Court Says Dish is not in violation of Injunction

How many times are people going to say that TIVO invented being able to record a show while you watch another, how many people here had a VCR in the 80s. you could record one show while watching something else with them, you just had to split your cable connection so it went to both. same thing really. just TIVO made it happen in their box, not behind your tv.

So unless TIVO was around in the 80s can we stop saying this.
 
How many times are people going to say that TIVO invented being able to record a show while you watch another, how many people here had a VCR in the 80s. you could record one show while watching something else with them, you just had to split your cable connection so it went to both. same thing really. just TIVO made it happen in their box, not behind your tv.

So unless TIVO was around in the 80s can we stop saying this.

So you could watch the show currently being recorded from the beginning while the remainder is still recording? I sure wish I had one of those VCR's back then.
 
You can say whatever you want, but the idea of recording one show while watch another or watch a show paused WAS TIVO'S IDEA and was patented. It might seem second nature now but back then, it was a unique concept and that's what made it patentable. You can't come back 3 years later and say it is common now, so the patent doesnt apply
There were three separate and distinct DVR products introduced at the 1999 Consumer Electronics Show. The Tivo, ReplayTV, and a product from Dish Network called the DishPlayer 7100 (a Microsoft WebTV based recorder).

Tivo does not have the patent on DVR functionality either. They patented their way of accomplishing it, and they sued Dish Network because they felt that Dish was infringing on that patent, not the broader concept of DVR-ing in general.

"In 1985, an employee of Honeywell’s Physical Sciences Center, David Rafner, first described a drive-based DVR designed for home TV recording, time-slipping, and commercial skipping. U.S. Patent 4,972,396 focused on a multi-channel design to allow simultaneous independent recording and playback. Broadly anticipating future DVR developments, it describes possible applications such as streaming compression, editing, captioning, multi-channel security monitoring, military sensor platforms, and remotely piloted vehicles."

So, it was hardly "Tivo's idea".
 
the truth doesn't matter. It's what you can get the patent office to agree to, followed by a judge who couldn't get his VCR to stop blinking 12:00 AM who decides these things....
 
the truth doesn't matter. It's what you can get the patent office to agree to, followed by a judge who couldn't get his VCR to stop blinking 12:00 AM who decides these things....
rofl.gif
 
the truth doesn't matter. It's what you can get the patent office to agree to, followed by a judge who couldn't get his VCR to stop blinking 12:00 AM who decides these things....
Don't forget the non-technical jury that was asked to understand very complicated programming and mathematical concepts along with hardware and CPU design.:(
 
So you could watch the show currently being recorded from the beginning while the remainder is still recording? I sure wish I had one of those VCR's back then.

That is not what people are saying, they are saying TIVO invented watching a show while you recorded another. that is the part I was talking about. read everything I said, and don't try to expand on it.

Go Video made a dual deck VCR that could record on one tape while watching another.

Sure the pause and rewind while you continue is new, but you have to seperate out all the claims, then attack each one, and being able to record a show while watching another is not new by any means
 
That is not what people are saying, they are saying TIVO invented watching a show while you recorded another. that is the part I was talking about. read everything I said, and don't try to expand on it.

Go Video made a dual deck VCR that could record on one tape while watching another.

Sure the pause and rewind while you continue is new, but you have to seperate out all the claims, then attack each one, and being able to record a show while watching another is not new by any means

The patent is for Trick-play features. A VCR can not do this.
 
The patent is for Trick-play features. A VCR can not do this.

I know this, but my comments where directed at Philhu, if you read what he stated you will see why I said what I did. everyone keeps saying Tivo invented watching one show while recording another, and anyone with half a brain, can see that they did not.

Did they advance the DVR, sure, but should they get to have a monopoly on the DVR,
No.
 
I know this, but my comments where directed at Philhu, if you read what he stated you will see why I said what I did. everyone keeps saying Tivo invented watching one show while recording another, and anyone with half a brain, can see that they did not.

Did they advance the DVR, sure, but should they get to have a monopoly on the DVR,
No.

Really? Do you remember the instant camera? Polariod sued Kodak and won. Polariod had the patent on instant film cameras and Kodak had to stop selling them. So Polariod was the only ones that could make them.

TiVo's DVR's could get the same ruling.
 
You might remember that two days before the injunction was to go into effect Dish Network CEO Charlie Ergen pulled an ace out of his sleave and announced that hewas leasing a transponder to National Programming Service (NPS) so that NPS could sell Distant Networks too Dish Network customers.

You can read the full court document by clicking here!


Do you guys think theres a chance that the NPS could sell Distant Networks too Dish Network customers in High Definition?

 
There's always a chance. They don't seem interested in doing it so far though...


That may very well change now that this lawsuit clears the way for them to continue what they have already. A couple of months after they started this "arrangement" there was word that NPS did not want to upgrade capacity on what they already have until this was settled.

Now that it's settled, let's see what they do.
 
Actually, I think Kodak was using Polaroid's chemical processes. If they would have come up with their own, completely different chemistry, they likely could have continued. They didn't lose because they made an instant camera. They lost because they produced instant prints pretty much the same way Polaroid did.