# TiVo seeks halt to EchoStar’s digital video-recording business



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

By News wire reports

May 23, 2006

TiVo Inc., the pioneer in home digital-television recording, asked a U.S. judge to shut down the rival service offered by EchoStar Communications Corp.

TiVo won a jury verdict in April that EchoStar infringes a TiVo patent for products that let a viewer record one TV program while watching another. U.S. District Judge David Folsom, who presided over the trial in Texarkana, Texas, is to oversee a trial next month on whether the patent can be enforced.

*MORE*


----------



## Laverne (Feb 17, 2005)

No disrespect to the messenger, Chris , but they got the town wrong. The trial was held in Marshall, not Texarkana.


----------



## rvd420 (Mar 10, 2003)

Laverne said:


> No disrespect to the messenger, Chris , but they got the town wrong. The trial was held in Marshall, not Texarkana.


You are right. The trial was in Marshall.

Dish's lawsuit against Tivo (which is still waiting to be heard) was filed in Texarkana.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

Yawn, no news that wasn't expected....


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

Good luck to that happening since the courts have recently decided that injunctions to halt service aren't neccessary. Especially considering that E* is appealing and they are counter sueing as well. Software patents are the bane of a lot of industries and should be eliminated. Most of them end up invalidated anyway due to prior works.


----------



## rvd420 (Mar 10, 2003)

Countersuit info:

http://www.texarkanagazette.com/articles/2005/07/10/local_news/news/news12.txt


----------



## CyberWhip (May 5, 2006)

Well...I guess technically I'm still OK with my 622 DVR. I have it hooked up as a 2 output system (2 different outputs) and I can only watch what I am recording on a specific tuner. Maybe I can watch an different OTA tuner channel while watching a dish tuner channer, I don't know, I haven't tried this yet. Still as a default I think I am still in pretty good shape no matter what. Really I think this is a bogus lawsuit anyways, there was VCR before Tivo. Maybe Sony (betamax) should sue Tivo.


----------



## rvd420 (Mar 10, 2003)

CyberWhip said:


> Well...I guess technically I'm still OK with my 622 DVR. I have it hooked up as a 2 output system (2 different outputs) and I can only watch what I am recording on a specific tuner. Maybe I can watch an different OTA tuner channel while watching a dish tuner channer, I don't know, I haven't tried this yet. Still as a default I think I am still in pretty good shape no matter what. Really I think this is a bogus lawsuit anyways, there was VCR before Tivo. Maybe Sony (betamax) should sue Tivo.


When everything is done Dish will win their suit against Tivo and Humax.

Dish will buyout Tivo.

Humax will endup paying Dish big $$$$$$

(btw Humax makes the DTV brand DVR)


----------



## CyberWhip (May 5, 2006)

OK, I went and read the actual patent. It appears that the big point in this patent is that you can record and watch a previously recorded program simultaneously. They even present the case in the patent that this cannot be done with a VCR.

I think Dish could just disable this record and watch a recording simultaneously feature and everyone would be happy. It also appears that D* may have a hand in the lawsuit and this may be a lameass attempt by Rupert to hurt E*. D* is actually mentioned in the patent as an example.


----------



## jcm.oo (Jan 24, 2005)

CyberWhip said:


> I think Dish could just disable this record and watch a recording simultaneously feature and everyone would be happy.


I sure wouldn't be, I have spent a crap load of money in the 942 and the 622. Bought the 942 outright for $600, then just leased the 622 for $300.

Those receivers better always be able to record three different shows, and allow me to watch two recorded shows.


----------



## finniganps (Jan 23, 2004)

CyberWhip said:


> OK, I went and read the actual patent. It appears that the big point in this patent is that you can record and watch a previously recorded program simultaneously. They even present the case in the patent that this cannot be done with a VCR.
> 
> I think Dish could just disable this record and watch a recording simultaneously feature and everyone would be happy. It also appears that D* may have a hand in the lawsuit and this may be a lameass attempt by Rupert to hurt E*. D* is actually mentioned in the patent as an example.


I would NOT be happy if I couldn't simultaneously record and watch something at the same time with my Dish PVR. That's one of the great features!

If they got rid of that, I would be willing to pay extra in the form of a royalty to Tivo to keep that and other PVR features. 
Worse case Dish has to pay Tivo, and license ongoing - this would be passed along to subscribers.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

CyberWhip said:


> OK, I went and read the actual patent. It appears that the big point in this patent is that you can record and watch a previously recorded program simultaneously. They even present the case in the patent that this cannot be done with a VCR.
> 
> I think Dish could just disable this record and watch a recording simultaneously feature and everyone would be happy. It also appears that D* may have a hand in the lawsuit and this may be a lameass attempt by Rupert to hurt E*. D* is actually mentioned in the patent as an example.


Although that's the big point, I think that part is invalid because others had done the same thing before. The "real" value TIVO brought to the table was there simplified methods for chosing and recording TV shows, but that's not a part of this patent.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

larrystotler said:


> Software patents are the bane of a lot of industries and should be eliminated. Most of them end up invalidated anyway due to prior works.


For the umpteenth time, I feel compelled to remind everyone that the TiVo patent is not about software. In fact, I think a case could be made that the DirecTiVo units don't utilize the critical elements of the TiVo patent (media switch and interleaving).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

The detail of the TiVo claim that really gets under my skin is that TiVo is losing substantial business to Echostar. TiVo hasn't gone to nearly the effort that Echostar has to provide flexible DVRs for use by Dish Network subscribers. They don't offer anything that will record the digital signal directly and their DVRs can only record one channel at a time and cannot be used with two television displays (except maybe through Series 2 networking?).

Surely, you can use a TiVo with a 300 series single tuner receiver in place of a 510, but many Dish Network subscribers expect, and are getting substantially more. The corresponding Echostar offering provides integration and a superior picture and a lower cost. TiVo doesn't have an answer for any of the HD receivers.

The train left the station when TiVo didn't impress Echostar back when and its too late to ask to hold the train now.


----------



## Rick_R (Sep 1, 2004)

I had a friend that worked on hard drive recording and playback of video in the 80's. (It was for airlines that wanted to have their inflight movies saved that way.) Multiple streams of simultaneous recording and playback of hard drive data has been around longer than that. I do not know how the TIVO patent can be valid.

Rick R


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Rick_R said:


> I do not know how the TIVO patent can be valid.


Have you looked at it? It is pretty trick technology for an analog TV world. Remember that these various VOD solutions are playback only. To be a proper DVR, the device must be able to move around in a currently recording program.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

IT's BS - it's simple reading of a file. Granted - it's time critical, but it's simple reading / recording of a file. The idiots at the patent office had their collective heads up their a$$ when they granted this patent. If the patent isn't thrown out, I'll be surprised.


----------



## Brad Martin (Feb 7, 2006)

Rick_R said:


> I had a friend that worked on hard drive recording and playback of video in the 80's. (It was for airlines that wanted to have their inflight movies saved that way.) Multiple streams of simultaneous recording and playback of hard drive data has been around longer than that. I do not know how the TIVO patent can be valid.
> 
> Rick R


If your friend has documentation of those facts. Things could get very intresting and I suggest he pursue it big time.


----------



## compubit (Jun 8, 2004)

My Thoughts...

Dish is just recording a data stream, while displaying another data stream - Don't we do that when we download a file from the internet and then run it while we're downloading the next file....

In actuality, VCRs have this functionality - provided you're using 2 VCRs (record one tape on one VCR and play it on another) - yes I know this is stretching the concept.

Also, what about my HD-based DVD recorder - there's nothing "Tivo" about it, but it gives me the same capability, *and* I can burn something to DVD... Is Tivo going to try to shut that down?

BTW, can we sue Tivo for infringing on our technology if E* is forced to shut down the DVR service (don't even mention this to my parents - they'd go ballistic...)

Jim


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

rvd420 said:


> When everything is done Dish will win their suit against Tivo and Humax.
> 
> Dish will buyout Tivo.
> 
> ...


I don't think it would be that easy.

DirecTV has a very big intrest in BOTH of those companies...

Philips also makes the R15 as well.


----------



## Doggfather (Apr 19, 2004)

Screw Tivo. What a bunch of babies and sore and sad losers. Their technology sucked and they lost the little market share that they had. Thats nobodys fault but their own! What stopped them from trying to partner with dish back in the day? They were all about being up DirecTV's rear end and they told them to get lost too! 

I absolutely hate Tivo and not to mention if you removed this service from a 622, it would not be possible to regain the same functionailty easily or cheaply!!! you wouldnt be able to record from three sources (OTA, dual tuners) etc and put it out to all TV's etc easy. Why should i have to pay to get the same functionality. I hope Tivo and their Gay robot and clicking sounds rot in hell ;0 hahah ;0 Thats my thoughts on Tivo... WE WONT MISS YOU!!! GOODBYE TIVO... YOU SUCK!


----------



## obermi (Mar 13, 2005)

What about cable company's like Cox Communication's DVR? Why are they not in this law suit?


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

obermi said:


> What about cable company's like Cox Communication's DVR? Why are they not in this law suit?


Because Dish was the easiest target.


----------



## pjm877 (Apr 27, 2003)

humm.. what about the old open reel with two heads... you could playback what/while you were recording? Granted a looong stretch.. I think something like what Tivo is doing was done in the 80's but with memory, not files and not with Digital data? I am sure of it... the unit was the size of a coke box... now I remember... Monday night football... they were working on a better faster replay... 

I think TIVO will loose, when had they not gotten greedy like IBM did with Micro-Channel, they could have been sitting on the high hill of money..


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

pjm877 said:


> humm.. what about the old open reel with two heads... you could playback what/while you were recording? Granted a looong stretch.. I think something like what Tivo is doing was done in the 80's but with memory, not files and not with Digital data? I am sure of it... the unit was the size of a coke box... now I remember... Monday night football... they were working on a better faster replay...
> 
> I think TIVO will loose, when had they not gotten greedy like IBM did with Micro-Channel, they could have been sitting on the high hill of money..


Thomson/Grass Valley Group has been doing this with their Profile line of DVR's since 1995, looong before Tivo even formed as a company.They were and still are ingesting via both digital and analog formats storing to disk, with playout allowed (actually a minimum 5 second delay) anytime after recording has started. Any at and point in the recorded material. True this wasn't for home use, but TIVO will have a hard time proving the "invention" wasn't obvious, because all they did was apply Grass Valley's technology to home use.
Also Grass Valley never claimed or patented the playback while record idea because it was obvious and had not been done before.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

I hate to be the thorn, but can someone actually look at the patent? Something about a media switch, which allows a hard drive and data transfer for pausing, recording, fast-forwarding and rewinding to be cost-effective. The media switch is in the patent. It is the part Dish Network was hammered on during the trial.


----------



## Redrhino (Jun 10, 2004)

Doggfather said:


> Screw Tivo. What a bunch of babies and sore and sad losers. Their technology sucked and they lost the little market share that they had. Thats nobodys fault but their own! What stopped them from trying to partner with dish back in the day? They were all about being up DirecTV's rear end and they told them to get lost too!
> 
> I absolutely hate Tivo and not to mention if you removed this service from a 622, it would not be possible to regain the same functionailty easily or cheaply!!! you wouldnt be able to record from three sources (OTA, dual tuners) etc and put it out to all TV's etc easy. Why should i have to pay to get the same functionality. I hope Tivo and their Gay robot and clicking sounds rot in hell ;0 hahah ;0 Thats my thoughts on Tivo... WE WONT MISS YOU!!! GOODBYE TIVO... YOU SUCK!


Who pissed in your cheerios this morning?


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

*EchoStar Statement in Response to Recent Developments In the 
Tivo Inc. v. EchoStar Communications Corp. Lawsuit*

ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 24, 2006--EchoStar Communications Corporation (Nasdaq: DISH) has issued the following statement regarding recent developments in the Tivo Inc. v. EchoStar Communications Corp. lawsuit:

"We are pleased that the United States Patent and Trademark Office yesterday rejected many of Tivo's patent claims as invalid. That reexamination ruling, together with the favorable decision from the Court of Appeals earlier this month (finding that the Texas court abused its discretion in connection with key trial evidence withheld from the jury), are steps in the right direction as we prepare our response to Tivo's recently filed injunction motion. Similarly, the favorable U.S. Supreme Court decision last week in the Ebay patent injunction case will be considered as part of the long process ahead."

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=68854&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=860168&highlight=


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> I hate to be the thorn, but can someone actually look at the patent? Something about a media switch, which allows a hard drive and data transfer for pausing, recording, fast-forwarding and rewinding to be cost-effective. The media switch is in the patent. It is the part Dish Network was hammered on during the trial.


Here is the primary claim in Tivo's patent:
1. A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising the steps of:

accepting television (TV) broadcast signals, wherein said TV signals are based on a multitude of standards, including, but not limited to, National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) broadcast, PAL broadcast, satellite transmission, DSS, DBS, or ATSC;

tuning said TV signals to a specific program;

providing at least one Input Section, wherein said Input Section converts said specific program to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation;

providing a Media Switch, wherein said Media Switch parses said MPEG stream, said MPEG stream is separated into its video and audio components;

storing said video and audio components on a storage device;

providing at least one Output Section, wherein said Output Section extracts said video and audio components from said storage device;

wherein said Output Section assembles said video and audio components into an MPEG stream;

wherein said Output Section sends said MPEG stream to a decoder;

wherein said decoder converts said MPEG stream into TV output signals;

wherein said decoder delivers said TV output signals to a TV receiver; and

accepting control commands from a user, wherein said control commands are sent through the system and affect the flow of said MPEG stream.

The Thomson/Grassvalley Profile product uses this exact process for storing data on disk and retrieving data from disk.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Sure. Except for the media switch. The original GVG video servers were processor and video card based.


----------



## koralis (Aug 10, 2005)

> providing a Media Switch, wherein said Media Switch parses said MPEG stream, *said MPEG stream is separated into its video and audio components* ; storing said video and audio components on a storage device;


If dish doesn't seperate the video/audio MPEG stream before storage then it doesn't violate a tivo patent as tivo's patent explicitely applies to storing the components, not the stream itself. I've no knowlege of how dish's storage scheme works.

Chances are that Tivo did that to avoid another patent would be my guess, because otherwise they're causing themselves extra work when they reassemble the MPEG stream.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

Lets see, soon to be no DVR & no DNS, can't wait to see what the churn will be.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

Personally, I hope E* wins as it will free the way for all of us to record using DVR technology the way we want, if it works when we want. I also would like to see E* buy TIVO and end the game we all play with the E* technologies Corp, Eldon and the rest of the bug developers making Dish Network DVR's. 

As one who owns both TIVO (2 of them) and E* DVR (921) I know and understand the need for a robust DVR capable of recording and playing back multiple channels simultaneously. Both products do this well. But there are huge differences-
TIVO worked well out the gate. E* DVR continues to be an extremely buggy device, the company, after 3 years finally has a DVR that works fairly well but has since introduced and obsoleted them all with new equipment that users abound complain about same old same old issues. Yet they persist in introducing new technology before they completely resolve issues on existing technology and then force subscribers to move to these or lose new programming choices.

HDTIVO has the most robust options for recording with 4 tuners, 2 for DBS and 2 for OTA. No E* product has this flexibility as of this date.
NBR - TIVO has offered this since the beginning. E* just recenently got it but it works half as well as the TIVO concept with wish lists and key word searches for scheduling programs. 

Finally, E* offers product features to sell their DVR and then when you buy, they announce these features dead! TIVO never promised any of these features but instead, permitted 3rd party retrofit of unlimited hard drive capacity for archiving as well as DVD off recording in SD. E* has only recently promised future USB hard drive add on. Only promises, like the Dishwire Promise.

OK, I didn't want this to be a TIVO vs E* DVR but some of the points I made had been discussed in previous posts here and were completly false in their claims of TIVO's featureset. Those of you who did that are excused because obviously, you don't own the product and are just ignorant of what it offers. As one who owns both, I know first hand your claims are false.

The first case was won by TIVO and I was not surprised but disappointed as, now, this will stretch out the process and continue to drain cash from both parties. Again, I feel the best outcome for us would be for E* to buy TIVO and dump it's continued development in its own DVR. I know some of you hate the TIVO beeps and silly toy like user interface but, in part, those can be disabled in the setup menu. If you hate the shape of the font and logo art, then, well, that's your opinion and you would have to live with that. I am more concerned with it's ability to record what I want and play it back when I want. It does that without me having to reboot, record the wrong thing, lose picture, lose sound, need to spend hours of my TV time on hold with CSR to get it to even work. Instead, with TIVO the biggest delay is when I have to swap hard drives because something I recorded is on one of the other 9 hard drives of archives I have in stock. 

At this point in time, I have to decide whether to Pay $299 to E* for the priv to lease a 622. Then worry if they lose the suit will it all be for not? Will I be locked into a lease contract with them breaching the DVR function as they did with the Dishwire feature? I like E* and especially all the variety of high quality programming they offer, especially the VOOM channels and all the other HD choices. However, I think their DVR technology is really poor and, again, the best thing that would happen is if they work a deal with TIVO and have them build all their DVRs. Even at $15 a month it would be worth that to not have to deal with the E* issues they have ongoing with all their DVR products, especially the HD stuff. As one who owns both, I know. Also note that I have posted well over a thousand posts on E* DVR issues. With TIVO it is less than 20 and all those had to do with showing others how I did my hard drive archiving on the HD TIVO. I never had any problems aka bugs to discuss on the TIVO forums. I have had one hard drive in 2 years go bad and I replaced it on my own for under $200. In that respect TIVO isn't perfect but parsecs ahead of E*.


----------



## HD_Wayne (May 23, 2006)

Regarding prior works. I remember Sony's line of professional VCR decks that did the same thing. The IMX series stored the video in MPEG2 and the digital audio was seperate. The decks had both tape and hard drive with the hard drive being used for short storage with quick response mostly used for editing and the tape for long programs. Based what I read in the patent claims shown here I would think that this Sony deck would qualify for prior art. I doubt very much that Sony is paying TiVO for the use of "their" patent. I am not sure of the time table but I believe the Sony IMX deck was before TiVO came along.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Sony's product uses tape. Grass Valley Group's "video server" costs thousands of dollars to capture, store and play data, while TiVo's patent is built around the media switch, which made the technology afforadble for home use.

Different issues, so try again. Yes, it is possible that the TiVo patent itself is based upon prior art. However, the media switch is an integral part of the patent. So you'll need to find something there in order to claim "prior art".


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HD_Wayne said:


> Regarding prior works. I remember Sony's line of professional VCR decks that did the same thing. The IMX series stored the video in MPEG2 and the digital audio was seperate.


The difference with tape is that the information isn't interleaved but rather recorded on separate "tracks". Again, these decks were not capable "Time Warp" as described by TiVo.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> Sony's product uses tape. Grass Valley Group's "video server" costs thousands of dollars to capture, store and play data, while TiVo's patent is built around the media switch, which made the technology afforadble for home use.
> 
> Different issues, so try again. Yes, it is possible that the TiVo patent itself is based upon prior art. However, the media switch is an integral part of the patent. So you'll need to find something there in order to claim "prior art".


So how is the GVG server not a media switch? It does everything stated that the "media switch" does in the same manner.

Of coarse in the end the only opinion that matters is that of the court...

I'm real curious to find out the patent offices determination in their reexamination. TIVO says they will discuss which claims were rejected and which upheld after the close of market today.


----------



## MrAkai (Aug 10, 2002)

dave1234 said:


> Here is the primary claim in Tivo's patent:
> 1. A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising the steps of:
> 
> accepting television (TV) broadcast signals, wherein said TV signals are based on a multitude of standards, including, but not limited to, National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) broadcast, PAL broadcast, satellite transmission, DSS, DBS, or ATSC;
> ...


I'm sur ethis has been parsed to death by lawyers, but technically no E* DVR has the "Input Section" as defined by the patent.

They only store pre-existing MPEG streams, they do no encoding or transcoding.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DonLandis said:


> HDTIVO has the most robust options for recording with 4 tuners, 2 for DBS and 2 for OTA. No E* product has this flexibility as of this date.


Having four tuners but only being able to use two at a time may be a wash. I would put a second ATSC tuner high on my personal list of desirable features for future Dish HD receivers.

TiVo's inability to deal with HD satellite content is a huge disadvantage for HD enabled satellite subscribers. Dish has brought the ability to independently use a single receiver with two displays to the party as well as being able to record three programs at once.

Both sides have offered innovations but TiVo has, for the forseeable future, largely forsaken a fast-growing group of satellite subscribers. It doesn't matter how wonderful their technology, reliability or other attractive attributes are if you can't take advantage of them.

In the worst case scenario, we have the DirecTV HD subscribers that have a TiVo unit available that won't receive some of the most compelling content. It sucks to be them.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dave1234 said:


> So how is the GVG server not a media switch? It does everything stated that the "media switch" does in the same manner.


The Grass Valley Group server doesn't separate the video and audio streams from a composite source. QED.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

harsh said:


> The Grass Valley Group server doesn't separate the video and audio streams from a composite source. QED.


Yes it does. The first PVR100 had composite inputs. The video stream was sent to an IBM MPEG2 encoder chip. The audio stream was sent down a different path to be stored to disk.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dave1234 said:


> Yes it does. The first PVR100 had composite inputs. The video stream was sent to an IBM MPEG2 encoder chip. The audio stream was sent down a different path to be stored to disk.


Are you confusing composite video with composited video and audio? I believe that the decks that you refer to used separate inputs for audio and video and didn't perform the separation of the audio and video components internally.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

harsh said:


> Are you confusing composite video with composited video and audio? I believe that the decks that you refer to used separate inputs for audio and video and didn't perform the separation of the audio and video components internally.


Yes you're correct. It did not extra audio from a composite input. Of coarse the TIVO doesn't do that either because audio isn't present on a baseband composite signal(I.E commonly the yellow RCA connector). It's only present on a modulated RF signal.

FWIW a definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_video


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

From what I understand, in the patent itself is a very detailed, schematic description of how the media switch works. And it is one of the claims that the jury in the infringement case found Dish Network guilty of violating.

I am no lawyer. I've just followed enough of this dispute. Unless someone can find prior art of the media switch in the patent, and even TiVo says that the only difference in this patent for hard-drive recording is based upon the media switch, Dish Network will have a hard time getting rid of the TiVo cloud hanging over their head.


----------



## ClarkBar (Mar 5, 2006)

DonLandis said:


> At this point in time, I have to decide whether to Pay $299 to E* for the priv to lease a 622. Then worry if they lose the suit will it all be for not? Will I be locked into a lease contract with them breaching the DVR function as they did with the Dishwire feature?


When you say "lose the suit," I assume you mean that the injuction would be enforced against Dish.* The Wall Street Journal reported today that:

"....TiVo sought to disable DVR functionality in all but 192,708 EchoStar DVR units already placed with customers. The company also sought to recall products that are already with distributors and retailers and to stop manufacturing of infringing products."
*

I am on my second 622. I hope it continues to work, although it too has some problems. I still have my 508 and 510 in the closet if all else fails.

If Dish loses the appeal of the initial jury award, Charlie will pay and we will see no change in service. It might not even affect pricing for the packages. Dish can absorb a pretty good financial hit, from what I read.

Although I am a law grad, I have no real educated guess as to the outcome(s). But, the injunction sought by TiVo would seem to be unreasonable to the "average reasonable man or woman." Maybe there is a precedent for forcing dealers to return stock, but I can't think of one offhand. And in no way am I saying that either TiVo case has technical merit. I leave that to you technical wizards, who seem to have a good grasp of that side of the argument.

Update, May 25, 2006:

On May 25, WSJ sang a slightly different tune. Now, they say about the injunction: "....to disable existing EchoStar DVRs in subscriber homes from storing and playing back television recordings.... A person familiar with the matter said the disabling of EchoStar's DVRs, should it be ordered, could be handled by a software patch to the machines.
"

So, we just wait to see what the injunction really seeks and what the court decides.


----------



## HD_Wayne (May 23, 2006)

dave1234 said:


> Here is the primary claim in Tivo's patent:
> <snip>
> providing at least one Input Section, wherein said Input Section converts said specific program to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation;
> 
> ...


I remember from some conversation with the rep at the Nagravision booth at the NAB show I was told that dish stores the transport stream received from the satellite after conditional access decoding has taken place. Since Dish uses DVB-S transmission that would mean the transport stream stored as a whole on the hard drive and would not require the seperation of the audio and video and no media switch would be required as well. The same transport stream taken off the disk can then be put through the same process that is used on all of its receivers for a realtime stream to provide the content to the viewer so I don't see how Dish is at least for these claims in violation of the patent.

What about Microsoft with its Media Center Edition of Windows XP. It can also store video content on the hard drive and when used with the Happague capture card the NTSC video is converted into MPEG. Not sure how the audio is handled though. I suppose TiVO is going to take Microsoft to court as well unless Microsoft is paying royalties to TiVO. Also to note is that MCE can record up to two programs on the disk while playing any content from the disk to the tv. There are also many third party programs for the pc that can do the same thing. What is TiVO going to do about that? TiVO will not be able to selectivly enforce their patent, they will have to go after all violators which is going to be a big job for them.

Wayne


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

While the TiVo patent has this “media switch”, I don’t see this switch as a key element to the patent. Whether video and audio are stored in separate files or the same file, is superficial. I have a hard time believing that splitting data into two separate files is an innovation.

Maybe TiVo might get a temporary injunction against Dish selling new DVRs, but I cannot see anything more. Let’s see, on one hand, TiVo is arguing for an injunction because the damage Dish does cannot be fixed with money. On the other hand, what TiVo wants from Dish is a licensing fee. How can both these statements be true?


----------



## Ray_Clum (Apr 22, 2002)

HD_Wayne said:


> What is TiVO going to do about that? TiVO will not be able to selectivly enforce their patent, they will have to go after all violators which is going to be a big job for them.
> 
> Wayne


Part of winning a patent case is that you can use that as a club and extract favorable license fees without going to court. Charlie is pretty much known universally as litigator happy, so if he loses, then you'll probably see everyone else (even Mickey$oft) pay up just to avoid legal fees.


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

I hope they shut down that service, after all, if it's encryted and you can't record from the Dvr to the DVD-R disc, so we don't really need the Tivo like thing from Dish, that way we can buy only the 622 without the Dvr for less 
that reminds me of the Kodak instant camera and Polaroid, if Polaroid didn't let Kodak make instant cameras, Tivo shouldn't allow E offer Dvrs/tivos either


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Opynion said:


> I hope they shut down that service, after all, if it's encryted and you can't record from the Dvr to the DVD-R disc, so we don't really need the Tivo like thing from Dish, that way we can buy only the 622 without the Dvr for less
> that reminds me of the Kodak instant camera and Polaroid, if Polaroid didn't let Kodak make instant cameras, Tivo shouldn't allow E offer Dvrs/tivos either


You can now it is the VIP411


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

ClarkBar said:


> When you say "lose the suit," I assume you mean that the injuction would be enforced against Dish.* The Wall Street Journal reported today that:
> 
> "....TiVo sought to disable DVR functionality in all but 192,708 EchoStar DVR units already placed with customers. The company also sought to recall products that are already with distributors and retailers and to stop manufacturing of infringing products."
> *
> ...


Yes, I mean injunction and then appeal as well. I suspect Charlie will pay as you predicted in this case and then we all will also. I also agree with you that guessing the outcome of the trial is next to impossible. I refuse to enter into the debate here that is now ongoing to discuss the merits of the case from a technical side as I find nearly all the arguments made by self appointed exertys here ridiculous. Why? Same reason you won't predict outcome. The fact that it is now in the courts to decide, makes no difference if it has any technical merit. It will all boil down to the courts decision. Then it will boil down to (assuming they lose) whether E* can work a licensing arangement with TIVO. Whether Charlie can come up with enough cash to buy them out. Could end up being a bidding war for TIVIO as another possibility. Again, it, IMO, makes no difference how unreasonable it is if the courts decide then that is the way it is. If Dish loses all the way around, I really can't see them trying to sell their service without DVR offering. Most of us have tasted the candy and will never turn back. But if they do shut it all down, as much as I like the VOOM and other better offerings from Dish, I will surely shut them off as a provider for me. Watching my programming on my time a la TIVO style is more important to me than watching RUSH HD and a few other Voom favorites.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Anybody half way savvy about computer / video technology would have laughed Tivo away about that patent. I guess there are no half way savvy computer/video people in Texas - they're too stupid to see the obvious. All Tivo did was combine standard off the shelf pieces into a DVR, then add their software (which IS copyrightable).


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

DonLandis said:


> The fact that it is now in the courts to decide, makes no difference if it has any technical merit. It will all boil down to the courts decision.


If the court totally ignores technical merit what do you think the court will base their decision on?


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

dave1234 said:


> If the court totally ignores technical merit what do you think the court will base their decision on?


I think the court consideres "admissible evidence" in its decision which is supposed to go for the jury as well. What self appointed experts on this board think is technical merit is not considered. Neither are the opinions of non-experts like me. Now I could be wrong on this, so if any of the experts here have been contacted by the court to submit their deposition or appear as an expert witness on it, let us know.


----------



## spykedvodka (Jan 31, 2006)

Well in my opinion if they get rid of any features after I shelled out my money to purchase this - I will sue for my investment back being as they sold me the item knowing that they were being sued for this.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

spykedvodka said:


> Well in my opinion if they get rid of any features after I shelled out my money to purchase this - I will sue for my investment back being as they sold me the item knowing that they were being sued for this.


It would cost you more than its worth, and only enrich more lawyers, which is really what most of this litigation is about anyway..

Tivo is going to die someday, or be bought out, one way or another, they are only extending the day of their eventual demise (IMHO) because of the way they've done business and how they market their hardware..


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

not necessarily, small claims court may be the way to get your due. BUT, the best way to know is to research precedent on this type of claim in small claims court. 

I once had a disagreement with DirecTV about a software upgrade that rendered my receiver brain dead and was getting nowhere until I decided to go through small claims court. DirecTV quickly settled with me for a favorable amount, that not only covered my loss but also substantial credit on my account that took a little over a year to ammortize. That was a few years ago but even today, if your not talking about big bucks, small claims court is a definite option. The real question is, not the cost of filing a claim but do you have a case? I say this because, I wonder about the culpability and liability when the facts are public knowledge that buiying a piece of equipment that is under scrutiny by the courts may not have 100% liability on the part of E*. I just don't know enough about how the law works to say. I defer to legal experts in this case.


----------



## awp (Jun 1, 2004)

Go here and tell TiVO what you think of their Patent Troll behavior.

http://research.tivo.com/suggestions/2web519.htm


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

awp said:


> Go here and tell TiVO what you think of their Patent Troll behavior.
> 
> http://research.tivo.com/suggestions/2web519.htm


How can you defend Charlie's blatant patent infringment? Maybe we should discontinue the whole pantent process. Let anyboby steal someone elses inventions and profit from them while the original inventor gets nothing. That should stimulate inventive creativiity.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

Curtis0620 said:


> How can you defend Charlie's blatant patent infringment? Maybe we should discontinue the whole pantent process. Let anyboby steal someone elses inventions and profit from them while the original inventor gets nothing. That should stimulate inventive creativiity.


Most of the claims used in the verdict against TIVO were apparently ruled invalid by the us patent office yesterday. So nobody is "stealing" anything. Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. How can you defend TIVO's blatant abuse of the patent system???

Here's a quote from yesterday's conference call from TIVO to investors.

Question:

Paraphrased: Of 9 claims, 7 HW and 2 SW that Echostar was found guilty of infringing on which were upheld and which were rejected?

Answer:

HW claims were rejected.
SW claims were affirmed.

That answer was from the legal counsel at TIVO at the end of the Q/A session.

What this means I don't know. 
Of the 61 claims what this means I don't know.


----------



## auburn2 (Sep 8, 2005)

MrAkai said:


> They only store pre-existing MPEG streams, they do no encoding or transcoding.


That can't be completely true since they store OTA programs broadcast in NTSC and ATSC. They would have to encode these to MPEG 2/4 in order to store them as an MPEG stream.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

auburn2 said:


> That can't be completely true since they store OTA programs broadcast in NTSC and ATSC. They would have to encode these to MPEG 2/4 in order to store them as an MPEG stream.


NTSC and ATSC are modulation technologies. All OTA is encoded MPEG2.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Curtis0620 said:


> How can you defend Charlie's blatant patent infringment? Maybe we should discontinue the whole pantent process. Let anyboby steal someone elses inventions and profit from them while the original inventor gets nothing. That should stimulate inventive creativiity.


Because we (or at least I) don't believe the patents should be valid, that the idea of what the boxes do is fairly obvious, that the DVR is essentially a bunch of off the shelf parts combined in a manner that is also fairly obvious, and that there is enough difference between the E* and TiVo that it's not really infringment. I can't find the link now but I believe I read a story that an appeals court has already ruled the presiding judge overstepped his bounds in excluding certain evidence the E* wanted to present.


----------



## mntmst (Nov 10, 2003)

LtMunst said:


> NTSC and ATSC are modulation technologies. All OTA is encoded MPEG2.


Well NTSC modulated signals are analog and would have to be digitized for storage on a hard-drive but ATSC is encoded at the source (network,station).


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

DonLandis said:


> I think the court consideres "admissible evidence" in its decision which is supposed to go for the jury as well. What self appointed experts on this board think is technical merit is not considered. Neither are the opinions of non-experts like me. Now I could be wrong on this, so if any of the experts here have been contacted by the court to submit their deposition or appear as an expert witness on it, let us know.


BULL CRAP !

In a case like this (patent case) - technical merit is EVERYTHING. The jury selection was flawed, the venue for the case is flawed - this case SHOULD have been tried somewhere where there is a large concentration of tech savvy folks - like Silicon Valley or RTP NC .


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

Ummmm....right.

We all know that no one in Texas knows anything about computers.



And I can assure you that the folks in Marshall know a LOT about patent law. Check out this link, it describes how that little east Texas town has become a magnet for patent cases, and is known-friendly to patent holders.

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/04/16juries.html

Anyway, like most cases of this type, this one will drag on for months, perhaps years, and finally bet settled between the parties when they both tire of the game. And the settlement terms will depend on what financial condition each party is in at the time of the settlement. If Charlie is flush with cash and Tivo is hurting (probable) then there will either be a buyout of a buyoff.

As to the merits of the case, we can discuss and cuss it all day long, but unless we've got the evidence in front of us, we might as well be pi***ng in the wind, folks! :lol:


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

mnassour said:


> Ummmm....right.
> 
> We all know that no one in Texas knows anything about computers.


I second that


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

scooper said:


> BULL CRAP !
> 
> In a case like this (patent case) - technical merit is EVERYTHING. The jury selection was flawed, the venue for the case is flawed - this case SHOULD have been tried somewhere where there is a large concentration of tech savvy folks - like Silicon Valley or RTP NC .


Gee, you sound like a sore loser, err, maybe just a loser in general.  All I did was express my view of the situation as it appears.

As would be the life in the legal lane... I see the USPTO has now entered the picture, just in time to really mess with the process. This whole mess is beginning to look like the Bush-Gore Presidential election. SNAFU! I should have been a lawyer, what was I thinking majoring in Chemistry? When things go wrong and you're an engineer everyone blames you. When your a lawyer and things go wrong, you just make more money.

Meanwhile, I'll go back to watching some HDTV on my 921 and HDTIVO this weekend. Plans this weekend to get my rack wired ready for for the VIP622 installer next month.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

I've said that all along - the patent on this stuff (by anyone - not just TiVO) is BS - it's just a collection of off the shelf components, tied up nicely with Tivo's copyrightable (and very good) software. 

It would be the one thing to get me to switch away from Dish - when I lose my ability to DVR my programming - I'm gone - I'll have something else that I CAN DVR installed as soon as I practically can make it happen.


----------



## jumpyg2 (Jan 24, 2006)

Curtis0620 said:


> Maybe we should discontinue the whole pantent process. Let anyboby steal someone elses inventions and profit from them while the original inventor gets nothing. That should stimulate inventive creativiity.


Agreed, good post. Without the patent system, we wouldn't have DVRs. :hurah:

In reality, the patent system is being used primarily today to limit competition. When a company can't compete, it litigates.

In contrast to some here, I hope that Dish does NOT buy out Tivo. That would mean those Tivo SOBs would make a fortune. I hope they go out of business and lose their shirts.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

auburn2 said:


> That can't be completely true since they store OTA programs broadcast in NTSC and ATSC. They would have to encode these to MPEG 2/4 in order to store them as an MPEG stream.


which DVR stores NTSC? I thought the 6000, 921, 942, and 622 could only store Digital (ATSC) broadcasts. Don't think any of the others can do OTA at all.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

From *DailyTech.com*

TiVo has been busy as of late, not on product releases but in the courts. TiVo earlier this year filed a suite against EchoStar seeking to stop to stop EchoStar from shipping its PVR products. TiVo claimed that EchoStar had infringed on patents that TiVo owned. The patents themselves had to do with a method that TiVo used to record one show while another show was being watched. While this may seem like a feature that's a natural evolutionary step for PVR and home theater PCs, the method for doing so technically belongs to TiVo. According to TiVo's press release:

TiVo is pleased that the jury found that TiVo's pioneering time warping patent is valid and that EchoStar has been infringing on our intellectual property. TiVo is particularly gratified that the jury found that EchoStar willfully infringed on our patent and the consequences their actions had on our overall business. This decision recognizes that our intellectual property is valuable and will ensure that moving forward EchoStar and any others that want to use our patented technology will be required to provide us with compensation.

EchoStar ended up not only being accused of patent infringement, but willfully infringing on TiVo's patents. This means that EchoStar knew about the patents but decided to build devices using the technology anyway. In the US legal system, such accusations are hard to escape. According to the ruling, the injunction could very well happen, but a final hearing will take place in June. Of course, EchoStar is appealing.

According to some reports, EchoStar said it was actually pleased that the courts decided to more carefully examine the case before making a final decision. EchoStar believes that it has the rights to use the technology, especially because its general and any dual-tuner device would be able to do such a feat. In response, TiVo said that it was appalled about the amount of "spin" EchoStar was putting forward. "The level of misleading spin that EchoStar is putting out with respect to our patent case against them is quite extraordinary," said TiVo representatives.

EchoStar apparently has a countersuit for TiVo, which it is waiting to press forward for 2007.

---------------------------

"EchoStar ended up not only being accused of patent infringement, but willfully infringing on TiVo's patents. This means that EchoStar knew about the patents but decided to build devices using the technology anyway ."

This is only part of the story of willfuil infringement:

35 U.S.C. §284 provides the statutory basis for willful infringement in patent cases, and a court to increase the damages awarded up to three times the amount found or assessed.

The test for willful infringment requires two elements to be shown, specifically: 
1. Did infringer have actual notice of the patent?; and if so

2. Did the patentee fail to meet their affirmative duty to avoid infringement?

Note that, "actual notice" means that the infringer had actual knowledge of your patent and had actual knowledge that they might infringe. 
-But also note that there is no affirmative duty to research pending patents

If the answer to elements 1 and 2 is yes then the infringement was willful.

However:

-An infringer can show that he met their affirmative duty to not infringe by: 
A) getting an opinion from counsel; and 
B) Reasonably relying on that opinion.

Whether or not an infringer "reasonably relied" on an opinion is dependent on many factors, including:

1) When the opinion was obtained

2) The Content of the opinion: 
-opinion must not simply state conclusory things; it has to consider literal infringement, obviousness, the doctrine of equivalents, prosecution history etc.

3) The qualifications of the opinion giver: 
-the person giving the opinion should be of the same technical background as the technololgy in the patent and have patent experience.

4) The qualifications of person getting the opinion: 
-if the entity getting the opinion has little patent experience, it is more reasonable for them to rely on a conclusory opinion then a company that has experienced in house counsel who have years of patent experience.

Finally, the court considers many factors in determining if they are going to enhance damages, and if so, by how much. these factors include:

1) Whether the infringer deliberately copied the ideas or design of another;

2) Whether the infringer, when he knew of the others patent protection, investigated the scope of the patent and formed a good faith belief that the patent was invalid or that they did not infringe;

3) The infringer's behavior as a party to the litigation litigation

4) The infringer's size and financial condition

5) Closeness of the case with respect to willfulness 
-If it was a very close case on willfulness the its less likey that damages will be enhanced

6) Duration of infringer's misconduct: 
-longer infringement -> more enhancement of damages

7) Remedial action by the infringer 
-If infringer voluntarily remediated infringing conduct -> less enhancement

8) Infringer's motivation for harm 
-If infringer's acts are pernicious to P, more enhancement; and

9) Whether the infringer attempted to conceal its misconduct 
-If yes, then more enhancement

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2515


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

derwin0 said:


> which DVR stores NTSC? I thought the 6000, 921, 942, and 622 could only store Digital (ATSC) broadcasts. Don't think any of the others can do OTA at all.


The 6000 is _not_ a DVR, so it doesn't store anything. None of the Dish DVRs that you mention have encoding capability.

For myself, the only things I'm missing are the PBS analog and a couple of horribly obscure UHF analog stations that I am set up to record to tape should anything ever catch my fancy.


----------



## erikjohn (Feb 27, 2005)

My only question is if what E* is clearly illeagal to Tivo what the hell took them so long to bring up a lawsuit? If E* was imfringing on their patanet they would have brought it up right away but they wouldn't have been able to ask for nearly as much $$$. So they wait until they can boost the lawsuit amount and probably hope for a settlement and to cut a deal with E* to allow the receivers they have out there as long as they are cut in on the profits.

my2cents


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Remember that the amount awarded is from when TiVo *filed* the lawsuit, until the day Echostar was found guilty. Not from when the patent was granted.

TiVo did explain the reason for the delay in suing: TiVo was in talks with Dish Network to put out DishTiVo's. Only when TiVo realized they were going to be chasing their tails and never get an agreement from Dish Network did TiVo chart down the litigation path.


----------



## Lyle_JP (Apr 22, 2002)

DonLandis said:


> I know some of you hate the TIVO beeps and silly toy like user interface but, in part, those can be disabled in the setup menu. If you hate the shape of the font and logo art, then, well, that's your opinion and you would have to live with that.


Actually, I would hate having to switch to Tivo because I really love the Program Grid (originally developed by Gemstar) found on pretty much every DVR, cable, and satellite box _not_ made by Tivo. My sister has a tivo and I hate the way it displays either everything playing right now, or everything coming up on just one channel, but no way to get a larger view on what's coming up in the next few hours (or days or weeks) on multiple channels.

The arguement I've heard from Tivo users is that "no one uses a Tivo to watch live TV" and that the "search function and recommendations replace any need for a grid." Yeah, well, bulls**t!


----------



## RichP (Sep 6, 2003)

Lyle_JP said:


> Actually, I would hate having to switch to Tivo because I really love the Program Grid (originally developed by Gemstar) found on pretty much every DVR, cable, and satellite box _not_ made by Tivo. My sister has a tivo and I hate the way it displays either everything playing right now, or everything coming up on just one channel, but no way to get a larger view on what's coming up in the next few hours (or days or weeks) on multiple channels.
> 
> The arguement I've heard from Tivo users is that "no one uses a Tivo to watch live TV" and that the "search function and recommendations replace any need for a grid." Yeah, well, bulls**t!


There is a standard grid, it just doesn't come with it 'on' by default. Next time you're at your sister's, hit the "Guide" button repeatedly to cycle through the different guides.


----------

