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."

35 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. 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 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.
    4. 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...

    5. 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.

  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.
  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).

  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 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
    2. Re:Tivo by soundguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Tivo hit the market in 1999.

      --
      Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    3. 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.
  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 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.
  7. 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 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).

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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.
    6. 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).

    7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Re:Hahaha, wow. by Thinboy00 · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    $ make available
  11. 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.

  12. 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).

  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.