If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(FundAnything)   Adam Carolla needs your help to fight patent trolls and save podcasting. Makes a simple, cogent and sober argument on his FundAnything page, making many wonder what he's done with the real Adam Carolla   (fundanything.com) divider line 84
    More: Interesting, Adam Carolla, legal defense, Marc Maron, non-practicing entity, podcast  
•       •       •

3401 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Mar 2014 at 12:40 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



84 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-05 04:03:34 PM  

Theaetetus: The specification dates back to 1996.


and going to what i said above about Maron possibly being sued, maybe six months ago he sounded the call for fans to research any examples of preexisting technology;  i'm no patent attorney but apparently, you can't patent something that either already exists (well DUHHHHH) but apparently, you can't patent an idea that may already be "out there".

so maybe six months ago Maron is like, "we're in trouble, podcasters are under attack, please let us know if you have any examples that would defeat the podcats trolls."  maybe 1-2 months ago Maron gives an update and says some fan found some Frank Zappa book from either the late 70s or early 80s, where FZ wrote about a technology format where users could, using telecom lines, be able to obtain an artist's works and listen to them from their own homes.  now, it isn't exactly "FZ predicted iTunes and on-demand content", the argument is, "FZ predicted a rudimentary on-demand system" that  mya, just may, be interpreted as preexisting technology and thus, outside the realm of the company's patent.

that's the gist of what i recall Maron saying.  perhaps not entirely correct, but basically, "crazy Frank predicted this shiat decaaaaaaaaaaades ago, go fark your grandma's mouth, patent trolls."
 
2014-03-05 04:12:51 PM  

rickythepenguin: the argument is, "FZ predicted a rudimentary on-demand system" that mya, just may, be interpreted as preexisting technology and thus, outside the realm of the company's patent.


Prior art, 1977 and earlier.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-05 04:19:45 PM  

rickythepenguin: so maybe six months ago Maron is like, "we're in trouble, podcasters are under attack, please let us know if you have any examples that would defeat the podcats trolls."  maybe 1-2 months ago Maron gives an update and says some fan found some Frank Zappa book from either the late 70s or early 80s, where FZ wrote about a technology format where users could, using telecom lines, be able to obtain an artist's works and listen to them from their own homes.  now, it isn't exactly "FZ predicted iTunes and on-demand content", the argument is, "FZ predicted a rudimentary on-demand system" that  mya, just may, be interpreted as preexisting technology and thus, outside the realm of the company's patent.


The problem there is two-fold.

First, if piece of prior art doesn't describe how to do something, it's considered "non-enabling prior art" and is only available for what it actually describes. So, HG Wells wrote about a time machine, but that doesn't mean you couldn't get a patent on a time machine - his writing wouldn't teach someone how to build a time machine.  Similarly, if FZ's writing isn't detailed enough, then it's only available for the limited bits in there. And sure, the broad concept of "instant access to an artist's works" may be unpatentable, but that doesn't mean that claims to specific implementations are not.

Second, in order to show a claim is invalid, you have to find one or more pieces of prior art that teach or suggest each and every element of the claims. Going back to that claim posted above, there's at least this element: "a communications port coupled to the Internet for transmitting data requests for data identified by specified URLs".FZ's writing certainly wouldn't describe that, so, by itself, it couldn't invalidate the patent. At the least, you'd need to combine it with another piece of art on network cards and HTTP GET requests... which, of course, exist and pre-date 1996, so that's certainly possible. But you then need to do this with every single element in the claims - find a piece of prior art which describes that element - and show that it would be routine for someone to combine them. That's probably going to get difficult somewhere around here:
... said current version of said compilation file containing attribute data describing one or more episodes of a series of episodes, said attribute data for each given one of said episodes including one or more episode URLs identifying one or more corresponding media files representing said given one of said episodes,
processing the content of said current version of said compilation file to identify attribute data describing one or more newly available episodes in said series of episodes which were not described by attribute data found in a prior version of said compilation file previously identified by said predetermined URL and previously downloaded by an earlier one of said sequence of timed update operations...
 
2014-03-05 04:21:57 PM  
Yeah but he's kind of a douchebag, isn't he?
 
2014-03-05 04:26:18 PM  
For fark's sake, it's the same old tired "we'll patent this old thing, BUT ON THE INTERNET" all over again.  And if the international telephone system and the postal systems aren't the direct precursors of the Internet, I don't know what would be.

Patent lawyers should be ashamed, or worse.

God damn Sears and Montgomery Ward Catalogs are prior art for this nonsense.
 
2014-03-05 04:38:17 PM  

Far Cough: For fark's sake, it's the same old tired "we'll patent this old thing, BUT ON THE INTERNET" all over again.


You're the same guy who thought that Columbia House was invalidating prior art, so I'mma take your pronunciations with a grain of salt.
 
2014-03-05 04:53:51 PM  

Theaetetus: The problem there is two-fold.



some good arguments beyond my ken.  all i can say!

i wonder how the VCR arguments (time shifting) might apply to the debate;  as i recall some opposed VCR technology on patent grounds but i think that the VCR industry was able to win (and keep making VCRs) on some kind of time shifting argument; something like, "you can tape a show at 8PM on monday and with this technology, watch it at 9PM friday, that's a permissible use of copyrighted material".  i am just spitballing here but that doesn't seem all that far removed from podcasting;  you can download (record) something now, listen to it later.  or not at all.

but that, to be my own devil's advocate, is not the same argument necessarily.  the podcast trolls seem to arguing a technological basis, not so much "what do you do iwth it?" argumnet.  dunno.  not a patent attorney.  but i love me some podcasts.  would suck if they went away.
 
2014-03-05 04:54:30 PM  

Theaetetus: Far Cough: For fark's sake, it's the same old tired "we'll patent this old thing, BUT ON THE INTERNET" all over again.

You're the same guy who thought that Columbia House was invalidating prior art, so I'mma take your pronunciations with a grain of salt.


Pronouncements, glasshole.  Shakespeare was so right.

If these phony patent claims could actually be argued on the intellectual or even legal merits, the trolls wouldn't be making sure that all the trials take place in particular backwater jurisdictions where the jury is sure to contain nothing but morons.  That even that much rigging is allowed is astonishing.
 
2014-03-05 05:01:11 PM  

Far Cough: Theaetetus: Far Cough: For fark's sake, it's the same old tired "we'll patent this old thing, BUT ON THE INTERNET" all over again.

You're the same guy who thought that Columbia House was invalidating prior art, so I'mma take your pronunciations with a grain of salt.

Pronouncements, glasshole.  Shakespeare was so right.


And one term, mistyped by me,
corrected with some pedantry.
And then he quotes the Bard, we see?
Lord, what fool this Farker be!

If these phony patent claims could actually be argued on the intellectual or even legal merits, the trolls wouldn't be making sure that all the trials take place in particular backwater jurisdictions where the jury is sure to contain nothing but morons.  That even that much rigging is allowed is astonishing.

We are discussing this claim on its intellectual and legal merits. You're the one ranting about Columbia House and calling things phony, without even referring once to what it's in the claim.
 
2014-03-05 05:07:49 PM  

Theaetetus: Far Cough: Theaetetus: Far Cough: For fark's sake, it's the same old tired "we'll patent this old thing, BUT ON THE INTERNET" all over again.

You're the same guy who thought that Columbia House was invalidating prior art, so I'mma take your pronunciations with a grain of salt.

Pronouncements, glasshole.  Shakespeare was so right.

And one term, mistyped by me,
corrected with some pedantry.
And then he quotes the Bard, we see?
Lord, what fool this Farker be!

If these phony patent claims could actually be argued on the intellectual or even legal merits, the trolls wouldn't be making sure that all the trials take place in particular backwater jurisdictions where the jury is sure to contain nothing but morons.  That even that much rigging is allowed is astonishing.

We are discussing this claim on its intellectual and legal merits. You're the one ranting about Columbia House and calling things phony, without even referring once to what it's in the claim.


a.  "Mistyped"?  Really?  Are you always this much of a coward about your own mistakes?  You chose the wrong word and sounded kind of stupid for it; live with it.  It was not a typo.  Shart happens.

b.  I was taking about where the trials are being held and how the outcomes there are hardly determined by the intellectual or legal rigor of the arguments.  Nice reading comprehension, counselor.
 
2014-03-05 05:13:25 PM  

Far Cough: Theaetetus: Far Cough: Theaetetus: Far Cough: For fark's sake, it's the same old tired "we'll patent this old thing, BUT ON THE INTERNET" all over again.

You're the same guy who thought that Columbia House was invalidating prior art, so I'mma take your pronunciations with a grain of salt.

Pronouncements, glasshole.  Shakespeare was so right.

And one term, mistyped by me,
corrected with some pedantry.
And then he quotes the Bard, we see?
Lord, what fool this Farker be!

If these phony patent claims could actually be argued on the intellectual or even legal merits, the trolls wouldn't be making sure that all the trials take place in particular backwater jurisdictions where the jury is sure to contain nothing but morons.  That even that much rigging is allowed is astonishing.

We are discussing this claim on its intellectual and legal merits. You're the one ranting about Columbia House and calling things phony, without even referring once to what it's in the claim.

a.  "Mistyped"?  Really?  Are you always this much of a coward about your own mistakes?  You chose the wrong word and sounded kind of stupid for it; live with it.  It was not a typo.  Shart happens.


a1. Whatever makes you feel happy.

b.  I was taking about where the trials are being held and how the outcomes there are hardly determined by the intellectual or legal rigor of the arguments.  Nice reading comprehension, counselor.

b1. Changing the goalposts? Really? Are you always this much of a coward about your own mistakes? You claimed Columbia House was invalidating prior art and sounded kind of stupid for it; live with it.  Trying to suddenly change the topic to forum selection doesn't make up for your earlier stupidity. Shart happens.
 
2014-03-05 05:19:46 PM  
Not very strong.

Here's what I wrote; again, it was entirely about where the trials are held.  It was posted subsequent to, and separately from, the Columbia House post.  You really don't read very well for someone who claims to be a lawyer.  Is that why you fart around trolling Fark?

If these phony patent claims could actually be argued on the intellectual or even legal merits, the trolls wouldn't be making sure that all the trials take place in particular backwater jurisdictions where the jury is sure to contain nothing but morons.  That even that much rigging is allowed is astonishing.
 
2014-03-05 05:25:28 PM  

Far Cough: Not very strong.

Here's what I wrote; again, it was entirely about where the trials are held.  It was posted subsequent to, and separately from, being called out on the Columbia House post.


FTFY.

Look, I sympathize. You hate patents, because you don't understand them, and you fear what you do not understand. But there's always a possibility to learn, if you open your mind, and with knowledge, your fears will disappear. We're here for you, man.
 
2014-03-05 05:30:08 PM  

rickythepenguin: i wonder how the VCR arguments (time shifting) might apply to the debate;  as i recall some opposed VCR technology on patent grounds but i think that the VCR industry was able to win (and keep making VCRs) on some kind of time shifting argument; something like, "you can tape a show at 8PM on monday and with this technology, watch it at 9PM friday, that's a permissible use of copyrighted material".  i am just spitballing here but that doesn't seem all that far removed from podcasting;  you can download (record) something now, listen to it later.  or not at all.


Those arguments (from Sony v. Universal, also known as the Betamax case) were about copyright infringement and fair use. They don't really apply here, since no one is claiming copyright infringement of their podcasts.
The analogy would be if someone put out a live-streamed show, and you then recorded and time-shifted it for personal playback. A copyright issue, but not a patent one.

but that, to be my own devil's advocate, is not the same argument necessarily.  the podcast trolls seem to arguing a technological basis, not so much "what do you do iwth it?" argumnet.  dunno.  not a patent attorney.  but i love me some podcasts.  would suck if they went away.

Yeah, exactly. And podcasts won't go away... This troll wants royalties, not to shut down competitors. In fact, no troll ever wants to shut someone down, because royalties are their revenue stream. Instead, he just wants a few pennies from every podcaster.
 
2014-03-05 05:45:39 PM  

Theaetetus: Far Cough: Not very strong.

Here's what I wrote; again, it was entirely about where the trials are held.  It was posted subsequent to, and separately from, being called out on the Columbia House post.

FTFY.

Look, I sympathize. You hate patents, because you don't understand them, and you fear what you do not understand. But there's always a possibility to learn, if you open your mind, and with knowledge, your fears will disappear. We're here for you, man.


So you now admit you were completely moronic when you quoted a paragraph about the trial venue and responded as if it had something to do with your own blathering on Fark?  ("We are discussing this claim on its intellectual and legal merits".)  Just so we're clear about your prevaricating and poor reading skills.

I'm no lawyer and don't want to be.  I think you might bring some value to the table as you claim to be one.  But you are so clearly unpleasant in most respects that I'm going to have to promote you from Farkie "minimally legible brown" glasshole to full bore ignore, effective immediately.  Dealing with ill-conceived attacks from intellectually and morally suspect people such as you is not a fun endeavor.  Troll on without me, you antagonistic farkwit.
 
2014-03-05 05:48:34 PM  
I'm sorry.  It was actually a very dark nearly illegible grey.
 
2014-03-05 05:51:56 PM  
I just wonder why he thinks I've got Google Glass.
 
2014-03-05 05:54:13 PM  

Theaetetus: he just wants a few pennies from every podcaster.


And I just want to use your card. Y'know at the grocery store. And only on salad. Salad's healthy. You don't want to pay for my quadruple bypass, right? Much cheaper if you just give me your credit card on Sundays and I go buy a couple heads of lettuce, assorted roots, cukes, and some balsamic vinegar. I'll bring it right back. Hell, why don't you just open an account at the grocery store and top it off for me.
 
2014-03-05 05:56:57 PM  

doglover: Theaetetus: he just wants a few pennies from every podcaster.

And I just want to use your card. Y'know at the grocery store. And only on salad. Salad's healthy. You don't want to pay for my quadruple bypass, right? Much cheaper if you just give me your credit card on Sundays and I go buy a couple heads of lettuce, assorted roots, cukes, and some balsamic vinegar. I'll bring it right back. Hell, why don't you just open an account at the grocery store and top it off for me.


Y'see, I bought these vegetable seeds off of some guy at a flea market. So now you all owe it to me to put vegetables IN my salad bowl. I don't want to grown them myself, so it's best if you just give me your garden veggies, but since they'd rot, I'll settle for enough money to go shopping and to pay for my expense of you sending that letter.
 
2014-03-05 06:21:21 PM  
aviewfromtheright.com
 
2014-03-05 06:35:05 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: [aviewfromtheright.com image 450x658]


Dude, that magnifying glass design infringes on 6 patents, and that photograph is copyrighted.  Luckily for you I think that pictured document might be considered public domain.  You'll probably be out in 5 years.
 
2014-03-05 06:47:38 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: [aviewfromtheright.com image 450x658]


I recently bought a patent for a method of exchanging ideas between individuals by means of visual immagery conveying verbal constructs. That'll be $1,523,479.87
 
2014-03-05 06:49:34 PM  

Theaetetus: They don't really apply here, since no one is claiming copyright infringement of their podcasts.
The analogy would be if someone put out a live-streamed show, and you then recorded and time-shifted it for personal playback. A copyright issue, but not a patent one.


yeah, that's what i was getting at in my devil's advocate response....it isn't rrrrreally the same thing.  similar on a level but not the same argument the patent trolls are making.  ehhh.  that's why carolla has burnt, per his last podcast update, i think $50,000 on patent attorneys juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust in efforts so far to get the case transferred from the Texas pro-patent jurisdiction to California.
 
2014-03-05 07:22:25 PM  
Maybe the patent suit is for beligerent, loudmouth, misogynistic, elitist butthole? And we just didn't hear about them going after Glenn Beck.
 
2014-03-05 11:05:22 PM  

Shadowtag: Maybe the patent suit is for beligerent, loudmouth, misogynistic, elitist butthole? And we just didn't hear about them going after Glenn Beck.


Only three of those shoes fit!
 
2014-03-05 11:15:53 PM  
So you're saying he's not loud?
 
2014-03-05 11:35:17 PM  

Far Cough: So you're saying he's not loud?


He's not a mysogynist.
 
2014-03-06 06:38:05 AM  

Theaetetus: rickythepenguin: i wonder how the VCR arguments (time shifting) might apply to the debate;  as i recall some opposed VCR technology on patent grounds but i think that the VCR industry was able to win (and keep making VCRs) on some kind of time shifting argument; something like, "you can tape a show at 8PM on monday and with this technology, watch it at 9PM friday, that's a permissible use of copyrighted material".  i am just spitballing here but that doesn't seem all that far removed from podcasting;  you can download (record) something now, listen to it later.  or not at all.

Those arguments (from Sony v. Universal, also known as the Betamax case) were about copyright infringement and fair use. They don't really apply here, since no one is claiming copyright infringement of their podcasts.
The analogy would be if someone put out a live-streamed show, and you then recorded and time-shifted it for personal playback. A copyright issue, but not a patent one.

but that, to be my own devil's advocate, is not the same argument necessarily.  the podcast trolls seem to arguing a technological basis, not so much "what do you do iwth it?" argumnet.  dunno.  not a patent attorney.  but i love me some podcasts.  would suck if they went away.

Yeah, exactly. And podcasts won't go away... This troll wants royalties, not to shut down competitors. In fact, no troll ever wants to shut someone down, because royalties are their revenue stream. Instead, he just wants a few pennies from every podcaster.


Bolded to emphasize that point. As a podcaster, I can tell you that alone will shut down most podcasts, because the vast majority of podcasters do this for the love of podcasting, not because we make any money on it. My websites are a farking money-pit, to be honest. I've been running them for well over a decade, spending hundreds of dollars a year for the hosting, upkeep, and content creation, all out of my pocket. I have yet to make a single dime on any of my ventures, be they my blogs or podcast.

Oh, but happy days are soon to come, as I'm getting ever-so-close to the pay-out threshold on Google Ads! Why yes, in maybe a month I'll finally get a check from Google for $100 (gross, what I get after taxes are withheld, I have no idea at this point)! It's only taken over three years to earn that much from running their ads, but at least it will pay about half of the hosting costs for my websites this year. If I'm lucky, eventually I might be able to earn enough on those ads to pay for the hosting and URL costs each year, but that's it. All the time I put into those websites and podcasting, yeah, I'm not making any money for that.

So if this case is won, and suddenly I now have additional costs just to put out a podcast, my show gets shut down immediately, as would thousands of other small podcasts like mine. Maybe the big shows like Corolla has would survive, but the hobby of podcasting would effectively be destroyed.
 
2014-03-06 08:57:46 AM  
Compare the difficulty of the following:
(1) Describe what a program is supposed to do, and outline the major steps and general flow of data.
(2) Code the program and get it to run.
(3) Debug it.

Anyone who has ever coded anything knows that (2) is several orders of magnitude harder than (1).  (3) is several orders of magnitude harder than (2).  Software patents do (1), then take credit for (2) and (3).  There's a really good reason the vast majority of people in tech fields hate software patents.
 
2014-03-06 09:38:13 AM  
Theaetetus - Is there a statute of limitations on patent suits?  If so, what are the criteria for that SoL to run?
 
2014-03-06 10:55:47 AM  

CourtroomWolf: Compare the difficulty of the following:
(1) Describe what a program is supposed to do, and outline the major steps and general flow of data.
(2) Code the program and get it to run.
(3) Debug it.

Anyone who has ever coded anything knows that (2) is several orders of magnitude harder than (1).  (3) is several orders of magnitude harder than (2).  Software patents do (1), then take credit for (2) and (3).  There's a really good reason the vast majority of people in tech fields hate software patents.


Beautifully and succinctly put. Some might argue the difficulty of 2 vs. 3 but the point stands. And as software is by definition so malleable, it is trivial to generate new "1"s. Unlike the physical world, there are nearly no practical constraints, nearly no physics to contend with. Mile high 85 degree virtual ramp, no problem. Every sophomore's late night BS session is suddenly a trillion dollar patent portfolio. The entire concept of "software patent" needs scrapping, yesterday. Copyright despite its own abuses does a decent enough job on its own to protect works, not bullshart.

As you imply, even tech patent OWNERS hate them, as they impede everything. This is so unlike real patents, which owners typically cherish. Software patents overall are akin to filing a patent on cutting wood and suing the construction industry. They are a disease on innovation, progress, industry, and liberty. Those who would perpetuate them stand opposed to those principals and should be ignored or shunned as the malignancies they are.
 
2014-03-06 02:17:02 PM  

Krashash: Theaetetus - Is there a statute of limitations on patent suits?  If so, what are the criteria for that SoL to run?


6 years from expiration of the patent.

I think what you may be more interested in is the doctrine of laches, which says that if you know about an infringement and you unreasonably and inexcusably delay bringing suit, you may lose the ability to get an injunction. Best example is if you get a patent on something and then wait while it becomes a standard, knowing that many people are using your invention (and possibly even encouraging more people to do so), only bringing suit many years later when they're trapped due to an installed base and can't reasonably change to a new standard. The court will not give you an injunction that would allow you to demand exorbitant royalties or force them to abandon their business.

... however, reasonable monetary damages can still be available. They'd be smaller than what you could get via the injunction-extortion route, though, as they should be.
 
2014-03-06 03:51:47 PM  

Theaetetus: Krashash: Theaetetus - Is there a statute of limitations on patent suits?  If so, what are the criteria for that SoL to run?

6 years from expiration of the patent.

I think what you may be more interested in is the doctrine of laches, which says that if you know about an infringement and you unreasonably and inexcusably delay bringing suit, you may lose the ability to get an injunction. Best example is if you get a patent on something and then wait while it becomes a standard, knowing that many people are using your invention (and possibly even encouraging more people to do so), only bringing suit many years later when they're trapped due to an installed base and can't reasonably change to a new standard. The court will not give you an injunction that would allow you to demand exorbitant royalties or force them to abandon their business.

... however, reasonable monetary damages can still be available. They'd be smaller than what you could get via the injunction-extortion route, though, as they should be.


Thanks. Being a federal thing, I wondered what types of equitable defenses might be available.
 
2014-03-06 05:09:29 PM  
Reading the patent claims the most obvious loophole to me is to communicate between your media player and server using IP addresses instead of a URL.
 
Displayed 34 of 84 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report