Slashdot Mirror
TiVo sues EchoStar for Patent Infringement
jhkoh writes "TiVo has filed a lawsuit against satellite TV provider EchoStar for infringing on its 'Time Warp' patent for DVR time-shifting. TiVo CEO Mike Ramsay adds: 'Our aim here is not to litigate everybody ... but to further advance and seek commercial relationships so that people recognize the value of our intellectual property, and give us fair compensation.'"
Adolph Hitler sues Osama Bin Laden for infringements to his xenophobia patents.
So does this mean they'll be taking a SCO approach and be going after whomever inherited ReplayTV and other companies with DVR's on the market? Or even those OSS apps that make your Linux box into a DVR?
It's a shame because I like Tivo alot but saying you're not wanting to litigate people while suing them seems kinda silly.
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
What? TiVo has Intellectual Property? All together now, slashdotters (kneejerkers): "TiVo must die!"
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
For those who can't be bothered reading the article; "The suit, filed in federal district court in Texas, alleges that EchoStar's DVR infringes TiVo's ``Time Warp'' patent, which includes the method used to allow viewers to record one program while watching another and the storage format that supports advanced ``TrickPlay'' capabilities such as pausing live television, rewinding and slow motion." This does not mean that they'll be going after every DVR producer, only those who copied TiVo without adding any thought of their own.
So, I guess we'll be seeing more stories about TiVO going down the tubes ... as if it weren't there already (oh, another parallel to SCO).
It's about time Slashdot picked up on this. So does this make Tivo a bad guy now? Probably more important though is the effect this might have on the open source time-shifting software out there.
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
So as prior art did they list the PC?
I'm sure I've managed to rip CDs to the hard drive as the same time I'm playing music. Sure it's audio vs video, but it amounts to the same thing don't it?
Plus, I'm not entirely sure it's valid on the non-obvious point. Not having looked at the details I would say to implement it one could just ensure that the input and output subsections are separated, and then treat them individually. Each end has enough of a memory cache to hold a few (10?) seconds of video, and the hard drive takes turns emptying the input buffer and filling the output buffer from different sections (files) on the disk.
... by Dr. Frankenfurter:
"It's just a step to the left..."
Let's do the time warp again!
...and this story worries me. Anybody with some legitamate knowledge have any opinions on this one?
- fozzy
when they win this one who might they sue next? hmmm... Probably a good plan on their part to start with the 'little' guys first. ;)
Trick Play Patent No. 6,327,418
Time Warp Patent No. 6,233,389
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.
'Our aim here is not to litigate everybody ... but to further advance and seek commercial relationships so that people recognize the value of our intellectual property, and give us fair compensation.'
In other words, "We'll only sue you if you don't pay us lots first. We don't WANT to litigate everybody. But we will."
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Copyright and patent laws suck. I swear, if they're going to have IP laws like this, they should teach us NOT to share in Kindergarten.
The suit, filed in federal district court in Texas, alleges that EchoStar's DVR infringes TiVo's ``Time Warp'' patent, which includes the method used to allow viewers to record one program while watching another and the storage format that supports advanced ``TrickPlay'' capabilities such as pausing live television, rewinding and slow motion.
Huh? So I guess ReplayTV and Panasonic ShowStopper paid to license this "invention" from TiVo? I find that hard to believe, but I guess it's possible. Does anyone know for sure, or is ReplayTV (now owned by Denon&Marantz) next on the lawsuit target list? Seems odd that D&M would buy the flailing Replay without thier lawyers noting that their only product depends on an unlicensed patent owned by TiVo.
Of course, this also seems to indicate that TiVo isn't doing so well these days. I had thought they were doing OK.
Finally, I have to express my displeasure that such a patent was ever awarded. If anything, whoever patented the original VCR (assuming someone did) should hold this patent as well. Moving something from tape to digital storage and processing to provide the same features is not innovative enough to deserve a patent.
everything in moderation
Hi and color me biased but Charlie Ergen and Echostar built my business only to tear it apart. I was a C-Band dealer for years (Echostar was primary wholsaler) and had a great business only to see them introduce "Dish" that was not available to the dealers that had made them a success.
I have seen the tactics of Ergen purchasing companies and assimilating technology and in some cases reverse engineering IE:Polaroter
Go Go TiVo !!
TG
Gimme a break, the first thing I have to say about this, is other companies have been doing this for years, and Tivo waits until now until to sue? It seems to me that Tivo (obviously) knew about this competitor product, and was just sitting around waiting until the competitor's product reached critical mass (with all of the promotions Dish is running, they have been distribution a very large number of these infringing DVRs). Waiting until the competition is firmly committed in their distrobution gives Tivo the largest advantage (READ: Amount of money).
In cases like this where a company waits around to sue until it will make them the most money, rather than suing to protect their property, should have their patents revoked. Patents are only around to protect inventors, not to make the inventor money (that's what the invention is for).
I find that most often I end up learning from necessity, rather than for enjoyment.
...he was well spoken and got his real intentions across, unlike the recording industry.
So Tivo has patented the idea of recording television using a) a bunch of video codecs they didn't invent, b) a bunch of commodity hardware they didn't invent, and c) the brilliant invention of rewind, fast-forward and get this... pause.
There are many original and non-obvious aspects to the Tivo design. The ability to record television, and (!!!) play it back at the same time, do not count. Give Tivo this one, within five years they'll be claiming patent infringement against anyone who records TV onto a hard-disk.
Incidentally, I remember back when Tivo obtained this patent. A bunch of Slashdot commenters-- with a "RTF(Patent)" attitude similar to yours-- made no effort to conceal their contempt for those of us who thought the patent might affect similar (but non-identical) implementations. IIRC, they made a big deal over the precise details in the claims, and how you would have to infringe upon all of those things to merit a lawsuit. Looks like things aren't quite so rosy.
I liked the idea of Tivo (though not enough to take out a subscription even when they were in business in the UK... I don't watch *that* much TV) but this lawsuit has instantly turned me against them. Claiming IP/patent rights over an *idea* rather than a *technique* is exactly the kind of bullshit thinking that is going to kill off innovation in the West and allow countries like China and India to squash us in the future even as they laugh at our unbelievable stupidity in letting lawyers rule the roost.
Once a company starts bleating about "intellectual property" and issuing lawsuits to protect it rather than actually making a product that people want to buy, then it's doomed. Last I heard, this was a free market. If not enough people want to buy Tivos to keep the company in business, then fuck 'em.
(But in true SCO style, it probably means their share price will rise, so invest now before the company dies its inevitable hideous death!)
Who's the boss of Tivo? Is he going to become the new Darl?
You must think in Russian.
Why are people just randomly allowed to patent doing things? "Tivo's can pause and rewind live TV, so they should be the only legal way to do so." So if the train company patented driving you to work, and i decided to walk, i'd be infringing on their patent and hopefully arrested before arriving to work. Justice is served.
Does anybody know if there is any kind history between the two companies?
According to the articles, Echostar has been offering DVR-like capabilities for awhile now; the suit is just based on some of their latest features. And obviously, TiVo has also been in this business for some time. Echostar offers the product with a service, and TiVo offers the product as their primary line of business. In this type of situation, it's only natural that one might approach the other and propose some kind of deal.
Is there any chance that there is a history of offers/solicitations between the two companies, and that TiVo filed the suit because of being rebuffed?
(Disclaimer for the attorneys: This is just wild speculation based on the "sniff test". As in, this suit just seems to be a bit too much from the clear blue sky...)
Microsoft Windows is, fittingly, the official Desktop OS of Olig
Exectuive -> Human translation:
'Our aim here is not to litigate everybody, just the people who don't pay us liscencing fees'
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
If I were up to infringe a time warp patent, I would create prior art in the past.
it could make Tivo a target for buyout by large copyright holders. If you can't outlaw digital time-shifting, owning a patent on it is the next best thing.
The shareholder is always right.
(Given the validity and applicability of their patent)
To begin with, unlike SCO, we know what the supposed infringement IS.
The SCO case is about breach of contract. Although the "going after end-users" the managment keeps spouting out is about copyright.
That is ludicrous.. end users have no liability in such a case, since they did not commit the infringement.
(much like a magazine subscriber is not liable if the magazine prints a plagarized story)
In patent cases, this is different. Noone has the right to use patented technology without licence. There is such a thing as contributory infringement concerning patents, which means that you can be liable even if you didn't commit the actual patent infringement.
On the other hand, going after consumers is a bad idea. Not only PR-wise, but there are also laws in place to protect the consumer. So that's very unlikely.
Also, there's no money in sueing private OSS developers.
Anyway, there are a few options here:
They back down and pay for a license
They get lawyers and try to get the the patent invalidated in court
If 2 fails, you can either:
Pay for a license
'Break' the patent, find a workaround with the same functionality which isn't covered by the patent.
See here
- commercial-skip is available on vcrs as well.
- TiVOs patent is from 1998. I was able to record, time-shift, simultaneously record/play back the same show, pause playback, skip commercials, or rewind while recording, etc., in January of 1996, and others friends were able to do it before me (bought an ati PC2TV after seeing a friends back in 1995). So people were doing this at least 3 years before TiVO got its' patent - and they were doing it with off-the-shelf components and software. Sounds trivial to me.
- TiVO is doing random access of media. Same as any CD owner. Or even a vinyl lp owner. Nothing new there.
TiVO is trying to "monetize it's IP", and they'll end up like SCO because energy and resources spent on this sort of stupidity (fighting over improperly-granted patents) takes away from improving the product that is the reason for their existence, same as SCO.Heh, its funny how some companies we like can defend their intellectual property while others we dont are a bunch of tossers for trying to "imprison information and stifle innovation"..
Hmm...wonder if the reaction would be the same if tivo were going after some linux pvr solution offering timeshifting..
Tivo and SonicBlue Settle Dispute. According to this article at the Stereophile Guide to Home Theatre, Tivo and SonicBlue have decided to dismiss all patent-infringement claims 'without prejudice' and instead focus their energies on energizing the DVR market. 'We believe our energies are better spent expanding the market for DVRs rather than fighting each other,' the former adversaries said in a joint statement. The article also discusses their plans for marketing and also how they plan to respond to criticisms that the DVR market is doomed.
I would presume they probably got through discovery and realized it was a lose-lose battle and simply ended up cross-licensing each others' IP at the end of it.
ob MS footnote: Note that the old Echostar PVRs werea ctually developed by Microsoft and precursors to what became UltimateTV. Wonder if they'll sue MS too? ;-)
BalamI'm a longtime Dish customer. Yes, I suffered through the long HELL that was the DishPlayer.
Incidentally, my DishPlayer is still in service, and since they fixed the software bugs, it's actually quite reliable. My only complaints, really, are sometimes poor menu response time, and the fact that it's a rather noisy box. I'm sure some extra storage capacity would be nice, but the thing's like 4 years old.
Anyway, EchoStar bought the DishPlayer (their first PVR) technology from Microsoft. (who had, in turn, bought it from another company, as a vehicle for getting WebTV subscribers hooked on MSN - guess what? didn't work! almost zero DishPlayer subscribers I know online actually subscribe to WebTV).
The DishPlayer itself is a rather nice, and simple interface. It doesn't really do much. But what it does is simple to use. It's "OS" is BSD unix. But the client software had some really really nasty bugs a few years back. I was talking with a lawyer who was seriously considering a class action against Dish. But they backed down after Dish finally fixed the problems. Dish actually sued Microsoft and got a settlement from them for their crappy buggy-ass WebTV client software, which was killing the PVR software during schedule downloads.
So I'm wondering if they're suing EchoStar for the implementation in DishPlayer, or the implementation in the later 501 or 721 boxes - whose software was written by EchoStar, and not based on the original DishPlayer stuff.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
It does not matter if TiVo was first to market or not if they filed their patent before who ever was first to market released their product. Was the DishPlayer out before April/July 1998? If not, it doesn't matter when it was released in relation to the TiVo boxes.
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
The concepts of trick-play and time-shifting are arguably obvious, the non obvious thing is how to do it technically. The big question here is how vague are their patents? i.e. how many ways to implement it technically do they think their patents encompass. This, of course, affects whether all DVRs that do trick-play etc. are reckoned to infringe or only DVRs which follow the same techniques.
Now any one doing this has three technical challenges: how to lay the data out on disk to ensure correct replay/storage (remember video and audio are real-time and therefore data has to arrive in a guaranteed time); how to encode the individual streams; and how to construct indexes into the individual data that point to data that can be discretely played whilst in trick mode.
Now there are a lot of papers around from the early 90s (I did some of this research) that tackle the design of filesystems to guarantee timely retrieval. A lot of this pre-dates Tivo.
The encoding of the data on disk affects ability to do playback in reverse. If each video frame was encoded separately (intra-coding), then reverse play is easy. The problem comes with inter-coding techniques like MPEG, which encodes frames based on previous frames, which means the data can only be played back forwards. Here, reverse play can only be done on the separate encoded frames (so-called I frames in MPEG, which typically occur 4 times per second). There are many possible ways of locating these I frames, pre-built indexes or dynamic scanning of the stream are two examples.
There are many ways of doing trick-play and time shifting; to re-iterate, the important question is how vague are their patents, and what do they think is infringing.
it could make Tivo a target for buyout by large copyright holders.
This has already begun. CBS (part of Viacom), Showtime (part of Viacom), Disney, NBC (part of Universal), America Online (part of Time Warner), DirecTV (1/3 owned by Fox), and Sony own parts of TiVo Inc. MPAA is Paramount (part of Viacom), MGM, Sony, Disney, Warner (part of Time Warner), Fox (part of News), and Universal. This leaves MGM as the only MPAA studio without a finger in TiVo.
Tivo and Replay TV own a majority of the patents covering this technology, so it's not at all surprising they are attempting to receive their due licensing fees.
Tivo and Replay TV have a patent sharing agreement among themselves, but it does not carry over to other manufacturers. Between them they own enough patents to have virtual control over the technology.
The reason I suspect they're moving now is because many of the big cable and satellite companies have built PVR functionality to their set top boxes. The nationwide releases of such products from Comcast and Echostar has already started. If it goes well, as I suspect it will, the rest of the cable world will not be far behind.
If Tivo and Replay were to allow their technology to be "rented away" in cable company set top boxes, it would likely put Tivo and Replay out of business.
I expect Replay and Tivo will both try to receive license payments from any cable companies rolling out cable-box PVR's. As well they should, they each have a very full patent portfolio covering the technology.
Bottom line, why in the world should the big cable and satellite companies get a free ride, and not have to pay for technology they didn't even develop?
Because no matter what happens in regards to licensing, the cable co's are going to make one heck of a lot of money renting these set-top PVR's. So why shouldn't the legitimate patent holders, Replay and Tivo, at least receive some licensing fees for having developed the technology in the first place? That's what patents are all about after all.
Everytime we hear about a new invention/method, we always go, dang, why didn't we think of that! why? cuz it seems so obvious and trivial.
...) and look up his mailing address and credit account yourself, so you don't have to ask him for his credit account number or mailing address with every order. Bingo: One-click shopping.
Heard a story about that. (i.e. I haven't fact-checked this myself...)
The core of a flashlight battery is a zinc cup full of caustic paste capped by some asphalt-like material, with a carbon rod (wrapped in a bit of hydrogen scavenger if you don't want it to go soft on you under load) stuck down the middle. The cup is the negative electrode and the carbon rod the positive. Power is generated by the paste eating the cup from the inside.
At one time flashlight batteries were JUST that, wapped in cardboard and maybe with a metal cap over the tip of the rod to improve contact. This caused probles: Since the paste ate the cup, when the battery was nearly gone (but still producing plenty of power) the paste would eat a hole, soak the cardboard, and start destroying the (metal) flashlight.
Union Carbide (Eveready) "solved" this by guaranteeing that if their batteries ate your flashlight they'd give you another one. Didn't stop 'em eating the flashlights, of course. But they made good on their flashlights. By buying cheap flashlights wholesale. B-)
Of course everybody was trying to solve this problem. For years. Without success.
One day one of the engineers came home depressed and his wife (opening one of the newfangled steel cans of veggies for dinner) asked him why he was so down. "Because things weren't going well at work. We can't seem to solve the problem we're working on." he replied.
"What are you trying to do?"
"We're trying to find a way to keep batteries from leaking and destroying the flashlights."
"Well, why don't you seal them in a steel can?"
And thus was born the Ray-O-Vac sealed-in-steel battery.
Which they patented.
And which patent Eveready/Union Carbide challenged as "obvious".
Judge: "How long did you guys at Ray-O-Vac work on this problem and how much did it cost you?"
Ray-O-Vac: "This many years, this many dollars."
Judge: "How long did you guys at Union Carbide work on this problem and how much did it cost YOU?"
Union Carbide: "That many years, that many dollars."
Judge: "Doesn't sound obvious to me. Judgement for Ray-O-Vac."
MOST "AHA!" moments look obvious AFTER the fact.
= = = =
Having said that: Emulating something on a computer is IMHO obvious. So is taking advantage of the beneficial side-effects of the fact that you're dealing with an emulation on a computer rather than the thing emulated. Business methods, for instance.
Example: Use web page forms rather than a phone call or paper mail to do mail-order. Recognize the user by side-effects of his communication (preprinted order forms, recognizing his voice when he calls, browser cookies {which were ALWAYS intended to create a persistent identity across http requests},
Recording a TV signal to disk is half of the obvious emulation of a VCR on a computer. Playing disk data to a TV signal, with ability to pause/skip/fast-forward/fast-reverse is the other half.
Doing it on a multitasking computer, using separate applications for record and playback, has two side-effects:
- You can record one show while watching another.
- You can watch a show WHILE it's being recorded, pausing for munchies and bathroom breaks and skipping/fast-forwarding through commercials up to the real-time point where the show is being recorded and played back with imperceptable delay.
If I understand the patent correctly, this IS the time-shifting "invention". And as a straightforward emulation of a VCR on a computer it is thus obvious.
Additional side-effects are that you can record as many shows si
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
First, I want to say that I am completely objected to frivolous lawsuits. (The SCO Lawsuit is frivolous - they have no right to charge users to run linux before they have won in court)
Now that I've made that clear, I want to say that I completely support TiVo in this decision. The Dish Network PVRs are complete rip-offs of TiVo, right down to the design of their remote (they even took Tivo's trademark yellow pause button!). Dish Network is clearly and obviously trying to cut in on TiVo's business, and has been recently offering free PVRs to new subscribers. TiVo has every reason to be worried that their designs are being stolen. They rightfully own the patent, and the Dish PVR is a direct rip-off on TiVo; I believe that this is a fair use of the American patent system.
That being said, I can't say much in favor of Echostar. They have been known for their cutthroat business practices (most of which do very little to benefit the company itself), and the entire company is disorganized. Just look at forums around the 'net. You will find hordes of people who all hate echostar. I should know. I subscribe to their service. Over the past year, the quality of video streamed to my house has gotten poorer and poorer as they decrease the mpeg bitrate (on some channels, pixelation is VERY obvious). Fortunately for me, I've had very few other problems with the service, and haven't had to deal much with the company... so I see no reason to switch to DirecTV. But if the opportunity presents itself, I might switch.
This isn't the first time Echostar has been in legal trouble. They seem to have a bad history of lawsuits, patent-infringments, and tons of FCC violations. Hell... their CEO is also a professional gambler.
I may as well add here that I've used the Dish PVR. It does highly resemble TiVo, but lacks its ease of use.
I also own a panasonic time-slip DVD recorder, and I can safely say that it is quite different than Tivo's time-warp feature. It comes much closer to resembling a fancy VCR than a PVR.
Prior art probably won't be an issue. Sure, most of the geeks claim it was possible back in '96, but in all practicality, it wasn't possible with consumer-grade hardware. A Pentium-100 simply lacked the power to record and play NTSC resolution video simultaneously... not to mention that you'd fill up that 2gb hard drive very very quickly. The only thing I can think of that would allow such a "Time-Warp" would be the Amiga video Toaster; those date way back farther than '96.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
If it was so obvious, why didn't you or any other person patent it first?
Maybe it was so obvious he did come up with it first. And likely realized it was so obvious it wasn't patentable, and so didn't even start the footrace to the patent office, much less win it. Or maybe he did try to patent the idea despite its obviousness, and despite having invented the idea first, lost the footrace to the patent office because his postal worker took a coffee break and the patent application didn't get shipped across the country in that day's mail.
In this day and age, when dozens of people independently "invent" the same thing more or less at the same time simply because it is an idea whose "time has come" (the pieces and infrastructure that make the realization of that idea are in place for the first time), it is the corporation with the fastest lawyers who wins the footrace to the patent office, denying any other inventors of the same technology the right to use their own inventions, much less anyone else from building upon them.
The number of patents for non-obvious methods are vastly outweighed by the number of obviouse, trivial, unenforcable patents that are issued and that remain profitable because challenging them in court is just too damn expensive, and there are just too many tens of thousands of the fucking things (enough to bankrupt the entire GDP in litigation costs if they were all to be challenged).
The result? Our free market of competition of free no more: it has been reduced to a planned economy of entitlement monopolies, and the stock market little more than a glorified futures market on said monopolies (at least in the medical and technical arenas).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy