Patent Troll Says It Owns Podcasting; Sues Adam Carolla, HowStuffWorks
from the this-dept.-line-is-patented dept
We've written a few times about a patent trolling operation called Personal Audio. Like so many patent trolling companies, who's actually behind it is something of a mystery, but it does have an empty office in East Texas that no one ever goes to. It sued Apple and others claiming that it held patents on the concept of "playlists" and actually scored some victories. Amazingly, it sued Apple multiple times over the same patent, arguing that small changes to its products were new violations.Well, the company is back with a "new" patent, 8,112,504, called a "System for disseminating media content representing episodes in a serialized sequence" and appears to be claiming that podcasting itself violates the patent -- and has sued three podcasters, including Adam Carolla's "ACE Broadcasting," HowStuffWorks and Togi Entertainment. Personal Audio focuses on claim 31 of the patent, which you can read here:
Now, let's be clear. This patent was applied for on March 4, 2009 and granted on February 7, 2012. Isn't it great that the "new" USPTO is now rushing through patent approvals, so examiners like Carl Colin could claim that this patent was both "new" and "non-obvious" to those skilled in the art, when podcasting itself has been around since at least 2004. Hell, why not look it up on, oh, HowStuffWorks -- one of the companies being sued for "violating" this patent that wasn't applied for until 2009? Incredibly, Adam Carolla's podcast started on February 23, 2009... or exactly two weeks before this patent was applied for. Update: As pointed out in the comments, this is actually a "child" patent of an earlier application, so they can argue a priority date from back in 1996. In other words, this is really a submarine patent (which were supposed to have been outlawed).31. Apparatus for disseminating a series of episodes represented by media files via the Internet as said episodes become available, said apparatus comprising:
- one or more data storage servers,
- one or more communication interfaces connected to the Internet for receiving requests received from remotely located client devices, and for responding to each given one of said requests by downloading a data file identified by a URL specified by said given one of said requests to the requesting client device,
- one or more processors coupled to said one or more data storage servers and to said one or more communications interfaces for:
- storing one or more media files representing each episode as said one or more media files become available, each of said one or more media files being stored at a storage location specified by a unique episode URL;
- from time to time, as new episodes represented in said series of episodes become available, storing an updated version of a compilation file in one of said one or more data storage servers at a storage location identified by a predetermined URL, said updated version of said compilation file containing attribute data describing currently available episodes in said series of episodes, said attribute data for each given one of said currently available episodes including displayable text describing said given one of said currently available episodes and one or more episode URLs specifying the storage locations of one or more corresponding media files representing said given one of said episodes; and
- employing one of said one or more communication interfaces to:
- (a) receive a request from a requesting client device for the updated version of said compilation file located at said predetermined URL;
- (b) download said updated version of said compilation file to said requesting client device; and
- (c) thereafter receive and respond to a request from said requesting client device for one or more media files identified by one or more corresponding episode URLs included in the attribute data contained in said updated version of said compilation files.
Of course, with so many podcasters out there, Personal Audio is not just focused on the three companies it's sued. The EFF notes that the company has sent out licensing demands to a bunch of other podcasters, as well. The good news is that the EFF is now trying to help those podcasters fight back.
What might make this even more interesting would be if people like Adam Carolla, who have huge audiences that take what they say really seriously, were able to get those audiences suddenly interested in just how totally screwed up our patent system is. Want the problems of the patent system to go mainstream? Just start having Adam Carolla talk about how messed up it is a few times on his podcast. Carolla has said that his podcast is the most downloaded podcast ever -- and if his listeners understood just how screwed up things are with the system, perhaps we could actually make a move towards really fixing an incredibly broken patent system. Carolla has apparently talked about it a little bit, and called for a "grassroots legal defense fund," but that's not going to change the actual system. If he could speak out against the problems of the overall system, rather than just that one patent, it might help permeate the public consciousness that it's the system itself that's broken.
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: adam carolla, patent troll, patents, podcasting
Companies: ace broadcasting, howstuffworks, personal audio, togi entertainment
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"each of said one or more media files being stored at a storage location specified by a unique episode URL;"
That rules out Usenet, because such URLs weren't used. Very sneaky, but what can you expect from these people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My god, they invented using a Uniform Resource Locator to uniformly locate resources!! I woulda never though of that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3884
Multiple sites were up and running and offering podcasting in its exact modern form well prior to the patent filing date.
This patent is dead, the patent holder knows it, and right now is probably trying to figure out how to back out without incurring losses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is a pod?
How does one cast it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure, a major podcast operation or broadcaster using podcasts as just one of their distribution tactics can fight back, change their distribution or simply pay up. Amateurs, on the other hand can neither pay nor fight, so will take the option to shut down their podcasts completely. This isn't just companies attacking other companies - it's peoples' art and hobbies being destroyed because some parasite wanted some free income.
I hope that this gets overturned, and quickly, but it's yet another example of racketeers trying to destroy the hard work of others so that they can profit. How anyone can defend this system, where people are apparently able to claim ownership over something they not only didn't create, but was in operation for years before they came along, is beyond me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This has got to be fixed
Any patent that can be boiled down to: We have a patent on doing X .... on the internet.
Shall be declared null and void.
This shit is getting ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This has got to be fixed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This has got to be fixed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction
Whose should be who's, a contraction of who is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is "Personal Audio"?
"Personal Audio, Inc., a predecessor to Personal Audio, LLC, was founded in 1996 with a mission of offering personalized audio to listeners using portable players downloading content and playlists from the Internet. The self-funded company worked to develop such an audio player that could download, store and manipulate audio files and related data. That system, described in patent applications filed in October, 1996, pioneered techniques now commonly used today in MP3 players, smartphones, tablets and other products that store and play audio and video files and work with downloaded playlists and podcasts.
The founder of the company was James Logan, an entrepreneur who previously had been a pioneer in the touch screen industry. He founded MicroTouch Systems, which became a public company and leader in the industry, and later Gotuit Media, a pioneer in the video metadata field.
In 2009, Personal Audio, LLC was founded by Logan and Call to market the innovations described in the patents."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who is "Personal Audio"?
"downloading content...from the Internet"
"self-funded"
"download, store and manipulate audio"
"MP3"
Can we sic the studios on them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can we sic the studios on them?
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jim-logan/1/b80/339
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Logan and Personal Audio were merely Big Media puppets at work here, trying to squash alternative programming. This might explain why Adam Carolla is the first target, beyond the fact that he's the biggest podcaster. After all, he rejected Big Media to strike out on his own. Wouldn't surprise me if they went after Glenn Beck next -- although Big Media *fired* him, which is a little bit different.
Say, does Newegg have a podcast? Think they could start one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm still unclear
If someone invents something and gets a patent then they get a monopoly on selling it. That makes sense to me, whether it is right or wrong. If I then recreate their invention and use it, but don't sell it, then I am not in any way infringing upon their monopoly, I am just using something that I made and I don't believe there is any law against that.
I'm not sure how you can sue content creators for their use of technology which is at their disposal. They are not actively selling an apparatus for disseminating a series of episodes represented by media files via the Internet as said episodes become available. Even under the doctrine of equivalents, the content creators are selling content, not the apparatus for distribution.
I think this is the first trolling case that I have seen on TD where there is no actual infringement of the patent in question, since patents merely protect the right to sell the patented product, not the right to use it.
So could someone please explain the infringement to me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm still unclear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm still unclear
The exclusive right to prevent others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing that which is within the scope of one or more claims contained within the patent as issued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm still unclear
So even making something on your own and using it is infringement.
Read more here
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The claims of the patent cover various iterations of an article of manufacture. It is not software, nor is it a business method. I daresay that the USPTO is not a "newbie" in the article of manufacture arts.
A patent claim cannot be analyzed by a mere skim, and then immediately declared to be neither new nor non-obvious, unless, of course, one is simply predisposed to declare everything neither new nor non-obvious. It takes doing some homework before one can declaratively opine in an intellectually honest manner that such a claim is invalid.
Apparently, the author of this article views the issuance of any patent as conclusive proof that the patent system is "broken".
Sorry, but this article reads like a screed, and not a thoughtful analysis of the patent and its substantive scope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The facts are these: however quickly or slowly the patent was examined, it describes things that existed before the patent was filed. Said patent is now being used to attack those who were using said technology before the patent was filed. Those are hardly the earliest examples of such people using technology, but even if they were their usage predates the patent application.
How do you defend this? No deflection and distortion, please - facts.
"Apparently, the author of this article views the issuance of any patent as conclusive proof that the patent system is "broken"."
Careful, you don't want to get your strawman burned, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If only it was just this particular patent...
The fact is, the patent system is completely busted. Evidence of that is that every other week you get stories of some douchebag abusing the patent system to crush competition or to siphon away money from the actual innovators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Quite aside from the issue of when this was applied for and granted, the thing that bothers us regulars on Techdirt is that it is very apparently yet another "doing something obvious (on the internet)" type patent, which really wrecks the whole point of any kind of "I invented it" defence. Just call it "I was first to apply for a licence for monopoly to gouge" and be done with!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You think they actually spent 3 years looking at this? Or you think they spent the customary 18 hours or so? Either way, it was taking 5 or 6 years to get patents through a few years ago. Now it's taking 3. Someone's sped things up...
The claims of the patent cover various iterations of an article of manufacture. It is not software, nor is it a business method. I daresay that the USPTO is not a "newbie" in the article of manufacture arts.
Ha! So, despite the fact that what they're being sued for has been in existence since way before the patent was applied for, you're sure this was done right because the USPTO is "not a newbie"?
A patent claim cannot be analyzed by a mere skim, and then immediately declared to be neither new nor non-obvious, unless, of course, one is simply predisposed to declare everything neither new nor non-obvious. It takes doing some homework before one can declaratively opine in an intellectually honest manner that such a claim is invalid.
If you're being intellectually honest, you'd explain that claiming a patent on podcasting -- something that is being done in the millions and has been done since before this patent existed, is clearly not something you could patent in 2009. But you're not intellectually honest.
Besides, I note that you avoid making any substantive analysis yourself, other than to say that the USPTO must know what they're doing.
Apparently, the author of this article views the issuance of any patent as conclusive proof that the patent system is "broken".
No. I never said that. Why would you make such a suggestion? Considering the rest of your post is about how I shouldn't jump to conclusions, why is it that you then jump to an even less supported conclusion?
Sorry, but this article reads like a screed, and not a thoughtful analysis of the patent and its substantive scope.
Sorry, but your comment reads like a screed, not a thoughtful analysis of my post and the facts of podcasting's history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because it appears no such analysis has been performed, there is simply no basis for stating a legal conclusion without relevant factual support that applies tests such as KSR v. Teleflex.
As for the various complaints, almost certainly each will be challenged on the basis that the plaintiff has failed to plead factual allegations sufficient to place the defendant's on notice as to why it is believed they are infringing the patent. I believe such challenges will be sustained, at which time the plaintiff will need to amend each complaint to comply with applicable pleading standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe you're growing up. (But I doubt it.)
Also, just sign in already. Your "analysis" and responses either single you out as a wannabe lawyer (which thus far you are) or your ad hom fueled vendetta against Mike singles you out for its ad homs (which you use to the point that anyone can say, "Oh yeah, that's AJ speaking").
Oh that's right, you're not automatically signed in on your phone or your wife's computer. Because we know how difficult it is to sign in on a new computer or mobile phone. No one has ever successfully signed in on either device or on any other occasion in the history of mankind. Maybe you can be the first. Then file a patent on it and add "on the internet".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Surprisingly, I'll agree:
"Claims
1. A media player for acquiring and reproducing media program files...comprising:
a digital memory,
a communications port...
a processor coupled to said digital memory and to said communications port...
2. A media player as set forth in claim 1 wherein said digital memory includes a mass storage device for persistently storing attribute data and media files downloaded via said communications port."
It sounds to me like they've patented an iPod. In 2009.
It is not software, nor is it a business method.
Well, continuing reading the rest of the claims, they're mostly functions performed by software on the device patented in Claim 1. Which to my understanding of even the craziness of the patent system would wouldn't apply to someone doing similar things on a general purpose computer, right?
So why are they suing people who produce and distribute podcasts over the internet?
Unless they *are* claiming that the patent applies to software running on general purpose computers. But you just said they didn't patent software.
So again, why are they suing people who produce and distribute podcasts over the internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Please follow the link and then respond. Again, I'll state, after reading through all 35 claims, that the only thing that is not software or a business method they claim to have invented in this patent resembles an iPod.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you, that will be all.
(PS - I agree with your analysis of the frivolity of this patent's issuance. The prior art to these claims is so ridiculously obvious the only explanation is that all USPTO examiners must be required to have been Amish hermits immediately preceding their USPTO appointments.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Regardless of the legality of the patent, there is nothing novel or new there. This is trolling at its most pure form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if Caveman had patented the wheel?
Cave-mason: "But I have been moving stuff on rolling logs for over 10 years and others have been doing it too. How can Cave-PTO issue such a broad patent now, given all of the obvious prior art?"
Cave-lawyer: "You have to examine each of the claims to measure their individual validity. You can't just say the patent is obvious without looking at the details. Cave-PTO examiners are experts that went to Cave-harvard university."
Cave-mason: [After carefully examining the stone tablet inscribed with the patent.] "I see this patent was applied for 6 years ago. That was around the same time I did some construction work on Cave-man's cave."
Cave-lawyer: "Cave-man draws inspiration for his inventions from many sources. Anyway, you better just pay up the 3 little pelts or you risk losing an entire half of a Mastadon. Plus you will be held up in extended court proceedings away from your work while your wife and children starve."
(Very early in its history, the human race goes extinct.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Effective filing date
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2008/0155616.html
and to the patent that issued from the application filed in 1996:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6199076.html
The Examiner has to look at the claims and the prior art as of the filing date or effective filing date of the application. Also remember that it's the claims that are enforced, not the disclosure as a whole. I'm not commenting on the validity of any of the claims - just pointing out that the effective filing date is earlier than would appear from the Google summary of the patent under discussion.
There are bound to be lots of things that a suit would latch onto since in a cursory review of the file history of the 2001 application I see that it went abandoned in 2003, but was revived, eventually, in 2008. It's bound to get ugly if any defendant sticks to its guns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Effective filing date
This is a valid point, and my bad for not including it. I had meant to check on that before publishing and I did not. That's totally my fault. I've updated the post to reflect that.
That doesn't change most of the analysis however. Worse, that makes this really look like a submarine patent, which wasn't supposed to be allowed any more...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Effective filing date
Skimming a claim, waiving one's arms and saying words to the effect "How could this have happened?", and then declaring it yet another example of a "broken patent system" is not an "analysis" as that word is commonly understood.
"...submarine patent..."
"Submarines" were associated with prior law where applications were kept in the strictest of confidence and an applicant was permitted to file an unlimited number of "continuation" applications. While this was the law the term of a patent was determined by the date a patent was issued. This has since been changed such that a patent term begins with the filing date of the first application, and not the date of issue. Moreover, a division is a type of application where the first filed application was determined to contain claims to more than one invention. A restriction requirement is imposed limiting the application to claiming just one of the inventions. In order for the other invention(s) to be examined, the applicant must file a separate application, which application has an effective filing date corresponding to the date of the original application.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Effective filing date
I'm still waiting for you to provide a counter analysis.
Any patent so broad as to apply to all podcasting is too broad. End story.
"Submarines" were associated with prior law where applications were kept in the strictest of confidence and an applicant was permitted to file an unlimited number of "continuation" applications. While this was the law the term of a patent was determined by the date a patent was issued. This has since been changed such that a patent term begins with the filing date of the first application, and not the date of issue. Moreover, a division is a type of application where the first filed application was determined to contain claims to more than one invention. A restriction requirement is imposed limiting the application to claiming just one of the inventions. In order for the other invention(s) to be examined, the applicant must file a separate application, which application has an effective filing date corresponding to the date of the original application.
No this is not directly a submarine, but it sure has the characteristics of one... being able to file a new patent that hits back at an earlier effective date.
You can admit it: this patent is bullshit, being used to shakedown people doing something that thousands of others are doing *because it's obvious*.
But that would force you to admit that the system is totally broken, and you can't do that since you make your money abusing the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Effective filing date
2. Novelty and non-obviousness are determined as of the date an application is filed, which in this case was 1996. Given your declarative statement as to the patent, then one must presume you were sufficiently familiar with the technology back then (about the time you were in college) that you would have been one of ordinary skill in the art to which the invention relates. If you were not one of ordinary skill in the art back in 1996, then perhaps you are relying upon the opinion of someone who was. Perhaps a clarification of whose opinion is being stated is in order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Effective filing date
Do you have any clue how Usenet worked?
Go look it up, then come back and admit that you're wrong. This is a bad patent. It's a ridiculously bad patent.
Furthermore, I like how you totally ignore the fact that by filing this patent in 2009, but reaching back to an effective date in 1996 they are doing EXACTLY what submarine patents did. You just love to abuse the system, don't you?
Shameful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Effective filing date
It is useful to note that divisional applications must rely upon the "parent" application in its entirety as support for the claims being presented. Otherwise, it would likely be denominated a continuation-in-part that is not entitled to the original filing date of the "parent" application. IOW, this second divisional is part and parcel the same application as the "parent", differing only in that the set of claims were required to be presented in a divisional application pursuant to a restriction requirement imposed by the original examiner.
Anyone reading the file wrapper of the original application would immediately realize that divisional applications would likely follow, and the subject matter to which those later applications would be directed. To call this then a submarine is not altogether accurate since the file wrapper has been available for review since at least as early as 2001.
Since you seem to believe that USENET anticipates all of these patents, then perhaps you might consider drafting a claims chart pointing out how the USENET incorporates each and every one of the items and their limitations specified in each of the patents. Such a chart would comprise an "analysis" and lend credence to your unsubstantiated opinion. After all, this is what the EFF and other organization do in order to advance their opinions that other materials comprise relevant prior art and why this is so.
If you opine that something is a "bad" patent, then the burden rests with you to demonstrate as much with objective evidence, as opposed to "arm waving" and righteous indignation. Anything less and you are merely promoting an unsubstantiated opinion as fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Effective filing date
Patents are supposedly meant as a defence so that companies and inventors are protected in the period between invention and monetisation. It's to stop people simply coming in and robbing the market from the person who originally invented or innovated before that can reap the benefits of their work.
Here, we see the exact opposite. Everything seen in the patent is obvious and has been reached with individual incremental steps obvious to those who made them. Nothing has been done by Personal Audio to invent or create products in the marketplace using these patented techniques. But others have, using techniques that are either blindingly obvious or independently invented.
Whether the patent was original filed in 1996 or 2009, whether the patent is covered directly by usenet or not, is ultimately irrelevant to the central point at hand. We have a clear cut case of someone waiting around while others - unaware of PA's existence or "inventions" - create a workable product that ultimately makes enough money for them to grab.
That's the definition of patent trolling - and it needs to stop. Even if this was a model of the perfectly processed patent (and I remain unconvinced), that doesn't change the way it's being used nor the negative impact such a thing will have on a medium that's been happily growing for at least a decade. Just so a failed company can profit because they filed some paperwork while others were busy creating separate products that actually succeeded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Effective filing date
Not quite correct, but I will not quibble. Since no one knows what has transpired since the inventions were created back in 1996, it is a leap of faith that the inventors simply sat on them and did nothing to move their work forward. Maybe they did sit on them, but then again maybe they did not. A factual record of what they did or did not do is entirely missing, so the only honest answer is that no one knows.
"Everything seen in the patent is obvious..."
And you know this because? This is an opinion, which to carry any weight must have some factual basis.
"Missing the wider point"?
Hardly. The wider point is that articles like this one are agenda driven in view of the absence of any factual details. If this site wants to provide informed opinions carrying persuasive force, it needs to first flesh out the relevant facts. I can be persuaded by well-presented arguments, but arm waiving and leaps of faith doesn't cut it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Effective filing date
Mike does want to persuade. That's all he wants to do. But given his limited grasp of the issues, not to mention his limited sense of morality, he's only able to persuade the nonthinkers. In other words, smart people like you are not his target audience. He's looking for those who buy "break the internet!" type arguments at face value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Effective filing date
Crickets. Mike doesn't do analysis. Mike doesn't do details. Mike doesn't delve into nuance. You're barking up the wrong tree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Effective filing date
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Effective filing date
Ironically, while Mike whines about everyone else having faith-based opinions, he's actually quite guilty of that as well. Perhaps more so than most. That's why he runs away when he's called out for his nonsense. He doesn't take criticism well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Effective filing date
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Effective filing date
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Effective filing date
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent was filed in 1996
You'll see that this particular application claims priority all the way back to Oct. 2, 1996. The original patent application issued as Patent No. 6,199,076. The 2009 "filing date" was only when this particular child application was filed.
I don't know the merits of the PA case, but at a minimum, you're analysis above is wrong based solely on the date you used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent was filed in 1996
That is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent was filed in 1996
That doesn't make it better, nor change the overall point of the article. Nothing was created as a result of this patent being applied, but much stands to be destroyed. PA are trying to line their pockets while *users* of the pre-existing technologies that were around for years before they even started using it themselves. That's not right, no matter how you try to spin it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Patent was filed in 1996
Well, infringement usually occurs AFTER a patent is filed, yes. Independent creation is not a defense to patent infringement (unlike copyright). The publication of a patent application and the granting of a patent is treated as constructive notice of the invention so nothing can be "independent" anyway.
I don't know what PA was doing in the interim. If they sat on their rights, there is a defense of laches.
Finally, you (in theory) cannot claim an invention that is not described or supported in the specification. If it is not described or supported, the patent claims will be invalid.
"Nothing was created as a result of this patent being applied, but much stands to be destroyed."
Objection, facts not in evidence. By at least one account (see comments above) PA may have been a real company for some period of time.
At some level, the whole point of a patent is to protect the innovator from being trounced by second-comers able to capitalize for free on the activities of the first mover.
But before I get trounced for supporting a patent troll, that was never my objective. I was merely pointing out the premise of the date disparity was wrong. The first filing occurred more than a decade before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent was filed in 1996
/s?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Direct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue the USPTO
As the USPTO is the foundation for this claim, and the USPTO did not invalidate this patent as obvious, then the USPTO should be held accountable for damages it's actions have caused!
A counter suit should be filed for damages by everyone being sued using this patent. This counter suit should include the USPTO!
A media player is just another name that could be a unix computer with sound capabilities. Unix computers do often log usage for billing it's users. Said computers often had limits that required breaking large chunks of data into smaller parts for processing/usage. Said computers often used files to point to other files. Networked unix computers have existed for a long time. So two unix computers connected via a network, one with sound is what this patent describes. Said unix computers existed well before 1990!
So a counter suit for damages that includes the patent owner and the USPTO is the way to stop this mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps...
Either that or he simply doesn't understand the root cause of the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal defense fund
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gross incompetence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gross incompetence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Gross incompetence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gross incompetence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Say, does Newegg have a podcast?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As someone who is very familiar with Adam Carolla from way back in the mid 90's when he was on Loveline )although I admit I have not kept up with him the past few years) I can say two things about him:
1) He is NOT shy about expressing his opinions, and has been well known to go on long rants about topics he feel are total BS.
2) He is very good at explaining complicated things in terms laymen can often easily understand.
Like 4chan or Reddit (as just 2 examples) he is a force better off not annoying if at all possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Software patents need to die
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparatus for disseminating a series of episodes represented by media files via the Internet as said episodes become available, said apparatus comprising:
Ha ha ha. Well c'mon guys its ON THE INTERNET. LOL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue Apple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sue Apple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG! They issued another Patent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG! They issued another Patent!
Your saying it isn't stupid doesn't make it not stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG! They issued another Patent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG! They issued another Patent!
Yes.
This one is not one of those.
Yes, actually. It is.
Very extensive write-up, dates back to 1996.
Doesn't change the simple fact that this is a bad patent.
Just pay a small license and pod cast till you are blue in the face. Why the butthurt?
Spoken like a true extortionist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG! They issued another Patent!
Yes, just continue to do something you did perfectly legally for years and pay up, and you can continue. I wonder how "small" the licence is - is it enough for the mostly amateur, unpaid podcasting community to really afford or is it one "small" for professionals?
Do you not see the problem with this? I wish I could get a patent on making moronic comments on websites, I'd make a fortune...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG! They issued another Patent!
Giving in to extortion ends up with having to thousands of small fees, and going broke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG! They issued another Patent!
A couple of issues I understand (not a lawyer) about the patent:
- My understanding is that the original patent was for recording magazines on tape and sending them to customers. The updated version looks like an attempt to rewrite the patent to cover modern technology.
- It's obvious: given a global network of computers, anyone who couldn't imagine that said global network could be used for disseminating media is either completely out of the loop or an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gotta love those patents... (well not really)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more dissembling by Masnick
https://www.insightcommunity.com/cases.php?n=10&pg=1
They sell blog filler and "insights" to major corporations including MS, HP, IBM etc. who just happen to be some of the world�s most frequent patent suit defendants. Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters. They are hacks representing themselves as legitimate journalists receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. They cannot be trusted and have no credibility. All they know about patents is they don�t have any.
http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more dissembling by Masnick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently, respectful traversals of his arguments are not well-received, and perhaps even considered to comprise personal affronts, thus resulting in his withdrawal from any further comments attempting to substantiate his claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extortion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marc Maron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fight the power
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Podcast Interent Copyrights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Podcast Interent Copyrights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please correct me if I am wrong
My question is this. Beyond the scope of pod casting what about media say like Netflix and Hulu that store digital media in an episodic manner where people can download and/or stream? Because it does state in the patent that it can be either audio or visual media. I mean if they wanna get technical when you stream something it is being downloaded in portion to your system. So... the question has to be asked, if I am correct, why aren't they going after the owners of the companies that do this on Netflix and Hulu or on their own personal websites. After all most major TV broadcasters post episodes (in an episodic manner) on their web pages for people to download and view.
I think the bigger question is, are they saying because it is a "pay for play" subscription it infringes on the patent? If so, take away the pay for play and ask for donations or something. Heck I dunno. I am working on two pod casts and have done one in the past, this is surely making me wonder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patenting gon wild
Most pod casts are done by people like me that don't have resources and means to get high paid lawyers involved in every step of the process.
I just do it for fun. Hey if I make a buck all the better. Yet that isn't my first motivator. So when do I get a suit filed against me?
Really sad, when all your media has to be filtered through everyone with more money. Money makes the world go round, and if you ain't got it you're screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solution
End of problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's how you beat this patent...
from: http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504?dq=8,112,504&ei=FrkRUc63N8zWigKlt4DABg
================== =
"The host organizes the program segments by subject matter and creates scheduled programming in accordance with preferences associated with each subscriber."
===================
Nobody does this. Podcasts are serial and not changed per subscriber. We're done here. The statement made is that this function is critical to the patent, thus, no violations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]