Slashdot Mirror
Company Awarded "The Patent For Podcasting"
Chris Albrecht writes "VoloMedia announced today that it has been awarded what it called the 'patent for podcasting.' According to the press announcement, patent number 7,568,213, titled 'Method for Providing Episodic Media,' covers:
'...the fundamental mechanisms of podcasting, including providing consumer subscription to a show, automatically downloading media to a computer, prioritizing downloads, providing users with status indication, deleting episodes, and synchronizing episodes to a portable media device.'"
This isn't even a submarine patent, it is just a another piss-poor USPTO decision. There is prior art for this all over the place. Heck the iPhone is prior art, and that is not even old.
I can't imagine this going well :|
Although I would have thought that this would have been covered under 'prior art'?
No Coffee, No Workee
Since they are basically describing a function in iTunes, i wonder if they will run afoul of apple and their "Lawyers of Doom" (TM).
Restore the madness of youth's lechery
You may be confused about what the "prior" means in prior art. Something that isn't older than the claim isn't prior.
There is nothing in this that even approaches the reality that anyone except an IP lawyer works in. FFS.
When you don't have the means to distribute "large" media, nor the means to easily consume that media, then there is no place for podcasting. Once you have those means, however, "providing consumer subscription to a show, automatically downloading media to a computer, prioritizing downloads, providing users with status indication, deleting episodes, and synchronizing episodes to a portable media device" are all just obvious extensions to how people will obtain their media.
One convenient locations...in Africa.
Seriously, is it ever possible to not patent every single fart that you think of?
[ irc.p2p-network.net -> #zomgwtfbbq ][ http://zomgwtfbbq.info ]
Was the aptent submitted before iTunes did podcasting?
"VoloMedia, which used be called Podbridge, filed for this particular patent in November 2003 â" a time, Navar said, before it was obvious that people would download episodic content such as podcasts."
Of course, it's crap. I had an ftp server where I created a 'digital diary' once a week for the first 6 months of my sons life, and that was in 1998.
Granted, they where only 2-3 minutes and linked to my 'web diary', but they where down loadable every week.
I hope Apple hands them their ass.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Isn't the 'pod' in podcasting from the iPod (or really the iTunes mechanism for downloading things to the iPod)? Does this not imply prior art in and of itself?
Its related to an application from November 2003. So unless there's a problem with their priority claim - for anything to qualify as prior art it would have to be before November 2003 (and before November 2002 to be really dangerous to the patent at all).
for making me click through to get to the actual patent. Anyway, from reading some of the patent, it looks like they were trying to patent something at least somewhat interesting and unique. However, claim 1--the only independent claim--pretty clearly covers iTunes, among other prior art. I am not sure if it was bad drafting or bad intent, but I would not bring this to Apple's attention if I were the company. I've read some patent applications were the value added was miniscule, and the only way to see it is to look at some of the prosecution history. Maybe that's the case here, but I am too lazy to dig through the history. With a filing date of 2003, I doubt this will survive much scrutiny. That sucks if this company was trying to do something interesting. That's great if they are trolling.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
Aren't they basically admitting outright that prior art exists by referring to podcasting?
According to the article, they filed in 2003.
"synchronizing episodes to a portable media device" is not present, you can do whatever you want right?
I don't think this seems like a patent for podcasting so much as a patent for sort of an all inclusive...thing.
Patent Schmatent. Apple already has just invented something that IMPROVES upon that. It's called the podcast. It's also capable providing meta data to an online store and supports multiple channels. This version works on iPods too!
...so I might be wrong. But even if they did have the foresight in 2003 to describe the exact technology of Podcasting (as executed in iTunes) before there was prior art for the idea, doesn't existing patented technology utilizing their structure (i.e. iTunes) nullify their claim? Or does the fact that they applied BEFORE there was prior art give them a "first-come-first-serve" access to the patent?
Either way, I assume we've got ourselves a cute little patent-troll baby developing here.
the other 194 countries who do not recognize US patents its probably a good thing, nothing like a government eliminating its own companies from the worlds competition.
iam more interested in the patenting "end game" in the US, with every year as more of their IP gets locked up it will come to a point where its just not possible to do business at all in the US without infringing a patent or 3 and so simply it will be better and more profitable for companies to do business and innovate outside of the USA
leaving the US sitting in court with its millions of lawyers jerking each other off while the ROTW just gets on with business as usual, what exactly is the end game ? and what happens when you get there ?
what i do know is 3 billion Chinese and 1.4 billion Indians not to mention Europe should take up the slack quite nicely in the future (hint: they already are, seen your universities students country of origin makeup recently? they are taking all that knowledge right back to their own countries).
Looks bad to me, their claim seams legit, the actual fill date goes back to 2003 TA:
filed for this particular patent in November 2003 a time, Navar said, before it was obvious that people would download episodic content such as podcasts.
They are talking over the red phone with Apple now and it looks like their IP lawyers already rolled out the subpoena Gatling.
it will take several lawsuits costing millions before the patent is examined. And I doubt if there anything non-obvious here. Say, didn't the USPTO review their guidelines with respect to KSR and Bilski?
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
This doesn't just cover podcasting. It covers all "episodic media". Which means prior art for all "episodic media" (including text subscriptions) should count.
If there's anything in there that's at all novel or non-obvious, I can't see it.
My dyslexia is kicking in again. I was wondering what kind of nuts was involved for a good half a minute.
According to the history of podcasting article on wikipedia the system of using RSS for podcasts and the ability to get them onto an iPod was mature and in use by the time this patent was filed, so it would appear that prior art will indeed shut any efforts from VoloMedia to get money from this patent down.
Where do people get the idea that apple invented podcasting? It existed long before it was in itunes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_podcasting
Anyway, this patent is BS.. just based on that history podcasts (albeit not called podcasts) existed in 2001.
I've patented the procedure for 'butt whiping'. Everybody here and the rest of the world PAY UP!
I expect my patent for 'combing hair' will be granted next week so get ready to fork out for that one too.
anonymous coward strikes again!
This emphasizes just how rotten to the core is our patent system. Software patents are asinine. Patents on life are even worse. The whole system should be dumped.
You may be confused about what "Filed: October 9, 2008" means.
I think it's not so much that people think that Apple invented podcasting as it is that if you can prove Apple offered podcasts prior to November 2003, then the patent is obviously bullshit.
Negate the patent for being obvious and not inventive.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
In this case, the important feature is the channel depth stuff recited in the independent claim. Are any of the podcasting experts out there familiar with this limitation and how it relates to the prior art?
and patent "giving out stupid and trivial patents for things with obvious prior-art"
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Not only is it BS... it is the epitome of BS...
Having a couple of friends working as journalists for a "newspaper" for the blind (it is a real newspaper but its odd calling it that due it it not having a real paper copy at all) have done these so called pod casts since the "dawning of computer time." On normal Compact Cassettes.
The CC have been known to be played not only for the direct audience but also as a convenience for the people on the go.... also all those language courses on tape spring to mind... ney I am revising my "epitome of BS" to "the mother of all BS statements."
There are hundreds of examples of prior art, but AvantGo in particular, is a company whose entire business was essentially 'podcasting'.
We should all remember that when 'podcasting' became a 'thing', the big criticism of the term was that it pretended to be something new, and credited Apple with something that others had been doing for some time.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
It would never pass the Machine-or-transformation test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-or-transformation_test
"machine-or-transformation test is a test of patent eligibility under which a claim to a process qualifies to be considered for patenting only if it : (1) is implemented with a particular machine, that is, one specifically devised and adapted to carry out the process in a way that is not concededly conventional and is not trivial; or else
(2) transforms an article from one thing or state to another."
This test dates back to the 19th century, which leads me to believe the USPTO is more than willing to grant as many patent applications as are submitted regardless of merit. Why would they do that? To collect the fees. The USPTO only gains by granting even the most trivial patents.
IMO, if I were VoloMedia I'd be pissed. In addition to the cost involved in getting this ridiculous patent they will need to spend even more when it is challenged... and retracted.
USPTO scam continues.
Hope is the currency of fools
there will be no end to this shit. if you allow patenting of abstract concepts, it will eventually end up with base logic processes being patented. nothing other than machines should be patented.
Read radical news here
And what do subpoena have to do with anything here? Everything that's needed is public.
doesn't existing patented technology utilizing their structure (i.e. iTunes) nullify their claim?
I'm not sure I understand your question. You seem to be saying that the existence of a commercially-available infringing product invalidates the patent. But if that were the case, patents would be worthless. To be patentable, your invention has to be new and non-obvious (yes, I know there's more than that, I'm simplifying; this is not legal advice and so forth). It doesn't matter if it infringes another patent, or if somebody else successfully builds your product while your patent is pending, or even if somebody improves on your invention and gets a patent on the improvement. In fact, from a patent-holder's perspective, there's nothing better than to come up with a really brilliant idea, file for a patent, and while it's pending, $MEGACORP makes an infringing product (intentionally or not), spruces it up, and creates a huge market for your invention. Hooray for solvent defendants!
If you want to kill this thing (and I'm not recommending you should---I don't personally care), the best way to do it is to find a document published anywhere in the world before November 2002 (1 year before they filed) that has all the elements of their claims. It doesn't matter what the abstract is, or what the title says, or what's in the specification, or even that the inventor calls it "the podcasting patent." All that matters is the claims. You find a reference that has each and every limitation in the claims, and those claims are dead. Nothing anybody has done since November 2003 matters to these claims, and anything between November 2002 and November 2003 will just provoke litigation over first-to-invent (which is fine for the lawyers, but not so good for anybody else). So I think it's premature to just assume these claims are invalid.
And before people start modding me troll, I'm not saying I'm a fan of patent trolls. I've defended several cases against patent trolls, and there's nothing more frustrating than having to fight a litigious plaintiff with a bad patent. I am saying that there's such a thing as a valid patent (despite what many Slashdotters would like to believe), and even such a thing as a valid computer-related patent, and if you're lucky enough to have one and win a case against a solvent defendant, it's a great day. I don't call "troll" until I've thoroughly reviewed the claims, the allegedly-infringing product, the specification, and the prior art. And nobody has hired me to do that, so I probably won't, because it takes a long time.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Where do you get the idea that people think that Apple invented podcasting?
Saying that 'Apple did podcasting' is very different from, what you claim people are saying, that 'Apple invented podcasting'.
Anyway, yeah, this patent is BS, but check your facts.
Claim 1 is:
Drop any element and you avoid this patent. For instant, just add a download confirmation step, and you're golden (thereby avoiding the "automatic download occurring without further user interaction")
I bet Adam Curry will be jumping on this one.
November 2002, as the rules for prior art dictate that it has to be public knowledge for a year before it is considered prior art.
I'm kinda feeling lazy right now, but with a fair amount of patent experience under my belt, I'd say the key limitations of '213 Carhart et al. are in bold below:
Finding the old podcast applications and checking for that particular feature takes a bit of work. If anyone happens to have an old version of AmphetaDesk or Radio UserLand, perhaps they include a feature that would read on indicating channel depth. Remember, the prior art needs either to disclose each and every limitation of the claimed invention, or be combined with additional prior art that fills in the missing pieces, along with a motivating rational for combining the art.
I'm studying technology law!
If there is prior art that is slightly different, but the changes are something that are pretty simple, wouldn't that meet the obviousness criteria?
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes. - Mahatma Gandhi
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from skimming the patent claims a number of items that they're describing seems very much like a cable television subscription.
A game has objectives and is competitive, anything else is just play
11 expanded comments in this thread, and nearly half of them link to evidence of prior art. WTF are these USPTO people doing at work? How about some investigation before granting the patent, or at least a simple Google search?
Sigh. Utterly useless.
If there is prior art that is slightly different, but the changes are something that are pretty simple, wouldn't that meet the obviousness criteria?
It depends. If the difference is insignificant (e.g., inventor claims a blue button and the prior art indicates a red button, where the color of the button is arbitrary to the invention at hand), then no secondary art needs to be found to teach the insignificant feature. I'm guessing, however, that pretty simple refers to the ease of implementation. Remember that hindsight may not be relied upon. It is easy to add file sizes and track length to an RSS feed, but that has nothing to do with obviousness. To present a case for obviousness (if the bold limitations in my GP post are the ones missing), an ordinary person skilled in the art at the time the invention was made would have needed to combine the channel depth (file size and track length) concept with the podcasting idea. If some reference A about podcasting teaches all the limitations of the claim except for the channel depth, and reference B teaches channel depth in a similar application, and motivation for adding the channel depth can be found, then, and only then, is it an obvious limitation.
Mod parent up!
The problem with your suggestion is that, in the grand scheme of things, it's a purely arbitrary distinction. Machines engage in processes to manipulate matter; software engages in processes to manipulate data.
What needs to be done to fix the patent system is to increase the burden of originality and non-obviousness. Just as patents should not be awarded for obvious machines, patents should not be awarded for obvious software; intricate and original machines as well as intricate and original software should be protected by patent (for a short time, at least).
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
You seem to be confused about what "November 2003" means. You should be quiet now and let the adults discuss this.
I believe that Adam Curry, (former MTV video jockey) [who incidentally registered the MTV.com domain very early on] played a large part in early podcasting, even as far as coining or spreading the adoption of the term, and lending his hand at coding early pre-iTunes aggregators, until passing the ball to more competent coders, and also having a part in persuading Apple to adopt it into iTunes functionality.
I am associate producer at Civilized Communications and create the Civ4 ModCast.
what is going to be fair use? who is going to suffer? indie podcasters or iTunes?
http://web.archive.org/web/20021002080332/http://cbc.ca/quirks/archives.htm
Patent was filed in 2003. The Canadian radio show Quirks and Quarks delivered episodic content as far back as 2002.
Also, portable devices were getting episodes of TV shows automatically upon syncronization:
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/news/video_classic_tv_shows/ (article written in 2002, one year prior to the filed patent).
[quote]
The new channel, which has already launched, and will update daily with fresh episodes of more than five classic television shows including Dragnet, Andy Griffith, Beverly Hillbillies, Dick Van Dyke and One Step Beyond. New episodes of each show will rotate daily.
With this new service, fans of classic TV shows can now watch their favorite episodes on their PDA's - delivered daily to enjoy anytime, anywhere. Each weekday, subscribers will receive a new show on the Pocket PC Films-TV channel. Once subscribed, fresh episodes will appear automatically every day when the user synchronizes their handheld device.
[/quote]
not only is there prior art, but if someone in 2003 were tasked with periodically distributing an audio file from a feed possibly all the way to a portable player, I have a feeling they might just try something as simple as an XML feed an an Mp3 file first, and build support for it into a client *gasp*
I think the burden is already pretty high, and the sheer number of patents that are already stuffed into the pipeline (it's so damn long we don't even notice this crap until 3 years after its first submitted) that there is probably not much that will change in the criteria for acceptance anytime soon.
I think the best solution might just be limitations on the protections provided by patent law, and the inclusion of some degree of implied limited use license in certain cases. Patents are so massively abused these days as means to control interoperability. For that, one needs to look no further than the newfangled patented apple connectors for mac book power cords and the iPod dock connector. That kind of crap shouldn't be built on the back of the patent system, if it should even be legal in the first place.
I'm all for protecting the rights of the inventor, and I think the concept of a patent makes sense in the case of some software and for software inventors. But the system is a twisted labyrinth of loopholes exploited by industry to wage war on fair competition while making closed minded investors swoon. that's the freaking problem with patents.
I just came home and saw this. I am not a patent lawyer. Did a quick check for other podcasting patents on Google Patent Search, and found this - Application number: 11/166,331, Publication number: US 2006/0265503 A1 Filing date: Jun 25, 2005 titled "Techniques and systems for supporting podcasting" . Is there still room for continued invention of podcasting in 2005? Guess who filed this patent?
The first claim reads:
A method for subscribing to a podcast, said method comprising:
- receiving a portable subscription file that is used to facilitate subscribing to the podcast;
- accessing the portable subscription file to obtain podcast information; and
- subscribing to the podcast using the podcast information.
I am going to post this on a few other forums to raise awareness.
Where do people get the idea that apple invented podcasting?
The name?
Property is theft.
This isn't even a submarine patent, it is just a another piss-poor USPTO decision. There is prior art for this all over the place. Heck the iPhone is prior art, and that is not even old.
And this gets an "insightful"? It's the first sentence of the patent:
The present application is a continuation and claims the priority benefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/717,183 filed Nov. 19, 2003
I suppose it's useful, though. Anyone who thinks the filing date is 2008 is immediately disqualified from discussing anything about the patent system until they've learned even the most basic items.
People have been creating downloadable lists of media forever. ftp would get a list of media content from sites for decades now.
We don't care who invented podcasting. We just are pointing out that it is incredibly obvious that Apple supported it before 2008 (even if they didn't invent it). So we all wonder how this patent could realistically apply.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The patent was filed in 2003
"VoloMedia, which used be called Podbridge, filed for this particular patent in November 200
"CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
The present application is a continuation and claims the priority benefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/717,183 filed Nov. 19, 2003 and entitled "Personalized Episodic Download Media Service," the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference. The present application is related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/717,176 filed Nov. 19, 2003 and entitled "Content Distribution Architecture," the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference."
That's like saying the Coca-Cola Company invented cocaine.
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Of course, all the elements were in place before November 2003. Notably absente from the patent is any reference to prior art by Kevin Marks or Dave Winer. Marks' RSS2iPod script, for example, was released in October of that year.
The only claim that post-dates November 2003 that I can see is that clients (along with things like intelligent cache management) have since been implemented directly on non-PC portable devices. Most sane people would consider that obvious: as portable devices get more powerful, more of the processing inevitably gets moved there.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
1. 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.
A number of things need to be provided to the user, namely all of the bolded claim language above,namely providing to the user among other things channel depth information which includes both the episode data amount previously downloaded as well as yet to be downloaded expressed as playtime or storage resources.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
I would also note that class 725, the class in which this patent was issued from typically has the lowest patent allowance rate in the office. They typically battle it out with class 705 (business methods) for lowest allowance rate.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
1. 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.
A number of things need to be provided to the user, namely all of the bolded claim language above,namely providing to the user among other things channel depth information which includes both the episode data amount previously downloaded as well as yet to be downloaded expressed as playtime or storage resources.
You have obvious prior art on the above feature dating back to 2003? If so file a re-exam.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
The class which examined this patent is class 725, Interactive Video Distribution. While the claims themselves don't explicitly state they are in a CATV environment, the claims are limited by what is disclosed in the specification.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Isn't the farther back better-- "more prior"
None of the prior art listed addresses:
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.
A number of things need to be provided to the user, namely all of the bolded claim language above,namely providing to the user among other things channel depth information which includes both the episode data amount previously downloaded as well as yet to be downloaded expressed as playtime or storage resources.
The fact that itunes and podcasting is well known, does not mean that those references teach the above claim limitations. The Examiner and applicant cited plenty of art regarding itunes/postcasting features,but the prior art of record does not disclose the limitations which were added by examiner's ammendment.
check out public pair to read the prosecution history.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
If people read the claims or looked on public PAIR, they would probably understand why the case was allowed (the Examiner's Ammendment probably has something to do with it). Given that no one actually reads that stuff here on Slashdot, it is no surprise that people come to erronous conclusions.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Except, of course, that they already were downloading episodic media in 2003.
Anyone who thinks the filing date is 2008 is immediately disqualified from discussing anything about the patent system until they've learned even the most basic items
PROTIP: only claims identical to those filed in 2003 gets the "priority date". Any novel claims not included in the 2003 patent can be countered with prior art dated before 2007. This is how the continuation system has always worked in order to prevent people from filing for "method of fellating a whale" and getting their patent rejected over and over before finally deciding to write up a patent describing the entirety of Windows 7 and claiming they invented it in 2003 because that's the whalesucker's "priority date". Get the first application and this application's prosecution history and see what exactly changed when.
It means there's 3 full years of prior art. I mean heck, all the patent office needed to do was search Wikipedia for History of podcasting to know that this patent was years too late to be valid. The concept was proposed in late 2000, and the first podcast on record dates all the way back to January of 2001. I'm not seeing anything there that shouldn't have been obvious to anyone who attended BloggerCon the week before the patent was filed....
Am I missing something here?
So that no one is confused, the key limitations probably are in bold. I have not searched this patent, nor have I looked at the prosecution history. I further am not a registered patent attorney or agent. User takes all risk. Void where prohibited. Batteries not included?
... on say, BitTorrent trackers, where you can download "episodic episodes" of TV shows for free.
Let's see... I present some media for someone to download. How is it in any way NOT obvious to include some statistics on the media in order for the user to be informed? File sizes have been presented with downloads since the dawn of networking. Including extra metadata is a trivial progression.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Prior art has been pretty much done away with. The newest laws are simply the first persons to file.
It sounds to me like this is just a fancy wording for "what is the file size, and how much storage space do I have left on my hard drive or ipod?"
In which case, the combination of said "art" is so obvious as to not even require someone skilled in the art of podcasting or programming at the time, but merely any dolt with a computer and an operating system that tells the user how much space is left on a given storage medium, and how big a file they are downloading is. That's basically, every operating system I can think of.
Griping about Slahdot will only get you a "so why do you come here then?" answer.
Instead, take the time to point out specifics in a way a non-attorney will understand. In case you think that can't be done, have a look at Groklaw. Heck, maybe contribute there.
Insert
The only independent claim specifies "receiving a subscription request to the channel dedicated to the episodic media from the user; ".
This could be debated, but the way I read this is that the client sends a request to the server to subscribe. Of course podcasts are not subscription based (although the client software usually makes this illusion). Podcasts just check an RSS feed for new episodes. The server never has any clue about "subscriptions".
Of course to fully evaluate this one would need to dig into the specification of the patent to see how it used the terminology, but it's not at all clear to me that traditional podcasting is covered by this patent.
I most definitely do not want the USPTO in charge of my health care. It's a good thing we can judge a whole by any of its parts, or else racism wouldn't work, now would it?
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
As a matter of fact it is a submarine. It was filed Nov 2003 but not completed until Nov 2008 when Apple entered the stage.
However there is prior art dating back to circa 2000. So it is also a bad USPTO decision. But there are others
the rules for prior art dictate that it has to be public knowledge for a year before it is considered prior art.
I've never seen or read that anywhere, and it doesn't make sense. Do you have a reference?
Bloody hell, what is the real difference between a VCR/tape recorder and a computer podcast? None that really matters, except the media has been digitised for storage. I guess all sorts of crap will endf up being patented at this rate. Perhaps a digital method for excreting modified proteins? (Having a crap (all in "digital" pieces).
The USPTO obviously pays peanuts, because their decisions are definitely made by monkee's.
The european parliament rejected software patents with a vote of 648 to 15 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/06/eu_bins_swpat/. Yes, the EPTO has been lobbied into (illegally, I would say, but then IANAL) granting software patents, but then you can't enforce them.
No I'm confused - what the hell has the iPhone got to do with it? Podcasting got it's "name" from the old "Click Wheel" iPod - right? And I thought using RSS with enclosures to deliver audio (and later video) actually came to the iPod later and existed before. Wasn't it invented by Dave Winer and Adam Curry?
How come I know this and the patent office doesn't?
Where do people get the idea that apple invented podcasting?
The name?>/quote>
Granted. But how did they get mp3 from ogg-player?
Where do people get the idea that apple invented podcasting?
The name?
Did the Hoover company invent the vacuum cleaner? No, they didn't. They popularised it. Did Kleenex invent paper tissues? No, they didn't. They popularised them. Likewise, Apple didn't invent the digital media player which could download content from the net - but they popularised it.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Bullshit.
And long before that each town had a man with a bell and a silly hat.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Thank Dawkins! Finally, someone who gets substantive patent law on Slashdot!
Really, there should be a page we can point people to who misunderstand the concepts of novelty, inventive step, and scope of protection...
wouldn't this patent also cover episodic game content? "Method for Providing Episodic Media"
Don't you mean they get paid bananas?
Nice, I like the way you worked calling him a racist into the fact that you are oblivious to the repeated and often surfacing incompetence of government programs.
I mean welfare was/is a flop that doesn't help people get ahead or out of poverty and instead encourages dependency, HMO's that Senator Ted Kennedy initiated and is now calling a flop himself in favor of government health care, this fuckcluster by the patent office, Army veterans hospitals falling apart (Walter Reed), the department of education who couldn't do math well enough to provide and accounting of their funding, GSEs like Fannie mae and Freddie mac losing billions of dollars in the same types of accounting irregularities and much much more within the last decade or so should be enough evidence that the government simply is not the best candidate to preside over your health care.
But hey, we can call him a racist for pointing out how ill advised this might be when pointing out a specific clusterfuck by the patent office and ignore all the rest. We can even point out all the flaws from the last system the liberal put in place (HMO act 1973) as excuses for moving to the new and forget about the failings was a direct cause of government screwing things up. And as long as we call him a racist (not someone who likes to drive fast for competition) we can ignore everything and make the alarmist look like the bad people. Good job.
my god, i can't believe some of my tax money went to pay for that patent... that alone should be reason enough to dissolve the USPTO.
I forgot what I wanted to say, but honestly, it was important.
I'm not sure it would pass as actual prior art, but what about Tivo, specifically the Season Pass feature? You have to stretch the meaning of download a bit, but otherwise, all the pieces seem to be there, including the channel depth information, size of future content (the schedule), and ability to delete content.
There are so many patents out there that patents are basically becoming worthless. I wonder what would happen to our court system if everyone just started ignoring patents? Lets see VoloMedia defend their patent when 50,000 people are ignoring it.
The question was where people get the idea that Apple invented podcasting.
GP's answer -- "the name" -- is the correct answer. That is where people get the idea. In fact the answer is so obvious that the quesiton was foolish. (To be fair, the question was almost certainly rhetorical; that doesn't make it any less foolish. GGP could've spoken more effectively by simply saying 'Apple did not invent podcasting', as others have.)
And yet people jump on GP with all the reasons that the name is not an indicator of who invented the technology, as though that were somehow an argument against what GP said.
It has nothing to do with Apple, if the concepts behind podcasting were in use to the public prior to the file date, that is grounds enough for a "Prior Art" complaint. In a way, isn't an RSS feed similar in concept, since the system you use for the RSS feed checks for updates to a "subscription"? Being able to sync ANY information to or from a computer, documents and such could be seen as prior art for that concept as well.
RSS started to show up back in 1999 or so in Netscape(according to the Wiki), so text to audio....I would call that a pretty obvious and natural progression.
This is why software patents in general can be seen as a generally bad idea, because there are very few ideas that are really revolutionary. Most of the things you see out there are a natural evolution that have come over time. Once web pages were developed that used a database to feed the content on that web page, most things suddenly can not be patented because database design really is so well established that pictures, or pretty much any use of stored data will have been thought of by thousands of software developers independently of each other.
We should just ignore/deny all software patents. It doesn't make any sense at all to patent software, can anyone name a single case where a software patent actually makes any sense at all, even remotely?
Unsurprisingly, Dave has been made aware of this joke, and has already put up a response. The sidebar listing many quotes praising his and Adam's contribution each of which predates the patent application date is pretty funny.
This is almost as bad as Tsera's 'touchpad patent.' At least these people aren't suing anyone. Yet.
Michael Scott: "Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information." Regardless of the history, Podcasting was definitely not created by Apple. If it was then they would have it locked down tight like everything else they own.
Do you guys remember VCR+, where you could mark a particular series from a tv guide and your VCR would record all the episodes?
Sleep: A completely inadequate substitution for Caffeine.
Stretching is the name of the game. I like the idea of TiVo, but to qualify as prior art, we need a publication. Simply find a product user manual (non-patent literature). Also, TiVo has many patents that also may disclose the ideas we're looking for.
The TiVo certainly downloads data when it records, where download is the transferring of data (audio and video) from one computer to another. I'd have to look at an early TiVO manual to see how well it meets the channel depth limitation. Further, the pre-defined channel is a tad tricky, but the TiVO box somehow knows what a season of content looks like. Is it pre-defined? Maybe. Maybe even the consistent name of the show from the guide information gives us pre-defined.
So independent claim 1 could probably be knocked out, but dependent claim 3 and its children would be novel limitations over our imagined TiVo art.
Patent number # -01: Method by which USPTO makes piss-poor decisions
In 1998 my ISP built 6 episodes of a Flash based R rated episodic "cartoon". We presented our idea to HBO and Showtime with the idea of having dual broadcast of the shows. On TV and Online. The online versions would be downloadable after registration or watchable online without registration. Both HBO and showtime thought the idea was great but "too ahead of it time", to quote the HBO thank you letter. Adult Swim came out three years later.
Heck my friends at joecarton.com were doing episodic cartoons online in 1997.
I thought of patenting it but the lawyers said that Television patents would prevent us from getting a patent for episodic anything.
That's like saying the Coca-Cola Company invented cocaine.
Nope, not unless the word "cocaine" was invented after Coca-Cola.
Property is theft.
Filing date was 2003 according to TFA, but you apparently noticed that.
In some respects, podcasting even pre-dates that - MP3.com - the old one that hosted indie artists in the late 1990s-early 2000s - used to have download-able fan created setlists and some included DJs (so it was a music podcast in everything but name and RSS feed). You could either stream or download this content, because everything on that site could be downloaded free (the business model was selling CD quality recordings of those artists, but apparently not enough people did).
I used to listen to some of these setlists on my MP3 player in the late 1990s, but I certainly didn't think I had adopted a patentable idea - seemed logical. I download MP3 content. I have MP3 player. I add 1+1... I play MP3 content on portable player. How is this not obvious?
In fact the answer is so obvious that the quesiton was foolish.
You're just trying to deny me credit for my incredible, groundbreaking insight. ;)
Property is theft.
Does 1999 count as prior art? I have operated a RealAudio/mp3 server since 1998 serving up episodes of a guys radio show. Perhaps i should file patent... I wonder do the USPTO employees still use an 8088 and send email via telegraph? WTF.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
That's like saying the Coca-Cola Company invented cocaine.
Nope, not unless the word "cocaine" was invented after Coca-Cola.
Everybody knows "cocaine" got its name from the Eric Clapton song.
Leo? is that you?
That's like saying the Coca-Cola Company invented cocaine.
Nope, not unless the word "cocaine" was invented after Coca-Cola.
Everybody knows "cocaine" got its name from the Eric Clapton song.
Everybody, except you, knows that J.J. Cale wrote that song.
You probably think that Clapton wrote "I Shot The Sheriff," too.
Errr... but ... How come that didn't work for Katz' IVR/VRU patent portfolio?
That slimy little mofo sucked up O($100,000,000) in "licensing fees" by amending his whale-sucking patent - a hand-wavy "How to randomly select callers seeking free stuff offered by a radio station" - for ten years, adding the contents of published articles, white papers, proceedings, etc., until he'd "invented" every bit of technology used in every call center after 1970 or so.
And he never built an fscking thing.
That's like saying the Coca-Cola Company invented cocaine.
Nope, not unless the word "cocaine" was invented after Coca-Cola.
Everybody knows "cocaine" got its name from the Eric Clapton song.
Everybody, except you, knows that J.J. Cale wrote that song.
You probably think that Clapton wrote "I Shot The Sheriff," too.
Did I say Clapton wrote it? No, I did not. Did Clapton not make it famous? Last time I heard it played on the radio, the DJ didn't come on and say "That was J.J. Cale playing 'Cocaine'". Nope, never heard that. It doesn't matter because that song sucks anyway.
Oh, whoosh!
yes, but this was before KSR. Now the obvious determination has changed. The Supreme Court said that the TSM (teach-suggestion-motivation) test is too narrow.
There was also Geeks In Space 1999 - 2001, based on Slashdot content and hosted by Slashdot employees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geeks_in_Space