Company Claims Patent On Pretty Much All Podcasting
from the this-ought-to-be-fun dept
VoloMedia, an online ad tools company, is gleefully declaring that it has been awarded a patent on podcasting. The specific patent, 7,568,213, is for a "Method for providing episodic media content." Not surprisingly, it's a continuation patent (sometimes referred to as a submarine patent) where the claims are changed over time to keep current with what's happening in the market. The patent itself is short, with the main claim being:A method for providing episodic media, the method comprising: providing a user with access to a channel dedicated to episodic media, wherein the episodic media provided over the channel is pre-defined into one or more episodes by a remote publisher of the episodic media; receiving a subscription request to the channel dedicated to the episodic media from the user; automatically downloading updated episodic media associated with the channel dedicated to the episodic media to a computing device associated with the user in accordance with the subscription request upon availability of the updated episodic media, the automatic download occurring without further user interaction; and providing the user with: an indication of a maximum available channel depth, the channel depth indicating a size of episodic media yet to be downloaded from the channel and size of episodic media already downloaded from the channel, the channel depth being specified in playtime or storage resources, and the ability to modify the channel depth by deleting selected episodic media content, thereby overriding the previously configured channel depth.I have a lot of trouble understanding how this is possibly patentable. I would think that Dave Winer's work on enclosures for audio content in RSS would be seen as significant prior art. Beyond just the prior art, you have to wonder how this passes the "bilski" test (what was transformed here?) or the KSR/Teleflex test on obviousness (this is simply combining things that were already out there). Still, expect plenty of trouble here. Considering that Volo wasted no time at all in rushing out a press release, expect them to be aggressive with this patent -- without realizing that it may be unleashing significant anger from the podcasting community that it probably doesn't want.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: obviousness, patents, podcasting, prior art
Companies: volomedia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If Only...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If Only...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If Only...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If Only...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crack legal intimidation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crack legal intimidation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We really do need to disband the USPTO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm no lawyer, so all I got out of reading that was "A method for providing...channel depth."
The fact that there is a NEED to have legal copy written that way is so ridiculous... but that's a whole different topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do I get one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do I get one
BTW if you laughed at that because you think it sounds silly, you need to look up the history of "the sandwich".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Podcasting
Seriously, what ever happened to producing a real product? It seems so much profit is being made off lame-ass patents people have forgotten how to be really creative!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Podcasting
CwLawyers + RtSue = $$$$$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thats the thing, all you have to do is NOT do business in the US and you're fairly free to innovate unencumbered. I can't honestly think of any good reason to own a technology company based in the USA. It's one massive liability with dreadful exposure to legal sleaze and grand standing politicians.
Starting a web or software company in Brazil for example, carries a lower tax burden, indemnity from the USPTO's insanity while at the same time, grants you access to the exact same market via the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop the shilling!!!
If you knew what you were talking about, if you had ever prosecuted a patent application, you would know you can only claim what you disclose. Your accusations are unfounded and irrational. Changing your claims in prosecution is necessitated in response to office actions.
A shill is a shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stop the shilling!!!
"Leave Britney Alone !!"
Too Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Winer did it first.
http://www.thetwowayweb.com/payloadsForRss
He tweeted about it earlier today:
http://twitter.com/davewiner/status/2912174161 (on this news story)
and
http://twitter.com/davewiner/status/2912205012 (on his first description of what would later be known as podcasting)
This patent once again proves that the whole system is broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real question is,
What they need to do is make it so only the original maker of the process/invention be able to create a patent. If they can not prove that they were the first to patent it, then they can not patent it. Meaning if the product or process already exsisted prior to the patent being filed then the person filling the patent is SOL... It would force people to patent something before sending it to market and put an end to the patent trolls once and for all. The patent office also need to look at all the patents created in the last few years and make those people with patents re-prove that they solely were the first to "invent/create" the idea. And if they can't prove it they lose the patent and have to pay back all royalties paid to them plus a HUGE fine for falsely stating that the idea is an original product of the person or persons claiming the patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let Them Eat Cake!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent
For instance, I'm absolutely certain that nobody here has any idea what the "pencil" test is. I'm not going to waste my fingers trying to explain it to the likes of you people. It should be sufficient for me to say - rest assured - these claims PASS the pencil test!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beyond the first sentence, it's merely a description of a concept and process that has already existed for quite some time. If that much isn't obvious to you, then you sir, are an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beyond the first sentence, it's merely a description of a concept and process that has already existed for quite some time. If that much isn't obvious to you, then you sir, are an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beyond the first sentence, it's merely a description of a concept and process that has already existed for quite some time. If that much isn't obvious to you, then you sir, are an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beyond the first sentence, it's merely a description of a concept and process that has already existed for quite some time. If that much isn't obvious to you, then you sir, are an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]