SONICblue Granted Broad Patent on DVR Technology

hayb writes: "In another miscue from the U.S. Patent office, Sonicblue has received a patent for everything under the PVR sun. Now comes the question if they will go after others, or at least Tivo. To quote the first line of the patent: 'USPTO patent number 6,324,338 also covers methodology that creates, names, prioritizes and manages recorded programs on the hard drive for DVRs.'"

Comments

Wonder what video card makers will do...

[silversurf]

I wonder if ATI's All-In-Wonder and others will get swept up in this? Just a thought since there are several graphics card co's creating TV tuner and recording capabilities in to their cards and providing software for doing TiVo and Replay like functions (record and organize).

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

-s

Re:prior art?

[HMC CS Major]

Both companies claim they have patents....

From SonicBlue (aka ReplayTV):
USPTO patent number 6,324,338 also covers methodology that creates, names, prioritizes and manages recorded programs on the hard drive for DVRs.
"This patent and other forthcoming ReplayTV patents will establish SONICblue as the leading provider of Digital Video Recording technology," said Ken Potashner, chairman and CEO, SONICblue. "Over the next five to seven years, we expect the DVR to become as prevalent in the home as the VCR is today."


From Tivo :
TiVo, headquartered in Sunnyvale, Calif. is the creator of personal television. TiVo's easy-to-use service and patented consumer electronics technology will allow consumers to take control of their television viewing experience by teaching TiVo their likes and dislikes.

So, it's going to come down to a lawsuit. Whichever company can show they had the first working, worthwhile thoughts will eventually be able to force the other to pay royalties. Does this mean either will go out of business? Probably not, it just means one is going to be $10/box more, and that $10 might going to the competitor instead of the CEO.

Why is everyone worried?

[Bobb Sledd]

Just because one company has a patent doesn't necessarily mean it will put another out of business. (I know what I'm talking about, I was a US patent paralegal for the #1 computer company for several years.)

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

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

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

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

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

*yawn*