# TiVo trial to begin over EchoStar DVR



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

DALLAS (AP) -- In a case beginning this week, a Texas jury will be asked to decide whether satellite-TV giant EchoStar Communications Corp. stole TiVo Inc.'s technology that lets viewers skip the commercials. \

The trial is scheduled to start Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Marshall, 150 miles east of Dallas. It is expected to last about two weeks.

If TiVo wins, it could sue cable companies that offer other set-top boxes or at least force them to pay licensing fees. Defeat probably would relegate TiVo to a niche place in the market it created, analysts say.

More *HERE*.


----------



## roddiaz1 (Mar 23, 2006)

Chris Blount said:


> DALLAS (AP) -- In a case beginning this week, a Texas jury will be asked to decide whether satellite-TV giant EchoStar Communications Corp. stole TiVo Inc.'s technology that lets viewers skip the commercials. \
> 
> The trial is scheduled to start Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Marshall, 150 miles east of Dallas. It is expected to last about two weeks.
> 
> ...


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

I think Dish (and probably all non-Tivo DVR owners) subs need to be rooting for E* on this one because if they lose I have to believe licensing fees and other costs will be passed directly to us!


----------



## Fifty Caliber (Jan 4, 2006)

bobukcat said:


> I think Dish (and probably all non-Tivo DVR owners) subs need to be rooting for E* on this one because if they lose I have to believe licensing fees and other costs will be passed directly to us!


 DVR fees


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Chris Blount said:


> Defeat probably would relegate TiVo to a niche place in the market it created, analysts say.


Without DirecTV, TiVo will already be marginalized. Not too long ago, DirecTiVo users represented almost 80% of the subscribership and that number is dwindling. The DirecTiVo faithful will tell you that they have even more units in use, but when you see that some of them are using five receivers with no additional fees, it isn't financially beneficial to TiVo. DirecTV has stated that the service will continue through 2007 at the outside and other reports place the cut-off at early 2007.

Granted, DirecTiVo users probably pay 20-30% of what conventional TiVo users pay and that figure may be subsidized by DirecTV so the hit would likely mean a much smaller than 80% drop in subscription revenues, but to a company that has never made a profit, this is a big red item. What remains to be seen is whether or not TiVo can convert enough DirecTV customers to cable and set them up with Series 3 receivers which will surely come with a big up-front cost and a much higher subscription fee. TiVo will have NOTHING to offer digital satellite users.

Given the relative resources of Echostar and the fact that there are so many other similar devices using functionally similar technology, I don't see much of a future for TiVo Inc. I wouldn't be surprised to see a number of "friend of the Court" offers from those who offer competing technology.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

IF Tivo wins, this will be in appeals courts for a long time. And I can foresee the possibility a jury or judge could rule that the dvr concept and the technological steps to make it viable, could be considered Tivo's. Especially NBR. No VCR ever did NBR, the best they did was the VCR+ thing with the numbers from the local tv guide. 

I wouldn't be surprised if it's more of a split decision. DVR is just an upgrade to VHS, so the idea of copying a show, and forwarding thru commercials, has been around since VHS (used to have a VHS which had a 30 sec forward skip button too). So Tivo can't really claim that as their own idea, plus they don't even do that function. Tivo is simply a glorified VHS recorder in that sense. 

But, NBR, that they created. That is something intellectually they developed, and I could easily see a judge saying that anyone using NBR tech, regardless of how they implement it, are doing so based on Tivo's designs (it's not like there's 2 ways to do it). I would expect some sort of "payments" to Tivo for NBR, but nothing else, and I'd consider that fair. NBR is the only part that is original in and of itself. Everything else is simply converting VHS to a harddrive tech.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Rogueone said:


> I can foresee the possibility a jury or judge could rule that the dvr concept and the technological steps to make it viable, could be considered Tivo's. Especially NBR. No VCR ever did NBR, the best they did was the VCR+ thing with the numbers from the local tv guide.


There were digital video recorders on the market before TiVo shipped their first unit.


> VHS (used to have a VHS which had a 30 sec forward skip button too).


ReplayTV offered something like that (and was subsequently required by the courts to remove it) and I believe that JVC still offers a feature on their VHS VCRs that will automatically blank and fast forward over commercials.


> But, NBR, that they created.


I used to think that too until I picked up a vintage TV tuner card for Windows that is able to do basic NBR and is even capable of starting recording based on finding specified text in the closed captioning!


> That is something intellectually they developed


I would disagree and apparently so would TiVo or they would be suing over it.

The suit is _not_ about NBR. It is about fast forwarding, rewinding or jumping around in a program while recording it.(Time Warp in TiVo parlance).


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

harsh said:


> There were digital video recorders on the market before TiVo shipped their first unit.ReplayTV offered something like that (and was subsequently required by the courts to remove it)


What ReplayTV had to remove was an actual commercial skip function. It tried to determine when a commercial started and ended. Some programs it worked great on and some not so good. I have a ReplayTV 5080 that has that feature. I believe they still had the Quick Skip feature.

Another feature ReplayTV has that I would like to see on my 625 is the ability to skip X minutes ahead or back. You hit the number keys for how many minutes and then the Quick Skip or Replay button and there you are.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

well if Tivo is only suing over jumping around, then that's a waste. Tivo jumps around totally differently than Dish. Dish has the 30 sec feature Tivo for some reason never has had, and other than that, Dish simply fast forwards and rewinds. I noticed using my dad's tivo, that it puts markers on a recording, so you can jump around in the recording, or to the beginning or end with a key press. Dish doesn't do that, that I've ever noticed. So how would dish be stealing Tivo technology by putting a fast forward/rewind on their box  doh


and i recall that replaytv feature, I think it tried to gauge the start/stop of commercials based on the obvoius changes in volume, or something similar. I wish someone would devise a tuner/receiver that auto adjusts commercial volume levels down to normal, i hate getting blasted when I'm watching HD and a commercial starts. Its so much louder it's crazy.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

"Technically" TiVo doesn't have 30s skip.

It is a backdoor "unofficial" feature of the system.

This suit will go a long way in dictating the future of TiVo, Inc.

Win, and they may survive on their own..... or the cost to purchase them may just go up.
Lose... they might as well shut the door the next day, as IMHO.... they are spinning down the drain very fast.

The only reall "asset" they have, are their patent's and the name "TiVo"

Other then that, they have been superseeded by the latest DVRs to come out (Dish, DirecTV, CableCo, and non-provider specific ones... such as Microsoft Media PC).....


----------



## CopyChief (Jan 17, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> "
> 
> ...This suit will go a long way in dictating the future of TiVo, Inc.....


I think you're right, and it might serve to be a bellwether case for other industries, too. The question to me has to be whether Echostar used the idea for a DVR, or whether they stole the fundamental technology behind it. That said, Tivo has to prove they inveted it, not just that they were first to successfully market it.

I don't know the specifics of the case, but if it's about patent infringement, using someone's idea is meaningless, but if they stole specific patented technology, that's another story.

Win or lose, I think Tivo is prime buyout bait.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

CopyChief said:


> Tivo has to prove they inveted it, not just that they were first to successfully market it.


I'm not sure you are required to invent something to patent it. I think you just have to be the first to document it and have the permission of the inventor. The issue is whether or not E* violated the TiVo patent. I'm not convinced that it takes into consideration the validity of the patent. E* was two years behind TiVo in delivering a DVR, so there wouldn't be much chance that E* did something first.

My recollection is that E* actually has a hefty DVR patent portfolio of their own.

In the long haul, if TiVo loses the lawsuit, the legal expenses alone will drive it directly into bankruptcy. Punching a big hole in their patent portfolio would leave little more than a logo and a history written in blood.


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

I think TIVO owes me royalties. I have been recording TV shows and fast forwarding through commercials since 1984. Where do they get off, patenting my idea?


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

olguy said:


> Another feature ReplayTV has that I would like to see on my 625 is the ability to skip X minutes ahead or back. You hit the number keys for how many minutes and then the Quick Skip or Replay button and there you are.


I used to have a Magnavox VCR that had that feature, plus a 30 second skip button. It also had a "go to" button. You could tell it to cue any position on the tape.


----------



## airpolgas (Aug 13, 2002)

Damn, did Tivo really patent the FF idea? Are they like the company that patented the "Ice Blended" drink?


----------



## Fifty Caliber (Jan 4, 2006)

Or the Democrat who "invented" the internet.


----------



## Chris Walker (May 19, 2004)

A desperate financially struggling company making one last gasp for some lawsuit cash before they go belly up.. What a surprise. Tivo will lose


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

With the nations largest multi-channel video provider behind them, TiVo's not going anywhere. Sorry guys but the best is here to stay.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Steve Mehs said:


> With the nations largest multi-channel video provider behind them, TiVo's not going anywhere. Sorry guys but the best is here to stay.


All Bow Down Before Lord Comcast and Despair!........don't think so.


----------



## abricko (Mar 1, 2006)

Tivo is limping at best, i'm sorry, i know the interface / scheduling of the Tivo is light years ahead of the rest, but the lack of a HD box has hurt them, they are now behind and this *new* S3 HDTIVO that is coming out (mid year?) just doesn't do it for most people (unless you have cable). E* is now on their 3rd gen HD-DVR and D* is on their 2nd (although I'd consider it 1st gen due to them dumping their HDTVIO and supposedly re-doing it from scratch and you think the 622 has bugs, just wait...)

Beyond technology of the boxes... how can Tivo survive on charging people 20 a month for the ability to record shows and get guide data? Or the better question is who the hell would pay 20 / month to get guide data (and a leased box) for the ability to *smart* record your OTA shows (unless you also sub to cable also, that's a big $$$ add on)...

A buyout makes sense, maybe comcast will take them over and just use the tivo brand to boot their sales. Tivo's future depends on their ability to license their interface / scheduling / os... they are dead as far as hardware goes. For OTA/cablecard you can buy a Sony DVR which will do DVR w/o monthly fees (uses FTA TV Guide info).


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Dish Accused of Stealing TiVo Technology

A lawyer for TiVo Inc. said Wednesday that Dish Network stole TiVo's technology for pausing live television, even after other broadcasters agreed to pay TiVo a licensing fee.

Morgan Chu said Dish Network's action partly explains why TiVo has never made a profit despite its popular set-top box, which has changed the way Americans watch television.

*Complete Article*


----------



## abricko (Mar 1, 2006)

Why they don't sue Direct TV who had their software in their boxes for years and now dump them to build their own DVR? Seems like they'd have an easier time ripping off tivo than Dish who've created their DVRs from ground up... lets see, popularity due to huge base of D* subs, lack of profit due to them not having to pay full Tivo Fees and remainder of people paying Tivo for privilege to record OTA / Cable or re-MPEG your E* or D* signal... maybe that's why they've not been profitable?



Chris Blount said:


> Dish Accused of Stealing TiVo Technology
> 
> A lawyer for TiVo Inc. said Wednesday that Dish Network stole TiVo's technology for pausing live television, even after other broadcasters agreed to pay TiVo a licensing fee.
> 
> ...


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

I recently read about the philosophy defense in patent law. Here is how it would apply to DVRs. A DVR is not a TV viewing technology, but rather a TV viewing philosophy. A philosophy cannot be patented. The TiVo patent is invalid because it attempts to patent a TV viewing philosophy.


----------



## Reggie3 (Feb 20, 2006)

abricko said:


> Why they don't sue Direct TV who had their software in their boxes for years and now dump them to build their own DVR? Seems like they'd have an easier time ripping off tivo than Dish who've created their DVRs from ground up... lets see, popularity due to huge base of D* subs, lack of profit due to them not having to pay full Tivo Fees and remainder of people paying Tivo for privilege to record OTA / Cable or re-MPEG your E* or D* signal... maybe that's why they've not been profitable?


You go after one company and win - when that happens the others are much more likely to settle with out a trial.

I really hope TiVo wins - then perhaps the companies will be willing to use their software rather than kluge stuff together to try and emulate TiVo and not violate the patents


----------



## vurbano (May 15, 2004)

Larry Caldwell said:


> I used to have a Magnavox VCR that had that feature, plus a 30 second skip button. It also had a "go to" button. You could tell it to cue any position on the tape.


You are spot on right. I argued the same thing elsewhere. The lawsuit is absolutely insane.


----------



## rvd420 (Mar 10, 2003)

I really think Tivo brought the lawsuit against Dish as a game of chicken.

I believe the Tivo thought Dish would settle and we would all have Dish DVR Powered By Tivo.

Just my $0.02


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

abricko said:


> Why they don't sue Direct TV who had their software in their boxes for years and now dump them to build their own DVR? Seems like they'd have an easier time ripping off tivo than Dish who've created their DVRs from ground up... lets see, popularity due to huge base of D* subs, lack of profit due to them not having to pay full Tivo Fees and remainder of people paying Tivo for privilege to record OTA / Cable or re-MPEG your E* or D* signal... maybe that's why they've not been profitable?


Because Directv is currently paying a licensing fee to TiVo. That will change in 2007, but for now they are paying TiVo a fee.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Larry Caldwell said:


> I think TIVO owes me royalties. I have been recording TV shows and fast forwarding through commercials since 1984. Where do they get off, patenting my idea?


Tivo does not claim that they invented recording TV. Tivo claims that that they own the process of doing this all this digitally. I don't necessarily agree with that but let's not state that their argument is something other than what it really is.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

This all boils down to idiots in the patent office giving the "right" to exploit anyone who uses common sense to come up with an idea that they will then OWN in perpetuity at the expense of taxpayers. Look at the healthcare companies. They get to gouge consumers for years until a generic is available and then BAM, prices fall through the floor.

Actually, this might wind up helping us if Tivo wins if E* gets forced to use Tivo's software instead of their own with the constant bugs. I doubt it, but that's my hope....


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

What's funny is, someone should just set up the record functions to be smart according to the programming schedule. Each network uses a standard programming schedule...i.e. at 8pm the program starts, then at 8:07 there is a 2 minute commercial break and then at 8xx there is the next breaks etc...and as you have probably noticed, most networks are on the same schedule because when you attempt to channel surf during a commercial you discover virtually every other channel is in a commercial break as well. So write an algorythem which discovers the breaks or has you set the breaks the first episode of show or for a time slot and then the box would only record the show part the next time. Or at least make the skip forward button jump over this section. For TV we are already paying for there shouldn't even friggen be commercials, but I'll save that argument for another day. TiVo made some huge mistakes in their business model and now they are paying for them.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

What came first, TiVO or the original Dishplayers (7100 & 7200)? The "idea" for pausing live TV, as well as hard drive recording for time shifting existed before TiVO, and those old buggy Dishplayers, I believe, trump TiVO. There may have been several PC video cards before the Dishplayer, but the first set top box I am aware of that paused live TV, skipped commercials and time shifted programs was the Dishplayer. E* should counter-sue TiVO (but at this point that would be like trying to get blood from a dying turnup).


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

It's who holds the patent that counts. Plus, just because Dish may have had the first to market doesn't mean it was the first to be developed.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

If TiVO was "in develpoment" when the dishplayer came out, why didn't they sue E* back then? Why wait 7 years?

Also, how could E* infringe on a patent for a device not yert on the market (unless they had employed a mole over at TiVO's "development" lab)?


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

Like this.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060329/tivo_patent.html?.v=6


----------



## rvd420 (Mar 10, 2003)

Michael P said:


> What came first, TiVO or the original Dishplayers (7100 & 7200)? The "idea" for pausing live TV, as well as hard drive recording for time shifting existed before TiVO, and those old buggy Dishplayers, I believe, trump TiVO. There may have been several PC video cards before the Dishplayer, but the first set top box I am aware of that paused live TV, skipped commercials and time shifted programs was the Dishplayer. E* should counter-sue TiVO (but at this point that would be like trying to get blood from a dying turnup).


I still use my 7100 that I added a 60GB HDD to.
They got them pretty damn stable now.

If I were Dish I would countersue. Ya Tivo doesn't have much, but they do have the name TIVO.

And TIVO as a brand can make money.

It would be cool to see Tivo as a subsidary or Echostar.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> Tivo does not claim that they invented recording TV. Tivo claims that that they own the process of doing this all this digitally. I don't necessarily agree with that but let's not state that their argument is something other than what it really is.


Let's get down to brass tacks here.

Using a hard drive to store data is no different than using tape or memory or any other form of storage.

Can Tiva patent using a "type" of storage tech? I dunno you tell me.

The only difference between a VCR and PVR is the way the program is stored and while tape is sequential and a hard drive more random access, in theory, you can program a VCR to do everything a PVR can but, of course, it will be alot slower. I imagine you would have to have a large memory buffer and all of that.

Much like the new vs old versions of the Ipod. One version uses a small hard drive (cheaper) and the other uses memory.

From what I see, Tiva has added some natural extentions to the VCR type tech that came about due to the lower cost of hard drive technology.

I wonder if this will be anything like the old lawsuit when Apple was suing Microsoft because Windows looked too much like the Apple OS. The case was dropped when Microsoft brought up the fact that Apple had basically stole the windows tech from Xerox  Don't know if Xerox ever sued Apple after that LOL.

So those in the know.... can Tiva patent something as broad as using existing tech (hard drive) to replace an older storage format (tape)?

Does this mean that I can patent using flash memory to replace the hard drive? *smiles*

-JB


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

jrb531 said:


> Can Tiva patent using a "type" of storage tech? I dunno you tell me.


According to TiVo and USPO, the answer is yes. I think most people believe the TiVo patent is not valid because the idea is obvious instead of innovative.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

vurbano said:


> You are spot on right. I argued the same thing elsewhere. The lawsuit is absolutely insane.


The problem is that what you're arguing is not what the lawsuit is about. It is uniquely about moving around in a program as it is being recorded. No linear tape system can do that.

The suit isn't without merits, but it could be that TiVo waited too long to say anything (five years) and as is often the case in patent suits, an unchallenged patent breach may be considered to be an implied consent to use the technology. It isn't as if TiVo didn't know that everybody (especially ReplayTV) was using the technology.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Geronimo said:


> Tivo does not claim that they invented recording TV. Tivo claims that that they own the process of doing this all this digitally.


This is not it at all. There were digital recording machines out long before TiVo came on the scene. They're defending the idea that you can record a program and move around in it while it continues to record. In the grand scheme of things, this is uniquely a DVR thing.


----------



## kwajr (Apr 7, 2004)

abricko said:


> Why they don't sue Direct TV who had their software in their boxes for years and now dump them to build their own DVR? Seems like they'd have an easier time ripping off tivo than Dish who've created their DVRs from ground up... lets see, popularity due to huge base of D* subs, lack of profit due to them not having to pay full Tivo Fees and remainder of people paying Tivo for privilege to record OTA / Cable or re-MPEG your E* or D* signal... maybe that's why they've not been profitable?


didnt dish have a dvr years ago


----------



## kwajr (Apr 7, 2004)

Rogueone said:


> IF Tivo wins, this will be in appeals courts for a long time. And I can foresee the possibility a jury or judge could rule that the dvr concept and the technological steps to make it viable, could be considered Tivo's. Especially NBR. No VCR ever did NBR, the best they did was the VCR+ thing with the numbers from the local tv guide.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if it's more of a split decision. DVR is just an upgrade to VHS, so the idea of copying a show, and forwarding thru commercials, has been around since VHS (used to have a VHS which had a 30 sec forward skip button too). So Tivo can't really claim that as their own idea, plus they don't even do that function. Tivo is simply a glorified VHS recorder in that sense.
> 
> But, NBR, that they created. That is something intellectually they developed, and I could easily see a judge saying that anyone using NBR tech, regardless of how they implement it, are doing so based on Tivo's designs (it's not like there's 2 ways to do it). I would expect some sort of "payments" to Tivo for NBR, but nothing else, and I'd consider that fair. NBR is the only part that is original in and of itself. Everything else is simply converting VHS to a harddrive tech.


does any one know if e* uses the gemstar codes buried in there guide to do name based recording since didnt they buy them


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

kwajr said:


> does any one know if e* uses the gemstar codes buried in there guide to do name based recording since didnt they buy them


That "TV Guide" logo that appeared recently on our E* EPG's answers your question. Gemstar/TV Guide was successful in their litigation against E* (it's a rare occurance in the courts for anyone to win a judgement against E*).

As far as digital recording goes, there is another company that claims a patent that, if successful, would put both E* and TiVo into jeopardy - VTEL. VTEL was a pioneer in teleconference technology in the early 90's. Unfortuately for VTEL technology raced past the Pentium-I based gear they made. The one asset they claim is a patent for a process that enables MPEG-2 encoding for live streaming video. If they find a way to enforce their patent they will have all parties in this suit plus many others tied up in court.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

jrb531 said:


> Let's get down to brass tacks here.
> 
> Using a hard drive to store data is no different than using tape or memory or any other form of storage.
> 
> ...


I wikll get down to brass tacks too.
I f you read my post you would know that I don't buy their argument----but that I felt tha t t here was no need to misrepresent their claim.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060329/tivo_patent.html?.v=6


> During cross-examination of Ramsay, McElhinny showed e-mails of TiVo executives discussing EchoStar's rival box. In one, former TiVo President Morgan Gunther said, "EchoStar owns its own technology." In another, an unnamed TiVo employee said EchoStar appeared to have "a homegrown solution" for digital video recording.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Michael P said:


> If TiVO was "in develpoment" when the dishplayer came out, why didn't they sue E* back then? Why wait 7 years?
> 
> Also, how could E* infringe on a patent for a device not yert on the market (unless they had employed a mole over at TiVO's "development" lab)?


It has always been fairly confusing who was first. It is my understanding that the DP7100 was first released without the DVR functionality and that before it was added both Tivo and replay came out.

But this has always been a matter where one peron will post his understanding and then others will correct him.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Geronimo said:


> It has always been fairly confusing who was first. It is my understanding that the DP7100 was first released without the DVR functionality and that before it was added both Tivo and replay came out.
> 
> But this has always been a matter where one peron will post his understanding and then others will correct him.


I believe your recollection is correct. The original DishPlayer was released before the first TIVO and without DVR functions, however, the DVR functions were announced at that time as a future upgrade, indicating that Dish was working on the development at the time.


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

This is just another case of how the US Patent Office screws everyone. It's just like where they granted M$ a patent on the FAT filesystem after 20 years. Or RIM's fight where all 5 patents were invalidated, but they had to pay over $600 million. ANd who pays that? We do. Software patents are a joke, and anyone who writes software knows that. They were created by idiot managers who are looking to stifle innovation. It's comparable to the idiotic DRM crap and the DMCA of 1998.

As for this suit, E* had already supplied proof that IBM had similar patents well before TiVo got theirs. I can't remember when, but the article were linked from here.

As for the comments about D*'s new DVRs being "new", they are not. NDS has been using this stuff in Europe for years, and because of that, they will probably be able to get around the issues with TiVo.

Personally, I despise TiVo's interface. I think it's too hand holding. I'm waiting for MythTV to mature, and I will put together my own DVR for Digital OTA. Of course, the US is trying to outlaw FOSS(Free and Open Source Software), and if that happens, E*, TiVo, and others will be screwed since they all run their systems on Linux.


----------



## Ken Green (Oct 6, 2005)

Interestingly enough, Directv's upcoming new non-TiVo MPEG4 HD DVR will not have the skip forward feature.:eek2:


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

*TiVo once offered its invention to EchoStar for free...*

The Texas trial pitting TiVo against EchoStar got underway Wednesday
with opening remarks and a hint that the legal case could soon turn 
technical in nature.

The Associated Press reported TiVo attorney Mrogan Chu alleged that
EchoStar stole the company's digital recording technology even after 
others agreed to pay the DVR pioneer a licensing fee. Meanwhile, 
Harold McElhinny, EchoStar's lead lawyer, told the jury in his opening
statement that the satellite TV company invented its own digital video
recorder and uses different technology than the TiVo box.

According to the AP, McElhinny said TiVo will ask the jury seated in
federal district court for more than $100 million. He also asserted that
TiVo offered its invention to EchoStar for free if the satellite TV paid
for TiVo advertising.

www.SkyReport.com - used with permission


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Richard King said:


> I believe your recollection is correct. The original DishPlayer was released before the first TIVO and without DVR functions, however, the DVR functions were announced at that time as a future upgrade, indicating that Dish was working on the development at the time.


The DishPlayer was released sometime in June, 1999. TiVo was already shipping working boxes in March, 1999, and were writing software from their inception in August, 1997.

Keep in mind that since the mid-'90's there was a change in patent law that forced an applicant to patent their process or invention within one year of disclosure. So if TiVo disclosed they could "pause, play, rewind, and fast-forward television", they can patent the process within one year of the announcement.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> The DishPlayer was released sometime in June, 1999. TiVo was already shipping working boxes in March, 1999, and were writing software from their inception in August, 1997.
> 
> Keep in mind that since the mid-'90's there was a change in patent law that forced an applicant to patent their process or invention within one year of disclosure. So if TiVo disclosed they could "pause, play, rewind, and fast-forward television", they can patent the process within one year of the announcement.


to be accurate the patent is held by Webtv to pause live tv. Webtv at the time was part of microsoft and got renamed MStv. Microsoft owns the patent to pause live tv


----------



## emoney28 (Mar 1, 2004)

I'm not going to act like I know who is going to win this lawsuit, but I do know one thing for sure: If TiVO wins, every company that uses the DVR technology is going to have to pay TiVo for infringing on their patent. If anyone thinks that $$$ is going to come from each of those company's profits, their wrong. That $$$ is going to come from us, the consumer, and will be yet another increase for all to complain about.

It is for that reason that I hope TiVO loses.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

tomcrown1 said:


> to be accurate the patent is held by Webtv to pause live tv. Webtv at the time was part of microsoft and got renamed MStv. Microsoft owns the patent to pause live tv


Are you sure?


> The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted one patent originally filed in July 1998 by TiVo for a "Multimedia Timewarping System," giving the Alviso, Calif., company the official nod as an early mover in the sector.
> 
> The other patents are for a design that allows the recording of one program while another is replayed; *a method that allows viewers to pause, rewind or forward "live" television programming*; and formats to convert digital and analog signals, the company said.


So, to be accurate, that is what this lawsuit is all about.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Yes I used to work for Webtv we had this patent in 1995. The real problem is that the patent office does not do a complete search to see if perivous patent exits. PS The one thing I do not know since I no longer work for microsoft is if microsoft sold their patent rights to TIVO.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

every time this comes up we seea different set of dates. So all i can conclude is that it is hard to determine who was "first".


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Geronimo I like your signature.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

BobMurdoch said:


> Actually, this might wind up helping us if Tivo wins if E* gets forced to use Tivo's software instead of their own with the constant bugs. I doubt it, but that's my hope....


I'm gonna have to disagree with those that say you hope Tivo wins, if they do we E* subs are going to see our DVR fees go up - you can count on it!:nono2:


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Michael P said:


> E* should counter-sue TiVO (but at this point that would be like trying to get blood from a dying turnup).


They are counter-suing them, it's scheduled for next year in Texarkana. Even if Tivo wins E* will likely keep appealling and counter-suing them until they go bust and don't have the funding left to keep the suit alive. They've been bleeding red ink since it's inception and if they then have to take on other providers or box manufacturers their legal funding probably will only last so long. I think it will be a battle of attrition personally.


----------



## Mike Phillips (May 14, 2002)

So what are the true chances that DISH would buy out TIVO? Mike


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Somewhere between zero and nil


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

I’ve seen lawsuits ended by hostile takeovers before.


----------



## UTFAN (Nov 12, 2005)

Chris Blount said:


> DALLAS (AP) -- In a case beginning this week, a Texas jury will be asked to decide whether satellite-TV giant EchoStar Communications Corp. stole TiVo Inc.'s technology that lets viewers skip the commercials. \
> 
> The trial is scheduled to start Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Marshall, 150 miles east of Dallas. It is expected to last about two weeks.
> 
> ...


And I don't play one on TV. But ultimately, cases like this are decided by the legal team that can best "educate" the judge.

For TiVO, this is do or die. Lose and they lose, big-time. Win, and Echostar drags it on for a very long time, and even if they have to write a check, they have gobs and gobs of cash.

As I understand it, and this doesn't mean I actually understand it, is that the concept of delay and pause etc is the key to TiVO's case.

I had VCR's in the 80's that did exactly that. And during my very first TV gig during college, we were using 1-inch tape machines to do instant replays during football and basketball telecasts, along with slo-mo etc. The concept just isn't that new or revolutionary.

Just don't see a "real" win for TiVo in this. I believe they'll remain a verb, but disappear as a company.

Even if TiVo truly did invent this particular mousetrap, they're lousy marketers and businesspeople.

Echostar on the other hand, is very good at what they do. Very, very good. And pretty good in the litigation business as well.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

UTFAN said:


> And I don't play one on TV. But ultimately, cases like this are decided by the legal team that can best "educate" the judge.
> 
> For TiVO, this is do or die. Lose and they lose, big-time. Win, and Echostar drags it on for a very long time, and even if they have to write a check, they have gobs and gobs of cash.
> 
> ...


 Too bad for Dish it's a Jury trial.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

UTFAN said:


> And I don't play one on TV. But ultimately, cases like this are decided by the legal team that can best "educate" the judge.


Since this is a jury trial, they must educate the jury and the judge.


> I had VCR's in the 80's that did exactly that.


They still don't make a tape machine that can simultaneously record an uninterrupted program and do an instant replay. This isn't practical with a single tape.


> And during my very first TV gig during college, we were using 1-inch tape machines to do instant replays during football and basketball telecasts, along with slo-mo etc. The concept just isn't that new or revolutionary.


I figured someone was going to do a face plant on that land mine. Your TV production crew used multiple VTRs, a video switcher and an audio mixer to accomplish this. The pros still do it that way today except that they use hard drives instead of tape as a storage medium. What TiVo is talking about is a single machine that can do "instant replay" while continuing to record the program and do it all within a single stream.


----------



## rvd420 (Mar 10, 2003)

MARSHALL, Texas (AP) — TiVo Inc. shared details of its technology with Dish Network, which later used it in its own TiVo-like boxes that can pause and rewind live television programs, a TiVo co-founder said Wednesday.

Former Chief Executive Michael Ramsay made the comment during testimony on the first day of TiVo's patent-infringement lawsuit against EchoStar Communications Corp., the parent of Dish Network.

Lawyers for EchoStar, however, produced internal TiVo documents that appeared to credit EchoStar for developing its own technology.

TiVo has not said how much it is seeking in damages, but an opposing lawyer said the company would ask the jury in federal district court here to award it more than $100 million.

TiVo spent years pursuing a deal in which Dish Network would pay it for using its set-top boxes, similar to an agreement that TiVo has with DirecTV, the other big satellite broadcaster. But Ramsay claimed the negotiations were "mostly one way" and that Dish Network began selling its own boxes using TiVo technology.

Ramsay was the first witness in a case expected to last two weeks. Analysts say the outcome could affect TiVo stock and determine whether it can pressure cable companies to pay licensing fees for the digital video recorders, or DVRs, that they lease to subscribers.

In an opening statement, EchoStar attorney Harold McElhinny said the satellite provider developed its own technology that differs from TiVo in several ways. For example, he said, the EchoStar box doesn't translate analog signals into digital because satellite systems are already digital.

McElhinny said other companies were working on devices that recorded live TV on a hard drive long before TiVo was started in 1997.

"We have 1,500 engineers at EchoStar. We built it ourselves," McElhinny said. He suggested TiVo sued EchoStar because it was unable to turn a profit due to tough competition.

During cross-examination of Ramsay, McElhinny showed e-mails of TiVo executives discussing EchoStar's rival box. In one, former TiVo President Morgan Gunther said, "EchoStar owns its own technology." In another, an unnamed TiVo employee said EchoStar appeared to have "a homegrown solution" for digital video recording.

McElhinny said TiVo will ask the jury for more than $100 million in damages but that TiVo offered its invention to Dish Network free if Dish helped advertise TiVo.

After TiVo co-founders Ramsay and Jim Barton appear, testimony in the case is expected to take a technical turn as each side trots out expert witnesses to describe the inner workings of the boxes.

TiVo has become something of an icon, with its name now being used to describe the action of recording a TV show. The company has never translated its status into profits, however. It has lost nearly $650 million since its founding.

The Alviso, Calif.-based company faces competition from bigger companies that also make digital video recorders, or DVRs. They include Motorola Inc.; NDS, a unit of News Corp.; and Scientific-Atlanta Inc., which has been bought by Cisco Systems Inc. Its biggest customer, DirecTV, plans to switch to NDS boxes next year.

Conversely, EchoStar, based in Englewood, Colo., earned $1.5 billion last year as Dish Network has grown to 12 million subscribers.

It was no accident that TiVo chose to file its lawsuit in an East Texas city of about 24,000 residents. The federal courts in Marshall and other East Texas cities are known for handling patent cases quickly — a boon to plaintiffs.

Lawyers not connected to the case say it will be difficult for EchoStar to make its technical-sounding defense to local jurors, who favor plaintiffs about three-fourths of the time. EchoStar says the TiVo patent is unenforceable.

EchoStar has filed a countersuit against TiVo. That case is scheduled for trial next year in federal court in Texarkana, Texas.





You can see even former TiVo President Morgan Gunther said, "EchoStar owns its own technology." 

To me that is pretty dammaging testony.


Wouldn't it be a kick if the pants if E* wins this case, and their countersuit.

I wonder what DTV's exposure to a lawsuit would be if E* wins both cases.

Remember there are DirecTivo boxes.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

You didn't see todays testimony. It's not too rosey for E*.

* During questioning, TiVo more plainly established Barton, CTO and co-founder, as having developed the DVR. In our view, he is clearly a better witness vs. Ramsay. The cross-examination of Barton appeared too 
complex for jurors (the judge also appeared tired of the overly technical nature of defense questions). 
* Barton also established his view that TiVo had been too slow in actively pursuing its IP rights, which solidly countered the position DISH attempted to build during its questioning of Ramsay (see our previous flash note for more details). * Defense's objection to Barton's use of the TiVo box hardware in demonstration appeared to aggravate some jurors.


----------



## abricko (Mar 1, 2006)

I wonder how long it will take TiVO to die if they lose this case...

It looks like even the cable co's don't want TiVO anymore:
Comcast, Time Warner back Cablevision DVR service

TiVO may have put the final nail in the coffin by opening up this law suit!


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Curtis0620 said:


> You didn't see todays testimony. It's not too rosey for E*.
> 
> * During questioning, TiVo more plainly established Barton, CTO and co-founder, as having developed the DVR. In our view, he is clearly a better witness vs. Ramsay. The cross-examination of Barton appeared too
> complex for jurors (the judge also appeared tired of the overly technical nature of defense questions).
> * Barton also established his view that TiVo had been too slow in actively pursuing its IP rights, which solidly countered the position DISH attempted to build during its questioning of Ramsay (see our previous flash note for more details). * Defense's objection to Barton's use of the TiVo box hardware in demonstration appeared to aggravate some jurors.


It seems that Dish lawyers are better at playing to the jury then TIVO


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Are they arguing that Dish stole the "idea" of pausing a program...

Or are they arguing that they used the exact same technology/methods to do it?

If it is the later, then they may have an argument.... (use x,y,z line of code or technique to do it)...

But if it is the IDEA then there is no way in heck.


----------



## rvd420 (Mar 10, 2003)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Are they arguing that Dish stole the "idea" of pausing a program...
> 
> Or are they arguing that they used the exact same technology/methods to do it?
> 
> ...


If is comes down to Method Dish already has the case won.

Tivo takes an analog signal (except for DirecTivo boxes which came out after the 7x00 Dishplayers) and converts the analog signal to digital. Then that digital signal is stored to the HDD.

Dish DVRs (including 7x00 Dishplayers) take the digital signal from the Transport Stream and sends it directly to the HDD.

BTW MS has a 1995 patent for pausing live TV.


----------



## UTFAN (Nov 12, 2005)

Curtis0620 said:


> Too bad for Dish it's a Jury trial.


Good point and thanks for the catch, but it's the same thing. It's all about "educating." And as far as that goes, nobody is as "folksy" as Echostar.

They know how to talk Texas.

HOOK'EM!


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

rvd420 said:


> If is comes down to Method Dish already has the case won.
> 
> Tivo takes an analog signal (except for DirecTivo boxes which came out after the 7x00 Dishplayers) and converts the analog signal to digital. Then that digital signal is stored to the HDD.
> 
> ...


Are you forgetting the HD DVR's that record OTA signals?


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

But there is NO MPEG ENCODER in the Dish receivers. If you can receive an ATSC signal, it is already digital MPEG2 - all you have to do is store and display it. (A few details left out  )


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

http://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/content/news/stories/2006/03/31/20060331MARtivo.html


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

If this has to do with Dish Player it was a webtv product not Echostar. The DVR portion of dish player was an out growth of the Webtv plus with a hard drive added on. the only part of Dish player that is echo star is the receiver. If anyone who owned a dishplayer rembers if you had a problem with the DVR you contacted WEBTV support as bad as it was.


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

scooper said:


> But there is NO MPEG ENCODER in the Dish receivers. If you can receive an ATSC signal, it is already digital MPEG2 - all you have to do is store and display it. (A few details left out  )


That surprises me. OTA television is not available in my area, but I was under the impression that my 921 would record OTA HD television.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

Larry Caldwell said:


> That surprises me. OTA television is not available in my area, but I was under the impression that my 921 would record OTA HD television.


Tuners have Decoders, not Encoders.


----------



## Kagato (Jul 1, 2002)

As pointed out in a couple places in the this thread, The DVR functions in the DishPlayer were created and owned by Microsoft. Microsoft, Replay and Tivo all had cross licensing agreements that shielded each other from litigation. I've yet to see an argument from Dish indicated the cross licensing applied to them.

This lawsuit appears to be about the DVRs Dish actually developed. The 500 series and the 700 series and possible some UK only equiptment released by Eldon. All of which came out WELL after Tivo started getting used as a verb.

Some of the main points were made by Tivo's former CEO. His position was Dish was pumping Tivo for some very technical details under the premise that there were moving forward with licensing Tivo for their own DVR. He contends that Dish's actual goal was to get the technical details to steal Tivo's IP. 

There may be some merit to this. If you look at the hardware inside a Dish DVR they essentially use the exact same broadcom chipsets to handle all the DVR specific functions. 

I'm not ready to say this is a slam dunk for Tivo, but this is hardly a case of Tivo getting sour grapes and suing E* because it's there last option.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Larry Caldwell said:


> That surprises me. OTA television is not available in my area, but I was under the impression that my 921 would record OTA HD television.


It will because that is ditial. What they are telling you is that it records any digital signal. I do not owna 921 I don't know if it can record ANALOG (NTSC) signals


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

Kagato said:


> ...Some of the main points were made by Tivo's former CEO. His position was Dish was pumping Tivo for some very technical details under the premise that there were moving forward with licensing Tivo for their own DVR. He contends that Dish's actual goal was to get the technical details to steal Tivo's IP...


That would be an attempt to steal a trade secret, not patent infringement.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve Mehs said:


> With the nations largest multi-channel video provider behind them, TiVo's not going anywhere. Sorry guys but the best is here to stay.


With Comcast's comments today about the way that Cablevision is handling "remote storage" DVR functionality, it could be that Comcast loses interest in TiVo at the set-top box level.

Cablevision has many legal hurdles to overcome before that can happen, but if it happens, the days of set-top recorders could be numbered in the CATV industry.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Geronimo said:


> It will because that is ditial. What they are telling you is that it records any digital signal. I do not owna 921 I don't know if it can record ANALOG (NTSC) signals


The 921 can tune NTSC, but it has no MPEG encoder needed to record analog. Otherwise, it can record ATSC and DVB in both SD and HD.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Kagato said:


> If you look at the hardware inside a Dish DVR they essentially use the exact same broadcom chipsets to handle all the DVR specific functions


The Broadcom hardware has very little (if anything) to do with DVR functions. It is there primarily to decode/decompress video with maybe a little PIP/overlay/CG functionality thrown in. The DVR functionality (guide, timers, playback) comes from conventional computer-class hardware and software.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Mikey said:


> Tuners have Decoders, not Encoders.


Tuners do NOT have decoders. ATSC broadcasts are already digital, so the programming information doesn't need to be encoded (digitized) for storage on the hard drive. The information is sent directly to the hard drive for later playback. In fact, all digital programming that is viewed on the 921 is coming from the hard drive.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

harsh said:


> Tuners do NOT have decoders. ATSC broadcasts are already digital, so the programming information doesn't need to be encoded (digitized) for storage on the hard drive. The information is sent directly to the hard drive for later playback. In fact, all digital programming that is viewed on the 921 is coming from the hard drive.


Maybe I'm not understanding this issue. What is that Broadcom chipset that takes the MPEG2/4 signals, processes them and sends them to the video display circuit as raw video, if not a Decoder?


----------



## Doggfather (Apr 19, 2004)

hah i tell you what nonsense this lawsuit is... someone created the same idea digitally and wrote a program to do the same thing.. they didnt STEAL anything... tivo doesnt own a patent on writing a program!!! ;0 They need to get over themselves.. Ok its been a hard blow, but thats how life goes... I think that them suing is really a last ditch effort for the company...

-Dofggfather


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Doggfather said:


> hah i tell you what nonsense this lawsuit is... someone created the same idea digitally and wrote a program to do the same thing.. they didnt STEAL anything... tivo doesnt own a patent on writing a program!!! ;0 They need to get over themselves.. Ok its been a hard blow, but thats how life goes... I think that them suing is really a last ditch effort for the company...
> 
> -Dofggfather


And there lies the grey area....

To Prove: Did you honestly create the program with no knowledge of the other one's inner working....

Or did you know how it was done, and basically re-write it to make it look like you create it on your own.

Hence why none of these cases are "slam dunks".

You and me could create the same program "logically" and have some lines of the same code........ but...... if that commonality reaches a certain level.....


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Mikey said:


> Maybe I'm not understanding this issue. What is that Broadcom chipset that takes the MPEG2/4 signals, processes them and sends them to the video display circuit as raw video, if not a Decoder?


The tuner picks up a "channel", demodulates it and sends the resulting MPEG stream directly to the hard drive (actually, on the 921, the stream is encrypted before it hits the hard drive).

Some time later, the MPEG data is grabbed by the computer from the hard drive (, decrypted) and sent to the Broadcom chipset for decompression. The Broadcom chip is indeed the part of the process that turns MPEG into video, but in the case of Dish DVRs, it is not connected to the tuner. On the non-DVR devices, I would imagine that the stream is buffered in RAM by the computer while it waits for decompression.

Perhaps you'll consider me picky for differentiating between a tuner and a receiver, but the tuner is but one component of a receiver.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Good god - if you want to carry this out to the extreme endpoint - the guy who invented the harddrive should be collecting royalties on ALL DVRs, PC, etc - anything with a harddisk in it. 

IMHO the US patent Office is totally clueless on computer technology and what is REALLY new. At the very least, they are totally incompetent at reviewing what has already passed through their doors and seeing what is similar to "previous work".


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

scooper said:


> Good god - if you want to carry this out to the extreme endpoint - the guy who invented the harddrive should be collecting royalties on ALL DVRs, PC, etc - anything with a harddisk in it.


probably already does  the hd makers would be the ones paying a royalty to the entity which developed hd's


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

Rogueone said:


> probably already does  the hd makers would be the ones paying a royalty to the entity which developed hd's


Lots of patents involved. IBM owns a large percentage of them, but prior agreements allow others access.

Which brings up an early comment from Echostar saying their DVR's were based, at least in part, on IBM patents. Wouldn't surprise me as they have been storing video for stations on discs much earlier then either MS or TIVO.


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

Rogueone said:


> probably already does  the hd makers would be the ones paying a royalty to the entity which developed hd's


A big part of IBM's cash flow comes from patent royalties. They have perfected the art of milking the cow without ripping the teats off. Not only do they set very reasonable and affordable licensing fees, they share improvements in technology and manufacturing with their licensees. Doing business with IBM mostly pencils out in the black. They rarely have to sue someone to force them to make a larger profit.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

Earl Bonovich said:


> To Prove: Did you honestly create the program with no knowledge of the other one's inner working....


 It is possible to infringe on a patent without any knowledge of the idea in the original patent. Theoretically, this case is very unlikely, because only ideas that are not obvious are patentable. In practice, two people do come up with the same idea without any knowledge of each other, which leads to lawsuits.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Which is way software ALGORITHMS should not be patentable - The basic science behind it is a different animal, however.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

TiVo's future may hinge on EchoStar patent case
Tue Apr 4, 2006 9:31 AM BST

By Paul Bond

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - In an east Texas courthouse, TiVo Inc. and EchoStar Communications have been battling over a key patent that makes digital video recorders work. A TiVo victory -- which experts deem likely -- would not only resurrect the fledgling company but also encourage a shift in DVR strategies at the major pay TV providers.

Some industry observers have put TiVo's chance of victory at 70% or more and see EchoStar paying TiVo damages of $95 million-$300 million. Possibly more important for TiVo, a ruling instantly would strengthen its hand in negotiating what have been very elusive licensing deals with cable TV companies that have been selling their own less-expensive DVRs and cutting TiVo out of the loop.

*Full Article*


----------



## pjm877 (Apr 27, 2003)

tnsprin said:


> Lots of patents involved. IBM owns a large percentage of them, but prior agreements allow others access.
> 
> Which brings up an early comment from Echostar saying their DVR's were based, at least in part, on IBM patents. Wouldn't surprise me as they have been storing video for stations on discs much earlier then either MS or TIVO.


I think the IBM patents owned in this area were sold to Tivo Corp.. like the one E* was sighting a while back. Would have to search the news archives for this little out of the main stream blurb.

Tivo bought them soon after E* filed.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Chris Blount said:


> Some industry observers have put TiVo's chance of victory at 70% or more


Who are these Some? The article writer? Tivo? You have to laugh at some of the BS that is put out.

Well I observe the industry and I say Tivo has a 0% chance of winning so print that! *smiles*

At one time people would question things like this. If you want to make statements like this then back up your facts.

IMHO the only person who has any idea of "chances" is maybe the judge hearing the case and even this changes as more evidence is presented.

-JB


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

I think the general consensus is that the location of the trial is statistically friendly to the plaintiffs. The funny part is, E* is countersuing in the same venue. Even if they lose this trial, they will probably win it back later.

If Tivo's future rests on getting a big check from E*, then their future does not look too bright.


----------



## Reggie3 (Feb 20, 2006)

LtMunst said:


> I think the general consensus is that the location of the trial is statistically friendly to the plaintiffs. The funny part is, E* is countersuing in the same venue. Even if they lose this trial, they will probably win it back later.
> 
> If Tivo's future rests on getting a big check from E*, then their future does not look too bright.


It's not just the money from E* - It's the money from everyone else - Comcast, D*, etc. Just winning and threatening to sue will force many to pay - or if they are smart to pay for the licensing of the software and incorporate it into their designs.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Will reply sue TIVO ???


----------



## abricko (Mar 1, 2006)

No because tivo invented the DVR everyone else copied tivo, this trial pisses me off, i hope they lose, it would suck for every company to be forced to pay tivo for boxes they created from scratch, i can see if a company put the tivo os on their box and heavily modified it, so you could almost tell it was originally tivo... most DVRs look and work nothing like a tivo (except for the ability to hit pause and have it buffer what you're recording). Dish will have a hard time paying them, they will take it up in appeals, eventually tivo will run out of money (aren't they allready there?)


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

This looks like another case where I disagree with what the Dish legal team is doing. Reading the press coverage of this trial, the core Dish defense is to show Dish DVR is “significantly” different from TiVo. IMHO, this is an impossible task. Since this is a jury trial, an attempt to prove something that is illogical, results in a lose of attorney credibility with the jury. This makes it harder to look credible when showing something that really is logical.

The only way Dish wins this one is proving the TiVo patent was issued in error. Unfortunately, there are a lot of patent holders that have a vested interest is preserving the current definition of what an obvious idea is. If this TiVo patent is proved invalid, the result is a lot of other patents are also invalid, which a lot of companies don’t want.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

the_bear said:


> This looks like another case where I disagree with what the Dish legal team is doing. Reading the press coverage of this trial, the core Dish defense is to show Dish DVR is "significantly" different from TiVo. IMHO, this is an impossible task. Since this is a jury trial, an attempt to prove something that is illogical, results in a lose of attorney credibility with the jury. This makes it harder to look credible when showing something that really is logical.


I completely agree.

Echostar's defense team is constantly objecting to testimony of witnesses, but they aren't destroying the credibility of these witnesses. Take for instance the electrical engineer. There were multiple objections. When it came time for cross-examination, the defense team tried to argue that the witness was not an expert to get parts of the testimony crossed out. It isn't good that this guy went to Texas A&M, as the jury of Texans will not like to see one of their own viewed as not worthy of testifying. There have been no surprises by the defense team, yet.


abricko said:


> ... most DVRs look and work nothing like a tivo (except for the ability to hit pause and have it buffer what you're recording)


And hence the reason for TiVo to start taking others to court. If their "time warp" patent covers the ability to pause, rewind and fast-forward live television, and others are using their patented process to create similar results, then TiVo has every right to believe they should be paid, either through licensing fees or the courts.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

LtMunst said:


> The funny part is, E* is countersuing in the same venue.


The funny part is that we can all discuss this without knowing the facts.

According to the Washington Post article cited in the first post to this thread, the E* suit was filed in Texarkana, Texas which is certainly not the same venue as Marshall, Texas.

Also, let's not forget every page or so that this is a juried trial, not just a hearing before a judge.


----------



## JosephF (Apr 23, 2002)

Provided they lose, the outcome of this trial will have little real impact on E*. They will automatically appeal, based on the jury not understanding the technical issues.

From there the case will go to the appeals level where it will be ruled upon by a judge, who is much more likely to understand the very narrow scope of the patents.

Quite frankly the whole process of jury trials for patent issues needs to be tanked. Any process where ~40% of all rulings are overturned is clearly broken.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

harsh said:


> The funny part is that we can all discuss this without knowing the facts.
> 
> According to the Washington Post article cited in the first post to this thread, the E* suit was filed in Texarkana, Texas which is certainly not the same venue as Marshall, Texas.
> 
> Also, let's not forget every page or so that this is a juried trial, not just a hearing before a judge.


Marshall, Texarkana.... both used by countless plaintiffs for their lawsuit friendly reputations much like certain counties in Mississippi.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

JosephF said:


> Quite frankly the whole process of jury trials for patent issues needs to be tanked. Any process where ~40% of all rulings are overturned is clearly broken.


I have some very conservative relatives that think the jury system should be completely eliminated. Commoners making important decisions, what a silly idea they say.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

the_bear said:


> I have some very conservative relatives that think the jury system should be completely eliminated. Commoners making important decisions, what a silly idea they say.


Are your relatives a troy??? Do they believe that the Americas should be part of Great Brittian and loyal to the King???


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

The problem is the Patent process itself. I could walk into the Patent office today and try to patent the process of chewing gum, and there's a decent chance some idiot bureaucrat would grant it.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

Of course the attorneys at Wrigley would argue that customers chew their gum differently than gum chewing defined in your patent.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

JosephF said:


> Quite frankly the whole process of jury trials for patent issues needs to be tanked.


I heartily agree. I'm not sure how a group of citizens of Marshall, Texas can be expected to represent a jury of peers. It must be a real crash course in some fairly sophisitcated technology/terminology.

I realize that it is desirable to have people with good judgement that are only going to consider the details presented in the case, but without a basic understanding of the technology, it is going to be long haul.

I'll bet the one who wins will be the one that doesn't burden the jury with lots of jargon and legalese.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jun 16, 2004)

If amazon.com can get its one-click patent upheld I think Tivo has a good shot with their own patent


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

Yes, Amazon wins the award for most ridiculous patent not TiVo. The one click ordering case represents a complete breakdown of rational thought. The TiVo case, on the other hand, is only a partial breakdown of rational thought. Let’s see what happens in the LabCorp v Metabolite Laboratories case to see if this type of injustice is going to continue.


----------



## Fifty Caliber (Jan 4, 2006)

abricko said:


> ...tivo invented the DVR everyone else copied tivo, this trial pisses me off, i hope they lose, it would suck for every company to be forced to pay tivo for boxes they created from scratch, i can see if a company put the tivo os on their box and heavily modified it, so you could almost tell it was originally tivo... most DVRs look and work nothing like a tivo (except for the ability to hit pause and have it buffer what you're recording). Dish will have a hard time paying them, they will take it up in appeals, eventually tivo will run out of money (aren't they allready there?)


Is this sort of like how Radioshack "invented" Family Radio Service? :lol:


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Fifty Caliber said:


> Is this sort of like how Radioshack "invented" Family Radio Service? :lol:


Hey your on to something here. Radio Shack is the answer store they can settle the suit.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

thought Dish is found guilty of patent infringment. TIVO is bought out by Murdoch who charges Dish a hugh license fee. Dish goes under and Murdoch buys out dish.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Netflix vs. Blockbuster suit posts have been moved:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=55976

They deserve their own topic and will keep this topic on track.


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

the_bear said:


> The only way Dish wins this one is proving the TiVo patent was issued in error. Unfortunately, there are a lot of patent holders that have a vested interest is preserving the current definition of what an obvious idea is. If this TiVo patent is proved invalid, the result is a lot of other patents are also invalid, which a lot of companies don't want.


One great way of invalidating a patent is to show prior art. So, how do the networks do it when they do instant replays of sports events? They have been doing that for decades, long before there was a Dish or TIVO.

One problem with technical lawsuits is that the lawyers don't understand technical stuff.


----------



## Charise (Jan 25, 2004)

I find it hard to believe in the merits of a case where the plaintiff felt they had to file in a certain location to bolster their chances of winning. If they had a good case, they could have filed it anywhere. Filing in Marshall, TX, smacks of desperation and makes me think TIVO doesn't deserve to win.


----------



## Kagato (Jul 1, 2002)

Larry Caldwell said:


> One great way of invalidating a patent is to show prior art. So, how do the networks do it when they do instant replays of sports events? They have been doing that for decades, long before there was a Dish or TIVO.
> 
> One problem with technical lawsuits is that the lawyers don't understand technical stuff.


I don't think the Instant Replay systems from decades ago are good examples of prior art. The original Ampex and MVC replay system were very labor intense in the control booth and had very limited range for recording space. I don't know if the digital systems predate Tivo or not.

I do know Microsoft, Replay, and Tivo all developed this technology around the same time. I also know they all cross licensed with each other to avoid further law suits.

I think the reason Tivo went after Dish first is it's the strongest case. Dish was talking to Tivo about technical details of how their DVR worked at the same time they were developing an inhouse DVR. It's much easier to show someone took your ideas from the ground up when you have proof they knew what those ideas were and very specifically how they worked and how they should be implimented.

Right now experts say Tivo has about a 70% chance of winning the jury trial. A win here means Tivo will be next to knock on Motorola's and Sci Atlanta's door. Two subpar DVR systems I wouldn't mind see go away.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Kagato said:


> Right now experts say Tivo has about a 70% chance of winning the jury trial. A win here means Tivo will be next to knock on Motorola's and Sci Atlanta's door. Two subpar DVR systems I wouldn't mind see go away.


Yeah, but now Sci-Atlanta is owned by Cisco who will probably find some patent in THEIR archive that somehow means TIVO owes THEM $$. :lol:

Seriously though, if they plan to sue Cisco they better bring the bank because they have an enormous amount of $$ to throw around!!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Larry Caldwell said:


> One great way of invalidating a patent is to show prior art. So, how do the networks do it when they do instant replays of sports events?


Instant replay isn't done in the industry like it is done on a PVR. That is one of the reasons that the devices were originally called "Personal Video Recorders" Instant replay involves a video recorder/player feeding a switcher. PVR "instant replay" involves playing back a section of a file that is still being recorded.

TiVo isn't claiming to have invented digital recorders nor editors (non-linear) nor instant replay; they're claiming that they have a patent on a method for providing the ability to move around in a show that is currently recording (Time Warp).

Prior art would have to be a single disk PVR with the ability to pause, rewind and fast foward within the recorded portion in a live program. I can't think of any such systems that preceeded TiVo to market.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

harsh said:


> Prior art would have to be a single disk PVR with the ability to pause, rewind and fast foward within the recorded portion in a live program. I can't think of any such systems that preceeded TiVo to market.


It's a little bigger than TiVo, but basically the same functionality, a buffer.
http://www.sssm.com/editing/museum/ampex/hs100.html


----------



## tedb3rd (Feb 2, 2006)

All I can say is that this battle is causing me neck pain, back pain, and pychological suffering. So where's *MY* check?!?


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

David Kummer testified yesterday. Interesting stuff:

Kummer said that process began in March 1996 with construction of a digital satellite broadcast center in Cheyenne, Wyo. He related methods used to beam signals to a satellite 22,000 miles in space and redirect them "to a small satellite dish on the consumer's house" and then to a set-top box.

These were EchoStar's 7100 and 7200 models, and while the latter had a pause feature associated with DVRs, there was no such thing as a DVR when EchoStar first began work on the products, he said.

Through a collaborative effort with Web TV, Kummer said EchoStar developed the Dish Player that would allow the user to browse the Internet via television. In December 1999, Kummer said other features, such as rewind, fast-forward and record, were added to the 7200 model.

When Barton approached him in either 2001 or 2002 about building a set-top box for EchoStar, Kummer said the company already had its own. "TiVo was building a product for DirecTV and said they'd like to build one for EchoStar as well."

He said his response was, "We already do DVR, but we can look into that." After meeting with Barton, Kummer said he determined "our customers wouldn't be interested in these few other features."

The example he gave of TiVo's additional functions was that "they had this thumbs up, thumbs down thing" that allowed viewers to vote on the kinds of television programs they enjoyed.

The TiVo box would then automatically record programs of that type and, Kummer said, TiVo had "the ability to record programs on a key word without you specifically selecting them."

Responding to questions from EchoStar attorney Rachel Krevans, Kummer said none of the TiVo features were "necessary for DVR functionality" and TiVo did not show him "how they did DVR." Nor was there any mention of a patent for their device, he added.

Under cross-examination by TiVo attorney Andrei Iancu, however, Kummer said he "knew about the Barton patent" at the time of the meeting.

Complete Article:

http://www.news-journal.com/news/content/news/stories/04062006tivo.html


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Ouch. And Kummer is now losing credibility on the stand. Anyone know if his testimony is continuing today?

Interestingly enough, the 7100 and 7200 were thrown out there as non-infringing devices, probably because Dish Network was under contract with WebTV. The point everyone here is making is that Dish Network probably wasn't violating any patents with the old Dishplayers. Now we find out it is probably because Dish Network was licensing through WebTV.

Then the DishPlayers were thrown to the curb. However, it is now looking like Dish Network was aware of TiVo's patent and had access to their technology. It now looks like Dish Network did something funny. In front of a jury. Especially when your first witness testifies they didn't know about a patent and then the defense attorney had the witness admit he knew about the patent.


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

Larry Caldwell said:


> One problem with technical lawsuits is that the lawyers don't understand technical stuff.


Neither do jurors.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> Ouch. And Kummer is now losing credibility on the stand.


Mr. Kummer said that TiVo didn't bring up the issue of the patent. It would be his job to know about such a patent. I speculate that what they're trying to establish was that TiVo didn't think the patent was an issue during their discussions.


> However, it is now looking like Dish Network was aware of TiVo's patent and had access to their technology.


The testimony that we have access doesn't indicate that at all. Kummer testified that the subject of the discussion was related to deciding what to record (thumb up, thumb down), not how to implement the record and playback functionality of a PVR in hardware and software.


> Especially when your first witness testifies they didn't know about a patent and then the defense attorney had the witness admit he knew about the patent.


Again, Kummer said that the issue of the patent never came up, not that he didn't know about it.


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

the_bear said:


> It's a little bigger than TiVo, but basically the same functionality, a buffer.
> http://www.sssm.com/editing/museum/ampex/hs100.html


I wonder if the Video Disk technology used in 1967 was digital? If so, TIVO may owe royalties to Ampex.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

harsh said:


> Mr. Kummer said that TiVo didn't bring up the issue of the patent. It would be his job to know about such a patent. I speculate that what they're trying to establish was that TiVo didn't think the patent was an issue during their discussions.





news article said:


> Responding to questions from EchoStar attorney Rachel Krevans, Kummer said none of the TiVo features were "necessary for DVR functionality" and TiVo did not show him "how they did DVR." Nor was there any mention of a patent for their device, he added.
> 
> Under cross-examination by TiVo attorney Andrei Iancu, however, Kummer said he "knew about the Barton patent" at the time of the meeting.


First Mr. Kummer said there wasn't any mention of a patent for the device, but he was aware there was one by the time the meeting occurred. It sounds fishy.

Even if TiVo didn't think that the patent was an issue, at the time of the meeting, TiVo was trying to get Dish Network on the TiVo platform. The patent wasn't the most important thing in TiVo's mind.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Larry Caldwell said:


> I wonder if the Video Disk technology used in 1967 was digital? If so, TIVO may owe royalties to Ampex.


I'd think it was analog.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

Larry Caldwell said:


> I wonder if the Video Disk technology used in 1967 was digital? If so, TIVO may owe royalties to Ampex.


That would be a 14 year patent, meaning after 14 years, anyone can buffer live TV. What seems to be controversial is making that buffer digital instead of analog obvious or innovative?


----------



## danm2z (May 18, 2005)

Just the idea that a business model can be patented is ridiculous. Yes, a technological innovation should be protected. However, if a way around a technology is devised that can serve a similar purpose, that should not be considered patent infringement. It's that kind of thinking that stifles ideas and competition. For example. could Staples have patented the idea of selling office supplies in a warehouse type environment? They could then collect royalties from Office Depot, Office Max, and every other Warehouse club in the country. Similarlarly shouldn't Fedex and UPS pay royalties to the US Postal service who "invented" the idea of sending letters and packages by airplane?

As has been pointed out here several times, the idea of Instant Replay is not new. Only the idea of instant replay in an individual's living room. Even that could be considered prior art, since people have been able to do that with more than one VCR for quite some time before TiVo released their gadget. TiVo can certainly claim _copywrite_ for their user interface and operating system, but that has never been in dispute, as Dish created their own user interface.

This has a very similar ring to it as when Compaq introduced the 1st "IBM Compatible" Personal Computer. IBM was the 1st to bring together a set of components, along with a licensed operating system, so an individual could have a computer on their desktop. Compaq, Dell, Apple, and all the others did not, and does not now, pay royalties to IBM for creating PCs that recreated that idea using alternative technology. If TiVo wins, look for a lot more lawsuits that could paralyze the technology business and make a lot of lawyers very rich.

On a related note, the statistic stated that 40% of rules are overturned on appeal really shows the need for a dedicated patent court, similar to tax courts in various federal circuits. In a patent court, the judges could be more informed as to the specific aspects of the case and be better able to judge them accordingly.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

I hate being a kill-joy...

Remember Alexander Graham Bell? Remember how he "invented" the telephone? The telephone was nothing more than transmitting voice over a wire (as the telegraph was already built).

Yet two other individuals claimed they also invented the telephone, one of which Congress acknowledged in 2001.

So, maybe TiVo's time-warp patent isn't "obvious". Maybe the media switch is an integral part of the patent. And maybe it isn't. That is why there is a lawsuit.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> So, maybe TiVo's time-warp patent isn't "obvious". Maybe the media switch is an integral part of the patent. And maybe it isn't. That is why there is a lawsuit.


So far, the time-warp idea looks obvious to the average DBSTalk poster, innovative to the average Marshall citizen, and somewhere in between to the rest of America. Every court case further defines what obvious is and I don't like the direction the definition is going.


----------



## Kagato (Jul 1, 2002)

The concept of a video disc is old as TV itself. Seriously, back in the early 1900's there were forms of video disc. Basically instead of moving the magnetic head across tape, you move it accross a metal disc. It's basically an extention of a phonograph. Except the discs could only record 15 seconds of full res video at a time. You basically had to manaully set the thing to record at the begining of a play, decide in the next 30 seconds what you were going to do, then move on and reset the rig. While these rigs could do special effects, they could not record while doing them. If you looked at the common uses the machines were mostly used for title effects. This thing is not an analog Tivo by any measure.

Because of those limitations later systems on tape involved complex video switching were a tech is stopping a VTR and backing the tape up to the point they wanted.


DVRs have four features:
1) They are Real Time, the buttons you press output instantly
2) All Digital
3) Continue to record for hours and hours.
4) Random access at any time with any special effects

I can't find any comercial or consumer systems that do all four.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

Kagato said:


> ...I can't find any comercial or consumer systems that do all four.


No one is accusing TiVo of patenting a machine that is EXACTLY the same as pre-existing machines. What I am accusing TiVo of is patenting an obvious improvement to those machines.


----------



## UTFAN (Nov 12, 2005)

tomcrown1 said:


> thought Dish is found guilty of patent infringment. TIVO is bought out by Murdoch who charges Dish a hugh license fee. Dish goes under and Murdoch buys out dish.


One more time.... dream on.:nono2:


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Larry Caldwell said:


> I wonder if the Video Disk technology used in 1967 was digital? If so, TIVO may owe royalties to Ampex.


Again (and again), this is not about recording to a hard drive for simple linear functions ala the Ampex.

Here's a backgrounder on the early disc-based recorders (starting in 1927!). Note that these were all analog recorders.

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/television8.html

For those who haven't read this nor the previous five pages, the lawsuit is about infringement on the "Time Warp" patent which has nothing to do with digital recording nor guide/timer technology. Time Warp is _exclusively_ about TiVo's method of playing back a program that is currently being recorded.

As I understand it, the burden is on TiVo to demonstrate that the E* system is using TiVo's patented technology. Quizzing witnesses down about timer setting techniques would seem to be a red herring. The same could probably be said for dredging up the WebTV lawsuit unless it can be demostrated that E* walked away with technology TiVo had licensed to WebTV.

Unless TiVo shows that E* is currently using their technology, this is all a smoke screen. Thus far I've seen nothing that would indicate to me that infringement has taken place. The fact that TiVo's lawyers don't attack the issue directly drives the point home.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

the_bear said:


> That would be a 14 year patent, meaning after 14 years, anyone can buffer live TV. What seems to be controversial is making that buffer digital instead of analog obvious or innovative?


You can do an analog delay using VERY long wires, but not a buffer in the current sense. To be a true buffer, you would have to be able to continue to record what you missed while you were doing something else. This would require fully independent write and read heads in the analog world.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> Remember Alexander Graham Bell? Remember how he "invented" the telephone? The telephone was nothing more than transmitting voice over a wire (as the telegraph was already built).


Here's a rare situation where digital came first and was later followed by a more popular and practical analog technology.


> Yet two other individuals claimed they also invented the telephone, one of which Congress acknowledged in 2001.


The secret is being the first to document the technology. The "prior art" thing is an expensive fight.

Don't forget the Marconi .vs. Tesla dispute with respect to radio.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

Kagato said:


> The concept of a video disc is old as TV itself. Seriously, back in the early 1900's there were forms of video disc. Basically instead of moving the magnetic head across tape, you move it accross a metal disc. It's basically an extention of a phonograph. Except the discs could only record 15 seconds of full res video at a time. You basically had to manaully set the thing to record at the begining of a play, decide in the next 30 seconds what you were going to do, then move on and reset the rig. While these rigs could do special effects, they could not record while doing them. If you looked at the common uses the machines were mostly used for title effects. This thing is not an analog Tivo by any measure.
> 
> Because of those limitations later systems on tape involved complex video switching were a tech is stopping a VTR and backing the tape up to the point they wanted.
> 
> ...


Thomson's (formerly Tektronix) Grass Valley Group had been doing this for a few years before TIVO even formed as a company. GVG's Profile line of DVR's is used in broadcast. The Profile could do all four of the above.(still can for that matter)


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

harsh said:


> Unless TiVo shows that E* is currently using their technology, this is all a smoke screen. Thus far I've seen nothing that would indicate to me that infringement has taken place. The fact that TiVo's lawyers don't attack the issue directly drives the point home.


Uh, TiVo's "expert witness" already stated that Dish Network violated 11 parts of the patent, something Dish Network's lawyers let stand. This includes the presentation during the trial of the so-called "media switch", to which Dish Network's attorneys objected.

To the lay person that could be a juror, it would appear that Dish Network is using TiVo's technology.


----------



## saweetnesstrev (Oct 8, 2005)

Ack, i hope echostar wins.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> Uh, TiVo's "expert witness"...


Did you happen to notice his credentials? I would have thought that they could have done better than to use someone who writes for a living. Perhaps someone along the line of a practicing video software engineer would have been more appropriate. I'm sure there are more than a few out there that have recent, hands-on experience in the inner workings of digital video recorders over and above digitizing. I'm not sure that the Marshall crowd is going to warm up to someone with lots of acronyms (Ph.D, PE) after his name.

From his resume, we find that Dr. Jerry specializes in video compression and digital signal processing. While modern DVRs use both of these technologies, they are not closely coupled to what is being disputed. Surely if the issue were related to delivering voice and streaming video over a wireless phone or VOIP and the audience was a made up of academicians, this guy is your man.

They probably played up the fact that he used to be a professor at SMU in Dallas, TX even though he currently teaches one class per term at USCB.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Sure they could have used someone more credible, with better credentials. Why bother, 'cause this guy would do.

However, it now appears that Dish Network is mounting a defense. They've pointed out their boxes don't do an analog-to-digital conversion, they don't require a media-switch, and that they don't use the same Broadcom chips that TiVo's use.

The Broadcom Director placed on the stand did say that Dish Network PVR's can mimic the same "trick-play" that TiVo's do, which is part of the Barton patent.

Now let's see if the defense team can bring this home.

(Article on the trial for Thursday, 6 April)


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

These are very interesting developments. I'm tempted to take a few weeks off and drive up there to watch the trial.


----------



## lumstruck (Mar 9, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> To the lay person that could be a juror, it would appear that Dish Network is using TiVo's technology.


Dish Network is notorious for stealing other peoples or companies ideas, knocking them off as cheaply as humanly possible while changing a few components and then giving it away or charging way less than market for the product. Their practices on a whole are always deceptive, misleading and to me unethical but then...welcome to the business world. 
I like true TIVO way better than the DVR crap of DTV and Dish.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

harsh said:


> You can do an analog delay using VERY long wires, but not a buffer in the current sense. To be a true buffer, you would have to be able to continue to record what you missed while you were doing something else. This would require fully independent write and read heads in the analog world.


Yes, TV buffers have improved in the last 40 years.


----------



## UTFAN (Nov 12, 2005)

the_bear said:


> This looks like another case where I disagree with what the Dish legal team is doing. Reading the press coverage of this trial, the core Dish defense is to show Dish DVR is "significantly" different from TiVo. IMHO, this is an impossible task. Since this is a jury trial, an attempt to prove something that is illogical, results in a lose of attorney credibility with the jury. This makes it harder to look credible when showing something that really is logical.
> 
> The only way Dish wins this one is proving the TiVo patent was issued in error. Unfortunately, there are a lot of patent holders that have a vested interest is preserving the current definition of what an obvious idea is. If this TiVo patent is proved invalid, the result is a lot of other patents are also invalid, which a lot of companies don't want.


I vote for limiting this discussion to lawyers familiar with patent law, and who also own DISH DVR-equipped receivers.

The rest of us can just read the opinions of people who know what they're talking about.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

UTFAN said:


> I vote for limiting this discussion ....


Are you going to provide any reason for your vote?


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> Dish Network is notorious for stealing other peoples or companies ideas


Can you give us a few examples (not counting this dispute, of course)?


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> Now let's see if the defense team can bring this home.
> 
> (Article on the trial for Thursday, 6 April)





> Testifying were Dan Minnick, vice president of software for EchoStar; Jason Demas of Broadcom, and EchoStar's expert witness, Dr. Tom Rhyne of Austin.


interesting that Dish now brought in THEIR Texas based "expert".


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Richard King said:


> Can you give us a few examples (not counting this dispute, of course)?


Yea they stole Cable and Direct TV customer Service. Why would you steal something that is a lot worse than what you had???


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Gee, thanks(?)


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

pjm877 said:


> I think the IBM patents owned in this area were sold to Tivo Corp.. like the one E* was sighting a while back. Would have to search the news archives for this little out of the main stream blurb.
> 
> Tivo bought them soon after E* filed.


Not a chance. IBM still holds them.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

lumstruck said:


> Dish Network is notorious for stealing other peoples or companies ideas, knocking them off as cheaply as humanly possible while changing a few components and then giving it away or charging way less than market for the product. Their practices on a whole are always deceptive, misleading and to me unethical but then...welcome to the business world.
> I like true TIVO way better than the DVR crap of DTV and Dish.


That's quite a charge. Care to back your statement up or is this just a "I hate Dish" potshot?

Some of us applaud Dish for at least trying to keep prices down. My 501, 508, 811 and now 622 are very nice boxes and do everything I want thank you very much 

-JB


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Richard King said:


> interesting that Dish now brought in THEIR Texas based "expert".


This guy has many of the same qualifications as Gibson. Rhyne has quite a bit more experience outside of the academic vacuum.

We'll have to wait and see how Rhyne survived under cross. If he does well, I would imagine that Gibson's testimony will be negated.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

I'm surprised no one has posted a link to a time warp pdf.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6233389.pdf


----------



## JmC (Jun 10, 2005)

More news from Marshall, Texas

http://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/content/news/stories/2006/04/11/20060411MARtivo_trial.html


----------



## abricko (Mar 1, 2006)

get 'em charlie, we're paying customers...


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

JmC said:


> More news from Marshall, Texas
> 
> http://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/content/news/stories/2006/04/11/20060411MARtivo_trial.html


I find humor in this statement:



> "They (Microsoft) weren't paying us our part of the profits and they weren't fixing minor problems," he said, adding his company received complaints from several hundred thousand customers. Nevertheless, Ergen declared the dish player to be a success.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

"Among inventions that preceded TiVo's was the Screamin' Streamer, an EchoStar product"

Screamin' Streamer? That sounds scary!

Edit: One final irony at the bottom of the story: "Contact staff writer Sandra Cason via e-mail at: [email protected]" Isn't that a corporate sister to the Cox cable folks?


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Chris Blount said:


> I find humor in this statement:


Several of those lines sounded like stand up comedy......

I especially liked the "1,000 of the best engineers in the industry" or whatever the line was.....

Yet, they can't figure out a way around Daylight Savings time, or a way to keep my recording from stuttering...


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

BobMurdoch said:


> Several of those lines sounded like stand up comedy......
> 
> I especially liked the "1,000 of the best engineers in the industry" or whatever the line was.....
> 
> Yet, they can't figure out a way around Daylight Savings time, or a way to keep my recording from stuttering...


 :lol:


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

lumstruck said:


> Dish Network is notorious for stealing other peoples or companies ideas, .


I am still waiting for an example of this. Can't you find one? I would think if they were "notorious for stealing other peoples or companies ideas" it would be quite easy.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> When the CEO admitted the company's first satellite was launched by the Chinese, Baxter asked: "Were they the good Chinese or the bad Chinese?"...........
> 
> ...... Of this, TiVo attorney Morgan Chu said: "If it was such a good product, one wonders why they threw it out the door shortly after it was purchased."


I wonder if Chu is a good Chinese or a bad Chinese. :lol: Ah, politics.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

carload said:


> "Among inventions that preceded TiVo's was the Screamin' Streamer, an EchoStar product"
> 
> Screamin' Streamer? That sounds scary!


I also wonder how many of us were at, or had friends at, that first U2 concert that used a DVR?


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

MARSHALL, Texas Jurors are expected to begin deliberating today whether the
parent of satellite T-V provider Dish Network stole digital video recording
technology from TiVo.

Dish-parent EchoStar Communications contends it came up with its own set-top
box for pausing and rewinding live television shows.

Attorneys will make closing arguments today in a U-S district court in the East
Texas city of Marshall before putting the case in the hands of the five-man, 
five-woman jury. ...

More @ *KLTV.com*


----------



## pjm877 (Apr 27, 2003)

tnsprin said:



> Not a chance. IBM still holds them.


yea right:
http://news.com.com/TiVo+beefs+up+patent+portfolio/2100-1047_3-5657506.html

I think E*, D*, Comcast and the rest just might be on the short end...


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

pjm877 said:


> yea right:
> http://news.com.com/TiVo+beefs+up+patent+portfolio/2100-1047_3-5657506.html
> 
> I think E*, D*, Comcast and the rest just might be on the short end...


I'll still be surprised if TiVO can come up with enough cash to keep these cases going because even if they win this one they could lose it on appeal (40% of the awards in this territory are reversed on appeal) and then still have to fund defense of the lawsuit that E* has filed against them. If it did come down to suing the cable companies several of them have some pretty deep pockets too!


----------



## UTFAN (Nov 12, 2005)

BobMurdoch said:


> Several of those lines sounded like stand up comedy......
> 
> I especially liked the "1,000 of the best engineers in the industry" or whatever the line was.....
> 
> Yet, they can't figure out a way around Daylight Savings time, or a way to keep my recording from stuttering...


"We have 1000 of the best engineers in the country." (Too bad so many of them work in the city) :lol: :hurah: :grin:


----------



## UTFAN (Nov 12, 2005)

bobukcat said:


> I'll still be surprised if TiVO can come up with enough cash to keep these cases going because even if they win this one they could lose it on appeal (40% of the awards in this territory are reversed on appeal) and then still have to fund defense of the lawsuit that E* has filed against them. If it did come down to suing the cable companies several of them have some pretty deep pockets too!


Appeals court is where they practice real law. Much of this case is so much show and tell with a little entertainment thrown in.

Seems to me that if TiVO loses this suit, they'll end up being sold to someone. If they win the case, they'll lose on appeal (if they can survive that long) and end up being sold to someone.

They had a good idea, whether it's truly unique will be up to the courts. TiVO's problem is that while it's a noun and a verb, it's a poorly run business.


----------



## Darkman (Apr 16, 2002)

TiVo wins EchoStar patent lawsuit:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=56410


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

See this thread.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=56410

Closing


----------

