-
Website
http://www.scripting.com/ -
Original page
http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/07/29/didVolomediaInventPodcasti.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
worked the same way but for gifted inventions.
Inventors would still get intellectual credit for their work, and it would
establish prior art, but would also license the inventions perpetually to
all.
It would give the USPTO another database to search, and would help patent
lawyers advise clients who want to file frivolous patent claims.
Unfortunately the idea has never been picked up or endorsed, so we're left
with blog posts as evidence of prior art, which I guess is better than
nothing.
This kind of stuff falls in line with Amazon's one click patent. They're just taking advantage of stuff that already existed, they were just smart enough to patent a unique use of that stuff.
given to the world. Not cheap to file patents. And it takes you away from
the work you love to do, the creative stuff.
Funny thing is the patent system was created, as I understand it, to help protect the little guy. In this case it clearly didn't do that.
As as for setting up a fund. I don't know what the cost is to file a patent? How much have you spent on technology over the past year? Could some of that been used to cover registration of your unique ideas?
Truth is that not only did Dave and Adam's work predate their initial filing by over a year, there were plenty of other companies using stuff besides RSS to deliver "episodic content" to users. My company, BIAP Systems, delivered a product called GoTrieve in 2000 that used intelligent agents to aggregate content from Internet sources, including images, video, and text, into a daily "newspaper" and then push the results out to subscribers. The only difference here is that the content is machine created rather than human created. The distribution is the same. There were dozens of print publications at the time that had "CD-ROM" components to their magazines that were available on a monthly basis for downloads by special desktop clients. There were lots of people serializing training material, books on tape, and daily video news casts that were made available to subscribers via custom clients as well.
I suspect these pin heads hope to score a fast buck from some media companies who don't want to be bothered. Unless they have a hidden backer, they don't seem to be in possession of enough capital for even a simple defense of this silly patent. Unfortunately, it is going to take someone with patience and deep pockets to get it invalidated. I've been working with 2 law firms in Chicago for the past 4 years to help them get a patent on dynamic HTTP content generation invalidated and they still haven't succeeded, even though an ounce of common sense shows the patent is a joke. This is just another sad example of how flawed the patent process is.
Or if they had a system of public comments - and there would be a set of public feeds based on categories with patent applications, and the public would be invited to collect evidence of prior art. That way, software guys could subscribe to a feed of software patents and submit comments as to prior art and obviousness.
Or even simpler just have a way so that any ordinary citizen can file prior art, safe in the knowledge that they would investigate it thoroughly and determine (a) whether it invalidates the patent and (b) if it does, if the patent owner ought to have known about it. And if they should have known about it, they'd have to pay full costs. If the USPTO can determine whether to give a patent claim in the first place, they should be able to revoke it and charge fees for time-wasters.
The barrier is the courtroom. And the likelihood of decent law reform on IP issues is about as likely as when the president after Obama settles down to work on the first day of the job and says to himself: "Great. Don't have to worry about healthcare. Everyone's got universal coverage!"
Another idea: some bright folks like Larry Lessig, the EFF and others could set up a foundation that could pre-emptively file for patents on things like RSS and so on, on behalf of users and developers, and then figure out a way of 'patent-lefting'-ing them. Just as open source uses copyright law, the same could be done with patent law. Of course, they could fund such a group by charging a modest fee to patent trolls to use the otherwise free patents.
Does that mean they have a patent on a different technology? I read that as "as long as you're using RSS to distribute your content you don't infringe on our patent."
Is that how you read it?
Clearly, if that's not how the patent works, it should be revoked.
They clearly have a problem if their patent includes podcasting via RSS.
Unfortunately this is one of those weird reasons we need lawyers. When I read their announcement I didn't read it the way Tom did, Tom are you a laywer? Don't worry, I won't hate you if you are. :-)
Dave, maybe it's time to call on the EFF?
If so, that's a relief. :-)
In this case, the concept was already fairly well publicized. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could establish that the principals at Volo had seen your applications. Their patent is suspiciously close to a textbook description of RSS enclosures for an independent invention.
So back to the question, if it could be established that they viewed your product and filed a patent that described it, would there be any sanction other than having the patent nullified?
These guys owe me money.
I'm sure you can find plenty of useful links, but perhaps in some way this helps.
Here is evidence of prior art from Oct 8, 2002. See "narrowcasting" near the end of this page on my dws.us blog
http://www.dws.us/weblog/categories/software/20...
Don
Arguably, even these comments are "Episodic Media" (just in text) which are being downloaded to my computer over the internet when I visited this page.
I say challenge this ludicrous patent claim - to the letter.
The first claim reads:
A method for subscribing to a podcast, said method comprising:
- receiving a portable subscription file that is used to facilitate subscribing to the podcast;
- accessing the portable subscription file to obtain podcast information; and
- subscribing to the podcast using the podcast information.
http://offonatangent.blogspot.com/2009/07/volom...
One step that podcasters do not require is RECEIVING A SUBSCRIPTION REQUEST. Because a podcatcher simply reads a published RSS file and then downloads content, there is no "subscription request". So their claims don't cover the podcast process.
Second, the entire last part of Claim one talks about the channel data provided to the client, none of which is provided by traditional podcasts.
So yes, they have a claim on a very specific way of delivering episodic media. But do they have enough to own podcasts? Only for the fools that will bend over. This patent is hardly worth the paper its written on.
Go
Ignore the press releases - the answer appears to be no.