Judge Stops Countersuit against TiVo

[waltinvt]

You own the box (hardware) but Dish owns the software(I think I remember this being true) and probably has the right to modify the software any way they wish.

Your hardware will still perform those functions you stated(with the right sw), so dish didn't destroy the item you own(hardware)... the hardware just won't perform the functions without their software which they have the right to destroy.

I would think buying the receiver constitutes a license to the software that makes it function.

Maybe not a perfect analogy but when you buy a computer with Windows XP pre-installed, is Microsoft allowed to enter your computer without your permission and make changes to the software that will render some of it's functions inoperable?

Has there ever been a case of a court issuing a "mandatory" recall of a product because some part of it's function was a patent infringement?

 

[long_time_DNC]

Problem is, with the 622, the majority of us lease the box, so Dish technically owns it. I suppose that means they can do whatever they want to the OS.

However, here's an interesting thought: if the 30-day deactivation of DVR functionality gets reinstated, what would happen if we all just set our preferences so that we have to permit the update? If we don't permit the update, the DVR functionality remains intact, correct?

 

[waltinvt]

Problem is, with the 622, the majority of us lease the box, so Dish technically owns it. I suppose that means they can do whatever they want to the OS.

However, here's an interesting thought: if the 30-day deactivation of DVR functionality gets reinstated, what would happen if we all just set our preferences so that we have to permit the update? If we don't permit the update, the DVR functionality remains intact, correct?

No. It's only an illusion of choice. Dish has circumvented that and forced downloads in the past.

 

[long_time_DNC]

Dang... Then what's the point of even offering that feature?

 

[BigFella]

You own the box (hardware) but Dish owns the software(I think I remember this being true) and probably has the right to modify the software any way they wish.

Your hardware will still perform those functions you stated(with the right sw), so dish didn't destroy the item you own(hardware)... the hardware just won't perform the functions without their software which they have the right to destroy.

So, (please pardon my ignorance) is the "alleged" patent infringement on the hardware or software side?

 

[long_time_DNC]

Probably a little of both...

 

[mdntblu]

No. It's only an illusion of choice. Dish has circumvented that and forced downloads in the past.

So bascially we just find out what day(s) these updates are being forced and make sure our boxes are unplugged.

 

[jdr01930]

" So, (please pardon my ignorance) is the "alleged" patent infringement on the hardware or software side?"

Good question - you can actually read the Tivo patents online.
There's tons of them, and I've only had time to read a few, but they seem to be IDEAS, not hardware or software. Basically I think they patented the concept of recording broadcasts to a hard drive, then patented the idea of "pausing" and "rewinding" live TV off of those recordings while they are in progress.
Personally, I don't find those "ideas" unique or propriatary - I think they were just the next logical step in technology. What made it possible was the decreasing price and increasing performance of hard drives, chipsets, etc, which has finally made it possible to manufacture DVR devices at price/performance levels that make them feasible for the mass/home market.

I saw no real specifics on how to program and implement them, other than a hard drive is used.
(hence my earlier (sarcastic) comment about patenting a nitrogen/oxygen mixture and sueing people who don't pay me to breath.

Go to:

http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html

and search for Tivo - or better yet, try to find what the actual patent #'s in question are and look them up directly (I haven't gone that far yet - found one matched by name though)

 

[ZawNH-VT]

Directv with Tivo is still better then any dish DVR delals.

For the fact that you have to pay $5 DVR FEE for Each DVR. Where with DTV with Tivo you only have to pay one Tivo fee and you can have as much as Tivo in your house that you want.
I have 2 Tivo in my account and if I switch to Echo i'll definitely will have to pay for less DVR.
No Thanks.

 

[gdarwin]

Directv with Tivo is still better then any dish DVR delals.

For the fact that you have to pay $5 DVR FEE for Each DVR. Where with DTV with Tivo you only have to pay one Tivo fee and you can have as much as Tivo in your house that you want.
I have 2 Tivo in my account and if I switch to Echo i'll definitely will have to pay for less DVR.
No Thanks.

Depends on your level of programming... I just checked my bill and I pay no DVR fees for either of mine...

 

[mdntblu]

" So, (please pardon my ignorance) is the "alleged" patent infringement on the hardware or software side?"

Good question - you can actually read the Tivo patents online.
There's tons of them, and I've only had time to read a few, but they seem to be IDEAS, not hardware or software. Basically I think they patented the concept of recording broadcasts to a hard drive, then patented the idea of "pausing" and "rewinding" live TV off of those recordings while they are in progress.
Personally, I don't find those "ideas" unique or propriatary - I think they were just the next logical step in technology. What made it possible was the decreasing price and increasing performance of hard drives, chipsets, etc, which has finally made it possible to manufacture DVR devices at price/performance levels that make them feasible for the mass/home market.

I saw no real specifics on how to program and implement them, other than a hard drive is used.
(hence my earlier (sarcastic) comment about patenting a nitrogen/oxygen mixture and sueing people who don't pay me to breath.

Go to:

http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html

and search for Tivo - or better yet, try to find what the actual patent #'s in question are and look them up directly (I haven't gone that far yet - found one matched by name though)

It's just the same how a subsidiary company of Chevron has tons of patents on battery technology that makes it impossible for automakers to make electric cars cost effective. The only patents they don't have are ones for lithium batteries but to make a fully electric car using lithium batteries it would cost like $100,000 and who's going to buy that. It's a strange thing but it's being done in other industries as well.

 

[x3ro]

It's just the same how a subsidiary company of Chevron has tons of patents on battery technology that makes it impossible for automakers to make electric cars cost effective. The only patents they don't have are ones for lithium batteries but to make a fully electric car using lithium batteries it would cost like $100,000 and who's going to buy that. It's a strange thing but it's being done in other industries as well.

True.

I think it's ridiculous that the government lets this happen.. It basically stalwarts US technological AND economical advancement.

 

[long_time_DNC]

It puts innovation right up against a brick wall. What a bunch of (wealthy) idiots...