Help the EFF save podcasting from a patent troll


19 Responses to “Help the EFF save podcasting from a patent troll”

  1. knoxblox says:

    This is when I admire the Mob’s old-school efficiency of breaking kneecaps for only 3 grand or less.

  2. Ygret says:

    Call me a luddite, but can anyone please explain the difference between a “podcast” and an “audio recording”?  And can anyone explain to me how one could patent “audio recording” at this late date?  No prior art?  Really?

    The USPTO needs a serious kick in the ass.

    • Heartfruit says:

      The only difference I can think of off the top of my head is that you can subscribe to a podcast and get notification of the new recordings when they appear.

      • Ygret says:

        I see, so its audio recordings with notifications.  Like my band’s mailing list?  A patent for combining two unrelated things that have existed for a hundred years, and which doesn’t change the nature of either in any significant way?  Patent granted! ;)

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Apparently, you haven’t received your pod yet. Do you live in an isolated rural area?

      • Ygret says:

        Yep.  NYC :).  But seriously, what’s so different about a  podcast?  It’s a friggin’ audio recording.  I listened to Marc Maron once on itunes and it was like, a crappy audio recording or something.  It was funny tho.

  3. Marc45 says:

    With all the patent/copyright trolling going on as well as the complete intolerance of IP owners to fair use, what if the world just decided to not comply to these ridiculous claims that contribute less than nothing to the world of ideas.

  4. jansob says:

    What’s a bit scary is that the EFF is apparently still looking for prior
    art….meaning they haven’t actually found it. If they can’t, game over
    for podcasting. The troll will legally be right. And however awful and
    morally wrong that might be, it will mean pay up or stop. So get ready for a world of ONLY big-content podcasts…for a small fee, of course.

    • stephenl123 says:

      This really makes no sense.  How can EFF not be able to rattle of a long list of prior art?  Serialized audio productions pushed to the listeners’ devices have existed since, at least, the dawn of radio…

      • jansob says:

        “Apparatus for disseminating a series of episodes represented by media files via the Internet as said episodes become available”
        I’m really hoping someone else did something with this earlier, but it’s awfully specific.

    • Anton Gully says:

      It’s prior art from before 1996, which may as well be the Cenozoic era in technology terms. On the plus side I guess the patent will expire inside a decade, right?

      Also, it only applies to the US. The rest of the world is happy to host your down-trodden pod-casters. Not Joe Rogan. You keep him… I kid. 

    • Les Orchard says:

      How are they not finding prior art? Maybe I don’t understand what constitutes prior art. I was listening to podcasts back in 2003, and that patent looks like it was filed in 2009. Hell, I *wrote* a podcasting client myself around 2004. It polled RSS feeds & auto-assembled CDROMs of MP3s for my car in the short period before I had an actual iPod.

      Edit: Oh, I see – they need prior art dated before 1996. That’s tough. We barely had most of the machinery for podcasts proper back then (ie. RSS feeds with MP3 enclosures auto-downloaded via the web) :/

  5. impulsiveplan says:

    Maybe I’m missing something here, but if these trolls are suing CBS and NBC, wouldn’t these huge players be highly motivated and well-funded enough to fight this?  Why come to the public for money when CBS and NBC can throw millions at this?

    • Anton Gully says:

      I would imagine CBS and NBC swim in the same murky waters as the typical patent troll. It would probably make more sense for them to pay for a license rather than contest the legality of the Intellectual Property system. 

  6. Mirarkitty says:

    I can’t find the point that they might sue over.
    All I see is “audio player with a memory” and can play stuff in sequence. (Which would allow them to maybe sue every iPod, iPod clone and smartphone and a few smartphone apps, but apparently that patent is too weak for that?)

    But, how does this allow them to sue the audio episodes creators?
    Anyone know which patent and claim they are suing over?

  7. Eric Garner says:

    Seriously, what *would* happen if someone just plain refused to cooperate? It’s bogus from top to bottom and any common-sense-type person can see that plainly. So what would happen if some brave citizen just stood up and said ‘no’ ?

Leave a Reply