Say goodbye to ATSC 3.0. LG has suspended inclusion of ATSC 3.0-compatibility in its 2024 television lineup for the USA

primestar31

SatelliteGuys Master
Original poster
Lifetime Supporter
Mar 15, 2005
13,311
13,377
Beta Omicron Delta III
DRM rollout, and now this.

Patent troll claims to own the rights to the base A/322 Physical Layer Standard. They sued LG for putting "Nextgen Tv" labels on their sets, and WON.

Quote:
As the Electronic Frontier Foundation has noted, in some cases “patents . . . have become a tool
for intimidation and expensive litigation, chilling the very innovation the patent system was sup-
posed to encourage.”8 That is the reality that LG is facing now. Excessive per-unit royalty rates
resulting from litigation, and the threat (known and unknown) presented by patent holders that
have not made commitments to license under RAND conditions, have a chilling effect on the de-
ployment of advanced technologies by LG. In addition, patent litigation costs are very high, even
when litigation is settled or otherwise resolved prior to trial. Moreover, consumers are adversely
impacted by the results of reduced investment and slower deployment of technologies. This is a
most unwelcome circumstance.

Quote:
This challenging and uncertain patent landscape has forced LG to make the difficult decision to
suspend the inclusion of ATSC 3.0-compatibility in its 2024 television lineup for the United
States.
This decision was not made lightly, because LG has been a vocal ATSC 3.0 advocate, a
strong supporter of local broadcasters, and a leading developer of television products with the lat-
est NEXTGEN TV technologies. Going forward, LG will, of course, continue to monitor the pa-
tent landscape and its effect on LG’s own product roadmap and overall industry dynamic

 
It is a legitimate company based in Maryland so hardly a patent troll.


Perhaps the companies who have been banging the ATSC 3.0 drum so vigorously should have spent some of that time researching the patents related to the technology they intended to sell. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Redbullsnation
Good riddance! I'm glad I didn't invest in the technology. If they're going to lockdown the technology and not allow consumers to record what they want, why even keep it around? Adoption has been slow to begin with. With the whole DRM debacle, just let it die already. Give us some enhancements for 1.0 like improved video codecs and call it a day. We don't need OTA IP protocol delivery or OTA ISPs renting space off TV stations to give them lots of bandwidth so we get compressed garbage under a new standard.
 
Would be better off by just adding new codecs on ATSC 1.0 HEVC ready TV over river of time, instead of creating a new modulation schemes ATSC 3.0 "COFDEM"

DRM, is just a mess and backfired, I think they shot themselves in the foot.

But then again, same old stuffs and will drag on for years to come, ATSC 3.0 gets stuck in the neutral mode and not getting anywhere. :p:hatsoff
 
  • Like
Reactions: navychop
It is a legitimate company based in Maryland so hardly a patent troll.


Perhaps the companies who have been banging the ATSC 3.0 drum so vigorously should have spent some of that time researching the patents related to the technology they intended to sell. ;)
Are they planning on distributing the patent based tech? Dish infringed on TIVO's tech, TIVO was selling their tech. If this other company is doing nothing with the patent, they are patent hoarders and should lose the patent.
 
The rights a patent conveys to an individual or company is simply that the patent gives you the right to keep others from building, implementing and selling it without your consent. As such it is perfectly legal to develop a technology and require others to 'obtain the right' to implement it without implementing it yourself. There is a requirement that the patent office itself can request proof of a functioning model, which must be provided upon request.

From the United States Patent and Trademark Office website:

What is a patent?

A U.S. patent gives you, the inventor, the right to “exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” an invention or “importing” it into the U.S. A plant patent gives you additional rights on the “parts” of plants (e.g., a plant patent on an apple variety would include rights on the apples from the plant variety). What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import the invention, but the right to stop others from doing so. If someone infringes on your patent, you may initiate legal action. U.S. patents are effective only within the U.S. and its territories and possessions.

What can be patented?

Legally, a utility patent may cover “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” A design patent may cover “any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture,” and a plant patent may cover a “distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber-propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state,” invented or discovered and asexually reproduced.

So, for a patent to be issued, your invention must meet four conditions:

Able to be used (the invention must work and cannot just be a theory)
A clear description of how to make and use the invention
New, or “novel” (something not done before)
“Not obvious,” as related to a change to something already invented

Patent law defines the limits of what can be patented. For example, the laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas cannot be patented, nor can only an idea or suggestion.


Nature of rights

The patent grant confers “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States.” The term of a utility or plant patent generally lasts 20 years from the date the application was filed in the United States or, if the application specifically refers to an earlier application filed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c), from the earliest date of filing and subject to payment of maintenance fees.

To carefully distinguish the exact nature of the patent right conferred, the key phrase above is “right to exclude.” The patent does not grant you the right to make, use, offer for sale, or sell or import the invention, but only the right to exclude others from doing so. Given that a patent only gives the right to exclude, the patent holder’s ability to practice an invention depends on the rights of others (for example, an earlier inventor may have a patent covering an aspect of the invention) and on applicable laws (including if exercising the rights related to the invention would violate any law).

When a utility patent is granted, a maintenance fee is due 3½, 7½, and 11½ years after the original grant in order to keep the patent in force. After the patent has expired, anyone may make, use, offer for sale, or sell or import the invention without permission, as long as such activities are not covered by other unexpired patents. Patent terms may be extended or adjusted under certain circumstances as provided by law.


Source: United States Patent and Trademark Office website ( Patent essentials and Managing a patent )

You can call people or companies trolls and hoarders all you want but it is perfectly legal to develop a technology and just own and defend it's patent. They are doing what is afforded them by the law. If you don't like the law then do something to have it changed or just live with it. ;)
 
I think LG did the right thing by taking ATSC 3 out of their new TVs. Who knows how many other patent holders will wait until ATSC 3 is widely used and then file surprise patent infringement lawsuits?

There are SO many patents it is extremely difficult to develop an non-infringing product. It doesn't surprise me that LG unknowingly used a patented process.

... My plan is to wait until they stop broadcasting ATSC 1.0 and then I will just get a converter box. I estimate I have at least 10 years before I have to do that.
 
It's refreshing for a change that someone from this younger generation is waking up to reality, this hyped/marketing tool ATSC3 is a flop. Period.
And as usual, you can thank the FCC (among others) for the fiasco. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNGuy84 and N5XZS
Since I don't believe that DRM would ultimately be defeated by law, and believe that it would be used to limit my OTA freedom, I am cheering for the demise of ATSC 3.0.

In addition to DRM, I am cheering for the demise of ATSC 3.0 to preserve existing hardware in my HTPC.

Because of I am cheering for the demise of ATSC 3.0, I am glad that some TV stations turned on DRM prematurely. It's kinda like a gold digger telling the rich man what she's up to... before he marries her, lol.
 
I'm using a ADTH box to receive, ATSC 1.0, ATSC 3.0 and ATSC 3.0 with DRM. My only comment is that the tuner is no stronger than the ATSC 1.0 tuner in my TV and Dish ViP211k receiver. In my location 30 miles from the towers but behind several hills, I've tried several antennas and tuners with no relief from the drop-outs due to reflections off of cars going down the street and air craft flying between my location and tower. Some days I do okay but all too often the drop-outs are very annoying. I was hoping the new technology would overcome my troubles. Still waiting for a fix.
 
I am 64 and in all my life I have never seen so many greedy politicians answer to lobbyist's taking bribes and screwing both the consumer and the manufacturer's Time to quit call it free over the air, because they are winning. Soon we will have devices reading how much air we breathe so they can send a bill.
 
I am 64 and in all my life I have never seen so many greedy politicians answer to lobbyist's taking bribes and screwing both the consumer and the manufacturer's Time to quit call it free over the air, because they are winning. Soon we will have devices reading how much air we breathe so they can send a bill.
But its legal? You need to change Citizens United to start. Then anti-trust laws. Its very simple
 
  • Like
Reactions: moonwink