Social Feed

Uh, TiVo did offer licensing to Dish Network just like everyone else. It appears that when Dish Network decided to do their in-house version of the TiVo DVR, they used technology which TiVo patented.

That is why the lawsuit came about; that is why the jury found Dish Network guilty of violating TiVo's patents.

Greg Bimson said:

Uh, TiVo did offer licensing to Dish Network just like everyone else. It appears that when Dish Network decided to do their in-house version of the TiVo DVR, they used technology which TiVo patented.

That is why the lawsuit came about; that is why the jury found Dish Network guilty of violating TiVo's patents.

Click to expand...

There is the broader problem with the issuance of overly broad patents though too. IMO, the TiVo patent's are too broad and as such anyone creating a DVR would be infringent, even if literally no TiVo technology was used.

Let's be honest, the concept of storing a digital datastream for future use is not a new one which is what everything but analog OTA is doing with Dish's (or DirecTV) DVRs. All of the satellite streams are digital as are OTA HD streams.

Skip ahead (and back) X Seconds is a bit trickier as the data rate is variable, but you have to ask yourself if it's truly novel to do this on a digital datastream. That's supposed to be one of the fundamental checks on whether something is capable of being patented. This is borderline for patent IMO.

The TiVo UI certainly wasn't copied.

Now granted, I am not a patent lawyer and I don't play one on the internet. I've just had some of my work reviewed for patents. Only one made it past internal review.

Cheers,

Man, is it a pain in the ass to be successful. Dish needs to grease the judge hands. I will never go back to direct tv. I just have to get my replay tv out of the closet.

John Kotches said:

There is the broader problem with the issuance of overly broad patents though too. IMO, the TiVo patent's are too broad and as such anyone creating a DVR would be infringent, even if literally no TiVo technology was used.

Click to expand...

It is all part of the patent game. You invent a new air freshener, so you file a patent that claims the concepts of atmosphere, breathing, perphones, and finally "a method of blocking offensive perphones by masking techniques" which is what you wanted in the first place. You file the broad claims because no matter what you file, the examiner feels compelled to reject your broadest claims. You negotiate down until both sides agree on the claims. If you start too specific, you end up losing essential claims. Been there.

Often stuff does end up too broad. That's what the courts contribute. Charlie should have immediately filed the broad claim suit as soon as the infringement suit was filed. He waited until judgement and is now a couple of years behind.

One thing we have to be careful about here is where to direct our anger. I kind of love listening to you guys talk out of both sides of your mouth in that 1. Nothing here is innovative and 2. DVRs have changed the way we watch TV. You can't have it both ways. There sure is innovation here. The claims being discussed may be too broad, but you can sure as heck be guaranteed that there are more specific claims that WILL stand underneath the ones that get the publicity.

As for simply buying TIVO, sure why not? But don't expect Charlie to get a bargain rate on the deal. You need to factor in the judgement into the net worth of TIVO. If Charlie buys TIVO it becomes a threat to D* in two ways. First they have their own TIVO IP licenses that they wouldn't want to go to Charlie. Second, if Charlie tries a lowball buyout, Rupert or someone else will put in a higher bid simply because the value of the judgement is an asset. Either way, Charlie pays.

Remember the Lotus/Visicalc lawsuit? Lotus had long since driven Visicalc into bankruptcy. The suit was not brought by Visicalc prncipals, but by the peole who bought the patents from the bankruptcy settlement. Even if TIVO gets sold or goes belly up, this suit won't go away.

Finally, lets talk about how this all affects us. Everybody seems to be mad at TIVO, and applauding Charlie for standing up to him. However, we get pretty much the same services as D* at about the same price and with essentially the same hardware features. When any of these issues comes up D* imeiately settles and gets on with their lives. Charlie ALWAYS fights. One pays royalties, the other pays lawyers. I would think that Charlies strategy is effective because he is the sixth richest American and Rupert owns the 'turd bird', but what does it matter to us? D* subscribers get their features without drama. We are always in angst about someting that is in danger of being cut off. Seems to me that our anger should be more with Charlie because he is the one that is causing this drama. Forget that BS about keeping our rates low. The market is going to determine the rates, not these lawsits. The ONLY thing being affected is E* dividends and stock price.

jayn_j said:

...Finally, lets talk about how this all affects us. Everybody seems to be mad at TIVO, and applauding Charlie for standing up to him. However, we get pretty much the same services as D* at about the same price and with essentially the same hardware features. When any of these issues comes up D* imeiately settles and gets on with their lives. Charlie ALWAYS fights. One pays royalties, the other pays lawyers. I would think that Charlies strategy is effective because he is the sixth richest American and Rupert owns the 'turd bird', but what does it matter to us? D* subscribers get their features without drama. We are always in angst about someting that is in danger of being cut off. Seems to me that our anger should be more with Charlie because he is the one that is causing this drama. Forget that BS about keeping our rates low. The market is going to determine the rates, not these lawsits. The ONLY thing being affected is E* dividends and stock price.

Click to expand...

That is exactly right. Seems were always just one shoe drop away from something signifcantly impacting our service. Maybe Direct keeps things closer to the chest and we don't hear all the nonsense. And maybe that's a good thing. Seems like every day I turn the my DVR on, I'm wondering what channel(s) are going to be missing or if it is going to work. Who needs it ??

jayn_j said:

It is all part of the patent game. You invent a new air freshener, so you file a patent that claims the concepts of atmosphere, breathing, perphones, and finally "a method of blocking offensive perphones by masking techniques" which is what you wanted in the first place. You file the broad claims because no matter what you file, the examiner feels compelled to reject your broadest claims. You negotiate down until both sides agree on the claims. If you start too specific, you end up losing essential claims. Been there.

Click to expand...

This is a problem with the process though. The process should not be such that claims beyond what are truly unique and novel (and therefore possible to patent) are necessary in the claim.

I've had some of my work reviewed for patent; but in the end there was similar prior art of concern. Ahh the beauties of having review committees.

Often stuff does end up too broad. That's what the courts contribute. Charlie should have immediately filed the broad claim suit as soon as the infringement suit was filed. He waited until judgement and is now a couple of years behind.

Click to expand...

See above re: the process is broken.

One thing we have to be careful about here is where to direct our anger. I kind of love listening to you guys talk out of both sides of your mouth in that 1. Nothing here is innovative and 2. DVRs have changed the way we watch TV. You can't have it both ways. There sure is innovation here. The claims being discussed may be too broad, but you can sure as heck be guaranteed that there are more specific claims that WILL stand underneath the ones that get the publicity.

Click to expand...

Ive never said that there is nothing innovative. What I have said is that the issuance of the TiVo patents are too broad and cover areas that are neither innovative, unique or novel.

It's the UI (IMO) that is the unique and novel ingredient; it certainly isn't the basic underlying concept of storing and playing back a datastream.

The value of the judgement would likely be reduced based on how many overly broad patents are taken away.

As for simply buying TIVO, sure why not? But don't expect Charlie to get a bargain rate on the deal. You need to factor in the judgement into the net worth of TIVO. If Charlie buys TIVO it becomes a threat to D* in two ways. First they have their own TIVO IP licenses that they wouldn't want to go to Charlie. Second, if Charlie tries a lowball buyout, Rupert or someone else will put in a higher bid simply because the value of the judgement is an asset. Either way, Charlie pays.

Click to expand...

A settlement that may not be forthcoming due to further impending litigation. That is the rub. Less now for the settlement (as part of a purchase price) rather than protracted litigation for a company struggling financially is not a bad thing.

Remember the Lotus/Visicalc lawsuit? Lotus had long since driven Visicalc into bankruptcy. The suit was not brought by Visicalc prncipals, but by the peole who bought the patents from the bankruptcy settlement. Even if TIVO gets sold or goes belly up, this suit won't go away.

Click to expand...

Depending on who buys the relevant IP.

Finally, lets talk about how this all affects us. Everybody seems to be mad at TIVO, and applauding Charlie for standing up to him.

Click to expand...

You're painting with too broad a brush. I'm not mad at TiVo -- the system is flawed. That's where I've complained. That TiVo understands and uses the system isn't a problem per se.

However, we get pretty much the same services as D* at about the same price and with essentially the same hardware features. When any of these issues comes up D* imeiately settles and gets on with their lives. Charlie ALWAYS fights. One pays royalties, the other pays lawyers. I would think that Charlies strategy is effective because he is the sixth richest American and Rupert owns the 'turd bird', but what does it matter to us?

Click to expand...

We don't know enough about the details to know what the upfront terms were; nor what they (E*) spent on litigation.

D* doesn't take the same path; and it's clear that both are equally valid. In terms of results; what do the bottom lines say?

D* subscribers get their features without drama. We are always in angst about someting that is in danger of being cut off. Seems to me that our anger should be more with Charlie because he is the one that is causing this drama. Forget that BS about keeping our rates low. The market is going to determine the rates, not these lawsits. The ONLY thing being affected is E* dividends and stock price.

Click to expand...

His approach has been very effective in the past, it's too soon to tell what happens with this until all the various levels of litigation are complete.

Cheers,

Hi John,

Please understand that I wasn't attacking you personally, or your post in particular. These discussions have been going on for several years now, with a lot of people claiming the patents are invalid because they will be inconvenienced if E* loses. Not a good argument.

I also own DVRs and will be inconvienced as well. I don't like it one little bit. I'm also pretty sure it won't come to that.

Yes, I agree the patent process is broken on many levels. In 1992 it cost approximately $5k to get me a patent with attorney and filing fees. I am currently being quoted around $20-25k for a simple patent if there are no issues (and there always are) That doesn't count the fact that a very high number now go into litigation after they are granted. However, I stand by the earlier statement that initial claims must be too broad because of the system.