TiVo Relaunching As a Patent Troll?

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."

Comments

How is this a Patent Troll?

[hattig]

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?

Re:How is this a Patent Troll?

[TooMuchToDo]

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.

Re:How is this a Patent Troll?

[gad_zuki!]

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.

Re:How is this a Patent Troll?

[jeffshoaf]

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!

Re:How is this a Patent Troll?

[jittles]

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.

Re:How is this a Patent Troll?

[Leafheart]

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.

Re:How is this a Patent Troll?

[jedidiah]

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.

Re:How is this a Patent Troll?

[MartinSchou]

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.

Re:How is this a Patent Troll?

[Darinbob]

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.

Re:How is this a Patent Troll?

[MartinSchou]

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.

boop-BOOP

[Alzheimers]

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

Trlling?

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Not a good summary.

[reebmmm]

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.

Not all that trollish!

[jeffshoaf]

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.

Re:Not all that trollish!

[DragonWriter]

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.

Well...

[aengblom]

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

Re:It's Netscape VS MS Again..

[VeryVito]

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).

NOT a Patent Troll

[whisper_jeff]

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.

Re:It's Netscape VS MS Again..

[Lost Engineer]

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.

Longing for the good ol' days

[Churla]

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.

Recommend a TiVo alternative?

[kmcrober]

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.

Re:Let's think about this...

[Gizzmonic]

.... 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).

This is not patent trolling.

[gurps_npc]

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.

Re:TiVo was cool...

[wperry1]

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.

Re:TiVo was cool...

[jank1887]

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.

Re:TiVo was cool...

[Darinbob]

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.

Re:TiVo was cool...

[EtherMonkey]

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.