Uh-oh, I inadvertently unleased a new flurry of techno-speak, going back and forth... completely unintelligible to most. 
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 179K
- Status
Uh-oh, I inadvertently unleased a new flurry of techno-speak, going back and forth... completely unintelligible to most.
What's interesting is the the techno-speak is unintelligible to legal folks in this thread, and legal speak is unitelligible to the techno-folks in this thread...
I mean is this 'disconnect' is any representation of the larger scheme of thing, than what does that say for judge folsom's courtroom?!?
What disconnect is there? A 622/722 (or for that matter, any ViP-series device) can decode MPEG2 just like a 522/625.vampz26 said:
However, decoding MPEG2 or MPEG4 isn't the analysis step that some are so keenly interested in defeating. Some are too busy worrying about the specifics of the technology, when the issue is how the eight offending DVR's complete every step of two claims in the Time Warp patent. The problem is that the ViP series of DVR's appear to have the exact same design with some added stuff.
Anyone can add a sticker and change the name of the DVR. That makes the device merely colorably different. Additionally, anyone can add more components to modify the type of decoding used, but if it still does everything like the original counterparts which were found infringing, those products would also be merely colorably different.
Not what the claim says, the claim says "parse (analyze) audio and video data from the broadcast data." Your statement is in contrast to what the claim states. Besides you continue to ignore the "temproraily stores" element.
Sementics is everything in the patent claims if you read the appeals court opinion overturning the hardware claims verdict.
TiVo never even tried to prove the PID was the "physical data source" during the trial, rather the "media switch." Only now TiVo is saying the PID filter can also be the "physical data source." To prove so, TiVo must also prove it parses out the audio and video data from the broadcast data, and temporarily stores the audio and video data, regardless what E* said back then.
It is in the hearing transcripts which I quoted before, you can go back to search for it in this thread, E* got the TiVo expert to admit that E*'s new software no longer temporarily stored the parsed data, if any. Beside it is not even whether E* had proven it no longer temporarily stored or not, rather TiVo must prove the PID filter temporarily stored such audio and video data parsed out by the PID filter, TiVo never did that while admitting the "temporarily stores" element was not met by the new software.
The judge simply ignored those two points, and that is what I am saying, E* will have to point them out to the appeals court.
Last edited:
Yes and the patent doesn't say that the same chip that does the analysis also has to do temporary storage. The physical data source is the collection of electronics that accepts broadcast data from an input device, parses video and audio data from said broadcast data, and temporarily stores said video and audio data. That is the definition. If it gets done then the components that do it are collectively the physical data source.
Greg, its simple...the devil lies in the details. And going forward, its those details that will come into play. You choose to ignore that possibility because it weakens your current position. Though I can't imagine why you would even care enough to argue. The ViPs haven't been looked at yet and and anything is possible.
These are, after all, different machines.
These are, after all, different machines.
The element of the step of the claim, directly from the patent:jacmyoung said:
Parses from said broadcast data.
The PID filter analyzes all the audio and video from the broadcast data.
And when you can find where DISH/SATS argues they don't temporarily store the data, I'll argue that, too.
No, it really doesn't.vampz26 said:
Yep. A 522/625 can analyze the video and audio data coming down from satellite and go through the TiVo Time Warp process, a process which is not very "format-dependant".vampz26 said:
DISH/SATS announced to the world the day the injunction became active (18 April 2008) that the 622/722 (just like many of the named receivers) installed new software.
Sounds like DISH/SATS believes the 622/722 were infringing. And now they have the same software as those found infringing.
TiVo now says the PID filter is the "physical data source," therefore TiVo must prove it does all three things, or alternatively TiVo can say, the PID filter is only one part of the "physical data source,", in that case TiVo must still prove where the audio and video is parsed out and where it is temporarily stored in order to prove the first step is met. TiVo did so during the trial, but never did so this time. What TiVo did however was admitting the new software no longer temporarily stored any data.
That is what you are saying, not what TiVo said. I only care about what TiVo said, what E* said and what the judge said, or what they did not say.
E* told the judge during the hearing the PID filter could not possibly parse out any audio and video data from the said broadcast data because at that stage the said broadcast data was encrypted, whatever the audio and video data contained in it could not be parsed out at all. And the PID filter's job was to parse the broadcast channel ID packets, and E* also told the judge the ID packets contained no audio and vidoe data.
TiVo did not dispute that, TiVo side-stepped such contention by E*, and judge also ignored E*'s such contention. Both TiVo and the judge said only the element "parse" mattered, not the "audio and video data" nor the "temporarily stores" element. This is the weakest link in the ruling to find infringement E* must exploit in front of the appeals court.
I already told you I have quoted the hearing transcripts when the TiVo expert admitted so. But you do not even have to argue on that, for TiVo to again find infringment, TiVo must prove the "temporarily stores" element is still met somewhere, once E* raised such issue. E* could be wrong about the "temporarily stores" issue, the new software may still be temporarily storing the data somewhere, but TiVo must prove it is still going on, TiVo never did even try.
Sure it weakens your position. You want so badly to believe that the ViPs infringe that you choose to ignore fundamental differences between the two machines that may challenge your beliefs.
Answer one of my original questions please. Do you have enough understanding of the fundamental technical differences between mpeg4, mpeg2, and AV technology in general to form a point that isn't based around past and posibly obsolete courtroom rhetoric? because that's where you are failing right now.
Greg, as usual, thanks for your spot-on analysis which is based on fact and not fiction or tea leaves.
The problem with what you are saying is that logic is WAAAAY too broad. If what you're saying is true, then anyone can just patent an "idea" without having any specifics to patent. Sounds like what the judge is actually allowing Tivo to do, so nothing would surprise me.
I stand by my earlier post in this thread where a legal geek in Folsom (and the patent office) is letting Tivo "re-patent" an idea...it's called a PC!!!!!!
Greg, as usual, thanks for your spot-on analysis which is based on fact and not fiction or tea leaves.
Lol.
I posted an educated speculation for discussion and never claimed it as anything else.
He attempt to refute it using past rhetoric to refute a forward looking statement. I informed him that the past rhetoric may not apply going forward.
So basically, your praise is somewhat misguided and your subtle personal attack on me, unwarranted.
TiVo didn't patent MPEG. If TlVo had included references to MPEG in the patent you guys would be screaming "TiVo didn't patent MPEG, they can't mention it in their patent !!" It's hilarious. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. MPEG2, MPEG4, NTSC or really fast Morse code doesn't matter. They are all broadcast data and they all get parsed. There isn't a picture without parsing the broadcast data. Move on to something else. If there is a complaint about the patent system or the court system, this may not be the proper forum to bitch about it but that's not my call.
I'll do you one better:vampz26 said:
31. A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising the steps of:
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 622/722 has the same guts to do this.
providing a source object, wherein said source object extracts video and audio data from said physical data source; obviously the "channel" becomes this source object.
providing a transform object, wherein said transform object stores and retrieves data streams onto a storage device; notice this does not say "hard drive", so if one wants to use a flash drive in the future, it is also prohibited
wherein said source object obtains a buffer from said transform object, said source object converts video data into data streams and fills said buffer with said streams; simple data exchanges into a buffer
wherein said source object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object; DISH/SATS did not remove the circular buffer which flow-controls the source object
providing a sink object, wherein said sink object obtains data stream buffers from said transform object and outputs said streams to a video and audio decoder;
wherein said decoder converts said streams into display signals and sends said signals to a display;
wherein said sink object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object;
providing a control object, wherein said control object receives commands from a user, said commands control the flow of the broadcast data through the system; and
wherein said control object sends flow command events to said source, transform, and sink object
I quit at that last step in red to point out the implementation can be in MPEG2, MPEG4, MPEG44, and it does not matter, just like the storage medium could be SCSI, solid state, even flash drive or SATA. This is about data objects and streams, not MPEG2 nor MPEG4 technology.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 622/722 has the same guts to do this.
providing a source object, wherein said source object extracts video and audio data from said physical data source; obviously the "channel" becomes this source object.
providing a transform object, wherein said transform object stores and retrieves data streams onto a storage device; notice this does not say "hard drive", so if one wants to use a flash drive in the future, it is also prohibited
wherein said source object obtains a buffer from said transform object, said source object converts video data into data streams and fills said buffer with said streams; simple data exchanges into a buffer
wherein said source object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object; DISH/SATS did not remove the circular buffer which flow-controls the source object
providing a sink object, wherein said sink object obtains data stream buffers from said transform object and outputs said streams to a video and audio decoder;
wherein said decoder converts said streams into display signals and sends said signals to a display;
wherein said sink object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object;
providing a control object, wherein said control object receives commands from a user, said commands control the flow of the broadcast data through the system; and
wherein said control object sends flow command events to said source, transform, and sink object
It is not the specifications of the technology that is the underpinning of infringement. It is about the manipulation of the data once received by a DVR in order to perform trick plays.
If the patent claim doesn't discriminate between MPEG2 and MPEG4, why should I bother down that road? And if this secondary set of receivers never accused in any papers filed at court have exactly the same technology (with some more stuff added) as the base models, why is there even an argument? It is irrelevant to the quoted claim.
Simply put, if one can operate a 622/722 in standard definition mode only, which by default is an MPEG2 stream, what "technological breakthrough" was accomplished that made MPEG2 behave differently compared to the 522/625? Especially since the 622/722 was released just prior to the trial in April 2006?
TiVo shares are trading at $11. The rest of your post is off by an equal amount. WhoTF is scott? Is he a judge?
Once again, you answered a technical statement with legal rhetoric.
Just because a difference isn't implied in the original statement, does not mean that the difference does not exist.technology changes and the patent wording stays the same. You just refuse to accept that.
Mpeg4 dvrs didn't exist then, but they do now. You don't think that overall design may have changed as well? It is certainly possible, and even probable. And certainly may fall outside the scope of the patent if subjected to enough scutiny. What is your problem admitting that? You have no technical basis for refuting my statement and your legal basis is outdated and does not apply to my forward looking statement.
thomas22 said:
Scott Greczkowski is the owner of this site, and has a pretty strong relationship with the folks at Dish and Charlie; ah but you reveal yourself as a single thread guy...
I too believe strongly that there is no way the dvr's will get turned off. It is not happening. No way, no how. Never.
Scott is the founder of Satguys, he spoke to Charlie many times in the past so I think he should know a little whether the DVRs would be turned off or not
As far as the comment on $6, when did he say that? According to most analysts TiVo should be at around $20. I really don't care about the stocks, but $11 is a bit below $20 that I know.
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
