Slashdot Mirror


TiVo vs EchoStar - TiVo Wins

ssuchter writes "A jury just ruled in favor of TiVo in their suit against EchoStar, awarding TiVo $73M of the $87M they asked for. From the article: 'TiVo had sought $87 million in damages from the Dish satellite-TV network in a patent dispute that TiVo lawyers said could be "life or death" for the company that sold the first box for pausing and rewinding live television.'"

26 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. EchoStar was so shocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They had to rewatch the decision 7 times on their TiVo.

  2. Well, this saves Tivos butt... by Abreu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good to hear an innovative company is able to have its patent respected...

    Bad thing is, the lifespan on a patent will probably make that what is right now good news, later becomes bad news

    --
    No sig for the moment.
  3. Idiot Lawyer by MDMurphy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If EchoStar's lawyers argued the case with lines like:

      "I don't think 190,000 people would have bought this particular toy if they could have gotten it free from their cable company."

    no wonder they lost. I think that was TiVo's point, free boxes from the cable companies ( if you want to call subsidized by higher cable rates "free") cost Tivo sales.

    1. Re:Idiot Lawyer by Jerf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if you want to call subsidized by higher cable rates "free"

      I have a simple rule: s/free/paid-for/g, in all promotional material.

      Then you think about who is paying for it.

      Every once in a while, the answer won't be "you, the customer", and that's when you should jump if you're interested. But usually, it's you.

  4. Re:Tivo boxes are free now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You miss the point. First off, the jury ruled the infringement was knowingly done, ie, deliberate, so the judge could triple the damages awarded to TiVo.

    But it's not about one settlement from Dish/Echostar. TiVo will make much more money licensing its patents, and selling its software and services. Five years down the road and the money TiVo will be making in new business will make this award money look like chickenfeed. It's about getting TiVo's patents enforced, and getting cable companies and satellite companies to do business with TiVo. It's the legal decision that matters, not the size of the monetary award.

  5. Expected outcome, also expected to be appealed by nsafreak · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well Tivo did win the first trial (or the first battle in the war) but this is far from over. Let's look at a few points: 1) EchoStar posted profits of 1.5 billion for the year 2005. Tivo by contrast hasn't posted any profits and has lost close to half a billion since their inception. So guess who has the bigger pockets? 2) The next court that EchoStar will likely appeal to typically overturns 40% of the lower court rulings 3) Tivo's patent is currently being investigated by the US Patent Office. If they revoke that patent you can pretty much kiss Tivo good bye. It should be interesting to see how this battle continues.

    1. Re:Expected outcome, also expected to be appealed by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>f they revoke that patent you can pretty much kiss Tivo good bye.

      Then so f'n long. Its not the job of the courts to make sure you remain profitable. Especially over their "time warping patent" which in a nutshell is "we patent computers recording tv video for later playback." Uhh, no. Hope you lose. There's a difference between first to market and innovation. They've been nice enough to stay away from MythTV but waiting on the niceness of corporations isn't what I call justice. Tivo's patent should be revoked. Hell, they havent made a profit in years (ever?) so these patents aren't exactly holding them together to begin with.

      I'd rather kiss Tivo goodbye than anything that resembles a tivo (like mythtv) because of silly american patent law. If it takes another silly suit from echostar to question this patent, then all the better. No one else can afford to take Tivo on. There's no ACLU for ridiculous patents to fight the patent abusers.

    2. Re:Expected outcome, also expected to be appealed by MagikSlinger · · Score: 4, Informative

      I do feel sorry for TiVO, but on the other hand, can anyone read the TiVO patents and explain in plain english was exactly they patented? Even if it is just a "method and system" for digitizing video onto a hard-disk for random-access playback by the user, it would qualify as a novel invention in my books. It's just that, well... didn't the broadcast industry have that LONG before we did? And the basic idea of pausing live television was also used by television networks for instant replay which even used a hard-disk (but an analog one, if memory serves).

      I just hope TiVO doesn't get greedy and either tries to become a) an honest corporate citizen and tries to make win-win licensing deals with their competitors, or b) realise that the money is in the "bits about bits" and that their real cash cow is the recommendation service and TV guide.

      --
      The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
    3. Re:Expected outcome, also expected to be appealed by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>novel invention in my books. I

      Take videotape out. Check. Put hard drive in. Check. Get patent. Check. Novel invention?

      Recording television and watching it later. Hmm. I was doing this as a kid on my dad's old Betamax in the early 80s. Lets not push it here. Its a shame that companies like google and tivo have this geek halo around them, where we all just decide to give them a severe double standard. I'm certain if MS had this patent blood would be spilled by now.

  6. "multimedia time warping system" by Cthefuture · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What the hell kind of patent is that?

    What kinds of patents does TiVo actually have? Are things like MythTV at risk?

    I have been considering writing my own Myth-like software. I would hate to get it shut down because of some stupid GUI patent or something.

    --
    The ratio of people to cake is too big
    1. Re:"multimedia time warping system" by pete-classic · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's just a jump to the left . . .

      -Peter

      PS: Here I go again, proving there should be a "-1: I don't get it" moderation option.

  7. I have a Dish Network PVR (721)... by MrFrank · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... and it's not a TiVo. It's a VCR that uses disk instead of tape to do it's recording. Yeah you get the benefits of a random access storage medium, so you can watch whil you record and pause, etc.

    But is doesn't have the nice features that TiVo has. I can't record all episodes of a certain show, I can only give it a time to record (and it doesn't auto adjust if a game goed long). I can't tell it to record everything for a certain actor. Amongst other things.

    Now I never used a TiVo, but from what I have been told, the Dish PVR doesn't compete.

  8. Re:More expense for the consumer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Trust me, the cable DVRs were never really "free". You were paying for it somewhere in your cable bill, anyway. Now, all that will change is maybe a few bucks will go to TiVo, Inc., instead of into the pockets of the cable companies. I doubt anyone will notice the change.

    What is a big plus is that the chances are greatly increased that cable subsribers will have the option of using the vastly superior TiVo software on their cable DVRs (as will soon be the case for some Comcast subscribers), rather than the slapdash piece of crap DVR software that is currently offered to cable subscribers because the cable companies know the customer don't have any choice and don't know what they are missing. That will change, thanks to this legal decision.

  9. I hope this is upheld in the Appeals court. by ingoldsby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This was one patent I wanted to be upheld. Tivo put a lot of work into getting DVR's off the ground, and the have a rabid fanbase but almost nothing to show for it. Tivo makes a great product, I'm glad they won the first round and hope that this is the start of really good things for the company. As someone who has used the knock off's they sure didn't do a good job knocking them off, their product sucks. That said - I know a few people who absolutely love my tivo's but are content just getting by with the cable companies DVR because it only costs $6/month, which is exactly what this lawsuit is about. Sure did make my purchase of stocks last Friday pay off :)

  10. Mixed Feelings by logicnazi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On the one hand I'm happy to see a company that created a truly new product be rewarded.

    On the other hand I'm not sure that what TiVO did wasn't obvious. Using a HD rather than a videotape was surely obvious and automating the process of recording shows is not only obvious but far from original. All TiVO did is put both of these things together in a convient package and I find it hard to formulate any principled rule that would call TiVO's developments non-obvious but NPT's blackberry patent obvious.

    The difference seems only to be that geeks like TiVO and TiVO hasn't being suing individuals who decide to set up their computers to tape shows for them. But if they do get their patent enforced that is exactly what they *could* do in the future.

    In the end I tend to think the TiVO patent should have been rejected as obvious. However, I think the only reason TiVO didn't make money is the monopoly cable companies and satellite companies have on their markets. When data service becomes the commidity everyone buys and there is free competition amount content providers on an open protocal companies like TiVO won't be shut out by monopolists who can make it difficult for TiVO to penetrate their markets.

    --

    If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

    1. Re:Mixed Feelings by Burning1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I remember the incredible difficulty TiVo had trying to explain what their product did to consumers. These days, the PVR is ubiquidus. Back then, people still saw TiVo as a kind of VCR, which it really wasn't.

      Given the difficulty in explaining what a PVR did, I don't think the idea is entirely obvious.

  11. Dish had a DVR 1st by Brad1138 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I am surprised that TiVo won this case. Dish network had the 7100/7200 which could pause and record live TV before TiVo's patent. It may have been a piece of shit but it was still first. Obviously Echostars product would improve over time and the similarities of the current models are logical advance in the technologies.

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    1. Re:Dish had a DVR 1st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Obviously Echostars product would improve over time"

      I found the hole in your argument.

  12. Some of TIVO's US patents by nebaz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Found on a TiVo press release.

    US Patents

    6,850,691 - Automatic playback overshoot correction system

    6,847,778 - Multimedia Visual Progress Indication System

    6,792,195 - Method and Apparatus Implementing Random Access and Time-Based Functions on a Continuous Stream of Formatted Digital Data (continuation of 6,327,418)

    6,757,906 - Television Viewer Interface System

    They also have exclusive licensing rights to

    5,241,428 - Variable-Delay Video Recorder

    Japanese Patents

    3615486 - Multimedia Time Warping System

    Chinese Patents

    ZL 99804757.0 - Method and Apparatus Implementing Random Access and Time-Based Functions on a Continuous Stream of Formatted Digital Data (see US patent 6,327,418)

    ZL 00805987.X - Data Storage Management and Scheduling System

    This is of March 2005, they may have more since then. Also, if you want to search the text of the US patents, you can start here

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
  13. I don't think this is a bad ruling and here is why by Bodhammer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Disclaimer - I used to work for Philips. I'm still using a Series 1 Tivo that has been seriously upgraded. I own some Tivo stock.

    Tivo has been compared to the VCR and with that logic, does not deserve patent protection. I disagree and believe that Tivo did innovate and does deserve patent protection.

    What Tivo did first:

    1) Downloadable program guide - Before Tivo, the only automated way to record was VCR+. It was lame and with TV Guide print deadlines 3-4 week before publish date it was shaky.

    2) Digital recording - Though I agree that substituting a hard disk for a tape (media) may not deserve a patent, Tivo was the first successful use of mass market MPEG-2 recording. My tivo was 20 hours at first, this was an exponential leap. Tivo took open-source code (Linux), developed proprietary code and hardware, a dial-up infrastructure and made it work. They also, to the best of my knowledge, have honored the GPL and released their GPL tainted code back.

    3) User interface - don't even try to tell me this is derivative of any VCR interface that exists today. Tivo's GUI is 6 years old and it still works well.

    4) 30-sec skip, wish lists, filters, etc. might be considered standard now but when Tivo implemented them, they were revolutionary to the TV market and pre-digital TV.

    I ABOLUTELY do not believe in patent protection where prior art exists or where it's basic physics or biology, etc. that someone is trying to patent. That said, I believe that Tivo innovated, took risk, and is trying to defend its investment and true intellectual property. This is what the patent system and at a more basic level, property rights are all about.

    The real issue and problem is not Echostar, it is Hollywood and the MPAA. Tivo is the ultimate fair-use device. They deserve protection for their ideas and the right to survive in a FAIR market on their own ideas.

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  14. DIdn't have 'time warp' by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    As a Tivo stockholder, I've been following the trial as closely as I could. The patent focused on what they called the 'time warp' aspect. What came out in testimony was that the original echostar dish stuff could *not* let you watch a prerecorded program *and* simultaneously be recording a new program. It seems this functionality only made its way in to dish products *after* they had access to a Tivo which the Tivo dev team left them during a licensing/partnership meeting. Bad move on Tivo's part to leave equipment in a potential competitor's hands, obviously. What seemed to come out is that it was true the original echostar dish products *didn't* infringe on the Tivo patents, but that's not what they've been selling for a long time - they've been selling products that infringe on the patent.

    So, given that such a large company had a 'similar' product on the market *before* Tivo, and it didn't have anywhere close to the functionality which Tivo patented, it would seem to be that the 'non-obvious' or 'novel' aspects of the patent got a significant boost. If it was such an 'obvious' way of performing this trick, the people with an earlier technology would have indeed developed the 'obvious' technique and used it in their product.

    1. Re:DIdn't have 'time warp' by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's what was novel about TiVO's device. They had the same hardware limitations as everybody else, but they figured out how to get the data on and off anyway. TiVO didn't make their device work because they put a faster drive in their box than Echostar. They made it work because they were smart about where to put the data. That's not trivial.

  15. Prior art from long, long ago by sunderland56 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Abekas A62 disk recorder could record one video stream, while playing back another. It was introduced in the mid 1980's, so any patents involved have likely run out by now. Abekas even won an Emmy award for it in 1986.
    It was meant for professional studio use, cost about $150K, and only held 100 seconds of video - but hey, that was 20 years ago. I'm not sure how Tivo can claim to have invented the technology.

  16. Echostar has released a statement by Brad1138 · · Score: 3, Informative

    EchoStar Statement Regarding VERDICT IN TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Communications Corp. LAWSUIT

    April 13, 2006 - This is the first step in a very long process and we are confident we will ultimately prevail. Among other things, we believe the patent - as interpreted in this case - is overly broad given the technology in existence when TiVo filed its patent. We believe the decision will be reversed either through post-trial motions or on appeal. Additionally, the Patent Office is in the process of re-examining TiVo's patent, having determined there is a substantial question concerning the validity of the patent.

    DISH Network subscribers can continue to use the receivers in their homes, including their DVRs. Furthermore, TiVo dropped their claim that EchoStar's Dishplayer 7200 DVR infringes their patent.

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
  17. Checking it twice by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's good to make lists like this but there are a couple to shorten it by.

    2) Digital recording - Though I agree that substituting a hard disk for a tape (media) may not deserve a patent, Tivo was the first successful use of mass market MPEG-2 recording.

    As others have mentioned the original Dish Players had rudimentary recording before TiVo. They've been MPEG-2/DVB since inception.

    4) 30-sec skip, wish lists, filters, etc. might be considered standard now but when Tivo implemented them, they were revolutionary to the TV market and pre-digital TV.

    There were some VCR's on the market with a 30-second skip button.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  18. Re:State Law: The damages will probably be reduced by Free_Meson · · Score: 3, Informative

    Patent infringement cases are exclusively federal jurisdiction, so any state laws pertaining to damages would be completely irrelevant. More importantly, there aren't "punitive" damages in patent infringement cases -- the patentee is entitled to lost profits or a reasonable royalty for past infringement and an injunction against future infringement. Where the jury finds the infringement to be willful, that number can then be trebled.