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.'"
Filed: October 9, 2008 (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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.
Re:Filed: October 9, 2008 (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]
Anyway, this patent is BS.. just based on that history podcasts (albeit not called podcasts) existed in 2001.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Filed: October 9, 2008 (Score:5, Insightful)
Where do people get the idea that apple invented podcasting?
The name?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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 N
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, all the elements were in place before November 2003 [wikipedia.org]. 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,
Re: (Score:2)
The USPTO obviously pays peanuts, because their decisions are definitely made by monkee's.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen or read that anywhere, and it doesn't make sense. Do you have a reference?
Re:Filed: October 9, 2008 (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Re:Filed: October 9, 2008 (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re:Filed: October 9, 2008 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Filed: October 9, 2008 (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re:Filed: October 9, 2008 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Filed: October 9, 2008 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Dave Winer implemented it in 2000 (Score:3, Informative)
And what do subpoena have to do with anything here? Everything that's needed is public.
Re: (Score:2)
And what do subpoena have to do with anything here? Everything that's needed is public.
Discovery can to more than just collect evidence. It can also:
put the fear of God into their legal team,
force their legal team to hire more staff and pay overtime to make photocopies/scans,
disrupt the smaller company's day-to-day business with busy-work,
force them to provide more rope with which to hang them.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is NOT the smaller company here.
Re: (Score:2)
Except, of course, that they already were downloading episodic media in 2003.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
You read the claims? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know of a podcast client that doesn't provide those features. Of course, they also already provided these features in 2003.
Re: (Score:2)
Have a reference?
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.
You need a SINGLE Indication which shows to th
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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 [uspto.gov]
Re:Filed: October 9, 2008 (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the farther back better-- "more prior"
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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....
Re:Filed: October 9, 2008 (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
I wonder if they infringe on apple? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They claim they filed before you could download podcasts from iTunes.
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm sure they'll get the chance to defend that claim in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Call it a "Walkman", it annoys the hell out of the iZealots.
Prefuckingposterous (Score:2, Insightful)
There is nothing in this that even approaches the reality that anyone except an IP lawyer works in. FFS.
Podcasting is obvious. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Will the madness ever end? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What's in a name? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Feel free to read anything related to this, but they don't refer to it as "podcasting" in the patent from 2003. That's just what the headline says. The term is more recent than the patent.
Thanks again, /. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And does Slashdot actually care? The patent was filed more than 5 years ago, is prior art and will be totally ignored. Oh boy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
for making me click through to get to the actual patent
Yeah, you'd think that being told EVERY SINGLE TIME a patent story is put on /. that the only thing that matters is the claims, the loser "editors" here would stop repeating statements from a press release or the patent abstract and falsely claiming that they describe what is patented. /. editors are either ignorant of the most basic facts about the American patent system, or wilful liars.
Either way, it gets awfully tiresome.
Is that all then? (Score:2)
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!
bad for US companies (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
You do realize that those other countries have their own patent laws, don't you? And a clever U.S. inventor can even file patent applications in the foreign countries that matter. In fact, we have a treaty (called the Patent Cooperation Treaty) that lets you file a single application that you can then send out to different countries within a couple of years. If I want to shut down competition in Europe, I'll file in Europe.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
iirc, you can get a software patent in Europe, it just won't be enforced. something about US Software Companies hammering the EU Commission for software patents. They won't take no for an answer, they continue to push for them. But they also want to make sure they get their patent so when the day comes, they will have something to enforce.
No software patents in europe... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the point is, software patents are against the law in Europe. But that doesn't hinder the EPO to grant them anyways.
Re:bad for US companies (Score:4, Insightful)
That should go over real well (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That should go over real well (Score:4, Insightful)
And yes, the MPEP has been revised in light of KSR. On the other hand, Bilski is still up in the air because the Supreme Court is going to hear it next year. Believe me, there are a lot of us who want the Bilski dust to settle.
I've always found it sadly hypocritical that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, the "blatantly wrong" statements about the US Patent system appear to predict its behavior better
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, I can see your point that doing a little reading can save a lot of money. But it may take more than a re-examination request to stop the sue-train from rolling.
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Audioblogging [wikipedia.org]
The RSS Enclosure element was added in 2001 and was used by Radiobloggers.
Just because they didn't call themselves podcasters, doesn't disqualify it as prior art.
It's a pretty obvious desire to copy Audio to a portable device, just like it's an obvious desire to copy Ebooks, Electronic newsletters, Newsgroup postings, or E-mail messages to a mobile device for consumption.
And the method in which Podcast clients were designed to work is pretty obvious, once you define the need: Newsread
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Rotten Patent System (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't the fact that everyone has been doing this (Score:2)
Negate the patent for being obvious and not inventive.
the USPTO could do us all a favor (Score:2)
read the claims (Score:2)
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
AvantGo, for one (Score:2)
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.
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.
Machines and software (Score:2)
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
Sounds like TV (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
right you might be (Score:3, Informative)
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.
I thought it was Adam Curry (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a 2002 example of prior art: (Score:5, Informative)
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]
the problem is the abuse not the concept (Score:2)
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 i
I'd love to see them try to enforce it... (Score:2)
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 d
Why yes, I am a registered patent attorney... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Consult public PAIR (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Thu, Jan 11, 2001; by Dave Winer: http://www.thetwowayweb.com/payloadsForRss [thetwowayweb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
In fact you are a troll.
"To be patentable, your invention has to be new and non-obvious."
That is the way the patent system technocracy shields itself, talking with patent professionals is like dealing with marxists. They have their own definition and standards of what constitutes "obviousness". And guess what, it has nothing to do with "common sense".
If you want to kill this thing ... the best way to do it is to find a document published anywhere in the world before November 2002
Why is the burden to kill a
Re: (Score:2)
They have their own definition and standards of what constitutes "obviousness".
Wait wait wait, are you saying you don't? Are you saying you hold some sort of universal understanding of the word obvious? Of course it's a question of definition, but (un)fortunately their decision. Don't get me wrong though, I do agree with you that the patent system is fucking ridiculous and that patents, especially in the tech sector, seem to be given to anybody who writes it down on their wishlist for Santa.
Re: (Score:2)
Do not rely on this post for any reason.
You really are a lawyer!
;-)
Just kidding, thanks for the good information.
So educate (Score:2)
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 [groklaw.net]. Heck, maybe contribute there.
Re: (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 prop
The problem is that none of the prior art... (Score:2)
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 thin
Re: (Score:2)
I expect it will.
http://totallyabsurd.com/extremecombover.htm [totallyabsurd.com]