Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TiVo Buys Six New Patents From IBM

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the i-heard-ibm-patented-thumbs dept.

Thomas Hawk writes "TiVo reported in an 8-K filing today that on March 31, 2005 they purchased six new patents from IBM. The patents purchased reportedly have to do with audience research and measurement, integration of television signals with internet access, automatic rescheduling of recordings, content screening, enhanced program information search and electronic program guide interface enhancements. For those of you privacy advocates out there you will love Patent No. 5,872,588: Method and apparatus for monitoring audio-visual materials presented to a subscriber. " The link has very little additional information.

128 comments

  1. Interestingly by 2.7182 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of those patents actually depends (in IP sense) on patents bought by IBM from RCA in the 70s.

    1. Re:Interestingly by ZephyrXero · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      This is exactly the problem with our patent system! You should not be able to buy a patent!!! The whole idea of a patent is that an inventor has came up with something new and needs a time of leadway (not permanent) to get his product to market before other people and businesses try to compete with him. This is also why corporations should not be allowed to hold patents...it defeats the entire reason behind them existing in the first place! (And in a 100% capitalist society there would be no patents, so don't give me any of that "you're a communist shit")

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    2. Re:Interestingly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're a communist shit.

    3. Re:Interestingly by tlpalmer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What if I invent something, patent it, but don't have the funds to develop it further? I could make my money by selling the patent to a firm that is able to put in extra resources, and hence be compensated for effort I put into inventing it. Surely that's the reason people are allowed to buy/sell patents.

    4. Re:Interestingly by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      Special exception: Individuals (and I personally don't count corporations as individuals) may sell patents to corporations.

      We still need big-time patent reform. There's no talking your way around the problem.

    5. Re:Interestingly by tlpalmer · · Score: 1

      What then if myself and some particularly inventive friends invent a thingy together, and form a company that then gets a patent on the invention. If patent-selling is restricted to individuals, then we can't sell it to someone able to take it further. Don't you think that, whilst stopping large companies from messing with everyone, limiting patent selling to individuals would cause smaller businesses to lose out?

    6. Re:Interestingly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, I own my DirecTv Tivo box. It looks like Tivo may start suing competitors to make a buck. I am sick of Tivo trying to exloit its subscribers with ads for the sake of profit. I know better ways. Make a better product. Enhance the service. Listen to the customers. Buying patents, pushing ads and suing competitors to stay alive does not make the Tivo product better. This track won't save Tivo if its business is failing.

    7. Re:Interestingly by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

      Don't sell your patent, licence it... You can sell these companies the right to produce your product without selling them the patent.

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    8. Re:Interestingly by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

      "and I personally don't count corporations as individuals"

      I agree, but it's too bad the US government doesn't...

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    9. Re:Interestingly by mobets · · Score: 1

      You could license it to other firms.

      If pattents were limited to how to do something rather than simply an idea that something could be done, then licensing would not be nearly as big of a problem. If someone didn't want to pay you, they could still figure out a better way and get a patent on that even if both are acheiving the same goal.

      --

      It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
    10. Re:Interestingly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, how dare TiVo try to make money and stay in business! They should listen to you and do whatever you say! You know best!

      Moron.

    11. Re:Interestingly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely patents that existed in the 70s have expired by now?

    12. Re:Interestingly by Ed+Bugg · · Score: 1

      I am sick of Tivo trying to exloit its subscribers with ads for the sake of profit. I know better ways. Make a better product. Enhance the service. Listen to the customers.

      I don't see, what TiVO has evolved into, as much as trying to make a couple of bucks, as it's more of trying to applease the Media companies. Look at what happened to ReplayTV, some say their product and service was much better than TiVO, were are they today? ReplayTV was basically sued out of existance within 18 months of trying to defend itself. Yes the product still lives, barely, but the company itself is long gone.

      I think that was the writing on the wall for TiVO, going up against any one of them is suicide in itself, but do something that makes them come together, and you'll be a speck on the wall. The ads, moving into a media marketing company, I don't think this was the direction they envisioned when they started the company.

      Lets face it, yes the business is failing and they are running around with their heads cut off, but not by choice, Disney, ABC, Viacom, and etc are what's doing it.

      --
      -- Ed Bugg --You have freedom of choice, but not of consequences.--
    13. Re:Interestingly by angle_slam · · Score: 1

      You're right, of course. That's why the "corporations shouldn't own patents" idea is so stupid--everyone assumes "corporation" means IBM instead of meaning guy who incorporates himself to protect himself from liability.

    14. Re:Interestingly by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      liscense it, but do not outright sell it.

      Arn't IBM's patents purly defensive? I would expect that means Tivo doesn't actually need them.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    15. Re:Interestingly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the point. Tivo WILL go out with there new business strategy. I personally love the existing Tivo service and don't want them to go out of business. Therefore, I think they need a different strategy.

      Your are right. Your ideas are way better than mine.

      Moron.

    16. Re:Interestingly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The patent system is modeled after land ownership, and therefore, yes, you can sell it. A patent is a right to prevent others from manufacturing or copying original work... it is not designed to give someone 'leadway', but rather to prevent people from copying them.

      A completely 100% capitalist society needs regulations in order to prevent monopolies and such - unless you are telling me that a true capitalist society should not have land ownership either... don't confuse capitalism with anarchism - they are different. A government will always have rules, since that is precisely what a governments power and function is based on.

  2. Confused by Travelsonic · · Score: 2, Informative
    The patents purchased reportedly have to do with audience research and measurement, integration of television signals with internet access, automatic rescheduling of recordings, content screening, enhanced program information search and electronic program guide interface enhancements. For those of you privacy advocates out there you will love Patent No. 5,872,588: Method and apparatus for monitoring audio-visual materials presented to a subscriber. "
    This all slipped by me like water, so now they control a method of how people reciecve and view content online/on TV?
    --
    If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    1. Re:Confused by Travelsonic · · Score: 1

      I mean internet controlled video content methods, and how people recieve media via that, and standard television methods, and how the interface is made?

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
  3. Some more information... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Informative

    The link has very little additional information

    No kidding. In the interest of promoting more discussion, here's the abstract from patent #5,872,588:


    Method and apparatus for monitoring audio-visual materials presented to a subscriber

    Abstract

    A method and apparatus for content coding of Audio-Visual materials is presented. The content coding can then be decoded by a home station where the content coding is collected and processed. The content codes are utilized by the subscribers home station to collect information on the subscribers selection of AVM streams and record information on which AVMs have been presented to the subscriber. An audio-video material distribution system is described for supplying AVM streams to home station via a local distribution network. The home stations decode the content coding from the AVM streams and collect the encoded content codes. The collected content codes are then sent to collection centers for processing. The encoded information may also utilized to provide management of an upstream channel between the home stations and the video distribution node.


    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Some more information... by MindStalker · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know a guy who used to work at Neilsons and this was one of him primary jobs. Working with broadcasters to get them to put codes in their programs to indicate show information/timing and where commerical breaks occur. Neilson wanted it for its automated ratings system, the broadcasters didn't want to put it in and were worried about assistig commerical skip technology. Shrugs.

    2. Re:Some more information... by Thieron · · Score: 1

      This could be related to some research that Neilson and TIVO are up to. I've got DirecTV TIVO and not too long ago was asked if I would give my permission to allow them to collect viewing statistics from my account. We know TIVO already does this and it looks like they are trying to bring something together with Neilson to allow TIVOs to become ratings boxes too.

      While it opens up concerns about privacy, etc. Personally, I don't mind letting the ratings types know what I watch, considering I've had a few shows I really liked get canceled on me.

  4. The best patents. by krbvroc1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    One of the patents appears to be "A method for diversion of eyeballs in conjunction with the suspension of sound during commericals".

  5. Close ... but not quite by stinerman · · Score: 3, Informative

    The link has very little additional information.

    Well its the submitter's blog. I was about to call a Roland Piquepaille on this, but there aren't any ads on the site.

  6. I don't need to give you any steenking subject! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here you go!

  7. These are patented by Telvin_3d · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every time I see any sort of list of the things IT companies have pattented, I have to shake my head in wonder. Is it just me, or is half this stuff common sense, not a breakthrough in tecnology. If they can give a pattent for 'enhanced program information search', I am surprised that Google hasn't simply gone through the dictionary and patented a search for every item that has an electrical signal. These things should be features, not patents.

    1. Re:These are patented by hackronym0 · · Score: 1

      Please pay me a licensing fee for the idea that I just patented: a method for revenue generation whereby the company solicits licensing fees for patents that were obtained by randomly generating words.

      --
      This is completely false. This is not a sig.
    2. Re:These are patented by timeOday · · Score: 1
      It's not just tech companies though. Ever made a sandwich, spreading both slices of bread with butter (or peanut butter) to keep it from getting soggy? Turns out that's patented:
      Smuckers actually has a patent on the peanut butter shield, to stop the jelly from soaking into the bread, unlike a sandwich with peanut butter on just one side, which gets soggy when the jelly gets through.
    3. Re:These are patented by Telvin_3d · · Score: 1

      If they don't get a handle on these types of patents then at some point there is going to have to be a real house cleaning. Depending on how much worse it gets, any serious buisness will move outside of North America where the patent system is friendlier to inovation and competition.

    4. Re:These are patented by Clod9 · · Score: 1
      No, no, you don't get it. The US is quickly muscling other nations to adopt its policies regarding intellectual property, so that the same general set of laws on copyrights and patents will apply across the globe. There will be no place to run to get away from the corporate masters.

      Why? Because American and European growth is dependent on IP almost as much as it is on oil. If a significant portion of the world could trade with a nation that didn't respect "our" patents, our economy would fall over a cliff. We buy and sell bits to each other for vast sums of fiat money, but the bits have no inherent value. If they become available for the cost of the media elsewhere, the present inflated value disappears in a puff of smoke.

      That won't happen, though. We have too many bullets, bombs, and airplanes. And I am convinced that (a) we will be forced to choose whether to use them to "protect our property", and (b) we will in fact use them. In fact I am so sure of this that I try not to think about it too much, it's depressing. Before GWB was re-elected, I thought there was a chance I was wrong. But no longer.

    5. Re:These are patented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah we're gonna go bomb the EU. Whatever.

    6. Re:These are patented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel like this sometimes too. But this isn't a 'me too' post. I think because we are so adept in the technology (i assume you are a geek of a computer sort) a lot of things seem trivial to us.
      how long would it take you to write a bubble sort? you may even ask, 'with eyes opened or closed', right? but that is a technique, and looks like a patentable one because noone patented it yet.
      the problem is with non-professionals in USPTO (and other countries) who decide what's obvious and what's not.

    7. Re:These are patented by Telvin_3d · · Score: 1

      Except that at some level it does become trivial. There are basic interface components that we all take for granted that are patented and that could be enforced. If cars had been invented by the curretnt IT industry, can anyone else see a patent for 'method to start a vehical'? Or 'placemant of breaking devices on the axel of vehical'? And where would the car industry be now if Ford was the only one alowed to make cars with starters or breaks?

  8. Prior art. by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Interesting
    > For those of you privacy advocates out there you will love Patent No. 5,872,588: Method and apparatus for monitoring audio-visual materials presented to a subscriber.

    "The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live--did live, from habit that became instinct--in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."

    - Some dude, prior art, ca. 1948

    Even as a junior employee, George was always better at writing functional specifications than literature.

    1. Re:Prior art. by Enigma_Man · · Score: 1

      Now, IR cameras allow you to scrutinize every movement, even in darkness.

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    2. Re:Prior art. by perkr · · Score: 1

      Plese, prior art only has to do with the claims in the patent, not the general context of the patent.

    3. Re:Prior art. by Yer+Mom · · Score: 1
      Now, IR cameras allow you to scrutinize every movement, even in darkness.
      See the Paris Hilton video for an example of this.
      --
      Never mind Spamassassin. When's Spammerassassin coming out?
  9. Six "New" patents by panaceaa · · Score: 3, Funny

    How are the patents "new"?? Patent #5,872,588 was filed in February 16, 1999 ... that's over 6 years old!

    IBM must have hired a really good cleaning crew to make TiVo think it was shiny and new :).

    --
    my blog
  10. Legal Trouble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Woah for a second there I read:

    TiVo Buys Six Packs From IBM

    and was very scared for both the legality of an older company selling beer to a younger company and also I was worried how that might corrupt an innocent little company like TiVo.

  11. I am curious by zioncity · · Score: 1

    Will any of these Patents help Tivo with competitors, and their long term survival?

    1. Re:I am curious by Generic+Guy · · Score: 1
      Will any of these Patents help Tivo with competitors, and their long term survival?

      From a quick glance at a couple of these patents, I'd say at least some of them relate to the upcoming pop-up ads (while fast-forwarding) which TiVo seems bent on providing to their paying subscribers. That, and reporting which ads get watched (or better, rewound and re-watched), and which are skipped.

      After last year's Super Bowl Janet Jackson boob slip-up ... er, slip-out... TiVo was able to provide very good statistics about how many viewers rewound and rewatched that segment. It makes Nielson surveys look like cave-man technology. TiVo has been able to turn the corner and start winning over advertisers who were initially against TiVo. Their main revenue source seems to be changing from subscriptions over to ads, and ad monitoring. The pop-up ads are the newest way to sell and monitor those ads. Last week TiVo already said they expect to be profitable be the end of this year.

      --
      { - Generic Guy - }
    2. Re:I am curious by zioncity · · Score: 1

      I love it when I get, or see a response that is very well educated and makes good sense,... well said Generic Guy.

      Although I am against pop ups... they are what is needed to help make Tivo profitable. I mean that is how TV networks get much of their main revenue.

      Lets hope when Tivo is Profitable, they will start expanding to better and newer hardware and new features, while keeping mainly with the Tivo way of life.

  12. More info here by MarkGriz · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's more info on the 8K filing here

    --
    Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
  13. TiVo Recommends by teiresias · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I assume most of these patents were bought with for the TiVo Recommends functionality. I'm sure they can (and will) be used to gather information about the end user but that's not what I'm concerned with here.

    As an owner of two TiVo's, I've always disabled this feature. It's not that I don't want to know what TiVo thinks I might like, that could be interesting, it's that for the most part, this feature has always been pretty wasteful. It's recommended shows that relate to other shows I've only recorded once. Instead of recording the shows, a Tivo page with suggestions and say the teaser would be much more helpful.

    --
    -Teiresias
    1. Re:TiVo Recommends by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I keep it enabled, but mostly as a free space indicator. The TiVo will will all availible space with suggestions, and they are always deleted first. If I have 30-60 suggestions, I know those would go away before the TiVo deletes my shows.

    2. Re:TiVo Recommends by CFTM · · Score: 1

      Yeah, particularly when you have one roommate who watches nothing but Discovery Wings or The Military Channel as it is called now. My TiVo suggestion thing became absolutely useless because it was inundated with garbage about Navy Seals and F14 Fighter Planes.

    3. Re:TiVo Recommends by timeOday · · Score: 1
      I'm sure they can (and will) be used to gather information about the end user but that's not what I'm concerned with here.
      I don't understand that statement. A patent doesn't enable you to do something, it just stops everybody else from doing it also.

      Since most of the patented "features" appear to be odious to customers, it would be ironic if buying these features lead TiVo to sell an inferior product.

    4. Re:TiVo Recommends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying your TiVo thinks you're a warmonger?

      <obpatriotparanoidism>
      Not that there's anything wrong with that.
      </obpatriotparanoidism>

    5. Re:TiVo Recommends by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      for the most part, this feature has always been pretty wasteful

      Actually, the suggestions automatically recorded by TiVo don't waste anything, because they are automatically deleted if the space is needed for a scheduled recording.

      I figure the Tivo records enough stuff for me so that it deserves to get to watch what it wants the rest of the time. ;-)

      Oddly enough, my two TiVos have very different "tastes," presumably reflecting their different recording histories.

  14. Ridiculous by sloth+jr · · Score: 0

    A major portion of IP law that needs to change is the ability to transfer it. This often results in IP brokerage houses that do nothing useful except collecting licensing fees for their held patents.

    Patent protections need to start reflecting their original intention - to grant to that PERSON the right to solely benefit from their invention.

    1. Re:Ridiculous by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe a restriction of some sort, but this sounds bad.

      Some people invent. They don't care to bring the products to market, there are others that are very good at that. This allows them to sell their idea, get money, and move on to the next invention.

      Some people even invent usefull stuff, although that is far less common.

    2. Re:Ridiculous by back_pages · · Score: 5, Funny
      Patent protections need to start reflecting their original intention - to grant to that PERSON the right to solely benefit from their invention.

      Uh, right, like making a profit by selling the rights to their invention. Not everybody has an industrial complex in their backyard. Good call. +1 Insightful for sure.

      Jeeze, everybody is an expert around here. I hope there's an alternate universe where IP professionals bitch and moan on an internet bulletin board about how IT professionals are idiots who can't perform their duties.

    3. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Yes, and IBM is (in)famous for their Silicon Valley tours, where a few lawyers from Armonk show up, let your company know that you're infringing 6-7 patents, and ask you to pony up some cash for "licensing". If you actually spend the money to defend yourself (as I know at least one company has), they'll merely come back later and say, "Oh, you're right, you don't infringe on those 6 patents, you infringe on these other 6 we dug out of our 30,000+ patent portfolio". And the process begins anew. Perfectly legal, and either way your company pays money, so IBM's selling point is "why not just pay us the money to go away?" It's the way of the world, and this smells like one of those fishing trips. Or else TiVo sought out these patents, as they knew they would need them. Right, check, gotcha.

    4. Re:Ridiculous by neonstz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My opinion (and probably many others too) is that it is too easy to get a vague patent without ever having the intention to actually implement it. Just sit all day long, figuring out cool stuff that may or may not be possible with todays technology and then file patents. Then, some years later someone spends a lot of time and money and comes up with something that the original patent in some way or another covers, and wham, they have to pay.

    5. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I hope there's an alternate universe where IP professionals bitch and moan on an internet bulletin board about how IT professionals are idiots who can't perform their duties.

      Well, you've been single-handedly trying to transform /. into that for quite a while now.

    6. Re:Ridiculous by wcrowe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hope there's an alternate universe where IP professionals bitch and moan on an internet bulletin board about how IT professionals are idiots who can't perform their duties.

      The problem I have with IP is patents are granted to people who have yet to create an invention. Patents should only be granted to actual, functional devices.

      It's like this: just because one might dream of owning a ranch in Montana, doesn't mean one actually holds property there. Yet that is how our current patent system works.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    7. Re:Ridiculous by ZephyrXero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He said to restrict transfer, not licence... If you want to just come up with the idea and farm it out to some company to produce You can still retain your patent, you just give them explict right to use it.

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    8. Re:Ridiculous by mzwaterski · · Score: 1

      My computer's hard drive crashed the other day and the IT guy bumbled about for hours on the thing. Meanwhile I spent the time drafting a patent for a "Method and Apparatus for Eliminating IT Jobs." Sheesh, IT people are the source of every evil in the world...

    9. Re:Ridiculous by sahala · · Score: 1
      The problem I have with IP is patents are granted to people who have yet to create an invention. Patents should only be granted to actual, functional devices.

      They generally are. When I was working on a project that hand some patentable pieces, we had monthly meetings with lawyers. While a fully functional device was not explicitly required, it gave the patent application greater weight. Furthermore, patent lawyers seem to advise completely building the device, whether a proof of concept or production-ready. This helps that practical limitations are exposed, and on the other hand also demonstrates any unforcasted additional features that can be used to strengthen the patent application.

    10. Re:Ridiculous by CFTM · · Score: 1

      I hope there's an alternate universe where IP professionals bitch and moan on an internet bulletin board about how IT professionals are idiots who can't perform their duties.

      As a memeber of said community that you are attacking, I'd like to say that I resemble that comment!

    11. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good lord, it's "property" and the essence of "property" and what makes "property" valuable is its transferrability.

      I'd like to see some proof that the original intent of patents was that they not be transferrable in any way.

    12. Re:Ridiculous by back_pages · · Score: 1
      Another poster has replied with some very informative material.

      What you are talking about is the difference between "constructive reduction to practice" and "actual reduction to practice". There are a number of extremely valid reasons why the US patent system requires constructive, not actual reduction to practice. Between this story and the one about Sony's patents for projecting sensory data, I believe I have written 4 posts today on this topic. Forgive me for referring to my recent posts rather than rehashing it.

      If you're curious, here is the relevant part of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure:
      MPEP 2138.05

      If you have any suggestions on how to adequately explain this topic in an approachable way to the Slashdot audience, I'm all ears. This concept is fundamental to the structure of the US patent system yet widely misunderstood.

      I hope that helps.

    13. Re:Ridiculous by NaruVonWilkins · · Score: 1

      It's resemble that "remark". Now, make like a banana and leave.

    14. Re:Ridiculous by NaruVonWilkins · · Score: 1

      Sure, but often, if they invent while working for a company, the company doesn't have to buy it from them (even though it's not in their job description to write patents). Microsoft, being used as a 'good' company in this example, does pay their employees for patents. Many companies don't.

  15. I guess.... by rdavidson3 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I'll need a tinfoil hat for my TIVO now.

  16. hmmm.... by rdavidson3 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Patent No. 5,872,588: Method and apparatus for monitoring audio-visual materials presented to a subscriber

    I guess I'll need a tin-foil hat for my TIVO now.

  17. As if we'd RTFA... by Reignking · · Score: 5, Funny

    The link has very little additional information.

    Well, you've done it now -- now we're not going to RTFA!!

    --
    One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    1. Re:As if we'd RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I usually never read the article, but the editors comment made me curious. It appeared to be slashdotted so I guess I'm not alone

  18. Question... by Robotron23 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Does anyone know what percentage of patents actually come into being one way or another?
    I'm curious as some of these seem fairly farfetched.

    1. Re:Question... by jargoone · · Score: 1

      Does anyone know what percentage of patents actually come into being one way or another?

      Hmm. The way you worded your question makes it easy to answer: 100% of patents come into being, one way or another.

      Try being a little more specific.

    2. Re:Question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. As far as I know, the boxes are owned not leased (I own mine). There may be cases where Tivo technology is used in a leased box, but that would be rare.

  19. The "Why" by OECD · · Score: 1

    ...so now they control a method of how people reciecve and view content online/on TV?

    Now they have another six arrows to fend off competitors like DISH Network (against whom they've an ongoing lawsuit.)

    It's a little suprising that IBM sold them outright. Corps usually cross-license patents. Either TiVo didn't have much to offer that way, or they think they can use them to good (litigious) effect.

    --
    One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
    1. Re:The "Why" by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This may be more about defending attacks on Tivo than fending off competition.

      Indirectly, it then also becomes a defense against attacks on Linux.

      So, it may actually make sense that IBM would sell these patents outright. They have more utility being used by Tivo than directly by IBM.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  20. Maybe... by CDarklock · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe this will make my Tivo smarter about recording programs. Right now, if we tell TiVo not to record something on a season pass, we have to go into the TiVo and tell it to record later when the same show plays again. But some shows have no descriptions, so we can't tell which of the upcoming episodes is the one we want to record.

    However, TiVo might be able to distinguish between them using some kind of internal identifier. If it was smart, it would respond to "don't record now" by rescheduling the recording for the next time the same episode was on. I'd like to see it get smart.

    --
    Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
  21. like for example .... by taniwha · · Score: 1

    were they bought? or licensed?

  22. This makes sense... by LaughingLinuxMan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As everyone and their brother/sister jumps into the timeshifting business (even FLOSS), Tivo needs to stay viable. They can do that with marketing information. Correct me if I am wrong, but these patents look like they have to do with collecting data about viewing. Such market information is worth quite a bit to advertisers. I expect Tivo to use these patents to force cable providers who also do timeshifting either to take no marketing data from their services or to pay Tivo royalties for the privledge.

    -LLM

    --
    Annoy a Conservative...
    1. Re:This makes sense... by rhizome · · Score: 1

      Contrast this announcement with the *other* recent announcement that they're going to be replacing commercials in saved programs. I thought that one didn't get enough attention, that they're going to be the only company who can keep advertising revenues going in spite of time-shifting. A big deal, though I don't like the pop-up idea if it actually comes to fruition.

      Anyway, some of these patents seem to hook up with these ideas. The other ones point to some more announcements and refinements in the future.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
  23. Question... by ral315 · · Score: 1

    Who owns a TiVo? Does the user own it, or lease it from the company? Because if TiVo maintains ownership of the box, they can do damn near anything they please with it.

  24. Re:Kill all Muslims. by Timo_UK · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    To muslims Jesus was also a prophet. Not as important as Mohammed, but the believe in him. Don't believe everything (anything?) your Texan warmongers tell you.

    --
    Timo's Audio Software http://www.esseraudio.com
  25. it's funny-- I read where it said "the link has by way2trivial · · Score: 2, Funny

    little further information"
    and immediately checked to see if it had been submitted to /. by roland pipquille

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  26. THE POPE HAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is not to be used as a POOP hat!

    Gah, I'm funnier than FORTUNE!

  27. very little information? by DoctorHibbert · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why that's very best kind of information! We can fill in all the gaps with our hopes, fears and dreams and then argue endlessly about them. Rock on Slashdot! Rock on.

    --
    Arbitrary sig
  28. seems like by Sv-Manowar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seems like TiVo are working on keeping ahead of the cable providers who are chasing them down on their market.

    If they can keep working on new things to make TiVo more desirable to the consumer, purchases like this will pay off in the long run.

    --
    Business Voyeur
  29. That's the Problem... by Nimrangul · · Score: 1
    That's the problem with patents and copyrights, they should be held by the originator for a set time then expire, not be passed on or sold repeatedly.

    One of the biggest weaknesses of the West is this kowtowing to big corporations like Disney and IBM.

    If I could change one thing in America it would be the removal of a corporation's rights, as they are not people and should not be able to do so much as they do.

    --
    I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
  30. New as in... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 1

    Never used? Maybe NOP for new-old patent.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
  31. Here's what they're up to: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's fairly obvious to a direct marketer like myself (ducks) that these patents are preparatory to turning TV into a direct-response medium (dodges).

    Specifically, they will be able to track viewership in real time, at the individual level (sidesteps), and link that viewship to Internet use (cringes), i.e. knowing how many of the 321,456 males age 18-35 who watched your commercial for the new Ronco Sex-o-Matic actually went online and ordered one.

    On the plus side, it shouldn't take too long for the system to fine tune itself to your tastes, and show you mostly commercials for stuff you actually want to buy (feigns unconciousness).

  32. Blore's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given a choice between two theories, take the one which is
    funnier.

  33. oh please by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 3, Informative
    "For those of you privacy advocates out there you will love Patent No. 5,872,588: Method and apparatus for monitoring audio-visual materials presented to a subscriber."

    Oh please. Privacy advocates nothing. I am as big of a privacy nut as the rest of you, but I'm also in the advertising industry so I know that in order for tv to work the way it does today, this patent is important. You see, the main reason you have "free" television is because advertisers are willing to shell out MAJOR dollars for air time. Now, if you were spending that much money, wouldn't you want some way to know your ad ran when they said it would? And keep in mind that you typically don't buy ad space for a SPECIFIC time, but rather a "time-slot". This patent is clearly related to how networks track the running of ads so they can give assurance to advertisers that they were getting what they paid for.

    Now, if they had technology to monitor audio and video OUTSIDE THE TV (ie. watching what you the viewer do and listening to what you say), that would be a different thing, although I'm sure Neilson would find many people willing to be monitored like that in exchange for big bucks.

    Hey, I should patent that idea.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:oh please by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      And I should patent the device I invent to block all outgoing signals. It will be "a method of using a computer firewall on a TV".

      --
      What?
    2. Re:oh please by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      You own the tv, not the signals. Interfering with signals that YOU decided to accept into your home would violate some sort of agreement I'm certain (well, with cable providers at least).

      And why do you care so much that they know you are watching X at Y time? Can you please give some serious reasons as opposed to just "Because I said so"?

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    3. Re:oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      He said outgoing. Pay attention. As for violating some sort of agreement...so what? You can't step outside these days without violating some sort of agreement or another, and according to you, I don't even have to step outside. What of it? Ridiculous restrictions and patents are still ridiculous, regardless of how you try to gussie it up.

      As for why do I care? What's it to you? I don't remember seeing a clause in the US Constitution that makes wishing to stem the tide of intrusiveness and unecessary monitoring in one's life a crime. If I agree to give you your data..fine. My decision. But it could easily be that I decide not to either...for no reason other than spite.

    4. Re:oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is Because I Said So not a serious reason? It's MY BUSINESS what I watch and when. The idea that it's an advertiser's right to know what someone else does is completely ridiculous.

      And this patent isn't necessary for TV to work the way it does today, TV's already working that way. If you mean it's necessary to maintain the revenue for the advertising companies in the face of Tivo-like technology, well you're a biased source now aren't you? You realize how annoying, how frankly REPUGNANT the current flood of ads is for people?

    5. Re:oh please by stinerman · · Score: 3, Funny

      I am as big of a privacy nut as the rest of you, but I'm also in the advertising industry

      DOES NOT COMPUTE

    6. Re:oh please by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      I usually don't respond to ACs, but let me point out that if you are in a contractual agreement with a service provider, and you violate that agreement, they have the right to terminate your service.

      If this agreement states that you cannot block any of the signals they transmit without their authorization, then that's your problem if you're willing to sign up for something like that.

      All I'm saying is that the unreasonable privacy nuts think that because you pay for something you get it however you want. But if you are in a contractual agreement that is not the case and people need to realize and respect that. If you REALLY are that concerned, and don't want to give more of a reason than "Because I said so", that is your perogative, and you are MORE than welcome to not sign up for, pay for, and sign a contractual agreement for said service.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    7. Re:oh please by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...Let's see...They can make up any rules they want just because "they say so", but I can't? Very interesting.

      If this agreement states that you cannot block any of the signals they transmit without their authorization... Emphasis mine

      What did I say about messing with the signal that they transmit? And why for goodness sake are you taking this so seriously?? I know there's no privacy in anything I do. I don't care anymore. The majority doesn't want privacy. I'll assume that means I not allowed to have it. Whatever floats their boat. I just move to a place where it doesn't matter. Also, regardless of any agreement, once the signal comes through my wall, it's mine to do as I wish, and that's just the way I will treat it. I'm not interfering with anybody else's signal.

      --
      What?
  34. Oh the irony: Anglicans bow to Catholics! by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Let's not forget how the Anglican Church came to be: because the pope refused to annul one of his many marriages, King Henri VIII simply decided to found his own Church!

    Now, fast-forward a couple of centuries...

    Prince Charles (a divorcee...) and Camilla Parker Bowles (another divorcee...) plan their wedding ceremony on April 8th. Unfortunately, the pope dies, and the cardinal decide that, out of 3 possible dates, they absolutely have to bury him on April 8th!

    What happens next? Charles and Camilla, not wanting to compete for the media's attention with the pope discretely move their ceremony to the next day... thus acknowledging that Catholic Church carries more weight than the Church of England!

  35. Could be a bad thing by Ruprecht+the+Monkeyb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So long as IBM held the patents, there was a good chance they'd stay out of the hands of Microsoft, Time Warner, Comcast, etc. I doubt Tivo has the cash to hold off a determined effort by any of those companies. Should those patents fall into the wrong hands, it could put a serious crimp not only on stand-alone PVRs, but even the PC boards that have equivalent functionality.

    1. Re:Could be a bad thing by jwsd · · Score: 1

      So long as IBM held the patents, there was a good chance they'd stay out of the hands of Microsoft, Time Warner, Comcast, etc. I doubt Tivo has the cash to hold off a determined effort by any of those companies. Should those patents fall into the wrong hands, it could put a serious crimp not only on stand-alone PVRs, but even the PC boards that have equivalent functionality.

      What makes you think IBM is the "right hands"?

    2. Re:Could be a bad thing by Ruprecht+the+Monkeyb · · Score: 1

      IBM has zero interest in being a media company, in selling PVRS, etc. Likely the patents would have sat on a shelf gathering dust until someone had the temerity to sue IBM for something related, at which point they would have been brought out like a rolled-up newspaper. OTOH, a Comcast or Microsoft could decide that they could be a strategic weapon to force competing PVRs off the market, or to expand their cable service because they could offer something the others couldn't.

    3. Re:Could be a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think you presume a bit too much about what IBM's interests are. 7 years ago, would anyone have thought Apple would be in the portable electronics business? The next Sony Walkman supplier?

      Now go sit down before I get the genital cuff Ruprecht.

    4. Re:Could be a bad thing by jwsd · · Score: 1

      According to your logic, a patent is in the "right hands" if the owner has no interest in building a product based on the patent.

    5. Re:Could be a bad thing by Ruprecht+the+Monkeyb · · Score: 1

      No, a patent is in the right hands if it's controlled by someone whose going to use it to build a better product, or license it to those who will. It's in the wrong hands if its controlled by someone whose going to use it prevent competition.

  36. as long as they don't buy #5,872,666 by big-giant-head · · Score: 1

    5,872,666: Method and apparatus for remotely blowing up head of presented subscriber if they change channel during commericals.

    --

    So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
    1. Re:as long as they don't buy #5,872,666 by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      5,872,666: Method and apparatus for remotely blowing up head of presented subscriber if they change channel during commericals.

      That's the one held by Zik-Zak, right?

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  37. What does this mean for other PVR systems? by FunFactor100 · · Score: 1

    What do all these "method to" patents mean for anyone who wants to make a competing product? For example, if someone were to sell mythtv boxes?

  38. Finally an article .... by fleppir · · Score: 1

    where RTFA is -1:Redundant

    --
    I am the Barber of Seville.
  39. Patent No. 5,872,588 by Ulrich+Hobelmann · · Score: 1

    "Method and apparatus for monitoring audio-visual materials presented to a subscriber."

    Like looking into your apache or ftp log to see who downloaded what?

    1. Re:Patent No. 5,872,588 by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

      "Method and apparatus for monitoring audio-visual materials presented to a subscriber."

      sounds to me like they've just patented the eyeball.

      --
      This space available.
  40. Tivo has always had a suggestions page... by Viewsonic · · Score: 1

    I've got a series 1 tivo and the service has always had a recommendation page that lists programs it thinks you will like. It's always done this. I dont understand why by default it automatically records these, but I also turned this off right away. Why bother using up space when you can just browse the list by hand.

  41. Money. by Viewsonic · · Score: 1

    They simply license out the technology for each unit sold. Tivo already owns a billion + 5 patents on DVRs as it is. This is just a couple more.

  42. Re:Kill all Muslims. by ZephyrXero · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    To call Jesus anything but the son of God would completely nullify the concept of Christianity. But don't get me wrong, the grand parent is a complete idiot. (see my other post below)

    Not all of us christians are idiots and assholes ;)

    --
    "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
  43. six? by m0rphm0nkey · · Score: 1

    Now the big question is...why not seven?

    m

  44. Re:Tivo has always had a suggestions page... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't be stupid. No space is "wasted" since Suggestions only uses unused space, and is the first thing deleted if space is needed.

    Big F_cking Deal.

    If you don't like Suggestions, turn it off, but don't fool yourself into believing that you are "saving space" because you are not, or that you are "saving energy" because you are not. TiVo runs all the time; it is always recording. Suggestions just means that it might have extra things recorded for you that you might want.

  45. Re:Kill all Muslims. by Chrax · · Score: 1

    Wow. First of all, he's a troll. What's the point of arguing with him? Second, I think he's pretty aware of what Christianity is about and is mocking the Christian tradition of promoting the deaths of non Christians (i.e. Jews, Muslims, pagans, and Christian heretics).

  46. Re:Kill all Muslims. by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I'm just sick of seeing this asshole posting this kind of crap, no matter if he's serious or not. But, I guess that is the definition of a troll right?

    --
    "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
  47. Re:Kill all Muslims. by Chrax · · Score: 1

    Yes. Yes it is.