TiVo Sues E*.
- Thread starter Curtis0620
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 44
- Views 9K
This is an important one, so I am reposting the press release below.
I wonder if UltimateTV and Replay will be hit with the same suits since they also have the same features.
I wonder if UltimateTV and Replay will be hit with the same suits since they also have the same features.
I am thinking Charlie should have purchased TIVO when he had a chance.
Infact he STILL should buy Tivo.
Infact he STILL should buy Tivo.
I bet this ends up the same way the TV Guide lawsuites did. I don't remember when Tivo came out, but seems like the Dish player was out about the same time. Should be interesting.
Were the Tivo patents in effect when the original DishPlayer 7100 came out? If so did Microsoft license them? If not then Microsoft should be named as a co-defendant.
This also sounds strangely to me like Tivo taking a last gasp. Have they ever been profitable? Perhaps they are looking at this as a new revenue stream.
Jeese one would of hope that if Tivo sued dish it would be over something like Named Based recording. 
BTW I wonder how software based PVR such as Snapstream get around these patents? Snapstream has name based recording and also lets you pause live TV.
BTW I wonder how software based PVR such as Snapstream get around these patents? Snapstream has name based recording and also lets you pause live TV.
Come on Tivo... Isn't it enough that you wanted Dish to stop using the PVR terminology, saying you had the PVR trademarked and didn't want others to infringe upon your term and identity? Now you forsake the PVR terminology and lay claim to the generic term DVR?
Give me a break
The Echostar DVR patent is 6,490,000. (click to read it). Here's some interesting language (an aside, not related to the Tivo suit) from the Echostar patent:
The control from the broadcast facility is through the ability to designate segments of the video and audio program to be immune to the fast-forward function. The present invention may thereby guarantee that a commercial advertisement is shown. The present invention enables TV commercial advertisers to mark their commercials with a prevention instruction in the signal to insure their advertisements are viewed by the user. In other words, the user is prevented from fast forwarding past these commercials. Also, other required broadcasts which must be viewed by the user, such as warnings of severe weather or national warnings broadcast by the Emergency Broadcast Association, can be so marked.
I wonder if EchoStar wisely chose not to implement this, or that the broadcasters could not reliably provide info so as to permit this "feature" to operate properly 100% of the time.
The control from the broadcast facility is through the ability to designate segments of the video and audio program to be immune to the fast-forward function. The present invention may thereby guarantee that a commercial advertisement is shown. The present invention enables TV commercial advertisers to mark their commercials with a prevention instruction in the signal to insure their advertisements are viewed by the user. In other words, the user is prevented from fast forwarding past these commercials. Also, other required broadcasts which must be viewed by the user, such as warnings of severe weather or national warnings broadcast by the Emergency Broadcast Association, can be so marked.
I wonder if EchoStar wisely chose not to implement this, or that the broadcasters could not reliably provide info so as to permit this "feature" to operate properly 100% of the time.
Either that or the advertisers could not reliably provide the extra revenue to E* to make their commercials immune to skipping
Another frivolous lawsuit.
As with the AMD - Intel lawsuits of the 80's and 90's, if E* can show that they developed the features completely on their own, without stealing any TiVo company secrets (they didn't de-compile and/or use any source code), there would be no basis in the lawsuit. You cannot patent a feature, only a method of implementing the feature. Whatever Charlie is, I don't think he is a thief. I find it hard to believe that he is cognizant of any corporate theft going on.
- martincva
As with the AMD - Intel lawsuits of the 80's and 90's, if E* can show that they developed the features completely on their own, without stealing any TiVo company secrets (they didn't de-compile and/or use any source code), there would be no basis in the lawsuit. You cannot patent a feature, only a method of implementing the feature. Whatever Charlie is, I don't think he is a thief. I find it hard to believe that he is cognizant of any corporate theft going on.
- martincva
If Charlie was going to steal Tivo technology then why not go all the way and get the name based recording and season passes software?
I think Charlie should have bought Tivo a long time ago when he had extra money left over from the failed merger with Directv. Then Directv could have been paying Charlie to use Dish's "Tivo " software.
I think Charlie should have bought Tivo a long time ago when he had extra money left over from the failed merger with Directv. Then Directv could have been paying Charlie to use Dish's "Tivo " software.
Oh man! Here we go again for more delays.
Worst case scenario-
Courts grant an injunction preventing E* from selling anymore PVR technology and those sold must be shut down and money refunded to the people who bought them.
Since there are lots of companies out making disk based video recording systems, including Panasonic with their DVD-R included hard drive it seems the effect of this suit could have quite an impact on the industry. Should be interesting with CES in 2 days. How and what will be Dish's official comment? Probably "No-Comment"
OK, so that is worst case but here is what I think may happen- I believe Charlie will strike a royalty deal with TIVO if it looks like this thing could harm E* fiscally while the suit drags on for years. Then, it just depends on how greedy Tivo wants to be.
The press release reads a bit strange because as already stated, you can't patent a feature but you can patent a unique process to achieve that feature. TIVO would have to prove that E* is using the same process. TIVO does not have to prove E* stole the technology from them. E* could have developed it all on their own but having the same process second doesn't count! IF TIVO was granted the patent then there was public disclosure on the application and only a fool would steal the patent application design.
Worst case scenario-
Courts grant an injunction preventing E* from selling anymore PVR technology and those sold must be shut down and money refunded to the people who bought them.
Since there are lots of companies out making disk based video recording systems, including Panasonic with their DVD-R included hard drive it seems the effect of this suit could have quite an impact on the industry. Should be interesting with CES in 2 days. How and what will be Dish's official comment? Probably "No-Comment"
OK, so that is worst case but here is what I think may happen- I believe Charlie will strike a royalty deal with TIVO if it looks like this thing could harm E* fiscally while the suit drags on for years. Then, it just depends on how greedy Tivo wants to be.
The press release reads a bit strange because as already stated, you can't patent a feature but you can patent a unique process to achieve that feature. TIVO would have to prove that E* is using the same process. TIVO does not have to prove E* stole the technology from them. E* could have developed it all on their own but having the same process second doesn't count! IF TIVO was granted the patent then there was public disclosure on the application and only a fool would steal the patent application design.
TIVO wants to be the big fish and for everyone to come to them to get a DVR. Get over it TIVO this is what is know as competition.
