TIVO vs E*

[rockymtnhigh]

Given the arcane nature of most of this discussion, I think you all deserve the punishment of reading those transcripts.

But thank you for going a full two days without ripping each other's heads off. Lets continue that policy.

 

[Curtis0620]

Any idea when the ruling will come out?

 

[jacmyoung]

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

Here lies the magic of the invention, the "valve" was related to how that "source object" "extract" the start codes then fill them in "a buffer" before stored to the hard drive, and in that process there was this "valve" TiVo used to depict "automatic flow control."

Now this "valve" is gone, therefore the "automatic flow control" as depicted by TiVo during the trial is gone, TiVo admitted it.

But you are right, the DVR still controls how the incoming programming data are recorded on to the hard drive, by the use of that "ring of buffers" that all DVRs, or PCs for that matter, use. That "ring of buffers" is not TiVo's invention, TiVo admitted to that also.

I will just leave it to the reader to interpret what the above means. BTW, I did not try to interpret the transcript, I only explained what E* said, what TiVo said.

Now you can of course say you have the right to interpret the way you want, but at least quote the specific sections where you have drawn your interpretation. Otherwise I can call it made up.

I have based my explanations on the passages I have quoted directly, not just saying what my interpretation was without basis.

Using your method, I can say I interpreted the transcript as the judge saying E* is not in contempt, that is my interpretation, but of course no one will give such interpretation any credit if I cannot quote the judge as saying so from the transcript.

So please quote the specific passages in the transcript to show how you had interpreted the way you did.

 

[jacmyoung]

Given the arcane nature of most of this discussion, I think you all deserve the punishment of reading those transcripts.

I punished myself three times BTW

 

[rockymtnhigh]

I punished myself three times BTW

You must be a masochist or a sadist.

 

[jacmyoung]

You must be a masochist or a sadist.

I should not take that credit alone, anyone who debated in this thread, or simply read this thread, deserves the same credit

 

[Thomas22]

It is TV data that is being extracted and stored.

Absolutely correct. Here is what Judge Folsom had to say about claim 31:

As was the Court’s analysis of the term “parses” in the context of claims 1 and 32,the Court similarly finds that “parse” as it is used in claims 31 and 61 means “analyzes.” These terms are recited clearly by claims 31 and 61 and understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art. See ’389 patent at cols. 14:55-58, 18:5-8. This definition is consistent with the use of the term in claims 31 and 61 and the context of the specification. See, e.g., ’389 patent at col. 4:23-33 & Fig. 3 (describing the analysis of interleaved video and audio streams from an incoming MPEG stream). Therefore, the court defines “parses video and audio data from said broadcast data” as “analyzes video and audio data from the broadcast data.”

’389 patent at col. 4:23-33:
Referring to FIG. 3, the incoming MPEG stream 301 has interleaved video 302, 305, 306 and audio 303, 304, 307 segments. These elements must be separated and recombined to create separate video 308 and audio 309 streams or buffers. This is necessary because separate decoders are used to convert MPEG elements back into audio or video analog components.

Figure 3 shows the separation and recombining of interleaved incoming broadcast data into separate buffers.

That is exactly what claim 31 of the patent requires:

providing a physical data source, wherein said physical data source accepts broadcast data from an input device, parses video and audio data from said broadcast data, and temporarily stores said video and audio data;

The appeals court:

incoming interleaved video and audio segments “must be separated and recombined to create separate video and audio streams or buffers.” The specification further states that the recited separation is “necessary” because of the use of separate decoders to convert the MPEG elements back into audio and video analog components.

It is the broadcast interleaved audio and video "I love Lucy" TV data that gets separated, stored in buffers, and finally sent to the separate audio and video decoders. Anything else would appear as static on the screen and sound like static coming from the speakers.

 

[jacmyoung]

Absolutely correct. Here is what Judge Folsom had to say about claim 31:
Figure 3 shows the separation and recombining of interleaved incoming broadcast data into separate buffers.

That is exactly what claim 31 of the patent requires:
The appeals court:
It is the broadcast interleaved audio and video "I love Lucy" TV data that gets separated, stored in buffers, and finally sent to the video decoders. Anything else would appear as static on the screen.

E* made the point of the word "parse", used both in the hardware and software claims, to mean the same thing, just like Judge Folsom said. And E* pointed out that during the trial, the TiVo's witnesses, as well as TiVo's own patent specifications, described the word "parse" in the hardware claims as "analyzing the start codes."

And since Judge Folsom said: "therefore the court defines 'parses video and audio data from the broadcast data' as 'analyzes video and audio data from the broadcast data." E*'s assertion is, the "video and audio data" means "start codes."

To the above E*'s assertion, TiVo never had any response, TiVo did not dispute such E*'s assertion, TiVo said: "no further questions" instead. And of course TiVo also admitted that the new software no longer parses the start codes.

Again, the above is not my interpretation, only to present what was asserted or admitted by the parties in the 2/17/09 hearing. The readers must interpret for themsleves what might be the implication.

 

[CuriousMark]

E* made the point of the word "parse", used both in the hardware and software claims, to mean the same thing, just like Judge Folsom said. And E* pointed out that during the trial, the TiVo's witnesses, as well as TiVo's own patent specifications, described the word "parse" in the hardware claims as "analyzing the start codes."

Which would be claim 1. Not claim 31 or 61. They also describe parsing. Dish simply wants to redefine that parsing to ONLY be the same exact parsing that goes on in claim 1. Only for the latest hearing did this new interpretation of parse appear from Dish.

And since Judge Folsom said: "therefore the court defines 'parses video and audio data from the broadcast data' as 'analyzes video and audio data from the broadcast data." E*'s assertion is, the "video and audio data" means "start codes."

Yes, Dish wants to force this new very limited definition on parsing and analyzing.

To the above E*'s assertion, TiVo never had any response, TiVo did not dispute such E*'s assertion, TiVo said: "no further questions" instead. And of course TiVo also admitted that the new software no longer parses the start codes.

About 50% of TiVo's expert witness testimony went directly to explaining and describing how Dish's assertion was wrong. Please don't let the a single exchange between a single lawyer and a single witness confuse you into believing the above factually wrong statement. Heck, TiVo even argued specifically against this specific interpretation in their opening statement. You can't ignore that and hang the the entire conclusion that TiVo buy's Dish's argument lock stock and barrel because a lawyer didn't argue with a witness during a single exchange.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

I should not take that credit alone, anyone who debated in this thread, or simply read this thread, deserves the same credit

Very true.

 

[jacmyoung]

Which would be claim 1. Not claim 31 or 61. They also describe parsing. Dish simply wants to redefine that parsing to ONLY be the same exact parsing that goes on in claim 1.

They did not try to redefine the word "parsing" rather used TiVo's own expert testimonies where they said, the word "parse" meant the same thing both in the hardware and the software claims. Those were TiVo's words, not E*'s words, back during the jury trial.

Yes, Dish wants to force this new very limited definition on parsing and analyzing.

If you mean "audio and video data" is "start codes" is a new definition, that may be correct, because this term was never defined before, not by E*, not by TiVo nor by the court. Now E* decided this is the way it should be defined and presented ample justifications too do so, TiVo needs to dispute such definition, if TiVo simply has no response, then Judge Folsom must take E*'s assertion.

If one recall what E* needs to do to win the summary contempt issue? E* only needs to demonstrate a dispute of material facts, TiVo as the mover must prove by clear and convincing evidence that such dispute simply does not exist. In this case, TiVo did not even try to dispute E*'s new definition.

About 50% of TiVo's expert witness testimony went directly to explaining and describing how Dish's assertion was wrong. Please don't let the a single exchange between a single lawyer and a single witness confuse you into believing the above factually wrong statement. ...

Well then quote them, obviously you have over 50% of TiVo's words to quote on that specific issue, how about quote a page or two as a starter?

Show me where did TiVo say, no, the audio and video data as described in the step 1 of the software claims is not the start codes. If you have over 50% of the TiVo's transcripts to dispute it, it should not be too hard to quote one or two.

As I said, I have read the transcripts three times, I could not find anywhere TiVo even disputed that new definition, the only response I found related to that E*'s assertion was: "no further questions."

 

[CuriousMark]

They have already been quoted in this and other related threads. Objections have been raised to posting lengthy quotes here, so I think I will take a pass on posting duplicate, voluminous, information.

 

[jacmyoung]

They have already been quoted in this and other related threads. Objections have been raised to posting lengthy quotes here, so I think I will take a pass on posting duplicate, voluminous, information.

Whatever your reasons, I just want to point out that you did not want to provide any specific quote where TiVo said the audio and video data was not the start codes.

 

[CuriousMark]

Whatever your reasons, I just want to point out that you did not want to provide any specific quote where TiVo said the audio and video data was not the start codes.

Are you trying to say the parts where they said that the start codes were parsed FROM the audio and video don't count as an indication that the start codes are NOT identical to the audio and video data as you are saying?

Never mind, I have put my points out there. At least people have them to consider or not as they see fit.

Don't forget to reply to this post so you can get in the last word.

 

[jacmyoung]

Are you trying to say the parts where they said that the start codes were parsed FROM the audio and video don't count as an indication that the start codes are NOT identical to the audio and video data as you are saying?

Never mind, I have put my points out there. At least people have them to consider or not as they see fit.

Don't forget to reply to this post so you can get in the last word.

The only thing I am saying is you refused to quote where TiVo ever tried to dispute E*'s definition (not to "re-define" BTW because a definition was never given before) that "the audio and video data" are "start codes."

What I am looking for is the quote, not your interpretation of the quote. The same happened when you said you understood that TiVo said there was this "switch" in front of the "ring of the buffers" in the old design, but the new design removed that "switch," and when I asked you where did TiVo say there was a "switch" in front of the "ring of the buffers" before, you could not provide that quote.

Don't worry for me, mine will not be the last words.

 

[Thomas22]

Are you trying to say the parts where they said that the start codes were parsed FROM the audio and video don't count as an indication that the start codes are NOT identical to the audio and video data as you are saying?

Correct. Not even Dish made such a claim.

"Hey honey, what's on TV?"
"There's nothing on but start codes".

 

[jacmyoung]

Correct. Not even Dish made such a claim.

"Hey honey, what's on TV?"
"There's nothing on but start codes".

How about let's find out what claim (assertion) E* made?

E* used TiVo's own testimonies during the trial and the TiVo's patent specifications, to point out that:

SO THAT PARSING VIDEO AND AUDIO WAS IDENTIFIED [by TiVo] AS DETECTING START CODES.

That was E*'s assertion, based on TiVo's own testimonies and the patent specifications during the trial.

I am simply asking you folks to find where TiVo now says, no, parsing audio and video data was not identified by TiVo back during the trial as "detecting start codes."

If you cannot find that quote of TiVo's to disagree with the E*'s assertion, then what should the judge do in such situation?

 

[ts7]

They have already been quoted in this and other related threads. Objections have been raised to posting lengthy quotes here, so I think I will take a pass on posting duplicate, voluminous, information.

That is appreciated, but do you by any chance have any of the post #('s) where you believe these have previously been quoted? I apologize if this comes across as sarcasm - that is not the intent. This whole thing has gotten so convoluted, it is difficult to remember what was said where!

 

[jacmyoung]

That is appreciated, but do you by any chance have any of the post #('s) where you believe these have previously been quoted? I apologize if this comes across as sarcasm - that is not the intent. This whole thing has gotten so convoluted, it is difficult to remember what was said where!

Does that ring a bell:

I had already answered your question before, you just have to go back to find it, I am not going to answer it again because I do not give a damn, or you don't deserve my time, or the mods had said we should not quote long passages, or...whatever the excuses, just fill in the blank

Well I did not have to quote long passages, but even when some of the quotes are relatively long, as long as it is reasonable and not spam, it should be fine.

 

[CuriousMark]

That is appreciated, but do you by any chance have any of the post #('s) where you believe these have previously been quoted? I apologize if this comes across as sarcasm - that is not the intent. This whole thing has gotten so convoluted, it is difficult to remember what was said where!

If you start about here in this thread at the other forum and read the posts by curtis52, you will see the discussions to which I was referring. if You skip all the back and forth and just read Curtis posts of the trial transcript, I think it will go a long way in gaining understanding of the issues. Since it is already posted there, I don't see a reason to copy and paste it here, given that doing so might upset some readers here.

By the way, you are not being sarcastic at all, you are asking for a very reasonable thing, and I am happy to oblige given I found some time to do the searching.