Patent Troll #3: Podcasting invented in 2009?

Adam Carolla is a comedian TV personality and was dragged into a software war. He was sued by Personal Audio over infringing a patent the company was granted on March 2009. The patent in question is called a “system for disseminating media content representing episodes in a serialized sequence.” When Personal Audio sued Carolla, it focused on claim 31 of the patent: apparatus for disseminating a series of episodes represented by media files via the Internet as said episodes become available. In other words, Personal Audio is claiming the ownership of the podcast industry, because what claimed in patent can essentially be seen as the definition for “podcast.” Interestingly, Carolla started podcasting in February 23^rd 2009, before the patent was actually issued.  The case was eventually settled between two parties and the settlement is confidential. It is likely that Carolla paid nothing to the Personal Audio. However, we do know that Carolla spent about $675,000 defending the case.

Carolla’s settlement demonstrates the ugliness of the U.S. patent legal system. The motivation of the patent system is to encourage innovation by rewarding innovators a monopoly power for a period of time since inventing is costly and risky. After all, if a medical company’s years of research and investments into developing a new drug that cures cancer can be instantly copied by another medical company once the product succeeds, the first medical company wouldn’t have engaged in the development at all.  However, when a patent is granted over broad and abstract ideas such as the idea of “podcast,” they do more harm than good. This case demonstrates that the problem of “Patent trolls” is serious.  Personal Audio and other patent trolls have a simple business model: collect broad patents that appear to cover some part of an industry, and then they sue everyone, hoping that most companies will choose to pay a settlement over the hassle and cost of lawsuits. 

All in all, we should have legal systems to protect inventors who have put in the hard work to bring to market products that do matter and do better people’s lives. However, in light of patent troll problems, I think other criterions such whether the patent owner is using the patent or/and if the “infringer” is using the patent in a way that threatens the patent owner’s business interest should be considered in verdict decision of whether the infringement has occurred and damage calculation.