Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Electronic Frontier Foundation Patents The Courts The Media

Adam Carolla Joins Fight Against Podcast Patent Troll 126

Posted by timothy
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adam Carolla Joins Fight Against Podcast Patent Troll

Comments Filter:
  • Headline misleading (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dins (2538550) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @07:51AM (#46572935)

    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!

    • by SQLGuru (980662) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @08:22AM (#46573113) Journal

      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

    • by geekoid (135745)

      He is a millionaire that didn't give a shit about anyone else until it affected him personally.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        that's actually the crux of his podcast...all he does is complain of first world problems

      • by Tharkkun (2605613)

        He is a millionaire that didn't give a shit about anyone else until it affected him personally.

        You obviously never watched Love Line!

    • 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.

  • by NotDrWho (3543773) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @07:54AM (#46572945)

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

  • by Anonymous Coward

    ie. radio?

    • by nospam007 (722110) * on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @08:10AM (#46573037)

      "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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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!").

      • So like the post above yours then. When a new item is made available, a postman (the publisher via the internet) puts it in your letter box (a predetermined address) and when you (the player) periodically check the address, you discover new items automatically!

        They've patented mail on the internet.

    • by wirefall (309232)

      No, you don't get it...but this is "on the Internet". That's why I'm patenting all the obvious methods, but adding "on the moon". I'm going to retire in style!

      • by geekoid (135745)

        Don't confuse the idea with the application.
        Should the person who invented automatic door opening not get a patent because people already knew how to open a door?

        I ma not defending the patent troll, but you reasoning is seriously flawed, and shows an almost complete ignorance of the patent system.

        • by wirefall (309232)

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

        • by sjames (1099)

          This is more akin to "should there be separate patents for each liquid one might pour into a juice glass?".

        • by Tharkkun (2605613)

          Don't confuse the idea with the application. Should the person who invented automatic door opening not get a patent because people already knew how to open a door?

          I ma not defending the patent troll, but you reasoning is seriously flawed, and shows an almost complete ignorance of the patent system.

          The difference is that is actually technology and an invention. It didn't exist until it was created. Even then someone could create something similar and patent it themselves. In this case, the patent was filed 5, 10, 15 years after it was being used in mainstream and they have no product.

      • by Sir Foxx (755504)
        I just imagine the ceo of Personal Audio trying to explain to the judge what you just said, like this guy in office space try's explain why he should keep his job. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
  • Personal Audio (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @07:58AM (#46572965)

    Give them a hand!

    550 Fannin Street
    Suite 1313
    Beaumont, Texas 77701

    E-mail: info@personalaudio.net

    Phone: (409) 768-0009

  • by rmdingler (1955220) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @08:04AM (#46572993)
    I remember a quaint world where the lowest of the bottom-feeders were merely chasing ambulances.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @08:05AM (#46572997)

    "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

    • by Grond (15515) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @08:43AM (#46573243) Homepage

      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.

      • by MrLizard (95131) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @09:47AM (#46573831)

        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.

        • I'm not sure why this is modded Funny. It's exactly what's going on here! Patent trolling is a protection racket; it's extortion pure and simple.
      • by gsslay (807818)

        Why, you almost make it seem reasonable. What right thinking person could have any problem with this troll taking a few pennies of you for doing absolutely nothing? Its not so much to ask for, is it?

        Certainly not worth getting slapped with court action simply because you have "principles". Just pay little money and nothing bad will happen to your nice little podcast. It would be a shame if you had to stop. Think of it just like extortion... , I mean, a tax. There, not so bad, was it?

      • by brit74 (831798)
        > "So-called patent trolls are not generally interested in shutting down infringers"
        It's a little more complicated than that. First: they care mostly about the big-budget podcasters (like Adam Corolla, Marc Marron, Stuff You Should Know, etc.). If a bunch of little guys get shut down, they don't care because they weren't trying to extort money from those guys. Secondly, they have an incentive to keep their prices high to milk the big-guys. If they offer a "$10/year price to all podcasters", they ca
      • by quantaman (517394)

        I think it's not a total exaggeration. Even a small royalty will be enough of a burden to knock out a lot of smaller podcasts who don't want to go through the hassle of paying someone to do their hobby, and larger podcasts may be driven towards more commercial content to generate enough revenue to make up the royalty. And how is the royalty calculated anyway? Flat rate? That kills the small podcasts. Per user? Where do the big ones get the money?

        I think a ruling that resulted in podcasts having to may would

  • by CastrTroy (595695) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @08:09AM (#46573031) Homepage
    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.
    • by Grond (15515) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @08:37AM (#46573205) Homepage

      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.

      • by CastrTroy (595695)
        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.
      • by sjames (1099)

        Now if any of that could take effect before legal costs hoover your bank account.

    • by drexus9 (719549)
      Is podcasting now a ubiquitous form of internet communication — much like emoji is to messaging? To that, who invented email or the QR code? From where I'm sitting, the podcasting medium has been well established as a form of speech — much like a webpage. If episodic content over the internet is the property of a single individual, then where will all the news agencies, bloggers and the like stand? Is free speech subject to someones interpretation of digital communication? I think the comment of
  • Marc Maron has been fighting this fight for years. WTF, Slashdot?
    • by LoRdTAW (99712)

      More like a year: http://www.dailydot.com/entertainment/marc-maron-podcast-patent-interview/ [dailydot.com]

      Last month Personal Audio filed lawsuits against three of the biggest podcasting companies: How Stuff Works, TogiEntertainment, Inc., and ACE Broadcasting, which produces the Adam Carolla Show and other podcasts. Smaller podcasters, like Maron, also received letters from Personal Audio inviting them to license the patent for a fee.

      The article is dated March 12, 2013.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @08:12AM (#46573053)

    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.

    • A sane and rational reform of the USPTO would hurt the economy in East Texas. That would be an unacceptable blow to the Litigial Industrial Complex.

  • Oh come on ... (Score:4, Informative)

    by gstoddart (321705) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @08:30AM (#46573155) Homepage

    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.

    • Quiet, do not insult the USPTO overlords. They might decide software patches are "episodic content".

      No more patching games after the fact without paying the trolls then!

    • by rahvin112 (446269)

      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 hin

    • Are the USPTO that incompetent?

      It's been explained to me that this is standard MO for the USPTO. They never check patents before a cursory glance, and only when it is challenged do they actually look into the merits of it. Apparently this is because they just don't have (anywhere near) the amount of manpower they would need to keep up with the vast number of incoming patent applications.

      Anyone know how true this is?

      • Fuck, I'm getting senile. "before a cursory glance" should be "beyond a cursory glance" of course.
      • Are the USPTO that incompetent?

        It's been explained to me that this is standard MO for the USPTO. They never check patents before a cursory glance, and only when it is challenged do they actually look into the merits of it. Apparently this is because they just don't have (anywhere near) the amount of manpower they would need to keep up with the vast number of incoming patent applications.

        Anyone know how true this is?

        Not at all.. Standard MO for the USPTO is to reject applications. 90% of patent application are initially rubber stamped "rejected". It's only after being challenged (and usually, the claims narrowed) that the application gets granted.

  • by MitchDev (2526834) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @08:31AM (#46573165)

    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.

    • by geekoid (135745)

      No it isn't, and no it doesn't. Some people abusing the system doesn't mean you throw out the system.
      Oh no! a car model had a problem lets redesign all cars from the bottom up!

      • Some people abusing the system doesn't mean you throw out the system.

        Yes you do. The system is corrupt by design for the sole purpose of protecting entrenched interests. Putzing around with it will fix nothing. Out it goes!
        When a car has a fatal flaw, you damn well better redesign it!

        • by MitchDev (2526834)

          Exactly. The system DOES NOT WORK for the it's original purpose of enriching the common good with LIMITED monopolies.

          There's nothing limited about them anymore, they continue in perpetuity...

  • 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 [wikipedia.org], 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 c
    • Logan says he wanted his product to be digital but just didn't get there.

      In his Slashdot Q&A, Logan gives his reasoning as to why inventors should not be required to create a working copy of their invention. But the example he cites, the capacitive tough screen, was actually produced by its original inventor, Bill Pepper. Pepper just couldn't find a market for his invention (originally developed as an input device for music synthesizers). So he sold the patent rights to Logan's company who successfully marketed it.

      This is as it should be. Pepper put in the work and received

      • by imatter (2749965)
        My example or Logan's? Logan's is definitely flawed.

        It's funny I searched for Peppers patents and didn't find anything. I did find this though Bob Moog [mit.edu] read the second to last paragraph.
        • by PPH (736903)

          Logan's, in his Q&A session on Slashdot (link in summary). I never did the search, but if there is in fact no such Bill Pepper touchscreen patent, then Logan was making stuff up to blow smoke up Slashdot's ass. In which case, he earns a quick Plonk.

  • How can you patent using the Internet as a printing press? Cloning and copying and transferring data is core to what it is.

    If someone invents roads, is there suddenly a land grab to patent using roads to ship X, or Y, or Z?

  • How hard could this patent be to get around? Parent claims are only 1,13,23 and 31. The first of those three talk about in some form right off the bat of "reproducing media program files". The media file isn't being reproduced. It's saved and played. Plus those seem to be centered on the player - which shouldn't be the problem of the podcaster right?

    31 is the harder one but that looks like a playlist or like an RSS file of sorts. Check this file and see if there is something new in the list available.

    E

    • by geekoid (135745)

      " The media file isn't being reproduced."
      you don't know how podcasting works, do you?

  • Smart arse (Score:1, Funny)

    by Bill Agner (3592251)
    Give me a break, this guy is nothing more than a clown, who kissed the Blarney Stone one too many times. Personally, I hope this guy becomes another footnote in the small history of jerks on the radio.
  • Was it really not filed until 2009? Isn't there more than 10 years of prior art on this?

    I can probably dig up more than a few sites that had episodic content accessible by predetermined URLs that long predated the filing. Probably from enough different content providers to declare it obvious (in the patent sense) as well.

    • by PPH (736903)

      2009?

      Well, in his Slashdot Q&A session, Logan says "filed in 1996". But then he went on to sell prerecorded cassette tapes. And yet, the technology to distribute and play digital audio predates that by nearly 10 years. My Macintosh SE could do it, albeit without "the web" or RSS.

      Even without an HTTP-based client server, adding an RSS-like capability to a player-client was a trivial adaption of existing technology. And his company couldn't do it, so they went back to cassette tapes.

      Patents are supposed to b

  • Dialup? Windows 95? (Score:5, Informative)

    by camperdave (969942) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @09:47AM (#46573833) Journal
    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?

    • by Viol8 (599362)

      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.

    • by mlyle (148697)

      What counts are the claims, not the description of how it works. You won't find Windows 95, SLIP, etc, in the claims.

    • Typically, the way these patents are written, the pattern is "a system and a method to do FOO; here's one possible, but not exclusive or reference, implementation of our idea: BAR" where BAR (e.g. the win95 and modem stuff above) is meant to be an illustration of how an idea like this would work, rather than detailing the specific requirements for the idea to work. In other words, the fact they're using Windows 95 and modem is likely, largely, irrelevant to the actual meat of their claim.

    • by rilister (316428)

      (IANAL, but) that's not how patents work: you're reading the preferred embodiment, which apart from showing that they've figured out *a way* to do this, doesn't really matter at all. The important bit (what determines infringement) is the claims, starting on page 32 (col 46), of which there are 35.
      To make it even easier, you only really have to read the independent claims (1, 13, 23, 31). Every numbered claim that includes the text "as set forth in claim X" doesn't matter unless you're infringing claim X.

      So

      • by rilister (316428)

        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 segment

        • 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.

          My guess would be that this is multifaceted. The 1996 patent is due to expire in 2016, so by delaying to enforce it until now they will have more fish to fry. Also, by going after the smaller infringers, they build both a precedent for inforcement, and a fund for pursuing larger infringers. If you're going to go after Apple, Sony etc, then you're going to need good backing both from a precedent and from a financial point of view.

        • by BillX (307153)

          There are definitely some interesting ideas mentioned in the 1996 patent (e.g. tying playback stats back to a billing system; voice commanded playback), but much of it sounds similar to the systems commercial radio stations used at the time to schedule programming and handle royalties. But the patent claims are written so broadly as to cover just about anything. For example, Claim 1 could easily encompass a playlist feature in any audio program. I can't imagine there wasn't a single audio program in 1996 wi

      • by TheSync (5291)

        "What is claimed is: A media player for acquiring and reproducing media program files which represent episodes as said episodes become available, said media player comprising: a digital memory, a communication port..., a processor..., an output unit for reproducing ... the media files."

        Sounds like iTunes. Version 4.9 of iTunes, launched in June 28, 2005 was the first to have podcast support (according to Wikipedia). I don't even slightly believe that iTunes was the first podcast player.

        RealNetwork's had the

    • the download compiliation 145 is transferred to the program data store 107 in the player 103.

      Um, like me, I think most people use a podcatcher or iTunes to download the 'casts, not the actual player. I suppose phones can download them directly, but it doesn't explicitly mention phones, does it?

  • by RogueWarrior65 (678876) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @09:50AM (#46573885)

    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?

  • Prior Art (Score:4, Informative)

    by TheSync (5291) on Tuesday March 25, 2014 @11:53AM (#46575069) Journal

    1993: Carl Malamud launched Internet Talk Radio [wikipedia.org] 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 [archive.org] 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.

  • Why again is it still illegal to shoot patent trolls on sight? It's not like they serve any sensible purpose.

  • why is none of it towards these kinds of people

  • Please explain to me how listing episodic content is not utterly obvious to everyone let alone experts in the field.

    • Please explain to me how listing episodic content is not utterly obvious to everyone let alone experts in the field.

      You have to go by the claims in the patent (which go quite a bit farther than just "listing episodic content"), not the title or a simple summary of it. It's like pointing to a Tesla Model S and then saying "please explain to me how a battery operated car is not utterly obvious to everyone". Well, sure, a battery operated car is obvious and has been for decades... but that doesn't even get close to describing what's actually going on under the hood, and a patent on the specifics of battery management, for e

  • They didn't file the patent until 2009.
    Surely someone who's been doing the same thing for more than 5 years is safe from this?
    RSS and the idea behind web syndication has been around for 20 years.
    RDF has been a standard for this very purpose since 1999

    • They didn't file the patent until 2009.
      Surely someone who's been doing the same thing for more than 5 years is safe from this?
      RSS and the idea behind web syndication has been around for 20 years.
      RDF has been a standard for this very purpose since 1999

      WikiPedia may have it close to right.
      Personal Audio lawsuits[edit]
      Personal Audio, a company referred to as a "patent troll" by the Electronic Frontier Foundation,[22] filed a patent on podcasting in 2009 for a claimed invention in 1996.[23] In February 2013, Personal Audio started suing high-profile podcasters for royalties,[22] including the Adam Carolla Show and the HowStuffWorks podcast. US Congressman Peter DeFazio's previously proposed "SHIELD Act" intends to curb patent trolls.[24]
      (http://en.wikipedia

  • I am 100% entirely serious. This is a modern day version of Al Capone style protection racket organized crime and as such it's entirely reasonableb to kill them.

  • DING/Ding

    UPDATE MARCH 5, 2014:

    The court held a hearing today on the subpoena. Good news: Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins agreed with EFF and struck down Personal Audio's demands. The judge will issue a written order shortly; we will publish as soon as we have it.

    Personal Audio can try to appeal the decision, so this fight may continue. But for now: victory!

  • WP has some history here:
    "History[edit]

    The exact timeline of the term oggcast is uncertain, however, The Linux Link Tech Show, one of the longer running Linux podcasts still in production, has a program in the Ogg Vorbis format in its archives from January 7, 2004.[2] Given that a stable release of Ogg Vorbis did not appear until July 19, 2002,[3] it is very likely that the term oggcast was coined sometime between 2002 and 2004."

    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oggcast)

Dead? No excuse for laying off work.

Working...