Company Awarded "The Patent For Podcasting" 202
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.'"
Re:Prefuckingposterous (Score:1, Interesting)
And seriously, I would think RSS feeds would prove that this was intended before they did it. Assholes.
Re:Filed: October 9, 2008 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Another stinker from the USPTO (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
USPTO scam continues (Score:4, Interesting)
"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.
Dont you get it ? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Filed: October 9, 2008 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org] or Radio UserLand [wikipedia.org], 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.
Re:Filed: October 9, 2008 (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds like TV (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought it was Adam Curry (Score:5, Interesting)
what could happen? (Score:1, Interesting)
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?
Re:Easy to avoid (Score:2, Interesting)
RSS feeds do not manage subscriptions, they do not receive subscription requests. The act of "subscribing" is no more than the end user having a program that automatically rechecks an XML file that exists somewhere in cyberspace. The USER has to subscribe, the podcaster does not receive any sort of subscription request, they simply host the files. This patent seems like a closed system, where proprietary software is used to manage a subscription and it interfaces with a server that receives and verifies the subscription request. I don't see how traditional podcasting is covered by this at all.
Re:Another stinker from the USPTO (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why yes, I am a registered patent attorney... (Score:1, Interesting)
So I think it's premature to just assume these claims are invalid.
As another registered patent person (agent), I would point out that this is slashdot, and any discussion of patents (or intellectual property in general) here is usually 180 degrees from reality: "The title is the patent!", "Copyright is a violation of free speech!", "You can't trademark a name!"
Re:Filed: October 9, 2008 (Score:3, Interesting)
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."
Re:bad for US companies (Score:2, Interesting)
Even under the PCT, you can't really patent something that's not patentable in that country. China for example, uses this tactic:
The patent is valid everywhere except China in this case. They just rejected it.
Patent doesn't cover podcasts (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:You read the claims? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Plenty of FTP clients available at the time showed a listing of the files in the current directory of the currently connected server server, with their size, on the left hand side of the screen, and a listing of the files in the currently selected directory on the client with their size on the right hand side of the screen. They also provided means of deleting files on the client (and if authorised on the server) and of selecting which files on the server to download.
This meets all the features of the above claim.