
Patent troll CEO explains why company wants names of EFF donors - paulgb
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/podcasting-patent-trolls-ceo-explains-why-it-wants-eff-donor-names/
======
latj
That reminds me, its been a while since I've donated to EFF.

[https://supporters.eff.org/donate](https://supporters.eff.org/donate)

------
jrockway
Is there any way I can donate specifically to appear on this list? I enjoy
trolling trolls, and if the EFF gets some extra money, I'm certainly not going
to complain.

~~~
latimer
Not sure if you can still donate but this is the link to the fundraiser:
[https://supporters.eff.org/donate/save-
podcasting](https://supporters.eff.org/donate/save-podcasting)

~~~
jrockway
It worked.

------
droithomme
Here is the text of the patent:

[http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504](http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504)

Here is a summary of the patent and a discussion of prior art:

[http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3884/disseminatin...](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3884/disseminating-
media-content-representing-episodes-issued-patent-prior-art-requ)

------
rdl
I'm kind of amazed people like Ian Samuels (who represented Lavabit at the
recent hearing) and Brad Liddle (this patent troll) exist in the same
profession. And depressingly, I suspect Liddle makes a lot more money.

------
plink
Is there any organization encouraging Texas' secession from the Union? If
there is, maybe we should just make donations to them.

------
linuxhansl
Patent troll and lawyer parasitic scum. What else is new?

This will go until patent law is changed to make this no longer economically
viable.

------
throwawaykf03
This is why I hate Internet reporting of patent cases:

 _> Given that there's no question Internet broadcasting pre-dated Logan's
business, Ars asked if Liddle and his colleagues at Personal Audio felt that
it was justifiable to keep pursuing small podcasters for royalty payments.
"I'm not going to comment on that," he said._

1) The patents are not on "Internet broadcasting". They are, effectively,
despite claim oversimplification being the primary sin in discussing patents,
on _skipping episodes of audio content_. That is _it_. If you want to find
relevant prior art, you don't go about looking for "Internet broadcasting",
you look for things that involve _audio content_ that is _episodic_ and can be
_skipped_ from episode to episode with a user command. Yes, really.

2) The prior art that EFF dug up, if it is indeed on "Internet broadcasting",
is probably not relevant to this patent.

3) Personal Audio is arguing Estoppel. Estoppel, overly simplified, means what
you say and do can be used against you.

4) If you consider 2) and 3) it's highly ironic then, that Ars asks the lawyer
a question that would effectively do nothing other than create estoppel for
himself. Conveniently, the article gets to present that as a shady response.
But consider this: whatever he may say offhand about the prior art Ars
mentioned can work against him. This is the same principle as "Don't talk to
the police" that gets parroted so often around here: Don't say _anything_
without having thoroughly thought it through beforehand. As an oversimplified
example: The lawyer may have said something like "That is just Internet
broadcasting. This patent covers something else like skipping episodes". An
opposing lawyer can then argue, "Defendant does Internet broadcasting, but
plaintiff's lawyer just implied these patents don't cover Internet
broadcasting."

5) Askpatents.com is much better for this work, because dedicated users
(shoutout to Micah Siegel) take efforts to describe in plain english and as
precisely as possible, the claims and what prior art should contain. Anything
less than that devolves (as it does on HN or Slashdot) to discussions of
completely irrelevant prior art.

6) Relevant prior art may actually lie in the domain of simple digital audio
players, because those have had skipping of content for, like, _ever_. Problem
is, these claims use "means for doing XYZ" in their language. This, while
sounding extremely broad, is paradoxically narrow, because "means for" is now
interpreted to cover only exactly the methods described in the specification.
But anything that skipped episodes of content is what we want.

While I am strongly pro-patent, I completely accept there are flaws in the
system. The article implies the patents are overbroad, but the reality is they
are narrow enough to be literally inconsequential, but impart an over-inflated
worth because of the legal environment.

However, reporting like this twists the issues and actually _impedes_
progress. If, for example, you called your Congress-people (hah!) and
complained saying "How can there be a patent on Internet broadcasting?!", they
would consult with someone who actually knows _how patents worked_ , who would
then say, "Well, it's not really a patent on Internet broadcasting per se...",
and that's all the politician needs to bucket you in along with the old lady
who keeps calling up about the UFOs in her backyard.

OK, I'm stretching it with the politician scenario and have no experience with
politics. But am I far off?

~~~
Shinkei
ok, IANAL and I'm not even a patent amateur, but I'm not an idiot and making
my way logically through the idealized process, this is what I see:

Now you've heard the old adage that invention is 1% inspiration, right? Well
that's the problem with our patent system. With these 'idea' patents, you
simply have to have enough money to pay a patent lawyer to submit the
application and it's suddenly a patent. Meanwhile, you have not produced a
product, maybe you can't, maybe you never intended to! Edison would roll over
in his grave if he could see the charlatan inventors all over America
proclaiming patents of things as silly as this--skipping to specific audio
tracks is as intuitive as having bookmarks in a book. I'm not saying the
method itself is not creative or novel--I am really not in a position to judge
as patents are inexplicably incomprehensible. (I mean the first diagram on
that patent is ridiculous, did they really have to sketch the CPU?)

Invention is about the 99% perspiration. If you can't produce the product or
convince someone else to make it into something useful, you don't deserve a
patent.

~~~
moocowduckquack
Edison wasn't above a bit of patent charlatanry himself on occaision, so he
might just find it amusing. Though I may just patent making Edison spin in his
grave as a means of providing power. I'm sure I can get the patent office to
grant it.

~~~
Pxtl
[http://dresdencodak.com/2010/06/03/dark-
science-01/](http://dresdencodak.com/2010/06/03/dark-science-01/)

~~~
moocowduckquack
Damn. Prior Art.

------
rhizome
Interesting, they apparently want to force this case to be considered a class-
action WRT EFF's donors?

------
HeroesGrave
If they refuse to comment on something without a proper reason, anything else
they've said is BS.

~~~
sokoloff
So their First Amendment right isn't worth defending? The right to speak has
to include the corresponding right to transmit silence.

~~~
icebraining
I haven't read TFA, but generally, the right to speak doesn't include the
right to not have your speech considered BS, though.

