Nikonn CoolPix had wifi support in 2005. I'd imagine if you could select specific pictures to upload wherever from the device, that's the whole patent claim invalidated by 4 years. Hell, this article even references a device that Nikon offered to wirelessly transmit images as early as 2003. Find one of these, bring it to the law firm defending Gnome and that should invalidate the patent.
https://connectedsocialmedia.com/1163/sharpcast-demo-brings-...
...filter the plurality of photographic images using a transfer criteria wherein the transfer criteria is a subject identification of a respective photographic image within the plurality of photographic images, wherein the subject identification is based on a topic, theme or individual shown in the respective photographic image; and transmit, via the wireless transmitter and to a second mobile device, the filtered plurality of photographic images.
Invaliding prior art has to cover every single thing in the claim. (And my hunch is that it's out there).
A. Classifying images based on a (pre-existing?) identification; B. Filtering images based on classification; C. Wirelessly transmitting images
were all known at the time. Then you could argue that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" would have known to combine A+B+C to solve the problem. Thus the prior art teaches the invention and the patent should be declared invalid.
You are much better off defending again infringement suits with novelty arguments.
filtering the plurality of photographic images using a transfer criteria wherein the transfer criteria is a subject identification of a respective photographic image within the plurality of photographic images,
wherein the subject identification is based on a topic, theme or individual shown in the respective photographic image;
The patent system is so broken. It's as if drug companies, instead of patenting a specific treatment for cancer, were able to patent "treating cancer".
I understand it's not patenting facial recognition in general, just in the specific case of using facial rec or other techniques (which the lawyers called transfer criteria/subject identification) to identify subjects of images before filtering by subject and transferring them wirelessly.
I stand by the meaning of the simile though. There's nothing original enough to be patentable in that claim.
A specific method for doing facial recognition should be patentable. "Use facial rec to identify individuals in images, then filter for specific individuals, then transfer those images" should not. If we allow patents on use cases, every use case will be patented and eventually the trolls will have a collection of patents that together cover the very idea of recognizing faces.
I do agree that the patent is too unclear and broad, and that everything described must have been already known by 2008.
Which would make the patent even more laughable. "Wirelessly transfer all images I've tagged with 'Vacation 2017'" is patentable?
“yes, I would like to patent the sale of a spade when you buy a rake”