TIVO vs E*

[jacmyoung]

Quoting out of context is a known fallacy...you're not going to get very far trying to base an opinion out of a few lines of cut-and-paste text in an attempt to represent YEARS of trial proceedings...especially something so highly subjective...

We did not even have to insist he must post years of trial proceedings, they only need to post both sides of the argument in the hearing, but they do not, they only post one side of the transcripts.

But even when they posted only one side of the story, they still managed to leak some points made by E*, for example, when E*'s expert witness tried to point out the PID filter was not the physical data source, TiVo's Mr. Chu objected, and the judge overruled his objection, Mr. Chu then said he wanted to continue to object, calling it "running objection." But the judge ignored him, told the E* witness: "You may continue."

Thamos22 stopped right there, he did not post anything after that.

But it is obvious to me, what followed that "you may continue" was the E* witness explaining why the PID filter may not be the physical data source, and why had E* raised that issue during the trial the jury could possibly have found E* not to infringe.

The judge obviously decided to let him explain his assertion, despite TiVo's "running objection."

Of course if one reads the above TiVo's own patent description I have posted:

If the signal were instead stored as an MPEG stream, it would be necessary to linearly parse the stream from the beginning to find the desired location.

Here, TiVo described parse as "parse the stream," (i.e. parse the time stamps, or as E* said, parse the start codes). That is what the term "parse" means throughout the TiVo's patent claims.

Now remember what the appeals court said, when discussing the terms and meanings, both the patent claims, and the patent descriptions [specification] will be considered together so things can be put in their proper context:

In sum, TiVo is correct that the specification describes the process of indexing data. Both the specification and the text of claims 1 and 32 make clear, however, that indexing occurs after, and in addition to, the separation of the incoming data into distinct video and audio buffers.

No terms will be taken out of the context, the phrase "parse the audio and video data," as described in the first step of the software patent claims, when taking into consideration of the TiVo's patent specification, means "analyzing the start codes." The PID filter as we know it, simply cannot perform such function, this much is undisputed.

[vampz26]

We did not even have to insist he must post years of trial proceedings, they only need to post both sides of the argument in the hearing, but they do not, they only post one side of the transcripts.

But even when they posted only one side of the story, they still managed to leak some points made by E*, for example, when E*'s expert witness tried to point out the PID filter was not the physical data source, TiVo's Mr. Chu objected, and the judge overruled his objection, Mr. Chu then said he wanted to continue to object, calling it "running objection." But the judge ignored him, told the E* witness: "You may continue."

Thamos22 stopped right there, he did not post anything after that.

But it is obvious to me, what followed that "you may continue" was the E* witness explaining why the PID filter may not be the physical data source, and why had E* raised that issue during the trial the jury could possibly have found E* not to infringe.

The judge obviously decided to let him explain his assertion, despite TiVo's "running objection."

Of course if one reads the above TiVo's own patent description I have posted:



Here, TiVo described parse as "parse the stream," (i.e. parse the time stamps, or as E* said, parse the start codes). That is what the term "parse" means throughout the TiVo's patent claims.

Now remember what the appeals court said, when discussing the terms and meanings, both the patent claims, and the patent descriptions [specification] will be considered together so things can be put in their proper context:



No terms will be taken out of the context, the phrase "parse the audio and video data," as described in the first step of the software patent claims, when taking into consideration of the TiVo's patent specification, means "analyzing the start codes." The PID filter as we know it, simply cannot perform such function, this much is undisputed.

Not to dredge up old nonsense...

Remember when this whole "what does parse mean?" nonsense came up way back when?

Well, if a judge, jury, and over-payed lawyers can't decide what parse means...than that upholds my entire position all along that the court system is inherently flawed and anything that comes out of a courtroom has nothing to do with the facts. That the courts opinion has no value in terms of actual right and wrong...its only value is that of an arbitrator who's opinions and decisions are just as flawed as any of our own, making them no better, yet by being upheld by the government which for all practical purposes...MAKES THEM WORSE!

Thanks for bringing that up Jacy...

[nobody99]

But it is obvious to me, what followed that "you may continue" was the E* witness explaining why the PID filter may not be the physical data source, and why had E* raised that issue during the trial the jury could possibly have found E* not to infringe.

The judge obviously decided to let him explain his assertion, despite TiVo's "running objection."

Dear gentle readers:

I would like to draw your attention to the above post. Please note that the author has state that it is "obvious to me, what followed" in a transcript. The author of the above post does not have this transcript in his possession, yet still feels obliged to post as if he knows as fact what follows.

This same person provided the definition of a spammer as someone who, among other things:

- large bodies of biased text
- no interest in meaningful analysis
- no even capable of meaningful analysis

I do not wish to draw conclusions. I will leave that for the reader.

[vampz26]

Dear gentle readers:

I would like to draw your attention to the above post. Please note that the author has state that it is "obvious to me, what followed" in a transcript. The author of the above post does not have this transcript in his possession, yet still feels obliged to post as if he knows as fact what follows.

This same person provided the definition of a spammer as someone who, among other things:

- large bodies of biased text
- no interest in meaningful analysis
- no even capable of meaningful analysis

I do not wish to draw conclusions. I will leave that for the reader.

This reader thinks that both Jacy and the courts are full of 'it'...

And no good can come out of either. The courts are a fundamentally flawed system. And Jacy's belief in a fundamentally flawed system. Bad money after bad....every time he posts...

The only thing worse are emotive posts by Tivo fanboys who think any of this means anything. Who know nothing, but think that by quoting silly little courtroom rhetoric like scripture gives their opinion value. IT doesn't...lol...it actually is proof to lack thereof...

...anyway....continue...

[jacmyoung]

Dear gentle readers:

I would like to draw your attention to the above post. Please note that the author has state that it is "obvious to me, what followed" in a transcript. The author of the above post does not have this transcript in his possession, yet still feels obliged to post as if he knows as fact what follows.

This same person provided the definition of a spammer as someone who, among other things:

- large bodies of biased text
- no interest in meaningful analysis
- no even capable of meaningful analysis

I do not wish to draw conclusions. I will leave that for the reader.

For one thing, the mod had already said you and I should stop on that same point, you elected to continue.

So let me point out a few things to explain why I said you had no idea about what is a spam, for one, if you or any of your fellow sorry villagers have the transcript, post it to prove me wrong! Yes I said it was obvious to me even if I did not read it, so if you have read it, tell me if I am wrong by posting it. If none of you even have the least amount of decency to do that, why even come here to debate?

Secondly, when I said you had no idea what a spam is, because by definition to be a spam it first has to be something not said by the spammer himself, rather something "biased," "cut and pasted" from a script, without any effort, as no effort to even make it easy to read, and repeated over and over in "large text," as in "capital cases" with the purpose to scroll the other posts out of the screen.

Until you begin to understand what a spam is, you will never understand why Mr. Chu had wasted all that time talking about irrelevant talking points and why that D$%^ Head was using his transcript to spam this thread, without any effort to analyze what he quoted.

That is why Thomsa22 was not a spammer, even though he also quoted the transcript from time to time, for one thing he offered his analysis on each quote, even though the quotes were one-sided/biased, and he did not copy and paste the same quote over and over in an effort to draw out the others.

That is why Vampz was not a spammer, he did not copy and paste some pre-manufactured script over and over, he only made his "old point" over and over.

As far as my posts, none of them were copied and pasted from some scripts without my own analyses, when there were quotes, they were not in large text intended to scroll out the others, efforts by me to analyze/discuss each quote were clear, and most of my posts offered something new and relevant to this courtcase, each in response to the posts made by the opposing sides rather using some pre-manufactured scripts.

I hope you and your sorry villagers can understand now why that poster was booted. But don't worry, he will be back, just like he was booted several times over at the other site, he will just sneak back in with some new "funny" username and "funny" avatar.

[Curtis0620]

So the bottom line is: No posts against DISH are allowed.

[Thomas22]

TiVo's new patent:

United States Patent 7,529,465 Barton , et al. May 5, 2009 System for time shifting multimedia content streams

Abstract A multimedia time warping system. The TV streams are converted to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation and are parsed and separated it into video and audio components. The components are stored in temporary buffers. Events are recorded that indicate the type of component that has been found, where it is located, and when it occurred. The program logic is notified that an event has occurred and the data is extracted from the buffers. The parser and event buffer decouple the CPU from having to parse the MPEG stream and from the real time nature of the data streams which allows for slower CPU and bus speeds and translate to lower system costs. The video and audio components are stored on a storage device and when the program is requested for display, the video and audio components are extracted from the storage device and reassembled into an MPEG stream which is sent to a decoder. The decoder converts the MPEG stream into TV output signals and delivers the TV output signals to a TV receiver.

[nobody99]

TiVo's new patent:

United States Patent 7,529,465 Barton , et al. May 5, 2009 System for time shifting multimedia content streams

Ouch for Charlie. New lawsuit certainly coming, this time covering a lot more DVRs.

[vampz26]

Ouch for Charlie. New lawsuit certainly coming, this time covering a lot more DVRs.

Yup. Tivo attempting to hijack E*s superior technology. Thanks for posting. Now everyone can see for themselves who the thief REALLY is. Let's see, consumer terrorism, technology hijacking, is there no end to the mayhem Tivo is prepared to cause just to avoid actually having to work for a living? Lol..it just amazes me sometimes...

[tnsprin]

TiVo's new patent:

United States Patent 7,529,465 Barton , et al. May 5, 2009 System for time shifting multimedia content streams

Abstract A multimedia time warping system. The TV streams are converted to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation and are parsed and separated it into video and audio components. The components are stored in temporary buffers. Events are recorded that indicate the type of component that has been found, where it is located, and when it occurred. The program logic is notified that an event has occurred and the data is extracted from the buffers. The parser and event buffer decouple the CPU from having to parse the MPEG stream and from the real time nature of the data streams which allows for slower CPU and bus speeds and translate to lower system costs. The video and audio components are stored on a storage device and when the program is requested for display, the video and audio components are extracted from the storage device and reassembled into an MPEG stream which is sent to a decoder. The decoder converts the MPEG stream into TV output signals and delivers the TV output signals to a TV receiver.

Is that a patent application? Or was it granted. If granted do you know when it was submitted? At first glance it does sound like they are trying to go after E* new software in case it is decided to be not covered by the older patent.