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.'"
In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
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:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you think that this is a valid patent? TiVo implements a mechanical tape VCR using digital storage and processing, and suddenly an old idea with loads of prior are is patent-worthy?
I like TiVo too, but I think your bias is clouding your reason. Whoever made the first VCR should own this patent, if anyone. Moving an old idea to a new implementation is not patent-worthy, IMHO.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Informative)
Or how I can pause live tv without having a tape running constantly 24/7?
Or how I can decide after the fact to record a show after it's already started (assuming that I do it in the first half hour or so)?
Or how I can keep one show for months on a tape while recording around it?
or erasing shows from the middle of the tape while still being able to record shows in the unused spots?
Hmmm??? I didn't think you could...
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 in
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
As a matter of fact, you could implement an actual mechanical VCR, with exactly the same capabilities as existing VCRs, and it would be patent-worthy if you came up with a novel method of accomplishing those same functions. JVC did exactly this when they patented VHS, even though Sony already had a VCR patent. This was pos
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
All TiVO did was repackage existing technology. Anyone could (and some of us did) timeshift with PCs, and yes, we could capture the stream to disk, and simultaneously play it back several minutes later so we could skip the commercials. Or rewind it. Or pause it. All while the computer continued
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
So back in 1995 or '96, when TiVo presumably filed for the patent, anybody with a videocard and a relatively low-powered PC could digitize TV while simultaneously playing back? Keep in mind that TiVo's patent presumably covers not merely the concept of digitizing TVs, but the software methods
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Had anyone made a package, with a remote control, that allowed you to sit on your couch while your PC handled all the timeshifting stuff with the press of a remote control?
If the answer is no, then this patent is valid.
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 l
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.
Re:Uh oh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uh oh? (Score:5, Informative)
Does anyone remember when there was at least the polite pretense of patents having to describe a new and non-obvious METHOD?
When I covered a bit of patent law in Electronics we were taught that for a patent to not be overturned, you'd need to be able to take reasonably skilled professionals in the industry and state the same problem and requirements. If they could easily independently invent the device described in the patent, the patent was too obvious.
Tivo is just trying to patent their feature list - making it impossible for anyone to create any device which provides the same functions.
Not SCO like. More RAMBUS like - flagrant abuse of the patent system.
Re:Uh oh? (Score:3, Informative)
Looking at the patent in question [uspto.gov], at least 90% of it is quite obvious, even if the execution is difficult to program. The fact that it's difficult to program does not make it non-obvious though. They, of course, list out every minute step, as the patent process requires them to do, but all this does is obfuscate what the system actually does. Quite simply, it converts the incoming video stream (which could be in any of several formats) into an MPEG file on a hard drive. That file can be manipulated by
Free Markets now Planned Monopoly Economies (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it was so obvious he did come up with it first. And likely realized it was so obvious it wasn't patentable, and so didn't even start the footrace to the patent office, much less win it. Or maybe he did try to patent the idea despite its obviousness, and despite having invented the idea first, lost the footrace to the patent office because his postal worker took a coffee break and the patent application didn't get shipped acro
Re:Uh oh? (Score:3, Insightful)
They should only get the patent if the technology involved is new. If they're simply the first people to think of using a HD in an embedded device instead of a spool of tape (or whatever) they don't deserve the idea because reading and writing to the same file (or different files) is something computers have been doing for years. And any engineer who was asked how to do this could have
Re:Uh oh? (Score:2)
Not really SCO (Score:4, Insightful)
(Given the validity and applicability of their patent)
To begin with, unlike SCO, we know what the supposed infringement IS.
The SCO case is about breach of contract. Although the "going after end-users" the managment keeps spouting out is about copyright.
That is ludicrous.. end users have no liability in such a case, since they did not commit the infringement.
(much like a magazine subscriber is not liable if the magazine prints a plagarized story)
In patent cases, this is different. Noone has the right to use patented technology without licence. There is such a thing as contributory infringement concerning patents, which means that you can be liable even if you didn't commit the actual patent infringement.
On the other hand, going after consumers is a bad idea. Not only PR-wise, but there are also laws in place to protect the consumer. So that's very unlikely.
Also, there's no money in sueing private OSS developers.
Anyway, there are a few options here:
They back down and pay for a license
They get lawyers and try to get the the patent invalidated in court
If 2 fails, you can either:
Pay for a license
'Break' the patent, find a workaround with the same functionality which isn't covered by the patent.
Re:Uh oh? (Score:3, Informative)
They already did... (Score:3, Informative)
Tivo and SonicBlue Settle Dispute [slashdot.org]. According to this article at the Stereophile Guide to Home Theatre, Tivo and SonicBlue have decided to dismiss all patent-infringement claims 'without prejudice' and instead focus their energies on energizing the DVR market. 'We believe our energies are better spent expanding the market for DVRs rather than fighting each other,' the former adversaries said in a joint statement. The article also discusses their plans for marketing and also how they plan to respond to criti
All Together Now (Score:5, Funny)
Re:All Together Now (Score:3, Funny)
Re:All Together Now (Score:2)
However, I fail to see why this is new.
Computers have been able to gather data, while showing different data for years. The fact that tv changes 'data' to 'TV' does not make it different. The TV is just data.
"TimeWarp" Patent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"TimeWarp" Patent (Score:2)
Unless they found a way to read and write from a hard drive, at the exact same time without a cache of some sort, this is not new. The fact that the data it is using is from TV shouldn't really matter.
Re:"TimeWarp" Patent (Score:2)
Seems to me they'll go after any DVR producer who implements their fairly obvious time shifting features.
Will they drop the suit if Replay 'adds some thought of their own?'
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.
Re:Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
Hardly a valid comparison. MPEG2 was specifically designed for the purpose of recording interlaced television; this was long before Tivo existed. When this codec was being devised, the developers anticipated that it might be used to record files to some sort of fixed digital
So Tivo Owns Pausing Live TV now? (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, I'm a disgruntled Echostar Ex-employee and would love to see them suffer in court. In fact I may schedule a vacation, head down to texas, microwave some popcorn and enjoy a fun couple of weeks in court. I'm also a happy tivo owner and wi
Re:"TimeWarp" Patent (Score:2)
Its been done previously....its called BUFFERING. RealPlayer should sue too.
"any thought of their own". What else would you want on a Tivo? Were VCR making clones sued over such common features as Pause/Stop/Rewind/Play/Fast Forward?
Tivo is getting their market share swiped from their feet, and now is trying to claim "patent" infringment from their "in
Re:"TimeWarp" Patent (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't even mean that. One more time, class: "Trademarks have to be protected & defended. Patents are selectively enforceable by the patent holder"
TiVO can sue the bejeezus out of Echostar and then just shut up and never bother to use the patent against anyone else ever again.
Re:"TimeWarp" Patent (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re:Tivo- the new SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything that makes it to the public domain is always both obvious and trivial. Everytime we hear about a new invention/method, we always go, dang, why didn't we think of that! why? cuz it seems so obvious and trivial.
Re:Tivo- the new SCO (Score:2)
So, to repeat: A patent granted for a trivial modification is invalid and non-enforceable. A patent granted for an obvious implementation is invalid and non-enforceable. A patent granted for something that is not innovative is invalid an
Re:Tivo- the new SCO (Score:2)
Trivial does not mean 'trivial to experts in the field' and obvious means your average Joe would have thought it up.
There screwed because there not doing anything different then computers have been doing for a great many years.
Re:Tivo- the new SCO (Score:2)
Re:Tivo- the new SCO (Score:2)
o You have 50 years of stock data on disk. You want to calculate a 5-year moving average as efficiently as possible (particularly, minimizing disk IO).
o You have a security camera. You have a fixed number of video tapes. If you discover at some point that someone has stolen expensive electronics from your store, you want to go back as far as possible to try see who stole it.
o You want to write /
Re:Tivo- the new SCO (Score:2)
But is it the case,or the solution that's trivial? (Score:2)
Which is not to say that there aren't quite a few patents that are neither obvious nor trivial, even after you read them. And quite many that are obvious *after* you read them. But the patent office seems to be approving them all anyway, obvious before, after or never.
If there was a
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 ei
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 pos
Re:Tivo- the new SCO (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tivo- the new SCO (Score:2)
You are absolutely right.
I'm wondering if the day will ever arrive that possessing a patent will actually become a liability.
Last I read, 50% of the patent claims "defended" in court are lost.
--Richard
PS: I'm a satisfied Tivo owner.
Re:Tivo- the new SCO (Score:2)
Re:Tivo- the new SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
It is neither obvious nor trivial. Tell me who did real-time time shifting of TV shows (including watching the beginning of a show while the end of that same show is still recording) prior to TiVo. You couldn't do that with a VCR, and nobody was using PC's to time-shift at that time (and if they were, they didn't patent that feature - TiVo did).
The fact that it seems obvious and trivial now is a testament to how DVR's have changed our lives. There was nothing obvious or trivial about what they did when they were first invented, and that's the whole point of patents. DVR's are a major advance, an incredible invention, and one of the things that makes them so unique is the very feature TiVo is trying to protect.
All TiVo is asking for is a proper licensing deal, which it seems they're due, and which many other companies have with them already. This is not an SCO-like case. TiVo is not trying to claim something like they invented the hard drive and any device that uses a hard drive violates their copyright. They're saying their business is largely based on a particular feature of a particular device that they did patent before anybody else, and they're just trying to protect that patent and get Echostar to sign a licensing agreement with them, which Echostar should have done in the first place if their legal dept. was paying attention (it's very easy to look up a patent ahead of time). They're not claiming a generic feature of PC's as their own, or of any particular OS, and they're not claiming a patent on something that existed before they did. And they've owned this patent for a long time.
This is the sort of thing patent law was designed for. If you don't like patents in general, then you can argue against it on that position, though TiVo would likely be out of business without it. You can't argue, as I see it, against this specific patent, though. It's a perfectly reasonable sounding patent. Of course, IANAL.
Re:Tivo- the new SCO (Score:2)
Networks have used a five-second delay for live broadcasts to be able to bleep swearing for years. That's time-shifting. Does it make it suddenly patentable because someone used that idea in a home PVR?
Re:Tivo- the new SCO (Score:2)
Re:Tivo- the new SCO (Score:2)
The fact that it seems obvious and trivial now is a testament to how DVR's have changed our lives
which makes me ask - what is TiVo take-up like in other countries besides the US? (I'm guessing by your comment its hot stuff over there). Here in the UK TiVo is not used particularly much and as far as I know Sky's equivalent isn't either (yet, anyway). Anyon
Re:Tivo- the new SCO (Score:2)
I did it.
I used an MPEG capture card and software to record my home-made videos onto my computer. Just out of curiosity, I opend the MPEG file with a player at the same time the capture card was writing to the file.
It woked just fine (except that the CPU was VERY active)- I was timeshifting just like TIVO does
Re:Tivo- the new SCO (Score:2)
Re:Tivo- the new SCO (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with your argument, BUT then you argue...
" and if they were, they didn't patent that feature - TiVo did"
and "This is the sort of thing patent law was designed for".
Sure, but if (if if if) Tivo knew about the prior art, filed the patent anyway and is now suing competitors because their current marketshare is dimminishing, then YES they are like SCO. Pat
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
Unfortunately I disagree... (Score:2)
Then you sit them down in front of Tivo, hit pause, fast forward through the commercial, etc, and then it dawns on them. Sounds like non-obvious to me. As for
Re:Unfortunately I disagree... (Score:3, Insightful)
*sigh* (Score:5, Interesting)
when your company can't hang (Score:2, Funny)
Re:when your company can't hang (Score:3, Insightful)
They have a right and a responsibility to their stockholders to defend their IP. If this was a open source project trying to defend itself from a company stealing its code you wouldn't be attacking them...
Go Patent Office! (Score:5, Insightful)
So as prior art did they list the PC?
I'm sure I've managed to rip CDs to the hard drive as the same time I'm playing music. Sure it's audio vs video, but it amounts to the same thing don't it?
Plus, I'm not entirely sure it's valid on the non-obvious point. Not having looked at the details I would say to implement it one could just ensure that the input and output subsections are separated, and then treat them individually. Each end has enough of a memory cache to hold a few (10?) seconds of video, and the hard drive takes turns emptying the input buffer and filling the output buffer from different sections (files) on the disk.
Re:Go Patent Office! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Go Patent Office! (Score:2)
They can throw in a bunch of buzz words, like every patent in the late nineties said "... over a digital network", but the plain fact is that doing two things at once, to two files, is pretty simple. I remember reading files as I was downloading them, in the early 80s. How is this anything other than a video application of the same princi
Re:Go Patent Office! (Score:2)
There are many other combinations possible with multiple external video sources/tuners.
I don't recall the exact capabilites of them, but I know GO had dual deck VCRs in the mid 80s, certainly that would qualify as prior art against the TiVo patent.
Re:Go Patent Office! (Score:2)
Again, I don't have either product, but if it can't do those things as described in the complaint, its not quite prior art.
Prior art... (Score:5, Funny)
... by Dr. Frankenfurter:
"It's just a step to the left..."
Let's do the time warp again!
Re:Prior art... (Score:2)
I just finished setting up MythTV... (Score:2, Interesting)
- fozzy
Re:I just finished setting up MythTV... (Score:2)
TiVo needs money. Does MythTV have any money? No.
And then... (Score:2, Interesting)
The two patents in question (Score:5, Informative)
Trick Play Patent No. 6,327,418 [uspto.gov]
Time Warp Patent No. 6,233,389 [uspto.gov]
What a useless statement (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, "We'll only sue you if you don't pay us lots first. We don't WANT to litigate everybody. But we will."
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Copyright and patent laws suck. I swear, if they're going to have IP laws like this, they should teach us NOT to share in Kindergarten.
Re:What a useless statement (Score:2)
Sure, he's not suing *everybody*. Like, duh. Barring South Park, his statement is a truism (how could one literally sue everybody?). So we take the colloquial meaning of "ligitate everybody", and we have the exact practice in which he's engaging.
Even if they have a legitimate case, who in
Re:What a useless statement (Score:2)
They patented digital VCR? (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? So I guess ReplayTV and Panasonic ShowStopper paid to license this "invention" from TiVo? I find that hard to believe, but I guess it's possible. Does anyone know for sure, or is ReplayTV (now owned by Denon&Marantz) next on the lawsuit target list? Seems odd that D&M would buy the flailing Replay without thier lawyers noting that their only product depends on an unlicensed patent owned by TiVo.
Of course, this also seems to indicate that TiVo isn't doing so well these days. I had thought they were doing OK.
Finally, I have to express my displeasure that such a patent was ever awarded. If anything, whoever patented the original VCR (assuming someone did) should hold this patent as well. Moving something from tape to digital storage and processing to provide the same features is not innovative enough to deserve a patent.
Re:They patented digital VCR? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They patented digital VCR? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you've pegged the reason even meritful patent lawsuits are growing irritating - with so many co's (ab)using the courts as strategic weapons, any co. making this kind of announcement is instantly under suspicion as to its true motives.
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 ho
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
WHY? (Score:5, Insightful)
In cases like this where a company waits around to sue until it will make them the most money, rather than suing to protect their property, should have their patents revoked. Patents are only around to protect inventors, not to make the inventor money (that's what the invention is for).
Atleast... (Score:3, Interesting)
What about Panasonic, Sky+, et al? (Score:5, Insightful)
I liked the idea of Tivo (though not enough to take out a subscription even when they were in business in the UK... I don't watch *that* much TV) but this lawsuit has instantly turned me against them. Claiming IP/patent rights over an *idea* rather than a *technique* is exactly the kind of bullshit thinking that is going to kill off innovation in the West and allow countries like China and India to squash us in the future even as they laugh at our unbelievable stupidity in letting lawyers rule the roost.
Once a company starts bleating about "intellectual property" and issuing lawsuits to protect it rather than actually making a product that people want to buy, then it's doomed. Last I heard, this was a free market. If not enough people want to buy Tivos to keep the company in business, then fuck 'em.
(But in true SCO style, it probably means their share price will rise, so invest now before the company dies its inevitable hideous death!)
Who's the boss of Tivo? Is he going to become the new Darl?
let's say you design the next 'killer app' (Score:2)
and some monopoly sees it, and makes it.
just, completely ignores you..
what do you do?
do copyrights have no value or purpose in your world/ethical view?
do you know what happened to the inventors of icicle lights?
Re:What about Panasonic, Sky+, et al? (Score:3, Informative)
Since the method in TiVo's patent specifically says hard disk, I doubt it.
And in the UK, they'll also be sueing Sky (AKA News Corporation... so rather a big hitter) over their Sky+ boxes, which basically do everything a Tivo does, except that Sky+ is still in business here and Tivo isn't.
Does TiVo have a UK patent? If not, you'
Ridiculous Patents (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ridiculous Patents (Score:5, Funny)
I hereby award you worst metaphor of the day on the whole entire internet! By comparing TiVo to a train company and other PVR companies to walking, you have created the least applicable comparison posted on the web in the last 24 hours! Unfortunately, this distinction does not come with any cash reward, though expect someone who agrees with you to mod you up, even though it will be clear they do not understand the issue either! We also would have accepted comparing TiVo to either "like a car" or the Nazi's.
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:Corporate Petty Politics (Score:3, Interesting)
Exectuive -- Human translation (Score:4, Informative)
Exectuive -> Human translation:
'Our aim here is not to litigate everybody, just the people who don't pay us liscencing fees'
Meritless Case (Score:4, Funny)
If this lawsuit succeeds... (Score:2, Insightful)
patent? (Score:2)
how many times, before TiVO even existed have we all dreamed about fast forwarding through those darn commercials? they just made it a reality. no patent should exist for that, really... common sense proves prior art.
A patent should never been issued! (Score:2, Interesting)
ReplayTV (Score:3, Informative)
See here [com.com]
interesting. . . (Score:3, Informative)
Incidentally, my DishPlayer is still in service, and since they fixed the software bugs, it's actually quite reliable. My only complaints, really, are sometimes poor menu response time, and the fact that it's a rather noisy box. I'm sure some extra storage capacity would be nice, but the thing's like 4 years old.
Anyway, EchoStar bought the DishPlayer (their first PVR) technology from Microsoft. (who had, in turn, bought it from another company, as a vehicle for getting WebTV subscribers hooked on MSN - guess what? didn't work! almost zero DishPlayer subscribers I know online actually subscribe to WebTV).
The DishPlayer itself is a rather nice, and simple interface. It doesn't really do much. But what it does is simple to use. It's "OS" is BSD unix. But the client software had some really really nasty bugs a few years back. I was talking with a lawyer who was seriously considering a class action against Dish. But they backed down after Dish finally fixed the problems. Dish actually sued Microsoft and got a settlement from them for their crappy buggy-ass WebTV client software, which was killing the PVR software during schedule downloads.
So I'm wondering if they're suing EchoStar for the implementation in DishPlayer, or the implementation in the later 501 or 721 boxes - whose software was written by EchoStar, and not based on the original DishPlayer stuff.
I'm only suprised it has taken this long... (Score:3, Insightful)
Tivo and Replay TV have a patent sharing agreement among themselves, but it does not carry over to other manufacturers. Between them they own enough patents to have virtual control over the technology.
The reason I suspect they're moving now is because many of the big cable and satellite companies have built PVR functionality to their set top boxes. The nationwide releases of such products from Comcast and Echostar has already started. If it goes well, as I suspect it will, the rest of the cable world will not be far behind.
If Tivo and Replay were to allow their technology to be "rented away" in cable company set top boxes, it would likely put Tivo and Replay out of business.
I expect Replay and Tivo will both try to receive license payments from any cable companies rolling out cable-box PVR's. As well they should, they each have a very full patent portfolio covering the technology.
Bottom line, why in the world should the big cable and satellite companies get a free ride, and not have to pay for technology they didn't even develop?
Because no matter what happens in regards to licensing, the cable co's are going to make one heck of a lot of money renting these set-top PVR's. So why shouldn't the legitimate patent holders, Replay and Tivo, at least receive some licensing fees for having developed the technology in the first place? That's what patents are all about after all.
Echostar deserves this... (Score:3)
Now that I've made that clear, I want to say that I completely support TiVo in this decision. The Dish Network PVRs are complete rip-offs of TiVo, right down to the design of their remote (they even took Tivo's trademark yellow pause button!). Dish Network is clearly and obviously trying to cut in on TiVo's business, and has been recently offering free PVRs to new subscribers. TiVo has every reason to be worried that their designs are being stolen. They rightfully own the patent, and the Dish PVR is a direct rip-off on TiVo; I believe that this is a fair use of the American patent system.
That being said, I can't say much in favor of Echostar. They have been known for their cutthroat business practices (most of which do very little to benefit the company itself), and the entire company is disorganized. Just look at forums around the 'net. You will find hordes of people who all hate echostar. I should know. I subscribe to their service. Over the past year, the quality of video streamed to my house has gotten poorer and poorer as they decrease the mpeg bitrate (on some channels, pixelation is VERY obvious). Fortunately for me, I've had very few other problems with the service, and haven't had to deal much with the company... so I see no reason to switch to DirecTV. But if the opportunity presents itself, I might switch.
This isn't the first time Echostar has been in legal trouble. They seem to have a bad history of lawsuits, patent-infringments, and tons of FCC violations. Hell... their CEO is also a professional gambler.
I may as well add here that I've used the Dish PVR. It does highly resemble TiVo, but lacks its ease of use.
I also own a panasonic time-slip DVD recorder, and I can safely say that it is quite different than Tivo's time-warp feature. It comes much closer to resembling a fancy VCR than a PVR.
Prior art probably won't be an issue. Sure, most of the geeks claim it was possible back in '96, but in all practicality, it wasn't possible with consumer-grade hardware. A Pentium-100 simply lacked the power to record and play NTSC resolution video simultaneously... not to mention that you'd fill up that 2gb hard drive very very quickly. The only thing I can think of that would allow such a "Time-Warp" would be the Amiga video Toaster; those date way back farther than '96.
Re:Wasnt the DishPlayer 7100... (Score:3, Informative)