Tivo hearing today?

[Greg Bimson]

This is irrelevant nonsense. Both of these functions have to be performed by all satellite receivers, or in fact any digital tuner of any sort, whether or not it's also a DVR.

Ahh. But if a DVR has it, and also meets all the claims in the patent, it is infringement.

And it is far from irrelevant. It was a point made in the court case.

After all, no regular satellite receiver allows one to record one channel while watching a recording, so regular satellite recievers do not meet all of the claim limitations in a given claim, and therefore cannot infringe.

TiVo built a box to decode TV signals. It is part of their process. And that process is part of their apparatus.

The process is claim 31; the apparatus is claim 61. And it is those two claims for which infringement was found.

 

[moza11223]

satpros

hi
i am new to this web and i would like to get help with my fta receiver
i have satpros fta receiver
and it is locked i can not but the right password
i tried download the firmware and it did not reset the password to 0000
please help me i can not afford to buy onather one.
thank you.

 

[8bitbytes]

hi
i am new to this web and i would like to get help with my fta receiver
i have satpros fta receiver
and it is locked i can not but the right password
i tried download the firmware and it did not reset the password to 0000
please help me i can not afford to buy onather one.
thank you.

Delete this post immediately and go over to the FTA section of the forum.

 

[Hemi 6.1]

hi
i am new to this web and i would like to get help with my fta receiver
i have satpros fta receiver
and it is locked i can not but the right password
i tried download the firmware and it did not reset the password to 0000
please help me i can not afford to buy onather one.
thank you.

What the ?????

 

[Ronnie-]

What the ?????

I think he was in the wrong forum.

Something sounds fishy in any case though

 

[VinceT3]

So the next question is will Tivo win the new (they are still infringing) lawsuit and force dish to pay 100+ million a year in a licensing fees?

 

[lakebum431]

hi
i am new to this web and i would like to get help with my fta receiver
i have satpros fta receiver
and it is locked i can not but the right password
i tried download the firmware and it did not reset the password to 0000
please help me i can not afford to buy onather one.
thank you.

What programming are you trying to receive?

 

[Hall]

What programming are you trying to receive?

It's a Free-To-Air receiver, so it's "free" programming ! Duh !

 

[HDRoberts]

Well, hopefully he read one of the countless smart card threads before he bought a box to get "F"TA programming.

 

[jacmyoung]

This is irrelevant nonsense. Both of these functions have to be performed by all satellite receivers, or in fact any digital tuner of any sort, whether or not it's also a DVR.

The "analyzing" data is relevant to one of the constructions of the TiVo's patent claim, but TiVo's patent claim has 5 or 6 claim constructions, they must all be met for E* to infringe.

The reason E*'s old software infringed was because they used the exact "indexing" method, which for it to work, had to use all of the constructions in the TiVo's claim.

Now "the method" that got them in trouble is no longer in use.

But TiVo insists that because those receivers still use PID analyzers, therefore they still "analyze" the incoming data, therefore it still infringe, it of course is nonsense not only because of the reason I stated in the beginning, but also because:

ALL satellite receivers use PID, PID is used in all satellite receivers ever since satellite receivers existed and long before TiVo even existed, may it be BUD, DBS, FTA, you name it. If TiVo can prove mere use of PID is infringing on its patent, then logic will lead to ALL satellite receivers all infringe on its patent, even non-DVRs.

It is of course a no brainer to see it is a nonsense.

Another thing is, TiVo does not hold a patent on recording and playback another program at the same time, TiVo's patent said nothing about recording one program and playback another at the same time. In fact E* actually holds a patent on DVR recording and playback another program patent, before Tivo's patent, only with a less efficient method. E* decided not to use its own because the DVRs manufactured at the time could not handle the power requirement, and instead they borrowed the TiVo's indexing method and that was why they were in trouble.

The new DVR technology E* claims to use now is a totally different method. This new method does not use that "indexing", as a result it taxes the DVR CPU power more, the good news is the newer DVRs all have more powerful CPUs than, say the old Dishplayers back in the early days, so the newer DVRs can handle the higher CPU power requirement.

 

[Greg Bimson]

The "analyzing" data is relevant to one of the constructions of the TiVo's patent claim, but TiVo's patent claim has 5 or 6 claim constructions, they must all be met for E* to infringe.

The "analyzing" data is relevant to two steps in the claims of the patent, claims 31 and 61. TiVo's patent has 61 claims, but only four are the primary claims, while the rest are subordinate to those. However, it is claims 31 and 61 that upon review were upheld, so infringement was found on these claims. All steps in a claim must have their limitations met in order for infringement to be found.

The reason E*'s old software infringed was because they used the exact "indexing" method, which for it to work, had to use all of the constructions in the TiVo's claim.

Two points:

1) The "software" was never found to infringe. The receiver was found to infringe upon nine claims of the patent. Upon review, the seven claims referred as the "hardware claims" were reversed, leaving the infringement verdict on the two claims referred as the "software claims" upheld.
2) The "indexing" was required for the media switch. That was on claim 32, which was one of the reversed claims upon appelate review.

But TiVo insists that because those receivers still use PID analyzers, therefore they still "analyze" the incoming data, therefore it still infringe, it of course is nonsense not only because of the reason I stated in the beginning, but also because:

ALL satellite receivers use PID, PID is used in all satellite receivers ever since satellite receivers existed and long before TiVo even existed, may it be BUD, DBS, FTA, you name it. If TiVo can prove mere use of PID is infringing on its patent, then logic will lead to ALL satellite receivers all infringe on its patent, even non-DVRs.

As you stated, "The "analyzing" data is relevant to one of the constructions of the TiVo's patent claim, but TiVo's patent claim has 5 or 6 claim constructions, they must all be met for E* to infringe." I therefore introduce claim 61 from the Time Warp patent, but just pay attention to the first step (italicized):

61. An apparatus for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising:

a physical data source, wherein said physical data source accepts broadcast data from an input device, parses video and audio data from said broadcast data, and temporarily stores said video and audio data;

a source object, wherein said source object extracts video and audio data from said physical data source;

a transform object, wherein said transform object stores and retrieves data streams onto a storage device;

wherein said source object obtains a buffer from said transform object, said source object converts video data into data streams and fills said buffer with said streams;

wherein said source object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object;

a sink object, wherein said sink object obtains data stream buffers from said transform object and outputs said streams to a video and audio decoder;

wherein said decoder converts said streams into display signals and sends said signals to a display;

wherein said sink object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object;

a control object, wherein said control object receives commands from a user, said commands control the flow of the broadcast data through the system; and

wherein said control object sends flow command events to said source, transform, and sink objects.

There is nothing about software in the first step. The receiver simply has to "parse", to perform an analysis in order meet the limitation of that step in the claim. And the evidence was introduced during the trial that the PID filtering by the receiver meets the parse/analyze limitation.

 

[jacmyoung]

...The receiver simply has to "parse", to perform an analysis in order meet the limitation of that step in the claim. And the evidence was introduced during the trial that the PID filtering by the receiver meets the parse/analyze limitation.

You just agreed with me, that the PID "parsing" meets the limitation of one step of the claim, and this one step alone cannot prove infringement because all 5 or 6 steps must all be met.

The reason the old software met all 5 steps of the software claims was because it used the "indexing" and "media switch", along with the use of the PID, as the result of using such methods, all 5 or 6 steps (I used the term "construction") were all met.

Look the logic is very simple, TiVo now is saying E* still uses the PID even though they admitted E* no longer used the "indexing" and the "media switch", and therefore it still infringes. PID is used on all satellite receivers, PID has nothing to do with DVRs at all, it is part of how satellite receivers receive and process signal from satellite. There is simply no way TiVo can argue just because a satellite receiver is still using PID, it infringes on its patent. TiVo never had a patent on PID, PID existed long before TiVo ever existed.

Or put it this way, if TiVo wants to argue that the use of the PID alone infringes on the TiVo patent, that is to say the use of the PID alone meets all steps of the patent claim, then such patent is most certainly invalid because the PID technology is a "prior art", which if meets all steps of TiVo's patent claim, will automatically invalidate TiVo's patented "art" which came long after the PID "art".

The reason TiVo's patent was found valid, was because it contained all 5 or 6 steps, when considered together made for a patentable invention. If "parsing" were the only step in its patent claim, it would never have been patented in the first place. "Parsing" alone cannot be an invention, TV tuners or receivers made back in the 50s had to "parsing" the signals before being processed and displayed on the tubes.

 

[Greg Bimson]

You just agreed with me, that the PID "parsing" meets the limitation of one step of the claim, and this one step alone cannot prove infringement because all 5 or 6 steps must all be met.

To understand what is being done, simply understand the accomplishment of a design-around: to remove meeting a step of the claim, as infringement is defined as meeting all limitations of a claim.

Take a look at claim 61 above. DISH/SATS has been found to have manufactured eight models of DVR's that do every step in the claim. In order to prove that a receiver is no longer infringing, all DISH/SATS has to do is argue they no longer meet one piece of one step of the claim.

So, one argument is that the software workaround they employ on the 501 and 508 doesn't analyze anymore. However, the receiver still analyzes using the PID function. From DISH/SATS own response brief:

Although software claims 31 and 61 do not require the Media Switch, they call for "a physical data source" that "accepts broadcast data from an input device, parses video and audio from said broadcast data, and temporarily stores said video and audio data." Thus, all '389 patent claims required this analysis function. According to TiVo's infringement expert, EchoStar's accused DVRs satisfied the parsing - or analyzing - function generating what was referred to as a "table" or "index" that kept track of where frames started and where audio and video components were stored.

The problem is that this wasn't the only analysis done by the receiver.

It's like arguing cheating on a test. Get 10 out of 10 correct like the guy next to you, it could be that you were cheating. Get 9 out of 10, and it doesn't look so obvious.

DISH/SATS is arguing that they got 9 out of 10, so they no longer infringe. However, they are arguing the answer they got wrong on purpose is based on a technicality. TiVo is arguing they still got 10 out of 10 correct through obfuscating the definition of "analyze".

 

[jacmyoung]

It is precisely because E* has to meet 9 out of the 9 steps in order to be infringing, that if they can prove at least one out of the 9 is not met, E* is no longer infringing. Now E* has proved they at least no longer meet 8 out of 9, how is that not enough?

It is TiVo who has to prove 9 out of 9 (which they did on the old software), and yet now they got only one out of 9, and is trying to say one out of 9 is enough? Even you said yourself TiVo must prove 9 out of 9 to prove infringement.

I guess I am just not sure what kind of logic is TiVo using.

Now if you say the receivers are still doing a lot of analyses, so what? As long as whatever they are doing do not meet the other 8 steps, or even if they meet all other 7 steps, as long as one step is not met, no infringement.

Just take a good look at your own post above, where you only highlighted the very first step, which TiVo says is still met, and that alone according to TiVo is enough to prove the design around still infringes. No they have to prove the rest 8 more steps are still all met. TiVo did not even try, because they knew the design around no longer met the other 8 steps. Otherwise TiVo would at least have mentioned a few.

 

[Greg Bimson]

It is precisely because E* has to meet 9 out of the 9 steps in order to be infringing, that if they can prove at least one out of the 9 is not met, E* is no longer infringing. Now E* has proved they at least no longer meet 8 out of 9, how is that not enough?

DISH/SATS has not proved "they at least no longer meet 8 out of 9".

To prove they no longer infringe, DISH/SATS claims not to meet the "parse" step. They also claim not to meet the "automatically flow controlled" step as well, but only in the "Broadcom DVR's". Those are the only points that DISH/SATS makes that they no longer infringe.

DISH/SATS has not addressed seven out of nine claims, which means those are still being met. That is what the outside counsel paper is all about. The only changes made were to remove those two claims, and on its face both are still being met.

 

[Greg Bimson]

It is TiVo who has to prove 9 out of 9 (which they did on the old software), and yet now they got only one out of 9, and is trying to say one out of 9 is enough? Even you said yourself TiVo must prove 9 out of 9 to prove infringement.

Actually, that is incorrrect, to a point...

On receivers that have already been found infringing, TiVo needs to prove nothing; DISH/SATS needs to prove they no longer infringe. On receivers that have not been adjudicated, TiVo would need to prove infringement and mere colorable difference.

The problem is that DISH/SATS proof of "no longer infringing" also applies to the devices which have not been adjudicated. So that is why TiVo has asked Judge Folsom to find the unadjudicated receivers infringing.

 

[jacmyoung]

Actually, that is incorrrect, to a point...

On receivers that have already been found infringing, TiVo needs to prove nothing;

We have disagreed on this for the last 100th times, TiVo needs to prove nothing if the receivers are not designed around, but once the receivers have been designed around... But obviously you and I do not agree on this issue, so the judge will have to tell us who is right.

...DISH/SATS needs to prove they no longer infringe.

E* has done so IMO, again the judge will have the final say if they had done so or not.

...On receivers that have not been adjudicated, TiVo would need to prove infringement and mere colorable difference.

We have not reached that point yet, so far it is only about the adjudicated receivers.

...The problem is that DISH/SATS proof of "no longer infringing" also applies to the devices which have not been adjudicated. So that is why TiVo has asked Judge Folsom to find the unadjudicated receivers infringing.

But again as I said in the above posts, TiVo had failed to prove it. TiVo has to prove the E* design around still meets 9 out of 9 steps of its claim, so far TiVo only proved one of the 9 steps and stopped there. Not that TiVo forgot about the other 8 steps, rather they couldn't prove the other 8 steps.

 

[vampz26]

We have disagreed on this for the last 100th times, TiVo needs to prove nothing if the receivers are not designed around, but once the receivers have been designed around... But obviously you and I do not agree on this issue, so the judge will have to tell us who is right.

The judge can't tell you who is right or not. The judge can only tell you whom they think is right, and in spite of their authority could just as easily be wrong.

All of our opinion is as valid as the opinion of any judge...even yours.

Seriously, I couldn't care less about this 'rich mans game' E* and Tivo are playing...I just want my DVR, thats it. :up

 

[jacmyoung]

The judge can't tell you who is right or not. The judge can only tell you whom they think is right,

What's the difference?

...and in spite of their authority could just as easily be wrong.

Judges make mistakes too, but not as you say "as easily". The history of this case itself is a good example. And the reason parties can appeal is because judges make mistakes sometimes.

As a whole, parties in dispute on the other hand can "easily make mistakes", because there is about 50% chance one side will be wrong

...All of our opinion is as valid as the opinion of any judge...even yours.

Not so at all. Parties in dispute are most certainly biased, and judges' job is to make an unbiased decision based on law. By definition unbiased decisions carry more weight than biased opinions.

Seriously, I couldn't care less about this 'rich mans game' E* and Tivo are playing...I just want my DVR, thats it. :up

I agree, you do not have to care. You will continue to have your DVR.

 

[Greg Bimson]

I agree that we'll have to disagree. And the basis of the disagreement is this...

But again as I said in the above posts, TiVo had failed to prove it. TiVo has to prove the E* design around still meets 9 out of 9 steps of its claim, so far TiVo only proved one of the 9 steps and stopped there. Not that TiVo forgot about the other 8 steps, rather they couldn't prove the other 8 steps.

There were 4 million DVR's that were found to infringe as of April, 2006.

Who's job is it to determine those adjudicated no longer infringe? After all, once infringement is found, those devices will not be relitigated for infringement.

Therefore, it is DISH/SATS job to prove those no longer infringe. Their proof is that the 50X DVR's no longer have an index table to do analysis (but they still analyze data) and it is the only claim of non-infringement for that set of DVR's. Their proof is that the Broadcom DVR's, in addition to no longer having an index table (but they still analyze data) that they no longer self-regulate, while outside counsel says that the new software must keep up with the incoming flow of data (and therefore self-regulate).

TiVo does not need to prove infringement on receivers already adjudged to infringe. DISH/SATS needs to prove those no longer infringe, and that may not be enough to escape the disable order in the injunction.