Campaign group slams podcasting patent
A group campaigning for online freedoms has condemned the granting of a patent which appears to cover the concept of podcasting. The Electronic Frontier Freedom is now looking for examples of podcasting from before 2003 to help it challenge the patent.
The successful patent application was granted to VoloMedia, a company which specializes in producing statistics for analyzing the use of iTunes, as well as selling mobile advertising.
The patent pretty much describes the concept of podcasting: allowing users to subscribe to automatic downloads of a series of audio or video clips. At one point the patent describes the process as follows:
The method includes providing a user with a dedicated episodic media channel and receiving a subscription request to the dedicated episodic media channel from the user. Updated episodic media associated with the dedicated episodic media channel is then automatically downloaded to a computing device associated with the user. The download occurs in accordance with the subscription request of the user.
If it wasn’t for the fact that VoloMedia didn’t rely so heavily on iTunes for its business, it would look remarkably like the patent was specifically designed to demand a huge payout from Apple. But now that it’s been granted, the firm theoretically has the power to challenge anyone providing podcasting services.
Were a case to come to court, it’s certainly possible the patent would not be upheld. By the so-called Bilski test, named after a case which wound up in the Supreme Court, there’s a good chance that what’s described would be classed as a concept or idea rather than a specific practical process and technical solution, meaning it shouldn’t qualify for patent protection.
In the meantime, the EFF is appealing for examples of podcasting similar to that described in the patent from before November 2003 when the application was first filed. If solid examples can be found, they could be classed as prior art, meaning the patent could be judged as invalid for not being a new invention.
Related Posts:
