Slashdot Mirror
TiVo Granted PVR Patents
mnip sent in a Reuters story about TiVo getting patents on its digital television recording technology (also see their press release). Here's one of them - recording one program while watching another.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
From the Patent:.
However, a VCR cannot both capture and play back information at the same time.
Oh, I guess this doesn't exist then: http://www.videoverdicts.com/hardware/govideo.htm
Patents can kiss my ass.
There are however a couple (the ones around closed captioning) which do seem to me to be genuinely unique and probably deserving of patenting
- Microsoft patents ultimate TV. bad. Bill is evil. Patents are evil.
- Tivo patents TiVo good. Linux is ready for the desktop!
Thanks, I feel much better now.You may feel differently when TIVO buys the farm and someone a little less fun and friendly (howzabout MSFT?) picks up their patent portfolio.
Let's look at the numbers:
Sales: 4.5m
Income: -225.4m
Total Cash: 124.5m
Do the math!
Yeah, but there's also Claim 24: attaching a "multimedia recording device, including a VCR to the output allowing the user to record the TV output".
The common dane consumer probably can't grok the idea of playing mp3's while ripping mp3's either. That doesn't make it an idea worthy of patenting. What tivo does is merely a side effect of the fact that the the underlying technology can do multiple things at once.
The revolver was the result of centuries of effort. It's not even close to being comparable to what a TiVo does.
Should the like of Commander Data finally be developed in 2364. THEN, that would be a comparable. Quite simply, no one in computer science has been putting in that much effort for that long on ANYTHING.
Yet still, the revolver patent's primary effect was to stall subsequent technological progress. This is especially saddening since the history of firearms clearly shows that the mere utility of "getting it to work" was sufficient enough to motivate research.
Dangling carrots over the heads of would-be Robber Baron simply wasn't necessary.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Get over it.
It's just a PC.
PCs can do little tricks like "view previously recorded data" while "recording new data".
This is called multitasking.
Even my Atari ST could do it.
The only thing that has changed is the particular nature of the data. It's still just one's and zeros. The bits are just "designated" as "video".
H*ll, I might even have pulled off watching one CyberStudio video while downloading another...
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Patent is meant to encourage research. It's not meant to make people rich. If the research involved is meagre, then the reward should be meagre.
Tivo isn't living up to their end of the bargain. They should not be rewarded for loafing. This is a very basic and fundemental idea in capitalism.
Tivo shouldn't get something for nothing here. It simply doesn't encourage them to make genuine contributions to the state of the art.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
There are probably sci-fi novels from the 50's that describe such devices in concept. This really isn't very intresting stuff. What the Tivo does is just a property of general purpose computers.
TiVO's work, their REAL work, is in their software. That is already protected by copyright. What they don't, or rather shouldn't, have the right to do is to claim ownership to the idea of a jukebox with a recording device.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If cheap MPEG encoders had hit the market sooner, every one and his MOTHER would have come up with shareware that would be able to do this crap on anyone's PC.
DOING TWO THINGS AT ONCE ON A COMPUTER IS NOT NOVEL!
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It would depend on how they word the patent when it finally passes whether or not we should get our collective knickers in a twist. If they are getting a patent on thier unique way of using a hard drive and support electronics to allow you to record a show while watching another, then they are justified in getting a patent on it. It is after all, thier innovation that came up with the TiVO system in the forst place and there will be copycatters if they're not carefull On the other hand if they are getting a patent on the concept of record/watch another, then they are asking to get thier arses sued off for the next three generations. Ever hear of PiP (Picture in Picture) TV's? After all they have been doing that since the mid 80's. In order to use that feature you had to have a seperate tuner for the other channel...that usually was a VCR of some flavor. and if you have that setup, you can watch one show, record and monitor the other show as well. If it's the first case then TiVO is well in thier rights...if it's the other case then both TiVO and the Patent Office needs a good swift kick in the scroglies with a pair of steel-toed boots. Phoenix
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
It's just a jump to the left...
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that Ultimate TV did in fact use Tivo as its service provider...
"UNIX" is never having to say you're sorry.
UltimateTV is a join venture of MS and TiVo.
Like hell. UltimateTV is Microsoft's competitor of TiVo. TiVo is partnered with AOL, not Microsoft.
The UNIX more command does the same thing. If, for example, you do a "find | more", you can read the contents at the start of the file (pipe) while the end of it is still being written. "tail -f" can be loosely argued as doing the same thing.
Which is a fair indication that UTV doesn't contain an MPEG encoder and probably stores the incoming DirecTV signal which is already compressed. That would certainly make it cheaper than having two decoders so that it can record two shows at once, just decode on playback.
Not sure how the Tivo would record two signals at once if its only getting one from your satellite receiver? .. unless the Tivo itself is the satelitte receiver/tuner, in which case does it work with DirecTV and Dish Network?
--
Delphis
Delphis
It's not a patent on a bottle cap, it's a patent on a linerless bottle cap. The distinction is important. They're not claiming to have invented putting a cap on a bottle of your favorite beverage, they've just invented perhaps a better way of doing it. R&D money would be wasted if there was no way to protect one's investment.
UltimateTV is a join venture of MS and TiVo
One of the most important deals about what TiVo does that sets it apart from Dad & the VCR is that not only can you watch something on TV and record something at the same time, but...
TiVo allows you to watch something you have recorded while RECORDING something else. Try that with a VCR... it can't be done. Of course, the hairsplitters might say "Sure, it can be done. Simply use two VCRs." But that gets away from the whole "PERSONAL" TV Recorder when you are doing multiple appliances...
Jethro
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
You can't do random-access while recording with a VCR because it's not physically possible to do that with tape. But every method of storing data on a computer has pretty much allowed it, and I fail to see how allowing the sort of access to the data files that's been standard for 30+ years is original either.
I'd say this is a bad patent though. What they describe is exactly a VCR, except that the VCR splits the audio and video before encoding instead of encoding before splitting. That's because of the mechanics of the way things are stored, though, and follows directly from those mechanics so it's hardly novel or original. Oh, and a VCR uses magnetic tape and doesn't compress the signal, but then the idea of compressing data for storage has been around for decades ( SEA ARC, anyone? ) and everyone's done it for storing any kind of audio or video since the beginning. I'm afraid I don't consider making a VCR using a hard drive instead of tape and MPEG-1 video and audio instead of NTSC video and audio particularly original.
But they'll probably win any challenges because nobody'll challenge it based on those grounds.
The fact that it does something that wasn't done before isn't enough to make it patentable. It has to do something that wasn't done before, that's original enough that a competent practitioner in that field wouldn't think of it immediately. VCRs exist. Every feature they're claiming on the TiVo is already standard in every streaming-audio/video editing package out there. Making a VCR based around standard computer storage instead of a tape isn't exactly an incredible leap, especially not after things like the Rio did it for audio-only applications.
Face it, not every invention is patentable. Yes, this means there's things the business types can't lock up and monopolize. Life's tough, deal.
Obviously someone didn't bother to read the link before posting a reply...
It is for watching a RECORDED program while recording another, something you couldn't do with a (single deck) VCR.
The patent also specifies that it is encoded in MPEG.
This is not an overly broad patent. As written, I don't think ReplayTV even violates it.
Is TiVo looking to get bought out by Microsoft? I mean, isn't that how MS has always delt with companies that could possibly have patent on something they wanted to "invent"?
--
I just read the patent that was linked to as recording one program while watching another. It doesn't seem to be that. It more seems to be for watching the program you are recording.
I think everyone knows that is already done. But the patent describes a little farther that the input is converted into MPEG format (could I patent the same technology using AVIs, or QT?) and that the MPEG is then decoded and sent to the output.
This way various effected can be applied to the video stream in real time. Such as pausing live television.
--
So, recording and playing different streams is not hard with this architecture. Getting it all to work without underruns is not entirely trivial.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the current patent system what grants many "obvious" ideas patents, but in the grand scheme of things, the TiVo patents have more to them than many. At least, that's my opinion, I could be wrong :-)
Just another happy TiVo user (hacked HDR212 with 100GB disk space)
Tim
You have won the very prestigious
[ Troll Of The Day Award ]
Congratulations, and condolences to your relatives.
Exacty what is it that is "non obvious" about encoding a TV signal to MPEG and striping it to disk so you can play it back while it records? (Sure you have to use buffers, but still.)
It's not new technology, it's not new ideas. Putting it in a box with a remote may be a new idea but that doesn't mean it's a very hard idea to come up with.
What if Tivo is just holding on to the patent because they know how stupid the system is. Maybe making sure nobody else can exploit it?
Holy fuck. That must be some slick tech. They deserve a patent on that. They're gonna rule the world, what with all that time warping crap. They'll be popping around space-time getting tomorrow's stock prices, basketball game winners, etc.. They're gonna be Gods! We should all send them our first born sons to appease them, too.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
I read the patent abstract. They've described a subset of a video server. Video servers in the professional broadcast market predate the patent filing by at least five years. For example, the HP (now Pinnacle) MediaStream video servers or the Tektronics (now GVG) Profile video disk recorders both constitute prior art for this Completely Bogus Patent.
I don't see anything in this patent which was not thought of, implemented, and shipped to customers by HP and Tek prior to the filing of this patent. I'm amazed that the Patent Office did such a remarkable bad job at checking the prior art in this case.
They just started about the same time, maybe even earlier than Tivo. Webtv started in 1995 and had units already in beta by 1997 (Microsoft bought WebTV at this time). Tivo was introduced in CES on January 1999. In May 99 Echostar introduced the Dishplayer (which nobody ever mentions when they talk about PVRs, why is that?). The Dishplayer is a satelite receiver with an integrated PVR (much like DirectTivo) and WebTV services. UltimateTV is actually a 3rd generation product: WebTV -> Dishplayer-> UltimateTV.
Anyway, Tivo has the patent now so they are screwed.
I'm not going to debate whether or not
this patent is valid. Tivo certainly spawned
this industry, they do deserve some credit.
If they use this patent to protect themselves
rather than stifle competition, I'm all for it.
That's what they were intended for.
However, (hehe), if they do start suing people,
then they're probably going to end up suing...
Microsoft, and Microsoft's Ultimate TV I've been
seeing. It does pretty much the same thing.
In that event, either they get a huge settlement
from Microsoft, they lose and it draws more judicial attention to the area of bad patents.
However, I'm an optimist.
Most likely, some horrible evil corporate
outcome will result, the scope of which
I can't bring myself to think of.
Oh well.
Slackergod out.
All VCRs are capable of simultaneously recording and playing back information at the same time..
There are a few VCRs with dual transports that could pull this off, but that's a long ways from "all".
Being able to watch one program while recording another has been a common feature of most VCR's 20 years ago.
"Watch" <> "Play back".
Tivo (and Replay) can record one program while it plays back a previously recorded program.
will they now have to pay royalities??
Stop granting "things my mother does" patents.
The poster then goes on to quote a technical part of the patent that your mother would presumably be unlikely to do/think up.
And yes, I think you are reading this wrong. IANAL either, but I think the patent is not on time warping in general, but on Tivo's specific implementation of it.
OK, you need a little perspective. Go get yourself a Voodoo 3 3500 TV, or an All-in-Wonder. These things do pretty much what the patent describes, so I give TiVo no credit for having "a unique and novel application".
They are just trying to nail down their position in a market a little late.
Just because a lot fo slashdot readers like them, does not mean they are incapable of abusing the system.
Troll Like a Champion Today
If you actually read TiVo's patents, you will find that they are quite specific. There is mention of MPEG compression, use of specific temporary buffering methods, and methods for taking load off of the CPU. I doubt that your "prior art" would apply in this case.
Waitaminute, why is the logo for the Patents topic a picture of silverware? How is that relevant? Just occurred to me how little sense that makes....
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Anyone who has put a frame grabber in their PC or workstation and written software that compresses live video and writes it to the disk, and there must be hundreds of us, recognizes (in about 30 seconds) that they can record one stream while playing back another. It's a simple matter of CPU cycles (or hardware support, which Tivo uses) and disk bandwidth. Isn't the patent requirement that the technique or concept be nonobvious to someone experienced in the art?
TiVo is the best commercial product I've ever bought. I've got a Sony 30hr model, modded with a 80gig Maxtor drive( now 130hr ). Basic cable is now finally worth $35. I recommend everyone pick one up, even if you don't want to spend $750 to fully trick it out.
Boy have you got that right. I will probably get slammed for saying this, but this just goes to show how hipocritical slashdotter's can be. If it was Microsoft who came up with this first, then they'd be crying foul. They'd hve at least a hundred prior art examples posted by now. In it's purest form, this is just a computer multitasking! Tivo should focus on there content rather than there "inovation".
Most slashdotter's could easily build a clone. Then start a project to collect information from the Stations to be placed in a DB, and WOW, you have a Tivo product.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
I wonder how this impacts competitors. While I have been hesitant to support any business patents, this does seem a little bit more than "one click purchase" type patents we have seen come lately.
Does ultimate TV violate the patent, or are they clear because they allow you to tape two shows at once? Obviously, IANAL however, we have heard from some in the past. It would be interesting to have resident legal opinions available. Compare/Contrast type.
Two tuners!? This might exist in some TV VCR combo boxes, but I know for sure that it exists in many homes. Sure it's two boxes, or one tuner per box, but we've all watched something while the VCR has taped something else. The logical extension was to place two tuners in a box. I like my government stupid, sure, just not stupid AND powerful.
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
My Dad has one of the patents that I would consider prior art. But I guess we'll let the lawyers sort it all out. One clear difference with my dad's is that he described independent read and write heads, which seems to be unnecessary complexity considering the speed of hard drives these days, and the benefit derived from using off-the-shelf parts.
Here are links to the time-shifting patent and some other interesting ones...
Oh crap! I taped Voyager while I watched a ball game last night! Am I in trouble?
I won't watch it! I promise!
Yeah, but they didn't write any of the fucking code! Exactly what are they patenting. make install??????????
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
Er, is that MPEG2 or MPEG4?
If MPEG2 is specified then build a MPEG4 device - that should be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art. If they are claiming all MPEG compressions then the patent is surely over-broad.
----
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
If I may paraphrase your comment, you are basically saying: "I don't understand the patent system".
Let's say that I'm a researcher working on high-efficiency solar panels. I develop a new, laminated-diamond solar cell which is far more efficient than existing techniques. I apply for a patent on it.
Your response is: "It's just not valid to say your solar panel is novel just because you use laminated diamond". That is, you are saying that because solar cells are old hat, my super-high-efficiency solar cell isn't any different. The patent office (and researchers working in the field) would tell you differenty.
Regardless of your personal opinion on the matter, the patent system is pretty clear on this (IANAL, but I have gone through the patent application process before). The only way that you could claim this application was invalid based on your argument is to say that it's "obvious" to use MPEG and hard disks to store video, given the prior invention of a VCR or other relevant technology.
More specifically, that it would be obvious to an engineer of average skill working in the relevant field to move toward this technology. Given how long after MPEG became available it took for someone to develop a TiVo-like device, and the fact that most people seem to think the TiVo was a neat, innovative technology, "obvious" is a bit of a long shot. I should also point out that the claim is less broad than that - it applies to TiVo's specific technology for doing this, not the very broad "MPEG and hard disks" claim.
Yes, VCRs have been done. They are properly referenced in the prior art section of this patent. But unless there was a prior invention either exactly the same or close enough to this one that the progression is "obvious", this patent is perfectly valid.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
What about a dual-deck VCR? I never had one, but surely they could do this, yes/no?
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
I can't resist "slamming" you on this one. Most slashdotters are aware that Microsoft was formed by plagerizing CPM. Since the company is based off of stealing other people ideas then why start giving them slack now? Maybe we should start liking them for forcing manufactures to only sell PC's with their OS installed? Sorry but I think slashdotters have plenty of reasons to HATE Microsoft and I don't see how they are being hypocritical.
There are 100's of other examples why they are never to be trusted. I only choose the two most obvious. Type Microsoft in a search engine if you need to learn more.
Also Tivo has been really nice to the "hacker community" and not come down on them for hacking the Tivo.
Their is a difference in thinking up and idea and stealing someone elses labor.
The Standalone TiVo box only has one tuner, but it works with regular cable or antenna TV. DirecTiVo and ultimatetv are only for satellite; they don't have mpeg encoders.
There's a HOW-TO on this.
It is really easy to take a look at a finished product and declare how anyone could have thought of it.
Yes it is.
But this really is an obvious idea. A friend and I sere speculating about this back in the 1990-91 timeframe.
There is no innovation that should be patentable by marying existing parts in a fairly obvious way. This really is a case of TiVo just getting it together first, lining up capital, marketing, etc. Just because they implemented it first, should not qualify for a patent.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
Well, you're right that many of the claims in that specific patent would apply to a tv studio, but my point was actually that the specific combination of claims seems pretty narrow and focused. For example, the parts about what specific features the device must perform, and what goes on the remote control, and the use of MPEG. These seem pretty well focused around having the patent apply to consumer products, not tv studios.
Of course, we'll have to see how TiVo tries to use their patents.
Finally, amongst all the other "Stupid Patent Approval" and "Boycott Amazon" stories, we get one that's actually entertaining. Go TiVo.
The Simpsons is on 3 times(5:30, 6:00, and 10:00) every weekday and once on Sundays (although they have been running multiple shows recently). I picked up a TiVO just for that. Pipe the TiVO's output to you video card, record all the shows, put them on your web server and you have simpsonNET. A new thing for you boss to ban. Call me Bear Baron.
So congratulations to them, they made a cool technology, won the patent, and should make a sufficient amount of money in the patent license to MS (you know they will) for UTV not to matter much.
Well done: a good idea from the '90s that didn't die last year.
Actually, DishPlayer from Dish Network was first to market.
Don't worry guys, I have some prior art... 2 VCRs. I can stick one on record and one on play and everything works fine.
Seriously, this patenting something that does 2 obvious things at once is stupid... or else I should patent my device to hold bread in a vertical position, and make it warm at the same time!
not_cub
q='echo "q=$s$q$s;s=$b$s;b=$b$b;$q"';s=\';b=\\;echo "q=$s$q$s;s=$b$s;b=$b$b;$q"
So just recording one channel while watching another isn't patent-worthy, but choosing a format in which to store the movie suddenly makes it patent-worthy?
Quicksort has been around for awhile, but maybe I can get a patent on implementing quicksort specifically in Fortran?
And tell me what about this method isn't obvious. MPEG format? Now there's a clever choice for storing video...
We're not talking about everything you can do with a TiVo. We're talking about a patent.
And what do you gain by trying to be inflammatory?
Or sit-com writers stealing plot ideas to get a jump on their competing shows. Oh, wait. Given every sit-com I've seen in the past few years I think that's already been done. :)
The PVR (both TiVo and ReplayTV) hacking community is really quite a large and active...
Here are some exceptionally helpful resources:
Have fun...
+++++++++++++++++++++
The Digital Sorceress
As a wage slave of the "No Such Agency" this patent idea is way old hat folks, this was done about 15 years ago with mainframes.
Picture six independant channels of media, you can record simultaneously on five of them and playback on the sixth, and even capture media after the fact ("I really only want to record ten minutes out of the last three hours of stuff"), and I've been wishing for years that someone would tach the basic tech that we used (and has since been replaced) and make it consumer-level.
I doubt that the people who engineered this stuff will come up and claim prior art, but this has been done before, a long time ago.
Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
In response to the assertion that the patent is narrow in scope, I will differ. I can't help but notice that TiVo used "Motion Picture Entertainment Group" in a generic sense rather than specifying MPEG2 specifically. When MPEG4 rolls out, will VP manufacturers still be constrained by the TiVo patent? I have bought the last two ATI All in Wonder generations, and I have to say I agree that it is prior art which should invalidate this patent. Additionally, I think the "obviousness" argument is solid as well. When I bought my TiVo, it wasn't obvious to me that it had this capability, but as a designer, it would have come up in the discussions quite early. I must say, I am a huge fan of TiVo, but I think this patent application epitomizes exploitation of the Patent Office's glaring ignorance in this sector.
Its too expensive too keep innovating for most companies but to patent and milk money over even the most obvious parts of their previous innovations is a cheap way to keep their older stuff exclusive. Many companies make most of their money off of liscensing rather than innovating. Its easier to say, "this is all mine" than "hey lets get our R&D dep. together and try to do this".
In 1843 Patent Office Commissioner Henry Ellsworth reported to Congress that "the advancement of the arts, from year to year, taxes our credulity and seems to presage the arrival of that period when human improvement must end." Hmmph. However, before you judge Ellsworth too harshly, remember that the internet of 1843 used two steel rails and a locomotive to transfer packets. In 1966 Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry patented Time Warping as a specific transportation method for large spaceships, but did not mention implementations involving MPEG compression. TiVo's brilliant patent application not only puts the lie to those who say everything that can be invented has been invented, but also shows that there's still some juice to be squeezed from the rinds of more recent patents. Who would have thought that an ingenious method for moving starships at transluminal speeds could also be used to allow recording one television show while watching another? Of course, before you judge this failure to foresee the future too harshly, remember that the internet of 2001 uses copper wires and computers with mechanical CPU coolers to transfer packets. Watch this space for my own upcoming patent: a method of watching Star Trek while one-clicking the remote in real time to see what else is on in the PIP window.
You know, I seem to recall my father recording his favorite shows on a VCR whenever my mother wanted to watch something else.
They also seemed to record stuff for me (when I was little) while they were watching... Its a shame TIVO didn't exist in the 80's. But, I wonder if my parents have patent on recording while watching?
you just have a crap soundcard that can't handle a few extra audio inputs happening at the same time..
It would be fantastic; a huge cluster of Tivo's simultaneous recording and distilling all broadcasted tranmissions for my viewing pleasure....all to the conclusion of there is nothing on TV that's any good....
there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
I was surprised that no one mentioned ReplayTV who's lunch appears to have been eaten by TIVO.
Is anyone sufficiently knowledgable about ReplyTV to access whether the TIVE paten(s) might utilize ReplayTV's prior art. I don't own either, but was just wondering ...
My old Hauppage card does mpeg-1 recording, but it only has one tuner, so you have to watch the same thing you record.
I wonder if anyone ever put more than one hauppage TV tuner cards in a computer - and (*gasp*) used them at the same time.
Oh yeah?!?!?
Can you record AND play Q3TA at the same time? Didn't think so.
So there.
Blarf.
TiVo is a software company, more precisely a Linux software company. They don't make any hardware, just the software. Now what on earth would TiVo have to do with UTV, which runs WinCE?
Not to mention (from UTV's web site): "UltimateTV® SERVICE IS DEVELOPED BY WebTV Networks, INC., A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF Microsoft."
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
In the DirecTivo, which is the direct competitor to UltimateTV, since both require a DirecTV source, there are 2 tuners built in. Tivo has not activated the second tuner in it's software. Tivo hope to have an update this summer that will enable the second tuner.
My experience with the AIW is that Win98 resources are so pathetic, it probably cannot do these things. When I am running the TV window I can't play an audio clip (audio, mind you) with the Windows sound recorder. The necessary Windows (whatever) resource is already in use! And that is just audio, imagine threading a video resource! MS sure couldn't imagine that.
Since "there" referred to the discussion about the patent system I guess you mean they were were killed over a patent dispute, forgive me for being inconsiderate... I didnt know Hitler killed them over IP rights. Just goes to show, the concept of IP leads to misery.
Why? If they remain innovative they will retain their market share, if they stop innovating why do they deserve rewards just for being the FP'er?
Its all a matter of taste... there is no right or wrong there, only opinion.
The timewarp feature Id be willing to let slide, although Im pretty sure they had simular delay systems in television for JIT editing purposes which could be seen as prior art, but the more algorithmic patents (like the storage format stuff) rubs me the same way as every other algorithmic patent... the wrong one.
Might be able to get them on trivial and onvious, but probably not prior art.
Although I would have thought there were a few video editing systems kicking about that do this.
To futher clarify (I hope) TiVo branded units are currently manufactured and/or sold by two companies, Sony and Philips. As far as I know, the units are very nearly identical, differing only slightly in firmware, the appearance of the case, and the remote control that comes with the system. I have a Sony unit.
UTV and TiVo are two completely separate services. Just go to Best Buy or Circuit City and see the differences in the inferfaces. ONe of the biggest being that UTV only works with DirecTV, while TiVo can work with either coax or a sat dish setup.
I cant understand it. Does it mention anything about watching one program while recording another ON ANOTHER CHANNEL? My tivo doesnt do that and its a MAJOR PAIN IN THE ASS. And believe it or not I live alone, I cant imagine what its like for families. I do understand that some of this difficulty lies in the speed of encoding and decoding, and others are that tivo is usually downstream from a cable box and will only get one signal at a time. I guess they need to put a cable box inside tivo so they can tune, split and descramble the signal any way they want
Sneakemail is to spam filters what an ounce of prevention is to a pound of cure.
Anyone recall the "Video Toaster Flyer" ? A lot more complicated version of this. (www.newtek.com)
The original Video Toaster didn't capture video, it was only a effects/transition device.
The flyer was the NLE tool (Non-Linear-Editing).
Any equipment equiped with mpeg-encoding hardware could also do this. Sometimes even ones without the hardware can do it (600Mhz x86 processor required to encode and playback in software at the same time.)
IMO, the TiVo is not a bad idea, but I think the purpose of the patent is to get the drop on other TiVo clones (Microsofts specifically, Isn't the Xbox going to be able to do this as well?) which is what patents are for.
However, Videocards equiped with TV-tuners have been able to do this for a long time already. The ATI All in Wonder 128 was the first one to have direct to mpeg encoding, but the original All in Wonder let you record things and watch other recorded things at the same time anyways.
Uh, ReplayTV (which is not Tivo) can do this.
And while I don't know which came out first, I know that I heard about ReplayTV first...
Sean.
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It's a result of the Walker Digital strategy of patenting business ideas. Nobody wants to think up of stuff, spend millions of $$$ to bring it to market and have somebody else copy and sell it cheaper. People only want to enjoy the fruits of their labors and new ideas. It's the American way.
Nah, they're already importing the things over here in the UK...
Errr...reading claim-1 of the patent (IANAL, but my understanding is that it is in the claims of a patent where it all matters), it describes a digital-VCR process which coverts an input TV signal into MPEG, writes that MPEG to a hard drive, reads an second MPEG stream from the same hard drive, and coverts it into a output TV signal. All simultaneosly.
Sorry, but that's pretty cool, especially for 3 years ago. It's also the basis of TiVo's business, and given the dozen reference to prior art, it looks to me like they invented it. So...what's the hangup? Are *all* patents evil? This one certaintly doesn't claim anything about *watching* TV, it describes a process for recording it that's not possible with convential single-tape VCR's. So, why the fuss?
So, Now that Ultimate TV has begun its marketing, What will become of them? And while I like TiVo, and feel they are actually a Good business, Doesnt ReplayTV have prior art? Interesting patent. At least TiVo got it, and not Microsoft. Because at least TiVo follows the GPL and releases the source to the updates they made to Linux. That alone makes me think highly of them.
Linux: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
James Brents
Since it seems that, as far as the abstract states, that they are limiting the patent to a digital version of the 'watch one thing, record another', with mention of some of the breakdown of how they do it, it looks as if this is actually a decent patent of technology. I can't think of any prior art which would cause this to be invalid (the VCR is different enough).
More power to TiVo.
EFGearman
Atomic batteries to power! Turbines to speed!
If this is patentable, then I suppose I could get a patent for a machine that records any kind (or some kinds) of digital information from MP3 to MPEG to .gif to regular CD or CSS DVD to software to HTML downloads to any other format that gets created in the future, since it's all just bits.
I could also say that the machine could accept downloads from many different sources of many different kinds of digital data at once. I could also say that the machine will be able to tell what kind of digital information each of the downloads is and place it in locations where it can be found again on the drive.
I Could also say that the machine will come equipped with playback programs that allow me to use any previously downloaded data while downloading more data of any form. The playback program might only be downloaded at the time of use, or might contain a special key perhaps based on customer information and the digital data being used to make sure everyone's getting paid. Or, it might have to feed a key into the playback device which gets sent only after you show you have a license to use this data. Since many of the downloads could not be used all at one time, I could use my playback devices to use things that are in the process of being download by allowing access to the parts that have been downloaded.
I could also say that the machine will come equipped with "rights management" software and hardware that makes sure that someone has paid the proper fees in order to use the digital information each time it's used. This could include things like using .net to spellcheck your document or running a patented algorithm in your spreadsheet and having to pay a small fee each time. Or, in fact the rights management software would be able to track what kind of licensing each piece of digital information has on it, and how that customer is licensed to use it. Perhaps someone pays 100 dollars for unlimited use of a movie, while someone else pays 5 dollars each time the view the movie. Each device or household or person would have an individual licensing status with respect to each piece of digital data, and would pay according to that status for each piece of data.
I could say that the device would make sure that all downloads are only from "approved" sources, so that you wouldn't be able to get a download from someone else.
And hey, let's take it one step farther...the machine will download any kind of data in any currently known or future format from any number of "warehouses" on demand, thereby freeing me from having to have infinite drive space. The licensing and rights would be taken care of automatically at download time by plugging into the machine owner's credit card or bank account or some other kind of account to make sure they can actually use this digital information at this time.
Can I get a patent on this idea? If it's a nonobvious leap going from saving an audio stream while listening to another to doing it with video AND audio, then why not patent this machine. :P Gee I feel so nonobvious and clever today.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Okay.. so here we have a media, television. It is only being recognized recently as a profound mode of expression, for instance by the archiving of TV that will be going on in massive scale at The Internet Archive
Constitutionally speaking, the right to collect, index and archive TV information any way you want to is equivalent to your right to read any book in a public library (which isn't always the case but that's another story...)
A lot of the time, there is something in a fleeting news broadcast or a commercial that is important in a future investigation. That's why lots of groups and people release information on TV that they want to have a short lifespan.
We have to keep this information. The internet is nowhere near as influential a news source as the television medium, especially in countries where computer ownership is less prevalent. By putting a charge on recording, TiVo seriously compromises our right to free speech.
Goat sex free since 2001
Guys, SONY professional systems has had a "newsroom" version of this kind of stuff around since the early 90s. It wasn't self-contained in one neat box, but it did record signal to disk, and allow for multiple stream. It cost about 20K or so as I recall. We had one at ABC News when I worked there.
I like the "multimedia time warping system" bit. It might violate the Temporal Prime Directive however.
'Same speed C but faster'
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
I do not believe that this is not simply "recording one program while watching another."
What they are describing in most of this is the "pause, rewind, fast forward" features of TiVo, and how a this is CAPABLE with VCRs, but a pain in the ass.
However, a VCR cannot both capture and play back information at the same time. One approach to solving this problem is to use several VCRs. For example, if two video tape recorders are available, it might be possible to Ping-Pong between the two. In this case, the first recorder is started at the beginning of the program of interest. If the viewer wishes to rewind the broadcast, the second recorder begins recording, while the first recorder is halted, rewound to the appropriate place, and playback initiated.
Hey, maybe I'm wrong, wouldn't be the first time! *grin*
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
I was wondering the same thing myself. Are all these cards which already had the capability to view & record from cable TV input going to be eliminated? Or have to pay royalties to Tivo?
Here's a link to the Matrox eTV card
v /h ome.cfm
http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/marv_g450_et
IIRC the UTV can record at different bitrates, therefore I would think that it has an encoder.
You're right. But this is more a question of implementation than invention. If Tivo's patenting some very specific techniques or devices that they've invented to get things to work, that's great. But to simply claim the ability to record and play back simultaneously (even if it is only in the context of a PVR) still strikes me as mucky.
the TiVo patents have more to them than many
Well, they have more to them than many of the patents posted here on Slashdot. But since the patents posted here are generally the most egregious, I'm not sure what that says. There are still plenty of good solid patents being filed, they're just buried under an avalanche of garbage. Perhaps Slashdot should post a sturdy patent from time to time, to give us all a good frame of reference.
ooops.... I only got implied verbal consent to record the RedSox game, not express written consent. I think I'm heading for a penance race.
I believe the majority of this patent will be thrown out on the basis of prior art. Here's some quick examples:
Claim 8: circular buffers have been used in broadcast TV and radio for years for "bleepers" (audio/video censoring devices).
Claim 12 and 13: Come on, a patent on FF and RW of digital video? Media Player, anyone? Video Toaster has already been mentioned as well.
Claim 14: Looks like they've claimed on-screen displays of timecodes and other metadata, used in VCRs and TVs for years. The technology used for superimposing video, chromakey, has been around even longer.
Claim 15: Decoding the VBI to determine program start--used in commercial-skipping VCRs for years.
Claim 16: Decoding closed-captioning for recording triggers was used years ago in a program that came with my PC TV card from Happauge.
Claim 24-25: Now if we hook our VCRs up to our PVRs to transfer to tape we are violating their patent.
Claim 26: Scheduled recording?!?
Claim 28: They've patented speeding up the video (time compression) to fit backup media (e.g., VHS). This has been done for years in audio--I've used it at my church to compress a longer sermon onto a CD to avoid a two-CD collection for that week.
The remainder of the claims involve the PVR idea itself (I thought Replay was first?--not sure) and the ways each software component works with the others for smooth playback and response (many of which may be already patented or at least prior art in video editing suites such as Adobe Premiere). Of course, patents involve not just the individual components, but the invention as a whole, but I still don't think this will pass muster in any fair-minded court.
How are you alive?
Actually, from their site, they say you can "Watch a video while recording from TV, Cable, or Satellite".
Hey, I own a TiVo and I love it. I am not implying that TiVo is the same as a VCR. Not even in the least. I'm pointing out what I consider to be very similar technologies from 15 years ago. Because those technologies are so similar, the concepts TiVo has patented seem to me to be somewhat obvious extrapolations.
When ReplayTV and TiVo were first announced, my reaction was, "It's about time." I've been dreaming of something like this for at least 15 years. Even so, if TiVo had gotten a patent for Season Passes or their Suggestions algorithm, I'd have no problem with them getting that patent. However, recording MPEG streams to disk in such a way that you can play back the streams from one end while still recording them from the other strikes me as obvious. Maybe their algorithm is unique, but the concept itself is hardly revolutionary.
Once upon a time, I had an idea for a concept that I thought might be worth pursuing. I briefly spoke with a patent attorney to find out if the idea was patentable. He informed me that one of the standards for getting a patent is that the idea must be non-obvious. In other words, someone else should not have easily been able to come up with exactly the same idea as you.
TiVo's patent is fairly lengthy and technical, so I have to confess I haven't really read it in detail, but at least some of the concepts in the patent strike me as being quite obvious. After all, if you're going to record a video stream to disk, wouldn't you want to use MPEG to do that?
Playing back something that's been digitally recorded while it's being recorded may be a new concept, but it's hardly non-obvious. To me, it's a natural extension of playing the same recording back to multiple outputs simultaneously, with each output queued to a different part of the recording.
I knew a guy who was building digital answering machines for dialup information services back in the mid-80s. He could have 10 people simultaneously listening to the same recorded message, with all 10 people listening to different parts of the message.
Maybe I'm just a moron, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how TiVo's patent is so radically different from what the digital answering machine guy built back in the 80s.
it uses a dual LNB system and yes the direcTivo is itself a direcTV receiver, you replace your existing one and swap the cards when you purchase it. It doesn't work with dish.
> Its not obvious as you think it would be.
> Without fail, when I describe my TIVO to
> people, they think it sounds pretty mundane,
> and worth not much more than a VCR.
It is irrelevant whether it is "not obvious" to you,
your grandmother or other lay people. It should be "not obvious" to people skilled in the art.
> Its very easy to sit on the sidelines and
> snipe at what people have done. Everything
> is obvious in retrospect.
I didn't read the patent in detail so
I will just snipe at you. Just because you
like a product doesn't mean the patent is justified.
> Was this really OBVIOUS in 1998?
If you are referring to playing video from the
hard drive, YES IT WAS. You may want to check
what people did in research labs even much before
1998.
I have three vcrs and a cable splitter.
I've been storing one set of incoming signals to a magnetic media while viewing another set of signals on the screen. User commands are input through the Universal Remote (I got it at Circuit City, IIRC)
How can they patent this?????
my
I agree with you totally (on the 5 year lifetime aspect) because how many products (in the technology sector) are still useful after that amount of time? Also, here's food for thought: the patent system should require information on how much it cost you to do your so-called "research"... If you genuinely spent a million bucks on research, then you should be granted a longer patent, or be allowed to charge more for royalties. (DAMN I'm on a french keyboard and can't find any of the *$*$ keys).. Or here's another idea, make patent owners required to license out their tech, and put limits on how much they can charge based on costs to research it in the first place... I'm not saying that these ideas could work, but it's food for thought anyways. Anyone have any comments???
If God gave us curiosity
I don't mean to be glib about this (well, maybe a little), but where is your device you speculated about? What? Just speculating about a product isn't enough to magically make a finished device appear???
Just thinking about the fact that torching gas makes a nice explosion that can be harnessed, isn't the same thing as designing an internal combustion engine. A lot more work went into the design of the TiVo that just thinking about writing an MPEG stream to disk.
In fact, go back and re-read the patent. You will see that it is much more specific than what 90% of the posts here seem to think it is.
______
______
Once: you're a philosopher. Twice: a pervert.
It's called a VCR. Record something while watching another. Duh!
Well if you look closely at their pattent, it says:
"The TV streams are converted to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation and are parsed and separated it into video and audio components."
Note that it doesn't say *WHICH* MPEG format, that means that they get the patent for MPEG1, MPEG2 (which is what they use), or DIVX.. Which is basically just a hacked verion of MPEG4.
When reading patents, you have to read the actual claims, not just the headings of the claims. The headings of the claims are necessarily obvious ideas; if it can be described in a line or two, it's probably obvious. What is important is the described process (in this sort of patent), not the result. For example:
1. A method for getting to my friend's house:
Go down this street, turn left, cut through the park, staying on the path because people walk their dogs in the park, go down the dead-end street, slip though the hole in the fence, and turn right.
Such a patent would only apply to the method, which is somewhat clever, and not to either the steps involved (which come be used by other people) or the end result (which could be done in other ways). As far as I can tell, TiVo's patent doesn't even apply to their direct competitor's product (I believe ReplayTV uses a different storage format), let alone prohibit the creation of devices that differ in other ways. Basically, you just can't build an exact clone of TiVo.
Actually - that would only be the case if the V3-3500TV and/or the All-In-Wonder had 2 tuners - so you could drop the feed from one into an mpeg-1, while watching the other...
My old Hauppage card does mpeg-1 recording, but it only has one tuner, so you have to watch the same thing you record. I'm trying to find out if they've put out dual-tuner cards capable of this - if they did, it *may* qualify as prior art, depending on how specific the implementation is.
Tivo's patent seems to be fairly specific on the process - feed->mpeg-1->seperate audio/video streams, etc... As long as they don't try to sue for infringement outside of that process, it'll probably be OK, but if they sue anyone who offers a record-while-watching-something-else product, regardless of the process, there could be trouble.
This is not the same as having separate record and playback heads on one video head drum.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
It's called an MPEG video server, and they've been around for years in professional broadcast circles. And they can not only record an MPEG bitstream while playing others back, they can play at least 8 if not dozens of different mpeg streams back at the same time, or the same stream starting at 8 different times, or any combination of the above.
For that matter there were professional systems built out of computer controlled VTR decks ans switchers that could do the same thing using VIDEOTAPE, though it was inelegant and complicated and expensive.
Tivo is an inexpensive video server with VCR-like record functions. It's apparently a nice product, and I wish them well, but this patent should not have been granted.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
...or has noone else noticed the TiVO ad banners shouting "buy us -- we run Linux" being run in heavy rotation?
Sony doesn't own Tivo. Tivo is a publicly traded company. The following companies have invested in Tivo, (from Tivo's website) "America Online (AOL), Advance/Newhouse, CBS, Comcast Corporation, Cox Communications, DIRECTV, Discovery Communications, Encore Media Group, Liberty Media subsidiaries, Liberty Digital, NBC, Philips Electronics, Showtime Networks, SONY, TV Guide Interactive and The Walt Disney Company". As you can see, Sony is but one of a number of investors.
ReplayTV is a privately held company which is in the process of being acquired by Sonic Blue.
Tivo doesn't manufacture any units. They license their technology to others, most notably Sony and Philips.
ReplayTV had been manufacturing their own units but recently decided to switch to a licensing model as well. Panasonic is the only significant licensee I am aware of. They did recently sign an agreement with Motorola to incorporate Replay's technology in Motorola's cable set top boxes.
We need a moderation catagory of 'Clueless' for posts like the above.
Steve M
You are correct that you cannot watch one show while recording another with a VCR. So when stated like that it sounds rather innovative.
But if I state it as being able to write data to a hard drive while also reading other data from that hard drive it doesn't sound all that innovative any more.
Steve M
Will rocky and bullwinkle get out of this mess that boris and .. (rotflol)...
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
When you've got a patent, what is protected is not the description of the patent but the claim(s).
So this patent cover not just :
- "recording one program while watching another"
as stated on the"A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising the steps of:
- accepting television (TV) broadcast signals,
...
- tuning said TV signals to a specific program
- ...
- providing at least one Input Section, wherein said Input Section converts said specific program to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation
- ...
- storing said video and audio components on a storage device
- ..."
multiple steps describing what is a Tivo, and not a VCR .The description are usually written to fool peoples. It is originally means to describe the object (the claims) of the patents to people so that they are easily understood. Not more !
#include "coucou.h"
Notice I said "in a certain way"
Again, it's a *specific* method of utilizing an MPEG coprocessor that apparently has some additional intelligence about circular audio / video buffers, indexing in the buffers, processing timestamp data from digital video feeds, and a bunch of other stuff that makes it a lot different (and likely better) that what your typical PC video encoder card is up to.
Ok, what country can I move to to avoid this kind of stupidity?! They go on to describe their "preferred embodiment of the invention", which is basically the same thing, but "TV streams are converted to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG)" format....
The US is way out of control!
On the humor side: Hey, someone just got a patent on the Time Warp! Look out RHPS!
Did your mother think of that?
Uncalled for.
I have a feeling that if Slashdot had been around when the mechanical adding machine had been invented, we would have been snickering about the abacus being prior art on the "adding two numbers" patent.
If the patent had stated that their claim was on "adding two numbers" and then gone on do describe the adding machine as a "preferred embodiment of the invention", then you're danrned tootin' I'd bee snickering (and complaining about the incompetence of the USPTO).
Now, if I'm reading this wrong, that's one thing, but the patent seems pretty clear to me: time warping is ours. TiVo is how we do it.
IANAL, but how else can one read that?
It's not like a VCR.Can you record a show and then watch some random portion of THE SAME SHOW while you are recording it? What if you want to fast forward or rewind while recording? Show me a VCR that can do that.
The only innovation here is that it's a piece of customer electronics. Rather than the sort of thing TV companies have had for a long time. Well over the 20 years a patent would cover.
You are correct that you cannot watch one show while recording another with a VCR. So when stated like that it sounds rather innovative.
However it's rather trivial to do with 2 VCRs. Also there have been VCRs produced with 2 tape mechanisms in the same box.
What you're basically talking about is hardware MPEG handling, with DMA to the disk, so that the CPU doesn't have to get involved except for control processes. This isn't very novel, for example I dealt with a SEM with very similar characteristics. The CPU set up the scans, then retreived them from the disk, but didn't get involved apart from that.
The patent doesn't say you can't use a VCR. Or a TV card in your PC. I don't see any infringement here. Certainly nothing worse than HBO or, for that matter, your local cable company.
Best Slashdot Co
However, combining "time warping" with all of Tivo's other stuff is novel.
Novel ideas always build off of prexisting ideas. As such, patents should be and are considered novel even if they build off of previous patents.
--
Although the TiVo is new and arguably innovative, it only deserves 2 years of patent protection, because anyone else could have done it (including me, once I get old enough to have the resources to do so).
------
No it isn't. Different internals and different software. All of the TiVos are the same...Sony, Phillips, etc...but the UltimateTV is a different beast.
Every time we have a TiVo article there are many people that say "Big deal, my vid card does TV in!!!". I always feel the need to write this post.
/. crowd, it also runs Linux and they have released some of their work back to the community and supported them in their hacking efforts.... except for the video formatting, but that has been broken.
To those people: Go get a TiVo. The great thing about a TiVo isn't the fact it stores video on a hard disk. It's how wonderfully seamless the integration is to the rest of your system. I can't imagine watching TV without one now. My parents and my sister have them now and feel the same way. The interface is great and the featureset is almost everything you could want.
The price is right on target for a pre-built system that looks nice, works well, and isn't a hacked together PC sitting in my AV rack. There has also been a lot of work to hack these systems and make them even better. My main TiVo is an 87.5 hour unit.
And for the
Wow! Thank god we have innovators like TiVo around to come up with these brilliant "time warping" concepts. What a time saver!
Hey, this gives me an idea now. What if a computer could do more than one thing at once? I'll call it "multitasking". Imagine the convience of having a computer perform multiple tasks at the same time. I'll make millions! Now, where's that patent application....
----
---- I made the Kessel Run in under 11 parsecs.
Nowhere close to being true. UltimateTV is a direct competitor to TiVo's DirecTV product. UltimateTV is a joint venture of Microsoft and DirecTV. DirecTV is also a partner of TiVo. DirecTV wisely doesn't put all their eggs in one basket, but that certainly doesn't mean that MS and TiVo are on the same team.
But only when they deny microsoft entry into the market.
Hey, I wonder if Microsoft thinks software patents are so great now? I bet Ultimate TV (their tivo rip-off - what great innovation) can do the same thing. It would be nice if Tivo sued microsoft or was otherwise able to extract billions for the right to use this patent in its rip-off products.
I want to see Ultimate TV fail. The damned thing obviously only exists because microsoft feels threatened that another "OS" could penetrate the home market. Bastards. I dont want all my devices to be MS controlled!! Lets kill the 7 headed serpent. I'll take TV, you take PC's, you over there, take Video games, and divide the rest evenly among you the rest of you.
What does this mean for that Tivo-rip off product Microsoft is hawking that I've seen so many commercials for lately? It looks to me like these patents invalidate the whole product. Then again its not like M$ doesn't have the bucks to challenge them.
>The only way to do this with a computer is to have two tuner cards and a TV out card because it says the ability to watch one program on your television while recording another on in MPEG format.
Not even that easy. With TIVO, you can watch the program you are currently recording as well. Jump to live, back to the beginning, whatever.
The only way to do this with a computer is to have two tuner cards and a TV out card because it says the ability to watch one program on your television while recording another on in MPEG format. Plus it does it all with a neat interface and it kinda hidden to the user. I have yet to see a decent TV recorder using a computer that works well. I found webvcr the other day, and there's some commercial packages, but they don't let me watch something and record something else.
--
Free Mac Mini
- granted in 1994! the first one that this is based off of is 1990! There's patents on paper bags, and other very very simple stuff.
Who cares anyway, it's DiVX ;-) a better format anyway for this type of application?
--
Free Mac Mini
--
Free Mac Mini
There's not much documentation online but I have a box full of paper docs that I have brought to the attention of Hughes in their fight against Gemstar's patents of on-screen TV guide displays. Perhaps it may be useful to refute at least a few of TiVo's claims, too...
--
The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
-- Molly Ivins
A lot of people are saying that the patents were ok in this case since they didn't patent obvious things but I want to know what these peoples sources are before I can agree with them. After all if you read the yahoo! article it isn't very specific.
I'm not sure what TiVo is going to do with this egrevious patent, but I know what I'm going to do with mine.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The patent is fairly specific in regards to the actual recording process - in that the input stream is encoded to mpeg-1 - I'm not entirely sure, but I doubt VCRs used mpeg-1
You seem correct about the MPEG requirement; Apple, Microsoft, and Real could circumvent the patent by using their proprietary video encodings. From the patent:
This covers not only MPEG-1 but also MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 (aka DivX ;-) )standards; infringing this patent requires infringing the patents on MPEG. To infringe a patent, you have to infringe one claim, but to infringe a claim, you must infringe every part of that claim. As all other claims refer back to claim 1 (and the nearly identical claim 32), a fellow could circumvent this patent by using a compression technology other than one created by MPEG, such as the Ogg Tarkin video compression technology that Xiph.org is developing.
And as diakka said, two tuner cards in one box (or even in one household) could by a reasonable stretch of the imagination be considered infringement.
The real question comes if Tivo tries to enforce their patent based on principle rather than process - claiming rights to ANY digital recording of one TV signal while watching another, regardless of medium or compression format used.You're referring to the "doctrine of equivalents," which was recently severely narrowed. The patent explicitly names MPEG, and it does not say "or any other media encoding technology."
(Of course, nothing you read on Slashdot is legal advice.)Will I retire or break 10K?
This patent can't be valid since a VTR would be prior art. The mere fact that they use a particular recording scheme doesn't matter-- different VTRs have different data formats, some analog some digital, some even compressed digital. The mere fact they're using a disk instead of tape isn't important-- video disk recorders were used for years for things like still stores and instant playback at sporting events.
It's just not valid to say that their timeshifting is novel since they use MPEG and computer hard disks.
After reading all of the comments related to this story, I have, once again, come to the conclusion that all patent agencies should forward all incoming patent requests to /. for final approval.
/. moderator holding "REJECTED - please see attached comments" rubber stamp]
[insert picture of smiling
Blarf.
Tivo is able to do what it does because a) it uses a multi-tasking OS (Linux), b) because it uses an MPEG chip that's capable of playing back and recording simultaneously (developed by IBM, I believe), c) because they can read and write to disk without monopolizing the CPU (DMA, using standard bus technology and IDE equipment.)
The only thing that they actually developed is the "feature" of being able to simultaneously play back and record. Given that I have been able to capture video to disk on a PC while viewing a different video file for several years now (using a capture board), I'm not sure how they can even claim that as an invention, much less a non-obvious one.
When you combine this requirement with all the other very specific stipulations the patent makes (must use MPEG, must separate audio and video, must have a little dancing TV-set as a logo), you might be able to come up with a unique product-- but not necessarily a novel, non-obvious invention.
Requiring a competitor to use another codec seems somewhat anti-competitive, considering that by using a standard like MPEG, Tivo reduces the cost of their encoders to about $14. To do the same thing in software, or with a different chip would probably cost significantly more. Separating audio and video is a fairly straightforward way to do things, and is the technique used by hundreds of pre-Tivo products.
Of course a competitor could work around the patent (at some expense), but I don't think it's reasonable for Tivo to combine a handful of standard practices (using MPEG, recording audio/video separately) and a couple of old ideas (time-shifting, schedule updates) and file such a broad patent on an entire product. Tivo is certainly welcome to file patents on the unique ideas they came up with-- and there are several-- but to patent the entire product is too much.
This isn't that bad of a patent, if you really read the thing. Yeah, it's a fairly simple idea, but no one's done it before (look carefully again at the convert to MPEG and then spilt part of the patent). The thing that pisses me off here is that many of the posts are "it's not a bad patent because we like our TiVo and they're l33t" - this shouldn't matter. If it's a crap patent (which this one isn't), then it shouldn't matter what the usage of it is.
Cue The Sun...
Oh. You mean they patented:
/dev/dumont
% receive | mpeg_decode | tee bab5.mpg >
...Blair
That's true, and it is also easy to fool oneself about whether one thought about something like that before the company did. However, in this particular instance, I had two other people describe the idea to me on separate occasions during brainstorming long before any of the PVRs ever made any press.
And it's not exactly particularly surprising that people come up with that idea when they have hardware sitting on their desk that can do this sort of thing out of the box, as many researchers at IBM, MIT, and other places did for many years. It's just that as long as that hardware costs $30000, you won't try to turn it into a consumer device.
In fact, hyperbole in place, everything that ever was invented or ever will be, would have eventually been thought of by someone else anyway,
True, too. However, people had been recording and playing back broadcast video digitally for years before TiVo came out. On reasonably well equipped workstations, you could even record and view multiple video streams simultaneously. What distinguishes TiVo is not some new capability but simply the fact that they defined a market niche for this product and entered the market with a consumer device roughly when disk storage prices and the availability of low-cost video compression chips made it feasible to do so.
I don't blame TiVo for filing these patents--they had to. Every startup does. But it's not an instance of innovative or far reaching thinking. To most people who have the hardware available to them, this is an obvious application, and the little tweaks you apply to make it more usable and convenient are standard engineering.
$ mpeg_capture live.mpg &
$ mpeg_play previously_recorded.mpg
Note that many high-end workstations were capable of doing that long before TiVo appeared on the scene. It's so obvious and trivial, why would anybody write it up? It only becomes an identifiable capability once you stick the whole thing into a box and call it a "consumer device". So, what exactly is the innovation there?
Don't get me wrong: I think TiVo is a pretty decent company that makes a pretty good product. I just don't think it's an example of breakthrough innovation: PVRs are here because disks and video compression have become cheap enough. TiVo had the business smarts to enter the market at the right time with a good product, and that's why they have been successful (but that's not something that ought to be patentable). Technologically, however, there is little that's surprising or unobvious about them.
That claim may be lengthy, but it seems pretty general.
It is really easy to take a look at a finished product and declare how anyone could have thought of it.
In fact, hyperbole in place, everything that ever was invented or ever will be, would have eventually been thought of by someone else anyway, so why bother granting intellectual protection to encourage the investment of thought/energy in the creative process.
______
______
Once: you're a philosopher. Twice: a pervert.
In order to do that the VCR would need 2 video head drums so that the second could read what the first had just recorded. Either that or one horribly complicated video head drum with the tape wrapped completely around it.
When you watch what you record at the time that it's being recorded the video and audio signals are split into two streams, on of which goes to the audio and video heads, and the other of which goes out to the television.
A video head drum with a playback head right next to the record head (like three head audio recorders) would theoretically be possible (and maybe there are some high end commercial braodcast machines with them), but trying to build a VHS consumer deck with that would be an expensive technilogical nightmare.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The point is not 'is this inventive, does it deserve a patent'.
What you should be asking is, 'does it make sense for the government to grant 20-year monopolies on ideas such as this'? How much extra incentive does it provide to have patents available? Would nobody have come up with these techniques if they were not patentable? Does the impact on competition and the potential for creating legal quagmires outweigh the increased incentives to the developer?
(Do patents such as these increase incentives at all? Some might argue that software patents, on the whole, reduce the incentive to innovate because of the risk of being sued.)
The US constitution is quite explicit: the government _may_ grant patents on certain areas, to promote progress in science and the useful arts. Does granting patents on software and on techniques implemented with a computer promote progress?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
- Microsoft's "UltimateTV" does NOT use the TiVo service; it is a competing service.
- UltimateTV is ONLY available (at this time) integrated with a DirecTV receiver.
- "DirecTV Receivers with TiVo" (aka "DirecTivo" or "combo" boxes) compete in the same market as UltimateTV.
- TiVo also sells "standalone" units which work with any video source (including cable, satellite, broadcast, etc.) -- these units contain an MPEG encoder and have tunable quality settings to choose from.
- There is no UltimateTV product for the standalone market; DirecTV is required.
- UltimateTV and DirecTivo boxes BOTH lack MPEG encoder hardware; they can only store the MPEG signal coming from DirecTV's satellite.
- Because the MPEG signal comes from the satellite, the recordings are essentially PERFECT recording quality; the playback from a recorded program will be IDENTICAL to the quality of the live DirecTV signal. (Standalone TiVo units suffer variable degradation based on the quality settings and program material.)
- Because the MPEG signal was compressed by DirecTV before being sent to the satellite, there are no encoder quality settings to choose from, BUT the compression should be better than consumer-grade hardware can hope to achieve at the same bitrates.
- UTV has two physical DirecTV satellite tuners, which allows recording two shows at once or watching one show while recording another. This works today.
- DirecTivo combo boxes ALSO have two physical DirecTV satellite tuners, but only one can be used at the present time.
- All existing DirecTivo units will receive a free software upgrade ("sometime this summer") to enable the second tuner already present in the box. Until that time, UTV has a temporary dual-tuner advantage.
- For any dual-tuner system, two cable runs from a dual-LNB satellite dish for technical reasons; you cannot split a single cable to operate two satellite receivers.
- You can, however, "split" a PAIR of satellite cables using a "multiswitch" to connect more than two receivers/tuners to one dual-LNB satellite dish. (Two physical cable runs back to the dish will ALWAYS be required.)
- Since standalone TiVo units don't have dual tuners or dual MPEG encoders, they can only record one program at a time.
- Even with a single tuner, any TiVo or UTV box will allow you to record one program while watching a different program previously recorded. (This is somewhat like having two VCR's and no hassles with videotapes.)
- UltimateTV is based on the "Microsoft TV" platform, which uses Windows CE as the underlying operating system.
- TiVo is based on Linux as the underlying operating system. (Don't get your hopes up, the PVR functionality runs in a proprietary application on top of the Linux operating system.)
- Some TiVo users have been known to hack their systems, usually to add hard drives for additional storage capacity. (e.g. adding an 80GB drive to turn a "14-hour" unit into a "105-hour" unit) TiVo has been very gracious and accepting of this hacking, though of course it voids the warranty.
- UltimateTV has Internet access features (much like WebTV) that TiVo does not offer. However, many people question the importance/value of this.
- UltimateTV also has PIP (picture-in-picture) functionality, which is very important to some people and inconsequential to others.
- TiVo units do not have hardware support for PIP, and software support isn't likely -- none of the current models will ever have PIP capability.
- It doesn't help if your TV has PIP, unless you want to watch a different video source; current models only have one MPEG decoder so independent outputs aren't currently possible.
- TiVo is acknowledged as having the most advanced PVR software and has more sophisticated management features than UTV has.
- TiVo now has 200,000 subscribers, up from about 150,000 around the start of this year.
- TiVo has reduced their operating costs and revenue increased 48% (from $2.2M to $3.2M) between 2000 Q4 and 2001 Q1.
- TiVo remains in a negative cashflow situation. Although they expect to burn about $50M the rest of this year, they won't need outside funding until early next year. Positive cashflow is predicted to occur sometime next year.
- Microsoft, of course, has mountains of cash at their disposal.
- Despite this, UTV's impact on DirecTivo sales is "imperceptible" -- much of their advertising serves to sell people on the idea of a PVR, not necessarily their implementation. (And of course, UltimateTV probably helps standalone TiVo sales.)
- After dual-tuner support is released for the DirecTivo's, TiVo will have a clear overall advantage -- UTV will only be compelling to those who truly care about unique features like Internet access or PIP.
- There may be a few hundred thousand PVR's out there now, but a few hundred million TV's & VCR's. The potential market is enormous, but it's still in the early-adopter phase, probably for another year or two.
Does that clarify a few things?Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
Has anyone hacked a TiVo and put in ethernet and made it work with their service? I would like to get one, but would rather not use my phoneline, when I have a perfectly good ethernet that is very close to the TV (pain to run the phone cable, but the cable modem and hub are right behind the TV ...).
The TV Guide channel has a patent on using irregular cells to display a TV schedule with shows of different lengths of time. I don't have the patent number handy, but when I was working for the Satellite TV Company, this was one of the patents we were going to have a problem with with the product I was working on.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
So I guess my video capture card in my computer is a violation of their patent? I guess I'll have to get rid of it now.
What about Microsofts digital recorder? Is that a violation of this patent also? Maybe we could get Microsoft for patent infringement. Of course Microsoft allows you to record two programs at the same time, I wonder if Microsoft will be filing a patent for that now?
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
The patent for the "Multimedia time warping system" made me do quite the double-take. The first time you read it, it looks like a highly technical, restrictive patent on a non-obvious technology.
But that's where the double-take comes in. Look at the sorts of "restrictions" they're volunteering to put on their patent, so that it only covers their "non-obvious" technology:
User control commands are accepted and sent through the system. Watch out, you can fast-forward.
The video and audio components are stored on a storage device and when the program is requested for display, the video and audio components are extracted from the storage device and reassembled into an MPEG stream which is sent to a decoder. Damn, that's what my MPEG playback algorithm has been getting wrong-- I need to store my audio and video on a storage device! Damn, if they hadn't patented that bit, I would've stolen it.
The decoder converts the MPEG stream into TV output signals and delivers the TV output signals to a TV receiver. Those wizards at Tivo have done it again. Apparently, the secret to getting MPEG to play on TV is-- get this-- converting the MPEG stream into a TV-readable format.
The invention allows the user to store selected television broadcast programs while the user is simultaneously watching or reviewing another program. This, in fact, is a breakthrough. Have you ever tried to do this with your VCR? The instructions read something like: "During install, wall cord into first input, VCR cord from box to television. Then on watching, Input A the program watching, Input B the program being.". I don't know anyone who's ever done this-- they eventually gave up and watched TV upstairs.
It looks like the Patent Office, even if they have longer to review patents in the future, will run into the problem encountered in programming: it's easy to make a very complicated, confusing explanation for a very simple solution. Luckily for us (and, well, quite expensively for us), the courts have a lot more time to puzzle through all the bullshit.
I hope they're obeying the Multimedia Temporal Prime Directive.
Current implementations of Dishplayer and Ultimate TV, and Open TV (The new PVR from DISH networks), are not likely to be affected by this patent. While digital signals from a satellite are mentioned in the header of the patent, the specifics of the implementation do not infringe on the specifics of the patent. Dishplayer et al stream the digital signal to the hard drive directly and then stream the digital signal to the decryption (satellite) receiver. The TIVO patent specifically requires the "input section" to convert the TV stream into MPEG format. This conversion is never done by the Ultimate TV or Dishplayer products. A loose interpretation of the implementation could, very well infringe on streaming video products that use MPEG, such as real video, and media player. However, of course, IANAL and am probably wrong...
Well, I'm a big fan of TIVO. I've had one for about a year now and love it. I even bought a second one for my other televsion set.
But one thing I'm curious about: I just this week got an ATI Radeon All-In-Wonder card. It's pretty nifty -- great TV receiver, pretty good graphics -- but it also has the 'TV-On-Demand' option: you can watch TV, pause it, skip past commercials, etc.
It even has (evil) Gemstar's GuidePlus software which makes the Radeon *very* much like the TIVO in that you can select shows in the future and have the Radeon record them as MPEG streams. (In fact, the Radeon has the added benefit -- along with some additional software -- of being able to serve up your TV across your LAN, which is quite nifty if yo actually need (or want) TV streaming across your home LAN.)
Anyway, I wonder if this new TIVO patent will put an end to one of the Radeon's AIW's big selling points: the ability to time-shift, encode, and then view time-shifted television files.
(The Radeon software isn't as quick as the TIVO software, but it does do essentially the same thing: encode while simultaneously allowing the file to be viewed.)
Ah well. I guess if the patent was gonna be awarded, I'd rather see TIVO get it than Microsoft.
I wish Slashdot would spend a little time in vetting the accuracy of it's stories.
Here's a clue: The title of a Patent is NOT the same thing as what the patent covers or claims.
In Slashdot's posting we have:
Here's one of them - recording one program while watching another.
What the patent really claims (which is far more limited and justifiable) is this:
What is claimed is:
1. A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising the steps of:
accepting television (TV) broadcast signals, wherein said TV signals are based on a multitude of standards, including, but not limited to, National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) broadcast, PAL broadcast, satellite transmission, DSS, DBS, or ATSC;
tuning said TV signals to a specific program;
providing at least one Input Section, wherein said Input Section converts said specific program to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation;
providing a Media Switch, wherein said Media Switch parses said MPEG stream, said MPEG stream is separated into its video and audio components;
storing said video and audio components on a storage device;
providing at least one Output Section, wherein said Output Section extracts said video and audio components from said storage device;
wherein said Output Section assembles said video and audio components into an MPEG stream;
wherein said Output Section sends said MPEG stream to a decoder;
wherein said decoder converts said MPEG stream into TV output signals;
wherein said decoder delivers said TV output signals to a TV receiver; and
accepting control commands from a user, wherein said control commands are sent through the system and affect the flow of said MPEG stream.
Tivo is obviously not patenting what they're doing, but how they're doing it. Everyone knows that VCRs have done roughly the same thing as Tivo for years -- but the innovative ways in which Tivo can do these things have revolutionized video playback, causing many a Slashdotter to go out and buy one (or want to).
The parser and event buffer decouple the CPU from having to parse the MPEG stream and from the real time nature of the data streams which allows for slower CPU and bus speeds and translate to lower system costs.
Did your mother think of that? I have a feeling that if Slashdot had been around when the mechanical adding machine had been invented, we would have been snickering about the abacus being prior art on the "adding two numbers" patent.
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
After you read one, or both, of them, reflect on the "obviousness" of pencils and paperclips.
Best Slashdot Co
The fact that they got the patent isn't bad. Heck, they may very well deserve it because someone came up with the PVR concept (which does differ from plain VCRs as long as it takes into account manipulating live TV). Whether or not it was Tivo, well, we'll leave that to any prior art claims.
The real question is what is Tivo going to do with this new patent? Their press release really didn't say anything about whether they planned to start suing ReplayTV, MS UltimateTV, etc. If they're just going to add it to their portfolio and use it for negotiating power when doing deals (a lot of times big companies will do this without actually forcing everyone to license the patent), then more power to them. But if they're going to start attacking the other players, it could really harm the PVR market.
-Todd
---
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
While generally I'm opposed to software patents, the TiVo is really a pretty novel invention and probably has some areas where it's genuinely unique, so my general thought is "this doesn't sound so bad."
/. may sound eggrigious from the title, but when I read it I thought it sounded fairly specific - it talks about that the stream is encoded with MPEG specifically, and that audio and video data is separated, and specific functions the unit must be able to perform with the data, and what controls are on the remote. I immediately saw other ways the same functionality could be achieved without infringing on the patent (such as licensing the Sorenson encoder, or not separating video and audio data) - I'm sure any good programmer would as well, and someone specializing in that industry can come up with much better methods to avoid infringement.
The patent linked to on the article header here on
So what I want to know is, what are the other patents like, and what is TiVo going to do with the patents?
TiVo's success wasn't about a great idea. Lots of people had the same idea. Cheap digital video compression technology and harddisks just made it feasible to turn that idea into a consumer product at a certain point in time. TiVo's success was about timing, about lining up investment and going to market at roughly the right point. And a lot of their patents sound to me like stuff any reasonable engineer would come up with as a natural part of designing a PVR, without any significant thought.
See - the patent system isn't all bad :)
We would have TiVo-like devices with or without TiVo: the idea is pretty obvious. Without TiVo or some other company pushing consumer hardware early on, this would probably have started a couple of years later, first as software and hardware add-ons to PCs, Macs, and Linux machines.
Perhaps they can even get some money out of Microsoft for ripping them off with their Ultimate TV.
I don't see any rip-off. And they will be after you when you try to do similar kinds of things with your GPL'ed video recording software on Linux.
By granting these kinds of patents, the PTO risks that for the next 20 years, it could be mainly TiVo that controls this market, without being forced to innovate further. Soon, it will be cheaper to build TiVo-like devices than to build VCRs, yet if TiVo's patents turn out to be broad enough, they can keep the prices and profit margins high.
I think this is actually a good example for why patent life times should be shortened. TiVo should manage to make a tidy profit on their patents in five years. It makes little sense to grant them an artificial monopoly beyond that, no matter whether their patents are sensible or not, and doing so deprives the public of further innovation, in contradiction to the foundations of the patent system.
Of course, since there is so little that is worth recording on TV, it's probably pointless to get very upset about this.
2. The primary gist seems to be the use of a MPEG-specific coprocessor in a certain way that unloads the main CPU from having to do any video encoding / decoding work. IANAL but this does not seem to cover PVR functionality implemented in a PC, given the way most videocards are implemented.
And this is judged creative enought to be granted a patend ??
Sorry, but isn't this *exactly* what MPEG-specific coprocessors are designed for ???
--
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb15CB32EF3AF9C0E5D727
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
I can already hear the flamethrowers warming up from people who haven't bothered to read the press release or the patent filing. In an attempt to head off what will undoubtably be some common misconceptions:
1. The patent does not cover timeshifting- it covers a specific implementation of timeshifting. They reference use of VCRs and hard-disk based video recording systems in the prior-art section.
2. The primary gist seems to be the use of a MPEG-specific coprocessor in a certain way that unloads the main CPU from having to do any video encoding / decoding work. IANAL but this does not seem to cover PVR functionality implemented in a PC, given the way most videocards are implemented.
3. There's a lot of other stuff in there about refinements to the technique- sniffing out program start / stop info by scanning closed captioning information, and so on. Seems legitimately innovative to me.
Of course, if you believe the whole patent system is bunk all of this is irrelevant, but it doesn't look like anything to freak out about. However, it does reference a previous patent on hard-drive video recording dating back to 1994 that might be more troublesome... but I haven't read it.
--Scott D. Iekel-Johnson
Type something, will you? We're paying for this stuff!
"The Patents cover a METHOD for recording one program while playing back another"
It is obvious that TiVo have patented the act of recording one programme whilst watching another by whatever processes go on within their box, rather than the whole concept of it.
Suggesting the former is just a good way of getting your submission noticed, and causing rampant hysteria in the forums...
TiVo managed to come up with an innovative product that plenty of people (especially here) have found to be extremely useful and worth the price. As such, they deserve to have their advances in technology formally protected, and they have.
See - the patent system isn't all bad :) With all the whinging about one-click patents, we forget that every month, hundreds of patents are granted for worthwhile products, ensuring that research and development continue to thrive.