Tivo hearing today?

[Greg Bimson]

Let's say we speed up time, the end is here and Dish is guilty. Will they really turn off the DVRs? What are the odds of that?

I think that DISH/SATS will come to a settlement if the contempt ruling is granted to TiVo. However, on a conference call with analysts a few months ago, CEO of DISH/SATS Charles Ergen stated...

Having said that – I mean obviously, at some point, I believe we'll prevail. But TiVo – we're going to have conversations with TiVo one way or the other about how we work together. And again, its – I'm just stubborn. I know this case inside and out, I've sat through trials, I've sat through the engineering models, I've sat and have the best and the brightest explain this – and I'm just stubborn. We don't violate their intellectual property today and I want to prove that. And so, we're going to go to the September 4th hearing and see who's right.

If contempt is granted without finding if the workaround infringes, all bets are off. DISH/SATS wants to prove they no longer infringe.

 

[8bitbytes]

It doesn't matter what the best and brightest can explain. All that matters is what a jury of ignorant commoners and a politically minded judge think. Tivo is betting that human mediocrity will trump scientific fact.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Perhaps the best and brightest explained to "a jury of ignorant commoners and a politically minded judge" that some DISH/SATS devices infringed on a patent. With the original case won and closed, TiVo is now betting that the judicial process, which in January will have dictated the pace of this case for five years, is now on their side.

 

[8bitbytes]

Perhaps the best and brightest explained to "a jury of ignorant commoners and a politically minded judge" that some DISH/SATS devices infringed on a patent. With the original case won and closed, TiVo is now betting that the judicial process, which in January will have dictated the pace of this case for five years, is now on their side.

I'm sure they did. However, now it seems that the same people who believed that kind of feat was possible now suddenly believe it's impossible to demonstrate that Dish no longer infringes.

I'm beginning to understand why Kodak decided to dump their instant camera business even though they had the option to change the chemical process used to make their instant photos.

If history proves anything, we will get stuck with the least usable form of dvr technology and everyone will trumpet how it's a big win.

 

[Greg Bimson]

I'm sure they did. However, now it seems that the same people who believed that kind of feat was possible now suddenly believe it's impossible to demonstrate that Dish no longer infringes.

Well, TiVo did state in their last filing regarding the disable order (before the hearing) that, "Thus, even the analysis of EchoStar's own counsel demonstrates that EchoStar's alleged design-around lacks substance. These units are not more than colorably different from the Adjudicated Receivers and they continue to infringe. The Court is well within its discretion to find EchoStar in contempt on this ground as well."

I'm not too sure TiVo's people ever said there was a way around the infringement. I know that Time Warp patent holder Barton said there was a way to remove the need for a media switch, which was only one claim of the 61 claim patent.

 

[HDRoberts]

Well, TiVo did state in their last filing regarding the disable order (before the hearing) that, "Thus, even the analysis of EchoStar's own counsel demonstrates that EchoStar's alleged design-around lacks substance. These units are not more than colorably different from the Adjudicated Receivers and they continue to infringe. The Court is well within its discretion to find EchoStar in contempt on this ground as well."

I'm not too sure TiVo's people ever said there was a way around the infringement. I know that Time Warp patent holder Barton said there was a way to remove the need for a media switch, which was only one claim of the 61 claim patent.

Why do you continue to quote Tivo's claims as fact?

If what you claim is true, I guess no one else can ever create a DVR without violating the Tivo patent. Like I said before, the ruling in the first trial referenced only a few specific claims they were in violation of, not that they were in violation because they made a DVR. Tivo has a patent on a way to make a DVR, not DVRs in general. Just because the Tivo inventor can't figure out how to do something doesn't mean it can't be done.

The people that matter(ed) are the judge and the jury. I'm pretty sure it was one of these that 8bits was referring to.

 

[Greg Bimson]

I am not taking TiVo's claims as fact, no moreso than anyone that believes DISH/SATS has a workaround that no longer infringes.

The people that matter(ed) may be the judge and jury, but the litigating parties are still arguing in front of the same judge (without a jury) regarding the next steps in this process.

The reality is that in DISH/SATS filings, they state the workaround no longer infringes, because:
1) none of the 8 receiver models index data before storage (and it is the only change on the 501 and 508)
2) none of the remaining 6 receiver models "automatically flow control" the data.

These are the only points DISH/SATS outlines in their argument before the court that they no longer infringe.

TiVo's take is:
1) the patent claims and claim construction in this case is defined as an analysis of the data. Pre-storage or post-storage, DISH/SATS must analyze the incoming data. PID filtering of the transponder data is an analysis of the data, and has been recognized to meed the claim limitation. Nothing was done about this, so DISH/SATS argument was obfuscating the claim.
2) the patent claims and claim construction is that "automatically flow controlled" means "self-regulating". In other words, the software has to keep up with the flow of the data and vice-versa. If this does not happen, there would be a stack error and the receiver would stop working. So there must be "self-regulation". The opinion of outside counsel introduced as evidence says that the software must keep up with the flow of data, which means it is self-regulating. The receiver still self-regulates, so DISH/SATS argument here is specious.

If both of DISH/SATS arguments against infringement is like the economy, Swiss cheese and politicians (more holes and air than substance), then they still infringe as they did not remove all of the technology behind the underlying claims, as those claims they've addressed as non-infringing are still being met.

 

[Jim S.]

61 claim patent.

That's a ridiculous number of claims. I find it hard to believe that all 61 of them are truly innovative and non-obvious!

 

[riffjim4069]

I hope not. I don't want my Dish DVR crippled by a slow, illogical interface and ridiculous circus noises. (Bleep! Bloop!) I also don't want it slowed down to about half it's speed, thank you very much.

Too funny...you almost made me spit up my coffee. Although we're happy FiOS customers, we tried the TiVo HD and we agree with your assessment. Although it has some very nice features, it is perhaps the slowest HD DVR we've used (we've used 8-9 different models), the interface is clunky, and the "circus noises" are comical. Unfortunately, I had to reenable the bleeps and bloops since that was the only way we knew the TiVo HD was processing input from the remote (slow, slow, slow). We returned the TiVO HD and continued using the FiOS HD DVR and Sony HD DVR (Cablecard). Although the TiVo has a lot of features, it is too slow and the interface could only be appreciated by someone who has never used another DVR...especially the 622/722. Heck, even my Sony HD DVR (with free GemStar TV Guide) is a more usable box...and it doesn't cost $12.95 per month for guide data, it's free! That's why TiVo has lost almost a million subscribers since Jan '07...people like the cable/satellite DVRs better and find them to be a better value.

As much as I dislike the TiVo patents...it's the law, and E* brought this situation upon themselves. Personally, I would love to see E* bring a top-notch 622/722 like DVR to the cable market - it is badly needed. Of course, I still have three 622s stacked in the closer should E*would ever cease their practice of HD-lite.

 

[8bitbytes]

I am not taking TiVo's claims as fact, no moreso than anyone that believes DISH/SATS has a workaround that no longer infringes.

The people that matter(ed) may be the judge and jury, but the litigating parties are still arguing in front of the same judge (without a jury) regarding the next steps in this process.

The reality is that in DISH/SATS filings, they state the workaround no longer infringes, because:
1) none of the 8 receiver models index data before storage (and it is the only change on the 501 and 508)
2) none of the remaining 6 receiver models "automatically flow control" the data.

These are the only points DISH/SATS outlines in their argument before the court that they no longer infringe.

TiVo's take is:
1) the patent claims and claim construction in this case is defined as an analysis of the data. Pre-storage or post-storage, DISH/SATS must analyze the incoming data. PID filtering of the transponder data is an analysis of the data, and has been recognized to meed the claim limitation. Nothing was done about this, so DISH/SATS argument was obfuscating the claim.
2) the patent claims and claim construction is that "automatically flow controlled" means "self-regulating". In other words, the software has to keep up with the flow of the data and vice-versa. If this does not happen, there would be a stack error and the receiver would stop working. So there must be "self-regulation". The opinion of outside counsel introduced as evidence says that the software must keep up with the flow of data, which means it is self-regulating. The receiver still self-regulates, so DISH/SATS argument here is specious.

If both of DISH/SATS arguments against infringement is like the economy, Swiss cheese and politicians (more holes and air than substance), then they still infringe as they did not remove all of the technology behind the underlying claims, as those claims they've addressed as non-infringing are still being met.

Ok, so if the court takes Tivo's explanation about flow control as the deciding factor, then there is no way any dvr can perform "time warp" without Tivo's patented process.

The smart money would be to buy the patent holder since nobody else will be able to program a work around either.

 

[riffjim4069]

The smart money would be to buy the patent holder since nobody else will be able to program a work around either.

My question is why hasn't Cable/DBS/CE come together to purchase TiVo and release their patents to the public domain for the good of the TV industry...

 

[Greg Bimson]

That's a ridiculous number of claims. I find it hard to believe that all 61 of them are truly innovative and non-obvious!

There are actually only four primary, standalone claims, with the remainder being dependant claims on the four standalone claims or dependant upon those dependant claims.

TiVo won a ruling of infringement on two of the four primary claims.

 

[8bitbytes]

My question is why hasn't Cable/DBS/CE come together to purchase TiVo and release their patents to the public domain for the good of the TV industry...

What planet do you think you are on? This isn't Star Trek, it's Blade Runner.

 

[HDRoberts]

Too funny...you almost made me spit up my coffee. Although we're happy FiOS customers, we tried the TiVo HD and we agree with your assessment. Although it has some very nice features, it is perhaps the slowest HD DVR we've used (we've used 8-9 different models), the interface is clunky, and the "circus noises" are comical. Unfortunately, I had to reenable the bleeps and bloops since that was the only way we knew the TiVo HD was processing input from the remote (slow, slow, slow). We returned the TiVO HD and continued using the FiOS HD DVR and Sony HD DVR (Cablecard). Although the TiVo has a lot of features, it is too slow and the interface could only be appreciated by someone who has never used another DVR...especially the 622/722. Heck, even my Sony HD DVR (with free GemStar TV Guide) is a more usable box...and it doesn't cost $12.95 per month for guide data, it's free! That's why TiVo has lost almost a million subscribers since Jan '07...people like the cable/satellite DVRs better and find them to be a better value.

Couldn't agree more.

Hey, here's a crazy idea that might make a partnership tenable: Tivo adopts the Dish interface.

 

[riffjim4069]

Couldn't agree more.

Hey, here's a crazy idea that might make a partnership tenable: Tivo adopts the Dish interface.

Although it went largely unnoticed, it looks like Dish Network is outsourcing some of their set-top-box business to Pace. I think the extent of an E*/TiVo partnership will be E* paying royalties to TiVo until 2018.

 

[riffjim4069]

What planet do you think you are on? This isn't Star Trek, it's Blade Runner.

I guess you caught me in a rare "can't we all just get along" moment.

In any case, I feel there would be a much better Cable and CE DVRs on the market if it weren't for the TiVo patents. I wonder if this case is affecting the release of the TR-50?

 

[8bitbytes]

I wonder if this case is affecting the release of the TR-50?

Don't even say that!

Life's simple disappointments, sponsored by Dish Turbo-HD!

 

[VinceT3]

What planet do you think you are on? This isn't Star Trek, it's Blade Runner.

actually its funny but I remember reading about some big companies in talks about creating a patent company that they would be able to freely pull from..

 

[8bitbytes]

actually its funny but I remember reading about some big companies in talks about creating a patent company that they would be able to freely pull from..

Here's one:

Linux backers form patent-sharing firm | Tech News on ZDNet

 

[TheKrell]

TiVo's take is:
1) the patent claims and claim construction in this case is defined as an analysis of the data. Pre-storage or post-storage, DISH/SATS must analyze the incoming data. PID filtering of the transponder data is an analysis of the data, and has been recognized to meed the claim limitation...
2) the patent claims and claim construction is that "automatically flow controlled" means "self-regulating". In other words, the software has to keep up with the flow of the data and vice-versa. If this does not happen, there would be a stack error and the receiver would stop working. So there must be "self-regulation"...

This is irrelevant nonsense. Both of these functions have to be performed by all satellite receivers, or in fact any digital tuner of any sort, whether or not it's also a DVR.