2 ms·

I don't see how podcasting is in violation of the patent in question. I can see how a company like Apple, which does provide an "An audio program and message d

I don't see how podcasting is in violation of the patent in question. I can see how a company like Apple, which does provide an "An audio program and message distribution system in which a host system organizes and transmits program segments to client subscriber locations." That's what iTunes does, not say, the Adam Corolla podcast. He doesn't run the message distribution system, he merely uses that distribution system. Every single one of the patent's claims talks about the player itself, or the endpoint of distribution. At no time is the media itself being distributed claimed, which is what podcasters do. They create the media, your computer plays it. They didn't patent podcasting, they patented podcast players. What court would give a shit about this re: podcast producers? Edit: I read somewhere in all this that the patent was filed in 1996? According to http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504 http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504, it was filed in 2009. 2009!

skymt 14y ago
You didn't read all the claims. :) Claim 31 describes an "apparatus for disseminating a series of episodes represented by media files via the Internet..." It goes on to describe, essentially, in patent-ese, a web server that serves a podcast.
- diminoten 14y ago
  Yeah I read that part, but I believe that claim comes all together. You don't simply get infringement if you happen to distribute audio files, you have to do it in the way that the entire sum of claim 31 provides. Specifically this part is the part I don't think ACE Broadcasting Network (Adam Corolla, et al.) violates: > and employing one of said one or more communication interfaces to: IANAL though, so... yeah. :-/
  - skymt 14y ago
    The "communication interface" would be the server's network link, which it does indeed employ to: a) receive a request for the current version of the RSS feed ("compilation file") b) transfer the RSS feed to the client c) receive and respond to a request from the client for audio files linked to from the RSS feed This appears to be a correct description of a web server hosting a podcast. I'm also not a lawyer, but I do see a possible loophole in that the claim describes a single machine serving both the feed and the audio files. If the audio is hosted on a separate server or a CDN, it wouldn't violate my reading of the claim. (If that's what you meant, then I guess we agree.) Of course, that's the kind of detail that would need to be hashed out in court before I'd trust it.
    - diminoten 14y ago
      I don't believe that's what they're referencing, as a network link doesn't technically do any of the things you just said. It merely passes on requests for those things. At no time does a network link itself make those requests. Comcast doesn't get sued by the RIAA for delivering packets which contain pirated music, for example.

skymt 14y ago

You didn't read all the claims. :) Claim 31 describes an "apparatus for disseminating a series of episodes represented by media files via the Internet..." It goes on to describe, essentially, in patent-ese, a web server that serves a podcast.

diminoten 14y ago
Yeah I read that part, but I believe that claim comes all together. You don't simply get infringement if you happen to distribute audio files, you have to do it in the way that the entire sum of claim 31 provides. Specifically this part is the part I don't think ACE Broadcasting Network (Adam Corolla, et al.) violates: > and employing one of said one or more communication interfaces to: IANAL though, so... yeah. :-/
- skymt 14y ago
  The "communication interface" would be the server's network link, which it does indeed employ to: a) receive a request for the current version of the RSS feed ("compilation file") b) transfer the RSS feed to the client c) receive and respond to a request from the client for audio files linked to from the RSS feed This appears to be a correct description of a web server hosting a podcast. I'm also not a lawyer, but I do see a possible loophole in that the claim describes a single machine serving both the feed and the audio files. If the audio is hosted on a separate server or a CDN, it wouldn't violate my reading of the claim. (If that's what you meant, then I guess we agree.) Of course, that's the kind of detail that would need to be hashed out in court before I'd trust it.
  - diminoten 14y ago
    I don't believe that's what they're referencing, as a network link doesn't technically do any of the things you just said. It merely passes on requests for those things. At no time does a network link itself make those requests. Comcast doesn't get sued by the RIAA for delivering packets which contain pirated music, for example.