SONICblue Sues TiVo for Patent Infringement 159
SVDave writes "Yesterday, Slashdot reported that SONICblue was going to start negotiating patent licensing with TiVo. It appears that SONICblue has switched strategies: today they've decided to sue TiVo for patent infringement. Given TiVo's patents on PVR technology, I would expect a quick countersuit, though SONICblue claims that ReplayTV does not infringe on any of TiVo's patents."
Awright!! (Score:2, Funny)
Gee, this is cute. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Gee, this is cute. (Score:1)
Re:Gee, this is cute. (Score:1)
Re:Gee, this is cute. (Score:2)
This is more about complexity.
People love things that are complex. Then tend to think of things as more evolved or more sophisticated as the complexity increases. Anything that is more complex *must* somehow be better than "simplistic" solutions.
SUch is the case with laws. If laws are passed that just don't work, the inevitable conclusion is that they "just weren't broad enough" and we need to increase the complexity (add more legislation) to correct whatever issues are involved.
It is always about adding more regulations, more laws, more restrictions. People never stop to question what is in place already.
The legislative ratchet seems to turn in one direction only.
I know congress is enamored of itself, and thinks that the solution to everything is more bills. (To the man with just a hammer, the whole world is nails.) I am partially convince that they could even be tempted to outlaw gravity, once it can be shown that enough of their constituents are concerned with it (and what it will do to the health of the children!!!).
Unfortunately, most people can't be bothered to think about this kind of thing. As long as they have their 500 channels on their SatDish, they leave the "law-type-stuff" to gub-mint.
It takes a shift in the zeitgeist before we can disabuse our lawmakers of this notion that for every problem there is a law to solve it.
So, as to your question: While I do agree with the above post RE: the ever expanding role of legislation isn't the solution to resolve issues with existing law, allow me to state here that I don't favor the abolition of law itself. I believe it to have a role in the construction of society. I just want people to think about how expansive it need be. Usually, the simpler the better.
It just occurred to me here, but as coders, we can draw an analogy with the work we do. We are forever looking for "elegant solutions." When presented with 4 lines of code or 400 lines that both produce the same result, usually it will be said that the simpler solution is the best (and least likely to be subject to errors). Think of laws in the same manner. The more complex they are, the more of a mess they wind up causing. In the example of the code, the solution is NOT to add 200 more lines of code to the 400 to correct problems to it, but rather to simplify routines and produce tighter code.
Re:Gee, this is cute. (Score:1)
But my point still applies here, I just might've phrased it wrong: Don't blame capitalism for this rampant patent craze. The government set things up that way, and it's their job to take care of it. Capitalism is just a money making machine, which is *supposed* to take out patents when the laws allows it, if it means making more money. That's capitalism. That's not bad, you just need to change the system so it can't, or doesn't need to take out all those patents.
Re:Gee, this is cute. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Gee, this is cute. (Score:1)
Those who can, patent.
Re:Gee, this is cute. (Score:2)
Our patent laws require companies to enforce their granted intellectual monopoly rights. Anything else is fiscally irresponsible and subjects the company executives to charges of mismanagement by investors.
Honest businesses will do what the laws allow to make a profit. If the laws are cr@p, businesses will use those laws to cr@p on the competition.
The real losers here are everybody everywhere.
Re:Gee, this is cute. (Score:4, Informative)
Our patent laws require companies to enforce their granted intellectual monopoly rights. Anything else is fiscally irresponsible and subjects the company executives to charges of mismanagement by investors
Not true. Our Trademark laws require that the Trademark be defended or else lost (if sufficiently diluted). Patent laws require no such thing. This is why Unisys was able to show up after several years and say 'Hi, we own the patent for some underlying technology in the GIF format. Pay up!'.
Finally, I'm not sure why investors are so bloodthirsty, but given that companies like Enron can basically mismanage a multinational giant into the ground, not exploiting a possible advantage when it is considered unethical should be doable without calling the wrath of the stockholders.
Re:Gee, this is cute. (Score:2)
Because the laws are there it would be negligent for an executive not to enforce their intellectual monopoly rights for company profit. The requirement that they do so is driven by threat of investor suit against the executives.
Your point is well taken that trademark laws literally require enforcement for claims to stay enforceable and patent laws do not. The pragmatics of the situation, however, give us the same result.
I'm not sure why investors are so bloodthirsty
It is called making money. We all want it. Law abiding people will work within the laws, no matter how screwed up, to get and keep it.
Re:Gee, this is cute. (Score:1, Troll)
Breathing is pretty much grounds for a lawsuit these days.
Our entire retail and service sector economy is based on giving half of our money to lawyers, and letting them decide where to spend it.
I'm not exaggerating for effect. More lawyers than gas pumps, more law students than practicing lawyers, 50% of Congress and Senate are members of the American Bar Association, as was President Clinton and her husband, as were the people who chose Bush as President over the other candidate, what's-his-name, the one who'd been to law school.
Is it any wonder that we're so screwed? Separation of powers my huge hairy ass. The USPTO is just one of the more visible aspects of having Government that is By the Lawyers, Of the Lawyers and For the Lawyers.
Re:Gee, this is cute. (Score:4, Insightful)
Repurposing of common PC kit (Score:2)
Let's face it, it's just rudimentary off the shelf hardware put in a different box, if someone decides to make a PC that looks like a funky box will be get sued too? Based on the hardware the patent seems unsubstantiated, looking at the software it looks unsubstantiated, I bet TiVO even use the Video For Linux API.
Re:Repurposing of common PC kit (Score:2, Insightful)
repeat after me : commercial
As long as you're not selling/renting/... it, you're perfectly authorised to do it.
Re:Repurposing of common PC kit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Repurposing of common PC kit (Score:1)
Has (just a single) opensource project (or an individual author) been sued ? judged guilty of patent infrigment ?
P.S. I know, it's easy as I'm not in the front line, but I have been in such kind of pseudo-legal troubles before.
Re:Repurposing of common PC kit (Score:2)
Yes. But more likely, you will be threatened with a lawsuit. The threat is enough. (You= regular person with little or some money getting legal advice on slashdot / Them= multi-million$ company with team of lawyers wearing suits and drinking martinis) That is a fight you and most people will cower away from and that is what they know and that is why they would sue.
If it got to court would they win if you were not selling product? That is moot because you cannot afford the court battle.
Re:Repurposing of common PC kit (Score:1)
But seriously, we need to create a legal weapon of mass retribution to right all these wrongs. The way things are going, in a few years you'll be carrying around a lawyer for your xmas shopping, writing waivers and debating loopholes just so you can safely buy that 125$ VCR at Mallwart's.
The businesses don't realize it, but by suing their competitors out of business, they're alienating the potential customers that they're actually trying to steal.
Re:Repurposing of common PC kit (Score:1)
Justin
Re:Repurposing of common PC kit (Score:2)
However, TiVo, Inc. does have a great deal of Magic (tm) in their software.
Not that much of a change... (Score:1)
...and, of course, the next step is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Relax, this is just how the game is played. Its the birth of a new enterprise and industry, with a pretty cool and different product that changes the way people enjoy consumer electronics. This is going to set the framework for development, and indeed, will assure at least a pair of effective and worthy competitors poised to beat up on Microsoft when they try to come to play.
At least until Microsoft buys one of them . . .
Shame... (Score:4, Insightful)
These companies should save their energy, and possibly share resources for the real battle they have yet to face, which is against the networks.
This technology has the potential of becoming as significant and controversial as Napster...
Re:Shame... (Score:3, Informative)
TiVo has CBS and NBC as equity partners, so I don't know how much fighting is going to occur.
Re:Shame... (Score:1)
Nice lock-out of open source PVRs... (Score:5, Insightful)
PVRs are going to become more and more important years down the road. And they're going to mix (or are mixing) with VOD functionality. And Microsoft looks like it wants to make the PVR part of a television/home entertainment hub.
But how the heck can a serious open source PVR project be started in this minefield of a legal environment?
Re:Nice lock-out of open source PVRs... (Score:1)
By not making any commercial use of these patents.
Any individual can make a *private* use of these patents (if I remember well)
Re:Nice lock-out of open source PVRs... (Score:1)
Or only threatening letters ?
Cease-and-desist letters (Score:1)
Are there any judgments made about that? Or only threatening letters?
If you get a cease-and-desist letter, and you don't have enough money to pay an attorney to fight it, you effectively have a judgment.
Re:Nice lock-out of open source PVRs... (Score:2)
IANAL, but I heard this from one.
Re:Nice lock-out of open source PVRs... (Score:1)
Re:Nice lock-out of open source PVRs... (Score:1)
Re:Nice lock-out of open source PVRs... (Score:2)
I wish they had gone more the route of a DVR, rather than a DVR program that is wrapped by a windows manager. That is, it is made for TV-out use, and not mouse/keyboard centric.
Maybe I aught to join this project and see if there is some good core material that could be used.
BTW, thank you for the heads-up.
If you're going to take sides.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Reflect on this though, and try and keep it in mind when we as a collective group bitch and moan so loudly about software patents.
Typically, at the date a patent is applied for, most of what we consider "prior art" is pretty much bleeding ege and below your general radar. The fact of the matter is that in early R&D phases, many small companies may be working on very similar ideas. I've worked for several of these over the years, and while some had patentable ideas, most didn't bother and simply forged ahead to get the product out the door and into the public hands. From a consumers point of view, that is great! From a companies CFO standpoint? Oh shit.
Anyhow, I'm rambling again. This is a fight in which it seems prudent to take a side. In this case, I only see one champion, and that is TiVo. They cooperate with the hacking community, they use our favorite OS. They don't hide behind a veil of invulnerability (far from it) snd seem to be able to straddle the fence between commercial interests and the public good.
I'm backing TiVo.
Re:If you're going to take sides.... (Score:4, Insightful)
That happens more often than many people think.
From a consumers point of view, that is great!
Exactly.
logical to vilify the PTO. There is no doubt they (in general) cannot get their act together.
The people I've met from the patent office are good people trying to do a good job. What I think they do not appreciate, and most of the public has also not sensed, is that this is an absurd task in the first place. There is no right way to do it. The evidence keeps popping up but the remedial attention is always directed at the specific incidents, not at the fundamental concept that intellectual monopolies do what we as an enlightened society detest: they restrict the evolution and application of ideas.
This is not a football game. Taking sides is missing the point.
Re:If you're going to take sides.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I only see one champion, and that is TiVo. They cooperate with the hacking community, they use our favorite OS. They don't hide behind a veil of invulnerability (far from it) snd seem to be able to straddle the fence between commercial interests and the public good.
Not to mention the fact that they are a technology company who actually has a business plan. They also did not burn thier venture captial money on stupid things and instead used it to bring an excellent product and service to market. From what I hear they have enough cash to operate for the next couple of years, inspite of the recession, thier user base and earnings are increasing as expected, and they will probably be profitable in 2-3 years. Whats not to like about this company.
Patents ? (Score:1, Troll)
And just how is this patent-circus supposed to be good for the economy ?
Re:Patents ? (Score:3, Troll)
There are more lawyers in the USA than there are gas pumps. There are more law students in college than are currently in practice. Half of both Congress and the Senate are members of the American Bar Association, as were the previous President and her husband. The winner of the most recent Presidential election studied at Vanderbilt Law School, and the people who gave the Presidency to the other guy were all law graduates.
Won't someone please think of the lawyers!
Re:Patents ? (Score:1)
I didn't realize the framers graduated from law school.
Re:Patents ? (Score:1)
That's what it says: Unbelivable Stupid patent policy
nopatents [eurolinux.org]
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
I currently own a TiVo, and simply would stop watching commercial TV altogether without some such device, but their recent business activity has stopped me from upgrading my stand alone to a DirecTiVo. I still think SonicBlue should release the software for their boxes open source and make money off the boxes, they're a seriously bottom contender in the market, and free help on the software (it needs it) combined with some penetration would help.
Re:Good (Score:1)
Disclaimer: It's far too early in the AM, and I may have hallucinated all this.
Re:Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Patents are like "Magic: The Gathering" cards. They've got evil looking avatars (in this case, the lawyers). They have a bunch of stats that affect the outcome (money and public image). You roll dice to bring random luck to decide the actual winner (an old vicious judge), and in the end, whether you've won or lost the battle, you eventually realize you've just wasted your money.
Re:Good (Score:2)
Perfect opportunity for OSS. Unless someone wants to build the infrastructure to support some kludged tv listing server, all of the oss projects and boxen are still going to need to call up the central server (thus needing a subscription.)
SLASHDOT GOLD: Defensive Patents Suck (Score:5, Interesting)
"I gained a friend in a the large company that I worked for legal dept... Basically the story went like this, when we are sued we look at their portfolio of patents, then look at our portfolio of patents that we have that might cause their products to infringe... Which ever pile is taller gets paid royalties by the other company. That is a defensive patent."
At the time, I called it one of the "stupidest things I've ever read." Now we get something even stupider; patent fights over parts of the same aggregation of technology that is a PVR.
There are two ways for this to end; either both sides kiss, make up, and milk future PVR manufacturers for massive licensing fees, or the resulting patent apocalypse wipes out at least one combatant, severely harms another, and helps to stall future innovation in home video storage technology.
My dealings with SONICBlue, Inc. (Score:1)
Then the SB lawyers got ahold of the deal. The LOI (letter of intent) was signed, but they came up with a 50 page document for the Definitive Agreement (a legal term for a binding contract tp buy us). One of the honchos at our company said that that is about 40 pages longer than it should be.
They were such jerks at the negotiating table that eventually our major partner backed out of the deal, leaving our company and its product to wither on the vine.
I hope TiVo runs SB into the ground. If it comes down to it, TiVo could be bought out by AOL (a mahor shareholder) to boost their legal fund. Hell, why not, I worked for one of their companies too once.
Obviousness, obviousness, obviousness. (Score:2, Interesting)
In UK patent law there is an 'obviousness' clause - if a patent claim is obvious to a reasonable proportion of people trained in a suitable field then it doesn't stand as a patent claim.
I'd argue that the major patents these two organisations are trying to bandy about are obvious not only to softies, or people who work on digtal video or the TV industry, but obvious to pretty much everyone with an IQ over 110.
US patent law doesn't have such a clause that I am aware of (but, as stated before, IANAL and definately not an American one) and so it's possible to patent something blindingly obvious and throw lawyers at anyone who does the same, obvious thing.
It seems a tad on the silly side to me...
Ian Woods
Re:Obviousness, obviousness, obviousness. (Score:2)
Re:Obviousness, obviousness, obviousness. (Score:2)
However that requires someone skilled in the appropriate field to examine the application. Patent examiners generally do not have the relevent knowlage.
Re:Obviousness, obviousness, obviousness. (Score:2)
Re:Obviousness, (this is kind of off topic) (Score:1)
I my self have come up with a rather intreguing medium for information exchange That I'd like patented. I call it "paper"...
Ok, Place your bets... (Score:1)
I think I'll just build my own... that way I know I'll still get support in 3 years.
Maybe this is a Gambit (Score:5, Interesting)
When you think about it, it comes at an odd time (with TIVO being awarded more patents.) [yahoo.com] This person suggested that SonicBlue would sue TIVO over certain patents, TIVO would countersue, both would settle and cross-license and the patents in question would have precedent in the court system. Both could then turn on MS and demand licensing fees for the validated patents.
Hopefully something like that is happening.
Re:Maybe this is a Gambit (Score:1)
Hopefully NOT. Patents on the basic operation of a PVR will only hurt us, the consumer.
Re:Maybe this is a Gambit (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, doesn't the simple act of GETTING a patent set a useful precident? It's not like most companies go out and attack a tiny company to validate every patent they receive...
Re:Maybe this is a Gambit (Score:2)
Since the deal is between them, and they are suing each other, couldn't they agree to anything they want to agree to? Its not like they couldn't just sue MS right now with the patents that they have (unless they can't - ie MS doesn't infringe). So suing each other isn't underhanded in that way. It just gives them more legal weight behind their patents. It would discourage MS from contesting if the patents were already validated by the court system.
I dunno. I think its actually not the case. I think its business as usuall, but I like the theory presented by the person on AVS, so I put it out here.
Hmmm (Score:2)
Dodge could sue Jeep and both could settle by acknowledging each others' patents, and the one who benefits most would be Daimler Chrysler who owns both of them.
Doesn't seem legal to me, but IANAL either.
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
And yes, they could sue each other. Being owned by the same parent doesn't mean the parent can be the only arbitor in a dispute
Re:Maybe this is a Gambit (Score:2)
It's not 'insider trading', but it is not allowed. Whether explicitly illegal, or just a reason to slap them with contempt, I don't know. But in the long run, if it is uncovered, the original case is moot.
Re:Maybe this is a Gambit (Score:1)
My whole problem with this, is why don't they realize that the major enemy in this fight is Microsoft. So far, I've seen TiVo get patents, Sonic Blue get patents, but not some from Microsoft on the PVR front.
Then again perhaps they do realize it... here's hoping.
Re:Maybe this is a Gambit (Score:1)
It goes like this (Score:1)
Scenario #1: If neither one runs out of money before the settlement talks are complete, they settler by cross-licensing. Once they're both happily cross-licensed, they have a new market completely locked up unto themselves. We have two winners and a whole bunch of losers.
Scenario #2: Somebody runs out of money. (Evidently, this would most likely be TiVo.) We have one winner and even more losers.
Either way, we're all a bunch of losers.
Scenario #3: (Score:2)
Everybody outside America ignore the result.
Software Patents are destroying America's ability to compete with the rest of the world.
Re:Scenario #3: (Score:1)
Amen to that...unless we can get the rest of the world to implement software patents and sign treaties so US patents are valid in their countries too...<smirk>oh, we're already working on that...</smirk>
Please refresh my memory ... (Score:2)
Doesn't this remind you of the time... (Score:2, Funny)
Or a better question: Why doesn't the patent guys bother to check if something else still exists? You can't patent something if it already exists.
I'm just waiting for Microsoft to copyright the word "software".
Re:Doesn't this remind you of the time... (Score:1)
No because that never happened. There was someone who tradmarked Linux but Copyright, patent, and trademark are all different things.
Why doesn't the patent guys bother to check if something else still exists?
They do... at least in theory. You have to realize though that patents take many years to work through the system and something that is commonplace today may not have even been public back when the patent was applied for.
Re:Doesn't this remind you of the time... (Score:1)
Doesn't that defeat the point? Somebody patents something, waits for somebody ELSE to create it, and then when the paperwork gets finished on the patent (years later), sues the guy for creating it. That's almost like the UNISYS royality stink with the GIF format.
Who cares? Just don't let me ReplayTV stop working (Score:2, Interesting)
All I know is that my ReplayTV kicks the shiat out of a Tivo. The 30 second skip button alone makes it better...plus there's an undocumented feature that allows you to skip ahead MINUTES by entering a number before pressing the skip button. Heaven!
I remember salivating over ReplayTV back in the early 90's when Tivo was barely a glimmer in a marketer's eye. Wasn't it Marc Andreeson's baby after Netscape? There's no question they have been the innovators in this field...proprietary OS or not. Tivo just has better marketing.
While I may not be a big fan of their taking part in our system's "sue everybody" philosophy, I respect ReplayTV (and SonicBlue by association) for standing up to the networks and incorporating the functionality that I as a consumer want. Tivo is the bitch of the companies that slashdotters love to hate (Big Media). Why would you support them? Just because their (spyware) product is based on Linux?
Re:Who cares? Just don't let me ReplayTV stop work (Score:1)
Can you tell me where you learned it was in production 9 months before ReplayTV? That surprises me. If what you say is true, then Tivo was out the door first and the questions of whether SonicBlue has a "prior art" case isn't an issue!
Re:Who cares? Just don't let me ReplayTV stop work (Score:1)
In response:
1) Nice about the backdoor codes...and while 30 second skip is awesome, a 2-minute skip is the best (basically an entire commercial break). Or, I can advance 15 minutes into a program to catch a scene I want.
2) I know tons of people with Replays and no one has ever had a problem. The only advantage I can see here is that has been easier to "upgrade" a Tivo.
3) Yeah telnetting to my PVR would be cool, but
Replay also had the myReplayTV service which allows you to set recordings over the web. Does Tivo have a service like that? I honestly don't know...but that's a huge advantage.
4) You're right, there's not much functional difference. But in the end most people would admit that Tivo is the AOL of PVR's. That "thumbs up" bullshit? What's that all about? It's a marketing gimmick to track viewers' likes and dislikes while attempting to package it with a "useful" function. Please!
I also don't think Tivo would ever include an automatic commercial skip feature. Their major investors would never have it. And their strategy of "playing nicely" with the networks would certainly prohibit it, too.
Client Side PVR. (Score:2)
Client side PVR is doomed until the MTBF of hard disks rises well about the current 2 years.
Who's got the bigger patent stack? (Score:2)
You know, like the rest of the industry does!
How can you patent something that isn't new! (Score:1)
Silly USPTO (Score:1)
I don't get it. aka Prior Art (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, whether or not these patents should exist in the first place is another argument entirely.
It's all about strategy (Score:1)
We sue each other, promising to put up crappy defenses. Each of us wins the IP suit and then get into a mutual liscensing agreement. Each of us then sue's MS with a precedent in our pocket.
QED!
=MikeT
That sound you hear . . . (Score:1)
I told you so (Score:1)
They are probably going to spend a lot of money on counsel, fight about this for a while, and then probably settle with cross-licensing deals that will make it difficult for anyone else to break into thos market.
So what / how are these patensts anyway? (Score:2)
What am I missing?
Re:So what / how are these patensts anyway? (Score:2)
Show me something new.
Didn't Pause already get one of the TiVo patents? (Score:1)
This whole thing is confusing.
PVR? PEVR? (Score:2)
--Blair
"Now I get it."
Re:Im not sure I understand. (Score:1)
Re:Im not sure I understand. (Score:1)
Now those above dates are very much guesses. I had to use press releases to find out that info, and they aren't always straight with the info.
Secondly, I am pretty sure that ATI has had an AIW card out that was able to capture tv to a hard drive before either Tivo, or ReplayTV was out, but I am not too sure on that either.
Ah well, from what I can see, we are going to see a cross liscensing of patents between the 2 companies. I can say just from this, I am not going to buy a replytv, if I do get one of these, it will be a tivo.
Zeno
Re:Im not sure I understand. (Score:1)
Re:Im not sure I understand. (Score:1)
The Company was founded in 1989 as S3 Incorporated, a PC graphics company. In 1999, S3 acquired Diamond Multimedia and moved into Internet appliances, broadband communications, home networking and audio solutions. In late 2000, the Company changed its name to SONICblue, transferred its chip assets to a joint venture with VIA, closed its graphics board business and re-positioned itself to be a leader in the emerging growth market of digital media appliances and services.
This is really all I could find about them. From what I can see, they started doing this DVR stuff in 1999, at least publicly.
If you can show me something from 1995 that shows replaytv with a product, please provide links =)
Zeno
Re:Im not sure I understand. (Score:1)
Personally, I don't understand the pro-Tivo-ness of slashdot readers -- usually slashdot folk are very concerned about privacy issues, and ReplayTV was much, much, better about privacy than Tivo, which was the basis of my purchasing decision.