# PVR Sellers sued for Patent Infringement



## Neil Derryberry (Mar 23, 2002)

Forgent Networks has filed a lawsuit against 15 cable and satellite providers, accusing them of violating a patent in their digital video recorders.

The case focuses on patent 6,285,746 that describes a video recording device that plays back video while it is being recorded. The feature is found in most of today's digital video recorders including models sold by DirectTV, Cox and Echostar.

Read more..


----------



## David_Levin (Apr 22, 2002)

So, does 10/04/2002 trump TiVos Patent?

It really astounds me that someone can patent simultaneous read/write streaming of video off a computer hard drive.

This one is incredibly general, and looks like they were mostly considering a video stream on a general purpose computer (internet, but the network type is not specified).

Weren't people watching video clips on thier computers before 2002?

I wish all these PVR patents would just be thrown out... Is it possible that could happen?


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Patent filed October 4, 2002.

I've had my Dishplayer since YEARS before then.

Case (at least against Dish) closed.


----------



## cdru (Dec 4, 2003)

djlong said:


> Patent filed October 4, 2002.
> 
> I've had my Dishplayer since YEARS before then.
> 
> Case (at least against Dish) closed.


Incorrect. Welcome to patent law, particularly submarine patents. In this case, the file date was Oct 4th. However, this patent is a continuation of other patents. From the patent page:

_This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/894,051, filed Jun. 28, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,480,584 which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/757,392, filed Jan. 8, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,285,746, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/490,905, filed Jan. 25, 2000, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,181,784 B1, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/425,729, filed on Apr. 20, 1995, now abandoned, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/158,045, filed on Nov. 24, 1993 now abandoned, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/703,685 filed on May 21, 1991 now abandoned._

With continuation of patents, it's not the date of the latest patent it's the date of the origianl patent. So was your Dishplayer around on May 21, 1991?


----------



## PHL (Jul 15, 2004)

cdru said:


> Incorrect. Welcome to patent law, particularly submarine patents. In this case, the file date was Oct 4th. However, this patent is a continuation of other patents. From the patent page:
> 
> With continuation of patents, it's not the date of the latest patent it's the date of the origianl patent. So was your Dishplayer around on May 21, 1991?


Didn't the Supreme Court rule earlier this year on a case regarding submarine patents?

In any event, I hate the way some companies use these techniques to extort companies that actually commit the R&D resources to take pie-in-the-sky concepts into actual deliverable products.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jun 16, 2004)

David_Levin said:


> So, does 10/04/2002 trump TiVos Patent?
> 
> It really astounds me that someone can patent simultaneous read/write streaming of video off a computer hard drive.
> 
> ...


If you think thats bad look at the Amazon.com patents. They patented clicking one button to make a purchase, patented suggesting products to customers and all kinds of stupid crap


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

The Patent Office needsw a THOURGH cleansweep of what is really a patentable thing and what isn't. 

No product -(i.e Tivo) - no patent


----------



## MikeSoltis (Aug 1, 2003)

After reading this patent, it's interesting that we can patent an idea, and a vague idea of how to do it.

I guess I should have patented the IDEA I had many years ago about archiving videos on a computer for playback...so that I could sue Kaliedescape and Microsoft today.

So every time we have an idea, we just need to write up a vague way of how it might be accomplished, then patent it. Then every five years or so, make some "improvement" on the idea and file a patent as a continuation, etc.


----------



## pinkertonfloyd (Jun 5, 2002)

If you look at the company, they're a bunch of guys who buy patents and/or companies that had some lieing around in bankruptcy on ideas and sue to make profit off of it.

A-la... Caldara buying SCO, for the purpose of "buying" UNIX 5 (rights), and then turning around and suing IBM and others instantly... which hasn't gone far since the truth seems to have gotten out. (Plus the controversy that Novell Owns System 5, and sold only "Rights" to SCO, not ownership.).

You can have fun at the patent office... there's patents on "walking your cat" and other silly stuff...


----------

