TIVO vs E*

[rockymtnhigh]

That site has the most complete filings for this entire litigation. I don't really care which side they are on nor am I bothered by their goal. The TiVo investors have every right to seek maximum return by any means, just like E* investors. I am neither.

But for argument sake if an E* supporter considers them enemy #1, one can still argue it is important to keep your friends close, your enemy closer

No problem with that; I just found the store-front amusing. And the t-shirt statement strange, given that it was written in very bad grammar.

And for the record, my only investment in Dish Network is the $130 they squeeze out of me every month.

 

[CuriousMark]

And the t-shirt statement strange, given that it was written in very bad grammar.

It is supposed to be. It is a pun on the internet meme "all your base are belong to us". Of course if you don't know the meme, you won't get the joke.

Granted it is a biased site, but so is this one. Then again, so are most.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

It is supposed to be. It is a pun on the internet meme "all your base are belong to us". Of course if you don't know the meme, you won't get the joke.

Granted it is a biased site, but so is this one. Then again, so are most.

I don't care if it is biased. It does have a lot of material on it. I just thought the store-front was a bit silly. Then again, Scott sells satellliteguys logo stuff on underwear.


And no, I didn't get the internet meme. But I looked it up. Didn't think it was that funny.

 

[vampz26]

It is supposed to be. It is a pun on the internet meme "all your base are belong to us". Of course if you don't know the meme, you won't get the joke.

Granted it is a biased site, but so is this one. Then again, so are most.

Biased? That site is beyond bias.

Its blatant corporate fanboyism that borders on worship.

Like I said, it would be funny if not for being so perverse.

 

[jacmyoung]

I think that is in response to an order from Judge Folsom. He ordered Dish to inform the court before any further re-designs. They sent a letter to inform the court that they are investigating the possibility of further re-designs.

I don't follow patent law very much, so I have a question about his order. It seems that he is telling Dish that if they want to design a DVR, that they must keep him informed of every step they are taking. Is that normal? I can't see a court ordering a company to make their research public. If Dish does come up with a DVR that is totally clear of Tivo's patent, do they have to keep the public appraised of how they are doing it before it is a finished product?

E* did complain to the appeals court the judge's ruling was "unprecedented." They are asking the appeals court to stay the injunction which is also to stay that "inform and approval" provision.

At the same time they also informed Judge Folsom and the appeals court they are looking into a new design around, but they do not know if another desgin around is possible. It is possible the current design around is as far as a design around can go without losing any DVR functions.

I think E* wanted to send out a message that they will not settle, more than anything else.

 

[jacmyoung]

Interesting observations after reading all three.

E* and the judge agree on one thing, the headers and the payloads are different, analyzing the headers is not analyzing the payloads.

E* and TiVo agree on one thing, the term "audio and video data" is a relevant limitation in the software claims, that the "physical data source" must analyze "audio and video data" to meet the limitation.

But TiVo disagreed with both E* and the judge on the first issue, TiVo says the headers and the payloads are in the same broadcast data packets, so as long as the broadcast data contain audio and video data it is good enough for the PID filter to parse them.

And the judge disagreed with both E* and TiVo that the term "audio and video data" was relevant, instead the judge said only "parse" mattered, therefore even though the PID filter did not analyze the payloads, as long as it analyzed the headers, that was good enough, even though the headers contained no audio and video data.

Confused? Here exists the "doubt." When there is doubt, a contempt proceeding is not appropriate, a new action will be needed to figure it all out.

 

[TheKrell]

If fact they haven't won anything this far, why would they win now?

Impartial judge.

 

[Thomas22]

the headers contained no audio and video data.

What were the headers about? Train schedules?

 

[CuriousMark]

I don't follow patent law very much, so I have a question about his order. It seems that he is telling Dish that if they want to design a DVR, that they must keep him informed of every step they are taking. Is that normal? I can't see a court ordering a company to make their research public. If Dish does come up with a DVR that is totally clear of Tivo's patent, do they have to keep the public appraised of how they are doing it before it is a finished product?

The way I read that order, the letter already sent, simply stating that they are planning and/or investigating a redesign is about all they owe. They certainly don't need to apprise him of every step. When they argued for a stay pending appeal last time, they left out this simple one line fact that a court would have have found to be relevant to their argument had it been known. This requirement just insures that Dish will proceed a little more transparently in the future.

I don't think research needs to be published either. The next thing on this subject we would see (IMHO) is a motion to have new software evaluated for colorable difference, if and when it reaches a state that Dish would want to do so.

 

[jacmyoung]

What were the headers about? Train schedules?

I am surprised for you Thomas22 who has followed this case so closely, you totally missed this train.

The headers contain the channel IDs, it is a 13-bit code. The PID filter's job is to identify the code in the headers so to tell the DVR which specific TV channel to tune to.

The payloads contain all the rest of the TV programming data for that channel, such as the audio time stamps, video time stamps, the video frames, the audio stream, the actual programming data, and more.

The judge actually accepted E*'s contention that the PID filter only analyzed the headers, not the payloads, but analyzing headers was good enough, because according to the judge, only "parse" was needed.

In the TiVo's most recent response, TiVo apparently saw some problem with the judge's such logic, they tried to repair it by saying, you were right E*, the "audio and video data" mattered, but there was no difference whether the PID filter analyzed only the headers but not the payloads. Both the headers and the payloads were in the same broadcast data packets, so when the PID filter analyzed the headers, it was the same as analyzing the whole broadcast data packets, which contained audio and video data in the payloads.

Yet in the E*'s most recent rely to TiVo's response, E* used TiVo's own exhibit from the patent specification, that figure shows the headers and the payloads are two distinct parts, the headers contain no audio and video data, and the PID filter only analyzes the headers, not the payloads.

 

[Thomas22]

So, there is some audio and video intelligence in the headers. Otherwise, why couldn't train schedule headers be substituted and no one be would the wiser. There is customized audio and video date there.

 

[jacmyoung]

So, there is some audio and video intelligence in the headers. Otherwise, why couldn't train schedule headers be substituted and no one be would the wiser. There is customized audio and video date there.

Even TiVo does not dispute there is no audio and video data in the headers, that was why they argued on 6/10 that when the PID filter analyzed the broadcast data packets, even if it only analyzed just the headers, it was the same as analyzing the whole packets, there was no difference between the headers and the payloads if one simply looked from the perspective of the broadcast data.

Unfortunately the "train" had left the station, the judge had already accepted E*'s contention that there is a distinction between analyzing the headers and analyzing the payloads. Only that the judge ignored the audio and video part, he said only analyze was needed.

When you have TiVo and the judge stepping on each other's toes, that is somewhat problematic, don't you agree?

 

[TheKrell]

So, there is some audio and video intelligence in the headers.

Not really. The whole stream has been multiplexed with several different data streams. Most of these streams in a DBS system are of course compressed and encrypted video programs, themselves a multiplex of video stream, audio stream, and miscellaneous other parts such as closed captions. Other data streams exist, such as the EPG, which are neither video nor audio, or the channel mapping tables that we see popping out on Wednesday afternoon in the Uplink Center. The PID is merely a pointer into the total stream, to select the right channel.

Otherwise, why couldn't train schedule headers be substituted and no one be would the wiser.

Actually, it could be! All we have to know is that "Amtrak to NY @ 5:30" corresponds to the channel we want, e.g. Nickelodeon West. Rather silly way to point to TV programs, though.

There is customized audio and video date there.

There is no audio nor video data there.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Well, its a darn good thing it is not based on Amtrak schedules. 5:30pm shows would start at 6:15.

I think Jacmyoung's analysis of doubt is well stated - and reason why the court of appeals should see that the trial court judge has his panties tied up in a bunch and that is swaying his decision-making. Not contempt of court.

 

[Thomas22]

Actually, it could be! All we have to know is that "Amtrak to NY @ 5:30" corresponds to the channel we want, e.g. Nickelodeon West.

A rose by any other name. There is audio and video intelligence in the header. Whether it's in Swahili or binary. Otherwise, why have it?

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I got an email requesting that we remove links to Mainers Law Library --- Tivo v Echostar GO TIVO! which is a site called Mainers Law Library. The request was made because (as the email said we are "a Dish Network site") and the fact that the person running the site is out of work and we are eating his bandwidth.

The request is denied since this is the internet and linking to stuff is what the internet is about. If the person is having trouble with his hosting of the documents, he can contact me and I will give him space here on our server to host the files. (And no I dont care if hes pro Dish or pro Tivo.) I do think the public should see these documents and from the looks of things the person who has been putting these things online h as worked hard at doing it.

Second of all we (SatellilteGuys.US) is not a Dish Network site. Trust me when I say it that I believe that Charlie Ergen does need a good swift kick in the pants over some of the stuff he has done.

My own personal viewpoints on the matter have been well documented. And while I don't believe Dish is in contempt, I do think that Dish should have done the grown up thing and settled this a long time ago so that both companies could move forward together. The bad press this has given Dish has done more damage then anything else. But if Charlie believes he is right on something he will fight to prove it, so I guess you can say his integrity weighs higher on his business sense.

So there you have it.

 

[TiVoPhoenix]

I got an email requesting that we remove links to (link) which is a site called Mainers Law Library. The request was made because (as the email said we are "a Dish Network site") and the fact that the person running the site is out of work and we are eating his bandwidth.

The request is denied

That is a remarkably inconsiderate attitude you've taken. It speaks volumes about this message board. Wow, what a disappointment.

 

[Thomas22]

I got an email requesting that we remove links to Mainers Law Library --- Tivo v Echostar GO TIVO! which is a site called Mainers Law Library. The request was made because (as the email said we are "a Dish Network site") and the fact that the person running the site is out of work and we are eating his bandwidth.

Ummm??? If it was a private E-mail, why the public response?

If you wanted to relay new policy, why not make it more generic?

 

[rockymtnhigh]

For the record -- Mainer-Ayah, was a member of the site, who was permanently banned for trolling in this thread.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

That is a remarkably inconsiderate attitude you've taken. It speaks volumes about this message board. Wow, what a disappointment.

Here we go again.

if you don't like it, you are free to leave.