VoloMedia Patents Podcasting - Meaning What?
Written Jul. 29, 2009 by Tom Webster in Podcasting with 6 Comments
VoloMedia (formerly PodBridge) has been awarded a patent for podcasting. This patent basically covers any online delivery of episodic media (including, but not restricted to, RSS delivery) and, for the time being, gives VoloMedia an extremely valuable piece of IP to hang their hat on. My friend David Oxenford (author of the extremely valuable Broadcast Law Blog) reminds me that there was once a patent awarded covering all on-demand streaming technologies, and that this patent resulted in years of protracted, costly litigation. Of course, litigation in this case, as in any case, requires a plaintiff. But who?
VoloMedia's own press release notes that "there will come a day when all the content on Hulu is available as an episodic download," a clear hat-tip to their strategy and likely one of their first partners and/or challengers. Lots of folks on Twitter are buzzing about the legitimacy of this patent, given Dave Winer and Adam Curry's credible claim to prior art. Here's the thing with patents--unless prior art is painfully obvious, chances are good that the U.S. Patent Office will award a patent as long as no one else has patented whatever it is. The real test then comes AFTER the patent has been awarded--it either expires, or is successfully challenged in court. Either way, a lot of money is spent trying to capture the flag.
The question in this case is: who would spend that money? With the early VC luster gone from podcasting, and the traditional media companies who now create vast amounts of episodic media not necessarily spoiling for this fight, it isn't immediately obvious who, if anyone, will challenge this patent. From VoloMedia's perspective, the patent is a clear win--the value of the company just got a clear boost, which makes VCs happy, and from their perspective a little standardization of podcast/episodic media delivery is a good thing. I've certainly noted in the past that the consumer experience for finding, downloading and consuming podcasts leaves a lot to be desired, and it may be that VoloMedia will usher in a new era of "one-click" podcast consumption that is device and client-independent. After all, with so many podcasts being delivered via the iTunes music store, portable consumption of podcasts is locked in to Apple-branded iPod players (and the Palm Pre, at least on odd-numbered weeks) which can't be good for the consumer in the long run.
All of which brings us to the elephant in the room--Apple. With Apple controlling so much of the podcast aggregation and delivery on the iTMS (which remains a black box for most podcast content creators) one would think that they'd have a vested interest in the outcome of this particular case. However, the "one-click" example I mentioned earlier may also hold a clue to how Apple will in fact react to this news. In 2000, when Amazon was awarded a patent for it's one-click ordering process, Apple chose to join 'em, not fight 'em, and licensed the technology from Amazon. This hurt some feelings, and undoubtedly ruffled a few feathers--but you have to admit it made buying music on the iTMS a better experience for customers.
This means, of course, that those who might be harboring hope that Apple will wade into this issue should be careful what they wish for. If Apple chooses to license, rather than fight, then VoloMedia's patent becomes very powerful indeed. Not only that, but VoloMedia instantly becomes a more attractive target for Apple (or someone...) to buy outright, leading Apple to actually "control" the process to which they unwittingly lent their "pod" name.
So much in this situation depends on motive--will VoloMedia attempt to go after independent podcasters? Why would they? But what about quasi-rivals in the ad-insertion/delivery game like AndoMedia, RawVoice or Wizzard? Remains to be seen. In any case, VoloMedia has planted a flag that signals they are serious about episodic media and they have a strategy to monetize it--even if that strategy is based on IP royalties.
Reader Comments
Your 2¢, in chronological order — add your comment below.
This is the first article/blog I've read so far that actually hints that VoloMedia may expect to be paid a royalty for every podcast on the planet. Regardless of who produces it. Is that even possible? If that's the case, it will do nothing for podcasting and just make a bunch of lawyers rich.
Is there anyone else out there who can clarify VoloMedia's intent?
Dean
I don't believe I said that! Also, there is a big difference between licensing and royalties--the former doesn't necessarily mean the latter (look at Creative Commons, for instance). VoloMedia may certainly license the process in various forms, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are angling for a per-podcast royalty of any kind.
But you'll have to ask them, of course.
After a quick read of the patent, the implications are unclear. Does this impact podcasters (those who created the RSS feed), MP3 player manufacturers, podcast software developers on the user end?????
This has the potential to stifle innovation and proliferation of podcasts.
John Hammer
President
CastGrabber
As an individual who has a small independent podcast, I also have to question the motives of this patent move. It may not impact me at all, or it may destroy and commercialize a hobby that I and hundreds of thousands of people, if not more, enjoy with little or no cost to us. If the worst case scenario happens, it will send shock waves through the online community and ruin the innovative free spirit that inspires creativity and progress. When will the suits stop trying to own the Internet? Know your place corporate America, it isn't here, not in the way you want it. You cannot own something that belongs to everyone.
Excellent summary, Tom. This will indeed be interesting to watch. Since I manage a large chunk of podcasts for a publisher who uses a competing ad insertion tool, I'll be doing so very closely.
And the other thought I had - what's in the remaining 11 patents? Knowing Volomedia's business, I suspect one or more will govern the insertion of ads into episodic media, both client side and server-side, and others probably govern the gathering of metrics.
For the competitors you mention -- and especially LimelightAds (formerly Kiptronic), who is arguably their biggest rival in this direct space -- that may be a much messier and immediate fight.
I have a question: (I have read the patent) They refer episodic content being RSS based, which, for the most part is true for podcasting. However, the patent reads as if this is independent of the RSS concept. Does this patent therefore extent to any media (audio, video, images, gifs, hypertext) that follows bears an episodic theme and can be subscribed to somehow?
If so, I (we) will be subject to their lisence when we distribute ANY media online that follows ANY kind of conceptual theme:
- automate a group email and provide a subscribe link on a website
- create an web app that filters other content and mashes it based on a keyword
- distribute episodic content via torrents
The implications spread far further than just the podcasting community, this is a case of human rights. And I'm not being funny!
The whole thing drives me up the wall, so good luck Volomedia, good luck enforcing it in China (biggest bloggers, by reach). And good luck getting my company to agree to your lisence.
K