TIVO vs E*

[Greg Bimson]

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?

Because it relates directly to the element "parsing video and audio data from broadcast data".

The patent claims do not go into excruciating detail how each and every minute detail within the process. That is why a piece of technology must be linked up from the definition.

The Media Switch is an important component (but not the only component) of the Time Warp patent. TiVo's implementation had the Media Switch basically index data from the I-frames, to create the table enabling quick lookup of pointers during trick-play functions. How that index is created was a core argument to determine infringement on the Hardware Claims.

Which means the I-frame argument isn't needed as a core argument on the Software Claims; that is where PID filtering came into play.

And there isn't a spot in the Software Claims that would require an analysis of MPEG2 or MPEG4 data.

 

[vampz26]

The part that cannot be defeated:The ViP DVR's also do MPEG2, and all eight models of DVR found infringing do MPEG2.

I already acknowledged that possibility in my original post on the subject in case you don't recall...

And also noted that the ability to handle two distinct digital formats may place the ViP series in a category by themselves.

Its all speculation at this point...

 

[jacmyoung]

Because it relates directly to the element "parsing video and audio data from broadcast data".

The point is TiVo said if it is not mentioned in the software claims, it is not relevant to the software claims. You cannot have it both ways.

Of course TiVo is wrong, it does not have to be mentioned specifically in the software claims to be relevant. The PID filter was discussed during the trial to be related to the "parse" limitation, just like the term "start code" is related to parse too. TiVo during the trial talked about how the TiVo invention parsed the start codes, over and over, therefore TiVo believed start codes were related to parse, so much so TiVo said they were the core of the invention.

Now TiVo says because "start codes" are not mentioned in the claims, so they are irrelevant. How does that logic sound?

The patent claims do not go into excruciating detail how each and every minute detail within the process. That is why a piece of technology must be linked up from the definition.

And therefore a piece of technology in the MPEG streams, i.e. the time stamps, or the start codes can be linked up too, as long as they are related to the invention, even though they are not mentioned in the claims.

The Media Switch is an important component (but not the only component) of the Time Warp patent.

During the trial TiVo said the media switch was the "physical data source" and they proved it so by demonstrating the media switch parsed the audio and video start codes out of the broadcast data, and temporarily stored such data.

Now TiVo is saying the PID filter is that "physical data source" because it parses. See the difference?

Which means the I-frame argument isn't needed as a core argument on the Software Claims; that is where PID filtering came into play.

Let's drop the I-frame, I-frame has nothing to do with start codes or time stamps, it was a mistake we used the term I-frame before.

And there isn't a spot in the Software Claims that would require an analysis of MPEG2 or MPEG4 data.

But what if the new DVRs only use MPEG2 and MPEG4 broadcast formats, nothing else? Wouldn't it be "required" to analyze the MPEG2/MPEG4 data for the newer DVRs to infringe?

 

[TheKrell]

You can't make trick play functions without syncing video and audio parts.

Why on earth do you continue to insist this nonsense? You don't need to sync audio with video when there is no audio playing during trick play! Now I have some computer programs that actually do play audio during 2X FF, for example, though the sound is pretty silly since the pitch is 2X also. If the Tivo does that, then I apologise because I thought it was just like Dish trick play (only smoother) without sound. Without sound, there is nothing to sync.

When no longer doing trick play, then of course the audio must again be synced up with the video. But normal playback from a recorded program is not the issue here.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Of course TiVo is wrong, it does not have to be mentioned specifically in the software claims to be relevant. The PID filter was discussed during the trial to be related to the "parse" limitation, just like the term "start code" is related to parse too.

"Start code" was related to the Hardware Claims. There were parse elements on all four primary claims.

If DISH/SATS wants to argue the "start codes" in a hearing regarding the Software Claims, it is like DISH/SATS walking into a baseball game without a bat.

Even Judge Folsom mentioned that issue, as DISH/SATS tried to bring in the original finding of infringement of the Hardware Claims, apply it and EXPAND it to the Software Claims. The problem is PID filtering met the parse element limitation in the Software Claims easily.

 

[jacmyoung]

"Start code" was related to the Hardware Claims. There were parse elements on all four primary claims...

But there are parse elements on all software claims too. Keep in mind the reason, and the only reason TiVo said "start codes" are irrelevant to the software claims is that the term is not mentioned in the software claims. If this is the only reason, then it should not be relevant to the hardware claims because the hardware claims do not mention it either.

Of course the judge agreed with TiVo, but let's see if the appeals court will agree or not.

 

[Smith P.]

Why on earth do you continue to insist this nonsense? You don't need to sync audio with video when there is no audio playing during trick play! Now I have some computer programs that actually do play audio during 2X FF, for example, though the sound is pretty silly since the pitch is 2X also. If the Tivo does that, then I apologise because I thought it was just like Dish trick play (only smoother) without sound. Without sound, there is nothing to sync.

When no longer doing trick play, then of course the audio must again be synced up with the video. But normal playback from a recorded program is not the issue here.

Because you're keep telling it to me. Because you don't comprehend the process. Because it's sounds for you as nonsense.
You're wrong - there is no 2x or such speed of demonstrating pictures - it picking I-frames each 1/60s instead of 1/30s or such time stamp value ( basically it is SKIP of pictures, not increase speed of demonstration ). Audio is just muting during trick play, not because of "pitch" is 2X or more, but becaause this is SKIP process and it's taking very short period of picking the current I-frame, you will heard ( if you'll modify the code ) just short parts of audio track ie garbled sound.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Keep in mind the reason, and the only reason TiVo said "start codes" are irrelevant to the software claims is that the term is not mentioned in the software claims.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the only reason. I recall that DISH/SATS expert Dr. Rhyne was saying the "start codes" needed to apply to the parse element of the Software Claims. TiVo correctly pointed out that Dr. Rhyne's testimony from the trial said that the "start codes" were part of the parse step relating to the Hardware Claims, while PID filtering was part of the Software Claims' parse element.

Of course the judge agreed with TiVo, but let's see if the appeals court will agree or not.

Agreed.

 

[jacmyoung]

Because you're keep telling it to me. Because you don't comprehend the process. Because it's sounds for you as nonsense.
You're wrong - there is no 2x or such speed of demonstrating pictures - it picking I-frames each 1/60s instead of 1/30s or such time stamp value ( basically it is SKIP of pictures, not increase speed of demonstration ). Audio is just muting during trick play, not because of "pitch" is 2X or more, but becaause this is SKIP process and it's taking very short period of picking the current I-frame, you will heard ( if you'll modify the code ) just short parts of audio track ie garbled sound.

You seem to believe since after the DVR comes out of trickplays the audio and video must sync for normal playback, therefore the sync issue is important to the DVR functions therefore it related to this TiVo invention. It may be so, but the point of contention here is not the word "sync," rather the word "parse." No party in this dispute is talking about sync, so bringing up this issue is useless even if it has to do with the invention.

That is why I said let’s talk about only what E*, TiVo, the judge, and the appeals court have been talking about, not just what we want to talked about.

Below is part of the TiVo patent specification, notice how many times time stamp(s) (start code) were mentioned, and index too, and also notice the very last sentence where it says what this invention is trying to void doing? It is exactly what the E* new design is doing now:

The Media Switch enables the program logic to associate proper time sequence information with each segment, possibly embedding it directly into the stream. The time sequence information for each segment is called a time stamp. These time stamps are monotonically increasing and start at zero each time the system boots up. This allows the invention to find any particular spot in any particular video segment. For example, if the system needs to read five seconds into an incoming contiguous video stream that is being cached, the system simply has to start reading forward into the stream and look for the appropriate time stamp.

A binary search can be performed on a stored file to index into a stream. Each stream is stored as a sequence of fixed-size segments enabling fast binary searches because of the uniform time stamping. If the user wants to start in the middle of the program, the system performs a binary search of the stored segments until it finds the appropriate spot, obtaining the desired results with a minimal amount of information. If the signal were instead stored as an MPEG stream, it would be necessary to linearly parse the stream from the beginning to find the desired location.

 

[jacmyoung]

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the only reason. I recall that DISH/SATS expert Dr. Rhyne was saying the "start codes" needed to apply to the parse element of the Software Claims. TiVo correctly pointed out that Dr. Rhyne's testimony from the trial said that the "start codes" were part of the parse step relating to the Hardware Claims, while PID filtering was part of the Software Claims' parse element.Agreed.

Just because start codes related to the hardware claims was not the reason to exclude them from the software claims, the only reason to exclude them from the software claims, according to TiVo is they are not mentioned in the software claims.

 

[Curtis0620]

Group Says Dish Network is Abusing Appeals Process | homemediamagazine.com

 

[TheKrell]

Audio is just muting during trick play, not because of "pitch" is 2X or more, but becaause this is SKIP process and it's taking very short period of picking the current I-frame, you will heard ( if you'll modify the code ) just short parts of audio track ie garbled sound.

I believe you are technically incorrect. The reason the audio and video are separated into separate streams in the Tivo process is so that the audio stream can be ignored altogether, while skipping only through the video stream. If Tivo's process involves skipping through the audio stream, only to mute it in the end, then they are stupider than I ever imagined.

Edit: Note to moderator: I am not calling P. Smith "stupid." I'm calling his cartoon of a Tivo engineer "stupid." (I do not believe this stupid engineer actually exists.)

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Group Says Dish Network is Abusing Appeals Process | homemediamagazine.com

So... Echostar shouldn't appeal because it is "deep-pocketed" and can afford to? I find the argument in that news piece to be somewhat of a joke.

 

[jacmyoung]

I believe you are technically incorrect. The reason the audio and video are separated into separate streams in the Tivo process is so that the audio stream can be ignored altogether, while skipping only through the video stream. If Tivo's process involves skipping through the audio stream, only to mute it in the end, then they are stupider than I ever imagined.

Edit: Note to moderator: I am not calling P. Smith "stupid." I'm calling his cartoon of a Tivo engineer "stupid." (I do not believe this stupid engineer actually exists.)

Some of us like Smith and Vampz might want to think the audio/video sync is an important issue, or may be related to this TiVo’s invention, but it is not the issue in front of the court. No one, not E*, nor TiVo nor the judge has ever talked about any sync issue, so we need to drop this issue because the court will not hear our own issues.

The appeals court will only hear what E* says, what TiVo says, and what the judge said, also apply what the case law had said.

 

[jacmyoung]

So... Echostar shouldn't appeal because it is "deep-pocketed" and can afford to? I find the argument in that news piece to be somewhat of a joke.

That ACT trade group filed a brief to the appeals court asking them to deny E*'s motion to stay. Basically you have TiVo, the judge, and the ACT all making "compelling arguments" to deny or lift the stay. It will be interesting to see how the appeals court responds.

 

[TheKrell]

Some of us like Smith and Vampz might want to think the audio/video sync is an important issue, or may be related to this TiVo’s invention, but it is not the issue in front of the court.

It is associated with parsing. Some people want to make "parsing" mean to "separate one program channel from another." I want to make "parsing" mean the "separation of audio from video" streams. I believe the Tivo process relies on parsing in my sense, but has only a loose association with, and no dependency on, parsing the PID. Smith thinks that the audio is not separated from the video. Bimson thinks that parsing the PID is part of the Tivo's process. Tivo has successfully confused a judge into thinking they're the same thing (parsing).

IMHO this whole situation stinks. Deliberate ambiguity (or just muddy descriptions) in patents should be rejected by the PTO. Looking at the Tivo patent, I suspect it's deliberately fuzzy and designed to entrap others, relying on fear of litigation for extravagant income unjustified by a rather modest invention, or when that fails, hoping for a duplicitous court.

So far Tivo has won that bet and won big. This only encourages others to throw tons of ambiguous garbage at the PTO, hoping that the examiner will find some pieces that are patentable. Then they hope to win big in court, possibly without building a single product at all. (I'm probably describing the true motivation behind the ACT trade group here.)

Is my contempt showing?

 

[rockymtnhigh]

So far Tivo has won that bet and won big. This only encourages others to throw tons of ambiguous garbage at the PTO, hoping that the examiner will find some pieces that are patentable. Then they hope to win big in court, possibly without building a single product at all. (I'm probably describing the true motivation behind the ACT trade group here.)

Is my contempt showing?

Yup.

But I agree.

 

[Thomas22]

It is associated with parsing. Some people want to make "parsing" mean to "separate one program channel from another." I want to make "parsing" mean the "separation of audio from video" streams.

That's what Dish claimed the parsing in claim 31 meant during the Markman hearing. The claim construction ruling that Judge Folsom wrote specifically acknowledged that Dish claimed it meant "separated the audio and video" but said "no" it simply meant analyzed the audio and video from the broadcast data. He refused to narrow it further as requested by Dish. It wasn't appealed. It's the law of the case now.

 

[jacmyoung]

That's what Dish claimed the parsing in claim 31 meant during the Markman hearing. The claim construction ruling that Judge Folsom wrote specifically acknowledged that Dish claimed it meant "separated the audio and video" but said "no" it simply meant analyzed the audio and video from the broadcast data. He refused to narrow it further as requested by Dish. It wasn't appealed. It's the law of the case now.

But E* does not try to narrow it down, this is where the judge was confused by TiVo.

E* was not saying now parse means separating, E* said "parse video and audio data from the broadcast data" (a limitation constructed by the court BTW) in the software claims meant analyzing audio and video time stamps, i.e. audio and video data. Not separating them, just to analyze them.

And the PID filter did not analyze any "audio and video data," only the 13-bit code in the header which contained no audio and video data. The judge's response was basically "audio and video data" did not matter to him, only the word "parse" was needed.

We will have to see if the appeals court will agree the term "audio and video data" matters or not.

 

[jacmyoung]

Yup.

If so should he be on a three-day vacation already?