The abstract sounds far-reaching, but for patents the claims are what matter. And the claims of this patent are extremely narrow. It shouldn't be difficult to sidestep these. My general rule is that if you see specific numbers in the claims ("eighty-five millimeter lens", " configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty", etc.) you probably have a pretty weak patent.
The fact that they needed this configuration means they must have found prior art that discloses other configurations.
The notion that this particular configuration would not have been "obvious to try" is ridiculous on its face.
Weak patent or not, it should not have issued.
Overcoming prior art through choosing a different set of standard lens settings, without any showing that a photographer of common skill would have not have tried those settings (IE they at least produce an unexpected result), is crazy
Would it be valid for me to submit my own patent application, with the exact same wording as amazon's, but substituting "50mm lens" in place of "85mm lens"?
I dont know how patent law works, so I'm honestly asking.. if the narrowness of the claims makes it okay, wont we eventually end up with hundreds of patents covering the entire space of possible configurations?
Patent law requires something to be "non-obvious". It cannot be a single step away from a previous patent. This patent would count as prior art for such an obvious change, and as such the patent you describe would not be valid or granted.
Non-obvious is supposed to be a broad term, but in reality a patent examiner will just search through prior patents for prior art. In this case, if you really did copy everything else word for word, he or she would very quickly find the existing patent and deny you.
If valid, this would be a nice way of amassing a huge patent portfolio whilst spending very little on lawyers' fees (with the potential added benefit of exposing possible grounds for invalidating competing patents if you get your applications turned down)
