TiVo Sues Comcast Again, Alleging Operator's X1 Infringes Eight Patents (variety.com)

TiVo's Rovi subsidiary on Wednesday filed two lawsuits in federal district courts, alleging Comcast's X1 platform infringes eight TiVo-owned patents. "That includes technology covering pausing and resuming shows on different devices; restarting live programming in progress; certain advanced DVR recording features; and advanced search and voice functionality," reports Variety. From the report: A Comcast spokeswoman said the company will "aggressively defend" itself. "Comcast engineers independently created our X1 products and services, and through its litigation campaign against Comcast, Rovi seeks to charge Comcast and its customers for technology Rovi didn't create," the Comcast rep said in a statement. "Rovi's attempt to extract these unfounded payments for its aging and increasingly obsolete patent portfolio has failed to date."

TiVo's legal action comes after entertainment-tech vendor Rovi (which acquired the DVR company in 2016 and adopted the TiVo name) sued Comcast and its set-top suppliers in April 2016, alleging infringement of 14 patents. In November 2017, the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled that Comcast infringed two Rovi patents -- with the cable operator prevailing on most of the patents at issue. However, because one of the TiVo patents Comcast was found to have violated covered cloud-based DVR functions, the cable operator disabled that feature for X1 customers. Comcast is appealing the ITC ruling.

Comments

Conflicted

[AlanBDee]

I hate software patents, but I hate Comcast even more... I'm so conflicted I don't know what to think.

Re: Conflicted

[Anonymous Coward]

These patents could be enforced against others if Comcast loses. The best outcome would be to invalidate all of these patents. TiVo has experienced declining sales as cable companies have leased DVRs to their customers. Instead of adapting their business model, they're trying to use litigation to offset the loss of revenue. It's a page out of Darl McBride's playbook.

Re:Conflicted

[sconeu]

Whoever wins, we lose.

Re: Conflicted

[ArmoredDragon]

Tivo made a big mistake of marrying themselves to the cable industry to begin with, so it doesn't really matter anyways since cable is dying. That, and they've tried to become more of an IP troll over the last 6 years as their relevance has slid away. I have little sympathy to begin with; they sold boxes with many hardware defects while only offering a 90 day warranty. The most common problem with S1 units was that their modems would easily break, which effectively rendered it useless.

Re: Conflicted

[Darinbob]

The outcome is that other companies will have to legally license the technology that someone else invented instead of just stealing it. This is something TiVo invented, these were indeed novel ideas, and Comcast knew these patents existed. In a relatively short period of time these patents will expire.

This is exactly what the patent system is supposed to do: provide a temporary exclusive right to the inventor as an incentive to publish and make public the new invention instead of maintaining closely held trade secrets shared only with close trusted partners. If you throw this out, it means that the giant companies like Comcast can steal any idea they like with impunity, which ruins the business opportunities for small or independent inventors.

This is NOT similar to SCO in any way other than that a patent and a lawsuit is involved.

Re:Conflicted

[Darinbob]

These patents are newer than that so they're not about to expire, and they are patents that TiVo invented themselves so they're not trolls.

Re: Conflicted

[Obfuscant]

This is something TiVo invented, these were indeed novel ideas,

I looked up the patents listed in the Variety article, and not a single one of them were novel, and many of them were prior art and should never have been granted. I mean, one of them is looking up stuff using a limited number of words. One deals with partitioning video or "content" into sections and allowing users to access sections directly without seeking through the whole content. Just like the "chapter" mode on every DVD produced in the last twenty years allows.

I had, many years ago, an ATI TV tuner that did much of what a couple of these patents claim rights to. They were issued in 2016. Scheduling from a program guide, reminders to watch, etc. Prior art.

None of it is novel. It is common sense and obvious to practitioners familiar in the subject. Tivo is being a patent troll.

This is exactly what the patent system is supposed to do

You better be careful. The next time you play a DVD in a DVD player and it shows you a chapter list, you're violating a TiVo patent. No, this is not what the patent system is supposed to do.

Re: Conflicted

[SScorpio]

DVDs recorded live TV and let you play it back?

Re: Conflicted

[SScorpio]

But Tivo auto chaptering a recording is much different from a DVD's chapters which are manually placed.

TiVo’s Rovi subsidiary

[93 Escort Wagon]

While this is technically accurate... The company Rovi bought TiVo, then rebranded itself as TiVo. So it’s somewhat funny to think about the existence of a “Rovi subsidiary”.

Re:TiVo is acting like SCO

[bobbied]

Not exactly like SCO, they actually DID develop and own the patents they are trying to protect... SCO tried to claim they had acquired the rights to stuff that I don't think they actually had.

But I do agree, TiVo is pushing the boundaries of the patiently obvious with some of their patents here. I hope Comcast wins, but I also hope that they both spend wads of cash on lawyers and the patents get tossed by the court. TiVo needs to move on and do something actually ground breaking..

Re:TiVo is acting like SCO

[Slashdot Junky]

I think it is okay to dock points for those doing shitty things while still playing by the rules. Just because the rules allow one to cut off another person's foot does mean it is okay to do so.

Re: Expect more of the same.

[Anonymous Coward]

TiVo isn't a patent troll, at least not in the sense we usually apply that term. TiVo actually has created products that use their patents. The problem is they're using intellectual property litigation involving dubious patents to try to replace declining revenue. Your post is definitely flamebait, but I'll address the political issue. The Republicans certainly tend to promote policies that favor big business and the wealthy. Placing more restrictions to prevent obvious and otherwise dubious patents will limit patent litigation. A patent lawsuit is a net loss because no new revenue is created in the process, though it can be lost if a business decides to stop selling a product due to patent infringement. Money may be transferred from one business to another, as part of royalties or settlements, but new revenue isn't creared. Furthermore, money is definitely lost paying the lawyers. If patent lawsuits we're less frequent, more of that money would go toward profits and business expenses, hopefully including R&D. In summary, Republicans do generally support policies that are favorable toward big business, and patent reform may actually benefit those businesses.

Re:TiVo is acting like SCO

[Slashdot Junky]

Spending wads of cash on legal action, especially for an eventually lost fight, leads to higher pricing and cost reductions. So, I'd rather they just give up now.

You mean Macrovision?

[tepples]

And Rovi was an abbreviation of the company's original name: Macrovision. The company that introduced analog gain control copy protection.

Re:You mean Macrovision?

[93 Escort Wagon]

Well, that helps explain why the quality of my TiVo service has been going down the toilet since the takeover.

That's the topic, not the patent

[raymorris]

Each patent has a couple pages describing *exactly* what is patented and how it's different from what was done before (prior art).

They didn't patent the concepts mentioned in the summary. Slashdot summaries often mention the general topic or concept that a patent is *related to*, phrased in a way that makes it sound like someone patented the whole concept. That's not how patents work. For example, with a video cassette (vcr) you can pause it in one device, then take it to another VCR and resume watching. Nobody can patent that idea, and their patent calls out how their invention is different from what has been done before.

If you read (part of?) any of the patents and see one that seems like it was obvious at the time (not in retrospect) I'd be curious to see it. There may be one, but don't think that just because the TOPIC mentioned in the Slashdot summary is obviously interesting, that means their invention was interesting. When Slashdot says "Space X" patents rocket guidance system" that means they patented something they invented that has to do with guiding rockets; it doesn't mean they patented the idea of rocket guidance in general.

Comcast's defense doesn't hold water

[putaro]

I'm not a big fan of software patents, but they exist and Comcast's defense is bogus. Independent invention is not a defense against patent infringement. I notice they didn't say anything about the patents being invalid, just that they want to claim that because Tivo didn't write the X1 code the patents don't apply.

Re:Comcast's defense doesn't hold water

[technosaurus]

Actually in the world of real patents (read mechanical systems, not bogus software based crap) this is a common practice. My Grandfather was the head engineer of a multinational tool manufacturer and a good portion of his job was to implement safety mechanisms that didn't violate patents. If existing patents used an electrical interlock and a guard, they would use 2 independent guards and a mechanical failsafe. The only time he spent in court was to testify about the safety systems that people would override, hurt themselves and sue over... none of the patent cases ever saw a courtroom.

Re:Comcast's defense doesn't hold water

[putaro]

He was creating a different, non-infringing implementation. That's different from "independent invention" which means you got the same thing but did it on your own. Examining patents to figure out a different way to do it in a non-infringing matter is standard practice and the defense, if sued by a patent holder, is "this invention doesn't infringe", not "I invented it without looking at yours"

Re:TiVo is acting like SCO

[Darinbob]

No, it's very different from SCO. TiVo invented their technology, and these were not obvious ideas at the time. Yes, TiVo was acquired so they're on the second owner but still the same company essentially. SCO did not invent their technology that they claimed to own in the lawsuits, they only inherited it through a long sequence of acquisitions and trades and some statements that they interpreted incorrectly. Not the same thing.

If you had a product that you invented, then comcast copies it and damages your business to the point where the world considers you an also-ran, would you just let it go as "it's just business"? Today's world has mega companies who create patents as ammunition in their fights against other mega companies; or they collaborate with an agreement not to sue each other and instead attack the smaller entities. It's not fair of course. But you shouldn't side with the mega company when the small players decide to fight back using the same ammunition. As a smallish company you have to defend yourself against the giants or you go out of business.

If you hate patents, then please attack companies like Comcast, Apple, or IBM instead; or attack the patent trolls.

Re:TiVo is acting like SCO

[Darinbob]

I hope Comcast loses. They have thousands of more patents that they abuse every day compared to TiVo. They knew they were violating the patents but they didn't care because they were the 500lb gorilla in the room.

Re:TiVo can fly

[Darinbob]

That's the new TiVo, it's gone downhill after acquisition. But the original TiVo was a great product, it invented the entire concept of DVRs, and all the competitors had lousy products with bad UIs in comparison.

The real issue in this case is whether or not a company should sit back and let a let a larger company copy their patents or not. Not ever patent lawsuit is about patent trolls. If you think that the entire concept of patents should be abolished, TiVo has the law and the right on their side here even if you don't like their products.

Re: TiVo is acting like SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

That just means you don't understand either case.

SCO claimed copyright on something they neither created nor owned the rights to. Then they sued people and wouldn't say which code was infringing.

TiVo is suing over patent infringement for something they did invent and are clearly identifying what is infringing.

"independently created"

[markdavis]

>"Comcast engineers independently created our X1 products and services, "

Um, I guess she doesn't know how these patents work. It doesn't matter HOW it was developed/created. Could be from nothing, could have been by people who never heard of the features before, could be in a clean room, could be a 100% copy of some established product. A patent is not a copyright.

Love TiVo, hate some long physical patents, absolutely hate all software patents (also hate long copyrights, especially on obsolete/abandoned stuff), hate Comcast. Hmm, I am certainly conflicted :)

Re:TiVo is acting like SCO

[Obfuscant]

I hope Comcast loses. They have thousands of more patents that they abuse every day compared to TiVo.

Citation required. I did a google search for "comcast sues for patent infringement" and the only results in the first two pages were Comcast BEING sued by TiVo. Does Comcast sue a lot of others for patent infringement? And are the patents they sue over as patently obvious as the ones TiVo is suing for?

They knew they were violating the patents but they didn't care

They were doing things that were obvious things to do, that other people have been doing all along. I looked at the patents, and they're hardly innovative, non-obvious things. "Hey, let's allow users to PAUSE a stream..." "Hey, let's allow users to look up content using just a word or two..." "Hey, let's split content into chapters so users can start watching someplace other than the beginning of every program..."

Re: Expect more of the same.

[Obfuscant]

TiVo actually has created products that use their patents.

ATI created products that use the patents, before they were TiVo patents. There's a name for that, I just can't recall what it is.

I love TiVo and still use it, but...

[kriston]

I love TiVo and still use it, but they're still subsisting off the DiSH Network judgments.

Their business model over the past decade was to earn money by enforcing their patents. While I am not against the protection of intellectual property, I do have mixed feelings when a company's business plan is little more than enforcing your patent portfolio rather than your company continue to be an innovator, like the innovator TiVo was almost twenty years ago.

Re:TiVo is acting like SCO

[bobbied]

I hope Comcast loses. They have thousands of more patents that they abuse every day compared to TiVo. They knew they were violating the patents but they didn't care because they were the 500lb gorilla in the room.

Well, they will both loose in the end is my hope. A pile of legal bills fighting this all the way through court and no settlement either way. A lawyer once told me that in a lawsuit, only the lawyers are guaranteed to win. I hope, in this case, they are the only winners.

Re:TiVo is acting like SCO

[bobbied]

There is that.... You are right of course, but both Comcast and TiVo are in a dying market so you got to squabble over the scraps I guess...

Re:TiVo can fly

[Octorian]

That's the new TiVo, it's gone downhill after acquisition. But the original TiVo was a great product, it invented the entire concept of DVRs, and all the competitors had lousy products with bad UIs in comparison.

Unfortunately, due to the way modern digital cable works, these lousy products simply worked with their respective cable TV systems "out of the box." Meanwhile, TiVo users had to struggle through frustrating CableCARD nightmares while being constantly encouraged to "just give up and get the Scientific Atlanta POS-box like all our other customers."

I feel like this has probably hurt TiVo, over time, more than almost anything else. Its also probably why they actually have no serious competitors in the "DVR not provided by the cable company" market.