# TiVo Sues E*



## Curtis0620

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040105/sfm080_1.html


----------



## Guest

last gasp of a soon to be dieing company


----------



## sorahl

Dying company???


----------



## tampa8

They may have some traction if dish is using the same technology to accomplish those things. But if they are suing because the Dish DVR can do those things, but accomplish it in a different way then they may be out of gas. (for instance, does TIVO record directly from the incoming stream like Dish -I don't know) That is one of the reasons I have thought Dish could eventually use name based recording - by accomplishing it in a different way then TIVO. It would be like Sony getting a patent on a TV that displays the time and weather live from the internet from the US GOVT site. If Panasonic then makes a TV that displays that info, but uses a dialup connection to their company to provide the information then that would not be an infringement. Sony could not stop other companies from providing that info, but could make them do it in another way. (This could be a bad comparison - not sure my example is able to get a patent - but you get the idea)
I'm not sure, but doesn't TIVO make you use a landline to get updates? Dish does not. That might be a start of doing it differently.


----------



## MikeSoltis

Here is 
the patent

In summary, recording any type of television stream, broadcast, cable, or satellite, and parsing it to an MPEG stream, then parsing the stream back and outputting to a TV.
It is a pretty broad patent. Looks like they need to sue some other people too, like Replay, and Zenith for the HDR230.
But does the Zenith box and the 921 convert the program to MPEG streams? I know the 501 does, to an extent.


----------



## SlicerMDM

Unreg said:


> last gasp of a soon to be dieing company


Obviously a comment from a frustrated E* DVR user...


----------



## geoff

MikeSoltis said:


> Here is
> the patent
> 
> In summary, recording any type of television stream, broadcast, cable, or satellite, and parsing it to an MPEG stream, then parsing the stream back and outputting to a TV..


The dish Systems don't convert the stream to m-peg in the reciever, it is alrady an m-peg stream off the satelite


----------



## tm22721

I have been awarded four patents every one of which was written as broadly as possible with the help of a patent attorney one of whose jobs it was to insure that it did not infringe on prior art.

It sounds as if TiVOs patent is very broad indeed and unless Dish has something to trade off (either money or a TiVO patent that infringes on a prior Dish patent), the 921 is dead meat. We may want to turn off the 921 automatic download flag until this gets cleared up, to avoid losing infringing functionality.

In any event, they must pry it from my cold, dead hands.


----------



## Guest

SlicerMDM said:


> Obviously a comment from a frustrated E* DVR user...


why did it take tivo so long to sue?


----------



## Mark Lamutt

Excerpted from the patent text:



> The TV streams are converted to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation and are parsed and separated it into video and audio components.


This won't apply to DBS streams, as there is no conversion done - E* dvr receivers store the satellite stream directly without first converting it to anything else.

I doubt this suit will win. If it does, there are far reaching consequences for far more companies than echostar. Every computer mpeg card manufacturer would be subject to the same suit. Every cable company that uses a DVR would be subject to the same suit.

That being said, though...and people wonder why the echostar receivers don't offer name based recording...


----------



## Guest

sorahl said:


> Dying company???


Dying for sure, classic case of a company having all the brand recognition but not the business smarts to build on it.

Good PR, bad business plan.

Rupie don't need 'em.

TiVO is making the transition from business......to VERB.

-Earl
Yankee born Southern bred


----------



## Guest

tm22721 said:


> I have been awarded four patents every one of which was written as broadly as possible with the help of a patent attorney one of whose jobs it was to insure that it did not infringe on prior art.
> 
> It sounds as if TiVOs patent is very broad indeed and unless Dish has something to trade off (either money or a TiVO patent that infringes on a prior Dish patent), the 921 is dead meat. We may want to turn off the 921 automatic download flag until this gets cleared up, to avoid losing infringing functionality.
> 
> In any event, they must pry it from my cold, dead hands.


You may have four patents, but anyone can sue anyone, IF they can find counsel dumb/hungry/desparate enough to sue.

Chas and company are expert at this sort of thing, the guy LOVES to litigate. For Chas it's sport.

TiVO is simply running out of time and ideas. They're already out of cash. Do you smell DESPARATION??

-Earl
Yankee born Southern bred


----------



## SlicerMDM

Unreg said:


> why did it take tivo so long to sue?


I guess if I were closer to the situation, I'd know.

...perhaps they were busy doing other things

...perhaps their attorneys wanted plenty of time to look over the patents and formulate a solid (in their minds) basis for a lawsuit

...perhaps Murdoch instigated this suit through his connections at Tivo (and maybe even contributions to the cause)

...perhaps they woke up one morning and said, "Hey, let's sue E* for patent infringement" -- which is MUCH LESS outrageous than E* waking up one morning and saying, "let's totally change our plans for the SuperDish we've been touting for months and months"

But what do I know... OBVIOUSLY, by doing it now it means it's a last ditch effort to get money before going under, right?

:nono2:


----------



## Guest

SlicerMDM said:


> I guess if I were closer to the situation, I'd know.
> 
> ...perhaps they were busy doing other things
> 
> ...perhaps their attorneys wanted plenty of time to look over the patents and formulate a solid (in their minds) basis for a lawsuit
> 
> ...perhaps Murdoch instigated this suit through his connections at Tivo (and maybe even contributions to the cause)
> 
> ...perhaps they woke up one morning and said, "Hey, let's sue E* for patent infringement" -- which is MUCH LESS outrageous than E* waking up one morning and saying, "let's totally change our plans for the SuperDish we've been touting for months and months"
> 
> But what do I know... OBVIOUSLY, by doing it now it means it's a last ditch effort to get money before going under, right?
> 
> :nono2:


 first tivo makes an excellant product...but the sad truth is they cant make any money..uncle rupert makes his own dvr's in europe..why would he pay a licenseing fee to tivo..when he can scrimp by with his own dvrs?


----------



## Cyclone

When I think of Tivo, I think of 3Dfx. Best damn product to go under. I also think of SCO. Suing as an alternate form of business.

Who knows. Hopefully E* will buy up Tivo and use their technology. More likely they buy Tivo and never implement Name base recording in any of the current receivers.


----------



## bytre

It sounds to me (not being an expert on patent law) that Tivo is likely either trying to:

1: Establish their claim to the basics of DVR technology to generate licensing revenue before the DVR market becomes completely commoditized

2: Get acquired (for use by Echostar, for the value of their patents as a weapon against Echostar's competitors) in order to survive


----------



## MrAkai

a third option to bytre's first two:

3> With Rupert taking over D* and most likely converting to whatever SKY uses in Europe (or rather adapting it for D*'s streams/authorization formats) Tivo suddenly realized that a DishTivo might be their salvation.

with TIVO being linux based (PPC yes, but linux notheless) I imagine it would be (technically) reasonable to port the TIVO goodies to the 721/921 platform and have them run on the x86 linux that those boxes use.


----------



## Mark Holtz

And, here I was thinking that TiVo was upset that Dish was using the terms "TiVo-like" technology in their advertising for the DishPVR when, in fact, the DishDVR software is inferior to the TiVo software. It was fine when there was no fee. It when they charged $5 per month that I jumped to a HDVR2.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

Maybe Charlie is charging the dvr fees because he knew this was coming . Charlie should buy Tivo and then we would get name based recordings and season passes and Charlie would be able to make money on all the Directv subs with Tivo and all the stand alone customers as well. This would cost less in the long run rather than litigation fees fighting the lawsuit.


----------



## retiredTech

Tivo doesn't have a case with a "fair court" (of course who knows in these times)

This reminds me of the Star Wars vs BattleStar Galactic case.

Yes they are similar of type but didn't take the court long to see that 

YOU CAN'T patent creativity

You can patent "your product" , NOT an "IDEA".


----------



## Mike Richardson

My opinionated thoughts and predictions:

TiVo is probably the best PVR technology. They really pioneered it. But with all the cable companies opting for the cheapo Scientific Atlantic boxes rather than licensing TiVo, the fact that cable subs will want to seamlessly record digital cable channels (not seamless to do on TiVo), and the fact that cable company DVRs may cost less per month than a standalone TiVo, means bad news for TiVo.

The cable companies are too damn cheap to buy the TiVo company (they'll just use SciAtlantic boxes). DirecTV might buy TiVo for use with their PVRs. Remember that Rupert will not own 100% of DirecTV. And, TiVo is already implemented into a lot of existing boxes and it would cost money to port the Sky PVR system over to DirecTV. If TiVo died or was bought by Echostar it would suck due to having a lot of boxes with no more software updates, and/or having to pay royalties to E* (Rupert would hate that).

Ah, if Echostar bought it, they would get some good PVR software they could port to the 721/921 boxes. But it would mean having to pay money. Although Echostar might not be so money shy looking back at those potential bids for Loral.

The lawsuit will probably not result in a win against Echostar due to the language of the patent. It says, "The TV streams are converted to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream". The streams on Echostar boxes are ALREADY MPEG formatted. There is no conversion. So technically, not breaking the patent.

End of opinionated thoughts and predictions.


----------



## bunkers

It has always made sense for Charlie to buy out TIVO. What could be better than making $5 a month of your competition and holding their DVR receivers hostage? Honestly, who would want to stay with DirecTV if it wasn't for their DirecTIVO(s)? Plus Charlie has paved the way for $5/month DVR fees and he has also got the newer recievers running on LINUX for TIVO porting as was mentioned. I think Charlie wins in the end because this might just be TIVOs way of saying "just BUY ME ... now!!!!' .... before I go broke. But charlie will probably wait for the stock to drop down to $3 to $4 before aquiring them and then get them for half price.


----------



## DonLandis

_"This won't apply to DBS streams, as there is no conversion done - E* dvr receivers store the satellite stream directly without first converting it to anything else."_

Mark-
Are you sure? This would mean that the hard drive stores an RF signal directly either at fundamental frequency 12Ghz. or at an IF lower frequency. How is that technically possible? How do you store an RF signal on a digital recording device? I would think that all Dish PVR systems would have to demodulate the RF and extract the MPEG2 data stream to record as a pure digital file. 
In reading the TIVO patent it seems that MPEG2 stream stored on a hard drive for video playback is an integral part of their patent. A way around this is to demodulate the RF DBS signal to MPEG2 (its native form as all DBS is an RF modulated MPEG2 stream audio/video anyway) and then do an aditional MPEG2 to TS or DV data file for Hard drive storage. This would clearly jump around the TIVO patent as it would never use MPEG2 for video storage and manipulation. Or, it could use MJPEG as well. FYI- My hybrid video edit suite incorporates MJPEG data files, converted from YUV analog for hard drive storage. This is the same technology used my many professional editors, such as avid, and Discrete Logic, etc. Modern video editor platforms running on windows are using AVI files, Mac uses QT. Well, AVI would not be too efficient since it is not compressed. But WM9 or MPEG4 would also skirt around the TIVO patent. MPEG2 storage appears to be the IP of TIVO and appears to be the simplest way but not the only way!

I need to go have a read of the E* patent and see what they do. IF MPEG2 then they're in deep dodo, IMO.

But an RF DBS stream direct to HD? No way!


----------



## DonLandis

Mark- I found a reference to the E* patent and read through it. Lots of engineering discussion in there but, they are demodulating the RF signal and extracting the MPEG2 data stream. However the Patent stops short in stating what file format the audio and video data are stored on the hard drive:

_In the preferred embodiment, buffer 22 is implemented as one or more high speed hard disks, but any storage device that may be organized as a queue, which has a high storage capacity for audio and video signals, and which operates at acceptable speeds (e.g., solid state, magnetic, circuitry, optical) may be used. 
_

I would need the actual diagrams in the patent to see what is happening in their design. But, I believe you have to pay for the download of the full patent whereas I just found the cover description thanks to a reference on satellietguys.US thread.

The Patent number is:6,490,000 granted Dec 2002

In the brief description referencing the hard drive it states:
_
b) a storage means for storing said received signals, said storage means comprising a queue, said queue having sections for storing received signals, said sections comprising a head section, a tail section and one or more intermediate sections located between said head section and tail section, said received signals being initially stored at said tail section and progressing through said intermediate sections to said head section in a first-in/first-out manner; _

Sounds like a lot of patent jargon that technically means nothing.

IF someone has access to the actual diagram in the patent or who has studied the actual digital format of the Dish PVR hard drive and if it is MPEG2 data file then I still say Dish is in dodo. IF they are storing the program in some other data format as I previously stated such as MPEG4 or wm9 (royalty to Microsoft) then maybe they will win.


----------



## kelliot

DonLandis said:


> Mark- I found a reference to the E* patent and read through it. Lots of engineering discussion in there but, they are demodulating the RF signal and extracting the MPEG2 data stream. However the Patent stops short in stating what file format the audio and video data are stored on the hard drive:
> 
> _In the preferred embodiment, buffer 22 is implemented as one or more high speed hard disks, but any storage device that may be organized as a queue, which has a high storage capacity for audio and video signals, and which operates at acceptable speeds (e.g., solid state, magnetic, circuitry, optical) may be used.
> _
> 
> I would need the actual diagrams in the patent to see what is happening in their design. But, I believe you have to pay for the download of the full patent whereas I just found the cover description thanks to a reference on satellietguys.US thread.
> 
> The Patent number is:6,490,000 granted Dec 2002
> 
> In the brief description referencing the hard drive it states:
> _
> b) a storage means for storing said received signals, said storage means comprising a queue, said queue having sections for storing received signals, said sections comprising a head section, a tail section and one or more intermediate sections located between said head section and tail section, said received signals being initially stored at said tail section and progressing through said intermediate sections to said head section in a first-in/first-out manner; _
> 
> Sounds like a lot of patent jargon that technically means nothing.
> 
> IF someone has access to the actual diagram in the patent or who has studied the actual digital format of the Dish PVR hard drive and if it is MPEG2 data file then I still say Dish is in dodo. IF they are storing the program in some other data format as I previously stated such as MPEG4 or wm9 (royalty to Microsoft) then maybe they will win.


Embodiments are less important than claims but are much more specific and represent how one would implement an invention.

Claims can be very broad but can also be thrown out very quickly upon a legal challenge if it is shown that they are obvious or already realized.

Since hard disks have been used for instant replay years before Tivo, its the how to do it part of the claims that are probably most important.

If its brute force, it might be considered too obvious.


----------



## DonLandis

Yeah, I realize all that Ken, I was working on a totally different research with that post. One to show Mark that 1. I don't think there was a clear answer in the Dish Patent as to how they record the TV program to the hard drive and the 2. If it is in MPEG2 form then Dish may be infringing on Tivo's specific use of MPEG2. If Dish, uses some other form then it skirts around the TIVO patent. Do you know how Dish does it? That's the real question. Mark claims they record the RF signal to the hard drive direct but I don't see how a digital device like a hard drive can record an RF signal stream. Do you?


----------



## Mike Richardson

The digital MPEG2 stream is written to the drive. But, no MPEG2 or other king of compression occurs - it's demodulated from the RF signal into a digital MPEG2 signal. It would be foolish to recompress MPEG2 to MPEG4 - if you think E*'s quality is bad now, try compressing it AGAIN.


----------



## scot

I have seen many a lawsuit go through where it probably shouldn't have. Tivo has a shot with this one guys. Wether you want to believe it or not, they really were first, and do have a leg to stand on when it comes to patent law. My guess is they will demand licensing fees and an injunction until those fees have been set in place and paid. Since the DVR business is not going to kill echostar if they cant sell the units, the injunction would probably go in effect immediately after the hearings. This process will take 6+ months, so I wouldn't worry about trying to snap up that 921 just yet.

My opinion is that e* should have licensed the tivo os in the first place. While they do try real hard to release product, and update it to make it work, they just plain don't get it right most of the time in the DVR world. Probably would have cost them 1/2 of the current development team/manufacturing setup.

Also, Echostar is probably the most likely company to fall on this lawsuit and be beaten in court. If TIVO can get this done, a precedent is set and they will then start sending out requests to other companies to get more licensing fees. Though I bet DirecTV's hand is in this somewhere. Imagine if you were them, wouldn't you use your influence through TIVO to start a lawsuit with your competition? Costs would be minimal to them, if tivo goes under they use the other units from Rupert, if they win they continue on without a hitch.

Scot


----------



## Randy_B

If E* were thinking of buying a PVR software solution, I suspect Replay would have been the much cheaper option when it was on the auction block. So I doubt that this suit will compel Charlie to make a bid.

If GEMSTAR couldn't beat E* in court, Tivo's chances are nil.

If I am not mistaken, I believe that Replay was actually the first out of the field with a patent (granted about 30 days before Tivo's).


----------



## scooper

I got to agree with Randy - Tivo will probably lose. Charlie has demonstrated on more than one occaision that he is not to be taken lightly in court - the Gemstar suit was just the latest.


----------



## DonLandis

_"The digital MPEG2 stream is written to the drive. But, no MPEG2 or other king of compression occurs - it's demodulated from the RF signal into a digital MPEG2 signal. It would be foolish to recompress MPEG2 to MPEG4 - if you think E*'s quality is bad now, try compressing it AGAIN."_

Agreed 100% about the quality issue and I did think of that when I suggested it, ditto for the MJPEG and wm9. The point is that the way I read it, TIVO has the MPEG2 form locked up in their patent. Of course I'm not GOd and can't begin to predict the way the courts would rule on this. Based on the above claim being technically accurate and that so many companies are also using a similar technology, how this will all fair for TIVO could be interesting. There is a part of the patent requirement that says you have to defend your patent rights and I believe in a timely manner or you lose the rights under the patent protection. Could it be that TIVO just waited too long to bring this suit and with so many companies recording MPEG2 to hard drives where they failed to challenge the process, maybe this will get thrown out? I'm not taking sides but rather stating other possible action by the courts.


----------



## Mark Lamutt

Don - ok, the E* dvr boxes must do some kind of demodulation (remodulation?) of the RF DBS signal back to the native MPEG2 DBS format for storage. This process isn't the same thing as the conversion to MPEG2 format done by the standalone tivo I don't believe. And the storage on the E* dvrs isn't a standard MPEG2 format because it still requires the receiver for display. I'm almost postitive that you can't just pop the drive out of the box, extract the files from the drive and play them through any MPEG2 player.

Not to mention the Tivo patent specifically says MPEG video, not MPEG2 video (may or may not be a valid point).


----------



## wcswett

Curtis0620 said:


> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040105/sfm080_1.html


I would think that my Panasonic DMR and it's whole line of HD/DVD recorders would be a lot more vulnerable to suit than E*. I can't see this going anywhere.

--- WCS


----------



## MedMech

Tivo stock is up 4% today more than 80% of the buys are intitutions, this tells me that the experts in the field know that there is some validity to the lawsuit.


----------



## Throwbot

Is this topic discouraging anyone from buying a 921? If I remember Polorid won a similar suit over Kodak and there was a reimbursment of sorts, We may all end up with TiVio anyway.


----------



## scooper

Actually - it might be a good thing - imagine a DIshTivo (or HD DishTivo) coming out of this...


----------



## dbronstein

Throwbot said:


> Is this topic discouraging anyone from buying a 921? If I remember Polorid won a similar suit over Kodak and there was a reimbursment of sorts, We may all end up with TiVio anyway.


What happened with the Kodak/Polaroid thing was that Poloroid won its patent suit against Kodak. So then a bunch of lawyers filed a class action suit against Kodak on behalf of the owners of the Kodak cameras, since they were now useless because Kodak couldn't sell film. The result was that the class members got gift certificates for $20 or something and the lawyers got rich.

Dennis


----------



## bunkers

One reason DISH did not buy REPLAY was that its patents are of a lesser value than those held by TIVO. Also, REPLAY contains more "risky" technology (from a legal standpoint) like the ability to share shows across a network, automatic commercial skipping, etc. Not to mention the replay boxes are less reliable than TIVO as well and are not used by D*.

I see no reason why DISH would not seriously consider buying TIVO once the price drops low enough. Charlie is much smarter than most people think. Wait and see.


----------



## DonLandis

Mark- The TIVO Patent references "MPEG" compression schemes and that should include all "Motion Picture Expert Group" compression schemes. In that respect I stand corrected that selecting MPEG4 would not be an option for skirting the TIVO patent if this (recording MPEG to Hard drive) is the basis of the suit.

As for the actual process carried out in the receiver, the Dish patent goes into detail and it would indicate that their MPEG2 stream from the demodulated (yes, that is the proper word  ) RF is indeed recorded to the hard drive.

_And the storage on the E* dvrs isn't a standard MPEG2 format because it still requires the receiver for display. I'm almost postitive that you can't just pop the drive out of the box, extract the files from the drive and play them through any MPEG2 player._

Of course you can't, that is where the signal security measures come into play. In order to decrypt the MPEG2 encrypted signal it must flow through the receivers security system. Somewhere E* has already stated that the drive content is secure and married to the particular receiver, even. But it might be cracked and security compromised but that is a different topic. Based on the post by MIke Richardson, I'd bet that the process used by TIVO and Dish is fairly similar in what they do to get from the RF to a recordable MPEG2 stream. Heck the packet size may vary and the D* MPEG may be different but the patents are not that specific and restrictive.

For certain, Mark this will be a hot topic at the tivo and E* booths at CES. Can't wait to address this new fly in the soup!


----------



## Inaba

Unless the E* lawyers are complete idiots, Tivo is going to have a really tough road to hoe to win a case like this.

Tivo's patents are too broad for one thing, which makes them virtually useless when it comes down to the wire. Most patents are filed broadly to prevent people from initially setting out to duplicate effort, however, if the effort has already been expended, it's much easier and cheaper to bust a broad patent than it is to re-engineer a piece of hardware or software. Every DVR company out there that is currently selling units will fight the Tivo patents tooth and nail before knuckling under... which brings up the second hurdle Tivo must overcome. That being primarily the fact that they've failed to make adequate attempts to enforce their patents over the past couple years. That's a HUGE nail in any patent litigation coffin. If Tivo was more on the ball, and brought this case forward when other companies FIRST started putting out DVR technology, then they'd have a much better chance... but this late in the game, and the technology is already too widely implemented in the marketplace to make an easy case of. While it's not impossible, it will probably end up costing more money than Tivo has to spend on this.

The next hurdle they'd need to overcome, but ties directly into the broadness of the patent is the fact that the technology is "obvious." You can slap an IP lable on anything you want, but if it's an "obvious" technology, which a lot of the functions Tivo is claiming as IP are, the court is going to shoot it down as ludicrous to try to patent. 

Lastly, the final hurdle they will have to overcome, and they may or may not have a good shot at this is the prior art hurdle. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any software out there that did what Tivo did prior to Tivo... but there may be some out there. Even a proof of concept bit of code will completely sink Tivo... and that's the most dangerous and slippery slope Tivo needs to navigate to succesfully win a suit of this type. One little bit of prior art and the whole fleet of Tivo patents go down in roaring flames, sucking the whole company under with it.

IMHO, but Tivo is too small to embark on a court adventure like this for intimidation purposes. They don't have deep enough pockets to fight a ware of attrition, but instead, it's a last ditch effort to prop up the company.

I love Tivo, and I think it's sad to see this; I want Tivo to succeed. But the writing is pretty plainly on the wall, given the condition of the company. They can not fight a prolonged legal battle, and they are hoping for a quick turn around on the legal investment from licensing fees from companies that might run scared and just pay the fees to make everything go away. If the companies hold out on them, Tivo is sunk.


----------



## Cyclone

I guess E* has nothing to lose in implementing Name base recording now. huh?


----------



## wcswett

Cyclone said:


> I guess E* has nothing to lose in implementing Name base recording now. huh?


Well, TIVO has a market cap of $522 million, which means that Charlie could write a check for the entire company on his personal bank account if he could get it for today's closing price. Even if he had to bid it up on the open market he could still probably get a controlling interest for that amount (about the price of two satellites). Then he could be supplying the technology D* uses for DVR's. 

--- WCS


----------



## ocdb8r

OK, I'm a long time lurker and I haven't read anything more on this issue than this post and the original article, I have been a long time Stand Alone tivo user as well as 501 user.....but I'm curious why no one has considered the possibility the infringement Tivo will cite is the 921's ability to pick up, encrypt and store a OTA HD/SD signal......to me is seems the logical reason Tivo has not sued E* (or any of the Sci Atlanta type boxes). 

On the other hand I would think replay and pc cards would infrings in this same area, they must use MPEG compression (but the pockets are not as deep there).


----------



## Kagato

Tivo's patents may hold up in court, but winning a case like this takes years. Tivo and Replay did sue each other. They ended up settling for a cross-license agreement. Taking on E* is tricky. Gemstar thought they had E* on the guide, but they ended up lossing in the end. 

Honestly, the stuff about Murdoch giving Tivo the shaft is way over blown. Would he like too? Sure, but it's like taking a Mac away from an Apple user. You'll have to pry that Tivo out of their cold dead hands.

What's Tivo up to? Good question. Suing Sci-Atlanta would score brownie points with D*, and keep and retain an edge in Stand Alone STB area. For that matter why not sue Microsoft for XP Home Media Edition. Sure, it would take 5 or so years, but Microsoft hasn't faired all that hot in IP suites as of late.

Maybe they are irked that E* beat their street date with the 921. Maybe they want a cross license with E*, maybe they want to derail the 921. In the end it's not going to mean much for years to come.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

Tivo won't survive as a company for years to come. Their best bet would be to be bought either by Directv or the company they are suing Dish. Then they would have some corporate power behind them. Tivo might be a word that people will use to describe recording on dvrs but they are not being used by most people that use a dvr. Generic cable companies have their own and Dish has theirs which outnumbers Tivo's numbers.


----------



## sleepy hollow

My only comment is that this would appear to cast some doubt to the the claims of all the naysayers about the 921. Apparently this awful 921 DVR that the TIVO user-chauvenists keep pooh-poohing in post after post on this and other forums (fora?), is being taken quite seriously by TIVO executives such that they are willing to risk ridicule for filing a loser/whiner lawsuit. 

Why sue if you know you will beat E*'s pants off with your product? Perhaps the rollout of the TIVO HD DVR will not be so smoothe either? Maybe it just isn't all that simple to merely reproduce existing DVR functionality with SD, OTA, HD, and other complexities to deal with. Just my simple-minded thoughts. But what would I know? Clearly Charlie Ergen's plan for world domination must be stopped. And TIVO management and the 921 haters are really patriots and I am a dupe.

I'll go back to my chair and resume my thumbsucking.

In the meantime, I just have to wonder what happened to good old entrepreneurship? I guess the "boys" at TIVO are really just boys after all and are crying to Mommy and Daddy that this just isn't fair. Innovation must be stopped, no matter what the cost (so long as the cost is paid to them and the money ends up in their pockets next to the yo-yo's and baseball cards). Poor pathetic terrified little whimps. Grow up and meet them head on if you are so good. E* is not stealing anything from you except your manhood, and you appear to be surrendering that willingly.

I feel better now. This year should be a lot of fun.


----------



## rvd420

The best thing Charlie could do is buyout Tivo, and then convert all DishLinux DVRs to DishTivo units.


----------



## BrettStah

Here's an interesting post by Dan Collins (the admin of www.dbsforums.com):


> Well, I just got off the phone with a source at DirecTV. I'm not going to swear he is right, but this is what he tells me...
> 
> News Corporation DOES have a hand in this lawsuit. They have assured TiVo that they will cover the legal expenses if TiVo can not. TiVo, with or without News Corp's involvement, has been working on this suit for almost a year. The targets are specifically the 721 and 921. TiVo obtained a 721 and examined some of the code used and found several examples of code that exactly duplicates the TiVo code in form and function. It is, apparently, obvious that the author of the Echostar code studied the TiVo code and copied it. The code in question supports several of the patented techniques. Also, according to this source, Echostar developed this code in the UK specifically because the TiVo patents in the UK are less broad, due to differences in patent law there.
> 
> I'm not sure what impact this last point has. I'm not familiar enough with patent law to know whose patents apply - those where the product is built and sold, or those of the country where it was developed.
> 
> Take this all for what it's worth -- I just thought some would find it interesting.


(Quote taken from the 4th post from the bottom on this page).


----------



## Mike Phillips

Does anyone know what stage or where this currently stands? Thanks, Mike


----------



## boylehome

Gee wiz, how come shampoo companies are not suing the others shampoo companies more than they do? I guess it is because of the difference as specified in the ingredients. I wonder If E* DVR ingredients are the same as TIVOs? I think not. Good luck TIVO with that law suit :lol: What a waste of money.


----------



## retiredTech

"several examples of code that exactly duplicates the TiVo code in form and function"

This is one the most ridiculous statements I've see. 
How can "one" patent actual machine code? That's like saying you own the rights to sentences that have the same words to convey an idea.
Like a company can own "100110001111", a judge would have to be an idiot to buy that argument. Companies should not own a "concept" even if it performs the same function. Patent laws are meant to keep someone from stealing your plans and design,
not your basic concept.


----------



## SimpleSimon

Actually, your thoughts on patent law are incorrect. Any/each of those things can be patented based upon their own merits.

Note that I am NOT referring to a "design patent" which has nothing to do with a device's operational design.

Finally, yes, a company COULD own "98F"  as a trademark.


----------



## Tyralak

Earl Zuberbelt said:


> You may have four patents, but anyone can sue anyone, IF they can find counsel dumb/hungry/desparate enough to sue.
> 
> Chas and company are expert at this sort of thing, the guy LOVES to litigate. For Chas it's sport.
> 
> TiVO is simply running out of time and ideas. They're already out of cash. Do you smell DESPARATION??
> 
> -Earl
> Yankee born Southern bred


Not to mention the fact that there's hardly any way they could win. They've failed to "protect" their patent, by challenging any other competitors in the past, so they don't have much of a legal leg to stand on.


----------



## Tyralak

retiredTech said:


> Tivo doesn't have a case with a "fair court" (of course who knows in these times)
> 
> This reminds me of the Star Wars vs BattleStar Galactic case.
> 
> Yes they are similar of type but didn't take the court long to see that
> 
> YOU CAN'T patent creativity
> 
> You can patent "your product" , NOT an "IDEA".


It's no secret that Lucas plagerized not only from Battlestar Galactica, but ripped wholesale from Asimov's "Foundation" series and Frank Herbert's "Dune".


----------



## Guest

Tyralak said:


> It's no secret that Lucas plagerized not only from Battlestar Galactica,.


It would have been rather difficult for Lucas to have plagarized Battlestar Gallactica, since the original Star Wars movie came out in 1977, and Battlestar didn't come on TV until 1978. Battlestar was an obvious rip-off of Star Wars.


----------



## Tyralak

Visitor said:


> It would have been rather difficult for Lucas to have plagarized Battlestar Gallactica, since the original Star Wars movie came out in 1977, and Battlestar didn't come on TV until 1978. Battlestar was an obvious rip-off of Star Wars.


The scripts and storyboards for Galactica were done several years before Star Wars. The creator of Galactica had trouble getting a studio to produce it.


----------



## Jerry 42

I just read on the front page of today's LA Times that TiVo will be supering product logo when you fast forward - for a fee from the advertisors. It further said TiVo will be selling viewer info back to advertisors. The ability to do this was shown when TiVo was able to document the rewinds of J. Jackson during the super bowl. TiVo said its the future of advertising. 

I have 2 SA TiVos and I do not really like this idea. Perhaps Dish PVR will be a better choice after all - I do not know.


----------



## larrystotler

Ok....Here is my understanding:

The 5xx series DVRs save the incoming MPEG stream straight to the hard drive. There are not Linux based. You can convert the files to a DVD style format by using the Dishrip program over on Yahoo. This requires removing the hard drive and installing it into a PC.

The 522/721/921 receivers encrypt the MPEG stream when it is saved to the hard drive. It is a violation of the DMCA to crack the encryption in order to save the files from the hard drive. These receviers are based on Linux. 

E* does not use the exact MPEG2 spec that DVD placyers use. DVD players use the DeCSS encryption standard which was cracked by that Norwiegen guy a while back. He was aquitted of all charges(if he had been in the US, he would be in jail). He has since cracked the Apple iPod as well. Anyway, E* compresses their stuff more than the standard MPEG2 stuff. This is why you need a program to convert it for the 5xx series. DiVX is a clean room version of MPEG4 and would not be applicable under the TiVo lawsuit AFAIK.

Correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## garypen

Tyralak said:


> The scripts and storyboards for Galactica were done several years before Star Wars. The creator of Galactica had trouble getting a studio to produce it.


Wrong. The look and feel of BG was taken directly fron SW. Didn't they even use some of Dykstra's people for the SFX? The original concept of BG may have come before the _release_ of SW. But, Lucas was writing and planning SW _long_ before that, and based on a number of things, including Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress, definitely _not_ Battlestar Gallactica.

If you wanna talk about stolen ideas for SF TV series, then ST DS9 would be the one to bust for stealing from Babylon 5. B5 was pitched to the ST team as a possible ST series, and was turned down, only to resurface as basically the same damn thing anyway, with some minor changes and some ST folklore and cross promotion thrown in.


----------



## Lyle_JP

> DVD players use the DeCSS encryption standard


Actually, DVDs use the CSS ecryption standard. *DeCSS* was the illegal program used to circumvent CSS. The courts have ruled DeCSS illegal to possess or distribute, but since then there have been about a dozen other programs created that do the same thing, including a pearl script that's only 8 lines long and fits nicely on a T-shirt (that gives you some idea of just how poor the CSS encryption scheme really is).


----------



## SimpleSimon

Lyle - on the contrary. Owning the program is NOT illegal. Using it to circumvent copyrights is. Also, the author has been found not guilty on all charges.

And it's Perl, not pearl.


----------



## larrystotler

Yeah, but like I pointed out, if he had done it here in the US, he would be in jail, unless he had a good lawyer that could have had the courts overturn the DMCA.


----------



## Tyralak

garypen said:


> Wrong. The look and feel of BG was taken directly fron SW. Didn't they even use some of Dykstra's people for the SFX? The original concept of BG may have come before the _release_ of SW. But, Lucas was writing and planning SW _long_ before that, and based on a number of things, including Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress, definitely _not_ Battlestar Gallactica.


The scripts were written years before SW.



garypen said:


> If you wanna talk about stolen ideas for SF TV series, then ST DS9 would be the one to bust for stealing from Babylon 5. B5 was pitched to the ST team as a possible ST series, and was turned down, only to resurface as basically the same damn thing anyway, with some minor changes and some ST folklore and cross promotion thrown in.


Which explains why B5 so much resembles DS9.... oh, wait. It doesn't look a thing like it.

Which has nothing on Lucas, whose SW universe is about 80% ripped off from Asimov and Herbert. He didn't even bother to change the name of one character. Han Solo was the exact same character as Captain Han Pritcher in "Foundation and Empire" The Lightsaber was a ripoff of the Nuclear Knife from Foundation. Corusant is he exact same planet as Trantor from Asimov's "Foundation" and the "Galactic Empire" novels. Blasters, Hyperspace, all shown in Star Wars exactly like they were described in Asimov's work. The list goes on and on, but I think you get the idea.


----------



## garypen

Tyralak said:


> Which explains why B5 so much resembles DS9.... oh, wait. It doesn't look a thing like it.


They "look" nothing like each other, because DS9 had about 3 times as much budget. They also ST'd it up, all shiny and nice. B5, OTOH, was grittier, with deeper plotlines, and a continuing arc.
In either case, the creator of B5 brought the idea to the ST team and Paramount before going to WB. Lo and behold, Paramount comes out with a ST series about a deep space station with a numerical name, with on-board commerce, entertainment, and gambling; a commander with mystical qualities; orbiting a planet hiding strange powers; at war with a powerful, almost invincible enemy.
Yeah. Just coincidence.


----------

