TIVO vs E*

[Hall]

Keep in mind, after finding of guilt and the implementation of the workaround, the 622/722 received a software update, presumably the same workaround the eight named DVR's received.

What update was this ? Where was it documented what the changes entailed ? To assume that just because Dish pushed an update shortly after a court decision that the "change" was related is stretching.

[vampz26]

The appeals court had already said MPEG2, ATSC, NTSC or Pal, did not matter, they are simply "broadcast data." Since MPEG4 falls into the same category, MPEG4 will be construed as "broadcast data" just like MPEG2.

But the "audio and video data" is another element which E* argued the PID filter did not parse, because it was impossible for it to even parse such data when the data was encrypted at that time. Only after the PID filter parsed the "broadcast data" and found the correct channel to tune, then the decryption took place and only after that the "audio and video data" contained in the "broadcast data" could be analyzed, by then the process had already passed beyond the PID filter stage.

I'm well aware of that, and that was exactly what I meant when I said.

"The only thing you can be certain of is that Tivo's lawyers will continue to 'dummy down' the expert witness testimony in an attempt to take advantage of the judges ignorance, and continue to expose the glaring problems with our legal system." which it has. That statement is very vague and not close to the truth regarding the details. Mpeg2 and PAL aren't even comparible enough to make the a statement like that stand up to technical scrutiny, much less 'assume' mpeg4 is included or not. We are comparing two distinct types of compression algorithms for digital media to analog...they just don't compare enough to give such a general statement any credibility a technical level.

But anyway, when the subject of the ViPs was brought up in this thread, you correctly stated that the ViPs weren't on the table because the ViPs did not exist during the initial trial sequence. Which means quite possibly a new trial...

And then I said, and have been saying, that I expect this whole parsing of the datastream to get paid much closer attention this time around because the the ViPs use different technology to parse both mpeg4 and mpeg2 datastreams than the previous DVR implementations, either Tivo or Dish, and such a difference could very well present colorable difference as they are build upon different technical foundations...

[Greg Bimson]

Without going into the semantics of what MPEG2 or MPEG4 do, "parses video and audio data from said broadcast data" has nothing to do with the format.

I want my receiver to show me ESPN.
A transponder contains 12 channels.
A PID filter can figure out which one of the 12 channels it wants, so it analyzes the broadcast data and parses out ESPN, in some format.

That is the step that is met. It doesn't matter if it is MPEG2 or MPEG4. Once that analysis occurs, then ESPN is "audio and video data" in MPEG2 or MPEG4 format. The analysis occurs before the "audio and video data" is simply an MPEG channel.

[Thomas22]

Some might find this amusing:


Davis Freeberg’s Digital Connection Blog Archive Dish Researching Hostile TiVo Takeover?

It is amusing. It's ludicrous to think That Dish hasn't known every detail about Tlvo's poison pill since day one and had to resort to searching blogs.

[vampz26]

Without going into the semantics of what MPEG2 or MPEG4 do, "parses video and audio data from said broadcast data" has nothing to do with the format.

I want my receiver to show me ESPN.
A transponder contains 12 channels.
A PID filter can figure out which one of the 12 channels it wants, so it analyzes the broadcast data and parses out ESPN, in some format.

That is the step that is met. It doesn't matter if it is MPEG2 or MPEG4. Once that analysis occurs, then ESPN is "audio and video data" in MPEG2 or MPEG4 format. The analysis occurs before the "audio and video data" is simply an MPEG channel.

You do not know the fundamental differences between the mpeg2 or mpeg4 data to make that claim, and there is not enough physical evidence one way or another for you to prove it.

You're oversimplifying an otherwise complex technical issue.

[Hall]

It is amusing. It's ludicrous to think That Dish hasn't known every detail about Tlvo's poison pill since day one and had to resort to searching blogs.

Hehe, that is one thing that I'll agree with you on Thomas22 !

[Hall]

You're oversimplifying an otherwise complex technical issue.

You're confusing the issue with the MPEG2 vs MPEG4 details. They are irrelevant and if you notice, you're the only one who thinks it has anything to do with the patent/lawsuit.

[vampz26]

You're confusing the issue with the MPEG2 vs MPEG4 details. They are irrelevant and if you notice, you're the only one who thinks it has anything to do with the patent/lawsuit.

No...let me clarify...

They had nothing to do with the previous lawsuit because the DVRs in question were only mpeg2. You are correct mpeg4 had NOTHING to do with the lawsuit. There weren't even any mpeg4 DVRs being questioned.

I'm saying that when and if the ViP get brought to trial. There is a very strong possibility that the whole issue could get revisited. Mpeg2 and mpeg4 are two different video compression technologys and could by default change part of the design. How much or how little is what waits to be seen.

The only thing confusing to some, is that my statement is a forward looking statement regarding the ViP series and the ongoing trials. Anything that happened in the past is irrelevant to my statement because the ViP series was never highly scrutinized and the technology within the ViP series wasn't present in the DVRs that were.

Thats all...

[jacmyoung]

...A PID filter can figure out which one of the 12 channels it wants, so it analyzes the broadcast data and parses out ESPN, in some format.

Not "in some format" because it only points to which channel to select, no "parsing out audio and video data" from the ESPN programming stream, also the PID filter does not "temporarily store" the "audio and video data."

TiVo spent a great deal of time during the trial to prove how the old software "parsed out the audio and video data" and then "temporarily stored" such data, now TiVo's burden of proof is much higher, yet it did not even try to prove what "audio and video data" did the PID filter "parse out" and also admitted the PID filter did not "temporarily store" the data.

Yet Judge Folsom still agreed that TiVo had proven by clear and convincing evidence that the first step of the software claims was met.

BTW, care to explain how Judge Folsom had concluded that even if the redesigned DVRs were non-infringing, E* would still be in violation?

[Greg Bimson]

They had nothing to do with the previous lawsuit because the DVRs in question were only mpeg2. You are correct mpeg4 had NOTHING to do with the lawsuit. There weren't even any mpeg4 DVRs being questioned.

Okay, I'll bite.

The 622/722 variants can decode MPEG2, just like the 522/625 and the 50X series. Just because MPEG4 decoders were added to the mix does not change the fact the 622/722 pretty much behaves like the all other satellite receivers, which must analyze the transport stream from the transponder to create an MPEG2/4 channel stream.

I'm saying that when and if the ViP get brought to trial...

It could be a trial, but it is more than likely a bench hearing if TiVo ever gets off their duff and files a motion for contempt regarding infringement.

Not "in some format" because it only points to which channel to select, no "parsing out audio and video data" from the ESPN programming stream, also the PID filter does not "temporarily store" the "audio and video data."

You are doing the exact same thing as vampz:

parses video and audio data from said broadcast data

is the same as

grab a transport stream and pluck out the data you want to store (in my example, it is simply how a satellite receiver analyzes the signal to put ESPN on your TV)

There doesn't need to be an analysis of the video and audio data, there needs to be an analysis of the broadcast data. In the case of SD DVR's, that is an analysis of the transport stream from satellite. In the case of HD DVR's, it is both the satellite transport stream and also the digital transport stream from terrestrial broadcasters.

TiVo spent a great deal of time during the trial to prove how the old software "parsed out the audio and video data" and then "temporarily stored" such data, now TiVo's burden of proof is much higher, yet it did not even try to prove what "audio and video data" did the PID filter "parse out" and also admitted the PID filter did not "temporarily store" the data.

Semantics and somewhat incorrect.

Every expert from the April 2006 trial (two from TiVo, three from DISH/SATS) testified that the PID filter met the limitation for parsing. The proof is in the parsing.

During the February 2009 bench hearing, TiVo caught the DISH/SATS expert recanting his testimony that the PID filtering meets the "parse" limitation. But I never saw where DISH/SATS ever tried to prove that they no longer meet the "temporarily store" limitation in the same step.