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.'"
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
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!
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
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."
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.