Much of the discussion here is baseless because the validity of the patent is based on the claims made and the suit based on how E* infringed on that claimed technology.
Now, I'm no patent attorney but I have been involved with the "invention process with patent attorneys. I know this, to see the flaws in many of the interpretations made in this thread one must go to the source. I used the quick links provided in this thread. Having read the patent claim here is what I see in reference to some of the posts-
The claim is for a "Time Warp" method to be able to watch one TV program while recording another at the same time for later viewing. To patent a "Time Warp" is not permitted because this could be just a general fundamental technology such as patent a car, which would prevent anyone else from making a car. Instead, a patent must be more specific and claim a "car" uses a specific technology. This is what I see Tivo did in their patent claim for "Time Warp"
The specific claims made are:
1. The use of a particular compression scheme MPEG. (Now the way I read this is that it doesn't matter whether it is MPEG 2 or 4, both would be covered. However, the claim that others (Tektronix) did this before TIVO is true but their technology may have used different compression scheme, such as MJPEG. I did not look up Tektronix, but I can say that in the late 80's and early 90's several companies had released a claim of "time warp" for video editing that used MJpeg, Fast Electronics, Avid, and Matrox to name a few. These companies all developed their own proprietary codec even though all were called "MJPEG"
2. Tivo also used the idea of a circuit that channels the inbound video to a hard drive for recording as mpeg direct from the channel's data stream, or, it is converted from the analog NTSC to mpeg for hard drive recording. Simultaneously, it claims to be able to pull an mpeg file, recorded earlier, off for viewing.
In reading the patent summary, it appears that these two claims are key to the patent functionality. Fast hard drive record and playback and the use of MPEG compression.
Other technologies that use parts of the same process, ie hard drive record and storage as well as dual video access for record and playback simultaneously (It's not really simultaneous, but appears that way because it is sequentially so fast and the use of storage buffers makes it appear simultaneous) BUT they all use a different compression scheme. None of my editing systems here use mpeg file storage CODEC.
Unfortunately, the first issue I see with other CODECS being used in this manner is the conversion process since TIVO utilized the same codec that is used in ATSC and DBS technology, their process is likely the most efficient since it is direct and requires no conversion. But that is the main problem with all patents, the original inventor often patents the most efficient way while copy cats like E* will need to do a work around and that costs more. This is why people choose to license rather than engineer a work around.
TIVO could not patent a system of Time Warp using mjpeg because this became an open PD technology 10 years prior by several companies. They could patent another flavor of mjpeg specific to their CODEC but why bother? It would not grant them enough exclusivity to be worth the cost of the patent process.
Fast forward to the present day- Is it possible to use this mpeg technology in a video editor? Again this is more of a lawyer question than a technical one but I know of several editing systems that are capable of editing mpeg hard drive files in non real time. They are not very successful in the industry and are loaded with bugs. In addition, they could also suffer patent infringement problems.
Now, I'm no patent attorney but I have been involved with the "invention process with patent attorneys. I know this, to see the flaws in many of the interpretations made in this thread one must go to the source. I used the quick links provided in this thread. Having read the patent claim here is what I see in reference to some of the posts-
The claim is for a "Time Warp" method to be able to watch one TV program while recording another at the same time for later viewing. To patent a "Time Warp" is not permitted because this could be just a general fundamental technology such as patent a car, which would prevent anyone else from making a car. Instead, a patent must be more specific and claim a "car" uses a specific technology. This is what I see Tivo did in their patent claim for "Time Warp"
The specific claims made are:
1. The use of a particular compression scheme MPEG. (Now the way I read this is that it doesn't matter whether it is MPEG 2 or 4, both would be covered. However, the claim that others (Tektronix) did this before TIVO is true but their technology may have used different compression scheme, such as MJPEG. I did not look up Tektronix, but I can say that in the late 80's and early 90's several companies had released a claim of "time warp" for video editing that used MJpeg, Fast Electronics, Avid, and Matrox to name a few. These companies all developed their own proprietary codec even though all were called "MJPEG"
2. Tivo also used the idea of a circuit that channels the inbound video to a hard drive for recording as mpeg direct from the channel's data stream, or, it is converted from the analog NTSC to mpeg for hard drive recording. Simultaneously, it claims to be able to pull an mpeg file, recorded earlier, off for viewing.
In reading the patent summary, it appears that these two claims are key to the patent functionality. Fast hard drive record and playback and the use of MPEG compression.
Other technologies that use parts of the same process, ie hard drive record and storage as well as dual video access for record and playback simultaneously (It's not really simultaneous, but appears that way because it is sequentially so fast and the use of storage buffers makes it appear simultaneous) BUT they all use a different compression scheme. None of my editing systems here use mpeg file storage CODEC.
Unfortunately, the first issue I see with other CODECS being used in this manner is the conversion process since TIVO utilized the same codec that is used in ATSC and DBS technology, their process is likely the most efficient since it is direct and requires no conversion. But that is the main problem with all patents, the original inventor often patents the most efficient way while copy cats like E* will need to do a work around and that costs more. This is why people choose to license rather than engineer a work around.
TIVO could not patent a system of Time Warp using mjpeg because this became an open PD technology 10 years prior by several companies. They could patent another flavor of mjpeg specific to their CODEC but why bother? It would not grant them enough exclusivity to be worth the cost of the patent process.
Fast forward to the present day- Is it possible to use this mpeg technology in a video editor? Again this is more of a lawyer question than a technical one but I know of several editing systems that are capable of editing mpeg hard drive files in non real time. They are not very successful in the industry and are loaded with bugs. In addition, they could also suffer patent infringement problems.
