TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 179K
- Status
go for triple...you're on a roll.
I know Vegas should take bet on this.
Now someone will come in and explain why this new patent is meaningless to the "design around."
its not meaningless. its treacherous...
basically, tivo has done nothing to improve their product, and is now claiming to have invented the far superior product developed by E*!
I just like it because now the tivo fanboys have been knocked clean off their moral highground...lol.
basically, tivo has done nothing to improve their product, and is now claiming to have invented the far superior product developed by E*!
I just like it because now the tivo fanboys have been knocked clean off their moral highground...lol.
Oh, count on that spam happening soon. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet... the full legal analysis and obvious conclusion why having a new patent awarded is actually a serious setback for TiVo.
its not meaningless. its treacherous...
basically, tivo has done nothing to improve their product, and is now claiming to have invented the far superior product developed by E*!
I just like it because now the tivo fanboys have been knocked clean off their moral highground...lol.
You are still making no sense. I don't think anyone has any idea what you are talking about.
You beat me to it!
I just read the claim terms of this “new” patent, it was filed in 2002, and in comparing this one to the ‘389 TiVo patent in this litigation, it seems obvious this new patent is the same as the old one with one visible difference, this new patent contains only the so called hardware claims that exist in the old patent, and has no software claims that exist in the old patent.
The implication? As Thomas22 alluded to before, now we have a “stronger” patent. My speculation is after TiVo filed the old patent, they probably realized it was not very “strong” so they file this new one, narrowed the claim scope.
The catch? When you try to make your patent “stronger” you also make it more difficult to prove infringement on such “stronger” patent, because to be “stronger” the patent claims must be narrowed so it is more difficult to invalidate.
Had this new patent been the issue in this litigation, E* would have been found not to infringe because it only contains the hardware claims. And of course the fact TiVo filed another patent application after the old one, by removing the software claims, gives you some idea what they themselves regarded the software claims--likely would be invalidated, because TiVo anticipated that in 2002.
Now I want to say again why it is very important to consider the context, and/or perspective when one tries to interpret the meaning of the terms. As a perfect example here, Thomas22 used the words “stronger patent” to give people an impression that E* will be in bigger trouble, but if one understands what a “stronger patent” really entails, one will come up with the opposite conclusion, that TiVo will have a much harder time to prove infringement on a “stronger patent.”
Our member TS7 had already provided an example of the how the word “fantastic” could be taken out of the context to mislead people. There is another example used in the grade school to teach the kids the concept of perspective/context, and I will paraphrase below:
1) WOW, what a winter in Hawaii!
2) WOW, what a summer in Antarctica!
If one literally takes the meaning of the words “WOW”, “winter” and “summer,” one may interpret that Hawaii was so cold, and Antarctica was so hot. But we know the true meaning is the opposite, that how warm Hawaii can be and how cold Antarctic can be.
There are reasons for misinterpretation:
1) One simply does not have the knowledge of the locations of the two places to put things in context, or
2) One ignores the additional information so things are not put in their proper context, or
3) One intentionally omits the information so things are not put in their proper context, so as to mislead others.
I think TiVo has been doing 2) and the TiVo folks have been doing 3).
Last edited:
Why are you putting quotes around "new" - the patent was granted by the USPTO today.
With all due respect, "duh." This is a continuing patent of '389. It must, by definition, be part of the old one.
I presume by "volumes" you mean that it looks bleak for Dish.
So, what's a continuation patent? Does it expire 20 years from now, or rather 20 years from the original date? And if, down the road years from now, the USPTO invalidates the old patent, does this automatically invalidate the continuation too?
It of course speaks volumes when in this later patent application TiVo decided to remove the software patent claims, may be they knew the software claims would not have a good fate in the future
If the USPTO should invalidate the TiVo's software patent claims, it will have no impact to this new patent because this new patent contains no such software claims.
The current reexamination is not to invalide the old '389 TiVo patent, only trying to invalidate the two software claims which are the only claims at issue in this litigation.
I have a question for the mods, since Scott may be too busy to answer my PM. Some one generously offered to send me the full 02/17 hearing transcript, is there anyway the sender may use the current PM to attach the transcript to me?
Ti Vo thought of new claims. The USPTO doesn't issue two patents for the same thing. The specification may be the same but it's the claims that get granted. They are considered new and standalone in the case of independent claims.
Why don't you just have that person send it to you as an email? I can't send attachments in PMs any more than anyone else can. Sorry.
The point is, this new patent describes the same “time warp” DVR invention as the old one, and eliminates the software claims (therefore narrows its claim scope), contains claims only in the form of the hardware claims to be more bulletproof.
Since the appeals court had already overturned the infringement verdict based on the hardware claims in the old patent, and TiVo themselves also decided not to continue to pursue the hardware claims issue, against Judge Folsom’s own suggestion, it is highly unlikely that TiVo will try to use this new patent to re-capture E*’s new design in a new lawsuit, but if TiVo should try it, the chance for success will be very slim.
I think it interesting that Ti Vo patented picture in picture software:
2. The process of claim 1, wherein said output subsystem converts said at least one of said selected multimedia program(s) and said multimedia program whose storage is in progress into display output signals.
3. The process of claim 2, further comprising the step of: inserting on-screen displays into a display output signal.
2. The process of claim 1, wherein said output subsystem converts said at least one of said selected multimedia program(s) and said multimedia program whose storage is in progress into display output signals.
3. The process of claim 2, further comprising the step of: inserting on-screen displays into a display output signal.
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
