Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TiVo Relaunching As a Patent Troll?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the i-thought-we-could-be-friends dept.

An anonymous reader writes "TiVo's quarterly call was a bit more dramatic than usual. While they continue to lose customers and innovate 'at a very unhurried pace,' TiVo seeks a repeat DISH Network performance in going after AT&T (T) and Verizon (VZ) for infringement. Basically, TiVo's current business model appears to be ad sales and patent trolling."

62 of 335 comments (clear)

  1. TiVo was cool... by ChefInnocent · · Score: 2, Interesting

    but then TV got boring. So, I canceled all of that years ago. It's a shame they are becoming a troll though, cause I really liked it way back when.

    1. Re:TiVo was cool... by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You make a good point - is this entirely a refleciton of changes in the TV market as a whole? TV sets still seem to be selling; I wonder how many are being sold to technologically adept people who buy things like Tivos, compared to more average people. I get the feeling that the continued paucity of quality TV might be driving away the kinds of people who would otherwise buy it.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    2. Re:TiVo was cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In my experience, average people still do watch a lot of TV, but it seems they're becoming more focused, viewing TV as a means of accessing specific shows rather than as a general leisure activity ("I want to watch the next episode of X" vs. "I think I'll relax in front of the TV"). The American-Idol style shows, particularly America's Got Talent, still seem to be doing quite well.

      Although I observed this mostly in middle aged and older audiences, so perhaps the viewing patterns aren't the same for the younger generation.

    3. Re:TiVo was cool... by eldavojohn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      TiVo was cool... but then TV got boring.

      TV didn't get boring. TV always was boring. You just fell out of the large cross section that is the target of the major networks. Maybe you grew up, maybe your tastes changed or maybe you got sick of it. Don't get me wrong, I still watch Adult Swim now and then but everything else is by and large off the radar. I overhear my coworkers talking about modern TV and it's pretty painful. You can make a show called "The <insert adjective here> Housewives of <insert location here> County" and you'd have an instant success (Ex: "The Virtual Housewives of Warcraft County"). There's nothing wrong with them liking it, I just can't see how one derives entertainment from it. Adult Swim is doomed though, ask a hundred people on the street about it and see how many watch it. It's a shame but I realize I'm just part of the minority.

      In my opinion, TiVo died by no one's fault but their own. TiVo enjoyed success and then sat and watched as Cox and Comcast (where I live) introduced DVR boxes into their packages that essential did what TiVo did. Maybe TiVo couldn't stop it? Maybe their trying to stop it with patent litigation? Who knows? TiVo needed to make itself more attractive to counter this and it just never did it for me. I never had TiVo because of the cost but I've had a DVR for a while.

      I don't think the blame lies on popular TV, it's as predictable and vapid as ever.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    4. Re:TiVo was cool... by Z00L00K · · Score: 2, Funny

      TV seems to be more and more reality shows, dull sports and bad programs for children than anything else.

      When the peak of science during the week on TV is Mythbusters (nothing really wrong with them) then there is something really bad going on.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re:TiVo was cool... by Strudelkugel · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have a Series 1 Tivo; bought it about 10 years ago with a lifetime subscription. I late 2004, the cableco offered an HD DVR with HDTV, etc, so I switched to that configuration and stuck the old Tivo on the shelf. In 2008 I subscribed to Netflix, and thought the cableco DVR really wasn't needed anymore since I rarely watch live sports at home, and everything else of interest in HD was available on HD DVD or upscaled DVD.

      I looked at the Series 3 HD Tivo, and decided to get one because it was cheap enough to amortize the cost in a few years, could stream Netflix and had some other nice features.

      My experience with it was bad, though. The thing had too many software bugs and there are far too many ads embedded in the menus. Tivo has unfortunately jumped the shark. I returned it, got a Roku box for Netflix, and reconnected my old Tivo (good thing I got the lifetime subscription), which makes sense now that the only timeshifting I need to do is for broadcast television, since everything else of interest to me can be streamed.

      Sorry to say, but I think Tivo will not be a "going concern" for much longer, given, in my experience, that their product quality has plunged and the need for a DVR is diminishing as more content becomes available via streaming. It's interesting to me that streaming made the old Tivo relevant again.

      --
      Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
    6. Re:TiVo was cool... by Dr_Ken · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With TV so fragmented and diverse now it's very hard for all but few shows to break out of the scrum and gain an audience. Just as with film studios the networks don't want niche viewers for quality programs (well maybe PBS does) they want blockbusters with high viewer ratings and long term rebroadcast royalties and DVD sales. Nobody wants a good but low rated Firefly; they all want a mega-hits like Seinfeld. As for reality shows they're cheap to produce.

      --
      "If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
    7. Re:TiVo was cool... by v1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but when there's only a few good things to watch (and/or several good things on at the same time),

      That's good news for the consumer. TV networks are well known to put good stuff on when other networks do, and crap when other networks do, so you have to pick what good show you want to watch because all the good stuff is on at the same time on different stations. (prime time) Time shifting adds a whole lot of goodness to the consumer.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    8. Re:TiVo was cool... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As much as I loath 'reality TV' it is very popular

      Only a total idiot would watch (un)reality TV. That doesn't dispute your assesment of its popularity.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    9. Re:TiVo was cool... by wperry1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The are at lease trying to get into those markets. The already offer Netflix streaming and you can purchase or rent content from Amazon. Hopefully they will continue to expand these options into content from sites like Hulu. I'd hate to lose my Tivo box because they went out of business.

    10. Re:TiVo was cool... by LandDolphin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To avoid patent troll status in my world patent holders need to, directly or indirectly, put those patents into products that are in consumer's hands. If the patent isn't actively being used to produce a quality product, then it's time to hand out the name tag that says "Hello, My name is Patent Troll."

      Tivo patents are "actively being used to produce a quality product". As many others ahve mentioned, they are not sitting on the patents, as a patent troll would.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    11. Re:TiVo was cool... by jank1887 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      BUT, other companies are still pedaling their hardware that infringes on Tivo's (still valid) hardware patents. Tivo enabled certain things that everyone was chasing after for years. should they be able to profit by copying? this is what the patent system was supposed to do, reward innovators with a temporary monopoly, and grant legal leverage to support that temporary monopoly.

      this is the patent system working as it should, for hardware inventions that have been reduced to practice.

    12. Re:TiVo was cool... by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So why are they a patent "troll"? It's not like they're claiming some dubious invention as their own or claiming minor modifications are innovations. They invented the DVR and made it easy to use, along with ReplayTV. They created the market. As other copycats whittle away at the patents and see much they get away with, it's only natural for Tivo to try to hold on. The article basically sounds like someone with a gripe against Tivo which is never articulated.

    13. Re:TiVo was cool... by jeffshoaf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nobody wants a good but low rated Firefly; they all want a mega-hits like Seinfeld

      Seinfield didn't start off as a hit; it struggled for a season or two before it found a solid audience. Fox didn't give Firefly that luxury; they showed the episodes out of order and moved it around and pre-empted it several times, then canceled it before showing all the episodes or giving it a chance to find its audience (or giving its audience a chance to find it). Typical for today's corporations, concerned only for short-term profits.

      --
      Putting the "anal" back into "analyst"...
    14. Re:TiVo was cool... by Qubit · · Score: 2, Informative

      BUT, other companies are still pedaling their hardware that infringes on Tivo's (still valid) hardware patents.

      Is anyone else imagining Tivo as the Wicked Witch of the West, pedaling on a bicycle in a twister, cackling about patents?

      --

      coding is life /* the rest is */
    15. Re:TiVo was cool... by EtherMonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      TiVO was a fantanstic invention. The problem is that it just can't compete against carrier-subsidized hardware.

      You go to your Cable or Satellite TV operator and get an HD DVR for an extra $10 - 15 per month (versus a standard box) and no up-front hardware costs. Or you can buy an HD TiVO for $300 plus pay another $12.95 per month for TiVO service and $4 to $10 per month for two CableCards to work with your carrier, and still not be able to access video-on-demand services. As you can see, there's just no ROI to buying a TiVO, and only a die-hard TiVO evangelist would spend on the hardware if the carrier's box is free and monthly costs are the same or less.

      That leaves TiVO with only one asset to capitalize on over the long term: their intellectual property. If indeed they own valid patents on storing TV programming to hard disk then they are not only entitled, but required as a public company, to protect and capitalize on those assets. I would think that they would need to go after the box manufacturers, and not the carriers, to enforce those patents, but IANAL.

      What this means to F/OSS projects such as MythTV will have to be determined.

      --
      --- A man with a briefcase can steal more money, than any man with a gun. [Don Henley]
    16. Re:TiVo was cool... by EvilBudMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah everybody they had deals with tossed on them and made their own a little too much like another TIVO. I hope they do go after them, because they are certainly not trolls. They have valid patents, but these other companies are probably big enough to drive them to bankruptcy before they can collect at 5 years at least.

    17. Re:TiVo was cool... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is that it just can't compete against carrier-subsidized hardware.

      That really depends on how much your viewing experience is worth to you, doesn't it? The carrier-subsidized hardware that I've seen from Time Warner sucks donkey balls. The interface is slow, the remote is cumbersome and unintuitive and the box needs to be rebooted more times in a month than my TiVo does in a year. I'd go back to a VCR before I'd use one of Time Warner's shitty DVRs.

      My TiVo was worth every penny of the money I've spent on the hardware and service. I even kept it when I ditched basic cable (80 channels) and went to a lifeline (7 channels, just the major networks) package. When my old workhorse Series2 finally bites the dust I'll probably wind up buying a newer one, although MythTV will also merit consideration when that time comes.

      and only a die-hard TiVO evangelist would spend on the hardware if the carrier's box is free and monthly costs are the same or less.

      Why do you have to be a die-hard TiVo evangelist? TiVo is easier to use and offers more features. Recognizing this fact does not make you an evangelist. Whether or not that ease of use and better functionality is worth the cost is entirely up each individual. For me it was money well spent.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    18. Re:TiVo was cool... by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > I see. On your PC that you bought from Best Buy 11 years ago, you were able to have your shows recorded to a digital medium from any arbitrary analog source?

              1) yes

              Like the other guy, I had an analog TV frame grabber card at that time.

      > You could both watch a show and record something else, simultaneously?

              2)

              You mean could my Unix computer MULTITASK?

              Could my Unix computer do multiple disk operations concurrently?
              Could my Unix computer read from one file on disk while writing to another?

              A VAX built before you were born could do this.

      > You had software that utilized a control scheme that realized you were human and it took you some
      > time from the time you saw what you wanted to watch to when you pressed the button and adjusted accordingly?

              So acknowledging that humans aren't computers is somehow patent worthy?

              Adding a tweak in QA is not an invention.

      > You had software that kept up with the shows you were watching, scheduling recordings based on a priority list, adjusted recording
      > times when schedule changes occurred and warned you about conflicts when you recorded new shows?

              You are describing basic database and procedural programming.

              You basically want to give Tivo Corp a patent over simple SQL syntax and middle school BASIC programming.

      > And you managed to do all of this for ~$450 (with no future expenditure required)?

              Now this is just assinine. Tivos cost $1000 when they were released. Although the cost
      of the unit is not really the point. The point is whether or not the invention represents
      something NEW and NON-TRIVIAL. CHEAP simply isn't a part of the equation.

              Do you want to stifle progress for the next 17 years over this "invention".

              Also the "not future expenditure required" bit is also total nonsense since a Tivo requires
      a continuing recurring fee to remain functional and many of us found the need to upgrade our own
      Tivos since the stock models tended to come with a meagre amount of storage space.

      > Calling all of that innovation trivial is remarkably disingenuous.

              You are trying to conflate the vernacular with the relevant legal definitions here.

              Writing some simple database logic to spit out a recording schedule and sort out
              priorities is an undergraduate level class project. The idea to apply this to TV
              is interesting but ultimately should only grant the "inventor" the advantage of
              being the first mover.

              They shouldn't get a state enforced monopoly over it.

              Everyone else that can replicate their work should not be prevented from doing so.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  2. How is this a Patent Troll? by hattig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not like TiVo is a company set up to collect patents and then chase them down. They've had products on the market for years, would by many be said to have created the home digital recorder (and thus have attained many patents), still have products on the market, and other providers have created products that are now losing TiVo business.

    So if the patent is valid (I haven't read it) then surely TiVo have as much right to go after infringers as any other company that has its patents on its products infringed?

    1. Re:How is this a Patent Troll? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True. But in the end, Tivo will be obsolete. You don't need a DVR to watch on demand shows via Netflix Watch It Now, Hulu, etc.

    2. Re:How is this a Patent Troll? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Its not unique. Digital video predates the tivo by decades.

      What exactly should be be protecting here?

      Already my DVR cannot do a lot of things because of patents. With a Tivo you can fast forward, press stop, and it will jump back a few seconds. Thats a tivo patent.

      They are well protected in the market. If anything, this shows us how patents are way too powerful in the modern world. The guy with the best lawyer wins, not the originator or the small inventor.

    3. Re:How is this a Patent Troll? by jeffshoaf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ok, then AT&T and Verizon should simply switch to offering standard TV and "On Demand" television shows, and not utilize a DVR in the home. Problem solved.

      Or they can wait until TiVo's patent expires or they can pay licensing fees to TiVo. That's the way the patent system is supposed to work!

      --
      Putting the "anal" back into "analyst"...
    4. Re:How is this a Patent Troll? by jittles · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Worst of all for TiVO is that the service providers are intentionally trying to block them out of the market so they can provide their own DVR's based on TiVO's work. It's patents fighting against service monopolies.

    5. Re:How is this a Patent Troll? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree they should pay licensing fees if they use a Tivo interface. I don't believe they should have to pay licensing fees simply because they time-shift programming using a hard drive.

    6. Re:How is this a Patent Troll? by ClosedSource · · Score: 2, Informative

      Digital video != DVR

    7. Re:How is this a Patent Troll? by Leafheart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IMO if you're trying to collect on an obvious idea, you're a patent troll. I doubt there's a single slashdotter here (except maybe NYCL) who couldn't have made a DVR out of an old laptop, a few roofing nails and a bananna. And most of us could have done it without the nails and bananna.

      Interesting, if so why didn't you do? It is very easy to say things are obvious after the fact. For me it is obvious that planes can fly, and dead obvious why, that was not the case back then.

      Now, if there is prior art, and if someone proves that WHEN they made it, is was pretty obvious how to do it efficient, kudos, and the patent will get invalid. If not, they have the right to go after anyone.

      --
      --- "When you gotta do something wrong. You gotta do it right. (Fighter)"
    8. Re:How is this a Patent Troll? by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The home digital recorder is a reflection of the state of the art in PC hardware and systems software.

      It doesn't represent anything patent worthy. The fact that Tivo managed to
      get some patents out of it just shows the inherent unsuitability of our
      current patent office.

      Their patent litigation is simply the result of not being able
      to compete in a marketplace of mediocre competitors that just
      happen to be gatekeepers for most of Tivo's potential customers.

      Tivo can't compete with "free" on the lowend and can't compete
      with "flexible and powerful" on the highend. The competition has
      been getting better while Tivo has been stagnating.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:How is this a Patent Troll? by jeffshoaf · · Score: 2, Funny

      IMO if you're trying to collect on an obvious idea, you're a patent troll. I doubt there's a single slashdotter here (except maybe NYCL) who couldn't have made a DVR out of an old laptop, a few roofing nails and a bananna. And most of us could have done it without the nails and bananna.

      Interesting, if so why didn't you do?

      I was going to, but someone ate my bananna...

      --
      Putting the "anal" back into "analyst"...
    10. Re:How is this a Patent Troll? by MartinSchou · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, that's the thing. If TiVo has a patent on time-shifting using a harddrive, then that is what the patent covers. We may not like it, but then we should try to change the patent system instead of calling companies that try to defend the patents that they use in actual products "trolls".

      You may not believe, that you should have to pay a fee just to use an SUV in London - but those are the rules that society has agreed upon. You have two options - get the rules changed or face the music when you don't follow the rules.

      Now, if this was targeted at individual people building their own home made DVR, we could talk about trolling even though patents also cover those things. But here we're talking about AT&T and Verizon, two companies with a market cap of $156 billion and $88 billion respectively. They should know better. Okay, it's AT&T and Verizon - from what we hear about them on Slashdot, I doubt they DO know better. And if 10% of what we hear about here is true, they sure as hell don't deserve us defending them.

    11. Re:How is this a Patent Troll? by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The moment I saw a Tivo, I knew that I could replicate it with an off the
      shelf TV tuner. The only problem was the size of hard drives versus the
      size of uncompressed video. This makes something like a Tivo impractical
      if you are starting out with a bttv card. A tuner card that does it's own
      mpeg2/mpeg4 compression makes implementing something like Tivo possible
      with a standard desktop PC and little more than some mangey shell scripts.

      Attempts to replicate the Tivo in software started immediately.

      If some college kid can replicate your "invention" without seeing any of
      the details of your patent then you have been granted a patent on the
      "idea" and not the actual implementation.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    12. Re:How is this a Patent Troll? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So because they use a slimmed down PC to do the timeshifting instead of a VCR, they immediately get to tax everyone who wants the capability? I think not. I would fully support AT&T and Verizon changing the backend technology to present the same functionality to the end user while not infringing on this "patent" (if that's what bullshit like this is called today). What then? Call the whambulance because it's not fair to Tivo? Welcome to the marketplace.

      London charging a congestion tax is nothing like Tivo trying to collect from anyone who remotely thinks of shifting television content around with a magnetic storage device.

    13. Re:How is this a Patent Troll? by LandDolphin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What isn't Obvious in hindsight?

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    14. Re:How is this a Patent Troll? by LandDolphin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lots of things. Any examples?

      But, you mention: That's how anybody would have done it if they were working on the same problem

      Thats the thing. The patent system rewards you for working on the problem. So, anyone else could have gotten the patent first if they had taken the time to work on the problem. but, they didn't. The patent system is designed to provide insentive to create.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    15. Re:How is this a Patent Troll? by jeffshoaf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What isn't Obvious in hindsight?

      For me? Calculus.

      --
      Putting the "anal" back into "analyst"...
    16. Re:How is this a Patent Troll? by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If time shifting using a hard drive is an innovative idea, then the patent system should support that. And it was an innovative idea. Maybe it seems obvious and easy to implement now, but that's true for most innovations.

      The whole purpose of the patent system is to encourage innovation. In exchange for a temporary exclusive use of an idea, the idea is made public and later is usable by all. This encourages both innovation and openness. The alternative is secrecy.

    17. Re:How is this a Patent Troll? by MartinSchou · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You may not believe, that black people should have to give up their seats to whites - but those are the rules that society has agreed upon. You have two options - get the rules changed or face the music when you don't follow the rules.

      I do believe that Rosa Parks did one of those things and was a large part of the reason the other thing happened ...

      She didn't attack the arresting officer, she didn't call him a thug, she didn't try to set the bus on fire. She faced the music.

      When Parks refused to give up her seat, a police officer arrested her. As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked, "Why do you push us around?" The officer's response as she remembered it was, "I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest." She later said, "I only knew that, as I was being arrested, that it was the very last time that I would ever ride in humiliation of this kind."

      See - no name calling.

      I did not want to be mistreated, I did not want to be deprived of a seat that I had paid for. It was just time... there was opportunity for me to take a stand to express the way I felt about being treated in that manner. I had not planned to get arrested. I had plenty to do without having to end up in jail. But when I had to face that decision, I didn't hesitate to do so because I felt that we had endured that too long. The more we gave in, the more we complied with that kind of treatment, the more oppressive it became

      See - she was willing to face the music. She worked with Martin Luther King Jr., another person willing to face the music to change the rules. A man who told his followers that when they would be hit with clubs and fire hoses, they shouldn't t fight back but just keep on marching. A man who wasn't afraid to be arrested for civil disobedience.

      Now, I realise that the reason you brought up bus thing was to "shame" me by liking me to the supporters of Jim Crow laws, which is why I've linked to both Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. - it's rare to see examples of people who are willing to fight the establishment when their own freedom are put at risk. Most will back down at the threat of being jailed. These wouldn't. That's why I linked to their Wiki entries - now you can read up on what they actually did. That way you don't have to make a fool of yourself again.

      That being said, it's rather pathetic that you liken the actions of two multi billion dollar companies apparently breaking patent laws to avoid paying money to a company that barely breaks the billion dollar mark (AT&T + Veriozon: $244B, TiVo: 1B) to that of the civil rights movement. What next - are vegetarians or amateur painters to be likened to Hitler?

      These two things (civil rights and patent suits between companies) are about as different as day and yellow. Like I said - if TiVo were suing people who built their own DVRs, we might start to talk about that being bad, but TiVo as a company not only creates and sells DVR devices, they also have patents on them. And if another company (especially companies that are worth almost 160 times as much) wants to create similar products, they must either work around those patents or license them from the patent holder. TiVo claims AT&T and Verizon have done neither.

      And AT&T and Verizon don't need you to fight their fights for them. They'd just as soon shoot out your knees to steal your money if they could get away with it. If they don't like the patent in question (which they apparently don't) they can fight it in court or they can bribe^wconvince congress to change the rules. And if they accomplish the latter, don't expect AT&T and Verizon to come to your door with a heartfelt thank you and a discount. You're more likely to receive a cease and desist for breaking one of their patents or not using their networks.

    18. Re:How is this a Patent Troll? by Jay+L · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I doubt there's a single slashdotter here (except maybe NYCL) who couldn't have made a DVR out of an old laptop, a few roofing nails and a bananna. And most of us could have done it without the nails and bananna.

      Interesting, if so why didn't you do? It is very easy to say things are obvious after the fact.

      +1.

      Sorry, but when TiVo was founded, Moore's law was still only giving us changes in degree, not changes in kind. The simplest way to record a TV show was with VCR+ codes from the newspaper. The idea of continuously recording streaming video in real time from a consumer set-top box onto a hard drive - with a 30-minute buffer! - was in fact novel.

      Slashdot needs a word for all these obvious-in-retrospect claims. Something like "post hoc prior thought", only pithier.

  3. boop-BOOP by Alzheimers · · Score: 3, Funny

    boop-BOOP ....
    Tivo recommends "GET YOURSELF A LAWYER"

  4. Trlling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not trolling if your patent truly covers an innovation, and your competitors copy it. In this case it's called "protecting your rights".

  5. Not a good summary. by reebmmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So this should be tagged "!troll" "badsummary" and "bitterposter" because I'm not entirely sure that this summary does it any justice. First, TiVo is not a troll for at least the reason that they actual manufacture products embodying the patent, have done so for a long time, and actually have revenue related to both hardware and subscription fees. [citation needed ;)].

    Second, together with ReplayTV (now Motorola?), TiVo really was an innovator in this space. Whether these particular patents were innovative was at least decided with respect to DishNetwork. AT&T and Verizon will now get their chance to try to invalidate it. Who knows, maybe they have some damn good art.

    1. Re:Not a good summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Further, the "unhurried pace" quote actually refers to dealing with an expired Java certificate in their desktop software (i.e. nobody's working on fixing it quickly.) "Innovating at an unhurried pace" is misleading and unsupported by the quote referenced.

  6. Not all that trollish! by jeffshoaf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think TIVO is using the patent system exactly as it was intended. They invented something unique and successfully marketed it, but then various cable and satellite companies decided to not (or to stop) paying the licensing fees and create similar devices. Let's face it, the cable companies aren't all that inovative on their own and they probably wouldn't have come up with the idea for a DVR w/o seeing TIVOs.

    --
    Putting the "anal" back into "analyst"...
    1. Re:Not all that trollish! by alteran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed. TiVo wouldn't pass the purity-or-death Richard Stallman no-compromises test, but let's face it-- the cable industry cheated TiVo by locking them out, using all sorts of non-competitive practices including subsidized PVRs, turning CableCard into a joke, etc.

      TiVo is definitely doing something I don't love, but they are essentially fighting douchebaggery with douchebaggery.

      --
      Who is RTFM and when will he help me with Unix?
    2. Re:Not all that trollish! by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let's face it, the cable companies aren't all that inovative on their own and they probably wouldn't have come up with the idea for a DVR w/o seeing TIVOs.

      You can't patent an idea, only an invention or a process. If Mr. Coffee has patents on their coffee maker, it doesn't mean that nobody else can make coffee makers, it means nobody can use their way of making a coffee makers.

      My former brother in law worked in a manufacturing plant, and the boss would hand him some gizmo or another and say "can we make these?". If the answer was "yes", they let the lawyers sort it out. Sometimes using bronze instead of copper was enough to get around the patent.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    3. Re:Not all that trollish! by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Informative

      So the originator should be the only one to produce that item and should have the market to themselves? Thats ridiculous.

      Ridiculous or not, that the whole idea of patents, as a means of providing a reward for innovation and thereby encouraging innovation. To quote the provision of the US Constitution enabling patents and copyrights: "The Congress shall have the power [...] [t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

      Thats like only have Ford cars

      Well, if Ford had invented the car, sure, it would be like only having Ford cars for a brief period after Ford invented them.

    4. Re:Not all that trollish! by jeffshoaf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know how the system work. Guess what? Its 2009. The tivo has been out for TEN YEARS. Thats an eternity in the electronics world. The current system that gives monopologies for 14-20 years is ridiculous. Tivo had its time.

      OK, so you don't agree with the patent system for electronics. How does that make TiVo a patent troll?

      --
      Putting the "anal" back into "analyst"...
  7. Well... by aengblom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's probably a better business model than

    1. Spend lots of money to invent the mousetrap
    2. Spend more money to make it better
    3. Allow cable/satellite to build 80% of your ideas into their own equipment and cut you out of any revenues
    4. Profit

    --


    So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
  8. Re:It's Netscape VS MS Again.. by VeryVito · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every time I've set up new cable service, I try the local carrier's DVR flavor... and so far, I have always gone back to TiVo. TiVo actually DOES have a nice product with several innovative features. Protecting one's patent does NOT make one a troll: it makes one a patent holder. The original poster seems to think all patents should be abolished (which would kinda suck for encouraging some innovations).

  9. NOT a Patent Troll by whisper_jeff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know people are keen to brand anyone who files patent infringement lawsuits as a patent troll but a real patent troll owns patents but makes nothing - their line of business is to buy patents and sue companies. TiVo actually produces something. They have products and offer something to customers. They are simply enforcing their patents. You are welcome to question the validity of their patents; you are welcome to question the wisdom in starting patent wars with other major companies but, let's keep our discussion real - they are not patent trolls.

    1. Re:NOT a Patent Troll by waxigloo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hindsight is 20/20. 99.99% of inventions are made with "off-the-shelf technology" and seem obvious 10 years after the fact. Like Edison's lightbulb. If the invention is blatantly obvious, as you claim, then the defendants should have no problem winning a summary judgment invalidating the claims.

    2. Re:NOT a Patent Troll by waxigloo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have a higher standard for non-obvious inventions than the courts do. And I still believe that you will find most "great inventions" simply took existing parts and pieced them together in a useful way. Edison didn't invent the first lightbulb -- his improvement was to use a high resistance carbon as the filament. He didn't invent high resistance carbon. So, he simply pieced together two existing things that happened to work well together.

      On you last point: as I said, if it is a solid case of invalidity, then it will never go to jury and be decided by the judge in summary judgment. Even if it did go to jury, whether juries statistically favor plaintiffs is studied quite closely and depends on jurisdiction. So I don't agree with your generalization of bias towards the plaintiff.

  10. Re:It's Netscape VS MS Again.. by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why would anyone bother buying a tivo when they can just get it right with their cable bill?

    Because the cable company charges usurious rates and extra fees for a DVR with a crap interface that's littered with bugs? The only thing stopping me from switching to Tivo currently is on demand. You have to keep a box from the cable company for that to work, since cable card does not support it, and they charge you for it.

  11. Longing for the good ol' days by Churla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As someone who is a DirectTV subscriber I can only hint at how much myself and every other DVR user they have that I have talked to miss Tivo when it was DirecTV's DVR offering. This "homebrew" or whatever DirectTV is calling it blows on a level hard to describe.

    --
    I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
  12. Not a troll by geekoid · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's a legitimate case for used technology.

    A patent troll is just someone who patents lots of 'ideas' and then sue whoever happen to have something similar in the market.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  13. Recommend a TiVo alternative? by kmcrober · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm a long-term TiVo user, but this story reminds me of my simmering frustration with TiVo. Years ago I used a Hauppauge card, and their interface had innovations that TiVo still hasn't picked up on, like a vastly superior conflicts-resolution system. Is there a decent alternative to TiVo, with a better interface? Cable-company solutions are generally poor, as I understand it, and I frankly don't have time to roll my own Myth system. (I would consider an out-of-the-box Myth product, though.) I'd appreciate informed recommendations.

  14. Re:Let's think about this... by Gizzmonic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .... you can sit on your ass, hire some lawyers, and soak up millions via your government granted monopoly.

    That's what the cable companies do.

    Or you can roll up your sleeves and work your ass off innovating, servicing customers, and building up a customer base

    That's what TiVO did.

    Sadly, it looks like they're quickly going out of business. The government should have mandated a universal standard for Satellite and Cable boxes so that TiVO (and any other manufacturer) could easily interface. Instead, we have a slapdash mix of ever-changing technologies like ATSC, QAM, SDV, etc and it's very difficult to design to a moving target (as anyone who has attempted to use a TiVO with CableCard knows).

    --
    (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
  15. Patent putting old wine in new bottle by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Sometime in the 1980s someone had the bright idea to make nuclear powered airplanes. They looked up the patents and found Richard Feynman (yes, the Feynman) had patented it already in 1940s. So they decided to recruit him to lead the new company. Feynman had completely forgotten about that patent.

    What had happened was that the army sent a captain to talk to all scientists working in the Manhatten Project and patent all the innovative ideas. Feynman told this captain, "Well, energy is just energy and you have this nuclear energy now. Just use this in any old thing that needs energy and presto! you got a patent. Put it in a ship Nuclear Powered Ship, put it in a plane, Nuclear Powered Airplane. Put it in a sub... you get the idea." A couple of weeks later the captain returned and said, "Well the ship and the sub are taken. But the plane... Its yours!".

    Funny thing about the incident is, the Government would buy all these patents back from the scientists for a nominal sum of 1$. So the captain made Feynman sign it over to the government. Feynman demanded his dollar. The captain said, it was just a formality. But Feynaman stood his ground. "I want my dollar." So the captain, out of frustration, just gave him a dollar out of his pocket to get it over with. Actually setting up the paper work to collect 1$ from the government would have been too much of a hassle. So Feynman did what he always does. He bought donuts (for lot more than a dollar I assume) started going around the lab saying, "Have a donut, I got a dollar from the Army for my patent". The lab was full of people who had signed over 40 or 50 patents to the government. They all started pestering the captain for their dollars. And Feynman had a hearty laugh at the captain.

    Most of these patents do not strike me as non-obvious at all. Just "do the same old thing, but now with computers!" and apply for a patent.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  16. This is not patent trolling. by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What we have here is a simple situation.

    Technology was not being developed because the people with the power did not want it ruining their business. (i.e. TV and cable/satelite tv execs)

    Finally, innovative customers risked their own hard earned cash and developed the technology.

    It immediately became a huge success. A new word was formed - to tivo it.

    Finally the cable execs realized that they were losing business so they used their installed monopoly on black boxes to take over the business. They tried hard to ignore the copyrighted new word and replace it with "dvr it". Too bad dvr has no vowel.

    The innovator that created the business could not compete with the installed monopoly base of black boxes. They tried to pass laws to let them sell the black boxes, but the cable companies effectively weakened those laws. They got destroyed not because they did not have a superior product but simply because of the monopoly factors (i.e. I can buy a Tivo but I still have to pay the cable company to rent a cable box - why pay twice?)

    This is why patents exist - to protect the profits of the inventors that actually took the risks and created the product from the slimy large businesses that come in after the product is created and steal customers away.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  17. Nobody does it better... by UttBuggly · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm disappointed that TiVO has made some spectacularly bad decisions in their business dealings, but for me, they still make a better mousetrap.

    I've done my own DVR, had a Cox (SciAtl 8300) DVR, and now, DirecTV's abortion of a solution. (Just bought a farm where cable is apparently unavailable FOREVER, due to the location and population density)

    The device/service I still own and love is my TiVO HD. It just works SO much better and more reliably than anything else I've got or built. The NetFlix, Amazon, and YouTube on-demand stuff is nice and used a LOT. I live 10 miles from the closest video store, so those features have real value for me.

    Plus, TiVO's customer service people and website are FAR superior to DirecTV and Cox.

    Last night, we had a big rain come through. "Searching for satellite" was the only thing on DirecTV. My TiVO unit, connected to a Terk HD antenna, enabled us to watch local stations until the storms passed. Plus, my DSL stayed up (it's iffy out in the sticks on a GOOD day), so I watched part of a movie on NetFlix via the TiVO.

    IF, and I'm doubting it a lot, TiVO and DirecTV actually release a TiVO'd satellite box this fall, I'm moving to that BECAUSE of the TiVO software/service.

    FWIW.......

    --
    I am my own gestalt.
  18. TIVO didn't invent diddly by jmorris42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > I see. On your PC that you bought from Best Buy 11 years ago... [blah blah deleted]

    I had a video capture card in 1994.... with Linux support. The only reason I didn't build a PVR was it didn't capture in MPEG so the files were either very large or crap, software encoding was way too slow and hard drives weren't nearly big enough to be practical. But I certainly had the notion that using a computer instead of a VCR for timeshifting TV would be a good idea that would soon be practical way back then when I did my first capture.

    TIVO didn't invent any of the stuff that made a PVR possible. They didn't invent big drives, they didn't invent MPEG, they didn't invent hardware MPEG encoder/decoders. They didn't invent the Internet or putting TV schedules on a computer. They certainly didn't invent software to schedule or resolve conflicts.

    Seeriously, what the hell do you DO with an MPEG encode/decode chip other than store and playback video? As soon as that existed and hard drives big enough to store a few hours were affordable and quiet enough to make it practical the PVR was a forgone conclusion.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  19. Re:Let's think about this... by Gizzmonic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sort of like they did with CableCARD?

    Would that be CableCARD 1 or 2? With or without the commonly used SDV, which was not in the spec?

    Motorola and Qualcomm both have no problem with CableCARD.

    Motorola and Qualcomm are the manufacturers of the official cable boxes used by Comcast/Time Warner/etc. They have inside information on how to deal with the particular (read: non-compliant) quirks of the cable networks. TiVO doesn't.

    The FCC has done a horrible job with standards lately. The analog/digital switchover was a mess. 8VSB modulations sucks compared to COFDM-and they're hacking in "mobile ATSC" to deal with the limitations after-the-fact. I doubt anything will come out of that. They also mandated Firewire on cable boxes-but didn't mandate Firewire on TVs or satellite boxes. The whole thing is a huge mess that could have been easily avoided.

    --
    (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)