Tivo Time Warp Patent is Valid according to PTO

Toggle sidebar
The Time Warp patent is central to TiVo's patent-infringement litigation against Dish and EchoStar, which dates back to January 2004. The patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389 ("Multimedia Time Warping System"), describes a DVR system that allows for simultaneous storage and playback of TV programming from a cable or satellite source.
Click to expand...

This appears to describe only one aspect of a DVR that was in question. If the function of this was the patent, then VIP's that do this function would be infringing, but I understand the need for a separate court ruling to name them before any action would be taken by Dish Network.
It seems to me if Dish pulled the Time Warp function from the VIP capability, it would only prevent one from watching a program a few minutes behind. I do this now to skip forward on my commercials ( start watching a 1 hour program approximately 20 minutes into it, then skipping forward on each break. By the end of the show, I'm caught up to real time.) This as I understand the patent is what remains in question for the VIP series. IF Dish makes the software require you to record a program completely before allowing you to view it, the DVR becomes just a simple recorder, playback device. I don't think this violates TIVO patent since I'm not recording and playing back same program simultaneously.

Personally, I do the described Time Warp very rarely, I usually record programs completely and watch a few days later.

I'm open to correction if I understand this wrong.

The other part of patent infringement I recall was the season pass scheduling. I don't understand how Dish gets around this in the present VIP's either. But I know I can set a schedule by show title and it finds the show and records it. Would this feature also be an infringement needing shut down?

I'll be watching the stocks of Dish and TIVO closely. I've profited off of TIVO in the past based on this suit. Almost enough to pay the thousand dollars I lost on the HR10-250 when D* obsoleted it.
 
whatchel1 said:
And you know what he is just like you too. And we had a little discussion via PM's. It was almost as much fun as talking to you. Of course we won't talk about that here. I won't say anything more about that since I don't want to embarrass anyone. :cool: :haha:haha Now watch your blood pressure don't want you to get upset and start saying things you will regret. Just laugh it off and we will be adults here. :) And if you didn't notice at the end of his description there was a cute little wink. So he was cool about things.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want you to embarrass yourself anymore than you do here in public....

But you know what they say, if the shoe fits, and it seems like it fits you perfectly.

Here's another cute little wink for ya. ;)
 
Don Landis said:
This appears to describe only one aspect of a DVR that was in question. If the function of this was the patent, then VIP's that do this function would be infringing, but I understand the need for a separate court ruling to name them before any action would be taken by Dish Network.
It seems to me if Dish pulled the Time Warp function from the VIP capability, it would only prevent one from watching a program a few minutes behind. I do this now to skip forward on my commercials ( start watching a 1 hour program approximately 20 minutes into it, then skipping forward on each break. By the end of the show, I'm caught up to real time.) This as I understand the patent is what remains in question for the VIP series. IF Dish makes the software require you to record a program completely before allowing you to view it, the DVR becomes just a simple recorder, playback device. I don't think this violates TIVO patent since I'm not recording and playing back same program simultaneously.

Personally, I do the described Time Warp very rarely, I usually record programs completely and watch a few days later.

I'm open to correction if I understand this wrong.

The other part of patent infringement I recall was the season pass scheduling. I don't understand how Dish gets around this in the present VIP's either. But I know I can set a schedule by show title and it finds the show and records it. Would this feature also be an infringement needing shut down?

I'll be watching the stocks of Dish and TIVO closely. I've profited off of TIVO in the past based on this suit. Almost enough to pay the thousand dollars I lost on the HR10-250 when D* obsoleted it.
Click to expand...

Do you pause or rewind live TV? Then you are affected by this Patent.
 
I recently switched to Tivo from Dish. I like both about the same, and there aren't many differences besides Dish's 30-second skip implementation is better, so I can see the ruling eventually being that Dish infringed on Tivo's patents. That said, software patents are stupid and should be obsoleted. They only people benefiting from them are the lawyers, and they limit the free market IMHO.

Ted
 
whatchel1 said:
Not greg but they weren't included in the suit so would have to be brought up in a new suit to see.
Click to expand...
That's wishful thinking, right ? If it were that simple, Dish would simply take a 622/722/722k, etc, etc, put 'em in a new box, give 'em a new model #, and it's all okay, yes ?
 
whatchel1 said:
I can't read it but I bet Bob said something about raising fees. Since he is a 1 trick pony I would be willing to bet on that one.
Click to expand...
Lots of good it does ignoring him.... People moan and complain about everything he says yet quote his posts so that people who've put him on ignore still get to read his comments. :mad:
 
Curtis0620 said:
Do you pause or rewind live TV? Then you are affected by this Patent.
Click to expand...


Thanks, forgot about that, however, since I rarely watch live TV except for short spurts while channel surfing, it still could go and I wouldn't miss it much. The scheduling of a show to record automatically is something I enjoy and would miss.

As for those who insist on beating up on each other in this thread- please grow up!
--- except for beating up on Bob Haller- he enjoys the attention. :D
 
Don Landis said:
Thanks, forgot about that, however, since I rarely watch live TV except for short spurts while channel surfing, it still could go and I wouldn't miss it much. The scheduling of a show to record automatically is something I enjoy and would miss.

As for those who insist on beating up on each other in this thread- please grow up!
--- except for beating up on Bob Haller- he enjoys the attention. :D
Click to expand...

:up:up
 
Is the 922 any different than the 722 and the 622 in that respect? Or is the situation such that if any of these models could be added to the lawsuit, all of them would be? For some reason I thought that the 922 was even more "immune" to this lawsuit than the 722 and 622, but that may have been a false assumption based on hearsay.
 
psychotrope said:
Is the 922 any different than the 722 and the 622 in that respect? Or is the situation such that if any of these models could be added to the lawsuit, all of them would be? For some reason I thought that the 922 was even more "immune" to this lawsuit than the 722 and 622, but that may have been a false assumption based on hearsay.
Click to expand...

Given all the problems that the 922 has, it is possible that it was a complete rewrite of the code in an attempt to get around the patent issues. But, no one but Dish knows (unless TiVo has subpoenaed access for review).

The same goes for the 622/722. They are not part of the case yet, and it is not clear if they are colorably different or not. I am sure we will find out some day.
 
Please remember that E* will have a full appeals court review of it's appeal of the contempt ruling. One of the main issues to be discussed during this review will be the validity of the injunction and Judge Folsom's insistence that the DVR's be shut down "even if they no longer infringe". E* has also submitted to Judge Folsom two "work arounds" that Folsom has, so far, refused to review. Think about this, if the CAFC rules against E*, E* would be ordered to shut down their "infringing" DVR's even though the software the "infringing" DVR's are using may no longer be infringing based on the restated TIVO software claims just approved by the PTO. Folsom will also probably just ignore the two already submitted "work arounds" by saying the DVR's have been ordered shut down so I don't have to review any work arounds.

E* needs a favorable ruling by the CAFC to send the case back to Folsom for a full hearing on whether the new software is "colorably different". It also needs a clarification as to whether it had a right to attempt a modification of the software to make it non-infringing.
 
Voyager6 said:
Please remember that E* will have a full appeals court review of it's appeal of the contempt ruling. One of the main issues to be discussed during this review will be the validity of the injunction and Judge Folsom's insistence that the DVR's be shut down "even if they no longer infringe". E* has also submitted to Judge Folsom two "work arounds" that Folsom has, so far, refused to review. Think about this, if the CAFC rules against E*, E* would be ordered to shut down their "infringing" DVR's even though the software the "infringing" DVR's are using may no longer be infringing based on the restated TIVO software claims just approved by the PTO. Folsom will also probably just ignore the two already submitted "work arounds" by saying the DVR's have been ordered shut down so I don't have to review any work arounds.

E* needs a favorable ruling by the CAFC to send the case back to Folsom for a full hearing on whether the new software is "colorably different". It also needs a clarification as to whether it had a right to attempt a modification of the software to make it non-infringing.
Click to expand...
Assuming TiVo and Dish negotiate a reasonable royalty rate for TiVo’s IP (for the sake of argument assume $2.50/box per month times 7 million), that would set the standard for what other companies like Time Warner (TWC), Charter (CHTRQ.PK), Adelphia (ADELQ), Cablevison (CVC), etc. would have to pay TiVo. TiVo’s technology is used in virtually all DVRs that have the features DVR users have grown to love. Dish might also have to pay $5/DVR/mo royalty payment since the judge first ruled way back when. If that is the case Dish will be paying (err, we will be paying) maybe $1B!!!
 
He said something about the fees again, didn't he?

Can somebody bump the record player? The needle seems to be stuck.
 

Similar threads

Radioguy41
    • Like
What is happening to Nat Geo!?
Replies
14
Views
1K
KAB
KAB
nelson61
    • Like
Dish Loses ClearPlay Patent Lawsuit
Replies
1
Views
1K
DishSubLA
D
sktrus
Is it possible to record ( set Hopper3) when away?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Almighty1
Almighty1
Scott Greczkowski
    • Like
Dish beats Peloton in Patent Case
Replies
16
Views
2K
Tampa8
Tampa8
J
    • Like
Strange dvr time remaining, thoughts?? (v365)
Replies
10
Views
792
JS_racer
J

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Share this page

Share this page
Top
Back