, the camera looks to be 1m, not 3ft", would they be unable to consider something at 1m infringement forever?
> I'd be interested to know whether arguments used defending against prior art are legally binding afterward. For example if they said "nope, the camera looks to be 1m, not 3ft", would they be unable to consider something at 1m infringement forever?
Yes, it's called estoppel [1] which, amongst other things, basically means, "whatever you say can and will be used against you". This includes whatever comments and arguments they made during prosecution of the patent.
Does prior art mean anything with the US First to File system?
Is anyone looking through old DVD or VHS videos of Yoga lessons, or through Youtube (or similar) video sites?
This strikes me as another reason why DMCA is bad. Backing up an old VHS tape might require breaking the macrovision copy protection. Yet it's important to keep this old stuff around because it might be useful in cases like this.
"Does prior art mean anything with the US First to File system?"
Yes, first to file is about what happens when two people invent the same thing within the same year, not about "first guy to ever file something gets a patent".
Also... frankly, this is awesome. We need increased lunacy outside of the software industry for people to understand how broken patents are. This story is getting enough traction that "Patent Reform" is likely to be an idea that will resonate with substantially more people.
I go to any conference which is being filmed and what does the setup look like?
-- Aisle down the center, speaker at the front ("a line of sight corridor between the rear area of a class and the instructor in the front of the class")
-- Camera at the rear in the middle of the aisle, providing clearest, centered view of the speaker ("an image capturing device located in the rear area with an unobstructed view of the instructor, to provide a participatory view through the line of sight corridor")
-- Everyone seated facing the speaker (duh) ("students in a class, facing the instructor, distributed across the classroom between the instructor position and the image capturing device wherein the students do not block the corridor.")
So they just took a standard filming technique and added 'yoga' to it.
"Setting the record straight" has only emboldened my opinion that this patent is pure baloney and YogaGlo is a disgrace to the yoga community AS WELL AS the business community. I hope this patent goes down in flames and YogaGlo is put out of business in the process
this is why patents have become a complete joke.. really a patent on which the angle of a camera records something inside a square room? REALLY!? wow.. lol
Since this is relevant to the tech community let me paint a picture before people start sharpening the pitchforks...
I've been meeting with investors recently and one of the most common questions/comments has been - "Why can't someone else just do the same thing? Can a group of Stanford grads build this in a weekend?" This line of questioning is relevant to pretty much all startups today.
The reality is, from what I can tell, to build YogaGlo, you could build this in a month with a fairly decent tech team and a little bit of hustle. Now imagine you're the CEO of YogaGlo today and an investor asks you these questions. Easy answer - "they can't, we have a patent". Think of this in another light. What happens if the company goes bust and there are no physical assets to liquidate? A patent (or IP) is an asset that can be sold. (think Nortel[1])
We've significantly lowered the barrier to pretty much every industry in the world. The production cost of one of these yoga classes can't be more than $100 per video and yet can reach a million in a click of a button. Since it's so "easy", we come full circle back to how important ownership, rights, IP and patents are. Otherwise your business is simply another replaceable middle man.
However here is where I believe YogaGlo has just screwed up in playing this game. Because it's so easy to reproduce their IP, companies like YogaGlo should be focusing on mindshare, and less about patentability and competition. Create such good relationships with yoga instructors and the people watching the videos that they wouldn't dare go to the competition. This sentence stuck out more than anything:
"Several companies offered to buy us, invest, license our technology, or hire YogaGlo to film their classes. When we declined, a few grew unhappy with us." You declined?! Are you out of your mind? Why not become the de facto company for licensing your technology, filming other Yoga classes, etc? That's how you build mindshare - and mindshare is IMHO the "new IP".
If a business is easily copyable and no-one will finance it for that reason, that business may never come to exist, which is clearly a net loss to society. Of course, this does not apply to yoga videos, but a lot of startups that venture into unproven technologies or markets are very risky investments.
Having new businesses is not a net loss to society? Sure, a vast majority of them will be worthless, but without experimentation how else will valuable new markets be discovered?
I think it's mistaken for Yogaglo to believe that what distinguishes their business is some specific camera angle and frankly it's disingenuous for them to pretend so. They have a set of very popular teachers (even celebrities within the yoga world). That's the reason why Stanford grads can't build it in a weekend -- are they going to be able to get Kathryn Budig and Jason Crandall and the others? I really think they just got greedy, and want to force their competitors to film their classes at awkward angles and in undesirable formats.
well wait a second, whether or not they do facilitate is not the same thing as whether or not they are necessary for it to happen. Clearly, the latter is true since there's that other 33%
Yes, they're clearly not necessary, and you'll find many entrepreneurs right here who'll be living proof of it. But if VCs ask for them, having at least one patent does make it easier to secure financing.
And there are other, less obvious, reasons VCs may be interested in patents. The second study (and other studies) showed that having at least one patent is correlated with significantly higher chances of a startup having a successful exit.
The reasons behind this correlation is not clear, but if it presents such a powerful signal, VCs have a good reason to look for patents.
I basically read "this is an incredibly strict patent. We didn't blatantly patent filming from the back of the class. Our patent only applies when the camera can see the teacher."
I've followed online yoga sites for years and this is by far the most common and obvious way of filming a class.
72 comments
[ 1.4 ms ] story [ 170 ms ] threadLets vote to get rid of the patent system.
Or people really just don't care, which is entirely possible, but I won't let my faith sink that low just yet. If you'd patent a camera angle then you'd probably have no problem creating accounts to bolster your ego.
[1] http://yogainternational.com/article/view/patents-and-lawsui...
"[people claim] YogaGlo will now try to shut down any business or individual teacher that films a yoga class, which again is not true. There are many ways to film a class as evidenced by the many videos that currently exist that do not violate our patent."
Note how the overall tone here is "it's incorrect to suggest we're going to shut down all yoga class filming," (incidentally, a suggestion nobody is making) and the subtext is "so long as you film in a way that doesn't violate our patents."
edit: This post of theirs really seems to just dig them in deeper. They look like clueless assholes.
I discounted every single word they said after seeing the pictures! I cannot believe any sane person, much less a patent official, can believe that those ought to be patentable.
What came to mind was a Sanskrit proverb many Indians would be aware of: "Vinaash Kale, Vipreet Buddhi", which roughly translates to, "When the hour of destruction is near, the brain abandons all logic."
I hope (against hope) the end of the patent system as we know it is nigh :)
This kind of "apology" is just pouring gasoline on the fire.
They seem to have taken down their post - its HN discussion is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2224305 and the original is on web archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20120424061749/http://www.expert...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOt35-GQ_8w
I'd be interested to know whether arguments used defending against prior art are legally binding afterward. For example if they said "nope, the camera looks to be 1m, not 3ft", would they be unable to consider something at 1m infringement forever?
Yes, it's called estoppel [1] which, amongst other things, basically means, "whatever you say can and will be used against you". This includes whatever comments and arguments they made during prosecution of the patent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel
Is anyone looking through old DVD or VHS videos of Yoga lessons, or through Youtube (or similar) video sites?
This strikes me as another reason why DMCA is bad. Backing up an old VHS tape might require breaking the macrovision copy protection. Yet it's important to keep this old stuff around because it might be useful in cases like this.
Yes, first to file is about what happens when two people invent the same thing within the same year, not about "first guy to ever file something gets a patent".
Also... frankly, this is awesome. We need increased lunacy outside of the software industry for people to understand how broken patents are. This story is getting enough traction that "Patent Reform" is likely to be an idea that will resonate with substantially more people.
-- Aisle down the center, speaker at the front ("a line of sight corridor between the rear area of a class and the instructor in the front of the class")
-- Camera at the rear in the middle of the aisle, providing clearest, centered view of the speaker ("an image capturing device located in the rear area with an unobstructed view of the instructor, to provide a participatory view through the line of sight corridor")
-- Everyone seated facing the speaker (duh) ("students in a class, facing the instructor, distributed across the classroom between the instructor position and the image capturing device wherein the students do not block the corridor.")
So they just took a standard filming technique and added 'yoga' to it.
Namaste...
I've been meeting with investors recently and one of the most common questions/comments has been - "Why can't someone else just do the same thing? Can a group of Stanford grads build this in a weekend?" This line of questioning is relevant to pretty much all startups today.
The reality is, from what I can tell, to build YogaGlo, you could build this in a month with a fairly decent tech team and a little bit of hustle. Now imagine you're the CEO of YogaGlo today and an investor asks you these questions. Easy answer - "they can't, we have a patent". Think of this in another light. What happens if the company goes bust and there are no physical assets to liquidate? A patent (or IP) is an asset that can be sold. (think Nortel[1])
We've significantly lowered the barrier to pretty much every industry in the world. The production cost of one of these yoga classes can't be more than $100 per video and yet can reach a million in a click of a button. Since it's so "easy", we come full circle back to how important ownership, rights, IP and patents are. Otherwise your business is simply another replaceable middle man.
However here is where I believe YogaGlo has just screwed up in playing this game. Because it's so easy to reproduce their IP, companies like YogaGlo should be focusing on mindshare, and less about patentability and competition. Create such good relationships with yoga instructors and the people watching the videos that they wouldn't dare go to the competition. This sentence stuck out more than anything: "Several companies offered to buy us, invest, license our technology, or hire YogaGlo to film their classes. When we declined, a few grew unhappy with us." You declined?! Are you out of your mind? Why not become the de facto company for licensing your technology, filming other Yoga classes, etc? That's how you build mindshare - and mindshare is IMHO the "new IP".
[1]-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nortel
I agree with your last paragraph and think they require better business execution over patents.
That is not at all clear.
1. The 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1429049), finding that while only 25% of all software startups file patents, about 67% of venture-funded startups do.
2. "Do Patents Facilitate Financing in the Software Industry?", Ronald J. Mann, 2005, (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=510103), finding that the answer seem to be "yes", amongst other interesting conclusions.
And there are other, less obvious, reasons VCs may be interested in patents. The second study (and other studies) showed that having at least one patent is correlated with significantly higher chances of a startup having a successful exit.
The reasons behind this correlation is not clear, but if it presents such a powerful signal, VCs have a good reason to look for patents.
I've followed online yoga sites for years and this is by far the most common and obvious way of filming a class.