Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

SONICblue Granted Broad Patent on DVR Technology 213

Posted by chrisd from the job-programs-for-out-of-work-lawyers dept.
hayb writes: "In another miscue from the U.S. Patent office, Sonicblue has received a patent for everything under the PVR sun. Now comes the question if they will go after others, or at least Tivo. To quote the first line of the patent: 'USPTO patent number 6,324,338 also covers methodology that creates, names, prioritizes and manages recorded programs on the hard drive for DVRs.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SONICblue Granted Broad Patent on DVR Technology More

SONICblue Granted Broad Patent on DVR Technology

Comments Filter:

  • Make an overly broad patent (Score:3, Offtopic)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @06:18PM (#2656355)
    and earn a Slashdotting - that'll teach 'em.
    • And in other news:

      Head and Shoulders receives broad patent regarding method and implementation for shampoo application, "Lather, Rinse, Repeat". After careful consideration, the U.S. Patent Office determined said patent was not overly broad because, "There are other ways of doing it, such as 'Rinse, Repeat, Lather.'"

      When: 12/4/2001
      Company: The United States of America
      Severity: 100 - new hall of fame inductee!
      Points: 0 (The rest of the world already knew)

      -FF

  • File system? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Drubber ( 60345 )
    How is this different than ye olde filesystem directory? Does that qualify as prior art?

  • Hmm (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The patent numbers are becoming dangerously close to 6,666,666. I wonder who the lucky inventor will be?

    • Re:Hmm (Score:4, Funny)

      by andyh1978 ( 173377 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @07:55PM (#2656975) Homepage
      United States Patent
      6,666,666
      Inventor: Satan, et. al.
      Friday, 13th September 2002
      Secure repository of souls in unpleasant conditions.

      Abstract

      This patent covers a method of storage of a plurality of souls, selected by an inverse meritocratic criteria, in a plurality of areas containing, but not limited to, fire, brimstone and bubbling pools of sulphur.

  • Is it possible to patent things that others have been using for years? Those goes against every patent law I've seen. Basically to be patentable, you have to establish that it's *yours* and that nobody else has developed the technology simutaneously.

    How did Tivo let them get away with this.
  • Is the TiVO underground prepared to help out in case of war/collapse?

  • oh the irony, (Score:5, Funny)

    by terpia ( 28218 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @06:22PM (#2656399) Homepage
    I love the fact that patent wars might erupt between the PVR folks while at the same time theyre battling copyright wars with everyone else....Damn, I love capitalism ;)

    • love the fact that patent wars might erupt between the PVR folks while at the same time theyre battling copyright wars with everyone else....Damn, I love capitalism

      Yes, too bad we don't have socialism, so we could wait for the government Digital Video Recorder to come out so we could record all of Fearless Leader's stirring speaches. I mean, just look at all the great stuff coming out of North Korea these days... amazing!
      • Hey there, I was being sarcastic...I really do love capitalism! All systems have their inherent problems and it's not my fault that capitalism's problems end up being so damn funny sometimes. (anyways, its at least a lot funnier laughing at capitalism's problems than a bunch of people standing in 5 hour lines for bread...methinks)
  • I understand that the USPTO office has no idea what is involved in any sort of tru innovation, but I really begin to wonder if things, such as organization of recorded programs, should ever be patentable. I understand patenting the technology behind the way that PVR stuff works, but to patent the idea of a pvr seems very silly to me. Couldn't the same thing have been done with an archive of VHS tapes and a computer. How is the technology behind this really new other than the fact that it is done with a different medium (tapes vs hard drive).
    • The patent office needs to walk a fine line in cases like this. They cannoy accept patents that are merely a difference in "scale" (for instance: speed, convenience, size, and such) unless they can show that the difference in scale is so substantial that it is really a difference in kind: that the device is really different from its predecessors because the scale has changed so dramatically.

      For instance, an archive of VHS tapes and a computer would not be eligible for a patent, because it is significantly more complex for the user (and probably could not even be marketed). The Replay units are very easy to use and small, and the technology that makes that possible is considered eligible for patent protection.

      I talked with one of our company's patent attorneys and he said that the "scale" issue was not a problem here, but he doubted that such an obvious patent would stand up in court. He expects SonicBlue to get whupped in court, Rambus-style, if Tivo and the other competitors don't capitulate first. (Good.)

      df

      • But why does USPTO accept these patents in the first place? It's as if the government is just out to make money or something. (Make money on the patent, make money on the trials).

        And secondly, broad patents which can be thrown out easily in court are still very usefull for large corporations with lots of cash and/or lawyers. They can scare any smaller startups out which don't have the cash to fight. It's the USPTO's obgligation to reject stupid patents to prevent abuse by the megacorps.

  • From the press release:
    SONICblue's technology also allows users to specify personal preferences about which shows to record. For instance, the user may instruct the ReplayTV to record the last three episodes of a show, record shows featuring a given actor, or shows with specific words in their title. The products have the ability to scan all channels to find the desired show.

    So it has an advanced search feature and a somewhat interactive selection stage. Don't most software packages have the same features? There is nothing novel about these features; only the physical setting has changed (from the PC to the PVR). I think the U.S.P.T.O. has been infiltrated or something...

  • What happens with add-on boards for the PC like the WinTV-PVR which can essentially turn your PC into a DVR?
    • Actually it can't. I have a ATI's TV-Wonder and although I am extremely please with it there are two features that it is lacking that any standalone PVR should have. First, it doesn't allow you to record on one channel and watch another, a trivial point, but a major incovenience. Secondly, it will not let you pause live tv, in fact it writes nothing to the hard drive unless I ask it to. And lastly, (as I understand it not every PVR does this) it lacks a 30 second/ skip ahead button. Calling WinTV a PVR is stretching it a little thin, but the prior art is still there.

  • Wonder what video card makers will do... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by silversurf ( 34707 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @06:24PM (#2656411)
    I wonder if ATI's All-In-Wonder and others will get swept up in this? Just a thought since there are several graphics card co's creating TV tuner and recording capabilities in to their cards and providing software for doing TiVo and Replay like functions (record and organize).

    Just wondering how far SonicBlue will push the patents? I imagine we'll see TiVo and others reach some sort of license deal and eventually pass the cost on to us in the end, as it usually happens.

    -s
    • My impression of SonicBlue is a good one. Not only do they make a good product, but they have stood up to law suits and other such drivel that is dangerous to fair use and personal rights (30 second/ant commercial button, etc...). They're revenue is going to come from users who decide that they need Sonic Blue's service and have a good impression of SB. If they start suing my video card's manufacturer and prevent me from using other such resources, not only is prior art going to be established and the patent is going to get thrown out, but they are going to lose my business as well as, I hope, yours.
      • If they start suing my video card's manufacturer and prevent me from using other such resources, not only is prior art going to be established and the patent is going to get thrown out

        Don't just blindly assume that the courts will handle this. How many other stories have we seen on /. about lawsuits being filed agianst a company where prior art is blatently obvious. And remember that even a bogous lawsuit can crush a small buisness before the judge even has a chance to throw the lawsuit out.

        but they are going to lose my business as well as, I hope, yours.

        If a company produces a good DVR-like product in competition with SB, you may think that taking your buisness to the competitor is the way to go. In fact, your video card company may have already licensed the tech from SB. Your money may be going to SB without your knowledge.

        I hate to cast doubts any idea without at least trying to propose an answer. My theory is that sometime in the not too distant future, there will be a group of "Patent Terrorists" who will blacklist any company who carries products from companies like PR. Kinda like a 2010 version of "burning the bras".

  • Prior Art and TiVo Patents (Score:5, Informative)

    by rit ( 64731 ) <bwmcadams.gmail@com> on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @06:25PM (#2656418) Homepage

    There are two things to note:

    There is prior art for this stuff. Besides TiVo, people have tried to do this kind of technology before in the past; Java was spawned off of an 'embedded systems language' called Oak; which IIRC was built for things like PVRs, etc... but in the early 90s the public just wasn't ready for that kind of tech. Regardless, at the least TiVo was around before ReplayTV. Prior art is a powerful thing. Besides, SonicBlue has M$ To contend with as well, M$ having that UltimateTV thing (Which I strangely haven't seen/ heard ads for lately; i remember them blitzing the media early this summer.)

    Additionally, as referenced in This Slashdot Article from earlier this year [slashdot.org], TiVo was also recently granted a slew of patents on PVR Tech. I'm not sure which company got what tech patented however...

    • UltimateTV is more of a TiVo competitor than a ReplayTV competitor. UltimateTV only works for Satelite systems, while ReplayTV's units are general user (Cable, OTA, or satelite). TiVo has both a general use device and a satelite specific device (DirectTiVo).
    • What about non linear editors? They have been around since the early 90's if not before. They are in essense a system of catagorizing video recordings onto a hard drive.

  • SONICBlue a trojan horse? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by flacco ( 324089 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @06:25PM (#2656419)
    Me wonders - given SONICBlue's flamboyant flaunting and flouting of The Media interests - and now this patent - could SONICBlue be a media industry trojan horse? Conspiracies, conspiracies everywhere.

  • first lines of patents (Score:3, Informative)

    by bob_jenkins ( 144606 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @06:27PM (#2656434) Homepage Journal
    The first lines of patents tend to be broad, but not because the patents are broad, but rather because the first lines are introducing the field that the patent is in.

    The first few claims are often the same way, giving definitions and context for claims built on them. Claims aren't supposed to be that way, but often they are anyhow. I was once told that a claim had to be a single sentence and could not contain the word "or". Makes things tricky.

    • I was once told that a claim had to be a single sentence

      Easy. "We claim a method for allowing $cool_feature comprising " followed by a list of noun phrases describing the steps.

      and could not contain the word "or"

      The patent under present discussion [uspto.gov] contains an "or" in the first claim: "wherein the selection of shows is based on one of either pattern matching or fuzzy logic analysis of the user specified criteria"

      However: this particular wording opens up a potential loophole: The word "either" may turn an OR into an XOR by excluding the "both" possibility.


      • The patent under present discussion [uspto.gov] contains an "or" in the first claim: "wherein the selection of shows is based on one of either pattern matching or fuzzy logic analysis of the user specified criteria"

        However: this particular wording opens up a potential loophole: The word "either" may turn an OR into an XOR by excluding the "both" possibility.


        I would interpret "one of" to mean "exactly one of".
  • In another miscue from the U.S. Patent office

    Why is this a miscue? ReplayTV was the first to develop PVR technology and patent it. I can remember first hearing about the ReplayTV several years ago, and then several months later I heard of a competitor called TiVo.

    If this patent is a miscue, where is your prior art evidence to back that up?
    • It's overly general. You should be able to patent a specific implementation of a DVR. You should not be able to patent DVRs in general though. Heck, who hadn't already thought of the idea of a DVR way before 1998? It's an obvious idea that was just waiting for computer and hard drive technology to catch up and become cheap enough. You shouldn't be able to patent ideas, only implementations. Imagine where we'd be today if "small computer for personal use" was patented.

  • Prior Art? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DarkZero ( 516460 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @06:27PM (#2656438)

    It looks like this thing is practically patenting copying video to a hard drive... so couldn't not only Tivo, but also RealPlayer, Windows Media Player, tons of independant video players, etc. be used as examples of prior art if SonicBlue were to go after anyone with this?

    Seems like a pretty weak and unenforcable patent when prior art is EVERYWHERE.

    • Re:Prior Art? (Score:5, Informative)

      by tswinzig ( 210999 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @06:38PM (#2656518) Journal
      It looks like this thing is practically patenting copying video to a hard drive... so couldn't not only Tivo, but also RealPlayer, Windows Media Player, tons of independant video players, etc. be used as examples of prior art if SonicBlue were to go after anyone with this?

      I haven't analyzed the patent enough to see if it is really trying to patent "copying video to a hard drive," but I did not get that on my first impression.

      However, TiVo came AFTER ReplayTV, and RealPlayer streams video, it doesn't save it. Windows Media Player plays/streams video, it's not in charge of saving video. And the last two don't even deal with TV programs.

      I think the title of their PR sums up the patent: "Patent Covers Methodology for Recording and Storing TV Shows."
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Well, prior art means exactly didley-swat!
      For example, Julius Caesar used to have a combover two millenia ago. But look what i found [delphion.com] in Delphion.

      Scary, huh. If you're gonna try that you've got bigger problems than both hairloss and patent infridgement. :-)
  • The USPTO has issued patents to various organizations for dubious reasons, apparently. But they've done this for a long time. Such as allowing software patents and things like human genetic structures... This isn't what bothers me alone.

    The major thing is that nobody appears to be shocked over this. This is what is really scary. Why? Because if these patents become increasingly ambiguous, who is to say that it can't get worse, without public scrutony? And worse, are patent laws going to be changed so that a filing party can "contribute" to the USPTO or any other organization to receive a "limited disclosure" filing? I know that is highly hypothetical and probably won't happen, but stranger things have happened.

  • patented already? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by termchimp ( 173199 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @06:28PM (#2656445)
    I recall a previous /. article [slashdot.org] about a little IP-licencing-wannabe company called Pause Technology [pausetechnology.com] that held a 1992 patent on the whole DVR idea. Where do they fit in all this?

    • Re:patented already? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually I think their patent covers recording live TV to allow for "pausing" it. Sonic Blue's patent covers a method of encoding video to a set-top system for later playback. It's rather like patenting a VCR - yeah, people were using magnetic tape to record video but nobody had a device like a VCR.

  • Excellent... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Arcanix ( 140337 )
    I, for one, think this is a good thing. After a brief visit to Microsoft's "Re-education" Center I've learned that competition bad, patents good.

  • Interesting! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Johnny Starrock ( 227040 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @06:30PM (#2656453)
    Interesting how Sonicblue were "good guys [yahoo.com]" to your average Slashdot goer for fighting the evil entertainment industry...

    Then they went and won a patent. Now they're EVIL! How *DARE* they attempt to make money!

    • Re:Interesting! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by startled ( 144833 )
      Interesting? Don't stop there. Shocking! Flabbergasting, even! I am certainly aghast that the "average Slashdot goer" would attempt to characterize an entire corporation and all of its actions as singularly good or evil. It seems they'd recognize that some actions promote freedom and innovation, and some restrict it; and that a corporation is neither good nor evil, but is instead a legal entity, and that its actions are actually taking by a number of individuals. I'm so shocked that the average Slashdot goer got it wrong, that I'm going to go back and read a bunch of posts.

      Funny-- I don't see any anthropomorphization of corporations except by one Johnny Starrock. There are a number of people against the patent, a number of people for it, and a number who don't think it's as broad as it first appears. Still more people offer potential prior art, competing patents, analysis, and penis birds. So apparently the "average Slashdot goer" is a shizophrenic, well-researched troll.

      Next time you attempt to sardonically critique the hysteria, make sure the hysteria's there in the first place.

  • Favorite Quote (Score:3, Funny)

    by karb ( 66692 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @06:30PM (#2656454)
    We developed ReplayTV, with the intention of letting consumers choose when and how to watch TV rather than being captives of the networks

    "Say Goodbye to 20 years of Network Oppression! "

    (crowd cheers)

    "And Say Hello to 20 years of SONICBlue Oppression!"

    (crowd continues to cheer)

  • Is that most of them are completely obvious to anyone with the proper training, and shouldn't be granted.

    And one patent is broad enough that it covers every possible implementation of the solution, which is unlike mechanical patents.

    These two things make tech patents a threat to innovation rather than promoting it.
    • obvious doesn't enter into it.
      they can be challenged.
      there was this guy he patented the "pencil"(as we now no it).
      then there was this guy, he patents the eraser.
      then there was a third guy, take a pencil, puts an eraser on it, get a patent.
      But just adding 2 thing together is not patentable in less they do something unique, so the third guy's, patent was challenged and he had it revoked.it did nothing new.

      Now, we just need to prove that adding all these abilites together really doesn't do anything different then each of there individule parts would do if noit bound together.
  • I wonder if this patent mess just involves computers, or is it just that we hear about it more because of the web?

  • Read the claims (Score:5, Informative)

    by em.a18 ( 31142 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @06:34PM (#2656491) Homepage
    Hey guys.... read the claims. Especially the independent claims (those that don't depend on one of the other claims.) And you have to have all the features they describe in a claim, or you don't infrinte.

    This patent is not just about recording video onto hard disks. Most of the claims are dependent on a clause that says "a processor selecting future shows from a channel guide database for recording based on said user specified criteria, wherein the selection of shows is based on one of either pattern matching or fuzzy logic analysis of the user specified criteria and the channel guide database, and wherein the processor further selects for removal a previously recorded show having a lower priority than the selected future shows if insufficient capacity exists for recording the future shows;" This allows you the box to learn that you like SciFi and automatically record all the SciFi shows. Not hard, once you hear the idea, but I remember thinking that was a good idea when the product first came onto the market.

    Other claims talk about automatically recording portions of a program that repeats. That way you always have the latest CNN sports news. I don't think anybody's product does this yet. (But it does seem kind of $illy to have two dependent claims that mention CNN.)

    This patent is not just a software patent. Yes, some of it can be implemented using software, but not all of it. I don't know all the prior art, but this isn't completely obvious, and it's certainly not as fundamental to the industry as the press release implies.

    • Re:Read the claims (Score:2, Interesting)

      by PhuCknuT ( 1703 )

      This patent is not just about recording video onto hard disks. Most of the claims are dependent on a clause that says "a processor selecting future shows from a channel guide database for recording based on said user specified criteria, wherein the selection of shows is based on one of either pattern matching or fuzzy logic analysis of the user specified criteria and the channel guide database, and wherein the processor further selects for removal a previously recorded show having a lower priority than the selected future shows if insufficient capacity exists for recording the future shows;" This allows you the box to learn that you like SciFi and automatically record all the SciFi shows.

      Tivo does EXACTLY what you've described, and yes it can all be done in software. All of these patents are just about processing television listings in certain ways. The problem is that they aren't patents on methods. They are patents on the ability of the device (not the method it uses) to figure out what you like to watch.
    • Better put that IANAL in the beginning when you make claims like that. IANAL, but...

      You have a patent infringement case even if substantial part of one of your claims is being infringed on. Whatever is substantial is left up to the courts but certainly if the device does something substantial and something else described in the same clause the fact that it does something else is not going to stop any legal procedings.

      Then again judges might have come to their senses by know.. not!
    • Of course this is a good idea. One click is a good idea too. Sure this one is more complex.

      Would anyone have built this algorithm into a Tivo style device without the protections of our wonderful patent system? Would an engineer keep this idea to himself/herself rather than improve their recording unit and benefit from being first to market?

      Seems to me everyone would eventually stumble into this feature since it is born of customer demand. Heck, it's a software feature.

      I'm tired of the bankrupt argument that patents help create and share ideas. They mostly diminish new competition wherever they exist in critical mass.
    • "but I remember thinking that was a good idea when the product first came onto the market"

      Meybe its just me - but haven't we all been waiting for this to happen since we were able to hold a remote??

      I remember talking about this at school in the 80s. How cool it would be if your TV recorded EVERYTHING and let you watch yesterdays TV if nothing is on tongiht, or watch something that was on 20 minutes ago, or whatever.

      We also used to think a 2 wheel drive motorbike would be cool! And skateboards with self righting mechanisms, and tennis balls that didn't go all fluffy, then bald, when you played on tarmac. And a two way mirror device into the female changing rooms! And the ability to freeze time so you could walk around drawing penisses on everyones forehead while they were frozen. Should I patent those IDEAS now? I could retire on the proceeds of the everlasting tennis ball!

  • Oh great.... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kennylives ( 27274 )
    From the press release:

    "We created a user friendly way for viewers to record the shows they want to watch through a graphical on-screen program guide. The patent establishes that ReplayTV invented this core technology."


    I think this kind of statement sort of implies that they may use it as a stick to beat down their competitors, including Tivo. Unfair, since ReplayTV actually disappeared from the market for a time, suddenly popping up as SonicBlue.

    But what really bothers me is the destructive effect that this may have. Tivo has worked very hard to not only provide a unique and valuable product to their customers, they've also been very careful to "play nice" with the networks. They have, for instance, refused to put a 30-second-skip button on the remote. They've also, discouraged copying of programs from the harddrive (how effective that is, I don't know). And so on.

    Meanwhile ReplayTV/SonicBlue have done the skip button, and with the latest incantations of their boxen, claim to be able send shows between units (a scheme that will undoubtably be cracked, if it hasn't already) which, of course, can't make the networks happy at all.

    Terrific. So now are choices are a company that the networks like, but that is doomed by patent infringments (maybe), or a "bad-boy" that the networks will eventually crush because of their disregard for the networks' well-being... Ugh....

    And somewhere, in the shadows, is Microsoft (UltimateTV) waiting to step in with their "Content owner-friendly" box....

    Anyone want to buy a TV-set? Cheap?

    • Well actually, with the latest version of the Tivo software there is a backdoor in which you can activate a 30-second skip. To be honest, though, I prefer the regular FF, as rarely do networks have commercial breaks so precisely timed.
  • Break out your copies of wget, folks. It looks like another class of software will become contraband soon.

    Someone needs to come up with a metta-mirror site, which mirrors all the controversial software (DeCSS, mp3 encodes, crypto, etc.) and puts it in a form that's easy for us mere mortals to mirror.

    If I could put "wget -m http://www.metamirror.org" in my crontab and help propogate endangered software for safe keeping, I'd do it in a heartbeat!

  • It's very appropriate that the following was included (seemingly as an afterthought, almost) in Linda Bowles column today:
    One of the greatest social inventions in all of recorded history is the patent. This simple concept that the fruit of a man's labor and creativity belongs to him, and may not be stolen by others, is the cornerstone of the capitalistic idea. Its impact is to encourage productivity, investment and entrepreneurship, thereby creating jobs and enriching society as a whole. It is a brilliant example of the alignment of individual self interest with societal self interest.

    She's got it nailed. I laugh at the /. community whining about losing their jobs at the same time they make every effort to undermine the technology economy. Remember, folks, patents are the ONLY thing keeping Microsoft from stomping on everyone it feels like in the computer industry. If you think they're bad now, give some thought to how bad they'd be in a world where no one but the biggest baddest bully would ever make money of any real innovation.

    The destruction of patents (even software patents, which at best could stand to have shorter terms) would eliminate virtually all technology investment - the US is so amazingly productive and innovative in large part because of our patent system. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to realize that innovation is caused by a good patent system. If the US abandons or cripples its world-leading patent system, we'll see innovations stagnate, the big companies will totally dominate, and it could take the world economy decades or more to recover.
    • I hate to reply to my own post, but this is NOT flamebait! I was attempting to point out that patents are a key underpinning of the economic system that makes a technological world possible.

      I realize that many here at /. love to hate patents without having thought of this vital aspect of the problem, but in the context of the article posted, that's pretty dang relevant!

      For more info on how big companies can abuse patents, and how they keep them from steam-rolling the little guys, see my letter to the editor in LWN a while back: http://lwn.net/2000/0420/backpage.phtml#backpage [lwn.net]

    • You are speaking of two different things. Patents are designed to protect the inventor (as your quote from Ms. Bowles implies), but you go on to criticize the /. community for pointing out that patents shouldn't be awarded when the "innovation" is obvious or follows prior art.

      Patents are actually the tools used by Microsoft and others to stomp on everyone they feel like. They--unlike the inventor--have an army of lawyers who know the weaknesses of the Examination process at the P.T.O.

      Your assertion about the cause of innovation is 100% erroneous. I don't recall hearing of Leonardo DaVinci's numerous patents, nor the numerous patents awarded to the ancient Egyptians for "a process of stacking 20,000+ lb blocks of stone in the sand to form a giant pyramid", or the ancient Mayans for "a device which indicates the vernal equinox by allowing the sun's rays to illuminate a wall". Innovation is the direct result of human will, which our patent system appears to be smothering by allowing Megacorps to hoard patents for everything under the sun.

      • Pay a little attention: there will always be some isolated innovation by lone inventors.

        The point is that if you want to harness that innovation to create a technological society (which requires a technological *economy*, sorry communists!), then patents aren't just nice, they're absolutely vital.

        I don't deny that patent abuse occurs - but the system works *very* well in rooting out bad patents in places where it actually matters. (Nobody cares if Joe Doaks is silly enough to pay for 15 diesel-powered toenail clipper patents, so those bad patents will stand unchallenged, the ones that matter are contested, as they should be. The system works, and works well.)
    • I agree that patents have an extremely important roll in protecting some forms of innovation. Drugs companies, for instance, pour massive amounts of money into researching drugs. If they didn't have patent protection to prevent other companies from chemically cloning their work and issuing a generic drug, they wouldn't do the research.

      Patents serve another important purpose as well--they encourage companies to _publish_ their techinical innovations, rather than keeping them as trade secrets. This allows people to build on the ideas in the patents, even if they may have to pay royalties. Also, patents to have limited duration--eventually the work reverts to the public domain. The secret of making half-silvered mirrors was jealously guarded in Europe for years, retarding the development of optics.

      However, not all fields need patent protection. Buisiness Innovations, for instance, are one of the stupidest things patentable under todays system. A company derives benefits from using a buisiness innovation first, regardless of how many other people copy it.

      I am also of the opinion that software does not need to be patented. Copyright protection protects the specific implemenation from being stolen. The patentability of mathematical algoritms protects many other research intensive software projects. Most other software patents seem to be "using computers and software to do X." Maybe software patents could be fixed by a more strict application of the principle "nothing is patentable that is obvious to a practitioner of the art," but unless you can come up with some good examples of software innovation that wouldn't have occured without patent protection, I'll still favor eliminating them.
      • Also, patents to have limited duration--eventually the work reverts to the public domain. The secret of making half-silvered mirrors was jealously guarded in Europe for years, retarding the development of optics.

        This is an excellent point I didn't make in the interest of brevity.

        I think the real only problem with patents, especially software and computer patents, is that the pace of development has so far outstripped the term of the patents.

        Personally, I'd like to see some sort of self-regulating system that would adjust the length of all patents issued in any particular field between 5 and 20 years, inversely proportional to the number of patents granted in that field over the past twelve months. Five years seems long enough for even the fast moving stuff (remember it needs to be long enough to recover R&D costs and make some money), 20 should be enough for the slow-moving stuff. Such a system also fights abuse, since big companies that file lots of patents just because they can (IBM, anyone?) would find that such a practice is self-defeating, and devalues their important patents. Also, it tends to favor original inventors that bring true innovation, while devaluing the fruits of the system for those that seek to profit by simply filing lots of patents late to "get a piece of the action". If those patents are shorter, the incentive to abuse the system is considerably less. It's key that such a self-regulator be pegged to patents *granted* rather than patents *filed* - that way, the term changes only kick in if there's innovation sufficient to be patentable in the first place. (If terms were tied to filings, malicious groups could "poison the waterhole" for everyone...)
  • to sue the USPTO for neglect when giving a patent that is obviously prior art. One could imagine that there have been alot cases where patents have been awarded that shouldn't have. Is it possible to use legal action as a way of getting them to clean up their act?
  • OK, I'm not sure, but if you can prove that you've been doing something before someone who has it patented, doesn't that mean that:

    A. The pattent is invalid, or
    B. They can't sue you/charge you for useing the pattent?

    I might be wrong, but with all the proof that TiVo has that they've been useing this idea since before it was patented (it would be VERY hard to get that thrown out). Also, remember that Microsoft's Ultimate TV is also a DVR, so if they wanted to collect money they would either have to

    A. Go against Microsoft (we all know how well that would work), or
    B. Selectivly prosecute, which TiVo could argue about.
  • I've bought 3 Tivos with lifetime subscriptions--if they put Tivo out of business, I guess that's a fair chunk of cash down the drain, since the d@mned thing is dependent on the service.

    On the other hand, it would give me an excuse to go ahead and get one of those cool ReplayTV things--I must admit, they do have several features I really miss on TIVO. And 320 hours storage would be nice.

    I was just afraid they were going too far with the "send shows over the internet" thing and would be the ones put out of business by the MPAA or networks or someone.

  • This is pathetic.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by tcc ( 140386 )
    PVR are old like hell...

    does that mean that if I sell my program I made on my amiga 8 years ago to record TV content with my DPS personnal video recorder, to my hard drive at a precise hour, I'll be breaking this patent?

    Yet another stupid patent that shows that Patents are becomming stupid .COM's, you pay to get it and you can get screwed if you don't get all the little bits left and right (like domain.com, mydomain.com dom-ain.com), and even if you do, someone will workaround it (.net .whatever) and you'll have to finish this up in court (only lawyers win)same go if you're legit and if you're stepping on somebody else that can claims anything out of his little left and right bit, you get sued again...

    While I do understand that technological patents are a pain to filter and there's no black and white yes/no approach to them, and that if you're not precise enough, people go around you, if you're overkill and patent every screws in your system, of course you're blocking anything else using the same screws so it's ridiculous, but c'mon... some people are actually PAIED to work this out and THINK about how to manage these issues, it's not our job, but then again, it seems like they aren't doing theirs and it's the rest of us that are penalized.
  • (Ok so maybe they have some hardware, but they looked like they were talking about software in the press release.)

    But seriously. Do you remember back in elementary school? The way that you would have math class and do some math problems, and some of them word problems? A word problem being a math problem where the data sent into it and/or the data generated by it is given real-world meaning. Do you remember how some people couldn't "get" the word problems because they couldn't see how to make the math work with real world words wrapped around it? Do you remember how you thought it was really easy and then you went on to become a real hardcore geek? Do you remember how those people who couldn't "get" word problems weren't very good at math?

    Q: What ever happened to those people who sucked at word problems?

    A: They grew up and started patenting solutions to "word problems" errr no wait I mean "algorithms and processes embodied in software designed to create a technical effect". I would never want to be accused of trivializing the amazing difficult process of giving real-world meaning to math. After all, doing abstract math on a computer, even if it's really hard, isn't patentable, so the last step...making the math correspond to something in the real world, must be a really really really big and important step to take something from being unpatentable to patentable. And I would certainly hate to compare that step to being able to do a word problem. That would be rather snide, wouldn't it?

    But, this is the problem. We're arguing against people who don't "get" word problems and who therefore think they're not math anymore, so it's ok to patent them. Perhaps sending all of the patent examiners, judges, VC's, patent lawyers, CEO's and everyone else involved back to elementary school to let them learn how to do word problems will settle this once and for all.
  • Patents are a weapon.

    SonicBlue is in a couple of fights: they're fighting Tivo, Microsoft & Dish Network (who likely soon will be a DBS monopoly in the USA) for PVR marketshare, and they're up against MPAA and the networks for the Replay 4K.

    So far, they seem to be on the side of the angels in all the fights they're in. Don't begrudge them a badly needed weapon.
  • The guys who are losing in the market go out and get a patent and then turn around and sue the hell outta other companies. Oh well, Novell did it too, owning the rights to Unix and all and making other companies pay them (probably one of the few things that have kept them around). Though maybe this would be good, maybe SonicBlue will sue Microsoft instead of Tivo.

  • Prior Art? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Wonderkid ( 541329 )
    My company developed a multimedia system that recorded (crude greyscale) video to a hard drive, in real time, with random access to files. We also wrote a groundbreaking proposal for a digital information storage media standard (UDiS Media). Said proposal sent to various major electronics companies and written up in at least one British computer magazine. In the UDiS Media proposal, we described a machine (based on the aforementioned multimedia system that would record TV programming based on content of interest. When? In 1988. We intend to develop our machine and it will be good to know that our 'prior art' (which was demonstrated in the UK in 1988, and in the USA in 1991) will at the very least mean SonicBlue / ReplayTV will not be able to sue us when it comes to some of the basic claims. A final point of interest, I just today found out that my US patent attorney represents SonicBlue. What a tangled web we have weaved.

  • SONICBLUE's patent (Score:2, Insightful)

    by AntiTuX ( 202333 )
    Honestly, I think it's a good thing that they got this patent. They've made so many bad choices in the last 5 years, that maybe this is what they need to get themselves out of debt. They no longer have a hold in the video card market (read, s3, Diamond). Their share in the portable mp3 player market isn't that impressive anymore since It's been flooded with alternatives that work as well, if not better than theirs. I've used both a TiVo and a ReplayTV, and they're both awesome products. Personally, I'd choose a ReplayTV over a TiVo though. Anyhow, just my $.02
  • Are there any good open source PVR projects?

  • Here [uspto.gov]'s the patent in question from the USPTO's website. Note that it was filed August 7, 1998 - long before TiVo went into operation. I also notice that I don't think it reference's the 1992 patent on pausing a live TV feed (as other posters were asking about) - I could be wrong on that though.

    -"Zow"

  • Geez, read the claims, folks... (Score:4, Informative)

    by sillivalley ( 411349 ) <<sillivalley> <at> <comcast.net>> on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @07:14PM (#2656735)
    It's the claims which count, not what the marketing folks say.

    Claim 1 requires a channel guide database, user criteria, that the processor use pattern matching or fuzzy logic, and an interesting kicker -- the processor also "further selects for removal a previously recorded show having a lower priority than the selected future shows if insufficient capacity exists for recording the future shows..."

    Most of the independent claims (1, 19,30,36,42,48,49,50) have this limitation, namely the leabillity to automatically remove old recorded shows.

    If you don't have this limitation, it seems to me you've avoided those claims.

    On the other hand, I don't know what Claim 26 means!

    namaste-
    • ... a patent. So is obviousness.

      If the only thing that these guys can claim to have invented is the concept that, if the disk is full, the least-priority previously recorded program is deleted, how can they claim that such an invention is such a blindingly brilliant contribution to the world as to merit patent protection?

  • Why is everyone worried? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bobb Sledd ( 307434 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2001 @07:18PM (#2656759) Homepage
    Just because one company has a patent doesn't necessarily mean it will put another out of business. (I know what I'm talking about, I was a US patent paralegal for the #1 computer company for several years.)

    If either company holds any value to Intellectual Property, they should have a flock of patents coming down the pipeline for any given product. (Don't go looking for them because you won't find them until they're issued.) Patents usually take 2 years to issue and they are typically issued with fairly specific claim language (unless it's something stellar like a time-machine).

    Also, many companies have in-house attorneys who handle IP problems like this all day long. It's nothing new. Often times both companies will end up cross-licensing their patents with each other to keep new competitors at bay.

    In the computer industry, this kind of thing happens all the time. There is so much cross-licensing going on between the major computer manufacturers you'd think it was a cartel. I'm not even kidding.

    Trust me, this is nothing to get worked up about. The only reason that the Amazon one-click patent was so problematic is that their competitors didn't have any patents at all, and business methods (at the time) were thought to be unpatentable. Did it put their competitors out of business? No. It just made things really uncomfortable.

    Even in most worst cases, a negligible royalty fee is usually negotiated for - and even then, the damages (royalties) only START since the time the "infringing" company is put on notice from the owner of the patent.

    *yawn*
  • I was under the impression that patents can be overturned if prior art is uncovered. What has to happen for a patent to be overturned, and why doesn't this happen for all the tech patents? Or maybe, why doesnt' /. take note when a patent is overturned?

  • Anonymous Coward is right. We should take a few moments to READ the patent before commenting on it. My initial reaction was an off-the-cuff remark - another reason not to post unless you have something to SAY. Anyway, on to the point:

    IANAL, but I readthe 338 Patent [uspto.gov] and a couple of the others. This patent references pre-existing technologies and - my reading - basically says that they're patenting their feature set and particular implementation. Nothing new here. Yeah, they may be over-reaching, but that despends on your point of view and what they do.

    It's something that, yes, a company can whip out and club another one over the head with. Yeah, it can be used to squeeze royalties out of someone for an infringement. Any patent does that, for a while anyway.

    All patents are designed to squeeze the maximum claim for the maximum legal "protection" and financial gain. You stand on the shoulders of prior art, but ultimately what decides whether you violated patent rights or not is a judge or collection thereof, the size of your bribe, and/or your legal budget. There are whole business that do nothing but hold patents and sue the crap out of any industry player that does what that paper says (e.g. link to a document) and make them pay a fee that will be large enough to satisfy the blood sucking leeches, but cheaper that going to court over it. They may allege something STUPID, like they invented the wheel or the hyperlink, but it's often cheaper to pay than litigate and risk huge leech fees and huge damages. This is patent law, friends. Blah.

    Anyway, my personal opinion is that patents are freaking stupid. They don't protect what they should protected. Instead, they're used like clubs to beat other companies with. Another tool in the legal arsenal.

    I'd rather see a return to trial by combat. Each company chooses a champion who fight it out to the death (or tap-out) or whatever. If only Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Xerox Parc squared off in an arena with axes or something. Panem et Circenses.

Slashdot Top Deals

WARNING TO ALL PERSONNEL: Firings will continue until morale improves.

Close