Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
I hate software patents, but I hate Comcast even more... I'm so conflicted I don't know what to think.
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.
.
Landfill Mining Co.
Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
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.
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.
.
Landfill Mining Co.
Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
And Rovi was an abbreviation of the company's original name: Macrovision. The company that introduced analog gain control copy protection.
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.
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.
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.
>"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 :)