Slashdot Mirror
SONICblue Sues TiVo for Patent Infringement
SVDave writes "Yesterday, Slashdot reported that SONICblue was going to start negotiating patent licensing with TiVo. It appears that SONICblue has switched strategies: today they've decided to sue TiVo for patent infringement. Given TiVo's patents on PVR technology, I would expect a quick countersuit, though SONICblue claims that ReplayTV does not infringe on any of TiVo's patents."
These companies should save their energy, and possibly share resources for the real battle they have yet to face, which is against the networks.
This technology has the potential of becoming as significant and controversial as Napster...
Unfortunately, with all these patents flying around for very basic methods of PVR operation, it really makes creating an open source PVR project an absolute MINEFIELD. Heck, it almost seems like a strategy that is worthy of Microsoft. (Hey! Why isn't anyone suing THEM?)
PVRs are going to become more and more important years down the road. And they're going to mix (or are mixing) with VOD functionality. And Microsoft looks like it wants to make the PVR part of a television/home entertainment hub.
But how the heck can a serious open source PVR project be started in this minefield of a legal environment?
Not necessarily so, they are a blunt tool, if I'm working on an Open Source PVR project, whether it's commercial or not they could wield their patents against me. We've seen it before in terms of MP3 licensing groups on behalf of Fraunhofer, Unisys with LZW licensing for GIF, Dolby threatening an AC3 decoder developer (just the decoder, not encoder), then there's all the Apple TrueType patents hanging over Freetype, non of the above projects are commercial yet they are threatened.
Reflect on this though, and try and keep it in mind when we as a collective group bitch and moan so loudly about software patents.
Typically, at the date a patent is applied for, most of what we consider "prior art" is pretty much bleeding ege and below your general radar. The fact of the matter is that in early R&D phases, many small companies may be working on very similar ideas. I've worked for several of these over the years, and while some had patentable ideas, most didn't bother and simply forged ahead to get the product out the door and into the public hands. From a consumers point of view, that is great! From a companies CFO standpoint? Oh shit.
Anyhow, I'm rambling again. This is a fight in which it seems prudent to take a side. In this case, I only see one champion, and that is TiVo. They cooperate with the hacking community, they use our favorite OS. They don't hide behind a veil of invulnerability (far from it) snd seem to be able to straddle the fence between commercial interests and the public good.
I'm backing TiVo.
Let the two companies fight out their patents between each other. Likely most will be invalidated, as I'm sure the basic one that TiVo was awarded recently will be. After they're done fighting M$ will either buy up the winner (at a lower cost than now) or sic their own legal team on the patents. I'd make a comment on the obvious nature of patents getting approved, but that would be redundant to dozens of other stories posted over the years. In the PVR market there's only going to be two main players. The mains will be one who kiss content producers ass, and the first one to please the consumer. Microsoft is setup to be the first, and TiVo is making sure they are not the second.
I currently own a TiVo, and simply would stop watching commercial TV altogether without some such device, but their recent business activity has stopped me from upgrading my stand alone to a DirecTiVo. I still think SonicBlue should release the software for their boxes open source and make money off the boxes, they're a seriously bottom contender in the market, and free help on the software (it needs it) combined with some penetration would help.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
TiVo and SONICBlue both holding patents on parts of PVR technology... reading the synopsis, I immediately thought of this post from a story on Macromedia and Adobe getting involved in a patent fight:
"I gained a friend in a the large company that I worked for legal dept... Basically the story went like this, when we are sued we look at their portfolio of patents, then look at our portfolio of patents that we have that might cause their products to infringe... Which ever pile is taller gets paid royalties by the other company. That is a defensive patent."
At the time, I called it one of the "stupidest things I've ever read." Now we get something even stupider; patent fights over parts of the same aggregation of technology that is a PVR.
There are two ways for this to end; either both sides kiss, make up, and milk future PVR manufacturers for massive licensing fees, or the resulting patent apocalypse wipes out at least one combatant, severely harms another, and helps to stall future innovation in home video storage technology.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Yeah, right.
Someone on the AVS Tivo board suggested that this may be a gambit by both TIVO and SonicBlue to validate their Patents.
When you think about it, it comes at an odd time (with TIVO being awarded more patents.) This person suggested that SonicBlue would sue TIVO over certain patents, TIVO would countersue, both would settle and cross-license and the patents in question would have precedent in the court system. Both could then turn on MS and demand licensing fees for the validated patents.
Hopefully something like that is happening.
Face it, the system fell apart as soon as there was the concept of the 'professional politician.' What there needs to be is a clause that nobody can spend more than ten years in (elected/appointed? Still need civil servants, possibly) gov't service, and must have a recognized public sector trade or job. That would guarentee 'citizen legislators.' Or, as Douglas Adams (more or less) puts it, 'by definition, anybody who actually wants to be President is automatically the person least suited for it.'
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Our patent laws require companies to enforce their granted intellectual monopoly rights. Anything else is fiscally irresponsible and subjects the company executives to charges of mismanagement by investors
Not true. Our Trademark laws require that the Trademark be defended or else lost (if sufficiently diluted). Patent laws require no such thing. This is why Unisys was able to show up after several years and say 'Hi, we own the patent for some underlying technology in the GIF format. Pay up!'.
Finally, I'm not sure why investors are so bloodthirsty, but given that companies like Enron can basically mismanage a multinational giant into the ground, not exploiting a possible advantage when it is considered unethical should be doable without calling the wrath of the stockholders.
Reboot macht Frei.
to negotiate the cross license and stipulate to a consent judgment as to validity of each other's patents. Then, armed with the consent decree, they can use the vehicle to support preliminary injunctive relief as against third parties.
Relax, this is just how the game is played. Its the birth of a new enterprise and industry, with a pretty cool and different product that changes the way people enjoy consumer electronics. This is going to set the framework for development, and indeed, will assure at least a pair of effective and worthy competitors poised to beat up on Microsoft when they try to come to play.
At least until Microsoft buys one of them . . .