TIVO vs E*

[vampz26]

Actually, this makes a lot of sense. He's essentially saying that if their patents had not been stolen, they would have had more revenue, been profitable sooner, and been able to do more R&D, perhaps make strategic acquisitions, etc. For example, if TiVo had not had their patents stolen, perhaps E* never would have been able to acquire Sling, as TiVo would have bought them first. LOL. By that standard, we're all lemmings, since we all pay money to some content provider for things our parents never paid for. It's called OTA TV and it's free. I happen to pay TiVo because I find the interface well worth it. I do this despite the "popular" opinion that TiVo is a commodity and any old DVR is the same. Since a lemming is usually defined as someon who follows the crowd, I think that makes you more of a lemming than me. http://www.satelliteguys.us/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Hah! Might as well throw the patent system completely out the window. If it was so obvious, how did they get one again? Sure, it's easy to see how to do it now, but at the time, they did something unique. Complain about it all you want, but they invented something and deserve to get credit for it, according to the law of the land, which is there to protect such creativity.

Awwww...how sweet!

You know what I love best about our bogus and abused patent system and corrupt court system?

I personally despise tivo and made a five figure profit in tivo stock. And most of the people who are in love with tivo didn't make a thin dime! Lol.

You can't pay the bills with glorious bravado, my friend.

 

[jacmyoung]

...The point of the patent was to be able to do it without the horsepower of a PC. ...

That is what the TiVo invention is all about, to do so requires the analyzing of the start codes and building of the index of such start codes. That was how TiVo won the jury's minds last time fair and square, because E* did those things too.

Now TiVo is saying the software claims somehow do not describe such invention because the term "start codes" and "indexing" are not in the claims, if true then yes the software claims should not have been granted, they describe no such invention. Notice neither terms appear in the hardware claims but TiVo had no problem using them during the jury trial.

All claims in a patent must describe the same invention at issue. Therefore by the virtue of granting the software claims, it is assumed the claims describe such invention, only in different ways.

 

[STL]

I ... made a five figure profit in tivo stock.

Still looking for the cookie, ehh? LOL Actually, it's kind of sad...

 

[rtmoore4]

Still looking for the cookie, ehh? LOL Actually, it's kind of sad...

Yes, it is. What's even sadder is how proud he is of his measly little five figures. Perhaps if he really believed in his prognosticating abilities, he might have made some real money.

 

[vampz26]

Yes, it is. What's even sadder is how proud he is of his measly little five figures. Perhaps if he really believed in his prognosticating abilities, he might have made some real money.

Lol...that's the point, I've made plenty of real money in my time. Still making it. And not thru silly little fanboy loyalties that don't pay the bills.

And its not the first time I've made respectable profit off of our bogus patent system or corrupt courtrooms either.


So that's why I find all this banter amusing.

 

[vampz26]

Still looking for the cookie, ehh? LOL Actually, it's kind of sad...

No...not at all.I'm actually quite content, thank you.

 

[jacmyoung]

I work with some and know some personally who make a lot of money, wish I could, but one thing I learned is, the more money people make, the less they talk about how much they make

 

[vampz26]

I work with some and know some personally who make a lot of money, wish I could, but one thing I learned is, the more money people make, the less they talk about how much they make

tell me about it. Those two were getting ready to strut! Lol

 

[rtmoore4]

tell me about it. Those two were getting ready to strut! Lol

I think he's talking about you, funny guy. You're the one who might as well add, "I made five figures on TiVo recently", to your signature line, since you already add it to practically every post. Talk about a peacock...

 

[vampz26]

I think he's talking about you, funny guy. You're the one who might as well add, "I made five figures on TiVo recently", to your signature line, since you already add it to practically every post. Talk about a peacock...

I doubt it, I was only illustrating a point regarding true value vs. fanboy bravado, nothing more...and apparently I made that point more clearly than I intended. You seem rather disturbed by it...

sorry about that...try and get over it, ok?

 

[jacmyoung]

I think he's talking about you, funny guy. You're the one who might as well add, "I made five figures on TiVo recently", to your signature line, since you already add it to practically every post. Talk about a peacock...

Let me just give you a piece of advice, arguing with Vampz26 is futile, it does not matter if your interpretation is correct or not

Now I want to point out one other thing Judge Folsom said which IMO is entirely against the rule set by the appeals court. In his ruling he said even if the redesigned DVRs turned out to be non-infringing, E* would still have violated his injunction, specifically the second disabling order.

Let's read what the appeals court said:

Therefore, the only acts the injunction may prohibit are infringement of the patent by the adjudicated devices and infringement by devices not more than colorably different from the adjudicated devices. In order to comply with Rule 65(d), the injunction should explicitly proscribe only those specific acts.

Judge Folsom's injunction may only prohibit the acts that are infringing acts, not any acts that do not infringe. By him saying even if the redesigned DVRs were non-infringing his injunction would still prohibit the act of using the DVR functions, he completely contradicted the above appeals court rule, and Rule 65(d).

 

[vampz26]

Let me just give you a piece of advice, arguing with Vampz26 is futile, it does not matter if your interpretation is correct or not.

Look I hurt his feelings...let it go...ok? There is a point to value vs. bravado...and its been proven...

 

[Ronnie-]

:

 

[Dishlover]

Yes a PC could do all that back in 1998 when the patent was filed. The point of the patent was to be able to do it without the horsepower of a PC. PCs (back then) were $1000+ items, they were doing it for a couple hundred $. Dish was able to save $500+/DVR using TiVo's idea. Even paying Dish still came out ahead.

Yes I think the patent should not have been granted, perhaps a narrow patent over certain parts. The current patent seems way too broad and could cover things that were already prior art.

As far as the monthly fee -- Most of the consumers probably still had blinking 12:00 on the VCR and paying a fee to have someone read the program guide every week and program the VCR is something that people wanted.

I assume this is why the VIPs aren't infringing because they have the hardware "horsepower".

 

[Thomas22]

I assume this is why the VIPs aren't infringing because they have the hardware "horsepower".

It has not been determined yet that the ViP series does not infringe. They didn't exist during the trial. They probably do infringe. There will need to be a contempt hearing to find out. It shouldn't take long.

 

[vampz26]

It has not been determined yet that the ViP series does not infringe. They didn't exist during the trial. They probably do infringe. There will need to be a contempt hearing to find out. It shouldn't take long.

contempt for what? lol...they didn't exist, they didn't exist...period...

Could be a whole new trial...unless the lawyers get creative, which is what lawyers do...since law isn't really an exact science, but more of a sales pitch to try and pass off different interpretations of the written word as being the correct one...

I'd laugh my self crazy if that was the case...another opportunity to buy low and sell high....

 

[mike123abc]

contempt for what? lol...they didn't exist, they didn't exist...period...

Could be a whole new trial...unless the lawyers get creative, which is what lawyers do...since law isn't really an exact science, but more of a sales pitch to try and pass off different interpretations of the written word as being the correct one...

I'd laugh my self crazy if that was the case...another opportunity to buy low and sell high....

TiVo could claim that the newer DVRs are covered by the injunction. It depends if they are running the same software that the older DVRs are now running since Dish's brute force method was found to still be in violation.

If the entire ruling that the judge just made is held up on appeal, Dish could have a problem since the ruling says parsing PIDs to separate out the programming streams is infringing. This would likely mean that it would be virtually impossible for the new DVRs not to infringe. Essentially the satellite sends a data stream of packets, the receivers have to look at each packet and figure out which program the packet belongs to. When you tune to a channel the receiver tunes to the transponder, and grabs packets out of the data stream from that TP for the requested channel.

This could be the weakness of the ruling since PID parsing is required for all digital satellite signals and was in use before the TiVo patent. If I were to pick one thing out of the ruling this would be the one that I would pick as what would be appealed. The judge made a deal out of the fact that Dish referred to PID parsing as parsing and later changed the wording to eliminate parsing since parsing was part of the patent.

It will be interesting to see how this all works out. And it shows the basic weakness of patent law, especially as it relates to software. No one understands software. The juries and judges are just going by which "expert" they want to believe. The patent office obviously has trouble too since they grant patents that probably should not be granted. Remember a patent is supposed to be an invention, not something that someone "skilled in the art" would naturally do to solve a problem. The whole circular buffer scheme sounds all fancy but it is a basic thing in a programming text book. Indexing a data stream as it is recorded also is pretty basic, but of course it is a TV channel so it has to be something new and innovated. Of course the bits from a television show are different from bits from other data streams and applying these basic techniques to a TV data stream is something new and innovated.

I have the position (as stated before) that the patent should not have been granted to start with. But, as with many other patents it was granted and upheld, and that is how the system works. It will just be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[Ken F]

If the entire ruling that the judge just made is held up on appeal, Dish could have a problem since the ruling says parsing PIDs to separate out the programming streams is infringing. This would likely mean that it would be virtually impossible for the new DVRs not to infringe.

PID filtering <> infringement.

That is just one element of the claim. Dish Network will need to look elsewhere to avoid infringement.

The whole circular buffer scheme sounds all fancy but it is a basic thing in a programming text book. Indexing a data stream as it is recorded also is pretty basic, but of course it is a TV channel so it has to be something new and innovated. Of course the bits from a television show are different from bits from other data streams and applying these basic techniques to a TV data stream is something new and innovated.

Patents exist for almost every electronic version of every prior invention.

We've had TV listings in magazines and newspapers for decades. But display the same TV listings on a screen with the ability to scroll, and you violate a patent. Thus far, Macrovision (Gemstar) has collected more than half a billion on that "invention."

Bet you wish you'd thought of that thirteen years ago, eh?

 

[vampz26]

TiVo could claim that the newer DVRs are covered by the injunction. It depends if they are running the same software that the older DVRs are now running since Dish's brute force method was found to still be in violation.

If the entire ruling that the judge just made is held up on appeal, Dish could have a problem since the ruling says parsing PIDs to separate out the programming streams is infringing. This would likely mean that it would be virtually impossible for the new DVRs not to infringe. Essentially the satellite sends a data stream of packets, the receivers have to look at each packet and figure out which program the packet belongs to. When you tune to a channel the receiver tunes to the transponder, and grabs packets out of the data stream from that TP for the requested channel.

This could be the weakness of the ruling since PID parsing is required for all digital satellite signals and was in use before the TiVo patent. If I were to pick one thing out of the ruling this would be the one that I would pick as what would be appealed. The judge made a deal out of the fact that Dish referred to PID parsing as parsing and later changed the wording to eliminate parsing since parsing was part of the patent.

It will be interesting to see how this all works out. And it shows the basic weakness of patent law, especially as it relates to software. No one understands software. The juries and judges are just going by which "expert" they want to believe. The patent office obviously has trouble too since they grant patents that probably should not be granted. Remember a patent is supposed to be an invention, not something that someone "skilled in the art" would naturally do to solve a problem. The whole circular buffer scheme sounds all fancy but it is a basic thing in a programming text book. Indexing a data stream as it is recorded also is pretty basic, but of course it is a TV channel so it has to be something new and innovated. Of course the bits from a television show are different from bits from other data streams and applying these basic techniques to a TV data stream is something new and innovated.

I have the position (as stated before) that the patent should not have been granted to start with. But, as with many other patents it was granted and upheld, and that is how the system works. It will just be interesting to see how this plays out.

No kidding...thats why I made a decent buck during the "dot com bomb" and "y2k litigation" phases of our IT history as an expert witness...ignorance...

So let the fanboys keep squealing...the rest of us are here to hustle to receive...

 

[vampz26]

PID filtering <> infringement.

That is just one element of the claim. Dish Network will need to look elsewhere to avoid infringement.

Patents exist for almost every electronic version of every prior invention.

We've had TV listings in magazines and newspapers for decades. But display the same TV listings on a screen with the ability to scroll, and you violate a patent. Thus far, Macrovision (Gemstar) has collected more than half a billion on that "invention."

Bet you wish you'd thought of that thirteen years ago, eh?

Well...I think you proved Mike's point regarding the weakness in the patent system...

and furthermore, proved my claims of the exploitation thereof...

so whats left? lol