Appeals Court Finds Echostar in Contempt in TIVO Case

[Albie2]

I assume you are not aware that DISH invited TiVo in to show off there wares under the premise the two would work towards a partnership. Then DISH reverse engineered one of their devices (that TiVo loaned them) and looked at the source code; afterward, DISH decided they didn't need TiVo and could develop their own in-house DVR. So given those details, to me it sure seems that DISH stole TiVo's intellectual property -- and courts seem to agree.

Like Greg said, DISH was late to the DVR partly and not developing their DVR technology at the same time as TiVo (and ReplyTV) were.

And this is fact or just accepted assumption because the prototype ended up "missing"?

 

[Albie2]

What happened to ReplyTV lifetime users when they went belly up? That might give you a clue to what might happen with TiVo if that were to ever happen.

Still being supplied guide data by some arm of D&M holdings (The company that bought Replay when Sonic Blue became bankrupt). Obviously no software updates though. I would assume the same would happen should TIVO become bankrupt.

 

[STL]

And this is fact or just accepted assumption because the prototype ended up "missing"?

To look at the code (and disassemble it) the hardware doesn't have to go missing.

Based on articles I've read (and original claims in the lawsuit), DISH does appear to have helped themselves to a TiVo device which was subsequently reverse engineered. They only reason they had the device in the first place was because DISH made it appear they wanted to partner -- but instead they pilfered. DISH has already change 5000 of the 10000 lines of their DVR source code because the original code was very similar (or in some cases was identical) to the TiVo code.

 

[TheKrell]

Based on articles I've read (and original claims in the lawsuit), DISH does appear to have helped themselves to a TiVo device which was subsequently reverse engineered.

I am sure that is what Tivo claims, but I don't think we know this and in my professional judgement it's unlikely. It's also immaterial to the case since outright copying or accidentally replicating Tivo's IP doesn't really matter. Was Tivo's method reproduced by Dish software or not? According to the court, it was, and Dish was at fault and had to pay the penalty for this mistake.

I think you told us you were an engineer. How easy would it be for you to reverse engineer a DVR such as Tivo's? Having disassembled machine code of another embedded system (a networked media player), I can tell you it's hellishly difficult to figure out what it's doing when looking at thousands of pages of op codes. There is no room for source code or (more to the point) source code comments in an embedded device such as a Tivo. It's much MUCH easier to write original source code. I think the way Dish managed to duplicate Tivo's IP was by using the same hardware and looking at hardware spec sheets. It was probably pretty obvious to Dish engineers how to implement trick play when looking at those spec sheets.

 

[STL]

I am sure that is what Tivo claims, but I don't think we know this and in my professional judgement it's unlikely. It's also immaterial to the case since outright copying or accidentally replicating Tivo's IP doesn't really matter. Was Tivo's method reproduced by Dish software or not? According to the court, it was, and Dish was at fault and had to pay the penalty for this mistake.

True, but is somewhat of a smoking gun.

I think you told us you were an engineer. How easy would it be for you to reverse engineer a DVR such as Tivo's? Having disassembled machine code of another embedded system (a networked media player), I can tell you it's hellishly difficult to figure out what it's doing when looking at thousands of pages of op codes. There is no room for source code or (more to the point) source code comments in an embedded device such as a Tivo. It's much MUCH easier to write original source code. I think the way Dish managed to duplicate Tivo's IP was by using the same hardware and looking at hardware spec sheets. It was probably pretty obvious to Dish engineers how to implement trick play when looking at those spec sheets.

Good memory. I myself haven't looked at a lot of disassembled code, but I agree the stuff I have looked at is rather devilish to read. But I have found quite a few people who are seemingly disassemblying and playing with TiVo code on the internet -- so I don't doubt DISH's people couldn't have done the same. You are probably correct in that they likely did get a good enough picture of the code to directly copy it, but I don't think it's not beyond the realm of possibility they learned some things that helped them (and likely could have avoided a lot of problems that TiVo had already had to work through in their development). Even that would still be theft of intellectual property.

Speaking of reverse engineering, I was recently surprised to find out someone has cracked Apple's (iTunes) Lossless Decoder so that now you can find encoders/decoders for this proprietary format on the internet (or at least source code for them).

 

[mike123abc]

Well said. And Dish receive some fairly strong support from the Patent Office last summer regarding the validity of the TIVO patents.
Yahoo! Message Boards - TiVo Inc. (TIVO) - TIVO's PATENT CLAIMS NOW REJECTED! (Claims: 31, 61. US PATENT OFFICE IN 08/2009)

This means nothing unfortunately until there is a final ruling from the Patent Office which could take years. The patent is still in full effect, TiVo has to defend the patent against the unfavorable outcome of the review. If TiVo manages to defend the patent, it will be like this never happened.

The way the system works Dish will still owe all the money and damages even if the patent is eventually thrown out. Just no new damages after the thrown out date.

 

[TheForce]

Then DISH reverse engineered one of their devices (that TiVo loaned them) and looked at the source code; afterward, DISH decided they didn't need TiVo and could develop their own in-house DVR. So given those details, to me it sure seems that DISH stole TiVo's intellectual property -- and courts seem to agree.

Given what details? Sounds to me you fabricated a piece of fascinating imaginative fiction of an industrial espionage story for Hollywood. Were you working for Dish at the time and have knowledge of this theft?

You said-

They only reason they had the device in the first place was because DISH made it appear they wanted to partner -- but instead they pilfered.

Pretty strong accusation, where's your proof?
Show me the evidence, the proof, the theft record... else I consider your claims complete fictional fabrication, even if you did read them on the internet, doesn't make a story they pilfered the device during a demo true.

I think Greg has it right, developing your own code from a hardware collection is as easy as reading the tech sheets.
Ever heard of Avid? FAST VM DVR? Matrox? Probably not. All three of these companies had DVR devices beginning in the late 80's and throughout the mid 90's. LOOOOONg before Replay too. The DVR was never an invention of TIVO, nor Replay. It was being used for TV editing long before TIVO was even a company. This is why I hold very little respect for their so called IP. Fact is they, like I said, TIVO has those patents NOT because it was their IP but because the USPO is basically broke and TIVO got lucky in their fooling them. TIVO invented nothing new. They created a cute graphical user interface to operate a technology invented long before. I give them that but not the IP of the system.

 

[STL]

... doesn't make a story they pilfered the device during a demo true.

They didn't pilfer the device -- they stole the intellectual property inside it (while TiVo had loaned it to them). Despite what you believe, economic espionage is very real -- you might try reading this:
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Espionage_Act_of_1996"]Economic Espionage Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Many companies give yearly training on it -- which they wouldn't be spending the money on unless it was real.

I think Greg has it right, developing your own code from a hardware collection is as easy as reading the tech sheets.

So it sounds like software engineers should be a dime a dozen because their job is so simple. The market doesn't agree with you here either. Maybe stealing intellectual property is easier than creating it.

Ever heard of Avid? FAST VM DVR? Matrox? Probably not. All three of these companies had DVR devices beginning in the late 80's and throughout the mid 90's. LOOOOONg before Replay too. The DVR was never an invention of TIVO, nor Replay. It was being used for TV editing long before TIVO was even a company.

Sounds like they should have applied for a patent and made a consumer device. LOL

TIVO has those patents NOT because it was their IP but because the USPO is basically broke and TIVO got lucky in their fooling them.

And this is all opinion with no basis in fact. Believe what you want, but so far the courts seem to agree that DISH willfully infringed.

 

[Ghpr13]

What TiVo really did was make the DVR a household word...bringing that technology to the mainstream public...and by using that "cute" and simple interface, was able to brand time shift recording as "TiVo it"...just like Xerox did with copiers.

Ghpr13

 

[SandFarmer]

"If" DISH sucks up TiVo we could get . . .

. . . HP MediaSmart add-in adds TiVo compatibility, enables video transfers to and fro

I would imagine that this might be why the 922 is delayed and the fact that I personally feel DISH is really missing some major boats on new technology. That's unless they are planning on "acquiring it" otherwise.

 

[mike123abc]

The TiVo patent was never a patent on the concept of the DVR. It is just a software algorithm for implementing a DVR in an efficient software manner. This is for back in the days when compute power could barely keep up with video. It allowed cheap CPUs to do the work.

 

[whatchel1]

expensive

Sounds like they should have applied for a patent and made a consumer device.

They have the patents but wasn't practical for home use. The companies used equipment that consumers couldn't afford back then. So it only made sense to sell to broadcast stations, cable, educational institutions, & commercial video facilities. Avid's licensing is still so high that Adobe (premiere pro) came out with a product that is just as good and much less expensive.

 

[etrin]

The only thing wrong is how they continue to let dish steal after they were caught doing it.
MAKE them sign and start using tivos....
The moron that made the statement that dish dvr is better than tivo ....NEVER used a tivo.
Hell they stole all the basics from tivo...if you are going to steal, steal it all.
They could have called it a Divo

 

[whatchel1]

BS

The only thing wrong is how they continue to let dish steal after they were caught doing it.
MAKE them sign and start using tivos....
The moron that made the statement that dish dvr is better than tivo ....NEVER used a tivo.
Hell they stole all the basics from tivo...if you are going to steal, steal it all.
They could have called it a Divo

Each to his own but I like the E* DVR better than the TIVO. Yes I've used TIVO in fact I installed the 1st one in the Seattle area at the distributor of TIVO back then. I don't like much about TIVO as a recorder and hate the way they treat the general public. They seem to have the idea that they are the only one's that should have the right to sell DVR's.

 

[riffjim4069]

The only thing wrong is how they continue to let dish steal after they were caught doing it.
MAKE them sign and start using tivos....
The moron that made the statement that dish dvr is better than tivo ....NEVER used a tivo.
Hell they stole all the basics from tivo...if you are going to steal, steal it all.
They could have called it a Divo

Obviously Tivo didn't let E* get away with anything as they are now paying a heafty price. As much as we love our TivoHD, we loved our Dish Network 622's just a little bit more...and I have probably used 15 HD DVR models over the past few years. I have no doubt that E* violated the patents that Tivo was awarded, but I also recognize that EchoStar's DVR engineers (hardware and software) did a lot of work to improve their products. It's too bad DishHD-Lite is so terribly watered-down.

Anyway, I got a kick out of the word "Divo" although "Devo" would have been a better name.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbt30UnzRWw]YouTube - Devo "Whip It"[/ame]

 

[Mark A Sparks]

Anyway, I got a kick out of the word "Divo" although "Devo" would have been a better name.

YouTube - Devo "Whip It"

A Classic :up

 

[space86]

TVPredictions today is saying that Dish might have to
turn off 8 million DVR's

 

[Bobby]

TV Predicitions, AKA Swann doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

 

[KAB]

TV Predicitions, AKA Swann doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

And he's just repeating the erroneous info from Reuters.

 

[Kheldar]

And he's just repeating the erroneous info from Reuters.

Unfortunately, once an error is repeated often enough on the Internet, especially by a usually-trustworthy source like Reuters, it seems to become "fact".