Comments on: “Obscure Company Claims It Just Patented Podcasting”

By: Dirk D

Dirk D — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 00:38:25 +0000

FYI

If one looks at the claims (not to mention the priority date) rather than the press release before criticizing the examiner, you’ll see the article is a bit misleading.

A quick read of the broadest claim indicates that this patent covers a fairly narrow method of providing access to podcasts rather than “podcasting.” There was significant prior art and the claim is really thin. The company is likely overreaching.

By: Bill H

Bill H — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 22:45:06 +0000

Smartypants… 🙂

By: Robert

Robert — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 13:55:22 +0000

@billH. The only people who could remember the Selden patent were alive in 1895….

By: Bill H

Bill H — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 01:07:51 +0000

Anyone remember what the Selden patent was and how it was gamed- for a time- to George Selden’s advantage?

By: Kurt

Kurt — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:52:37 +0000

VMS,
Are you saying perpetual motion machines don’t work. That the laws of physics are wrong?
😛

By: VMS

VMS — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:32:18 +0000

Sometimes the patent examiners are less thna swift.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=6MURAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:03:39 +0000

I realize that you can’t expect patent examiners to all be Einsteins, but it would help if they stopped hiring morons. Does the term prior art mean anything to these patent examiners? I guess the patent examiner was too busy listening to his iPod to realize that someone had already invented Podcasting.