After EFF Effort, Infamous "Podcasting Patent" Invalidated

Ars Technica reports some good news on the YRO front. An excerpt: A year-and-a-half after the Electronic Frontier Foundation created a crowd-funded challenge to a patent being used to threaten podcasters, the patent has been invalidated. In late 2013, after small podcasters started getting threat letters from Personal Audio LLC, the EFF filed what's called an "inter partes review," or IPR, which allows anyone to challenge a patent at the US Patent and Trademark Office. The order issued today by the USPTO lays to rest the idea that Personal Audio or its founder, Jim Logan, are owed any money by podcasters because of US Patent No. 8,112,504, which describes a "system for disseminating media content representing episodes in a serialized sequence." The article points out, though, that the EFF warns Personal Audio LLC is seeking more patents on podcasting. Mentioned within: Adam Carolla's fight against these patents and our Q&A with Jim Logan.

Comments

What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Yaotzin]

I believe some patent rights are necessary to promote innovation, but when you start handing out patents like a paedophile hands out candy, the opposite effect is achieved.

Re: What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most pedophiles aren't handing out candy. They aren't strangers hiding in the darkness waiting to snatch your kid either. They are parents, uncles, priests, coaches, people you have trusted and let into your kid's life.

If we can stop perpetrating this "stranger danger" myth, perhaps the "for the kids" argument will die down and we will be able to have nice things.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[ale2011]

I believe some patent rights are necessary to promote innovation [...]

IME, patents rather hinder than promote innovation, especially on software methods. The way they are used is to protect big players against one another's legal challenges. As a side effect, small players are quite locked out. But then, IANAL; can someone give an example of a software patent that actually promoted innovation?

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Ecuador]

Yes, it seems to me that instead of paying for hundred of lawsuits on ridiculous patents perhaps somebody should start going after the USPTO instead? No idea if there is any legal way to do it, but since all problems start from the USPTO itself, that's where any effort should be concentrated...

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Yaotzin]

IME, patents rather hinder than promote innovation, especially on software methods. The way they are used is to protect big players against one another's legal challenges. As a side effect, small players are quite locked out. But then, IANAL; can someone give an example of a software patent that actually promoted innovation?

Yes well, I think we have different experiences. I agree that software patents often seem to serve little purpose apart from building war chests, and I would also be interested in a concrete example of good usage of software patents. There are many other industries, however, where patents are crucial to defend years and millions of dollars invested in R&D against professional copycats, and allow low level players to reap some profit from their innovation.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Yaotzin]

Yes, it seems to me that instead of paying for hundred of lawsuits on ridiculous patents perhaps somebody should start going after the USPTO instead? No idea if there is any legal way to do it, but since all problems start from the USPTO itself, that's where any effort should be concentrated...

I agree, although it seems like this IPR mentioned in the summary is one way of doing it. The biggest preference would be that patent offices (not just the USPTO) would stop awarding ridiculously general patents. Possibly there could be some reward for lowering the amount of IPRs per annum or something along those lines.

Re: What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most pedophiles aren't handing out candy. They aren't strangers hiding in the darkness waiting to snatch your kid either. They are parents, uncles, priests, coaches, people you have trusted and let into your kid's life.

If we can stop perpetrating this "stranger danger" myth, perhaps the "for the kids" argument will die down and we will be able to have nice things.

Sorry, but big media corporations can't maximize profits if they don't create hysteria.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[gl4ss]

you got some post 2000 examples of that?

srsly.

besides, they're using the same millions blabla invstments zillions years blabla argument for software as well.

and the hardware patents i've recently seem have been fairly obvious answers to problems as well. like, have a problem where the 3d printed object contracts too much and breaks because ambient temperature is too low. what is the patented solution to the problem? raise the temperature of the build chamber. so they end patenting hot air. no novel method for doing it either, just the obvious solution of pumping in hot air.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words you don't know of any examples where patents have helped society, but you'll defend to the death the idea that somewhere, somehow, a patent has helped the world?

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Anonymous Coward]

My problem with software patents is that too many of them seem to take a common every day idea/concept/practice and effectively rubber stamp "on (insert platform)". To add insult to injury most of them on top of being the next logical step that anyone with half a brain would take, also convey their method in the vaguest most blanket terms possible. To the point that they aren't patenting a method of doing something they are trying to patent the very concept of being able to do something "on a smartphone" or "on a computer" or "on a website".

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Dutch Gun]

Yes, there's a legal way to do it. A congressperson introduces a bill that outlaws software patents, a majority of the legislature votes for it, and the President signs it into law. No more idiotic software patents.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Rob Y.]

That doesn't sound like a hardware patent either. More like a 'process' patent - which is essentially the same thing as a software patent, and shouldn't be allowed - at least in trivial cases like the one you cite.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Rob Y.]

Perhaps better than the IPR mechanism would be an appeals process by which anyone can make an 'obviousness' challenge to any patent approved by the rank and file PTO staff to a higher-level and more technical board that must review the patent before it's actually enforceable. All funded by the USPTO itself, eliminating the high cost of challenging patents. Also greatly reducing the effectiveness of patent enforcement blackmail - and possibly raising the standards for initial approvals by causing the granting of bad patents to actually cost the patent office something - instead of generating revenue.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell is going on with the world? Why is it that so much damage can be done by a lawyer or two and some corrupt filth in government in a few minutes with the stroke of a pen, but it takes YEARS to get that damage undone, if ever.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

With the rise of creative commons, or should we say the "maker" commons, the need for patents is greatly reduced. Whatever remains is probably best served by mega-Kickstarter-style bounties funded by governments or ultra-rich philanthropists, large-scale moon-shot or Manhattan-type projects for finding the cure for cancer/aids or the elusive quest for sustained nuclear fusion.

Think of it this way. In an island with one inventor, you damn well should treat that inventor like a king if you want to live better than flint-using troglodytes. But where there are potentially hundreds of millions of inventors working on their own small design, awarding one big patent for minor design improvements become counter-productive. The patent will actually stifle attempts to evolve the technology independently.

History is actually full of examples of similar technology being independently developed by different people and even different cultures at different places and different times (things like the printing press or the gun or even intellectual "inventions" like calculus and the theory evolution). True, hundreds of years might pass before something is reinvented. But when even plans for how to build a gun can be posted online, an invention can be improved by hobbyists tinkering with a design known to work (no reinventing the wheel).

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Ecuador]

I don't think the problem is software patents. The problem is stupid patents. Like, I patent exactly the same thing everyone does, *but on a bicycle!*. The examiners seem to have completely forgotten the basic premise, which is that you cannot grant a patent to something that a person with an ordinary skill in the art could come up with based on prior art.
Of course to completely solve the problems a general patent reform would be required, which could address the software issue better among others, but even within the current framework things would be so much better if the USPTO applied some sanity.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Thank you. Do not throw out the baby with the bath water.

When giant corporations can come in and steal ideas by small inventors, real, significant ideas, that hurts a lot more than these stupid patents do.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Dutch Gun]

Honestly, I've waffled on this a while in the past, but I can't honestly think of where real innovation has been spurred on or preserved because of software patents. On the other hand, I can point out hundreds of cases where the patent system has been horribly abused. Sorry, I'm going to disagree with you. No one except the bottom feeders that live off the licensing of patents themselves or giant corporations that hoard them like legal weapons are benefiting from these things.

I work as a programmer on some pretty sophisticated software, some of which was pretty new and novel in my field. The companies I've worked for didn't believe in software patents, and neither do I. Just because I'm the first one to think up some clever algorithm or trick shouldn't give me the right to lock people out of using it for the next seventeen years. It's absurd - that's an eternity in the software development world, and it has no good effect except to stifle competition.

The USPTO has had years to make improvements, and the situation is only getting worse.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Fnord666]

Perhaps better than the IPR mechanism would be an appeals process by which anyone can make an 'obviousness' challenge to any patent approved by the rank and file PTO staff to a higher-level and more technical board that must review the patent before it's actually enforceable.

As soon as you create this process someone will build a system that automatically submits an appeal for every patent issued and we end up worse off than before.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because I'm the first one to think up some clever algorithm or trick shouldn't give me the right to lock people out of using it for the next seventeen years.

If you make that clever algorithm public and document it, you could be protecting yourself and others from being locked out of it by later patent trolls. It's called "prior art."

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[meerling]

What about Philo Farnsworth, the inventor of the electronic television?
No, wait, RCA employed an entire department to find ways around his patents to screw him, and the most money he got out of that invention was the $80 and a carton of cigarettes he won for stumping the panel on "I've got a secret". Yes, it's apparently true that they gave cigarettes as prizes back in the 50s.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[meerling]

Because attempts to undo that damage has to go through the government and lawyers.
It's kind of like asking the guy that just ran over your cat to UN-runover your cat. They really don't want to do that.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Dutch Gun]

If you make that clever algorithm public and document it, you could be protecting yourself and others from being locked out of it by later patent trolls. It's called "prior art."

We very often do. I'm a videogame programmer, and a lot of us share knowledge at developer conferences, articles, blogs, and classroom lectures with the blessing of our companies. There's actually a healthy trend of knowledge sharing in this industry, and many people are surprised to find out that very few videogame companies bother with patents at all.

In a little under two decades in the industry, I've only had TWO experiences with patents: Having to pay to use mp3-encoded files in our game, and being sued by a patent troll. Given this, you can probably understand why I'm not all that enthusiastic about software patents. For the most part, I believe that most companies would rather focus on creating new, innovative products instead of desperately trying to leverage some patented advantage. There's nothing about our products that isn't perfectly well protected by copyright and trademark law.

Re: What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Nah, this idea has been invalidated by economists.

The cost to replicate complex inventions is about 65% of the original cost and the overhead of paying the talent to have on staff to do the work (they insist you fund their own research instead of sitting idle) is almost 35%. The Patent argument boils down to dithering about a 5% difference and the consumers prefer to reward the inventors most of the time. Establishing and enforcing the patent monopoly winds up costing society more than that 5%, so the net effect is privatized gains and socialized losses.

Now there are industries that government screws up a priori, like pharmaceuticals, but patching that disaster with patents just adds insult to injury.

Speaking as someone who was just offered a drug for a family member that costs $320,000 per ounce (beyond the budget) I can tell you the current system doesn't help regular people at all. Bristol Meyers execs - they're doing just fine.

The current system *does* work very well - for certain classes of men. And the claims that people will stop inventing without monopoly enforcement ignore all the available data and human nature.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[sjames]

How is that worse?

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact this process is taking place right now in Congress with hearings on the "Innovation Act, a bill that would impose new requirements on patent holders and shift incentives to deter them from filing frivolous lawsuits."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/04/10/how-the-government-just-protected-your-favorite-podcasts/

Although, as I believe both Will Rogers and Samuel Clemons ("Mark Twain") reminded us: beware when Congress is in session...

RO

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Anonymous Coward]

...which would have the effect of making the USPTO do its job properly.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[HiThere]

I'm sorry, but the USPTO is doing such a bad job that totally eliminating them would be an improvement. I will agree that a patent system is valuable, but it's also incredibly dangerous and prone to "corruption". (Not in the usual sense, but in the sense of knowingly not carrying out their explicit duties.)

The first step should mean to make patents be required to be sufficiently specific that those skilled in the art (being patented, not of legal interpretation) can reproduce the invention. The second step of the process, if you aren't just going to revoke all exising patents and close the USPTO would need to be to remove the judicial presumption that a patent is valid because it has been issued. I doubt if 50% of the patents should have bee issued. The third step should be to remove the special patent courts, which increase the cost of defense against an invalid patent dramatically, in foster a wierd language such that even normal lawyers aren't allowed to claim to understand what a patent means.

Passing patents up to a higher board of patent office officials will just enshrine the current mode of operation. If you must do that, pass the patent to a board of specialists chosen by lottery from those qualified in the specialty that the patent claims to cover. (Reasons for rejecting that patent by this board cannot include "that won't work" but may include "that's too unclear to understand". In fact, perhaps that should be their only reason for rejection. Perhaps one should also include a requirement for a working model, but I'm unsure about that. Plans for a working model, anyway.)

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[HiThere]

That is technical protection, but it doesn't keep someone from getting a patent on it. And the patent will be presumed valid, so you will need to prove in court that your use was prior art. And that's not only expensive, it's dangerous. The court may decline to accept clear, verifiable proof. The patent examiners only look in a few places, and often a trivial change is enough that they won't find the prior art. And this isn't even unreasonable. Consider the number of different terms used to describe running communicating programs simultaneously on multiple CPUs of a multi-cpu computer. Now invent a new term that's also appropriate. See how easy it is. Searching for "woven programming" won't find concurrent programming, or threads, or multi-processing, or... well, any of the other terms used by various groups to describe the same thing.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Theaetetus]

There's nothing about our products that isn't perfectly well protected by copyright and trademark law.

Copyright is great for protecting that specific piece of software from piracy. It does almost nothing to prevent another developer from doing a copycat game. That's why Zynga laughs at copyrights, but does file a bunch of patent applications.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Theaetetus]

I don't think the problem is software patents. The problem is stupid patents. Like, I patent exactly the same thing everyone does, *but on a bicycle!*. The examiners seem to have completely forgotten the basic premise, which is that you cannot grant a patent to something that a person with an ordinary skill in the art could come up with based on prior art.

They haven't forgotten it - what they realize is that they have to prove that a person with ordinary skill in the art could come up with the claimed invention based on the prior art. It's not something as simple as a gut feeling of "this is obvious", particularly because they get that gut feeling after reading the patent application. If it's a really well written application, super clear with tons of explanatory diagrams and examples, the end result should feel pretty obvious, in hindsight... but that says nothing about whether, one day before without reading that application, someone could come up with it.

So, they have to prove obviousness using evidence that was available on that previous day, and specifically, if they can show that all of the elements in the claimed invention were known on that day and could be easily combined, then it's obvious. So, for example, if peanut butter sandwiches are known and riding bicycles is known, then "eating a peanut butter sandwich, but on a bicycle!" is obvious, even if no one has ever done that particular combination before. The question is where there's some element of the invention that no one actually has ever done before - turning at an intersection based on a degree of tire rotation to peanuts crunched per bite ratio exceeding a threshold - then proving that that is obvious gets a lot tougher.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Theaetetus]

Perhaps better than the IPR mechanism would be an appeals process by which anyone can make an 'obviousness' challenge to any patent approved by the rank and file PTO staff to a higher-level and more technical board that must review the patent before it's actually enforceable.

There are such mechanisms - ex parte reexamination (available from 1981 until 2012) and post-grant review (available since 2012). And it works as you say - a panel of senior examiners review the patent, in response to a challenge, which can be based on obviousness or other issues.

Thing is, it's not started with just someone screaming "that's obvious! Review the patent!" Just like we don't go through a full trial based on someone merely saying "that guy's guilty of a crime!" or "that guy owes me money!", the challenge or complaint has to meet a minimum threshold for likelihood of invalidity/guilt/liability. If you do your homework and search for some good prior art, then you can challenge the patent. If you don't do that homework, and just make a conclusory claim, then your challenge will get immediately dismissed, as it should be.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Dutch Gun]

And look what happened to them. Zynga are bottom feeders, and are absolutely loathed in the more 'traditional' videogame industry (those of us that make AAA PC and console games) for this and plenty of other reasons. They're the perfect poster child for why software patents are a horrible idea.

You can't stop a shitty company from stealing your game ideas. No one seriously wants to go there, because we all recognize that it's important to build on each other's work. Zynga just takes this to the most scummy level possible by essentially creating a virtual clone of anything they see that's successful and easily duplicated.

The only way to beat a company that steals your best ideas is to keep coming up with better ones. Software patents aren't going to solve that problem.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[radarskiy]

So you have only two anecdotes, only one of which has even the potential to be a failure of the system, and you're ready to throw the whole thing out?

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Dutch Gun]

That's just my own personal experience. You don't have to look very far to see the many, many other unbelievably stupid litigations that have made the news (hint: they all seem to resolve around the courts in a certain East Texas district). And the one failure I pointed out happened to cost my company a lot of money to resolve. Why should we keep putting businesses through the wringer for the sake of lawyers and patent trolls?

So, yeah, I wouldn't mind tossing the concept of software patents altogether. By any reasonable standard, it's been a disaster for the software development industry over the past few decades. How many more years of failure would you like to see before you're convinced it's a bad idea? Maybe another few decades of patchwork fixes and band-aids?

The idea of patenting software is and always has been a dubious notion at best. Just because it's the law of the land now doesn't make it a good idea in the slightest. We should follow New Zealand's example and simply assert that software is not an invention and therefore shouldn't be patentable.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Theaetetus]

And look what happened to them. Zynga are bottom feeders, and are absolutely loathed in the more 'traditional' videogame industry (those of us that make AAA PC and console games) for this and plenty of other reasons. They're the perfect poster child for why software patents are a horrible idea.

Zynga goes after indie and mobile developers for whom copyright is useless, unlike you giant AAA players. So they're the poster child for why software patents are a horrible idea? That makes no sense. Software patents - or being a multi-million dollar AAA developer - are the only thing that can stop them.

In fact, it's actually the classic story justifying why patents should exist: you've got small innovators whose ideas are copied by a ruthless giant corporation, and other giant corporations - such as your own - ignore the issue.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[technosaurus]

Yes, there should be a "public comment period" for all patents. EFF should start a kickstarter to "buy" a few senators.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, it's actually the classic story justifying why patents should exist: you've got small innovators whose ideas are copied by a ruthless giant corporation, and other giant corporations - such as your own - ignore the issue.

Actually, no it isn't. Patents are just a tool and larger companies have more of them. Patents don't change the balance, just increase the costs. The only people who "win" are the "arms dealers", the lawyers in this case. Everybody else loses. The patent industry are just parasites on the rest of the community in this situation.

You, and the patent lobby in general, might have an argument if the number of patents were sufficiently small that there's a possibility that a new player might have a new patent and and existing players wouldn't have a defensive thicket of patents (what people like you often implicitly assume) however the reality is there are thousands of patents and small players don't stand much of a chance. No matter how much you wish that wasn't so.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[barc0001]

No, I think the problem is software patents. Almost every software patent isn't for something novel and unique, most of it is extrapolation of current practices and new ways of using the same, which is seen in the fact that almost all of these patent suits are not going after people who "stole" someone else's idea, but rather came up with the same thing all on their own and didn't even know these people existed until they got sued by them. Aside from a few interesting compression algorithms, I'm struggling to think of any software patent that's been awarded that is actually something novel, unique and worth protecting.

Hell, during the Oracle Java trial their lawyers were going on and on about how amazing these functions that Google "stole" were, until it was revealed that the judge in the case had learned Java himself and realized that many of these functions were necessary for any good programmer to do work with Java and on top of that, the work involved to create them was minutes, not weeks or months like Oracle's lawyers were claiming.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Dutch Gun]

Patents are equally useless for protecting against copying the look and feel of a game. You can only patent specific concepts or technologies, say, the way Zynga tried to patent the the use of in-game virtual currency. You're telling me you think the proper way for these indie devs to handle this is to go out, patent their own code and algorithms, and then fight it out in court with Zynga? Insanity.

The AAA game industry isn't "ignoring" the patent issue. They're simply declining to participate in the patent war madness that everyone else seems to be currently engaged in. Companies like Zynga are the exception to the general trend, and may end up forcing everyone else to do the same goddamned thing. Do you know who'll be left behind here? Yeah, the indie devs, because they can't afford patent lawyers and ridiculous lawsuits.

Read the massive list of Zynga patents. It makes me weep as a game developer. The USPTO seems to be rubberstamping whatever the hell Zynga sends their way, so long as it's couched in enough confusing terminology and legalese (oh, and "online" is mentioned anywhere). If you actually read the patents in detail, they're essentially the sort of thing any competent developer would think.

Seriously, this is madness, and it has to stop. Software patents need to die.

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[Theaetetus]

Patents are equally useless for protecting against copying the look and feel of a game.

Design patents aside, of course.

You can only patent specific concepts or technologies, say, the way Zynga tried to patent the the use of in-game virtual currency. You're telling me you think the proper way for these indie devs to handle this is to go out, patent their own code and algorithms, and then fight it out in court with Zynga? Insanity.

You're saying a better way to handle it is to get no legal protection and just hope that Zynga never decides to copy them? Worse insanity, particularly because we've seen it fail, over and over.

The AAA game industry isn't "ignoring" the patent issue. They're simply declining to participate in the patent war madness that everyone else seems to be currently engaged in. Companies like Zynga are the exception to the general trend, and may end up forcing everyone else to do the same goddamned thing. Do you know who'll be left behind here? Yeah, the indie devs, because they can't afford patent lawyers and ridiculous lawsuits.

Patent litigation is frequently done on contingency. That's like saying "I can't afford to have you place a bet for me, because if it wins, I have to give you a share of the huge pile of free money I get."

Read the massive list of Zynga patents. It makes me weep as a game developer.

Why should it? After all, I believe a wise man once said, "The only way to beat a company that steals your best ideas is to keep coming up with better ones." Similarly, the only way to beat a company that comes up with the best ideas and patents them is to come up with better ones, right? Or pay a reasonable license fee if you can't come up with a better idea.

The USPTO seems to be rubberstamping whatever the hell Zynga sends their way, so long as it's couched in enough confusing terminology and legalese (oh, and "online" is mentioned anywhere).

[Citation needed]. The USPTO currently rejects around 95% of patent applications in this industry, so if they've got a rubberstamp, it says "DENIED".

If you actually read the patents in detail, they're essentially the sort of thing any competent developer would think.

If you read anything in detail, then ask yourself immediately afterwards if you could think of what you just read, you'd say yes. It's called hindsight. The question is whether any competent developer would have thought of it before reading the patent. And that takes evidence to prove, not a gut feeling based solely on "I understand what I just read, so therefore it must be obvious."

Re:What the hell is going on a the USPTO?

[rdnetto]

Serious question: how does one meaningfully distinguish between hardware and software patents? As I understand it, software is supposed to be unpatentable because it is just math, but the same could also be said of Widlar's negative feedback amplifier, since the mathemathical models by which transistors function were well established at that point.

The best argument I've heard against software patents is that they inhibit interoperability (e.g. the MPEG patents), but that's not specific to software - the same is true of Apple's magsafe connector.

Invalidate all of them.

[Anonymous Coward]

And put traitors that wanted to abuse the law behind bars.

What else is driving this

[AxeTheMax]

I'm amazed that the USPTO is allowing patents to such ridiculously obvious notions, and that they take huge amounts of money to even challenge. What, apart from greed and lawyers, is keeping this system alive? Is it the possibility of control it gives big players over small ones?

Re:What else is driving this

[Anonymous Coward]

What's more disturbing is that some USPTO people, the initial patent examiners cannot see the obviousness, but later, the IPR reviewers can - can't they all get on the same page to begin with?

I don't know the details, but it seems to me the process of recording a talk, then disseminating it has been well established since the early 20th century with sales of vinyl records of such talks/speeches. It would not seem that harnessing a newer technology for such dissemination could be patentable in itself, or there would be more "patents"/lawsuits involving every kind of info being disseminated via the Internet - oh, wait...

RO

Re:What else is driving this

[neilo_1701D]

My brother works for the Australian Patent Office, so I've no idea how much of this translates to the USPTO. I asked him this very question a few years ago.

When a patent application comes in, the initial examiner is the newest, most lowly graded person in the office with a huge caseload. They, to a degree, depend on the submitter to have taken the steps to validate the uniqueness of the patent; however there is research done as well to validate the submission.

Most submissions are done by patent lawyers with as much obfuscation as possible, and if it's outside of the examiner's area is much more likely to get through, as the examiner has to try and decipher what is going on. If the submitter claims no prior art and words the submission carefully enough, it's likely to get through.

With an appear, it goes much higher up the chain and diverts to someone with more specialized knowledge for further assessment. As you can probably guess, it takes longer and costs much more to get this review happening.

So, there are fundamental problems with the process in that it assumes honesty on the part of the submitter. If they set out to deceive, as Personal Audio seems to have done, it's a long and costly process to undo it.

Re:What else is driving this

[sjames]

Essentially they're selling discount blackjacks "for entertainment purposes only" at football matches.

Thanks, EFF!

[Nemyst]

And remember, the EFF is a non-profit. Donate if you can, show your appreciation. They're fighting the good fight.

Re:"year-and-a-half" ? Why the hyphens?

[meerling]

Oh, wait... NON-AMERICANS... you idiots.

or do you prefer:

Oh, wait... HUMANS... you idiots.
or
Oh, wait... MEN... you idiots.
or
Oh, wait... WOMEN... you idiots.

Try to avoid those blanket statements that insult the vast majority for transgressions done by the few.

Thank You, EFF

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why whenever I have an urge to donate, the EFF is at or near the top of the list. It's wrong that the USPTO grants broad and generic patents at all and organizations such as the EFF are necessary to point out how obvious the so-called patent is, but more appropriately described as a concept or idea, to the review board, but that's what we have right now.

lets not forget Adam Carolla

[citizenr]

Lets not forget Adam Carolla basically funded those patent troll assholes with donations from people expecting him to FIGHT it.

Correction - 5 claims of 35 invalidated

[Theaetetus]

The patent still has 30 currently valid claims - only claims 31-35 were invalidated. They were also the only claims that Personal Audio claimed Corolla infringed, so invalidating them is a good step forward, but it's a bit much to claim the patent itself is invalidated.

The remaining 30 claims were also quite a bit narrower than Claims 31-35, so this decision wouldn't necessarily indicate they're likely invalid.

Re:Correction - 5 claims of 35 invalidated

[Anonymous Coward]

I am confused. Why would Adam Corolla fund a group to sue himself?

wait, what? no

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it said patent on procrastinating. oh well.

Patents to new media

[mattack2]

I haven't read *today's* news on the subject.

But about the original patent, everybody complains about the patents that someone got for "X _ON THE INTERNET_" when X was already patented. Yeah, that's ridiculous.

Shouldn't it work the other way, though? The originally patented idea DOES seem to me to be analogous to podcasting. I originally thought it sounded dumb when Carolla (whose podcast I listen to and enjoy), described it, but reading about it in more detail made it seem like a reasonably patentable idea *IF ANYTHING IS*.