Saying the patent is on "taking pictures of stuff on a white background" is about the same as tesla sells its cars because it has four wheels. The patent, which is limited completely by the claims, is about something much much narrower than simply taking a photo from a white background. Claim 1 requires a certain iso, multiple cameras, light ratio between the cameras, specific fstop, and a platform at a certain height. I've read multiple people saying the patent claims a commonly known and widely used technique. I've seen several people asked to show an example that is covered by the claims. I've seen nobody provide such an example.
The PTO rejected the patent on the first office action. Minimal, literally the smallest amount of effort, shows that in fact there was some due diligence. The file history is on line - the depth of this diligence is easy to check. Yet most of the posters and Cory (disappointingly) are willing to jump to the worst possible conclusions about the people at the USPTO and Amazon without apparently knowing anything about the actual patent and its history. Which would be understandable if that information were not readily available on the Internet - thus it is just depressing.
If this really is a "common studio technique" then the patent will be easily proven worthless. The system does in fact work very well and exactly like that. I suspect that instead this is an extremely narrow set of claims that result in a likely novel but not infringed patent and that Cory and others here are unintentionally exaggerating its scope and legitimacy out of, pardon me if it seems harsh but I believe it to be the right word, ignorance.