Adam Corolla and Podcast Patents - Galt's Gulch

Remove this ad.

1

Adam Corolla and Podcast Patents

Posted by khalling 10 years ago to Technology

6 comments | Share | Flag

I listened to a clip of Mr. Corolla on Denis Prager last week featured on Breitbart. This is db's response. Please pay special attention to graphic art used in the campaign against patents. Although the symbol of raised fist has been used for solidarity in many causes, including ones I could agree with, it is also used for mob rule concepts, like Occupy Oakland. The words are chilling: "They have the patents, we have the Power."

SOURCE URL: http://hallingblog.com/

Add Comment

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
2

Posted by Robbie53024 10 years ago

I don't understand the basis for the lawsuit. Serialized content has been around for at least a hundred years. There was radio (Little Orphan Annie, The Lone Ranger), comics, movies (Buck Rogers was a serial), so it would seem that there was plenty of prior art. Extending this to podcasting hasn't added anything new or innovative. This is a logical and entirely obvious extension of serialized information on tape, in magazines, or on movie reels. All of which need an "address" to find them and identify them in order. Seriously, doesn't DB have better examples? This seems to be a troll to me. There are true innovators who have their innovations "stolen" by companies that they try to license/sell them to and get buried in legal fights that they have no hope to be able to survive against large companies.

Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink
- 1
  
  Posted by khalling 10 years ago
  
  db looked at the claims of this one in depth. this is not about the concept of "serials." this is about streaming audio/video of large content easily. It is desirable technology with an owner who had been working on the tech since the mid 90s. He invested more than 1.6 million of his own capital in the company. db just got off the phone with him this morning. not a troll. inventor trying to recoup his investment.
  
  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink
  - Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  - 2
    
    Posted by Robbie53024 10 years ago
    
    Well, I wasn't able to find any description of the patent in any depth, and I wasn't spending my whole day doing research. Still doesn't seem anything new or innovative. If it's electronic file retrieval, that certainly isn't anything new. And there aren't any new/innovative ways that podcasts are stored/retrieved vs any other content. I'm still not seeing it.
    
    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink
    - 1
      
      Posted by khalling 10 years ago
      
      it's not just electronic file retrieval! do you really want the patent to read? cuz now I'm going to ask that your read it all the way through and interpret the claims. Your objections, the ones relevant, were all ready vetted in court and the patent owner won against Apple. They weren't the only violators however. Others have made alot of money using the technology without licensing it, including Mr. Carolla. US #8112504 and US #6199076
      remember how you see streaming NOW is what was applied for as a patent years ago- 1996. 20 years from the date of filing is the deal.
      
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink
      - Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      - 1
        
        Posted by Robbie53024 10 years ago
        
        OK, I went and looked each of those up and neither is from 1996. None of the references from '96 seem to reference anything like podcasting, but I do see the music retrieval topic which I'm guessing was the suit against Apple and the iTunes technology. I've now spent more time looking at patents then I ever desired to for the remainder of my life.
        
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink
      - Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      - 1
        
        Posted by Robbie53024 10 years ago
        
        No, I really don't want to read patents and interpret the claims. There are too many patents issued that aren't really for new and novel innovations. For example - a ceramic cutting apparatus was new and novel. An application to a potato peeler was not - I don't give a rip that it hadn't been done before, potato peelers have been around for a century or more, using a ceramic blade for such is an entirely foreseeable extension of such. Yet, that has been a patented "invention." This seems like another example of the same. Podcasts are merely a recorded presentation, sometimes (and not even often) best retrieved in a specific order. There's nothing new or novel and certainly not something obvious to those knowledgeable of the field.
        
        The fact that the individual invested has nothing to do with the veracity of the claim. There are fools who invest in many things that aren't new or novel, that doesn't mean that they have a valid claim.
        
        Again, I know of many instances where there have been real travesties that occurred to inventors who blatantly had their innovations stolen - this just doesn't seem to be one of them.
        
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink

Comment hidden.