Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Sues TiVo To Help AT&T

Julie188 writes "Microsoft is suing TiVo, claiming patent infringement. Microsoft is doing this because TiVo has sued AT&T — and AT&T happens to be Microsoft's largest customer of Microsoft's Mediaroom IPTV technology. Microsoft says that TiVo has copied Microsoft's Mediaroom IPTV technology in its DVRs. If Microsoft wins, it would effectively block TiVo from selling DVRs without a licensing deal with Microsoft."

116 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. Sure have been a lot of patent suits lately by Senes · · Score: 2, Funny

    You launch yours, I'll launch mine, and the usual trolls will launch their own just because they can. With any luck, they'll cause enough chaos to bring the issue to light and bring us closer to IP reform.

    1. Re:Sure have been a lot of patent suits lately by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What makes you think any of these companies want reform?
      They love this game of Mutually Assured Destruction.
      They end up cross licensing patents and it creates barries for upstarts.

      More importantly, they have the money and the lobbyists to keep the game rigged in their favor.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Sure have been a lot of patent suits lately by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1
      --
      $ make available
    3. Re:Sure have been a lot of patent suits lately by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "More importantly, they have the money and the lobbyists to keep the game rigged in their favor."

      This wouldn't be a problem if we were allowed to execute any lobbyist on sight.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:Sure have been a lot of patent suits lately by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      Don't be a dumbass. All that would mean is that lobbyists would then have armed guards.

  2. Patent infringement is a nuclear weapon by amn108 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You gotta love how companies have found exactly what to do with patent infringements - put them in a bag and keep them stored away well under room temperature until the right moment when these can be enjoyed - such as, at a time when they can be used to scare or threaten competitors or help achieve a goal. Patent infringement is not patent infringement until such time when it can be exploited to the limit.

    Humans are so damn smart it is scary.

    1. Re:Patent infringement is a nuclear weapon by Jeng · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Devils Advocate.
      Hard to know if something infringes on your patent if you don't know the implementation.

      Tivo's lawsuit against AT&T gave Microsoft the groundwork necessary to compare how Tivo's system works in comparison to Microsoft's system. /Devils Advocate

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:Patent infringement is a nuclear weapon by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Humans are so damn smart it is scary.

      If humans were so smart, you wouldn't have to explain the golden rule to them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Patent infringement is a nuclear weapon by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      Room temperature?! Everyone knows that patent infringement suits are a dish best served cold.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    4. Re:Patent infringement is a nuclear weapon by MrNaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not true. In a capitalist society the golden rule is: If it makes money and isn't illegal, do it.

      If we're so proud about winning the cold war, how come we keep complaining about the precise thing that we were fighting for?

      --
      I hate printers.
    5. Re:Patent infringement is a nuclear weapon by ivucica · · Score: 1

      You dropped one half of the rule, dummy.
      1. If it makes money and it's legal, do it.
      2.If it makes money and it's illegal, change the law.

      Let's see what the Grand Nagus will say!

    6. Re:Patent infringement is a nuclear weapon by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      "He who has the gold makes the rules"?

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    7. Re:Patent infringement is a nuclear weapon by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except... that sleeping on your rights for that purpose gives them an affirmative defense against you: laches

      The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights," and that, as a result of this delay, that other party is no longer entitled to its original claim. Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in a claim's being barred by laches. Laches is a form of estoppel for delay. ...

      Laches essentially alleges prejudicial delay and unfairness in the context of a particular situation

      Still.. even the threat of suing, and the legal fees might (in some cases) be enough incentive for the target to be persuaded to do what you want...

    8. Re:Patent infringement is a nuclear weapon by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      Not true. In a capitalist society the golden rule is: If it makes money and we can get away with it , do it.

      FTFY. :)

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    9. Re:Patent infringement is a nuclear weapon by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Not true. In a capitalist society the golden rule is: If it makes money and isn't illegal, do it.

      False. While lack of money often brings sadness, money can't buy happiness. The best you can do is rent it on an extremely short term.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Patent infringement is a nuclear weapon by smidget2k4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I thought it was:
      1: If it makes money and it's legal, do it.
      2: If it makes money and it's illegal but makes more money then it would cost to be legal, do it.
      3: If it makes money and it's illegal but would cost too much to do, change the law.

    11. Re:Patent infringement is a nuclear weapon by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      1. If it makes money and it's legal, do it. Quickly.
      2. If it makes money and it's illegal, but no one will catch you, do it. Quietly.
      3. If it would make money but is illegal, and everyone would notice if you tried it, buy off people to change the law.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    12. Re:Patent infringement is a nuclear weapon by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Well, lets see what the Nagus would say....hmm...I would say that rules 1 "once you have their money you never give it back" 16 "a deal is a deal" and 45 "expand or die" would just about cover it.

      And since TiVo filed in Marshal Texas, AKA "patent troll haven of the USA" I would say rules 10 "greed is eternal" and 263 "Never let doubt interfere with your lust for latinum." would cover their side.

      I have to say I hope MSFT slaughters TiVo, simply because they filed in Texas and I hate jury shopping. The system is corrupt enough as it is without crap like "patent troll havens" further rigging the outcome.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    13. Re:Patent infringement is a nuclear weapon by ivucica · · Score: 1

      I hope they slay each other. Not because "inventions" are worthless (every idea is worth something) but because everyone in software patent "business" in the US is abusing the system.

      In context of this lawsuit, I'd also like to nominate the following as relevant: 203 New customers are like razor-toothed gree-worms. They can be succulent, but sometimes they bite back. And while we're talking about Microsoft and Ferengi, I'd also mention one unrelated to this suit, but related to MS and FLOSS: 76 Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.

    14. Re:Patent infringement is a nuclear weapon by Khyber · · Score: 1

      hookers and blow covers this nicely

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    15. Re:Patent infringement is a nuclear weapon by TimSSG · · Score: 1

      Them that has the gold makes the rules. Tim S.

    16. Re:Patent infringement is a nuclear weapon by TimSSG · · Score: 1

      Looks like the common golden rule of "He who has the Gold makes the Rules" was already posted. Here is a older version of the rule. "He who pays the piper calls the tune." Tim S.

    17. Re:Patent infringement is a nuclear weapon by kriston · · Score: 1

      Wow, but honestly Microsoft didn't do anything like this to keep UltimateTV alive.
      It's a bitter irony that TiVo keeps winning suits like this to eventually be targetted by one of the richest software makers in the world.

      --

      Kriston

    18. Re:Patent infringement is a nuclear weapon by BatGnat · · Score: 1

      No, No, No! it is always :

      1: Steal Underpants
      2: ???
      3: Profit!

    19. Re:Patent infringement is a nuclear weapon by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Tivo's lawsuit against AT&T gave Microsoft the groundwork necessary to compare how Tivo's system works in comparison to Microsoft's system.

      Given Microsoft's history of courting partners, looking at their IP, re-implementing it and walking away, this may be a novel new approach to skipping the whole courting process, or doing it to a company who rebuked such advances.

      They're clever, I have to give them that.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  3. Which is it? by gregg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is this an example of "the enemy of my friend is my enemy" or the beginning of "mutual assured destruction"?

    1. Re:Which is it? by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those two aren't necessarily exclusive...

      --
      Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
    2. Re:Which is it? by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      MAD of AT&T and Microsoft?? Bring it on!! That could be a good thing.

    3. Re:Which is it? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      The beginning of mutally assued destruction. AT&T licensed the technology it is being sued over from Microsoft, so Microsoft would directly suffer if AT&T lost. As far as I'm aware, this is the first time Microsoft has actually sued anyone for patent infringement and it is doing so for defensive reasons.

    4. Re:Which is it? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I like the MAD option. Someone push the button. I want to see the entire house of cards come tumbling down. And, let's pray that when the patents house of cards falls, it somehow undermines the copyrights house of cards too!!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    5. Re:Which is it? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We could probably do without Tivo, in the long run. I mean, they may be competent, but they're competent bastards. Remember Tivoization?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Which is it? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Fuck you, I support Tivo's legitimate use of GPL v2 code.

      I note that you don't support it enough to log in before you tell me 'fuck you'. The very definition of cowardice.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Suing TiVo for delivering content ? by BlueTrin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Suing TiVo for delivering content ?

    Next is Neanderthal suing them for using fire or a wheel ?

    --
    Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
    1. Re:Suing TiVo for delivering content ? by mystikkman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's Tivo that's suing willy nilly.

      The latest legal salvo comes a few months after TiVo launched its own strike against AT&T and Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ), alleging that their video services illegally use its TV "time-warping" technology in their digital video recorders. AT&T's U-Verse TV service runs on Microsoft's Internet video technology.

      AT&T declined to comment on Microsoft's legal actions.

      TiVo hasn't been shy about using the courtroom to protect its intellectual property. The company also has a long-running dispute with Dish Networks Corp. ( DISH) and sister company Echostar Corp. (SATS) over the same DVR technology. The company has agreements with most of the cable companies and DirecTV Group Inc. ( DTV).

    2. Re:Suing TiVo for delivering content ? by Neanderthal+Gronk · · Score: 1

      Who use fire? Gronk have patent on fire. Patent small number, like number of toes on Gronk's foot. Gronk sue all fire users! Only Gronk make fire!

  5. Tivo by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The ATT/Microsoft/Motorola DVR sucks giant donkey dicks. You can bet that ATT only wished they could use Tivo technology. We had Uverse installed and ended up using our Tivos downstream of the ATT DVRs, they sucked that bad. The smart thing would have been for ATT to license the Tivo design instead of the locked-down bogus Microsoft design.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    1. Re:Tivo by ShiftyOne · · Score: 1

      Uverse >> Tivo. With one dvr you can record anywhere and watch anywhere haven't checked out tivo in awhile but for just that functionality it is well worth it. The only drawback is the $5 per tv per month if you want separate boxes for each tv.

    2. Re:Tivo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You can do with with Tivo's, including transfers to your computer (burning to DVD/iPod/x-device) and since I have two Tivo's I can record 4 HD streams at once. Several people in my office have U-Verse and none can do that.

    3. Re:Tivo by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      That's very interesting. When we got U-Verse (Nov 2008) I would have agreed with you. I decided to stick it out and within 3 months AT&T rolled out an update that improved the situation quite a bit. In fact they have provided quite a few improvements over the last year and most of the issues I originally had are long gone. The only issue I haven't tested since the updates is HDMI connections causing the box to randomly reboot. Both my HD sets only do up to 1080i anyway so Component is fine with me. I never got a TIVO since you couldn't pay me to go back to Comcast and the hoops needed to get it working on other platforms put me off.

      On the topic of the lawsuit...SSDL

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    4. Re:Tivo by Locutus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      a number of years ago, Microsoft paid AT&T $5 billion to use Microsoft's embedded OS in their STBs/DVRs. And the partnership was born. Of late, AT&T once again went with the least likely to succeed company, Microsoft, for their front to back solution for IPTV and Microsoft took them to the cleaners. Even Sun, with a server capable of handling thousands of video streams couldn't sell it to AT&T because the contract said it had to run Windows.

      Since this is all Microsofts stuff, a patent case against AT&T is really a patent case against Microsoft and hence we see Microsoft pulling out its guns in a classic Mexican Standoff. A large house of cards falls if Tivo is successful and because the AT&T/Microsoft IPTV stuff is just that, all Microsoft, it would be near impossible to get the Linux based Tivo into that rats nest. So I sure hope that the Tivo lawyers have an ounce of clue about that which they just entered.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    5. Re:Tivo by SoCalChris · · Score: 1

      My parents have AT&T Uverse, it sucks. Unless it's changed in the last few months, you can't schedule recordings from any TV except for the one that the main box is connected to. Same with deleting recordings. You also can't pause or rewind live tv. These are all basic functionality that are missing, that every other DVR that I've seen supports.

    6. Re:Tivo by ShiftyOne · · Score: 1

      I don't know about deleting recordings, never have, but you can definitely set it to record from anywhere. You can't rewind/fastforward on a tv unless it is a recording or it is the dvr tv. This really isn't a problem for me, as I only watch recordings.

    7. Re:Tivo by jasno · · Score: 1

      Pausing and rewinding live tv still isn't supported, but scheduling and deleting recordings on satellite boxes has been available to us for several months now.

      The biggest issue I have with the system is that it produces severe macroblocking every so often when I watch HD while recording HD. Other than that very serious defect, I've been really pleased with our experience.

      --

      http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    8. Re:Tivo by grcumb · · Score: 1

      The ATT/Microsoft/Motorola DVR sucks giant donkey dicks.

      Wouldn't this make a fantastic courtroom defense? I can just see it:

      "Your Honour, We submit that Tivo lacks the defining characteristics of the allegedly infringed software. Our does not suck. We tried to make it suck as much as Microsoft's, but without access to their proprietary process for suckage, were unable to make our software suck in the same way as theirs. If the court will allow, I'll spend the next 6 days demonstrating just how much their software sucks, and ours doesn't."

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    9. Re:Tivo by soundguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Tivo hit the market in 1999.

      --
      Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    10. Re:Tivo by Lershac · · Score: 1

      CASE FUCKING DISMISSED. Microsoft is held in contempt of the world, and must perform oral sex on everyone. twice.

      --
      Chuck
    11. Re:Tivo by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Microsoft bought the stock directly from AT&T, so yes, they did pay them... directly. There is a difference, but it's largely semantic.

      HOWEVER, this stock buy was in 1999, and the deal was with the old AT&T, not the current AT&T who used to be SBC before they bought the name. The old AT&T from which Microsoft bought $5 billion worth of stock is essentially now a chunk of Comcast, who bought AT&T's cable TV division. The $400 million dollar deal between Microsoft and AT&T for the Uverse infrastructure is wholly unrelated to the earlier deal.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    12. Re:Tivo by grcumb · · Score: 1

      CASE FUCKING DISMISSED. Microsoft is held in contempt of the world, and must perform oral sex on everyone. twice.

      So the punishment for sucking is... more sucking?

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    13. Re:Tivo by Lershac · · Score: 1

      Damn straight. Let them do what they are natively good at for once. For free.

      --
      Chuck
    14. Re:Tivo by jbengt · · Score: 1

      I agree, I used to have DirecTV but switched to ATT Uverse because DiecTV wouldn't switch me to HD (calimed I couldn't get a signal)
      ATT's menu system/user interface sucks compared to DirecTV. It's slow, complicated, and clumsy.,

  6. Circular reasoning by careysb · · Score: 2, Funny

    So, what happens if there is a set of law suits with a circular dependency and ALL plaintiffs win? Does that mean we lose?

    1. Re:Circular reasoning by Cryacin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nobody wins but the lawyers.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:Circular reasoning by japhering · · Score: 1

      So, what happens if there is a set of law suits with a circular dependency and ALL plaintiffs win? Does that mean we lose?

      The only winners in this case will be the lawyers....

    3. Re:Circular reasoning by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it means they cross license, and the only ones who lose are those third parties who wish to enter the same market and will now have to license both patents.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    4. Re:Circular reasoning by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      They will all realise the futile position they each hold, stop lobbying to have patent laws further modified to make innovation impossible, and eventually we will have a patent system which acts as intended: To protect innovation from exploitation.

      Yeah, I can't stop laughing either...

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  7. patents are the nukes of the software industry by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

    When one big software company sues another, the only possible outcomes are that either they all back down or they end in Mutually Assured Destruction. Most of the companies have patent portfolios as a deterrent only. I don't know what TiVo thinks they can accomplish with their North Korea strategy.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:patents are the nukes of the software industry by tsotha · · Score: 1

      You're missing a possibility, and one that's by far the most common resolution: They agree to patent swaps so they can use each others patents. That way when you or I try to break into the business all the large companies have a patent-enforced cartel to keep us out.

  8. Hoist on their own petard... by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Live by the patent, die by the patent...

    The same nonsense that allowed Tivo to run amok is now being turned back against it.

    None of these shenanigans should be tolerated by anyone at all.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    1. Re:Hoist on their own petard... by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      I think it's just a conspiracy by the lawyers to keep themselves employed. "Hey Fred, who can we sue this year that might have something sorta remotely similar in color to our latest gadget? We need something to keep our paychecks coming in and if we win we all get bonuses. What do ya mean the consumer might get screwed? We're lawyers, we don't care who gets screwed as long as it isn't us"

    2. Re:Hoist on their own petard... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      What exactly did tivo invent? Recording tv I did with a vcr, playback while recording is a simple as playing an mpeg2 into a file and then playing the file back while still writing to it. That last one is just a function of how real OSes handle files.

    3. Re:Hoist on their own petard... by daveime · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For the same reason is wasn't laughed out of the patent office in the first place ... the patent office are a bunch of assholes who rubber stamp any patent that ends in the words "... using a computer".

      I mean seriously, prior art ?

      A DVR is nothing more than a "VCR using a computer" ... you see how that magic phrase works now ?

      Even in computer terms, the TiVo is not the first playback device that had a seek bar to rewind / forward-wind content to the desired position. This should never have made it out of the patent office's door (along with about another 100,000 software "innovation" patents each year).

    4. Re:Hoist on their own petard... by diamondsw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except Tivo wasn't a patent troll - they actually produced a best-of-class product that the courts agreed was being infringed on. I know patent litigation is unpopular (and for good reason), but Tivo appeared to be a case where it was Working As Intended.

      We'll see with Microsoft, although the timing is certainly suspect.

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    5. Re:Hoist on their own petard... by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But their patents are about as great as amazon one-click. Nothing they did was new or novel enough that it should have been patentable.

    6. Re:Hoist on their own petard... by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      The same nonsense that allowed Tivo to run amok

      Yeah. I mean, everyone and their brother was making PVR's before TiVo, and it's not like this invaded every single cable company in America or anything, or did anything at all to change how we watch TV as a nation...

      Sorry, but TiVo's a great case of "well-earned Patent." You've just got your panties in a knot over the GPL v3 issue.

    7. Re:Hoist on their own petard... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      For what?
      Making a VCR with a computer?
      What single thing did they actually come up with?

    8. Re:Hoist on their own petard... by horatio · · Score: 1

      What TiVo brought to the table was a user experience so that was so friendly all those folks who couldn't set their VCR clock could figure it out, but was still flexible and powerful enough for some die hard techies like myself to really enjoy having it in the house.

      --
      There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.
    9. Re:Hoist on their own petard... by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      As a person who had an ATI All-In-Wonder, before the TiVo ever got invented, I can tell you, it had the ability to schedule recordings from your TV and save them as an mpeg2 stream, and it had the ability for you to be playing that stream while it was still being written to, allowing you to pause, rewind, and fastforward live TV...So fuck TiVo, they didn't invent shit except the UI on top of it, and it's not that great.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    10. Re:Hoist on their own petard... by Lershac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why yes. They did make a VCR with a computer, that also recorded and played back the recording while it was being recorded. And allowed relatively instant access to anywhwere within the video recording. And allowed one to pause live TV, and schedule the recordings intelligently with little hassle, and organize and display those recordings in an easy to use way.

      Oh I see now, its WAY FUCKING BETTER THAN A VCR.

      I have 3 HD Tivos, all lifetime subscription. They are the best entertainment dollar I have ever spent. I have tried everything, and these "just work"

      --
      Chuck
    11. Re:Hoist on their own petard... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      This "well earned patent" basically boils down to the following:

              cat /dev/video0 > tivo-patented-computer-concurrency.mpg &
              mplayer n00bs-fanboys-will-buy-into-anything.mpg

      Once the consumer hardware was in place, anyone that wanted to could
      start cobbling together recorders with spare parts and shell scripts.
      Some people even started with the old cards that didn't do any sort
      of compression. This was tricky since a large hard drive in those
      days was 80G.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    12. Re:Hoist on their own petard... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Informative

      For what? Making a VCR with a computer? What single thing did they actually come up with?

      Why don't you read the fucking patent instead of just pretending they "patented recording TV with a computer" and getting all uppity "cos dat's bullshit"? Their patent is for their method of event and data buffering that allowed them to record TV on a ridiculously cheap 54mHz system. This is why there were (and are) still non-TiVo DVRs.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    13. Re:Hoist on their own petard... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      ...yes, with dedicated encoder hardware.

      You could buy such a PC board yourself if you wanted to for about $400.

      You can get a lot of mileage out of specialized hardware. The ION is a pretty great demonstration of that.

      If anything, anything that Tivo could possibly legitimately patent should be obsolete by now.

      It should have been made moot by the first PC NTSC->MPEG2 card.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    14. Re:Hoist on their own petard... by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh I see now, its WAY FUCKING BETTER THAN A VCR.

      Yes, you paid them lots of money so you have to run to their defense, I get it. However, nothing changes the fact that they are a VCR on a computer. Once you have a non-linear medium, the features you mention are obvious. They didn't "invent" anything a 5 year old didn't already think up 20 years ago, they were just the first to use it commercially, so they get copyrights on ideas (when you shouldn't be able to copyright ideas, just specific implementations of them) that are simple, obvious, and often not even new (other than the "on a computer" part).

    15. Re:Hoist on their own petard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There is a far cry from being best of class product and having what most would call "legitimate" patents. Tivo is certainly best in class, but there patents are absolute garbage that should never have been granted. Personally I hope Tivo are hoisted on their own petard, maybe a multi billion dollar loss would cause them pause in continuing there abusive nature.

    16. Re:Hoist on their own petard... by Darinbob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The invented the DVR... That's not new or novel?

      Most patents look obvious after the fact, but someone has to be the first to invest their time and money to get there. I bet someone may have considered storing video to hard drive, but that's just one part of the puzzle. The whole pausing and rewinding live TV thing is pretty non-obvious by itself.

      The whole point of a patent is to encourage companies to innovate. Without the patent system no one would have invested money in the proto-Tivo people so they could spend a couple years on R&D to create the product, because some big name like Sony have copied it and made a slightly cheaper version in a month. Possibly even getting their product out first if some details leaked out early or there was some corporate espionage.

    17. Re:Hoist on their own petard... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      And the VCR is plainly obvious and should never have been patented, because there was prior art of people taking film cameras to movie theaters to secretly copy them. And movie cameras should never have gotten a patent because there was prior art of people scribbling on paper.

      Please people, if you're just opposed to the whole concept of patents then just say so instead of trying to single out every company in a patent lawsuit as being unworthy and merely derivative of stuff the cavemen did.

    18. Re:Hoist on their own petard... by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Yes, but. A DVR isn't a VCR; but "digital storage" is all the same, whether the file is text or audio or video or any future coding, and "activating based on a clock timer" is a concept that already existed. In the 1960s and 70s the patent office would NOT patent ANYTHING to do with a computer, on the grounds that "algorithms are laws of nature". It was business lobbying and a particular political philosophy that swung the pendulum to the point where you can patent the same process people did for years on paper simply because you now do it on a computer. One could copyright a particular calendar or account-book format; that's much less particular, and MUCH less protection, than being able to patent the entire *concept* of keeping a calendar or account-book because someone does it on a computer. For example, good salespeople always knew their customers and anticipated their needs (my barista has my coffee ready by the time I've reached the front of the line); the fact that online shops do that with a database instead of an index card file should not be considered a new concept worthy of patent protection.

    19. Re:Hoist on their own petard... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Even that patent is obvious.

  9. So now we know by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

    So, now we know how IP War I(tm) opens on Front #1 (Patents).

    There will at sometime be a situation vital to two implacably opposed large opponents, who draw other companies in to the fray for their own interests. They will use Patents to attack. Kind of like all the treaties before WW I drew into two groups, except this will probably be a star configuration, (with the additional bonus of some companies possibly suing others on *both* sides).

    I wonder how Front #2 (Copyright) and Front #3 (Trademark) will fare.

    My bet is Trademark will be like Switzerland. Everybody wants to own their own rep/name.

    I have no idea how a copyright war would start. Perhaps cross licensing schemes? Ah, perhaps not corp vs. corp? Maybe this war will be from human beings to corporations, defining just what is reasonable. that would be truly a guerrilla war. right now file sharing and the like is at most, civil disobedience.

    Well, anyway, let's get some popcorn!

  10. TiVo's suit against AT&T by CoderJoe · · Score: 1

    So let me get this right... TiVo is suing AT&T (and has sued Dish and Echostar previously) claiming that they infringe on the "time-warping" feature of DVRs? The "pause live tv" feature? How exactly is this novel and unique once you get the video into the computer that runs the DVR?

    1. Re:TiVo's suit against AT&T by ivucica · · Score: 1

      It may be innovative, but certainly not to grant a monopoly for 20 years. In case of this patent, 2 years, max.

    2. Re:TiVo's suit against AT&T by mystikkman · · Score: 1

      Shhhh, we're hunting Ballmer's rabbits. Be quiet and don't be a party pooper by injecting truthful facts into the bashing.

    3. Re:TiVo's suit against AT&T by Lershac · · Score: 1

      Um, because at the time no one had done it before and put it out to market?

      If you come up with something and go to market with it, I hope someone treats you as badly as these companies have treated TIVO.

      --
      Chuck
    4. Re:TiVo's suit against AT&T by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      the "time-warping" feature of DVRs? The "pause live tv" feature? How exactly is this novel and unique once you get the video into the computer that runs the DVR?

      They didn't patent the features, they patented a particular method of implementing those features. If you'd actually read the patent, you'd see that the method is pretty freakin' complicated and definitely non-obvious.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    5. Re:TiVo's suit against AT&T by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      What you mean no one had made a computer video player by 1998 with things like pause and rewind?

      Nonsense.

      Like the other guy said: This "new" thing is just a couple of old things thrown together
      in a manner that anyone skilled in the art could manage. This is why their work has been
      replicated by students and hobbyists.

      Patents are supposed to IMPROVE the state of the art by causing things to be DISCLOSED
      that WOULD NOT OTHERWISE BE. If some students can recreate your invention than it hardly
      should qualify for a 17 year monopoly and license to f*ck with everyone.

      Tivo is already treating me as badly as these companies have treated Tivo.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:TiVo's suit against AT&T by Lershac · · Score: 1

      Wow, and yet no one had done so and delivered it to market?

      Tivo in 1999 was a miracle device, much like the VCR in its first generation.

      My how memories are short.

      --
      Chuck
    7. Re:TiVo's suit against AT&T by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      No. It's more like "how some people are totally clueless".

      The moment I saw a Tivo, I realized that it could be replicated with a PC and an MPEG2 encoder card.

      Patents aren't about enabling bridge trolls because they seem to be the first
      to market something. Patents are about encouraging people to disclose useful
      inventions that they would otherwise keep as trade secrets.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  11. Re:Hahaha, wow. by icebike · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not so sure its that funny.

    Isn't tivo just serving as a surrogate for Linux here? After all, I believe Linux is at Tivo's core.

    Does this not continue the chain started when Microsoft sued TomTom? Is it not a pattern of harassment of companies making money with a Linux core?

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  12. Collusion? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't this sort of 'buddy system' be illegal, much like price fixing?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  13. Re:Hahaha, wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Tivo a surrogate for Linux? Bullshit. Tivo's abuse of GPL loopholes is what prompted the changes to GPLv3.

  14. Re:Hahaha, wow. by icebike · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, so says Stallman, but Torvalds sees nothing wrong with that.

    Besides, this is a nuance probably lost on Microsoft.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  15. Re:Hahaha, wow. by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

    It looks to me like this is more threatening to MythTV and the like than to Linux itself. But then I didn't RTFA, so I wouldn't know.

    --
    $ make available
  16. Re:Hahaha, wow. by Thinboy00 · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    $ make available
  17. Yeah, I've noticed by DinDaddy · · Score: 2, Funny

    My U-verse DVR is so much more usable than a Tivo because of all it's stupendous theft-worthy features.

  18. Re:I wonder if there are any ms fanbois still left by mystikkman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Typical foaming at the mouth anti-MS zealots, fail to read TFA and spreading FUD in knee jerk reactions.

    It's Tivo that's the enemy of the new digital era.

    It's Tivo that's suing willy nilly.

    The latest legal salvo comes a few months after TiVo launched its own strike against AT&T and Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ), alleging that their video services illegally use its TV "time-warping" technology in their digital video recorders. AT&T's U-Verse TV service runs on Microsoft's Internet video technology.

    TiVo hasn't been shy about using the courtroom to protect its intellectual property. The company also has a long-running dispute with Dish Networks Corp. ( DISH) and sister company Echostar Corp. (SATS) over the same DVR technology. The company has agreements with most of the cable companies and DirecTV Group Inc. ( DTV).

  19. As a former ATT U-Verse customer by horatio · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm a former AT&T U-Verse customer, and a former TiVo customer. I switched to U-Verse from T/W because TimeWarner refused to provide adequate support for the CableCards they supplied in my TiVo - channels would randomly go missing causing difficulty or programs to record an hour of black. Had TiVo for years and loved it. Always explained it to people that I'm a tech/programmer who spends all day fighting with computers. I loved that I could come home and not fight with my TV (until the cablecards, that is).

    The U-Verse DVR *sucked*. If you pressed the "skip ahead" key at just the wrong interval, it would inexplicably jump to the end of the program with the "do you want to delete this?" prompt. To which I would invariably yell at the DVR "no you dumbass, I just wanted to skip ahead two minutes". The software, frankly was awful in a multitude of ways. I switched to DirecTV, and the DVR software is better, but still stinks compared to TiVo.

    For me as big of a fan as I am of Linux, etc it wasn't about the OS. It was about the user experience. The U-Verse DVR did stupid, unexplainable shit often enough that I cancelled it after a little less than a year.

    --
    There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.
    1. Re:As a former ATT U-Verse customer by Lershac · · Score: 1

      Thank jeebus that Cox in Baton Rouge seems to be cable card friendly... I have 3 TIVOs in teh house and am in TV heaven. I rarley watch, but when I do I can watch WHAT I WANT.

      --
      Chuck
    2. Re:As a former ATT U-Verse customer by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Thank you.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    3. Re:As a former ATT U-Verse customer by tepples · · Score: 1

      I switched to DirecTV

      If you switch your TV to satellite, where do you switch your Internet access? Cable companies like Comcast have a habit of charging Internet subscribers who don't also get cable TV a "line fee" that's coincidentally the same price as locals-only cable TV.

  20. Re:Hahaha, wow. by grcumb · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not so sure its that funny.

    Isn't tivo just serving as a surrogate for Linux here? After all, I believe Linux is at Tivo's core.

    Does this not continue the chain started when Microsoft sued TomTom? Is it not a pattern of harassment of companies making money with a Linux core?

    In a word, yes. Jeremy Allison (of Samba fame) just gave a talk about this not two hours ago at linux.conf.au in Wellington, NZ. He stated that this would likely be Microsoft's modus operandi against Linux and FOSS in the near future.

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  21. Re:Live Free or Die by Lershac · · Score: 1

    Microosft does not and never has "innovated". They purchase the fruits of labor of innovators and slap their own names on it.

    --
    Chuck
  22. She's An Old Whore by b4upoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Reputation should not matter and each case should go to the courts on its own merits. However Microsoft is an old whore with a wicked, dirty, reputation. Judges and juries have got to go into a Microsoft trial with a bit of an urge to tie a hangman's knot and I don't blame them. Considering the several billions in losses that Microsoft has already received in various trials perhaps they should be shy of the court house and not think about dragging people to trial.

  23. Re:Hahaha, wow. by mystikkman · · Score: 1

    Tivo is the kind of Linux user that Linux doesn't need. They use digital signing to deny users the right to run the modifications. They are precisely why Stallman had to come up with GPL v3 to prevent this kind of abuse of GPL v2.

  24. Re:Hahaha, wow. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    It's not like there are any other OSs that they could have used.

    They used Linux because it was easy. Changing the GPL is just going to make companies like Tivo stop using FOSS, they'll just move to a project that has licensing that fits their needs better.

  25. Re:Hahaha, wow. by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

    this has nothing to do with linux

    Tivo is a Sue happy obnoxious company that agressively sues its competitors through patents that should never have been granted to it. It is nice to see someone pound them in their face for a change. Tivo is attacking Microsofts biggest platform partner, Tivo deserves to be slapped around.

  26. Re:Hahaha, wow. by icebike · · Score: 1

    If you had a patent, wouldn't you try to enforce it?

    You say it shouldn't have been granted, but it was.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  27. Re:Hahaha, wow. by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

    The whole patent system is fukked up. I have no sympathy for any company that tries to take advantage of that screwed up system. I hate that companies like MS/IBM/Sun et al all collect huge patent portfolios, but at least they use them defensively rather than aggressively/abusively like Tivo.

  28. how / why did tivo avoid being acquired? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    i wish someone could explain how tivo avoided being acquired. their user interface is one of the best i've seen, ever. the writing has been on the wall for them for 5 years. the fact that they still exist is a testament to how good of a device it is.

    whoever is in charge of mergers / acquisitions at tivo really, really, dropped the ball. they should have been an acquisition target for every major cable company, AT&T, and every major dish company. it's essentially over for them. every TV providing entity has their own DVR now, and they are closing the gap with tivo rapidly. i've been thinking about moving to AT&T U-verse to get out from under comcast's boot, and from what i've read their DVR is as good or better than tivo.

    i've had 3 tivo boxes since 2000. i feel an almost brotherly love for them as a company. yes i know how stupid that sounds. it makes me sick they couldn't figure out how to be successful.

    1. Re:how / why did tivo avoid being acquired? by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

      > they couldn't figure out how to be successful.

      That's because they put all their effort into patent suits instead of innovation and/or partnerships

  29. What golden rule? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    If humans were so smart, you wouldn't have to explain the golden rule to them.

    Do onto others as you would like to have them do ~1.618 times to you?

  30. Re:Hahaha, wow. by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

    Changing the GPL is just going to make companies like Tivo stop using FOSS, they'll just move to a project that has licensing that fits their needs better.

    I think you're right and I think that's one of the greatest benefits. One of the main causes of failure in BSD style projects is breaches of solidarity with the rest of the project by programmers involved. Once someone goes and sets up a new proprietary use of a project, programmers have a "prisoners dilemma". If they go quickly to the proprietary company they get benefit and money. If they stick with their project, they know many of the others will go to the other project and their project will lose value since it can't continue to grow as well and has lost some of it's best support knowledge.

    I think we can see that problem for Linux with Android already. The Android and Chrome OS user space is deliberately different from the normal Linux one. If Linux had been GPLv3 licensed then normal Linux user space would be usable on Android and would compete with Android user space fairly. The benefits of the existing software would allow it to find it's place. As it is, because Android is on the GPLv2, Google can create an artificial market place, where they control entry. They then use that to ensure that only the features they wish to see which support their commercial interests go into the OS. Developers will now be split between Android/Linux and normal GNU/Linux (or GNU/XOrg/Gnome/KDE/BSD/Linux if you wish) in the same way as there was a split in the community of UNIX developers between SUN/HP etc.

    Linus should really seriously think about GPLv3 relicensing if he doesn't want his project "stolen" from under him.

    --
    =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
  31. Re:Hahaha, wow. by icebike · · Score: 1

    Have you ever invented anything in your life you wanted to earn money from? Its easy to hate the system from the outside looking in.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  32. Obvious and done before by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 1

    I used to work for Kingston Interactive Television and we where one of the first in the world to deliver a working IPTV, EPG & VOD system consumers as a commercial product. We did this in 1999, we won awards, including an EMMA and BAFTA nomination. Kingston had been researching streaming video over the local loop for at least 10 years prior to that, even testing a narrow-band television system. It was xDSL that made it possible. See KITV in action on YouTube.

    I designed the VOD & Content management system and we implemented our own solution because nobody offered what we needed as a software product. Executives from every major Television Broadcast, IT and telecom corporation visited, including Microsoft, to see KITV. It wasn't patented then because it was obvious, it wasn't novel enough then, it certainly isn't novel today. It was a well established idea in the 1990's that was waiting for the networking & server technology to match the requirements regarding latency, packet loss & QOS.

    I cannot put into words how galling it is to find somebody has patented something you've already done before and done better, both cases should fail because of prior art and have their patents struck out.

  33. Explicit use of patents as a deterrent by tepples · · Score: 1

    Most of the companies have patent portfolios as a deterrent only.

    Such companies could at least be more up front about it. For example, a company holding a patent could license the patent for all uses, provided that the licensee does not sue the company for patent infringement.

  34. The copyright war: Harrison and Bolton by tepples · · Score: 1

    I have no idea how a copyright war would start.

    The copyright war has already started in the United States: Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music and Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton. A songwriter accidentally writes a song that matches a song that was played a decade ago, and the publisher of the older song successfully sues for seven-figure damages. How should one play it safe while writing a song in such an environment?

  35. Conspiracy theory by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    The U-Verse DVR did stupid, unexplainable shit often enough that I cancelled it after a little less than a year.

    Let's see. Skip ahead 2 minutes. That sounds like... skipping a commercial block. Which TV companies say is a Bad Thing. Sounds to me like you were being penalized for trying to skip commercials.</conspiracy>

    Just saying.

  36. In other news... by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Apple sues Google to help Microsoft :)

    Waiting for that one to be the headline.

    See, the Nexus One has a striking similarity to the iPhone. Google is perhaps one of the biggest threat's to Microsoft's solvency, particular with their superiority in search, and their vastly usable ChromeOS.

    And Microsoft's Windows product has a critical role in the OS industry that helps Apple reach their target market.

    It helps Apple, because it means the general population uses a product that actually is far inferior.

    Since almost everyone uses Windows, Linux doesn't seem too special to the general population. The average person has difficulty seeing a benefit to Linux over say Apple.

    Apple can continue to justify to people they should buy their product, because it's a "premium OS", better than OS-es that run on less-expensive hardware in every way.

    If Google disrupts Microsoft's market position, it could be a huge threat... in a world where ChromeOS or Linux are predominant, MacOS has a lot less value:

    The public would have good experience with simple, decent OSes, and be unimpressed with MacOS after trying it. It would make it exceedingly difficult for Apple to successfully sell their "almost the same" "100x as expensive" hardware, when the predominant OS in the market is of reasonable quality and end-user experience.