Um...if audio/video sync matters, mpeg2/mpeg4 matters. Its a simple correlation.
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 178K
- Status
Um...if audio/video sync matters, mpeg2/mpeg4 matters. Its a simple correlation.
If it uses a 50Hz power source, it must be innovative as 50Hz power sources aren't widely used here in America!
Changing the decoder from only MPEG2 to MPEG2 and MPEG4 is just as innovative.
Kindly explain the technical differences in each so I can better understand your position.
Thanks.
But doesn't TlVo's patent claim talk about 50 Hz or maybe 60 Hz? Surely they talk about one or the other. A DVR can't work without power.If it uses a 50Hz power source, it must be innovative as 50Hz power sources aren't widely used here in America!
Changing the decoder from only MPEG2 to MPEG2 and MPEG4 is just as innovative.
But that is the entire point we've been making all along:
Audio/Video synch matters in the Hardware Claims.
Audio/Video synch doesn't matter in the Software Claims.
Audio/Video synch matters in the Hardware Claims.
Audio/Video synch doesn't matter in the Software Claims.
The claims were written strictly within the scope of the one technology in use at the time. Now that there are two technologies in play, its a different ballgame. Recognize.
Lol...YOU braught it up! Lol.
Mpeg2 and mpeg4 was at least relevant to the audio/video portion of the discussion.
From the TiVo Time Warp Abstract:
Yep. The claims were written with one format in mind.
A preferred embodiment of the invention accepts television (TV) input streams in a multitude of forms, for example, National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) or PAL broadcast, and digital forms such as Digital Satellite System (DSS), Digital Broadcast Services (DBS), or Advanced Television Standards Committee (ATSC). The TV streams are converted to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation and are parsed and separated it into video and audio components.
Takes a digital satellite system TV stream and converts it to an MPEG formatted stream.Yep. The claims were written with one format in mind.
From the TiVo Time Warp Abstract:A preferred embodiment of the invention accepts television (TV) input streams in a multitude of forms, for example, National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) or PAL broadcast, and digital forms such as Digital Satellite System (DSS), Digital Broadcast Services (DBS), or Advanced Television Standards Committee (ATSC). The TV streams are converted to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation and are parsed and separated it into video and audio components.Takes a digital satellite system TV stream and converts it to an MPEG formatted stream.
Yep. The claims were written with one format in mind.
Yes. One digital format.
"The TV streams are converted to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation and are parsed and separated it into video and audio components."
First is was just the one, mpeg 2 available at the time this was writen, and now there are two. Both use different compression algorithms for their video and audio components, and are thus synchronized differently. This claim clearly needs to be revisited...
Thanks for clarifying my point.
Last edited:
Yep. The claims were written with one format in mind.
I would argue that in this thread the
emoticon usually leads to bad things.Mea culpa. However, TiVo's abstract for the Time Warp patent is not format-specific.
And synchronization has nothing to do with the Software Claims. All of this i-frame material and a/v synch is in the media switch, which is in the Hardware Claims.
Patents technically are allowed to be forward-thinking.
And synchronization has nothing to do with the Software Claims. All of this i-frame material and a/v synch is in the media switch, which is in the Hardware Claims.
Patents technically are allowed to be forward-thinking.
Doesn't need to be format-specific when it assumed only one format.
Whether or not the synchronization is in the hardware or software is honestly not relevant to my point. The point is that any change in the core technology can influence the design and thus require the patent claims to be revisited as a result. Even if certain 'once' software features are now implemented in hardware; that can be called into question.
Look, in all fairness...I'm not even saying that the ViPs don't infringe. I'm saying that there may be a legitimate basis for contesting the possibility, and that just saying "any DVR by E* is infringing" is a poor assumption at best.
Thats all...
I agree that there may be a legitimate basis for contesting the possibility. And I am not saying that "any DVR by E* is infringing".vampz26 said:
What I am saying is that such a big deal is being made about the MPEG4 technology that it is forgotten the ViP622/722 decodes MPEG2 just like the devices found infringing. It isn't a stretch to believe when it comes to MPEG2 that the devices behave just like those found infringing.
Greg, remember, ignore vampz and his talk about MPEG2 vs MPEG4. Seems he really can't let it drop ... everyone did good for a few days or so on this too.
Nope, doesn't required - used same PTS i.e. time-stamps format, because it doesn't compressed at all.
Please find where in the hardware claims the term "start codes" is mentioned, if not I guess it was "irrelevant?" If so why was TiVo arguing using "start codes" on the hardware claims?
Since TiVo used "start codes" to argue infringement on the hardware claims, of course E* can use "start codes" to argue infringement on the software claims. Why can't E* use TiVo's own argument?
We shall see on appeal.
Do the software claims mention the term "PID filter?" I guess the PID filter is irrelevant to the software claims?
Not that I agree with Vampz the difference between MPEG2 and MPEG4 matters, just asking you, if it is not mentioned it is irrelevant, then why did TiVo bring up the PID filter when arguing infringement on the software claims?
- Status
