The difference here is that other providers can survive without licensing the technology behind the TiVo Season Pass Manager.
DISH Network and Echostar Statement Regarding PTO Ruling
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 145
- Views 21K
Very true, but I don't see how most seaon pass/scheduling functions (E*, D*, Comcast, FiOS, etc.) don't violation the Season Pass Manager patent. It's just more ammunition for Tivo to go after the ViP series DVRs...unless that patent gets overturned. Of course, I don't see this happening since the Season Pass Manager was reviewed by the USPTO 10-years prior to award. Regardless, the only way Tivo is going away is through a licensing agreement or purchase/merger.
from previous threads it sounds like nearly $100 million or so that Dish paid to TIVO is gone for good.
It appears there are a few hundred million more on the line that hasn't been released to TIVO yet as this case hasn't been completed. This patent invalidation could give Dish some room to work. That money could be in limbo for a while as this may drag on for a few more years.
Nope. Also the current case is not affected by this either, and if damages are awarded for the continued infringement, they are TiVos to keep. Essentially once a case is decided and all appeals are done, it is over. It keeps the courts from having to constantly reopening old cases every time someone finds something new. And as stated previously, as far as the courts are concerned the patent is still valid. The current case will be decided before the patent is finally invalidated (if it ever is).
I love how everyone corrects Dicken's grammar.
The true quote is:
"The law is a ass".
OK, while I don't agree with that, philosophically, I'll accept it.
So, that adds to the incentive for Dish to buy out Tivo. Since Tivo still has that money in their bank, Dish buying Tivo could, make a bargaining point that it could regain that cash through purchase. Unfortunately, that argument would only hold weight with Dish stock holders because based on what you say, the money is gone as far as Dish is concerned.
One more option question. Does anyone know if a similar situation resulted in a counter suit and win to get money paid out, back?
So, that adds to the incentive for Dish to buy out Tivo. Since Tivo still has that money in their bank, Dish buying Tivo could, make a bargaining point that it could regain that cash through purchase. Unfortunately, that argument would only hold weight with Dish stock holders because based on what you say, the money is gone as far as Dish is concerned.
One more option question. Does anyone know if a similar situation resulted in a counter suit and win to get money paid out, back?
The appeals court can take the PTO action into account when they hear arguments on the contempt ruling. I'm sure E* will highlight the PTO's comments about the use of start codes and indexes that made the invalidated Time Warp patent work. E* argued to Judge Folsom that the software modifications that were made did not infringe the Time Warp patent specifically because it did not use start codes or indexes. The PTO stated that the Time Warp patent definitely used the start codes and indexes and those processes were based on prior art and therefore not patentable without adding some new process to the mix. TIVO had agrued before Judge Folsom that the start codes and indexes were not vital for the Time Warp to work and Folsom bought their argument. Judge Rader noted the conflict in his dissent. Now the PTO says Time Warp can't work without them and is based on prior art.
The ONLY good thing I see from an early E* buyout of TiVo is that Dish might fix my "skip back" button sooner.
4 sure
It is for sure that E* will use this in addressing the issue during the en banc. It may get any decision delayed until the TIVO PTO is final. In the mean time most likely TIVO stock is going to continue on the downward trend making them ripe for a buy out by someone. E*, Google or someone else could pick them up on the real cheap. This is pretty much put the major hurt in TIVO being able to collect anything from anyone until the appeal of the PTO decision is at the final end and no appeals are left to them. I have a feeling that TIVO will be gone before as the board is now looking a near worth value of a company that is losing it's patents. I glad of this as I have never cared much for the way TIVO ran it's business.
It is for sure that E* will use this in addressing the issue during the en banc. It may get any decision delayed until the TIVO PTO is final. In the mean time most likely TIVO stock is going to continue on the downward trend making them ripe for a buy out by someone. E*, Google or someone else could pick them up on the real cheap. This is pretty much put the major hurt in TIVO being able to collect anything from anyone until the appeal of the PTO decision is at the final end and no appeals are left to them. I have a feeling that TIVO will be gone before as the board is now looking a near worth value of a company that is losing it's patents. I glad of this as I have never cared much for the way TIVO ran it's business.
Just exactly what is the crux of the "time warp" concept that allowed a patent in the first place. Since virtually everything in a DVR evolved from the basic VCR (or basic recording) concept, how difficult would it be for all recording procedures and ideas to evolve from them? Even us laymen could conceive the ideas even though it would take software engineers to implement them. While I believe in protecting innovation, I'm not for the idea of just being first in lieu of being first AND unique. Obviously I'm missing something and would really appreciate enlightenment.
The Time Warp patent (or the '389 patent) allows you to view a program while you are recording it and then "skip back" or "skip forward" through the recording. Originally the PTO agreed with TIVO that this was a new process but has since decided that it is just based on prior art. TIVO will now have to show the PTO how the Time Warp patent is a new process and not just an enhancement of prior art if it wants the decision to be overturned.
Thanks Voyager6.
Kind of what I thought. Just another case of simple logic being muddled by lawyers and our legal system. And, as usual, the only ones to benefit will be the lawyers, but it does keep them off the streets.
TIVO reached the height of desperation when they teamed with Nero on Liquid TV (only thing liquid about it was the foreseen conclusion of the whole thing going down the drain). Hopefully they'll have the sense now to salvage what they can.
Kind of what I thought. Just another case of simple logic being muddled by lawyers and our legal system. And, as usual, the only ones to benefit will be the lawyers, but it does keep them off the streets.
TIVO reached the height of desperation when they teamed with Nero on Liquid TV (only thing liquid about it was the foreseen conclusion of the whole thing going down the drain). Hopefully they'll have the sense now to salvage what they can.
Going down
Stock price of TIVO continues to tumble From a high of almost 19 now to below 7.25. The lowest that it has been since sometime in 08. Just dropped to 7.16 and still headed down.
Stock price of TIVO continues to tumble From a high of almost 19 now to below 7.25. The lowest that it has been since sometime in 08. Just dropped to 7.16 and still headed down.
Last edited:
One of the main component of the patent infringement charge is use of the "Barton Media Switch"--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.
Multimedia time warping system - Google Patent Search
Dish says they dont use a "Barton Media Switch", TIVO says they do. Judge Folsom says tells the jury it doesnt have to be copied to infring. Judge Folsom also states the methods are only colorably different
retirement time
It's time for Folsom to retire. He doesn't know squat about technology and yet he keeps ruling on it. To him a VCR is probably only colorably different. They both record programs and can shuttle back & forth.
It's time for Folsom to retire. He doesn't know squat about technology and yet he keeps ruling on it. To him a VCR is probably only colorably different. They both record programs and can shuttle back & forth.
Seems like some folks don't understand that its impossible to violate a patent is that patent no longer exists.
They keep bring up this Judge Folsom crap over and over again, but if Judge Folsom did his job correctly there would be no En banc hearing. At this point it doesnt matter what Judge Folsom said.
And ultimately if there is no patent then it doesn't matter anyways.
Thats my opinion on it anyways.
They keep bring up this Judge Folsom crap over and over again, but if Judge Folsom did his job correctly there would be no En banc hearing. At this point it doesnt matter what Judge Folsom said.
And ultimately if there is no patent then it doesn't matter anyways.
Thats my opinion on it anyways.
If I committed a crime last week, and this week the legislature voted to change the law so that my action last week is no longer a crime, wouldn't they still prosecute me based on what the law was at the time?
Even though the patent may no longer be in effect, it was in effect at the time of the alleged violation. Can't they still be forced to pay for violation even though the patent is now invalidated? (Just not pay for any violation that would have occurred after the patent was invalidated?)
en banc
This is part of what will be brought out(I'm sure) in the en banc. If it is ruled that the patent is no longer valid or that the proceedings will be tabled until the appeal is done then it will be a stalemate until that time. The patent can not be enforced while in limbo. I really do think that all will be put on hold until the appeal of the PTO decision has run it's course.
This is part of what will be brought out(I'm sure) in the en banc. If it is ruled that the patent is no longer valid or that the proceedings will be tabled until the appeal is done then it will be a stalemate until that time. The patent can not be enforced while in limbo. I really do think that all will be put on hold until the appeal of the PTO decision has run it's course.
E*'s original software for the listed DVR's was found to infringe. It was appealed all the way to the SC. That verdict is final. What's in question is the modified software. Folsom said that it still infringes and E* was in contempt of his injunction. E* has gotten the full appeals court to hear the appeal of the contempt verdict. Getting the TIVO patent invalidated by the PTO can only help E*'s appeal. It does matter what Folsom ruled because the appeals court can throw out the contempt verdict and have Folsom retry the case.
