State of Innovation

Patents and Innovation Economics

Adam Carolla and the Podcast Patents: The Real Story

Adam Carolla is being sued by Personal Audio LLC and has created a FundAnything (crowdfunding site) campaign to raise money for his legal defense.  He is billing this dispute as a patent that will kill off podcasting.  This is the sort hyperbole people who don’t want to pay inventors engage in.  Note Mr. Carolla wants to be paid for his intellectual property.  Since Mr. Carolla is making the standard arguments against inventors who attempt to enforce their property rights, I will examine some of the arguments below.

1.  The inventor will not receive any of the profit from this lawsuit, only a shell company, whose only purpose is to sue people.

One of the inventors on the patent is a serial entrepreneur and is an owner of Personal Audio LLC who is suing Adam Carolla.  James Logan founded MicroTouch Systems in the 80s and served on the on the Board of Directors of, the company that acquired Slashdot back in 1999.  He founded, Personal Audio, in 1996.  The original company was Personal Audio Inc. and the patents are now owned by Personal Audio, LLC.  Personal Audio invested $1.6 million developing this technology.  As Mr. Logan points out, when inventors are paid for their inventions it reduces the risk of investing in new technologies.  This increases the willingness of investors to put money into inventions, which results in more advances in technology.  In addition, Mr. Logan explained that he and the company want to see podcasting thrive, because that will maximize their profit.  Killing off podcasting is not the goal of or in the interest of Personal Audio.  Mr. Carolla statements to the contrary are just nonsense.


Conclusion: Adam Carolla is spewing BS.



2.  The inventor never made anything.

As the inventor, James Logan, points out Tesla never made anything either.  Most of Edison’s inventions were sold to companies and he produced nothing, the same can be said of Bell and many of the great inventors of the US.  Mr. Logan points out that many inventors have no interest in manufacturing, marketing, distribution etc.  But today’s system forces inventors to work for a company.  You would think someone in the media would have read Adam Smith and understand division of labor.

In the late 1800s it was quite common for people to specialize in inventing and over 85% of those inventors who obtained a patent eventually sold or licensed it to a manufacturer.  Today the attack on inventors mean that even when inventors have a valid, issued patent that has been upheld in court (Personal Audio v. Apple), people like Mr. Carolla, argue they have the right to steal other people’s inventions.

Note that Mr. Carolla never makes anything.  He sells his comedy, which is just a bunch of words, until a recording device and a transmission device turns that into a product.  Perhaps actors and comedians should not be paid either.

Imagine if actors and authors could not sell their creations without first having a company turn them into a book, movie, or recording?  That is exactly what Mr. Carolla is advocating.


Conclusion: Adam Carolla is spewing BS.



3.  The invention was created by other people independently.

This is a common argument by people who don’t want to pay inventors.  The patent in question was applied for in 1996 and the Patent Office divided the original patent application into three or more patents.  The first patent issued in 2001, so the world has known about this technology for a long time.  This makes the claim of independent invention absurd.  But on top of that according to Mr. Logan these patents have been cited in over 1300 other patents.  Clearly the world was aware of his technology.  The idea of independent invention without knowledge of Personal Audio’s invention is absurd.   The US had a system for disputes between nearly simultaneous inventions until the passage of the American Invents not Act in 2011 and this process was rarely invoked.  The infrequency of this process was a major argument for changing our laws from a first to invent to a first to file.  Independent invention is a diversionary argument, to distract from the fact that people like Carolla want to steal other people’s work.


Conclusion: Adam Carolla is spewing BS.



4.  The patent is not valid and is overly broad.

This is a favorite of the leaches who do not want to pay inventors.  This patent was applied for in 1996.  No one had thought about podcasts at that time.  Few were thinking about sending large files or streaming files.  A high speed modem at the time was 64Kbaud and compression techniques were much more limited.  This invention was ahead of its time so it is very unlikely that there is prior art to invalidate this patent.  As a result of the invention being ahead of its time, it can validly ask for and receive fairly broad claims.  However, the claims do not cover all podcasts, as the hyperbole of Mr. Carolla and other suggest, they are directed to playlists.

Personal Audio LLC sued Apple over these same patents and won.  Apple already raised these issues in court and lost.  It is complete nonsense to suggest that these patents are overly broad and should never have been issued, without providing specific evidence that was not raised by Apple.  Clearly, Mr. Carolla has no respect for the law and more importantly no respect for inventors.


Conclusion: Adam Carolla is spewing BS.



5.  The Patent was applied for on March 4, 2009 and granted on February 7, 2012

This comes from TechDirt which has no compunction about lying about patents.  The patent was filed for in 1996.  TechDirt then argues that the Patent Office is allowing patents too fast.  Imagine if you built a house, bought a stock, or a car and it took three years to obtain title to it.  You would think you were living in a third world country, which is exactly what is happening to inventors.




Mr. Carolla is a hypocrite who thinks artists should be paid for their work, but not INVENTORS.  I bet if I start selling copies of Mr. Carolla’s performances he would sue me in a nanosecond.  He would talk about how I was stealing his work, but inventors are supposed to work for nothing.  Note all the above arguments apply to actors/comedians as well as inventors.

March 26, 2014 - Posted by | -Law, News, Patents | , , , ,


  1. The patents involved are USPN 6199076; USPN 7509178; and USPN 8112504

    Comment by dbhalling | March 26, 2014 | Reply

  2. So…this is basically like when Edison tried to force every movie studio to pay him every time they filmed a movie? Theoretically if this case were to be won, wouldn’t that constitute a single person monopoly?

    Comment by JP Johnson | April 2, 2014 | Reply

  3. JP Johnson,

    Adam Carolla wants to be paid for every one of his performance. Patents are not Monopolies, so you clearly do not understand property rights.

    Comment by dbhalling | April 2, 2014 | Reply

  4. Well of course the patent would not in itself be a monopoly, but it would facilitate one. If every podcast owes money to this person, then he has some control over that. As the sole person who has the right to forces charges out of people there is an unparalleled level of control over a medium. Edison used his patent on the film camera as an excuse to control the kind of media that is put out, and reap the benefits of projects he wasn’t involved? The only difference between this situation and that, that I see, is that Edison had more resources and perhaps more credible complaint.

    Comment by JP Johnson | April 2, 2014 | Reply

  5. I suppose my question is, why go after the content creators at all? Why not ask for more compensation from the people who make the hardware and software that is used?

    Comment by JP Johnson | April 2, 2014 | Reply

  6. You are not forced to use anyone’s invention.

    I have not studied the economics, but my guess it is the content distributors that are making the most money off the invention.

    Comment by dbhalling | April 2, 2014 | Reply

  7. Well, I’m just an engineer so I only look at practicalities and the potential loss of innovation and creative output, I don’t see how it matters who makes the most off of it. It’s not the director who uses the camera that violates whatever patent there is, it’s the company that makes the camera. In my mind, podcasting isn’t any different, as podcasters are simply using the software and hardware to produce their work; they’re consumers. So really, isn’t it Apple, Microsoft, whoever produces podcasting technology that is making use of a patent? I just don’t see how going after actual podcasters does anything other than hinder the science and arts, the very thing that patents are trying to protect.

    Comment by JP Johnson | April 2, 2014 | Reply

    • No the patent describes the process so the podcaster is violating that patent, which is much narrower than just podcasting. In fact, it is possible that the manufacturers are not directly infringing the claims. It matters who is making the most off the technology because all infringers are liable and those making the most money from the technology are profiting the most and economically and morally the one’s who should pay for the technology.

      There is no macroeconomic evidence that there is a loss in inventiveness because of patents. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. All macroeconomic studies show that when property rights are introduced in the law for something that asset is used more productively. Before property rights for inventions, the rate at which technology grew was so slow that we lived in the Malthusian Trap. It was the advent of property rights in inventions that kicked off the industrial revolution, which really was an explosion of new inventions, and that caused real per capita income to start growing for the first time in history.

      Note it would be pretty easy for Mr. Carolla to avoid the patent (design around), but instead he choose this PR stunt and to ignore the property rights of the inventor while demanding his property rights be respected. It is an incredibly dishonest position.

      Comment by dbhalling | April 2, 2014 | Reply

  8. Gotcha, so it would be like if Thomas Edison had patented the act of filming instead of the camera. That seems very…broad. I wasn’t talking about patents in general, I was talking about this particular patent and how it was being enforced.

    Comment by JP Johnson | April 2, 2014 | Reply

  9. Every invention can be described as a process or a method. There is not gotcha. Edison problem did patent the process of filming and the process of playing the film. He had good patent attorneys, because he thought he should obtain some of the return that other people realized from his invention. Why is Mr. Carolla so unwilling to pay the inventor? Why did he ignore that these patents have already been challenged? Why is he too lazy to design around the invention? Adam Carolla’s position is totally immoral.

    Comment by dbhalling | April 2, 2014 | Reply

  10. I personally think both sides are acting as little kids on a playground. Secondly, I laugh at every time the site uses the word ‘inventor’. It seems like it was more of an idea than anything. It’s like saying im going to patent the flying car now, even though I have no trade skills in how to do it. But if Ford makes one, they will owe me money in the future.

    Lastly, to patent something is very expensive. Then to even patent it in other countries is a bigger ball game. It comes down to who has the most money to ‘patent’ ideas of people who don’t have money. Because I bet there was more than one person “inventing” or talking about the concept of pod casting at the time. It’s just a piece of paper that states by law you own the right to it, even if you weren’t the first person to do it. You just had the money to file a patent first.

    Comment by Jace SIlvers | April 2, 2014 | Reply

    • You confuse several points:

      1) You can feel both parties are acting like little kids, but the objective evidence is against you. One person has a property right that has gone through extensive administrative and judicial processes. The other is ignoring the other parties property rights and blatantly stating that they should have the right to steal someone else’s property. While demanding their property be protected.

      2) You clearly are not a patent attorney. You are not qualified in fact to examine the claims and specification of a patent. This is not arbitrary any more than whether you are competent in electromagnetics, quantum mechanics or digital circuits. Patents are a complex subject and learning to read and write the claims is not something a lay person is competent to do. This is why you FEEL that it is just an idea.

      3) You are definitely correct that the patent process is too expensive and this inhibits many inventors from pursuing patent protection. First of all patents should be worldwide just like copyrights. Second crony capitalists have purposely rigged the game in their favor which means increasing the costs all along the line.

      4) The myth of simultaneous invention is repeated over and over under Goebbels’s theory that if you repeat it often enough people will believe it is true. But the facts do not support this myth. The US had a procedure for around 200 years to resolve issues of simultaneous invention and they rarely came up. In this case to suggest multiple people had the same idea in 1996 is absurd.

      Comment by dbhalling | April 2, 2014 | Reply

  11. I think most people would agree that if that you invent something you deserve to be compensated for its use. It appears that you patented Episodic Content in 1996 with no idea how to monetize it. That seems understandable given the personal audio and player landscape at that time. Now, approximately 18 years later, many podcasters are making money by podcasting. They logically release their content in a serialized playlist format.

    It does appear that your patent is very broad and you said you can validly ask for and receive fairly broad claims. But:

    1. Would you prefer an amicable business relationship with podcasters in which you proactively receive compensation from your patented invention rather than reactively filing lawsuits against them?

    2. If so how would like to be compensated by podcasters who use your invention?

    3. I know that ignorance of a patent is not an excuse for failing to recognize or compensate the patent proprietor. However, most people have an impression of a reasonable property owner as being someone who would recognize their property is being used within a reasonable period of time and try to work out a reasonable solution before filing a lawsuit. Did you make any attempts to work anything out with Adam Carolla before suing him?

    Comment by rob | April 3, 2014 | Reply

  12. All good points.

    1) Yes, I absolutely believe that if you can get an amicable solution that is much better. But in the present environment you have to admit many people and corporations have no interest in an amicable solution they just want to steal other people’s property. Adam Carolla did not offer to settle the case for a reasonable royalty.

    2) Good question. Of course I am not the inventor, but a yearly licensing fee makes sense, but so could a per use fee. Logically, the fee should take into account that the inventor of this patent did not invent everything necessary for podcasting and should make the proposition still make sense economically for the podcaster. But most infringers see any fee as a loss since they have been using the technology for free.

    3) I am not the owner or the attorney for the inventor. As I said above, the present environment is for infringers to ignore the property rights of inventors. Also Mr. Carolla to the best of my knowledge did not offer up a solution to this problem, he immediately jumped to the idea that the patent was absurd. Not exactly the sort of negotiating strategy that is likely to make the other side want to come to the bargaining table. Especially after the inventor has already been through a lawsuit on this exact point with Apple.

    Comment by dbhalling | April 3, 2014 | Reply

  13. After reading all this and hearing both sides I have reached a conclusion. Adam Carolla didn’t offer up a “reasonable” solution because the only reasonable solution is you going away, and that is what he and most people believe to be true. All of Personal Audio’s website is dedicated to patents. I can hear the lawyer in my head while reading your text. You have repeated the words inventor and 1996 over and over again because that’s the only absurd way you can argue. If you had the patent so long, do something with it. You have a website all about patents, and nothing else. Even your name is broad and useless, “personal audio”. No imagination and no purpose other than suing. Have fun lying to your family and yourself about who you are every night before you go to bed.

    Comment by David Shoup | April 12, 2014 | Reply

  14. Perhaps you should educate yourself. 1st of all we purposely do not have a “working requirement” for patents. You hate the idea that people should get paid for inventing. 2nd of all the time it took to issue the patent was the result of the patent office; a patent office which Congress has stolen over a $1B in user fees; a patent office that failed to follow the law; a patent office that regularly takes 4-10 years to issue a patent.

    You think it is okay for Mr. Carolla to get paid for stuff he did twenty years ago, but it is not okay for inventors. You are intellectually dishonest.

    Comment by dbhalling | April 12, 2014 | Reply

  15. The only people I’ve ever witnessed defend a patent troll are people who are invested financially in the practice. After a quick scan of this particular web site… yep, another philosopher pundit who just so happens to earn a paycheck defending these parasitic companies. The fact you wrote a book about ‘innovation’ is particularly insulting.

    When I worked as a consumer advocate I spent much of my time going after unscrupulous scam companies that earned their dollars by tricking people. Of course, they hid their schemes deep within the fine print and made damn sure they were protected legally. But at the end of the day — they earned every dollar selling a product or service that no one wanted. I always wondered what it was like to show up to those offices for work each day.

    I also wonder what it’s like to engage in a practice that a 12 year old would recognize as nothing more than legal bullying. It’s almost fascinating watching trolls attempt to focus the conversation on the “inventor” instead of those who buy lifeless patents and use them to sue people as a profession.

    Defending a company like Personal Audio by citing the basic virtues of our patent system (which I wholeheartedly support) is no different than the many scam companies that defend their deceptive practices by citing the basic virtues of a binding contract.

    Tell me that I’m unaware of a particular patent law statute or don’t understand property rights in a formal context — I might even agree with you. Tell me that patent trolls aren’t the bottom feeders of innovation and a parasitic drag on our economy as well as our justice system — you’re going to have a lot more convincing to do.

    Comment by Tom | April 17, 2014 | Reply

  16. Tom,

    Based on your thought process Edison, Tesla, Bell, and almost all of the great inventors of the late 1800s and early 1900s impeded technical process and mythical patent creatures.

    I personally do not litigate, so your argument is nonsense that I profit from inventors’ litigating.

    You did not provide any logic or evidence as to why Mr. Carolla should be allowed to steal the inventions (property rights) of others. Your seem to be morally challenged. What you did provide was emotional throw-up arguments all over my blog, the standard technique of consumer advocates, such as Ralph Nader and his ilk such as Rachel Carson. Who have advocated for positions that resulted in the deaths of over 100 million people in the last century. I think it is your positions that a 2nd grader would understand are morally evil.

    Comment by dbhalling | April 17, 2014 | Reply

  17. I never suggested you litigate. I said you make money promoting and defending the practice of patent trolling. I assume we can at least agree that the use of the word ‘defense’ can extend beyond the confines of litigation, yes?

    Hey, maybe I’m wrong — maybe you write patents and act as an expert witness as a hobby. And maybe your book about using patents as a ‘WMD’ is really about using patents as a weapon of… innovation!

    You’re right about a few things, though. I have no desire to trade arguments with you about Adam Carolla. It’s like debating a creationist — simply engaging in specifics already grants the opposition way too much respect. I recommend anyone who is interested to look up the details of Personal Audio’s claim on a site that isn’t pro-Carolla, isn’t pro-PA and isn’t a patent lawyer’s blog.

    You’re also right to point out that I’m making an emotional appeal. I really do think companies such as PA, ones that exist for the sole purpose of suing other companies, are morally repugnant. I don’t extend that judgement to you personally because I’ve worked enough years in politics — I know how easy it is for someone to start believing the bullshit they’re paid to produce.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I need some time to myself to contemplate my connection to consumer advocacy — the sheer concept of which is apparently responsible for the deaths of 100,000 million people.

    Comment by Tom | April 18, 2014 | Reply

  18. Tom, once again you failed to provide an actual argument. The point of property right is control over those things your create, so yes my WMD audio is about increasing the number of inventions – by insuring the inventors get the profits from THEIR CREATIONS.

    Yes a consumer advocate who bases his arguments on reason and property rights – I don’t believe in the tooth fairy either. Of course you refuse to take create for your great profession that killed off DDT, the Corvair, private aviation, nuclear power, etc, etc, etc, but somehow you think you have the moral high ground. Sure if killing people is the moral high ground.

    Comment by dbhalling | April 19, 2014 | Reply

  19. “Their Creations”?

    These were failed creators who left the language of their patent so broad that they now think it reasonable to threaten lawsuits upon anyone that does something that remotely resembles the language used. It is like a 50’s pulp sci-fi author writing about holograms and then suing the people who actually created the technology decades later.

    Comment by Clint Thomas | April 23, 2014 | Reply

  20. Clint, Apple tried that argument about overly broad and failed. The Laser took years to take off commercially, but according to you the people who copied it and sold it were the creators of the invention? What a bunch of nonsense.

    On top of it, it would be pretty easy to design around the claims. But Adam Carolla would rather steal other people’s property, but demand he get paid for his intangible idea.

    Comment by dbhalling | April 23, 2014 | Reply

  21. Abandon this method of serialized podcasting. Open source a new method and release it to the public domain.

    Begin a process to criminalize patent trolling.

    As a congressman once said in a hearing, “You mean if we didn’t have asbestos, we wouldn’t be able to stop our cars?!”

    Comment by PoliPsy | May 5, 2014 | Reply

  22. After reading the blatantly biased blog post and the subsequent comments, I completely agree that Personal Audio is suing podcast broadcasters simply because they want to make money and for no other reasons. And they’re using a wildly broad patent as a justification. It’s sheer fallacy. The author of this article repeatedly claims that the only motive for this lawsuit is to compensate the supposed “inventors” of podcasts, and yet all evidence points to PA (an obvious patent troll) being disgustingly greedy as the only true motive. This is the same thing as the patent owner of a camera suing a professional photographer, or the patent owner of the skateboard suing Tony Hawk. It’s ridiculous. I’m glad funds are being raised to fight Personal Audio. I am rooting for them wholeheartedly.

    P.S. The author’s responses are clearly written by lawyers.

    Comment by Greg | May 30, 2014 | Reply

  23. Greg,

    A lawyer wrote it – WOW you mean someone who is actually competent to read the claims of a patent, i.e., the legal rights involved. Someone who actually understand the technology, because they are a patent attorney with a BS in electrical engineering and a MS in physics. We certainly wouldn’t want that. No much better to have incompetents like you emoting. Because facts and logic are irrelevant.

    Comment by dbhalling | May 30, 2014 | Reply

  24. Everyone who produces a podcast is a “thief.” so, the question remains, why go after Adam Corolla? why not go after the myriad websites that provide the platform for others to produce podcasts, e.g Blog Talk Radio? Or, as someone earlier asked, why not go after the podcast hardware companies? WHY IS YOUR TARGET A PERSON WHO MERELY USES THE TECHNOLOGY?

    This is quite obviously a money grab. If it wan’t you’d have been, or be in the process of compiling a list of every person who uses and has ever used the podcast platform to make a podcast, Adam Corolla being one, and filing suit against them all (a class action suit?). Or, you’d at least file suit against the companies that provide the platform for users like Corolla.

    Right now the very best that can be said about your Corolla suit is that you’ve busted the biggest street dealer at the airport while the distributors walk right by you and hop into their private planes.

    Oh, and please don’t confuse me for someone who likes Adam Corolla; he’s as despicable as are you.

    Comment by DK Wilson | June 23, 2014 | Reply

  25. Hi DK,

    Actually not everyone who produces a podcast is a thief (infringes this patent). When choosing who to sue, you go after the biggest thief- that is not a money grab.

    Comment by dbhalling | June 23, 2014 | Reply

  26. This is laughable. Truthfully this is nothing more than a shill lawsuit and is a perfect example of everything wrong with modern American society. Carolla has deep pockets, you fools will not win. Karma is a real bitch and you jackasses are going to learn that lesson the hard way!

    Comment by Don Davis | July 2, 2014 | Reply

  27. Hi there. The patent holders of the MP3 audio format, FTP data exchange, and HTML have received word that Personal Audio, LLC is profiting off of their invention. They don’t appreciate you stealing their technology and profiting off of it. I imagine you are paying them a large cut off of the lawsuits you are winning (revenue), right? Now what defines a thief?

    Comment by Mdunlap | July 10, 2014 | Reply

    • Evidence please?

      Comment by dbhalling | July 10, 2014 | Reply

  28. This write-up has so many holes and false arguments it’s comical. Personal Audio has no case and will lose bad after wasting many many peoples time and money. I do thank you for taking this one step to far and suing Adam… with any luck patent reform will soon be passed and the lawyers will have to do real work to make a living.

    Comment by Jeff | July 10, 2014 | Reply

  29. Curious to know why, if you claim Mr. Logan is merely an inventor that is looking for his fair shake, his ‘company’ Personal Audio is based in an empty office in Beaumont TX, a place that is connected to dozens of patent troll shell companies, and Mr. Logan lives in Boston.

    Comment by Sha | July 10, 2014 | Reply

  30. Jeff,

    You state conclusions, but no facts or logic. Why is it okay to steal the work of inventors?

    Comment by dbhalling | July 11, 2014 | Reply

  31. Sham,

    I never said he is looking for his fair shake. I said he is enforcing his property rights against a thief. Why is it you think that it is okay to steal the work of inventors?

    Comment by dbhalling | July 11, 2014 | Reply

  32. please? or please. I’m Ron Burgundy? :)

    I agree, let’s see the evidence in this case. We can’t reasonably consider “Adam Carolla is spewing BS” as a proper argument. I’d like to know how he is supposedly using Logan’s invention.

    Comment by Mdunlap | July 11, 2014 | Reply

  33. I don’t think it’s okay to steal the work of inventors. I also don’t consider Mr. Logan an inventor. He’s obviously a very sharp person, but more of an idea creator and definitely opportunist – his career is dedicated to creating broad and vague patents and setting up companies solely for the purpose of enforcing the patents anytime anyone implements an actual creation that is remotely similar. He’s obviously figure out a way to game the patent system for his own gain and profit.

    I’ve read the patents, and sure there are some similarities between his cassette delivery system and how people download podcasts. Anyone could have come up with the idea or serialized delivery in chronological order – but kudos for him for somehow getting a patent on the idea.

    I think it’s ridiculous to assert that Carolla was immoral. He created a smart, entertaining show and put it out on a medium (podcast) and delivery system (iTunes) that was established long before his show. You think he was even remotely aware of Mr. Logan and his conceptual patent? No way. If anyone was potentially stealing his idea, it was Apple, not Carolla, and Apple has already paid out $8 million to this hack, which is far beyond what he deserved.

    What you are calling patent infringement is in reality patent advancement – Mr. Logan created a vague idea with his other engineering buddies, but they couldn’t make it happen. They had their shot and they failed. People that come up with concepts but never do anything about it should not try and limit the advancement and tweaking of those ideas in successful ways.

    I can’t believe you wrote a book concerned with innovation being stifled, and yet you defend these worms. You’re on the wrong side of history. Elon Musk and Mark Cuban are both big proponents of getting rid of patents, because the patent system as is stifles innovation. Musk just open sourced all his Tesla patents to help others advance their technologies – he is a true innovator and wants to see technology and society advance instead of trying to get a cut off of other’s hard work just because it seems similar to an idea he came up with.

    You make me sad for America.

    Comment by Sha | July 11, 2014 | Reply

  34. Sha,

    Are you a patent attorney? Do you know how to read the claims of a patent? Do you understand the difference between comprising and consisting essentially of? The difference in patent law between the article “a” and the article “the”? Let me say I am very skeptical that you have the expertise to make an informed decision. The Patent Office thought Logan had invented something and his patent stood up in Court against Apple. I would say that is pretty overwhelming evidence that the patent is valid. Mr. Corolla is willfully infringing a valid enforceable patent and bragging about it. .

    Mr. Corolla could easily design around this patent, but instead he continues to steal the work of the inventors based on vague complaints that boil down to the fact that he doesn’t think he should have to pay the inventor for his creations.

    Mr. Corolla’s position is illogical and immoral.

    Comment by dbhalling | July 11, 2014 | Reply

  35. No, of course I’m not a patent attorney – I couldn’t live with myself.

    I realize there is a valid patent involved – but you miss my point that it is a concept and evidence that the patent system needs reformation. The supreme court just ruled that software patents covering abstract ideas will no longer hold up – a step in the right direction.

    When you use this argument about designing around the patent – please explain. Provide an example of what you are talking about.

    You speak of ‘illogical and immoral’ but I haven’t heard you make a logical argument yet. I also think it is immoral to set up a P.O. box in a city and claim that is the business’s location in order to get a more favorable trial location.

    Comment by Sha | July 11, 2014 | Reply

    • Sha,

      You admit you are incompetent to read a patent, then you prove it by not understanding what designing around a patent is. But somehow despite your gross ignorance of the issues involved, you think you are competent to make broad sweeping generalizations. Emoting is not reasoning.

      Comment by dbhalling | July 11, 2014 | Reply

  36. I figured you would not provide an example.

    Comment by Sha | July 11, 2014 | Reply

  37. Also, for someone who is fighting for the just and the moral, you seem awfully defensive and dodgy in your responses.

    Comment by Sha | July 11, 2014 | Reply

    • You have not provided on fact or one bit of logic. I have written a complete well laid out article on point. You are either incapable of reading or incapable of reason

      Comment by dbhalling | July 11, 2014 | Reply

    • Right, because actually having knowledge of the subject disqualifies you.

      Comment by dbhalling | July 11, 2014 | Reply

  38. That’s not an article. It’s a blog by another f-ing patent attorney!

    Comment by Sha | July 11, 2014 | Reply

  39. I like how this guy dances around the issue of this ‘company’ being based in an empty office in Texas. If they had a legitimate case they wouldn’t need to cheat the system and find a favorable (crooked) jurisdiction in Texas to have this trial. What a joke.

    Comment by Ryan | July 12, 2014 | Reply

    • Whether the company has an office that is empty or not, in Texas or not, it irrelevant. (But nice use of diversion instead of logic) It does not give Corolla the right to STEAL his invention.

      Comment by dbhalling | July 13, 2014 | Reply

  40. so then get a P.O. box in California if it has no bearing on the legal case. an empty office is an empty office.

    Comment by dallas | July 24, 2014 | Reply

  41. So its Personal Audio’s fault that the courts are so slow? What a bunch of BS Dallas

    Comment by dbhalling | July 24, 2014 | Reply

  42. I am still not sure what personal audio invented, they say they invented the technology to allow for podcasting and other things, but they never seem to actually use any of the technology themselves, somehow it is getting into the hands of people such as podcasters who use it for their own benifit. I am just wondering how that happens, I don’t understand how all of the technology they invented ended up in the hands of other people.

    Comment by Sam | July 30, 2014 | Reply

  43. What I do not understand is how the actual podcaster (Adam Carolla) is violating anything. He wants to do a podcast, but does Adam have the knowledge to set this up himself? I doubt it. How can he be sued when someone else is providing this technology to him? He didn’t create a content delivery system, he just wanted to do a podcast and is paying someone else for this technology.

    Comment by Cris | July 30, 2014 | Reply

    • You infringe a patent by making, using, selling, or importing the invention. Mr. Carolla is using the invention, which violates the patent.

      Comment by dbhalling | July 31, 2014 | Reply

  44. Quite an interesting turn of events. Personal Audio now realizes they have no case, and that the Adam Carolla podcast was not quite the cash cow they thought it was, so now they want to drop the case. They have realized they will most likely have their patent claim invalidated by the court, and thus are tucking their tail and running, but now they can’t get out of the suit. Looks like the dog finally caught the mail truck and now it wants no part of it.

    Comment by Sha | August 4, 2014 | Reply

    • Sounds like they just made an economic decision.

      Comment by dbhalling | August 4, 2014 | Reply

  45. You seem to come off like complete dicks, calling names, trying to insult people. Tell me,do you or Mr Logan have any fear of feeling someone point a gun to the back of your heads and blowing your brains out?

    Mr. Carolla has seemed to successfully turned millions of people against you. Not saying its gonna happen, just that is might make a good or some would say “predictable” ending to a TV or Lifetime movie if this thing was ever made into a movie 5 years from now.

    I personally got no problems with you being thieves as long as you aren’t stealing from me.
    But you are PUSSIES for backing out of the Carolla fight.
    Bully for you!!

    Comment by Chance Magrioff | August 4, 2014 | Reply

    • You have very bad manners.

      Comment by dbhalling | August 7, 2014 | Reply

  46. PA is now running away from the lawsuit against Carolla because they are afraid their patent claim will be invalidated by the courts, and will no longer be able to sue other pod-casters. But now they are stuck. This is great stuff. They are the dog that caught the mail truck.

    Also found it interesting that PA is stating they are dropping the lawsuit because they found out Carolla really isn’t make that much money. Oops. PA is a real crusader for the integrity patent claims – as long as there is plenty of money to be made. Otherwise – meh, not so much.

    Comment by Bingo | August 11, 2014 | Reply

    • No it appears to be an economic decision.

      Comment by dbhalling | August 11, 2014 | Reply

  47. Seems my comments are coming through, but I’ll try again:

    PA is now running away from the lawsuit against Carolla because they are afraid their patent claim will be invalidated by the courts, and will no longer be able to sue other pod-casters. But now they are stuck. This is great stuff. They are the dog that caught the mail truck.

    Also found it interesting that PA is stating they are dropping the lawsuit because they found out Carolla really isn’t make that much money. Oops. PA is a real crusader for the integrity patent claims – as long as there is plenty of money to be made. Otherwise – meh, not so much.

    Comment by Bridge Troll | August 11, 2014 | Reply

  48. One of the requirements of a patent is that the idea behind it be non-obvious. While the patent troll in this case claims that because the Patent Office gave him a patent, it must therefore be non-obvious, decisions made by that office are not eternally carved into stone, and may be challenged at court, as this claim will now be.
    I look forward to the Carolla countersuit’s success, and the destruction of this patent troll in court.

    Comment by hogart | August 12, 2014 | Reply

    • You don’t know the legal meaning of the word nonobvious. These patents were already upheld in court in a lawsuit against Apple.

      Comment by dbhalling | August 12, 2014 | Reply

  49. I find it impressive that you have time to retort to everyone’s comments in such a diligent manner, but that is beside the point. Most reasonable humans (including Adam Carolla) are guided by a moral compass, so therefore, it seams reasonable for Mr. Carolla to not rollover and pay these leaches their claims. I myself, do not disagree that inventors should be payed for their work, but i find it sad that you can patent listing, or “episodic content” as they put it. It is incorrect to label this as an invention, or for Mr. Logan to even claim to be an inventor. I suppose everyone see’s this issue in a different light, but there was no inventing here. The public might sympathize with Personal Audio if there claims were grounded in reasoning and not just an attempt feed off of other peoples success. Just my opinion, though. :)

    Comment by BK | August 24, 2014 | Reply

    • Really. What is moral about theft?

      Comment by dbhalling | August 25, 2014 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,166 other followers

%d bloggers like this: