Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Ars Technica)   Patent Troll suing Adam Carolla and other podcasters: "Why is Adam Carolla being so mean to us?"   (arstechnica.com) divider line 55
    More: Dumbass, Adam Carolla, CEO, Eastern District of Texas, non-practicing entity, media player, Trademark Office, exploitation, plain  
•       •       •

3701 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Jul 2014 at 11:28 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-30 08:05:00 AM  
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a lawyer is a good guy with a lawyer.
 
2014-07-30 08:32:09 AM  
They have patents on episodic content and playlists? They deserve to get hoisted by their own petard for attempting to monetize ubiquitous, abstract concepts.
 
2014-07-30 08:52:31 AM  
We need to either (1) nuke East Texas or (2) make damages contingent on lost sales of actual product that the patent covers.
 
2014-07-30 08:59:07 AM  
Not having read the patent and what it claims, I would wonder if the defendants in these particular lawsuits could claim as prior art comic books, serialized stories in magazines, magazines, Time Life Video/Audio collections of old tv and radio shows.

What needs to come out of Congress to the Patent office is definitive guidance that says "using a computer or the internet doesn't take a previously performed activity and make it new and unique enough to warrant a patent".

/not a fan of Adam, but I may be forced to donate to his cause.
 
2014-07-30 09:31:37 AM  
Give 'em hell, Aceman.
 
2014-07-30 10:10:32 AM  
Microsoft has the patent on zeros and ones.
 
2014-07-30 10:17:55 AM  
Adam Carolla's assertions that we would destroy podcasting were ludicrous on their face," said Personal Audio CEO Brad Liddle, as he was slowly lowered into a vat of flesh-eating acid. "AAAGGRRRGRGGGHHHHHHHblurbleburlblreblurbl."

OK maybe I embellished just a tad.
 
2014-07-30 10:22:19 AM  

Serious Black: They have patents on episodic content and playlists?


Yeah, in the same way that Elon Musk has patents on "cars".

They deserve to get hoisted by their own petard for attempting to monetize ubiquitous, abstract concepts.

Or, you could decline to take a journalist's abstract paraphrasing of something at face value.
 
2014-07-30 10:37:29 AM  

BizarreMan: Not having read the patent and what it claims, I would wonder if the defendants in these particular lawsuits could claim as prior art comic books, serialized stories in magazines, magazines, Time Life Video/Audio collections of old tv and radio shows.


Nope. The patent claims have particular features that are specific to RSS feeds. There may be other prior art out there that invalidates the patent, but it would have to go farther than just "episodic content".

What needs to come out of Congress to the Patent office is definitive guidance that says "using a computer or the internet doesn't take a previously performed activity and make it new and unique enough to warrant a patent".

There already is... under 35 USC 103, if a patent claims A+B, and A is known in the art, and B is known in the art, then A+B is by definition obvious. Specifically, if [A] is "a previously performed activity" and is "a computer or the Internet", then A+B or "doing a previously performed activity on a computer or the Internet" is by definition obvious.

The problem is that that's not what patents actually claim. No one claims just that A+B because it is obvious. Instead, the difference lies in what has to be done to make A+B work - usually C, which is something new.

For example, "seeing stuff" - wicked old, right? People have been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years, and organisms have been doing it for millions. So, the basic A+B "seeing stuff on a computer" would be obvious... But, A+B+C "seeing stuff on a computer [using some new machine-vision algorithm]" isn't obvious, because it's no longer just a "previously performed activity". Like facial recognition algorithms - people recognize faces, and if all you claimed was "recognizing faces, by a computer", that'd be obvious, but something like "calculating a set of eigenvectors from an input image; comparing each eigenvector to a training vector generated from a covariance matrix based on a plurality of training images; etc., etc." wouldn't be obvious just over [recognizing faces] and [by a computer]. You'd have to go farther and find prior art for those other specific elements.

Now, this problem is natural. Any time you describe something to someone else that they may not know or understand, you paraphrase: an automobile is a horseless carriage. Of course, when you paraphrase something, you're replacing any unknown components with known analogs - "horses" and "carriages" - so the result is something that will always be obvious, because you're describing it in such a way as to make it obvious.
Like here - it's really an indexing system for automatic downloads, but calling it "episodic content" is a lot easier to understand... but, of course "episodic content" is obvious.

Basically, you have to go to the claims. Any time you paraphrase something, you're removing any parts of it that are complicated specifically to make it easier to understand, and the invention is usually in those removed parts.
 
2014-07-30 10:38:28 AM  
Huh. Today I learned that Fark interprets B in brackets as a bold tag.
 
2014-07-30 11:03:58 AM  
Also, I should stipulate that I'm not saying that this patent is valid or that the owner isn't a classic patent troll. For the latter, he's the classic definition of one (as opposed to the new "anyone I don't like" definition). For the former, I haven't looked into it in depth, but I can say that the existence of episodic content alone isn't enough to invalidate it. It also predates RSS by three years, so it might be tough to find something there.
I think the bigger argument was that Carrolla and other podcasters likely don't infringe the patent, not that it's invalid.
 
2014-07-30 11:11:03 AM  
Perhaps this is because he feels he can simply get his fans to fund his future and, now unnecessary, legal expenses. Or perhaps it relates to how he uses the case as material for his show. The fact of the matter is that Adam Carolla is asking people to donate money to him for a lawsuit that he no longer needs to defend. We would like his listeners to understand this situation when deciding whether or not to donate additional money to his cause.


But it's worth donating the small amount of money so in aggregate it can make your company filled to the brim with human trash waste a bunch of money, that's the part you ain't getting, squirt.
 
2014-07-30 11:32:52 AM  
Am I a bad person for hoping these trolls all die in a charter plane crash?  The pilot and crew would miraculously survive unscratched, but would be able to sue the company's estate for millions each as the crash was a result of their neglect.
 
2014-07-30 11:43:37 AM  
Maron made the point on twitter yesterday that just because they say they have no intention of suing podcasters doesn't mean they can't turn around in 6 months and start all over again.  The legal theory behing their suit needs to be smothered in its crib.
 
2014-07-30 11:45:10 AM  
So HE is wasting THEIR money in the frivolous lawsuit that THEY started?  I don't think they appreciate the full irony of their situation.
 
2014-07-30 11:45:39 AM  

Stile4aly: Maron made the point on twitter yesterday that just because they say they have no intention of suing podcasters doesn't mean they can't turn around in 6 months and start all over again.  The legal theory behing their suit needs to be smothered in its crib.


It's worth donating to the cause if only to stop having to hear about it every podcast.
 
2014-07-30 11:59:14 AM  

Nemo's Brother: Am I a bad person for hoping these trolls all die in a charter plane crash?  The pilot and crew would miraculously survive unscratched, but would be able to sue the company's estate for millions each as the crash was a result of their neglect.


only a little bit. you *should* be hoping they see the error of their ways, stop, and make amends.
but I don't hold it against you.
 
2014-07-30 12:00:07 PM  
Sure, there are tons of other things that should be held against you, but wishing ill will upon patent trolls isn't one of em.

\tons and tons
 
2014-07-30 12:02:34 PM  
I liked Carolla for a while before he turned into Rush Limbaugh.  I hope he squashes these guys into oblivion.

That said, I have a bit of a problem with a very wealthy person crowdsourcing his legal fund.  It's easy to be the good guy when you're not paying for it.
 
2014-07-30 12:14:51 PM  
The patent is on "episodic content?"

Wouldn't that cover the Bible?
 
2014-07-30 12:20:36 PM  

The Singing Bush: I liked Carolla for a while before he turned into Rush Limbaugh.  I hope he squashes these guys into oblivion.

That said, I have a bit of a problem with a very wealthy person crowdsourcing his legal fund.  It's easy to be the good guy when you're not paying for it.


He produces like 10 free shows per week. After all this time? I'll spot they guy a few bucks to kill a patent troll.

I hope he takes it all the way and Personal Audio loses their patents.
 
2014-07-30 12:24:05 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Am I a bad person for hoping these trolls all die in a charter plane crash?


Yes. Think of the poor pilot.

What you should hope is that they are rounded up, herded into a swimming pool, and then on a specified date everyone who dislikes them gets a chance to pee into that pool.
 
2014-07-30 12:25:21 PM  

doglover: What you should hope is that they are rounded up, herded into a swimming pool, and then on a specified date everyone who dislikes them gets a chance to pee into that pool.


Do you often pee with your companion while you're on a date? o.O
 
2014-07-30 12:28:02 PM  

The Singing Bush: I liked Carolla for a while before he turned into Rush Limbaugh.  I hope he squashes these guys into oblivion.

That said, I have a bit of a problem with a very wealthy person crowdsourcing his legal fund.  It's easy to be the good guy when you're not paying for it.


I hung on for a while because of DAG's Teddy Pendergrass stuff, but I became increasingly annoyed at the parade of ultra-conservatives who were allowed completely uncritical interviews.  I also find Adam's "government never helped me" reasoning bizzare, when he's made his living on public airwaves and the internet.
 
2014-07-30 12:38:17 PM  

Stile4aly: The Singing Bush: I liked Carolla for a while before he turned into Rush Limbaugh.  I hope he squashes these guys into oblivion.

That said, I have a bit of a problem with a very wealthy person crowdsourcing his legal fund.  It's easy to be the good guy when you're not paying for it.

I hung on for a while because of DAG's Teddy Pendergrass stuff, but I became increasingly annoyed at the parade of ultra-conservatives who were allowed completely uncritical interviews.  I also find Adam's "government never helped me" reasoning bizzare, when he's made his living on public airwaves and the internet.


I honestly like the Adam Carolla show a lot when it's new stuff. Adam's a crotchety old man a lot of times, sure, but that's why there's the slider bar. You can just skip a given rant and get straight to the news.
 
2014-07-30 12:50:27 PM  

Stile4aly: I also find Adam's "government never helped me" reasoning bizzare, when he's made his living on public airwaves and the internet.


Bizarre, but is perfectly in line with modern libertarianism that ignore how things got to be and just assume someone that wasn't the government would have done it.
I used to listen everyday, but then he mentioned focusing on Benghazi once and pretty much stopped.
 
2014-07-30 01:05:02 PM  

Stile4aly: The Singing Bush: I liked Carolla for a while before he turned into Rush Limbaugh.  I hope he squashes these guys into oblivion.

That said, I have a bit of a problem with a very wealthy person crowdsourcing his legal fund.  It's easy to be the good guy when you're not paying for it.

I hung on for a while because of DAG's Teddy Pendergrass stuff, but I became increasingly annoyed at the parade of ultra-conservatives who were allowed completely uncritical interviews.  I also find Adam's "government never helped me" reasoning bizzare, when he's made his living on public airwaves and the internet.


I'll admit that I love DAG's Teddy Pendergrass.  Kills me every time.  If I see that DAG is the guest, I'll give it a listen because he's fantastic on Carolla's show.  But yeah, he's gone just about full wingnut, which I assume alienates a good bit of his audience.
 
2014-07-30 01:07:59 PM  

doglover: Stile4aly: The Singing Bush: I liked Carolla for a while before he turned into Rush Limbaugh.  I hope he squashes these guys into oblivion.

That said, I have a bit of a problem with a very wealthy person crowdsourcing his legal fund.  It's easy to be the good guy when you're not paying for it.

I hung on for a while because of DAG's Teddy Pendergrass stuff, but I became increasingly annoyed at the parade of ultra-conservatives who were allowed completely uncritical interviews.  I also find Adam's "government never helped me" reasoning bizzare, when he's made his living on public airwaves and the internet.

I honestly like the Adam Carolla show a lot when it's new stuff. Adam's a crotchety old man a lot of times, sure, but that's why there's the slider bar. You can just skip a given rant and get straight to the news.


He used to play the "crotchety old man" role and it was funny, but it's shifted to full blown right-wing blowhard.
 
2014-07-30 01:13:52 PM  

The Singing Bush: He used to play the "crotchety old man" role and it was funny, but it's shifted to full blown right-wing blowhard.


He's always been a blowhard. But now that he's older, he's going to be more conservative. Doubly so now that he's rich enough to benefit from republican policy.

But that's the sad truth of aging. Liberalism is for the young. Even great leaders are prone to this ossification of thought. Look at Patton. He was about ready to charge through Berlin all the way to Moscow.
 
2014-07-30 01:24:43 PM  

Madewithrealbitsofpanther: Stile4aly: I also find Adam's "government never helped me" reasoning bizzare, when he's made his living on public airwaves and the internet.

Bizarre, but is perfectly in line with modern libertarianism that ignore how things got to be and just assume someone that wasn't the government would have done it.
I used to listen everyday, but then he mentioned focusing on Benghazi once and pretty much stopped.


Well the 'public airwaves' have nothing to do with the government aside from permitting processes.  The govt didn't invent radio...or tv...nor the various methods of transmission.  That was all private innovation.  The internet was conceptually created starting out as DARPAnet.  Once however it moved beyond the government the vast majority of the infrastructure rides on private fiber optic cables and of course on private servers.  The TCP/IP protocol is the real genius of the internet and is a public patent (thank the flying spaghetti monster).  These days however the government seems most concerned with controlling and squeezing the internet.

The government never helping him is mostly true.  But of course if you and I drive on one of the interstate highways and say 'the government never helped me' is is only true in that they aren't currently right now acting on your behalf in an active/pro-active manner.  Of course there is some help there in that the infrastructure exists.  The government didn't build most of the infrastructure but they came up with the early prototype for what we use now.

So the degree of help varies but the governmetn never helped me attitude only works depending on the level of abstraction you are dealing with.  It helps us all by *most of the time* helping to hold together our civil society.  So there is daily help that we all take for granted...but as in promotional active help...well it varies person to person now doesn't it?

govt did not help me post this reply!
/boostrapypost!
 
2014-07-30 01:28:12 PM  

The Singing Bush: I liked Carolla for a while before he turned into Rush Limbaugh.  I hope he squashes these guys into oblivion.

That said, I have a bit of a problem with a very wealthy person crowdsourcing his legal fund.  It's easy to be the good guy when you're not paying for it.


Would you chip in 5 bucks if it was to make a patent troll suffer?
 
2014-07-30 01:31:10 PM  

real_headhoncho: The Singing Bush: I liked Carolla for a while before he turned into Rush Limbaugh.  I hope he squashes these guys into oblivion.

That said, I have a bit of a problem with a very wealthy person crowdsourcing his legal fund.  It's easy to be the good guy when you're not paying for it.

Would you chip in 5 bucks if it was to make a patent troll suffer?


Not if I knew the person doing it could afford to do so without my contribution.
 
2014-07-30 01:36:55 PM  

The Singing Bush: real_headhoncho: The Singing Bush: I liked Carolla for a while before he turned into Rush Limbaugh.  I hope he squashes these guys into oblivion.

That said, I have a bit of a problem with a very wealthy person crowdsourcing his legal fund.  It's easy to be the good guy when you're not paying for it.

Would you chip in 5 bucks if it was to make a patent troll suffer?

Not if I knew the person doing it could afford to do so without my contribution.


Well then... I hope you never have to experience the aggravation of a patent troll, and need money to fight it off.  Because if you every try to crowdsource some financial help, I will remind everyone about this post you made!!!
 
2014-07-30 01:48:04 PM  

real_headhoncho: The Singing Bush: real_headhoncho: The Singing Bush: I liked Carolla for a while before he turned into Rush Limbaugh.  I hope he squashes these guys into oblivion.

That said, I have a bit of a problem with a very wealthy person crowdsourcing his legal fund.  It's easy to be the good guy when you're not paying for it.

Would you chip in 5 bucks if it was to make a patent troll suffer?

Not if I knew the person doing it could afford to do so without my contribution.

Well then... I hope you never have to experience the aggravation of a patent troll, and need money to fight it off.  Because if you every try to crowdsource some financial help, I will remind everyone about this post you made!!!


Will you wait until he has a net worth of $15 million, like Carolla?
 
2014-07-30 01:49:34 PM  

real_headhoncho: The Singing Bush: real_headhoncho: The Singing Bush: I liked Carolla for a while before he turned into Rush Limbaugh.  I hope he squashes these guys into oblivion.

That said, I have a bit of a problem with a very wealthy person crowdsourcing his legal fund.  It's easy to be the good guy when you're not paying for it.

Would you chip in 5 bucks if it was to make a patent troll suffer?

Not if I knew the person doing it could afford to do so without my contribution.

Well then... I hope you never have to experience the aggravation of a patent troll, and need money to fight it off.  Because if you every try to crowdsource some financial help, I will remind everyone about this post you made!!!


Well if I did, my first step would be not hosting a show where I constantly blast people for accepting handouts, then turn around and start asking for handouts.
 
2014-07-30 01:56:41 PM  

The Singing Bush: I liked Carolla for a while before he turned into Rush Limbaugh.  I hope he squashes these guys into oblivion.

That said, I have a bit of a problem with a very wealthy person crowdsourcing his legal fund.  It's easy to be the good guy when you're not paying for it.


A very wealthy person who spends half his time complaining about handouts, entitlement, and telling everyone that his success has been entirely bootstrappy.

I still listen every day. Of his opinions that I disagree with, most of them I still respect because he arrived at them through thought and consideration. This one he arrived at through not thought, and thus no, I will not donate.

But I'm glad everyone else is.
 
2014-07-30 02:00:55 PM  

The Singing Bush: real_headhoncho: The Singing Bush: I liked Carolla for a while before he turned into Rush Limbaugh.  I hope he squashes these guys into oblivion.

That said, I have a bit of a problem with a very wealthy person crowdsourcing his legal fund.  It's easy to be the good guy when you're not paying for it.

Would you chip in 5 bucks if it was to make a patent troll suffer?

Not if I knew the person doing it could afford to do so without my contribution.


Personally, I'm kind of fond of the idea that Carolla is giving everyone an opportunity to help fight a specific patent troll on a specific BS patent.

But, hey, if donating to him is to bothersome to you, there's always the EFF.

Wait, let me guess, that would be money out of *your* pocket, so, no, right?
 
2014-07-30 02:21:05 PM  

TDBoedy: Madewithrealbitsofpanther: Stile4aly: I also find Adam's "government never helped me" reasoning bizzare, when he's made his living on public airwaves and the internet.

Bizarre, but is perfectly in line with modern libertarianism that ignore how things got to be and just assume someone that wasn't the government would have done it.
I used to listen everyday, but then he mentioned focusing on Benghazi once and pretty much stopped.

Well the 'public airwaves' have nothing to do with the government aside from permitting processes.  The govt didn't invent radio...or tv...nor the various methods of transmission.  That was all private innovation.  The internet was conceptually created starting out as DARPAnet.  Once however it moved beyond the government the vast majority of the infrastructure rides on private fiber optic cables and of course on private servers.  The TCP/IP protocol is the real genius of the internet and is a public patent (thank the flying spaghetti monster).  These days however the government seems most concerned with controlling and squeezing the internet.

The government never helping him is mostly true.  But of course if you and I drive on one of the interstate highways and say 'the government never helped me' is is only true in that they aren't currently right now acting on your behalf in an active/pro-active manner.  Of course there is some help there in that the infrastructure exists.  The government didn't build most of the infrastructure but they came up with the early prototype for what we use now.

So the degree of help varies but the governmetn never helped me attitude only works depending on the level of abstraction you are dealing with.  It helps us all by *most of the time* helping to hold together our civil society.  So there is daily help that we all take for granted...but as in promotional active help...well it varies person to person now doesn't it?

govt did not help me post this reply!
/boostrapypost!


The government did, and still does (although to a far lesser degree which has slowed down some innovation) fund the basic research that leads to many advances. In fact, many of the drug protocols are built off of NASA (and other public) research data that the big, ebil, nasty gubbermint bought and paid for and gives away for free.

Years ago, IBM used to patent (useful stuff, not just trolling) more stuff in one year than most companies did in 10 years. Even much of that was built off of government 'basic' research. Heck, most companies are so f#cking cheap, that they barely fund R&D. Don't ask them to fund abstract scientific research if they can't even fund regular corporate R&D properly. As an FYI, that 'private' fiber optic cable was bought and paid for with government dollars in many cases. Heck, the cable itself was a product of US Government basic (and some specific) research at various universities.

Keep on thinking that the gubbermint got out of the way and private enterprise took over. If we were waiting on private enterprise to build the intarwebs, we'd probably still be 110cps modems getting charged by the minute. (Baby Bells used to demand that 'data' lines were more taxing to the system - lie, the load happens on the pickup of the device, when the central office brings it alive - and wanted to be able to charge more for data line + a per minute charge)
 
2014-07-30 02:22:32 PM  

StevieWonder_DrivingInstructor: Personally, I'm kind of fond of the idea that Carolla is giving everyone an opportunity to help fight a specific patent troll on a specific BS patent.


I wouldn't have such a problem with it if Carolla isn't constantly harping about handouts.  The fact that he turns around and asks for a handout is beyond gauche.
 
2014-07-30 02:30:26 PM  

StevieWonder_DrivingInstructor: But, hey, if donating to him is to bothersome to you, there's always the EFF.

Wait, let me guess, that would be money out of *your* pocket, so, no, right?


I'd be much more likely to donate to the EFF, what with them being an actual non-profit organization and not some rich guy's legal war chest.

And no, I'm not going to donate to either.  I have expenses that have a higher priority right now.
 
2014-07-30 02:35:02 PM  
The Singing Bush:

That said, I have a bit of a problem with a very wealthy person crowdsourcing his legal fund.  It's easy to be the good guy when you're not paying for it.

I'm far from a conservative Republican type, but I always have trouble with the attitude that "someone is successful; therefore, they should spend their own money on things they care about."

First of all, crowdsourcing is as much about marketing as it is about fundraising. It's a way to raise awareness and funds at the same time. Both are important here.

Second, why shouldn't the people who listen to podcasts share some of the burden of keeping the medium alive? Part of the reason podcasts are free and abundant is because the infrastructure costs very little, the barriers to entry are low and the content providers are willing to work cheap so they can build an audience and find a mild level of financial success. Forcing the system to have to shoulder the burden of legal challenges means less free content.

Third, Adam Carolla isn't wealthy in the George Lucas, Mitt Romney or Bill Gates sense; he's wealthy in the Hollywood minor celebrity sense. He might be "literally a millionaire" with a bunch of cars in a private garage, but he's not the sort of person who can just throw around a million dollars to squash a personal beef. Especially when he can get others to help carry the load.
 
2014-07-30 02:37:27 PM  

secularsage: The Singing Bush:

That said, I have a bit of a problem with a very wealthy person crowdsourcing his legal fund.  It's easy to be the good guy when you're not paying for it.

I'm far from a conservative Republican type, but I always have trouble with the attitude that "someone is successful; therefore, they should spend their own money on things they care about."

First of all, crowdsourcing is as much about marketing as it is about fundraising. It's a way to raise awareness and funds at the same time. Both are important here.

Second, why shouldn't the people who listen to podcasts share some of the burden of keeping the medium alive? Part of the reason podcasts are free and abundant is because the infrastructure costs very little, the barriers to entry are low and the content providers are willing to work cheap so they can build an audience and find a mild level of financial success. Forcing the system to have to shoulder the burden of legal challenges means less free content.

Third, Adam Carolla isn't wealthy in the George Lucas, Mitt Romney or Bill Gates sense; he's wealthy in the Hollywood minor celebrity sense. He might be "literally a millionaire" with a bunch of cars in a private garage, but he's not the sort of person who can just throw around a million dollars to squash a personal beef. Especially when he can get others to help carry the load.


See my comments above.  If Carolla didn't complain constantly about moochers taking handouts, I wouldn't care.  But he does, so he's a hypocrite.
 
2014-07-30 02:46:26 PM  

The Singing Bush: secularsage: The Singing Bush:

That said, I have a bit of a problem with a very wealthy person crowdsourcing his legal fund.  It's easy to be the good guy when you're not paying for it.

I'm far from a conservative Republican type, but I always have trouble with the attitude that "someone is successful; therefore, they should spend their own money on things they care about."

First of all, crowdsourcing is as much about marketing as it is about fundraising. It's a way to raise awareness and funds at the same time. Both are important here.

Second, why shouldn't the people who listen to podcasts share some of the burden of keeping the medium alive? Part of the reason podcasts are free and abundant is because the infrastructure costs very little, the barriers to entry are low and the content providers are willing to work cheap so they can build an audience and find a mild level of financial success. Forcing the system to have to shoulder the burden of legal challenges means less free content.

Third, Adam Carolla isn't wealthy in the George Lucas, Mitt Romney or Bill Gates sense; he's wealthy in the Hollywood minor celebrity sense. He might be "literally a millionaire" with a bunch of cars in a private garage, but he's not the sort of person who can just throw around a million dollars to squash a personal beef. Especially when he can get others to help carry the load.

See my comments above.  If Carolla didn't complain constantly about moochers taking handouts, I wouldn't care.  But he does, so he's a hypocrite.


Or he's continuing to try to raise awareness of the issue. Your mileage may vary.
 
2014-07-30 02:50:56 PM  

StevieWonder_DrivingInstructor: Or he's continuing to try to raise awareness of the issue. Your mileage may vary.


You can raise awareness without begging for money.  Or you can even direct that money elsewhere, like the EFF as someone mentioned above.
 
2014-07-30 03:00:13 PM  
I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here about Carolla's decision to have his fight publicly funded despite being rich.  I actually think it's a good thing.  Not because being rich and asking the pubic to fund your battles is a douchebag move, but because it brings awareness to the things these trolls are doing to a wider audience, and asking for funding gets his audience to put a dog into the fight, thus they have a vested interest in the outcome.  With greater public awareness of what patent trolls do -- and let's face it, it's the sort of thing most people would skip over when they DVR the nightly news if such a story even makes it that far -- it will ultimately make it harder for patent trolls to do it because more people will fight it, or help do so.  With greater public outcry comes a greater chance for patent reform.

/Maybe pigs will grow wings!  You don't know! Are you a biologist?  I didn't think so.
 
2014-07-30 03:03:06 PM  

inglixthemad: The government did, and still does (although to a far lesser degree which has slowed down some innovation) fund the basic research that leads to many advances. In fact, many of the drug protocols are built off of NASA (and other public) research data that the big, ebil, nasty gubbermint bought and paid for and gives away for free.

Years ago, IBM used to patent (useful stuff, not just trolling) more stuff in one year than most companies did in 10 years. Even much of that was built off of government 'basic' research. Heck, most companies are so f#cking cheap, that they barely fund R&D. Don't ask them to fund abstract scientific research if they can't even fund regular corporate R&D properly. As an FYI, that 'private' fiber optic cable was bought and paid for with government dollars in many cases. Heck, the cable itself was a product of US Government basic (and some specific) research at various universities.

Keep on thinking that the gubbermint got out of the way and private enterprise took over. If we were waiting on private enterprise to build the intarwebs, we'd probably still be 110cps modems getting charged by the minute. (Baby Bells used to demand that 'data' lines were more taxing to the system - lie, the load happens on the pickup of the device, when the central office brings it alive - and wanted to be able to charge more for data line + a per minute charge)


Thank you. The government is key in dragging emerging tech from abstract idea to economically viable. This is done in a multitude of ways, such as outsourcing the R and D to Universities, artificially creating markets through defense and NASA contracts, or DARPA initiatives. People often don't realize this because they only deal with the consumer end where they can ignore the decade or so of government funding.
 
2014-07-30 04:58:16 PM  

BizarreMan: What needs to come out of Congress to the Patent office is definitive guidance that says "using a computer or the internet doesn't take a previously performed activity and make it new and unique enough to warrant a patent".


How about the Supreme Court?
 
2014-07-30 05:31:11 PM  

bdub77: Adam Carolla's assertions that we would destroy podcasting were ludicrous on their face," said Personal Audio CEO Brad Liddle, as he was slowly lowered into a vat of flesh-eating acid. "AAAGGRRRGRGGGHHHHHHHblurbleburlblreblurbl."

OK maybe I embellished just a tad.


You got our hopes up for a minute, though.
 
2014-07-30 06:09:07 PM  

The Singing Bush: StevieWonder_DrivingInstructor: Personally, I'm kind of fond of the idea that Carolla is giving everyone an opportunity to help fight a specific patent troll on a specific BS patent.

I wouldn't have such a problem with it if Carolla isn't constantly harping about handouts.  The fact that he turns around and asks for a handout is beyond gauche.


Then you should have said that first, rather than focusing on the fact that he's rich.
 
2014-07-30 06:21:24 PM  

IlGreven: The Singing Bush: StevieWonder_DrivingInstructor: Personally, I'm kind of fond of the idea that Carolla is giving everyone an opportunity to help fight a specific patent troll on a specific BS patent.

I wouldn't have such a problem with it if Carolla isn't constantly harping about handouts.  The fact that he turns around and asks for a handout is beyond gauche.

Then you should have said that first, rather than focusing on the fact that he's rich.


I probably should have. Nonetheless, I still have a problem with rich people trying to get everyone else to pay their bills. He can afford it. If he counter-sued for legal expenses and won, do you think he would give that money back? I don't.
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report