...ah but you reveal yourself as a single thread guy......
Scott posted here many times too, so maybe single thread guy is too generous
How about partial thread guy?
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 179K
- Status
Scott posted here many times too, so maybe single thread guy is too generous
How about partial thread guy?
First off, I don't think Dish will ever have to shut off their DVRs, but who says that TiVo's licensing fee won't be so out of this world that Dish really has to turn it down ? Or that Dish can't get the funding to buy TiVo outright ? Those are more or less worst-case, but they aren't out of the question.
How so? Charlie doesn't even know.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
MPEG4 is simply a data format. Would a data format introduce a redesign of epic proportions? Even if the 622/722 can still do the MPEG2 format?vampz26 said:
Meanwhile, DISH/SATS did push new software to the 622/722 receivers at the same time as they did to the eight named DVR models found infringing. DISH/SATS even went so far in a letter to their dealers, to paraphrase, make the software no longer infringe upon TiVo's patent. That new software on eight named models of DVR still makes them infringe, per Judge Folsom's ruling.
The argument is consistenly turning on this wonderful MPEG2/4 technology differences, while the patent is about objects and streams, irregardless of format. Do you really think a change in the format changes the objects and streams?
The ViP series definitely has:
a physical data source
a source object
a transform object
a sink object
a decoder
a control object
They may be in MPEG4 format instead.
The patent isn't outdated. The argument that the patent might be format-specific is.
You should calm down.
There is no difference in parsing MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 compressed video packets/sections/segment. Same sync process using. The difference is in decompressing MPEG data only. Newest DVR 622/722 using additional chip 7411/7412 or imbedded decomp in 740x. Same way as DirecTV in their DVR/HD receivers. Telling you as been involved in analysis of the software infringement.
You can live in whatever fantasy world you want; there is no way the vip series receivers will turn off. Ever.
The problem with your argument is that you don't have a clue about those object to support your opinion beyond a very high level.
I have an understanding of the technology in question and KNOW that any of those object, or use within a DVR design, could very well change along with the technology they implement.
Until you can argue on a technical level, you simply cannot disprove the possibility of a ViP DVR not infringing on the basis of improved technology. All you can do is continue to rehash your old stale legal rhetoric that doesn't even apply directly to my initial statement.
What does he need to know about whether he is determined not to turn off the DVRs or not? It is his decision to make, if he is so detetrmined to prevent that, he can do the following:
1) Try to stay the order and win on appeal, or
2) try to replace those DVRs, or
3) settle with TiVo.
Any one of the above or the combination of them can prevent the DVRs from being turned off.
Only vampz26 is dwelling on MPEG2 vs MPEG4. If everyone would ignore his comments about that issue, it would die (or should die, lest he keep bringing it up).
I said so
As long as TiVo is licensing its technology to many vendors, TiVo cannot legally use non-competitive pricing among the vendors.They can begin to charge E* $6, but they will have to charge others similar fees, not necessarily the same fee, but the fees charged to different companies may not give unfair competitive edge to one over the other.
What if TiVo said they'd license the technology to Dish for all existing receivers and all future receiver for $500 million, take it or leave it ? What would Dish do ? If TiVo and the court finally back Charlie into a corner, TiVo can name any price they can dream of.
1) Try to stay the order and win on appeal, or ... The appeals process has to end sometime. Dish can take it to the Supreme Court and if they refuse to hear it, it needs to end NOW.
2) try to replace those DVRs, or ... With what ? At this point, any half-ass-functioning DVR is bound to violate TiVo's patents.
3) settle with TiVo ... See my post above. Who says TiVo will be the least bit reasonable ?
2) try to replace those DVRs, or ... With what ? At this point, any half-ass-functioning DVR is bound to violate TiVo's patents.
3) settle with TiVo ... See my post above. Who says TiVo will be the least bit reasonable ?
No they cannot. What they can do is refuse to license to E*, i.e. refuse to settle with E* and forcing E* to turn the DVRs off.
Ahh, but DISH/SATS even admits that the new software downloaded to the 622/722 was to avoid the injunction (and therefore infringement). So until TiVo makes the move to get some kind of judgment on the 622/722, it is moot.vampz26 said:
And realize that TiVo doesn't want a licensing agreement with DISH/SATS on the eight named models of DVR. They also want royalties on the ViP series. So I can understand why DISH/SATS doesn't want to settle: it will cost them a TON of money than it would going through the courts, until damages for contempt are established.
It is better financially to be reporting $100 millions' in one-time payments to TiVo than to be encumbered by that expense every quarter. It makes the stock look better.
And TiVo can name any price for their licensing fee. What's DISH/SATS going to do, take TiVo to court over unfair proposed royalties?
From what I recall, the synchronization between the audio and video layers is different between mpeg4 and mpeg2. I could see this affecting the implementation of the trickplays, but I'd need to see an actual spec on that one to be sure.
Also, the tighter compression and faster bitrates of mpeg4 necessitate the need for faster buffering and design improvements all the way around just to keep up.
I am confused, you seemed to have already determined E* will lose on appeal? You mean it is not possible for E* to win on appeal?
How so? We had just discussed many newer DVRs are not likely to be prohibited, in fact you said it yourself, many of the newer Broadcom DVRs are supplied by Broadcom with TiVo's technology imbedded, likely by TiVo's consent. If so TiVo had allowed it, TiVo cannot on one hand agree to let Broadcom to contribute to infringement, then go after the person that receives such infringing hardware from Broadcom.
See my post above.
He is no an expert any way, so he is grasping a straw.
I'm agree, he should be ignored, before he will educate himself in parsing digital broadcasting stream.Ditto. He was ignored long ago. Please don't channel his posts by quoting them. Reply if you want but please don't quote that crap.He is no an expert any way, so he is grasping a straw.
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
