Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
and earn a Slashdotting - that'll teach 'em.
I love the fact that patent wars might erupt between the PVR folks while at the same time theyre battling copyright wars with everyone else....Damn, I love capitalism ;)
.sig wanted: Must be concise, funny, and display my cleverness.
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
There are two things to note:
There is prior art for this stuff. Besides TiVo, people have tried to do this kind of technology before in the past; Java was spawned off of an 'embedded systems language' called Oak; which IIRC was built for things like PVRs, etc... but in the early 90s the public just wasn't ready for that kind of tech. Regardless, at the least TiVo was around before ReplayTV. Prior art is a powerful thing. Besides, SonicBlue has M$ To contend with as well, M$ having that UltimateTV thing (Which I strangely haven't seen/ heard ads for lately; i remember them blitzing the media early this summer.)
Additionally, as referenced in This Slashdot Article from earlier this year, TiVo was also recently granted a slew of patents on PVR Tech. I'm not sure which company got what tech patented however...
Me wonders - given SONICBlue's flamboyant flaunting and flouting of The Media interests - and now this patent - could SONICBlue be a media industry trojan horse? Conspiracies, conspiracies everywhere.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
I'd be very surprised if a lawsuite comes out of this except as a tactic to leverage a little better price on patent royalties. Sonicblue will give Tivo a call that goes a little something like this:
Sonicblue: Hi, Tivo, we were thinking you might want to license this patent from us for $X.
Tivo: But that's not a valid patent, we've been doing that for years.
Sonicblue: Well, you can fight us if you'd like. I'm sure your lawyers will only charge you 10-100 times $X.
Tivo: hmmmm... okay, where do we send the money. We can always pass the cost on to the customer anyhow
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The first lines of patents tend to be broad, but not because the patents are broad, but rather because the first lines are introducing the field that the patent is in.
The first few claims are often the same way, giving definitions and context for claims built on them. Claims aren't supposed to be that way, but often they are anyhow. I was once told that a claim had to be a single sentence and could not contain the word "or". Makes things tricky.
It looks like this thing is practically patenting copying video to a hard drive... so couldn't not only Tivo, but also RealPlayer, Windows Media Player, tons of independant video players, etc. be used as examples of prior art if SonicBlue were to go after anyone with this?
Seems like a pretty weak and unenforcable patent when prior art is EVERYWHERE.
I recall a previous /. article about a little IP-licencing-wannabe company called Pause Technology that held a 1992 patent on the whole DVR idea. Where do they fit in all this?
My spoon is too big!
Interesting how Sonicblue were "good guys" to your average Slashdot goer for fighting the evil entertainment industry...
Then they went and won a patent. Now they're EVIL! How *DARE* they attempt to make money!
end communication
"Say Goodbye to 20 years of Network Oppression! "
(crowd cheers)
"And Say Hello to 20 years of SONICBlue Oppression!"
(crowd continues to cheer)
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
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.
Video for Online Dating Profiles
This patent is not just about recording video onto hard disks. Most of the claims are dependent on a clause that says "a processor selecting future shows from a channel guide database for recording based on said user specified criteria, wherein the selection of shows is based on one of either pattern matching or fuzzy logic analysis of the user specified criteria and the channel guide database, and wherein the processor further selects for removal a previously recorded show having a lower priority than the selected future shows if insufficient capacity exists for recording the future shows;" This allows you the box to learn that you like SciFi and automatically record all the SciFi shows. Not hard, once you hear the idea, but I remember thinking that was a good idea when the product first came onto the market.
Other claims talk about automatically recording portions of a program that repeats. That way you always have the latest CNN sports news. I don't think anybody's product does this yet. (But it does seem kind of $illy to have two dependent claims that mention CNN.)
This patent is not just a software patent. Yes, some of it can be implemented using software, but not all of it. I don't know all the prior art, but this isn't completely obvious, and it's certainly not as fundamental to the industry as the press release implies.
It looks like this thing is practically patenting copying video to a hard drive... so couldn't not only Tivo, but also RealPlayer, Windows Media Player, tons of independant video players, etc. be used as examples of prior art if SonicBlue were to go after anyone with this?
I haven't analyzed the patent enough to see if it is really trying to patent "copying video to a hard drive," but I did not get that on my first impression.
However, TiVo came AFTER ReplayTV, and RealPlayer streams video, it doesn't save it. Windows Media Player plays/streams video, it's not in charge of saving video. And the last two don't even deal with TV programs.
I think the title of their PR sums up the patent: "Patent Covers Methodology for Recording and Storing TV Shows."
"And like that
The patent. This reads as if it's only the interface they're patenting IMHO.
Best line:
13. The method as recited by claim 10 wherein the default channel is CNN Headline News.
You are speaking of two different things. Patents are designed to protect the inventor (as your quote from Ms. Bowles implies), but you go on to criticize the /. community for pointing out that patents shouldn't be awarded when the "innovation" is obvious or follows prior art.
Patents are actually the tools used by Microsoft and others to stomp on everyone they feel like. They--unlike the inventor--have an army of lawyers who know the weaknesses of the Examination process at the P.T.O.
Your assertion about the cause of innovation is 100% erroneous. I don't recall hearing of Leonardo DaVinci's numerous patents, nor the numerous patents awarded to the ancient Egyptians for "a process of stacking 20,000+ lb blocks of stone in the sand to form a giant pyramid", or the ancient Mayans for "a device which indicates the vernal equinox by allowing the sun's rays to illuminate a wall". Innovation is the direct result of human will, which our patent system appears to be smothering by allowing Megacorps to hoard patents for everything under the sun.
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
It's the claims which count, not what the marketing folks say.
Claim 1 requires a channel guide database, user criteria, that the processor use pattern matching or fuzzy logic, and an interesting kicker -- the processor also "further selects for removal a previously recorded show having a lower priority than the selected future shows if insufficient capacity exists for recording the future shows..."
Most of the independent claims (1, 19,30,36,42,48,49,50) have this limitation, namely the leabillity to automatically remove old recorded shows.
If you don't have this limitation, it seems to me you've avoided those claims.
On the other hand, I don't know what Claim 26 means!
namaste-
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*
"They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
Also, patents to have limited duration--eventually the work reverts to the public domain. The secret of making half-silvered mirrors was jealously guarded in Europe for years, retarding the development of optics.
This is an excellent point I didn't make in the interest of brevity.
I think the real only problem with patents, especially software and computer patents, is that the pace of development has so far outstripped the term of the patents.
Personally, I'd like to see some sort of self-regulating system that would adjust the length of all patents issued in any particular field between 5 and 20 years, inversely proportional to the number of patents granted in that field over the past twelve months. Five years seems long enough for even the fast moving stuff (remember it needs to be long enough to recover R&D costs and make some money), 20 should be enough for the slow-moving stuff. Such a system also fights abuse, since big companies that file lots of patents just because they can (IBM, anyone?) would find that such a practice is self-defeating, and devalues their important patents. Also, it tends to favor original inventors that bring true innovation, while devaluing the fruits of the system for those that seek to profit by simply filing lots of patents late to "get a piece of the action". If those patents are shorter, the incentive to abuse the system is considerably less. It's key that such a self-regulator be pegged to patents *granted* rather than patents *filed* - that way, the term changes only kick in if there's innovation sufficient to be patentable in the first place. (If terms were tied to filings, malicious groups could "poison the waterhole" for everyone...)
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
6,666,666
Inventor: Satan, et. al.
Friday, 13th September 2002
Secure repository of souls in unpleasant conditions.
Abstract
This patent covers a method of storage of a plurality of souls, selected by an inverse meritocratic criteria, in a plurality of areas containing, but not limited to, fire, brimstone and bubbling pools of sulphur.