TIVO vs E*

[nobody99]

Judge Folsom did mention Paice v. Toyota during the 9/4 hearing, but he did so when the E*’s lawyer asked, if the judge should find a contempt, there could still be a “middle ground” he could try to reach.

So it must have just been my imagination when I read this:

'MCELHINNY:...WE DON’T THINK THERE IS A
MECHANISM UNDER THE LAW FOR THE COURT TO SET DE NOVO A DAMAGE
RATE POST-VERDICT TO DO A DETERMINATION RETROACTIVELY FOR A
DAMAGE PERIOD DURING AN INJUNCTION.

THE COURT: I GUESS YOU HAVE READ PAICE V. TOYOTA?

(more stuff deleted for brevity)

THE COURT: HAD ALL THESE SAME ARGUMENTS IN PAICE FOR
THOSE, MR. BAXTER IS WELL AWARE. WE WERE HERE FOR A FULL DAY
A FEW WEEKS AGO AND WE HAD, SURPRISINGLY ENOUGH, THE
PLAINTIFFS TAKING EXACTLY THE POSITION IN PAICE YOU ARE TAKING
HERE AND THE DEFENDANT TAKING EXACTLY THE POSITION OF TOYOTA
IN THE PAICE CASE.

Hmm. So Judge Folsom's April Paice decision (setting a de novo damage rate post verdict)is precisely what Chief Clown Posse Lawer McElhinny said he couldn't do.

The fact that Judge Folsom even mentions how TiVo is exactly Paice and DISH is exactly Toyota does not bode well for Dish. It's going to be $5 per DVR.

 

[CuriousMark]

The Paice decision is relevant to this case only in that, if E* new design is found to continue to infringe, and therefore E* continues to willfully infringe on the TiVo's patent, TiVo may successfully argue that the royalty rate will have to be higher, it is no longer limited to what was calculated during the original trial.

That is as much a relevance to this case as you can say. Of course in this case, TiVo must first prove by clear and convincing evidence that the E* new design still infringes on the software claims.

First thing first.

That sums it up pretty well. So the question becomes one of whether both sides should consider the win or lose odds in terms of dollars at risk has changed enough to warrant a change in overall strategy. If the risk to Dish in royalty settlement dollars is enough higher, then they might not want to continue taking the risk of that loss, and consider settlement beforehand.

Now I personally have no clue as to whether the Paice decision changes those odds enough for Dish to care, but I think that is the question for those who might know more about patent litigation than I do.

Obviously the Paice result is NOT directly applicable. TiVo fans are just wondering if it may effect the risk/reward calculations that help govern overall strategy in patent cases in general and the TiVo/Dish case in particular.

 

[jacmyoung]

You do realize that there is no "valve" right, and that this is data, not a liquid that's being flow controlled.

Please try to stick to the correct terminology.

Did you have a chance to read the 2/17 transcript? The word "valve" was used by TiVo in the jury trial to describe how the flow control worked, and they had a very nice animation about it too, and in the hearing the TiVo expert admitted the software code related to that "valve" was turned off, no longer there.

I just did not quote the entire session, because they spent so much time to describe that animation of TiVo's it could literally last for pages.

 

[CuriousMark]

Did you have a chance to read the 2/17 transcript? The word "valve" was used by TiVo in the jury trial to describe how the flow control worked, and they had a very nice animation about it too, and in the hearing the TiVo expert admitted the software code related to that "valve" was turned off, no longer there.

I just did not quote the entire session, because they spent so much time to describe that animation of TiVo's it could literally last for pages.

Dish replaced the valve with an overflow. Instead of halting data input, it now splashes over the top and falls away. The flow is still controlled, albeit differently.

 

[jacmyoung]

...Obviously the Paice result is NOT directly applicable. TiVo fans are just wondering if it may effect the risk/reward calculations that help govern overall strategy in patent cases in general and the TiVo/Dish case in particular.

TiVo's argument was the post-verdict royalty rate could be higher than the pre-verdict rate, and E*'s argument was it should be the same, which was a weak argument anyway because Judge Folsom told E* their $16M (based on the pre-verdict rate) was a minimum.

Now the Paice decision may have confirmed that the post-verdict rate can be higher than the pre-verdict rate, but it did not raise any new quesiton, on 9/4, such issue was already addressed, it was understood that the damages could be more than the $16M, meaning the post-verdict royalty rate could almost certainly be higher.

Only that it would NOT be as high as what TiVo had asked for at $220M, because Judge Folsom also said he simply could not figure out how TiVo even came up with that number.

In other words, parties were aware on 9/4 the rate would be higher, there is nothing new this Paice decision is providing, it is not game changing.

 

[jacmyoung]

Dish replaced the valve with an overflow. Instead of halting data input, it now splashes over the top and falls away. The flow is still controlled, albeit differently.

Did you read the transcript? Did you know that TiVo admitted that in that graphic TiVo used to describe the "automatic flow control" function, the key was that valve, and TiVo now admit that that valve is gone?

So the only thing TiVo used to describe the "automatic flow control" during the trial, now has its key control removed. That is the important part. TiVo never said during the trial that the automatic flow control was some different flushing and control, because it is not, the circular buffers had nothing to do with this function, that was why TiVo did not put up a graphic to describe the circular buffers at trial.

As usual, TiVo now tries to find other things that are not related to the invention, and tries to say, hey E* still use those things because the hardware did not change. You can certainly follow TiVo's such logic.

To me the logic simply cannot hold. And BTW, automatic flow control is not even that important anyway, as long as the new design no longer analyzes the start codes, no longer temporarily stores such codes, and the source object then can no longer extract such codes, therefore can no longer fill the buffer with such codes...then three out of the 10 steps in the software claims are no longer met, the automatic flow control item is just icing on the cake.

 

[CuriousMark]

Did you read the transcript? Did you know that TiVo admitted that in that graphic TiVo used to describe the "automatic flow control" function, the key was that valve, and TiVo now admit that that valve is gone?

Yes, it was replaced with an overflow mechanism based on a ring of fixed length buffers that was well described in the transcript. If an overflow occurs, data over-writes an un-emptied buffer. If there were a cute description it would be an overflow drain similar to what you have in your bathtub, they just didn't provide a cutsie description like that this time.

So the only thing TiVo used to describe the "automatic flow control" during the trial, now has its key control removed. That is the important part. TiVo never said during the trial that the automatic flow control was some different flushing and control, because it is not, the circular buffers had nothing to do with this function, that was why TiVo did not put up a graphic to describe the circular buffers at trial.

Just because a different method is used, doesn't mean that flow control doesn't even happen. It does, it happens differently now, but it still happens. Excess data does not reach the decoding chip, it didn't before because it was turned off, it doesn't now because a buffer is over-written. The effect to a viewer is identical.

As usual, TiVo now tries to find other things that are not related to the invention, and tries to say, hey E* still use those things because the hardware did not change. You can certainly follow TiVo's such logic.

Not at all. Dish no longer uses the method TiVo showed at trial for flow control. It is a change, it is a real change. It is a clever code change that eliminates a single fixed buffer in the data path. However, that code change is not colorably different, data is still regulated, the new regulation method is more subtle, but nevertheles it is still there, it performs the same function and delivers indistinguishable results. An active switch was replaced with tuning parameters and careful real-time code organization to provide a situation where overflow is highly unlikely in a properly working unit.

 

[jacmyoung]

Yes, it was replaced with an overflow mechanism based on a ring of fixed length buffers that was well described in the transcript.

No, it was not replaced by anything. That "ring of buffers" was part of the hardware components that was always there, it did not have anything to do with the DVR software, that "ring of buffers" was controlled by the hard drive firmware, wherever there is a hard drive you will see that thing there to control the flow of the data to be stored onto the hard drive, and BTW the E* lawyer also got the TiVo expert to admit that that “ring of buffers” was not TiVo’s invention:

Q ONE OTHER THING, DR. STORER, TIVO DIDN’T INVENT CIRCULAR BUFFERS, DID THEY?

A CIRCULAR BUFFERS, PER SE. OF COURSE, WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THEM IN A MUCH BIGGER CONTEXT HERE WITH ALL KINDS OF OTHER STUFF, BUT A CIRCULAR Q IN ITS OWN RIGHT IS A DATA STRUCTURE THAT IS NOT –- THAT PREDATES THE PATENT IN QUESTION HERE.
Q THANK YOU.

Not at all. Dish no longer uses the method TiVo showed at trial for flow control. It is a change, it is a real change. It is a clever code change that eliminates a single fixed buffer in the data path. However, that code change is not colorably different, data is still regulated, the new regulation method is more subtle, but nevertheles it is still there,

Again, there is no “new regulation” to speak of, that “ring of buffers” was there before, and is here now, because it is related to the hardware, not software, and it is not part of TiVo’s invention, this much TiVo’s expert admitted it.

 

[CuriousMark]

No, it was not replaced by anything. That "ring of buffers" was part of the hardware components that was always there, it did not have anything to do with the DVR software, that "ring of buffers" was controlled by the hard drive firmware, wherever there is a hard drive you will see that thing there to control the flow of the data to be stored onto the hard drive, and BTW the E* lawyer also got the TiVo expert to admit that that “ring of buffers” was not TiVo’s invention:

Uh, no. The ring of buffers is NOT controlled by the hard drive firmware. Yes, it was always there, but before there was a switch in front of it to regulate data flow. Now the ring of buffers itself is being used to regulate the flow in a different method. It was not being used that way before, in that sense it is new. It is a new use of an existing structure, to perform the same function that was performed by the switchable single buffer that feeds it. The ring of buffers itself is not new, I never said it was, so don't waste debating tactics trying to change the subject. However, it's use to regulate data flow instead of just as a cushion is new in this software. Note, use of ring buffers to regulate in this way is also not new, it is one of the defining features of such buffers, it just wasn't being used for that before because there was a switch which was taken away. I know you take that to mean it was not "replaced", but functionally it was, and denying that fact is only done to dodge the biggest hole in the argument instead of facing it squarely.

 

[jacmyoung]

... Yes, it was always there, but before there was a switch in front of it to regulate data flow. Now the ring of buffers itself is being used to regulate the flow in a different method. ...

Before there was no such switch in front of the "ring of buffers," you need to show us where did TiVo say before there was this switch (or "valve") in front of the "ring of the buffers."

Don't make things up when TiVo did not say so, the judge will not hear your made up switch. The functions of the "ring of buffers" were never modified in any way, they were there before and are here now, not changed.

The "valve" TiVo talked about, was there before to control the flow of the parsed start codes when they got filled into "a buffer" by the "source object." That "a buffer" was "obtained" by the "source object" from the "transform object" and used to store the parsed start codes and streams.

And in the old design, right before this "a buffer" there was a "valve" which TiVo in its graphics used it to depict "automatic flow control" function. That valve turned off if the "a buffer" got full, so to avoid data "spilling onto the floor." None of such had anything to do with the "ring of buffers" while the "ring of buffers" was minding its own business, both in the old design, and now in the new design.

And the TiVo expert now admitted that "valve" (i.e. automatic flow control) was removed, the code was gone.

 

[CuriousMark]

Before there was no such switch in front of the "ring of buffers," you need to show us where did TiVo say before there was this switch (or "valve") in front of the "ring of the buffers."

Ok, it was shown as a valve, not a switch. You discuss it below, so I think you understand what I mean.

Don't make things up when TiVo did not say so, the judge will not hear your made up switch. The functions of the "ring of buffers" were never modified in any way, they were there before and are here now, not changed.

I am neither making things up nor quoting TiVo. I am explaining how the thing works based on my reading of the transcripts, patent applications and discussion threads. The ring of buffers was not changed, but it IS being used in a new way simply because the valve upstream of it is no longer there.

The "valve" TiVo talked about, was there before to control the flow of the parsed start codes when they got filled into "a buffer" by the "source object." That "a buffer" was "obtained" by the "source object" from the "transform object" and used to store the parsed start codes and streams.

No it controlled the video and audio data stream not just the index file. I believe that is a mistake, not making stuff up, but if repeated, we will know it is a fabrication. The buffer obtained is a member of the ring now instead of the intermediate buffer that was disabled. It is still obtained by the source object, as the direct buffer descriptor. It stores streams.

And in the old design, right before this "a buffer" there was a "valve" which TiVo in its graphics used it to depict "automatic flow control" function. That valve turned off if the "a buffer" got full, so to avoid data "spilling onto the floor." None of such had anything to do with the "ring of buffers" while the "ring of buffers" was minding its own business, both in the old design, and now in the new design.

The valve was related to the removed buffer. I called it a switch above, same thing. It turned off if the ring of buffers was about to catch up with itself. If the ring of buffers were to catch up, the data would "spill onto the floor". Spills are messy, a switch allows for the turn off to occur exactly on a start code. That way if data loss occurs, it can be more cleanly managed with the boundaries of data loss set to start codes. So yes, it has everything to do with the ring of buffers, they are the ones that will overflow if not switched off. In the new design, the ring of buffers is much more carefully managed to make sure it doesn't spill by giving the draining process a higher rate or priority. It is not as clean as a switch, but serves the same function, just in a more complicated way.

And the TiVo expert now admitted that "valve" (i.e. automatic flow control) was removed, the code was gone.

Given there are no start codes to use to decide when best to open and close the valve, letting an overflow spill over is an eminently practical way to control the flow. Removing the valve frees up the resources needed to more carefully manage the ring of buffers.

If a software engineer here has a different take, I would much prefer to hear it. Please tell me how allowing uncontrolled ring buffer overflow or preventing it via carefully tuning process priorities and rates is not a form of data flow control. I am interested in a technical, not a legal or "word" driven discussion.

 

[jacmyoung]

Ok, it was shown as a valve, not a switch. You discuss it below, so I think you understand what I mean.

I wasn’t disputing which word you should use, a “valve” or a “switch,” whatever you want to use, that is fine with me. My point was, TiVo never said there was a “switch” (or “valve”) at the “ring of buffers.” You said it, not TiVo.

The ring of buffers was not changed, but it IS being used in a new way simply because the valve upstream of it is no longer there.

No, the “ring of buffer” is not being used in a new way, because there was never a “valve” upstream of it before in the first place. TiVo never asserted so, so please do not make it up for TiVo. You cannot expect to win the case for TiVo by making some assertion that TiVo does not make.

We can only follow what E* asserts, and what TiVo asserts, and debate on whether E* is right about their assertions, or whether TiVo is right about theirs. Because whatever we assert on our own will not be heard by the judge.

… It is still obtained by the source object, as the direct buffer descriptor. It stores streams.

Again Tivo does not assert that. TiVo now admits that the start codes are no longer parsed, and no longer “temporarily stored,” and once TiVo admits that, then the “source object” may no longer “extract” such “temporarily stored start codes.” As a result, the “source object” no longer converts such start codes into the index streams, and therefore the “source object” no longer obtains “a buffer” and then fills this “a buffer” with such index streams.

If you follow the above logic, the “source object” isn’t even there anymore, at least not in the way as described in the patent.

So yes, it has everything to do with the ring of buffers, they are the ones that will overflow if not switched off.

No, it has nothing to do with the “ring of buffer” because E* said so, and TiVo did not dispute it. TiVo never said that “a buffer” was one of the buffers in that “ring of buffers.” Again please do not put words in TiVo’s mouth.

In the new design, the ring of buffers is much more carefully managed to make sure it doesn't spill by giving the draining process a higher rate or priority. It is not as clean as a switch, but serves the same function, just in a more complicated way.

Again, the “ring of buffers” has nothing to do with the “a buffer” as described in the patent, TiVo does not even make any link between the two, only you do.

What TiVo is saying, yes, that “valve” (which was depicting the “automatic flow control” in TiVo’s own graphics) is now gone. But look, here, over here there is this “ring of buffers” that does the flow control and regulating how the programming is recorded onto the hard drive. TiVo did not try to link the two at all, TiVo only admitted that one is no longer there, and so let’s go to find something else and point that thing and say, hey this is “automatic flow control” too, you know.

But then problem is, TiVo also admits, that the “ring of buffers” is not TiVo’s invention, it predates TiVo’s patent. This is the same argument about the PID filter, TiVo admits all the things the new design no longer does, but TiVo says, you still use the PID filter, and you still have the hard drive doing the recordings using that “ring of buffers,” and yet TiVo also admits that the PID filter, and the hard drive “ring of buffers” are not TiVo’s inventions.

The question is, can E* infringe on TiVo’s invention by simply using things that are not TiVo’s inventions?

Given there are no start codes to use to decide when best to open and close the valve, letting an overflow spill over is an eminently practical way to control the flow. Removing the valve frees up the resources needed to more carefully manage the ring of buffers

If a software engineer here has a different take, I would much prefer to hear it. Please tell me how allowing uncontrolled ring buffer overflow or preventing it via carefully tuning process priorities and rates is not a form of data flow control. I am interested in a technical, not a legal or "word" driven discussion.

If you read the transcript, it was all “word-driven.” The whole legal case is word-driven. That is how the lawyers make their big bucks. During the trial, TiVo had a graphics and in it, it had a “valve” that labeled as “automatic flow control.” In other words, “automatic flow control” was that “valve.” That was how TiVo won the case last time. Now TiVo admits that that valve in that graphics is gone, removed by the new software.

 

[ts7]

Could it be that Dish had multiple responses to TiVo's claims, including multiple work-arounds and possibly even a settlement proposal but was waiting to see exactly what TiVo would show the court? Once TiVo came up with their graphics and terms, Dish figured this was the minimum change they needed to make. This is pure speculation of course, but plausible?

 

[jacmyoung]

Could it be that Dish had multiple responses to TiVo's claims, including multiple work-arounds and possibly even a settlement proposal but was waiting to see exactly what TiVo would show the court? Once TiVo came up with their graphics and terms, Dish figured this was the minimum change they needed to make. This is pure speculation of course, but plausible?

They did not. E* started working on a possible design around right after 4/06 when the jury handed them the infringement verdict. Their new design was entirely based on TiVo's winning claims during the jury trial, those graphics and terms, assertions and arguments by TiVo were all made during the original trial, and E* used them as basis to avoid the key infringing elements TiVo said were there in the old design.

During this 2/09 hearing E* used all the old TiVo's charts, graphics and testimonies back in the jury trial. Nothing really new from E*. What were new were TiVo's assertions, including the PID filter and the "ring of buffers." Those assertions TiVo presented in the 2/09 hearing were new, never asserted by TiVo back during the jury trial.

More importantly, both of these "new" items were in the old design, never changed, so you'd think if both of them were related to the infringement claims TiVo should have asserted such items back then. But they never did back then, and the reason is very telling, even if one ignores all the other details.

Those "new" items had nothing to do with the invention back then, and still have nothing to do with the invention now.

 

[jacmyoung]

Finally I am going to quote a few light moments in the transcript when all parties had demonstrated their sense of humor.

First some background information:

MS. KREVANS: MORNING, YOUR HONOR. I WANT TO APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE, I LOST MY VOICE FOR SEVERAL WEEKS AND I AM JUST GETTING IT BACK, SO I AM GOING TO TRY TO TALK CLOSELY IN THE MIC.

THE COURT: WELL, I AM AT THAT STAGE OVER THE WEEKEND, SO I WILL EXTEND THE SAME APOLOGY.

Judge Folsom was showing his cold/flu symptoms:

MR. IANCU: YOUR HONOR, SHOULD WE TAKE A BREAK?

THE COURT: I DON’T THINK IT’S GOING TO HELP.
MR. IANCU: OKAY.
THE COURT: WE’LL TRY TO PLOW FORWARD. I APOLOGIZE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY I DON’T HAVE A SUBSTITUTE JUDGE.
MR. IANCU: I’LL VOLUNTEER.
A YOU STOLE MY LINE.

Now Ms. Krevans showing her cold/flu symptoms:

THE COURT: DID YOU KNOW WHAT? I AM SORRY.

MS. KREVANS: I AM SORRY, YOUR HONOR. I’M DOING MY BEST.
THE COURT: WE MAKE FOR A BAD COMBINATION, YOU’VE LOST YOUR VOICE AND I’VE LOST MY HEARING.
MS. KREVANS: DON’T MAKE ME LAUGH, BECAUSE THEN I START COUGHING AND THEN IT GETS REALLY BAD.

Judge Folsom jokingly:

THE COURT: CROSS EXAMINATION.

MR. CHU: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I AM PAUSING A MOMENT JUST SO WE CAN DISTRIBUTE SOME EXHIBITS, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: YOUR TIME IS RUNNING, SO TAKE AS LONG AS YOU LIKE.

Another one:

THE COURT: WITH EVERY GOAL TO HAVE THIS COMPLETED BY FIVE.

MR. BARQUIST: TOOK THE WORDS OUT OF MY MOUTH, YOUR HONOR.
Q (BY MR. BARQUIST: ) DR. RHYNE, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER TO GET THIS DONE BY 5 O’CLOCK.
A YOU ARE UNDER MORE CONTROL THAN I AM.
Q WE WILL ARGUE ABOUT THAT LATER.

Judge Folsom:

THE COURT: SO IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, BOTH PARTIES HAVE TOTALLY SWITCHED THEIR POSITION SINCE TRIAL. IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. BARQUIST: WELL, NOT EXACTLY, YOUR HONOR, BUT WE HAVE A NEW PRODUCT AND IT DOESN’T INFRINGE FOR THE REASONS WE ARE EXPLAINING.
THE COURT: VERY WELL. YOU MAY CONTINUE.
A WHERE WAS I?
Q YOU WERE TELLING US ABOUT HOW A PID –-
THE COURT: I THINK WE WERE ON SWITCHING POSITIONS.
A WELL, I HAVE A NEW ONE.
THE COURT: VERY WELL. LET’S HEAR IT.

TiVo’s Mr. Chu questioning E*’s witness:

Q FAIR ENOUGH. IF ALL THE BUFFERS IN USE ARE FULL, THERE

WOULD BE A RED LIGHT AND THEN THERE WOULD BE SOME DATA LOSS?
A YES.
Q NOW I WANT TO GO –-
A I DON’T KNOW ABOUT THE RED LIGHT, BUT THERE WOULD BE A STOPPAGE. THERE WAS SOFTWARE THAT SAID TO THE BROADCOM CHIP: DON’T SEND ANY MORE DATA.
Q I’M JUST USING RED LIGHT TO MEAN STOP.
A OKAY. I’M AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER. I ENVISIONED A LITTLE RED LIGHT GOING ON, AND I APOLOGIZE.
Q I AM JUST A LAW-ABIDING MOTORIST.
A NOW I UNDERSTAND, A STOP LIGHT.

The judge’s last words of the hearing:

THE COURT: IT’S BEEN A PLEASANT MARCH DOWN MEMORY LANE. WE WILL BE IN RECESS.

 

[vampz26]

This entire thread has digressed into cherry picking massive amounts of trial transcripts and quoting them out of context in a half-hearted attempt to prove a point.

Sigh...

 

[jacmyoung]

This entire thread has digressed into cherry picking massive amounts of trial transcripts and quoting them out of context in a half-hearted attempt to prove a point.

Sigh...

How about showing your sense of humor for once?

BTW, do you know, that is if you had read many court rulings and filings, that it is customary for the judges and the parties to "cherry picking [from] massive amounts of trial transcripts (and/or prior case rulings)?"

And half-hearted? How did you get the idea that the folks participated in this thread had been only half-hearted? If anything, most had been too "overwhelmingly-hearted" and ended up in trouble.

 

[vampz26]

How about showing your sense of humor for once?

BTW, do you know, that is if you had read many court rulings and filings, that it is customary for the judges and the parties to "cherry picking [from] massive amounts of trial transcripts (and/or prior case rulings)?"

And half-hearted? How did you get the idea that the folks participated in this thread had been only half-hearted? If anything, most had been too "overwhelmingly-hearted" and ended up in trouble.

1) That was my sense of humor

2) I'm well aware that the courts 'cherry pick' everything and engage in fallacy of every kind. Pardon me for thinking that this constituency of this forum was actually more intelligent than that, and were capable of much more interesting discussion.

3) Half-hearted, meaning their heart is less on the topic and more interested in causing trouble...

 

[CuriousMark]

Could it be that Dish had multiple responses to TiVo's claims, including multiple work-arounds and possibly even a settlement proposal but was waiting to see exactly what TiVo would show the court? Once TiVo came up with their graphics and terms, Dish figured this was the minimum change they needed to make. This is pure speculation of course, but plausible?

Yes, I believe you are correct. The workaround documents go to great pains to avoid using the same words and descriptions even for the things that did not change at all.

 

[CuriousMark]

Q

No, the “ring of buffer” is not being used in a new way, because there was never a “valve” upstream of it before in the first place. TiVo never asserted so, so please do not make it up for TiVo. You cannot expect to win the case for TiVo by making some assertion that TiVo does not make.

Then you misunderstand in a very deep way what it was that TiVo and their expert said. Yes I am interpreting, but I am not making any of it up. The "valve" was used in the single buffer that was part of the Broadcom low level driver code. The output of that single buffer was then emptied into the next buffer of the ring of buffers every time it filled, unless the switch (valve) was off. Now the ring buffer descriptors are fed directly to the Broadcom driver code being updated every buffer fill. It is all in there, just read with your systems software engineering hat on. It might not be quite as clear to those less well schooled in technology. If that applies to you, accept my interpretation or get someone who knows what they are discussing to respond.

We can only follow what E* asserts, and what TiVo asserts, and debate on whether E* is right about their assertions, or whether TiVo is right about theirs. Because whatever we assert on our own will not be heard by the judge.

Are you trying to deny me the right to translate and interpret the complex details in a way that is understandable? If so, stop. You are welcome to disagree, but don't tell me I can't debate using clear language.

Again Tivo does not assert that. TiVo now admits that the start codes are no longer parsed, and no longer “temporarily stored,” and once TiVo admits that, then the “source object” may no longer “extract” such “temporarily stored start codes.” As a result, the “source object” no longer converts such start codes into the index streams, and therefore the “source object” no longer obtains “a buffer” and then fills this “a buffer” with such index streams.

I explained this before. It is TV data that is being extracted and stored. To deny that is simply not factual.

If you follow the above logic, the “source object” isn’t even there anymore, at least not in the way as described in the patent.

Sure it is, only if you magically pretend that TV data is not being stored or moved around can you reach that nonsensical conclusion.

Again, the “ring of buffers” has nothing to do with the “a buffer” as described in the patent, TiVo does not even make any link between the two, only you do.

Please re-read the testimony, it is there and even fairly clear.