Although the example cited in this article seems pretty obvious on what we have, for all we know (a) it is the very first example of time-sorted photos and (b) there could be further context in the article saying that the analysis is done by reference to specific features, such as assessing movement across a field of view (rather than by reference to a timestamp, which is what seems to be implied).
Who is to say this isn't novel? Seems to me it could be a very helpful technology to sort unsorted old photographs or analyse scraps of cctv footage .
That is just an example, but the major problem is that with AskPatents you will always be looking at these applications in a different context to the context in which they were written. The mere fact that something is being read can tend to make it more obvious, when actually at the time it was dreamt up it could have been quite a leap.
Also, the fact that you are reading the patent some time - up to a year - after the original grant means that it will be read in context of the state of the art today. By the time a patent is published its invention probably in common usage already.
All this tends to bias towards a finding of 'obviousness'. Even finding something close that was previously in use doesn't preclude obviousness - it just means that the inventive step is smaller than otherwise thought. If the reader already has an inherent bias against software patents in principle, this will only compound the problem.
There are several significant legal concepts specifically geared to avoiding that mental bias. They are there for a reason, and could be eroded by poor application. That would have a negative effect for any inventor.
Who is to say this isn't novel? Seems to me it could be a very helpful technology to sort unsorted old photographs or analyse scraps of cctv footage .
That is just an example, but the major problem is that with AskPatents you will always be looking at these applications in a different context to the context in which they were written. The mere fact that something is being read can tend to make it more obvious, when actually at the time it was dreamt up it could have been quite a leap.
Also, the fact that you are reading the patent some time - up to a year - after the original grant means that it will be read in context of the state of the art today. By the time a patent is published its invention probably in common usage already.
All this tends to bias towards a finding of 'obviousness'. Even finding something close that was previously in use doesn't preclude obviousness - it just means that the inventive step is smaller than otherwise thought. If the reader already has an inherent bias against software patents in principle, this will only compound the problem.
There are several significant legal concepts specifically geared to avoiding that mental bias. They are there for a reason, and could be eroded by poor application. That would have a negative effect for any inventor.