TiVo sues EchoStar for Patent Infringement 476
jhkoh writes "TiVo has filed a lawsuit against satellite TV provider EchoStar for infringing on its 'Time Warp' patent for DVR time-shifting. TiVo CEO Mike Ramsay adds: 'Our aim here is not to litigate everybody ... but to further advance and seek commercial relationships so that people recognize the value of our intellectual property, and give us fair compensation.'"
Uh oh? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a shame because I like Tivo alot but saying you're not wanting to litigate people while suing them seems kinda silly.
Tivo- the new SCO (Score:2, Interesting)
So, I guess we'll be seeing more stories about TiVO going down the tubes ... as if it weren't there already (oh, another parallel to SCO).
*sigh* (Score:5, Interesting)
I just finished setting up MythTV... (Score:2, Interesting)
- fozzy
And then... (Score:2, Interesting)
Echostar is Microsoft Junior (Score:5, Interesting)
I have seen the tactics of Ergen purchasing companies and assimilating technology and in some cases reverse engineering IE:Polaroter
Go Go TiVo !!
TG
Atleast... (Score:3, Interesting)
Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
So Tivo has patented the idea of recording television using a) a bunch of video codecs they didn't invent, b) a bunch of commodity hardware they didn't invent, and c) the brilliant invention of rewind, fast-forward and get this... pause.
There are many original and non-obvious aspects to the Tivo design. The ability to record television, and (!!!) play it back at the same time, do not count. Give Tivo this one, within five years they'll be claiming patent infringement against anyone who records TV onto a hard-disk.
Incidentally, I remember back when Tivo obtained this patent. A bunch of Slashdot commenters-- with a "RTF(Patent)" attitude similar to yours-- made no effort to conceal their contempt for those of us who thought the patent might affect similar (but non-identical) implementations. IIRC, they made a big deal over the precise details in the claims, and how you would have to infringe upon all of those things to merit a lawsuit. Looks like things aren't quite so rosy.
Corporate Petty Politics (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anybody know if there is any kind history between the two companies?
According to the articles, Echostar has been offering DVR-like capabilities for awhile now; the suit is just based on some of their latest features. And obviously, TiVo has also been in this business for some time. Echostar offers the product with a service, and TiVo offers the product as their primary line of business. In this type of situation, it's only natural that one might approach the other and propose some kind of deal.
Is there any chance that there is a history of offers/solicitations between the two companies, and that TiVo filed the suit because of being rebuffed?
(Disclaimer for the attorneys: This is just wild speculation based on the "sniff test". As in, this suit just seems to be a bit too much from the clear blue sky...)
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously though, Tivo was out in front on this technology and whether or not we like it, the only way that tech companies can innovate and still survive is to defend their intellectual property. They put a lot of work into their system and it's not fair for someone else to come along and steal their ideas.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I'm a Tivo stockholder and a Tivo user for the couple of years. I'm biased!
Re:Tivo- the new SCO (Score:2, Interesting)
They're not claiming to have invented the DVR. They're claiming time-shifting, which I'm pretty sure everyone who got one of the early framegrabber cards did so they could impress the shit out of their friends.
So, not only is it trivial and obvious, but there's a ton of prior art.
A patent should never been issued! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Tivo- the new SCO (Score:3, Interesting)
I could come up with a patentable way to catch mice, despite thousands of years of mice catching. Or, I could fail to patent a device for destroying alien invaders, because the "device" is a gun, despite the new use.
But, what's the chance that Tivo's method pausing live video was so non-obvious that it deserved a patent, yet another company just happened onto it? Given that the first way I'd go about it involves either a HD with a fast seek time, or dual heads, I can't imagine they'd have put much research time into this and thus it can't really be something a skilled professional working in the field wouldn't have come up with as the first obvious answer.
Ideas aren't protected though. I can see you selling frozen fruit-punch on a stick and duplicate it, provided I figure out for myself how to freeze the punch and make it stay on a stick. Even if your idea is widely thought to be the best idea ever, it's not protected. Your idea on modifying the microwave to send out anti-waves and using a stick made superconductive with some tinfoil and chewing gum, to freeze the punch instantly - that's very likely patentable.
Re:They patented digital VCR? (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to tweak the system to minimize this kind of crap. Maybe a mandatory licensing process that would require a patent holder to issue licenses on demand at a fixed price, that being the lowest price negotiated by a licensee. If the holder cuts a deal with, say, GE for $1/unit royalties, royalties for all other licensees automatically drop to that rate. Plus some practical-use rules to prevent cross-licensing duopolies - use the license or lose it...for that matter, use the patent or lose it. And, while we're at it, patent duration based on a reasonable lifetime for the area of interest - you can still patent software, but the patent is only good for, say, five years. A patent on a building construction method might last 20.
At any rate, something must be done to return the patent system to its original intent of promoting progress in the sciences and arts instead of stifling it.
Re:Corporate Petty Politics (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Interesting)
Go Video did this with its dual-transport VCR in the 80s.
2. Pause live tv:
This is only new in the video space. In the audio space, these sorts of things have been done for many, many years. It's called a variable digital delay. They're frequently used to allow people to bleep material from live radio shows. There's a lot less control, but the principal is the same. They also did similar tricks using video disc technology back with the instant replays at least a couple of decades ago.
The TASCAM reel-to-reel decks from decades back must also have been infringing on TiVo's intellectual property, as they had a record head and a play head, with the play head behind the record head. You could listen to the signal being recorded after it was committed to tape. Admittedly, it was only a fraction of a second behind, but people would do things like create a reel of tape that was several seconds long between two recorders and use this for very long audio delays. The only thing you couldn't do was adjust the delay.
Repeat after me: there is nothing patent-worthy about taking an existing idea and making trivial changes to the medium used.
3. Record a show after it has already started?
See the instant replay comment above. Same idea precisely.
4. Keep one show while recording around it.
Simple. Buy a VCR that doesn't suck. It's called insert editing. Admittedly, it has to fit in the appropriate gap, but that's just a limitation to the physical medium that is inherently removed by moving to hard disk, not anything interesting or inventive that TiVo has done.
5. Erasing shows from the middle of the tape?
Again, buy a VCR that doesn't suck. Insert editing with flying erase heads.
None of these things you mention are anything short of blatantly obvious. They have all been done for many, many years prior to TiVo. The only thing interesting that TiVo did was to move to hard drive storage. Move along. There is nothing to see here, just a meaningless court battle....
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Interesting)
MPAA studios already own a big stake in TiVo (Score:2, Interesting)
it could make Tivo a target for buyout by large copyright holders.
This has already begun. CBS (part of Viacom), Showtime (part of Viacom), Disney, NBC (part of Universal), America Online (part of Time Warner), DirecTV (1/3 owned by Fox), and Sony own parts of TiVo Inc [tivo.com]. MPAA is Paramount (part of Viacom), MGM, Sony, Disney, Warner (part of Time Warner), Fox (part of News), and Universal. This leaves MGM as the only MPAA studio without a finger in TiVo.
Classic example: Rayovac sealed battery. (Score:3, Interesting)
Heard a story about that. (i.e. I haven't fact-checked this myself...)
The core of a flashlight battery is a zinc cup full of caustic paste capped by some asphalt-like material, with a carbon rod (wrapped in a bit of hydrogen scavenger if you don't want it to go soft on you under load) stuck down the middle. The cup is the negative electrode and the carbon rod the positive. Power is generated by the paste eating the cup from the inside.
At one time flashlight batteries were JUST that, wapped in cardboard and maybe with a metal cap over the tip of the rod to improve contact. This caused probles: Since the paste ate the cup, when the battery was nearly gone (but still producing plenty of power) the paste would eat a hole, soak the cardboard, and start destroying the (metal) flashlight.
Union Carbide (Eveready) "solved" this by guaranteeing that if their batteries ate your flashlight they'd give you another one. Didn't stop 'em eating the flashlights, of course. But they made good on their flashlights. By buying cheap flashlights wholesale. B-)
Of course everybody was trying to solve this problem. For years. Without success.
One day one of the engineers came home depressed and his wife (opening one of the newfangled steel cans of veggies for dinner) asked him why he was so down. "Because things weren't going well at work. We can't seem to solve the problem we're working on." he replied.
"What are you trying to do?"
"We're trying to find a way to keep batteries from leaking and destroying the flashlights."
"Well, why don't you seal them in a steel can?"
And thus was born the Ray-O-Vac sealed-in-steel battery.
Which they patented.
And which patent Eveready/Union Carbide challenged as "obvious".
Judge: "How long did you guys at Ray-O-Vac work on this problem and how much did it cost you?"
Ray-O-Vac: "This many years, this many dollars."
Judge: "How long did you guys at Union Carbide work on this problem and how much did it cost YOU?"
Union Carbide: "That many years, that many dollars."
Judge: "Doesn't sound obvious to me. Judgement for Ray-O-Vac."
MOST "AHA!" moments look obvious AFTER the fact.
= = = =
Having said that: Emulating something on a computer is IMHO obvious. So is taking advantage of the beneficial side-effects of the fact that you're dealing with an emulation on a computer rather than the thing emulated. Business methods, for instance.
Example: Use web page forms rather than a phone call or paper mail to do mail-order. Recognize the user by side-effects of his communication (preprinted order forms, recognizing his voice when he calls, browser cookies {which were ALWAYS intended to create a persistent identity across http requests},
Recording a TV signal to disk is half of the obvious emulation of a VCR on a computer. Playing disk data to a TV signal, with ability to pause/skip/fast-forward/fast-reverse is the other half.
Doing it on a multitasking computer, using separate applications for record and playback, has two side-effects:
- You can record one show while watching another.
- You can watch a show WHILE it's being recorded, pausing for munchies and bathroom breaks and skipping/fast-forwarding through commercials up to the real-time point where the show is being recorded and played back with imperceptable delay.
If I understand the patent correctly, this IS the time-shifting "invention". And as a straightforward emulation of a VCR on a computer it is thus obvious.
Additional side-effects are that you can record as many shows si
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Interesting)
Back in the 1980's I worked at Apple when Apple spent a lot of money on all the shiny new professional toys to figure out inspirations for consumer products. This included stuff like a $120,000 Silicon Graphics workstation (the very first model!) and a complete first-generation digital video setup that took D1 cartridges that seemed to be as big as a lunch tray.
One of the really fun toys was something that actually got a lot of use. It was an Abekas digital frame store. Apple used it to assemble computer graphic animations, frame by frame with no wet film, which was a pretty big deal back then. But most of these units were sitting in trucks at football games, as they were the devices used for the cutting edge slo-motion display.
Inside the box, it was a flash digitizer and a fast group of hard drives. Outside the box, it looked an acted like a studio VCR, with play, pause, ff, rewind buttons and a big shuttle/jog knob. Video goes in and you can stop or scroll through it, forward or backward or stop with high quality.
What's a Tivo? It's exactly the same technology that was commonly in use in video production studios for years prior to the formation of the company. I wouldn't be suprised to find that some of the Tivo technologists came from companies that made these sorts of products.
Time shift and multiple stream input and output are all common features in studio effects boxes and have been for a long time.
The ability to do this in a consumer device was a reality for a couple years now with three big things coming together to make that happen - 1) relatively cheap large (10's of GB) hard drives, 2)real time compression asics, and 3)Linux which allowed tivo to build a multitasking, multithreaded OS without having to roll one from scratch or pay bucks to Wind River.
Making the device wasn't novel at all, but it's not suprising that it was patentable because they focused on consumerizing aspects rather than the established technology. And I think the implementation is pretty good.
The interesting question is whether you ought to be able to get a patent for a system who's prototype can be assembled from existing devices.