Court: Similarities In Shortening MLB Broadcasts Doesn't Equal Patent Infringement
from the home-run dept
I've made this clear in the past, but I'm a huge fan of Major League Baseball's Advanced Media wing and a good deal of the work they do in providing clips and streaming on the internet and mobile devices. One aspect I hadn't been aware of, however, was a method for watching games very quickly by stripping out the downtime, commercials and the commentary. As I understand it, it's all the game content and nothing else, and it can make it possible to watch a full game in fifteen minutes.
And if this sounds like something baseball broadcasts have obviously needed, a company called Baseball Quick fully agrees with you. That's why it also developed a system for likewise condensing baseball games. Then, because this is America, Baseball Quick and MLB spent the last three years going after each other in court for the two competing products that do the exact same thing. And, amazingly, despite the existence of patents in the works, the judge in the case has rightly outlined why there isn't any infringement.
U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest noted that each company's algorithm offers a different pitch, in a 23-page opinion issued Thursday. MLB "uses a subjective editing process focused on copying and pasting material, whereas BQ's is objective and focused on deleting material," the opinion states. She granted MLB's motion for a judgment declaring that its technology does not infringe its competitor's patent.While it's not quite the idea/expression dichotomy one finds in copyright cases, it's nevertheless nice to see a court rule on the actual method ("art") rather than the outcome. Too often the focus is on the latter, which feeds into an ownership culture that appears to think that having an idea that is of use is the same as developing a patentable method for arriving at said use. In this case, the method for achieving shorter baseball broadcasts was different in a significant enough way that there's no infringement.
In the meantime, MLB is trying to get Baseball Quick's patent declared invalid under the idea that the method described is obvious. The move is likely MLB being vindictive, but that doesn't mean they aren't right. Shortening a broadcast of a baseball game by deleting all the parts that aren't the game does sound obvious, though the method for getting there may not be.
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: baseball, baseball quick, condensed games, patents
Companies: baseball quick, mlb
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Novelty anyone?
How is this possibly new, by any algorithm, subjective or objective? Come on, catch every pitch, and follow the action whenever the ball goes anywhere besides the catcher's mitt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then all you are left with is automated video editing which is nothing new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glass Houses
Really though, if it was so obvious why didn't MLB do it that way with their program? And if one/either of these shortening methods are obvious then why haven't they been used before in the last century baseball has been around?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Glass Houses
Unfortunately for them, thanks to a recent SCOTUS ruling, we know that what they actually created was a duck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Algorithms?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ducks
Which is contrary to the standard set by the Supreme Court in Aereo. I wonder if this ruling will be appealed given that it obviously not based on the new "duck test" standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ducks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ducks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great, now if we could actually have them play the entire game without any of the breaks, down time, and filler activity it might actually be exciting.
Perhaps we could just put a shot clock on the pitcher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MLB's response
Take me out with the crowd
We help charities harm Autistics
We don't care if that makes us seem dicks
Let me root, root, root for eugenics
If they don't kill, it's a shame
For when Autism Speaks strikes, you're out
At the old ball game
Whoops! Wrong response...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]