TIVO vs E*

[klegg]

I can handle the fact that "advancing technology" can change a larger design. In this case, the ADDITION of MPEG4 formats to the ViP-series receivers which can also decode the same MPEG2 formats that have been found to infringe a patent which is not format-specific most likely does NOT change the design in relation to the patent.

I can certainly believe "advancing technology" can be used to create new patents. The problem is getting around the old one. I am flexible about that possibility. So maybe I am not closed-minded about that. But in relation to this case, I am, as the design changes are not significant enough to remove the limitations on these claims. And yes, this is my opinion.

However, as for personal attacks, programmers and technologists are stating their opinions that definitions mean nothing. That is quite ironic. And I will point that out ad infinitum as it simply appears that the application of definitions in said fields is enormous. Definitions are needed in those fields. If one wishes to call that a personal attack, so be it. It doesn't meet my definition of a personal attack.

Here's the part that gets me, that maybe the non-IT type might not get:

Let's say I'm at a customer's location and see an application/system that is pretty cool looking. The customer shows me the various screens, etc and how they work.

Now, I go back to another customer of mine and code something with similar results. Is that infringing? IMO, it's not. I'm most likely performing steps they aren't and vice versa. There are TONS of techniques for achieving the same result.

My biggest problem with the Tivo patent is they are basically saying they "invented" indexing DATA (video/audio). I'm pretty sure indexing DATA was invented A LONG time before they "invented" it. They didn't "invent" storing/playing back video/audio to/from a hard drive. So, HOW IN THE HECK DID THEY GET THIS PATENTED? With that logic, aren't they infringing on the owner of the DVD player patent? What about the MP3 player?

This is what I mean about "ambiguous". It COULD never end if most people had the same approach as Tivo.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Now, I go back to another customer of mine and code something with similar results. Is that infringing? IMO, it's not. I'm most likely performing steps they aren't and vice versa. There are TONS of techniques for achieving the same result.

True enough. However, if you code and find that the product ends up implementing a patented process upon which you may be infringing, then what?

I mean, non-IT types can figure this one out. Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray filed patents or patent paperwork for the telephone on the very same day. Two people came up with almost the same process. The patent was granted to Bell, and NO ONE was able to work around it, even though there was pieces of prior art all over the patent.

My biggest problem with the Tivo patent is they are basically saying they "invented" indexing DATA (video/audio).

Oh, that is not it at all. The patent claims describe a process and an apparatus for simultaneously recording and playing televison data. TiVo indexed using a specialized piece of equipment they had to have a chip maker manufacture, but indexing was only a part of the process and apparatus.

They invented a process and an apparatus with a specialized piece of equipment to do this "Time Warping". It is their "process and apparatus" that were infringed.

 

[klegg]

They invented a process and an apparatus with a specialized piece of equipment to do this "Time Warping". It is their "process and apparatus" that were infringed.

The point being, they DIDN'T invent that. It already existed. All the processes they used already existed...they just built a stand-alone product that did it.

 

[klegg]

I mean, non-IT types can figure this one out. Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray filed patents or patent paperwork for the telephone on the very same day. Two people came up with almost the same process. The patent was granted to Bell, and NO ONE was able to work around it, even though there was pieces of prior art all over the patent.

Comparing a completely non-exist product to one that has existed FOR YEARS before the patent was requested??? WOW...WOW...

 

[Greg Bimson]

So, HOW IN THE HECK DID THEY GET THIS PATENTED? With that logic, aren't they infringing on the owner of the DVD player patent? What about the MP3 player?

Does a DVD player "parse video and audio data" from broadcast data?

Does an MP3 player (technically) contain video, or accept broadcast data?

They are players, not recorders, right?

 

[Greg Bimson]

The point being, they DIDN'T invent that. It already existed. All the processes they used already existed...they just built a stand-alone product that did it.

Then why did TiVo have to get a chip maker to build their Media Switch, as it didn't exist before TiVo's invention?

 

[jacmyoung]

No. The term "Infringing Products" only has one definition.

For that precise reason, it should only define the products that are indeed infringing, not the products that no longer infringe.

Remember that an injunction cannot refer to an outside document; it must be a self-contained document that contains all information. That is Federal Civil rule 65(d).

Correct, therefore if the products are no longer infringing, they are then outside of the scope of the injunction, because the term "Infringing Products" can no longer apply to them.

That is incorrect. All five experts testified that the PID filter met the limitation on the parse/analysis element. And the fact those five experts agreed can be used as evidence in the analysis of continuing infringement.

Of course their opinions can be used, that is not the argument here, the problem is E* may not introduce new evidence based on their interpretation of the terms in the context of the entire patent, the patent specification and the prosecution history of the patent. The judge had limited E*’s evidence only to the interpretation of the terms in the software claims, not anything outside of the claims but within the patent specification and the prosecution history of the patent, in the context of the entire patent.

DISH/SATS would rather re-litigate a fact of the case, a fact which cannot be changed.

What fact? E* wanted to introduce new evidence based on the patent specification and prosecution history of the patent, in the context of the entire patent, the judge denied E* from introducing such evidence, that is the fact I am talking about. This fact has nothing to do with challenging the judge’s order, or trying to re-litigate anything.

It is simply that whether E* has the right to introduce the evidence the appeals court said E* can introduce, in fact the appeals court said it should be assumed such evidence are used when one tries to interpret the claim terms. Such evidence (the start codes and the indexing) are not in the software claims but they are in the patent specification, the prosecution history of the patent, in the context of the entire patent.

"In the context of the entire patent" means one cannot isolate the claim terms, but interpret them as a whole, because there is one invention, not two or three. All claim terms, whether the hardware claim terms, or the software claim terms, they together describe this one invention, and the core of which is to analyze the start codes, i.e. "parse audio and video data," then to "temporarily store" them, and then the "source object" can "extract" them and "convert" them into an index table, i.e. "data streams," then put such index table in a buffer for the purpose of performing DVR trickplays, i.e. "said source object converts video data into data streams and fills such buffer with said streams."

If the software claims can be interpreted in the context of the entire patent, the patent specification and the prosecution history of the patent, the above explanation will suddenly make sense, but E* was not allowed to make such interpretation, that is what's at stake.

 

[klegg]

Does a DVD player "parse video and audio data" from broadcast data?

Does an MP3 player (technically) contain video, or accept broadcast data?

They are players, not recorders, right?

No, but does a Tivo build it's own content like a ViP? In that manner, they differ just like the Tivo differs from a DVD and an MP3 player. That's what I mean. If you wanted to nickle and dime this whole "who invented what" discussion, it could go on forever.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Comparing a completely non-exist product to one that has existed FOR YEARS before the patent was requested??? WOW...WOW...

But I can make it relate...

The telephone patent was broad enough so that no one could build a knock-off without infringing.

It is entirely possible the "Time Warp" patent is broad enough so that no one can "Time Warp" without infringing upon it.

 

[klegg]

But I can make it relate...

The telephone patent was broad enough so that no one could build a knock-off without infringing.

It is entirely possible the "Time Warp" patent is broad enough so that no one can "Time Warp" without infringing upon it.

I've not a lot of problem with you are saying. My contention is NOT that the patent exists, but rather should it have EVER been granted. I think we ALL agree this technology existed WAAY before Tivo was granted a patent.

Now, it appears our court system will, at some point, let them go after the manufacturers of say, DVD writers. The "patent" is becoming WAAAAY too broad, IMO.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

I've not a lot of problem with you are saying. My contention is NOT that the patent exists, but rather should it have EVER been granted. I think we ALL agree this technology existed WAAY before Tivo was granted a patent.

Now, it appears our court system will, at some point, let them go after the manufacturers of say, DVD writers. The "patent" is becoming WAAAAY too broad, IMO.

I agree, and maybe legislation is needed to reform the system.

 

[Greg Bimson]

No, but does a Tivo build it's own content like a ViP? In that manner, they differ just like the Tivo differs from a DVD and an MP3 player.

But the ViP does accept broadcast data, unlike the other two.

What does "build it's own content" mean?

I've not a lot of problem with you are saying. My contention is NOT that the patent exists, but rather should it have EVER been granted. I think we ALL agree this technology existed WAAY before Tivo was granted a patent.

So who had a trick-play DVR available when TiVo filed its patent in the middle of 1998?

 

[rockymtnhigh]

I swear you guys just love to argue around and round. It gets tiring hearing the same arguments over and over. (I need a good exasperated emoticon).

 

[klegg]

But the ViP does accept broadcast data, unlike the other two.

What does "build it's own content" mean?So who had a trick-play DVR available when TiVo filed its patent in the middle of 1998?

So, you don't get my lay terms for what a VIP can do that a Tivo can't, or are you just being "smart"?

Look, I'm no electronics expert, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at a Tivo and a VIP side-by-side and realize the Tivo has to have a separate input source to function. The VIP's DVR doesn't do that AND can't do that. The VIP IS the input source.

 

[Curtis0620]

Just because the VIP has a built in tuner is irrelevant.

 

[Greg Bimson]

I wasn't being smart...

Look, I'm no electronics expert, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at a Tivo and a VIP side-by-side and realize the Tivo has to have a separate input source to function.

Not necessarily true. My DirecTV DVR is a TiVo, and it doesn't have to have a separate input source to function. Besides, if TiVo ever had a tuner for DISH/SATS, it would not surprise me in the least DISH/SATS would sue for using DISH/SATS technology without permission.

However, with that being said, the specification in the patent claim is to grab broadcast data and parse it. Both the TiVo and the ViP DVR's do that.

The comparasion should not be the differences between a TiVo to a ViP (or any DISH/SATS) DVR. The comparasion should be the similarities betwee the DISH/SATS DVR's and the patent claims.

 

[klegg]

Just because the VIP has a built in tuner is irrelevant.

It IS when I'm trying to point out that just because an end-result is the similar, it does not necessarily mean they ARE the same (ie. a DVD writer compared to a DVR).

Look, we're not gonna agree on this, so I give up. I was just trying to show you guys that what Tivo invented already existed in some form or fashion BEFORE they patented it. You guys don't want to hear it, so...good day!!

 

[klegg]

I wasn't being smart...Not necessarily true. My DirecTV DVR is a TiVo, and it doesn't have to have a separate input source to function. Besides, if TiVo ever had a tuner for DISH/SATS, it would not surprise me in the least DISH/SATS would sue for using DISH/SATS technology without permission.

However, with that being said, the specification in the patent claim is to grab broadcast data and parse it. Both the TiVo and the ViP DVR's do that.

The comparasion should not be the differences between a TiVo to a ViP (or any DISH/SATS) DVR. The comparasion should be the similarities betwee the DISH/SATS DVR's and the patent claims.

Your D* receiver is NOT a Tivo...it has Tivo functionality, but is most definitely not a Tivo.

 

[Greg Bimson]

It was manufactured by TiVo. It runs on TiVo software. All done at the behest of DirecTV. Ergo, it is a TiVo. It just isn't a standalone TiVo.

Look, we're not gonna agree on this, so I give up. I was just trying to show you guys that what Tivo invented already existed in some form or fashion BEFORE they patented it. You guys don't want to hear it, so...good day!!

Someone had a device that could take a TV signal, and allow the user to not only record it but play it back, rewind, fast-forward and pause WHILE recording? That is the Time Warp claim in a nutshell.

But I never received an answer to this question:

So who had a trick-play DVR available when TiVo filed its patent in the middle of 1998?

 

[Martin Tupper]

So, you don't get my lay terms for what a VIP can do that a Tivo can't, or are you just being "smart"?

Look, I'm no electronics expert, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at a Tivo and a VIP side-by-side and realize the Tivo has to have a separate input source to function. The VIP's DVR doesn't do that AND can't do that. The VIP IS the input source.

Every standalone TiVo since the Series 1 has been equipped with NTSC and/or ATSC tuners. The SD DirecTiVo's had satellite tuners. The HD models had both satellite and ATSC tuners.

They were all capable of functioning as there own input sources. That will begin to change (tomorrow?) as NTSC signals go dark.

But that's really immaterial. The addition of new features would not, in and of itself, negate an (alleged) infringement of the core "Time Warp" processes. They could add six satellite tuners, a snooze button, an air freshener, and cup holders, but as long as the unit still uses TiVo's "Time Warp" process, then it still infringes.