Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Obscure Company Claims It Just Patented Podcasting
Wait a minute. What?
The patent, awarded on Tuesday, is here. Some early analysis is here, here, here, and here. The company in question attempts to explain itself here. (A sample: "Today, podcasting is 100% RSS-based. However, the patent is not RSS-dependent. Rather, it covers all episodic media downloads.")
The bottom line: These guys filed for their patent in 2003. Podcasting emerged in 2001. Someone's missing something big here, and I suspect that someone is the patent office, not me.
Xeones|7.30.09 @ 12:24PM|#
Too late, Nippleman. I've already patented the Internet, the word "dude," the idea of drinking milk, and hydrogen. You people owe me so much money.
Xeones|7.30.09 @ 12:28PM|#
I'm filing a patent on inhaling.
I got bad news about that one, Pro Lib. For you, i mean.
|7.30.09 @ 12:29PM|#
I already hold the patent on exhaling, Xeones, and I'm about to get an injunction on your unlicensed use of my process.
|7.30.09 @ 12:32PM|#
I've got the patent on snark. All you motherfuckers are headed to the poorhouse.
|7.30.09 @ 12:34PM|#
How do they get away with using Apple's "iPod" trademark in announcing that it has patented "Podcasting"? I imagine Xerox would flip out if I patented a method of xeroxing high quantities of originals, or J&J would flip out if I patented a way to make Band-Aids work better.
|7.30.09 @ 12:37PM|#
i have the patent on what the application refers to as "solo orgasmogenesis". i'm going to get royalties from you people several times a day.
|7.30.09 @ 12:38PM|#
"Today, podcasting is 100% RSS-based. However, the patent is not
RSS-dependent. Rather, it covers all episodic media downloads." -
from the volomedia blog
so, if i'm one of these self-fellating douches with a podcast that
no one listens to, do i have to pay volo a fee or royalties?
|7.30.09 @ 12:40PM|#
When I have all the money, I'll have the law changed, ProL. Don't you know how government works?
|7.30.09 @ 12:41PM|#
can i patent the interwebs? or did al gore do that
already?
No, but I believe SBC had claimed a patent on HTML frames
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-981446.html
|7.30.09 @ 12:43PM|#
so, if i'm one of these self-fellating douches with a
podcast that no one listens to, do i have to pay volo a fee or
royalties?
From the linked article:
VoloMedia CEO Murgesh Navar says that the company doesn't plan to go after individual podcasters, but that the company plans to "work collaboratively with key participants in the industry.
To me this translates to :don't worry -- we only are going after
the big guys like apple and youtube and google.
|7.30.09 @ 12:44PM|#
but if you wait just a couple of years, my patented technique will be lapsing back into the pubic domain.
|7.30.09 @ 12:51PM|#
You can believe whatever you want, but that just makes you as delusional as Warty and Xeones.
|7.30.09 @ 12:55PM|#
Has anyone patented the strong nuclear force yet?
I'm also copyrighting my daughter, who is an original work of
authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Jointly
produced by me and my wife, who collaborated on the work.
|7.30.09 @ 1:06PM|#
I'm also copyrighting my daughter,
You know, I've typed and deleted a couple of cracks about licensing
and fair use, but I just can't bring myself to actually post
them.
ChrisO|7.30.09 @ 1:09PM|#
I heard somewhere that the Patent and Trademark Office has been so backlogged with applications, that the quality of their examinations is increasingly being called into question.
|7.30.09 @ 1:09PM|#
What's the point? It's not like fair use exists anymore.
The funnier comment would've revolved around the first sale
doctrine.
|7.30.09 @ 1:11PM|#
ChrisO,
You're about twenty years late with that observation. It's been bad
at the PTO for a while. They might approve my inhaling patent if I
time it right.
Naga Sadow|7.30.09 @ 1:15PM|#
I just patented tachyons, bitchez! I'll use the money from evil fizzuks types to build a time machine and snap up all your patents!
alan|7.30.09 @ 1:16PM|#
I have an aneurysm is my head that can set off vacuum decay and thus destroy everything. There is only one reason I keep it in check. Free range titties. Patent tits and there will be no reason to keep it in check. Double scotch dare ya.
alan|7.30.09 @ 1:25PM|#
On a slightly less serious note (no aneurysm guys, relax, the vacuum bomb is actually in my nut sack), I'm reminded of the local blue grass musician who some goof ball in the government gave the copy rights for the traditional ballad 'Wayfarin' Stranger'. He attempted to sue Emmylou Harris for using the song on an album after he was granted the copy right. If he wasn't an old geezer I would frog him on the arm on the behalf of every one. Suing a national treasure like Emmylou Harris, the nerve.
kinnath|7.30.09 @ 1:31PM|#
These guys filed for their patent in 2003. Podcasting
emerged in 2001.
The US is a first to invent not first to file. The patent applicant
only needs to show evidence of invention prior to 2001.
|7.30.09 @ 1:32PM|#
Someone's missing something big here
Yes, there is. Computer Science and related degrees are not on the
list of acceptable credentials for patent examiners. Patent
examiners have no clue what they're looking at when they see a
computer-related patent.
Peter|7.30.09 @ 1:32PM|#
When Obama won the Democratic nomination I patented the race card. Let's just say I didn't feel the economic downturn that much.
DRP|7.30.09 @ 1:34PM|#
The US is one of the few industrialized countries to still use a
first to invent rather than a first to file patent system. This
means that if the company can prove that it invented podcasting
before it was used in public, they are in fact entitled to the
patent. While this system does make it easier for individual
inventors to obtain patents, it also makes the US patent system
less efficient, as it can be very difficult and time consuming to
prove that one's invention date pre-dates possible public use or
other claims to inventorship of the invention in question. The
company's claims may appear dubious, but are entirely plausible
given the current structure of our patent system.
Regardless, this patent will probably be invalidated during
litigation if the company ever decides to assert its patent
rights.
Anonymous|7.30.09 @ 1:40PM|#
Podcasting emerged in 2001.
No, the term did. Audio on the internet was old in 1999.
Anon2|7.30.09 @ 1:43PM|#
No, the term did. Audio on the internet was old in
1999.
Go read the fucking claims before posting your snark.
Jesse Walker|7.30.09 @ 1:44PM|#
No, the term did. Audio on the internet was old in
1999.
Podcasting does not mean "audio on the Internet." It means "audio
syndicated through RSS or a similar system."
kinnath|7.30.09 @ 2:11PM|#
Prior art is a bitch, isn't it?
From one of the links above:
Here's the thing with patents--unless prior art is painfully
obvious, chances are good that the U.S. Patent Office will award a
patent as long as no one else has patented whatever it is. The real
test then comes AFTER the patent has been awarded--it either
expires, or is successfully challenged in court. Either way, a lot
of money is spent trying to capture the flag.
|7.30.09 @ 2:19PM|#
One of the major sins of the PTO is overlooking completely the existence of prior art, especially when it comes to software and the like.
Anonymous|7.30.09 @ 2:24PM|#
Podcasting does not mean "audio on the Internet." It means
"audio syndicated through RSS or a similar system."
Oh, I thought you were talking about how the term is used, not what
some idiot with a late patent asserted. Sorry for breaking in with
facts.
I guess a blog without a feed isn't syndicated enough, then. Does
it require at least two different forms of listings, or is XML a
requirement? My manager always tells me XML is a requirement.
|7.30.09 @ 2:26PM|#
One big question with protecting software--especially with copyright but also with patents--is whether centuries or decades of protection makes sense.
|7.30.09 @ 2:31PM|#
With copyrights though you can normally write your own algorithm do to the same thing without invalidating the copyright. Not so with patents. Although then there are things like the x86 instruction set etc with complicating things ...
|7.30.09 @ 2:34PM|#
That's right--copyright protection isn't much good for coding.
When I was active in such things, the primary use of copyright in
relation to software was for the "look and feel" of
applications--for instance, an OS GUI.
There have been efforts to create a special IP regime for software,
but I don't think they've had much success.
kinnath|7.30.09 @ 2:38PM|#
The biggest problem with PTO is the feds are treating it like a profit center. Lots o' applications means lots o' fees. Miniscule, under-trained staff means low costs. And with no competition, the money jus' rolls in.
Jesse Walker|7.30.09 @ 2:42PM|#
Oh, I thought you were talking about how the term is used,
not what some idiot with a late patent asserted. Sorry for breaking
in with facts.
Many people do use the word in that broader way today. But the
people who coined the term nearly a decade ago -- not "some idiot
with a late patent" -- invented it to refer to audio in RSS feeds.
Sound on the Internet was already old, as you noted so smugly in
your first comment; it was the new means of distributing sound that
prompted the inventors to create a new word.
kilroy|7.30.09 @ 2:43PM|#
"Should software patents be granted at all? Do they
encourage economic growth?"
As someone with 10 of them I can tell you they've certainly
encouraged economic growth in these parts.
kinnath|7.30.09 @ 2:52PM|#
"Should software patents be granted at all? Do they
encourage economic growth?"
Should a company that spent 50 megabucks creating a new package
have a brand new market get fractured by much lower cost, competing
products that were "cloned" from the new package without
significant investment?
Should a guy who drew a bunch of diagrams on napkins in his garage
shut down an established industry even though he left the napkins
in a drawer for half a decade before filing?
Software patents fill a necessary role; the current PTO can't
figure out what that role is.
JB|7.30.09 @ 2:56PM|#
The patent office is filled with government employees.
Government employees = retards.
Nuff said.
Anonymous|7.30.09 @ 3:14PM|#
it was the new means of distributing sound that prompted the
inventors to create a new word.
No, the term originally referred spoken audio for an iPod. The
iPod's distribution mechanism came in that parcel. The term was
extended to all works of the sort, even those which pre-dated the
iPod, and backronymed to distance itself from Apple's
product.
Which is fine, since it gives a better word to the concept than the
common-but-too-specific "audio book", but people pretend it didn't
exist before. After all, they say, why invent a new word for it?
(Hint: to market it for a specific product, and then have it
Xeroxed and Kleenexed.) They don't realize that words are abused
and changed by people who have no idea what preceeded it. See also
"blog" (it's a journal, a web log), "cpu" (it's the chip, not the
connections around it or the case it's in), "web" (a proper subset
of the internet).
Mike Laursen|7.30.09 @ 3:18PM|#
We should just have all computer-related patents granted or denied by slashdot poll. It would work better than the Patent Office.
Jesse Walker|7.30.09 @ 3:25PM|#
I remember the punning/backronyming ("Personal On Demand"), but even then the important distinguishing factor was the syndication. Or, with the iPod, syndication + portability. If you've seen an earlier use of the word to refer to non-syndicated spoken-word content on an iPod, please point me to it.
kilroy|7.30.09 @ 3:38PM|#
"In the 2000s, he helped pioneer podcasting, and is often called
the 'Podfather' because of his efforts."
From Wikipedia with a
citation to the LA Times. Consider the source(s).
Patent Troll|7.30.09 @ 3:57PM|#
Anyone want to bet against these guys having Ray Niro on speed dial?
Cliché Bandit|7.30.09 @ 4:02PM|#
kinnath | July 30, 2009, 1:31pm | #
These guys filed for their patent in 2003. Podcasting emerged in 2001.
The US is a first to invent not first to file. The patent applicant only needs to show evidence of invention prior to 2001.
While technically true, Elisha Gray would disagree to the tune a
133 years and hundreds of trillions of dollars in lost
revenue.
Mr. Watson! Come here! I want you.
kinnath|7.30.09 @ 4:05PM|#
While technically true, . . .
First to invent has to have deep enough pockets to run through a
decade of court filings . .
|7.30.09 @ 4:09PM|#
Patent seems weird. In copyright, you can protect an expression, but not an idea. Seems like in Patent, you can protect the idea of internet audio distribution.
kinnath|7.30.09 @ 4:25PM|#
Copyright == Creative works (writings, images, music, etc)
Patents == inventions (systems, methods,
equipement, etc)
Trademarks == Business names and phrases
Joshua Holmes|7.30.09 @ 5:47PM|#
Invention, prior to emergence in 2001
Podcasting emerges, 2001
Inventor files, 2003
35 USC 102(b)
"[A person shall be entitled to a patent unless] the
invention was patented or described in a printed
publication in this or a foreign country or in public
use or on sale in this country, more than one year
prior to the date of the application for patent in the United
States"
Combining the bold portions, "A person shall be entitled to a
patent unless the invention was in public use more than one year
prior to the date of the application for patent in the United
States."
Any date in 2003 is, by definition, more than 12 months after any
date in 2001. This patent is invalid on its face.
Anyone taking resumes?
|7.30.09 @ 6:16PM|#
"The 'podcast' patent claims a method."
Oh, its a method. I see. I guess you can patent an idea
since the duration is shorter.
Sandy|7.31.09 @ 10:16AM|#
Step 1: Patent something already in a published spec.
Step 2: Use a term derived from a notoriously litigious company's
hit product, who make software covered by your claims, and threaten
to sue.
Step 3: Darl McBride? Is that you? Where are we?
Nick Robinson|8.1.09 @ 1:50AM|#
Hi jesse,
I found your blog post very interesting.i am Nick Robinson,a
community member at www.patents.com / Will like to talk(through
email) to you,is this the right time to talk about or should we
talk during weekends ?
Best-Regards,
Nick Robinson
nickrbson@gmail.com
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245