TIVO vs E*

Status
Please reply by conversation.
Thomas22

Thomas22

SatelliteGuys Pro
Apr 13, 2008
483
0
Cowtown
Not an expert on this, but doesn't Dish have a much stronger claim against tivo with its mpeg-4 dvrs?
There is no mention of any particular flavor of MPEG in the infringed claims. There is no mention of MPEG whatsover. It's irrelevant.
 
vurbano

vurbano

On Double Secret Probation
Supporting Founder
Apr 1, 2004
23,813
104
Newport News, VA
CHARLIE! Just pay to license the software that you stole in the first place. Make this lawsuit go away and move on.
He should be made to pay and be jailed. Isnt that what the RIAA and MPAA do to consumers that steal their stuff? Isnt that what Charlie does to pirates of his service?
 
rockymtnhigh

rockymtnhigh

Hardly Normal
Supporting Founder
Apr 14, 2006
30,193
917
Normal, IL
There is no mention of any particular flavor of MPEG in the infringed claims. There is no mention of MPEG whatsover. It's irrelevant.

I thought they had changed their process somehow, in order to not violated the patent. But I don't have the energy this morning to dig up that info from some long-ago thread or post. :)

Particularly since I have absolutely zero fear of tivo causing my 722 to turn into a brick. None. zippo.
 
J

jacmyoung

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 30, 2007
3,009
0
Sacramento, CA
There is no mention of any particular flavor of MPEG in the infringed claims. There is no mention of MPEG whatsover. It's irrelevant.

It is relevant because the appeals court addressed all those broadcast formats in length during the last appeal, and agreed with TiVo that all broadcast formats met the "broadcast data" element.
 
J

jacmyoung

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 30, 2007
3,009
0
Sacramento, CA
He should be made to pay and be jailed. Isnt that what the RIAA and MPAA do to consumers that steal their stuff? Isnt that what Charlie does to pirates of his service?

Piracy is a criminal offense, infringement is a civil offense.
 
vampz26

vampz26

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 20, 2006
3,399
0
Chicago
There is no mention of any particular flavor of MPEG in the infringed claims. There is no mention of MPEG whatsover. It's irrelevant.

This, IMHO, is pretty much another problem with the courts system. While the courts ability to understand items and evidence that is technical in nature is always under some element of scrutiny, this may be an example where they just plain didn't understand it, and thus ignored it. And thats wrong...

Just to simplify my position here so we all understand it:

1) The whole patent seems to generalize the concept of a datastream. In this case its obviously an Audio/Video data stream. But its always seems to be referred to in rather general, neutral terms.

2) Now there exists some significant differences between mpeg4 and mpeg2 formats. The compression algorithms are different for the audio and video layers. The A/V synchronization is somewhat different. There are some pretty fundemantal differences between how mpeg2 and mpeg4 essentially do the same thing.

3) Now when we introduce the concept of buffers, parsers, and sync flags being set....all of which seem pretty significant as far the whole design and patent goes here. Based on what I know regarding the differences between mpeg2 and mpeg4 and the concepts involved, I would suspect that buffers, parsers, and sync flags would need to be implemented quite differently to handle the differences.

Now jacmyoung obviously has more time to read than I do, so I'm sure there will be minor 'wording' details that will need correcting here, because maybe I didn't call it exactly what the judge called it or whatever. And thats fine, I recognize that being a possibility so if I can be corrected without my point or intent being altered, I would appreciate the input. :up

Disclaimer: This is merely a concept I'm presenting for consideration regarding the relevance of mpeg2 and mpeg4 data streams in the context of the trial and the technology at hand. This is NOT something I am attempting to pass off as fact, but something i AM presenting as educated speculation based on my own knowledge and experience.
 
vampz26

vampz26

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 20, 2006
3,399
0
Chicago
It is relevant because the appeals court addressed all those broadcast formats in length during the last appeal, and agreed with TiVo that all broadcast formats met the "broadcast data" element.

yes..."broadcast data" element. That was the terminology I was missing.

thanks...:up

And no, I don't agreed with the courts that all formats can be generalized in this way. But than again, I would need to see the technical details regarding their reasoning on this one before I can form a solid opinion one way or another. AT this point, based on my knowledge of the technology at hand...I don't think its correct.
 
J

jacmyoung

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 30, 2007
3,009
0
Sacramento, CA
yes..."broadcast data" element. That was the terminology I was missing.

thanks...:up

And no, I don't agreed with the courts that all formats can be generalized in this way. But than again, I would need to see the technical details regarding their reasoning on this one before I can form a solid opinion one way or another. AT this point, based on my knowledge of the technology at hand...I don't think its correct.

The court had constructed the term "broadcast data" to include all forms of broadcast transmissions formats, and it has nothing to do with how these formats will later be decoded, analyzed or manipulated by the DVR.

There are plenty of elements in the later claim steps to describe how the analyzing, decoding, manipulation...should take place to accomplish the invention.

MPEG4, just like MPEG2, ASTC, NTSC and PAL...meets the definition of the "broadcast data." MPEG4 is relevant to the software claim step one, if not, TiVo will not be able to bring the MPEG4-only DVRs into the next round of arguments, because without MPEG4 being relevant, nothing in the MPEG4-only DVRs will meet the "broadcast data" element.

E* cannot win on the "broadcast data" argument, they tried it last time during the appeal and lost. What E* should argue are those elements that were never argued for before, such as the elements of "audio and video data" and "temporarily stores..." The latter E* had already gotten the TiVo's expert to admit E* no longer did, so I do not know why it was not raised as an issue.

E* also testified during the hearing in length that the PID filter could not possibly analyze the "audio and video data" rather only the channel number IDs for selecting which channel to tune to, to which TiVo did not dispute. So here is another mystery why Judge Folsom never responded to such argument. He can disagree with such argument, but he should not side-step such argument, I think these are the weak link in Judge Folsom's opinions E* can bring to the appeals court.

And of course the other weak link is the notion that even if the redesigned DVRs are not infringing, his injunction can still prohibit such DVRs from acting like DVRs.
 
Thomas22

Thomas22

SatelliteGuys Pro
Apr 13, 2008
483
0
Cowtown
"Janney Montgomery Scott analyst Tony Wible wrote in a research note that the ruling “should reinforce the value” in TiVo's intellectual property and predicted the ruling against Dish will lead to new deals for TiVo with cable operators under more favorable licensing terms. In addition, Wible wrote, “The ruling makes TiVo much more appealing as an M&A [mergers and acquisitions] target, as players may jockey to buy TiVo to control the DVR patent out of fear or greed.”
Sanford Bernstein senior analyst Craig Moffett, in a research note, said the court's ruling against Dish “was indistinguishable from a worst-case scenario.” He noted that additional punitive damages could put the amount Dish is ordered to pay TiVo even higher, and “could potentially even include the disgorgement of profits earned during the period of April 2008 to the present.
Moffett and other analysts concluded that Dish will be forced to reach a licensing agreement with TiVo on the patent in question.
“Dish Network would now appear to have little choice but to settle,” Moffett wrote. “But at what rate? TiVo would now appear to hold all the cards. A settlement would likely be far above the licensing rates agreed to by DirecTV and Comcast a few years ago, leaving Dish Network at a decided competitive disadvantage.”


Dish's DVR Dealt A Blow - 2009-06-07 06:00:00 | Multichannel News
_________
Restitutionary or disgorgement damages

In certain areas of the law another head of damages has long been available, whereby the defendant is made to give up the profits made through the civil wrong in [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restitution"]Restitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Scale_of_justice_2.svg" class="image" title="Scales of justice"><img alt="Scales of justice" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Scale_of_justice_2.svg/100px-Scale_of_justice_2.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/0/0e/Scale_of_justice_2.svg/100px-Scale_of_justice_2.svg.png[/ame]. The plaintiff thereby gains damages which are not measured by reference to any loss sustained. In some areas of the law this heading of damages is uncontroversial; most particularly [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property"]Intellectual property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Ambox_question.svg" class="image"><img alt="Ambox question.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Ambox_question.svg/40px-Ambox_question.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/1b/Ambox_question.svg/40px-Ambox_question.svg.png[/ame] rights and breach of fiduciary relationship.


Damages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_____
 
vampz26

vampz26

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 20, 2006
3,399
0
Chicago
...and this is where I reply with the same word I always reply with...

Yet another fine example of extortion...

if the shoe fits...
 
J

jacmyoung

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 30, 2007
3,009
0
Sacramento, CA
Moffett has been a TiVo cheerleader, he also says he is invested in TiVo himself.

I would not say "E* will be forced to settle" just yet, because TiVo themselves appeared to lack such confidence. I do agree if the appeals court lifts the stay pending appeal, the only logical option for E* is to settle.

Also the notion that E* can be slapped with a rate that is far less competitive than Comcast and D* is not true, if TiVo chooses a non-exclusive licensing model which it does, the rates cannot put one of the licensees in a competitive disadvantage, just ask the Justice Department. And as much as people want to say hey E* lost the case, but the lawsuit has nothing to do with competitive pricing in non-exclusive licensing. E*'s disadvantage is E* will have to pay all the damages if the ruling stands, not to mention their own legal cost, and a chance to have the damages tripled in the future assessment, and even to pay TiVo's future attorney fees.

But there should not be competitive disadvantage if they sign a licensing agreement.

TiVo can however refuse to license to E*, the patent law gives them such right. That alone may refute Vampz's "extortion" argument:) If I am not selling it to you, then you cannot accuse me of extortion. But if you say signing a licensing agreement alone is an "extortion" then I cannot argue with you, I do not agree but also won't argue with you on this one.
 
Last edited:
I

iKramerica

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 20, 2004
242
1
TiVo can however refuse to license to E*, the patent law gives them such right. That alone may refute Vampz's "extortion" argument:) If I am not selling it to you, then you cannot accuse me of extortion. But if you say signing a licensing agreement alone is an "extortion" then I cannot argue with you, I do not agree but also won't argue with you on this one.

If the ruling stands, it makes TiVo a defacto monopoly codified by the courts. As a monopoly, they can NOT refuse to license their product to Dish nor charge more for it without Dish having an anti-trust claim against TiVo. That's the last thing TiVo wants.
 
vampz26

vampz26

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 20, 2006
3,399
0
Chicago
Moffett has been a TiVo cheerleader, he also says he is invested in TiVo himself.

I would not say "E* will be forced to settle" just yet, because TiVo themselves appeared to lack such confidence. I do agree if the appeals court lifts the stay pending appeal, the only logical option for E* is to settle.

Also the notion that E* can be slapped with a rate that is far less competitive than Comcast and D* is not true, if TiVo chooses a non-exclusive licensing model which it does, the rates cannot put one of the licensees in a competitive disadvantage, just ask the Justice Department. And as much as people want to say hey E* lost the case, but the lawsuit has nothing to do with competitive pricing in non-exclusive licensing. E*'s disadvantage is E* will have to pay all the damages if the ruling stands, not to mention their own legal cost, and a chance to have the damages tripled in the future assessment, and even to pay TiVo's future attorney fees.

But there should not be competitive disadvantage if they sign a licensing agreement.

TiVo can however refuse to license to E*, the patent law gives them such right. That alone may refute Vampz's "extortion" argument:) If I am not selling it to you, then you cannot accuse me of extortion. But if you say signing a licensing agreement alone is an "extortion" then I cannot argue with you, I do not agree but also won't argue with you on this one.

Refute it or support it? Either way, its an attempt to "twist the arm" and threaten. Basically it is what it is...no matter how you play it...
 
J

jacmyoung

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 30, 2007
3,009
0
Sacramento, CA
If the ruling stands, it makes TiVo a defacto monopoly codified by the courts.

Even if the ruling is overturned, TiVo still has the defacto monoploy on its patented technology, the patent law created the monopoly for TiVo as soon as the USPTO granted TiVo the patent. Only that if E*'s DVR technology does not infringe on TiVo's, E* can use its own without TiVo in the way, and if E*'s own new DVR patent application is granted by the USPTO, E* will have its own monopoly on its patented technology.

... As a monopoly, they can NOT refuse to license their product to Dish nor charge more for it without Dish having an anti-trust claim against TiVo. That's the last thing TiVo wants.

You said it much better this way except that TiVo can refuse to license its patented technology to anyone, the patent law says so. But if TiVo chooses to license, they cannot exercise unfair practice.
 
MikeD-C05

MikeD-C05

Pub Member / Supporter
Pub Member / Supporter
Nov 25, 2003
26,271
16,281
Nederland , Texas
He should be made to pay and be jailed. Isnt that what the RIAA and MPAA do to consumers that steal their stuff? Isnt that what Charlie does to pirates of his service?

Well, Maybe that would be best for DISH if old Charlie was sent to jail. God knows they need some new perspective in the way the do business. Except you know it won't be him that goes , it would be some underling that they would pinpoint in their official DISH investigation , that would be the one selected as the fall guy and do jail time. But you're right Charlie would definitely put a pirate in jail if he could.
 
Thomas22

Thomas22

SatelliteGuys Pro
Apr 13, 2008
483
0
Cowtown
TV-to-go device "Sling" makes its move - The Denver Post

"Barring legal complications, Dish is scheduled to become the first customer this summer for sister company EchoStar's new television set-top receiver, embedded with Sling technology.

Sling is a TV lover's dream — enabling users almost anywhere to have their home television sets send them video programming on laptops or mobile "smart" phones.

A potential glitch, however, arose last week, when a federal judge ruled that EchoStar and Dish have violated TiVo's digital video recorder patent.

DVRs let viewers pause, rewind and fast-forward live shows, as well as store programs on set-top hard drives.

The ruling requires Dish to disable DVR functions in existing set-top boxes and prohibits Dish or EchoStar from distributing new products with TiVo-like DVR functions, including the Sling-loaded receiver.

The firms gained a temporary stay of the order that, for now, allows them to continue this summer's rollout of the new machine.

However, some analysts have said that chances are not good for Dish and EchoStar to appeal and overturn the ruling.

That would leave the firms in a position of either disabling a feature popular with consumers and retooling the new Sling-loaded box, or reaching a settlement with TiVo.

The companies have not commented on whether a settlement offer will be made."
 
vampz26

vampz26

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 20, 2006
3,399
0
Chicago
TV-to-go device "Sling" makes its move - The Denver Post

"Barring legal complications, Dish is scheduled to become the first customer this summer for sister company EchoStar's new television set-top receiver, embedded with Sling technology.

Sling is a TV lover's dream — enabling users almost anywhere to have their home television sets send them video programming on laptops or mobile "smart" phones.

A potential glitch, however, arose last week, when a federal judge ruled that EchoStar and Dish have violated TiVo's digital video recorder patent.

DVRs let viewers pause, rewind and fast-forward live shows, as well as store programs on set-top hard drives.

The ruling requires Dish to disable DVR functions in existing set-top boxes and prohibits Dish or EchoStar from distributing new products with TiVo-like DVR functions, including the Sling-loaded receiver.

The firms gained a temporary stay of the order that, for now, allows them to continue this summer's rollout of the new machine.

However, some analysts have said that chances are not good for Dish and EchoStar to appeal and overturn the ruling.

That would leave the firms in a position of either disabling a feature popular with consumers and retooling the new Sling-loaded box, or reaching a settlement with TiVo.

The companies have not commented on whether a settlement offer will be made."

Extortion, extortion, extortion...:rolleyes:

any more proof required? :D
 
M

Martin Tupper

Member
Jun 8, 2004
8
0
Northern Virginia
Extortion, extortion, extortion...:rolleyes:

any more proof required? :D
TiVo may be the Big Bad Wolf in this story, but E* is the little pig who built his house out of straw. Expanding the line of products based on IP that you do not have the right to use...after it has been determined that you don't have the right to it? They have no one to blame but themselves if they have trouble getting it to market.
 
vampz26

vampz26

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 20, 2006
3,399
0
Chicago
TiVo may be the Big Bad Wolf in this story, but E* is the little pig who built his house out of straw. Expanding the line of products based on IP that you do not have the right to use...after it has been determined that you don't have the right to it? They have no one to blame but themselves if they have trouble getting it to market.

You can slice and dice the blame any way you like, at the end of the day....its not E* who's attempting to strong-arm and manipulate the market, its not E* who is trying to stifle innovation and prevent competitive and superior technology from being available to consumers, and its not E* who is trying committing an act of extortion by holding a competitors customers hostage in the mix...

...big bad wolf is an understatement.
 
harshness

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,954
2,992
Salem, OR
TV-to-go device "Sling" makes its move - The Denver Post

...

The ruling requires Dish to disable DVR functions in existing set-top boxes and prohibits Dish or EchoStar from distributing new products with TiVo-like DVR functions, including the Sling-loaded receiver.
How did they make this connection?
The firms gained a temporary stay of the order that, for now, allows them to continue this summer's rollout of the new machine.
Are they sure about this? I thought the order only applied to the named devices of which the ViP922 is not one.
That would leave the firms in a position of either disabling a feature popular with consumers and retooling the new Sling-loaded box, or reaching a settlement with TiVo.
I'm thinking that the Denver Post's armchair attorney isn't paying attention. It is unfortunate that there were no sources or quotes regarding the legal questions.
 
Status
Please reply by conversation.

Similar threads

Voyager6
Replies
12
Views
2K
Voyager6
Voyager6
D
Replies
26
Views
5K
bidger`
B
C
Replies
44
Views
8K
video62
V
J
Replies
0
Views
918
jacmyoung
J
rockymtnhigh
Replies
4
Views
6K
rockymtnhigh
rockymtnhigh

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

Latest posts

Top