Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Adam Carolla Joins Fight Against Podcast Patent Troll

Posted by timothy on from the save-penn's-sunday-school dept.

First time accepted submitter tor528 (896250) writes "Patent troll Personal Audio has sued top podcasters including Adam Carolla and HowStuffWorks, claiming that they own the patent for delivery of episodic content over the Internet. Adam Carolla is fighting back and has started a Fund Anything campaign to cover legal fees. From the Fund Anything campaign page: 'If Adam Carolla loses this battle, then every other Podcast will be quickly shut down. Why? Because Patent Trolls like Personal Audio would use a victory over Carolla as leverage to extort money from every other Podcast.. As you probably know, Podcasts are inherently small, owner-operated businesses that do not have the financial resources to fight off this type of an assault. Therefore, Podcasts as we know them today would cease to exist.' James Logan of Personal Audio answered Slashdotters' questions in June 2013. Links to the patent in question can be found on Personal Audio's website. The EFF filed a challenge against Personal Audio's podcasting patent in October 2013."

30 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. Headline misleading by Dins · · Score: 5, Informative

    I wouldn't say he "joined the fight" against patent trolls. He was sued by one and decided to very loudly and publicly fight it - in part so other podcasts aren't put out of buisness. Hence the Fund Anything campaign etc. I listen to his show often, and it's a constant topic.

    More power to him!

    1. Re:Headline misleading by SQLGuru · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I offer as a solution not covered by the patent the following. This solution is released free of charge to any and all podcasters / podcasting software / podcast playback devices:

      Create a REST based url which requires a random number to be passed as the final argument. Without this random (non-predetermined) argument, the compilation file (aka RSS or ATOM feed) will not be returned.

      From the patent statement linked in the summary: The compilation file was stored at a predetermined URL known to the Personal Audio player and was updated as new episodes became available

    2. Re:Headline misleading by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't say he "joined the fight" against patent trolls. He was sued by one and decided to very loudly and publicly fight it

      More power to him!

      If the troll holds true to form, they will dismiss the suit when it becomes clear it's going to court.

  2. And he's bringing Steve-O with him! by NotDrWho · · Score: 2, Funny

    Watch out patent trolls, your tables WILL be smashed!!

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  3. Personal Audio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Give them a hand!

    550 Fannin Street
    Suite 1313
    Beaumont, Texas 77701

    E-mail: info@personalaudio.net

    Phone: (409) 768-0009

    1. Re:Personal Audio by ArhcAngel · · Score: 2

      What's this? Beaumont has stolen Fannin Street from Houston? The nerve! I might have to stop and give them a piece of my mind the next time I take a trip to Coushatta

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    2. Re:Personal Audio by parliboy · · Score: 2

      I, for one, am shocked to discover that this is an East Texas address.

      --
      "You're never ready, just less unprepared."
    3. Re:Personal Audio by Khashishi · · Score: 2

      If this was the address of an abortion doctor or an animal researcher, this free speech would be deemed terrorism.

  4. Whas 1000 patent lawyers at the bottom of the sea? by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Funny

    I remember a quaint world where the lowest of the bottom-feeders were merely chasing ambulances.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  5. slight exaggeration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "If Adam Carolla loses this battle, then every other Podcast will be quickly shut down."

    lol no

    'If Adam Carolla loses this battle, then every other Podcast in America will be quickly shut down."

    lol yes

    1. Re:slight exaggeration by Grond · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's even more exaggerated than that. So-called patent trolls are not generally interested in shutting down infringers (unless they have an exclusive license with someone else, which I don't think Personal Audio does). They want infringers to stay in business so they can get paid licensing fees. Since they want to maximize their revenue, they don't even want the license to be so burdensome that infringers simply close up shop rather than pay. What's more, the normal standard for patent damages is a reasonable royalty, so in most cases the patentee can't even ask for (much less receive) enough damages to shut down infringers.

    2. Re:slight exaggeration by MrLizard · · Score: 4, Funny

      So-called "protection rackets" are not generally interested in shutting down business (unless they interfere with businesses owned by friends of the Godfather). They want "clients" to stay in business so that they can get paid protection money. Since they want to maximize their revenue, they don't even want to kill the shopkeepers if they don't pay up, just break some bones and maybe smash a few windows. What's more, the normal standard for failing to pay protection is a reasonable "both kneecaps for a first offense", so in most cases the protectors can't inflict enough damages to shut down the deadbeat's life functions.

  6. You should have to defend patents, or lose them by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm tired of hearing about patent holders coming out years (maybe a decade in this case?) after something has already been in common use, and declare that they invented it. Patents should be like trademarks in this regard in that if you don't protect it from the beginning, you lose it. You shouldn't be able to make claims about something that's already being used for year by hundreds of millions of people around the world. It's not just this case, but many others, and it doesn't just affect small time guys but big time guys too. I remember some company coming around years after a game console was released (can't remember which one) saying they had a patent on the controller. You shouldn't be allowed to let somebody infringe on your patent for years and then demand all the backpay. There are too many patents for the people making the products to know if they are infringing. If you have so many patents that you can't keep track of whether or not people are infringing, maybe it's time to let a few of them go.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:You should have to defend patents, or lose them by Grond · · Score: 5, Informative

      The law already recognizes this. First, damages for patent infringement can only go back six years. Second, the standard for issuing an injunction takes into consideration how long a patentee sat on its rights and the extent to which the public has become dependent upon the wide availability of the invention. Third, there is an equitable doctrine called laches that can prevent a claim from being made after a long time, sort of like a flexible, implicit statute of limitations.

    2. Re:You should have to defend patents, or lose them by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      6 years is too long. Most products don't even stay on the market for that long anymore. Most companies don't sell the same products year after year, because they have to innovate. You shouldn't be able to come around after 3 years of a product selling all over the world and claim they were infringing on your patent all along.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  7. Re:Isnt there prior art? by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "ie. radio?"

    Newsletters (the twitter of the nineties)
    I got emailed 'periodic content' daily, weekly, monthly, over the 'internet', you could subscribe an unsubscribe via email too.
    Some of them run to this very day.

  8. Is the problem really patent trolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You need to fight this problem at the source: the patent office. Generalized patents like this shouldn't be awarded, and generalized patents already granted should be revoked. Take away the trolls ammo and tell the troll he's not getting any future ammo.

  9. Re:Isnt there prior art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The patent covers not the podcasts themselves, but rather podcast notification via RSS (and it has to include file data, not just a newsflash along the lines of "new episode available on the website!").

  10. Oh come on ... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Informative

    claiming that they own the patent for delivery of episodic content over the Internet

    Once again, we have a patent which seems to say "a system and methodology for doing something well known, but with a computer".

    Are the USPTO that incompetent? Podcasts of one form or another are what, 20 years old now?

    This is just stupid. There is known prior art for this from at least 1993, and if someone thinks sending out the next in a series of files is an 'innovation', they and the patent examiners who awarded the patent are idiots.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Oh come on ... by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      A combination of court rulings and legislation caused the problem. The USPTO was basically forced to issue these patents. Now that the chicken has come home to roost there is going to need to be legislation and supreme court rulings that reverse the previous decisions for this to be fixed.

      Some of the legislative changes have already been put in place and others are proposed. We've also already had one supreme court ruling that basically tossed business method patents and some secondary rulings that have hinted at "on a computer" patents being invalid on their face.

      It takes a long time for this stuff to work through the system, consider that the changes and court rulings that created this problem happened in the 80's/90's and it's taken till now to snowball into something that's actively damaging the economy. It will likely take almost as long to wind back out of the system baring some serious legislation and authoritative ruling by the supreme court. That authoritative ruling by the supreme is highly unlikely. The high court is beyond cautious in reversing themselves. It usually takes strings of cases where they slowly erode away the foundation of the previous ruling before they reverse it. The legislature on the other hand can almost immediately reverse the situation, but patent heavy companies like IBM aggressively campaign against patent reform.

  11. JUst when you think there are no more good example by MitchDev · · Score: 2

    More proof that the whole IP field (patents, copyrights, etc.) is totally out of control and needs to be re-written from the ground up.

  12. I am still trying to figure out... by imatter · · Score: 2

    How a cassette tape device in any way resembles a digital audio system where you can download a file that has a playlist and that playlist is updated periodically. Logan says he wanted his product to be digital but just didn't get there.

    ...and then there is this Podcasting History, oddly no mention of PersonalAudio - Pioneers in Playlists & Episodic Content.

    On a side note, I think I have prior art. I used to do that with my Vic 20, of course when you put the cassette in the walkman the sound that came out was hard to listen to.

  13. Adam is fighting patent trolls by the sweat of his by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    unibrow.

  14. Re:Whas 1000 patent lawyers at the bottom of the s by MrLizard · · Score: 3, Funny

    Patent: A methodology for increasing revenue for attorneys via rapid foot-based pursuit of emergency medical vehicles.

  15. Re:Isnt there prior art? by wirefall · · Score: 2

    And your inability to read a tongue-in-cheek comment as such highlights your ignorance of humor...

  16. Dialup? Windows 95? by camperdave · · Score: 4, Informative
    The patent specifies a dialup connection to the internet using a SLIP/PPP connection:

    The facilities provided by the operating system, such as Windows 95, typically includes multimedia support, as noted above, as well as a standard WINSOCK TCP/IP stack and modem dial up driver software to support a SLIPP/PPP Internet connection, as next discussed.

    To effect these file transfers, the modem 115 is connected via conventional dial up telephone SLIP or PPP TCP/IP series data communication link 117 to an Internet service provider...

    How about this bit:

    At a time determined by player 103 monitoring the time of day clock 106, a dial up connection is established via the service provider 121 and the Interent to the FTP server 125 and the download compiliation 145 is transferred to the program data store 107 in the player 103.

    So, how much of this patent applies if I'm using linux over a full time cable internet connection to access Sheldon Cooper's latest Fun with Flags podcast?

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Dialup? Windows 95? by Viol8 · · Score: 2

      Seems to me they're trying to claim royalties on any method of downloading an audio file. Which is utterly absurd. Doesn't bother me , I'm not american , but there's something seriously fecked up with US law that it allows this kind of nonsense.

    2. Re:Dialup? Windows 95? by rilister · · Score: 2

      Oops. my bad. Just noticed that under "Related US Application Data" it calls out that this is a division of another patent, filed Oct 2, 1996. Now that *is* interesting.

      Are you sure that this idea was 'obvious' in 1996? I was in college studying bending beams at that time and sure as heck hadn't thought of downloading episodes of comedy podcasts. I can't say what everyone else was up to.

      For reference, the claim on this patent is pretty much the same:
      1. A player for reproducing selected audio program segments comprising, in combination:
      means for storing a plurality of program segments, each of said program segments having a beginning and an end,
      means for receiving and storing a file of data establishing a sequence in which said program segments are scheduled to be reproduced by said player,
      means for accepting control commands... means for continuously reproducing said program segments in the order... [+ bunch of controls for navigating media]

      Again, IANAL, but this seems to be a description of something that might well have been a new idea in 1996. I dunno. The obviousness test is an interesting one, and I still can't figure why they can go after media producers, when the patent sounds like it would result in Apple, Sony and the software/device people infringing.

      --
      'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
  17. Why sue the podcasters themselves? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2

    Why isn't Personal Audio suing the companies that make the software to allow podcasts to be created and served? Do they think those companies have a much stronger legal team and therefore are choosing to go after the defenseless?

  18. Prior Art by TheSync · · Score: 3, Informative

    1993: Carl Malamud launched Internet Talk Radio the "first computer-radio talk show, each week interviewing a computer expert" distributed "as audio files that computer users fetch one by one." I suspect he was using PCM or delta PCM codec, the files were huge, and probably could only be played back on Sun workstations.

    1995: Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner started Audionet. Here are downloadable files from Dec. 1996 and I suspect there were earlier ones.

    April 1995: RealAudio released by RealNetworks. This was a watershed in audio codec efficiency, and started the launch of a lot of downloadable audio programs.

    1996: Microsoft releases NetShow 1.0, a competing streaming player to RealAudio.

    I also believe that William Mutual's itv.net was delivering audio files of programs in 1996.

    I had a RealAudio server in 1996 and probably was serving up audio files, but frankly I can't remember. I definitely was doing so by 1997.