I'm not sure why EchoStar couldn't use a similar technique; unfortunately, it's possible that the courts interpret the patent broadly and figure that difference doesn't matter.
Such an interpretation seems probable. From the fine ruling, as linked from TFA (look for "2. Infringement of the '389 Patent"), emphasis mine:
EchoStar argues that because TiVo failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the redesigned devices infringe, it is not in contempt of the infringement portion of the injunction....[A]t the very list, the claim limitation "parses video and audio data from said broadcast data" is not met by its new software. It argues that the district court improperly found infringement based on the simple fact that the software includes a PID filter [a mechanism designed to distinguish between various television programs] that parses some data. The filter, however, EchoStar argues, looks only at the header of a data packet, not the payload where the video and audio are contained. Therefore, EchoStar urges, its modified software does not parse any audio and video data.
TiVo responds that the district could has previously construed the term "parses" broadly to mean "analyzes," a construction that has never been challenged, and all that is required for the modified software to meet this limitation is a component that analyzes video and audio data. TiVo argues that EchoStar's attempt to differentiate header data from the packet payload is improper because both are part of an MPEG packet, and the whole packet is video and audio data. Moreover, TiVo argues that experts for both sides testified at trial that PID filtering meets the parsing limitation under the court's claim construction.
The ruling is a great read, and great fodder for at least one aspect of what is wrong with software patents, even when they verge on hardware. EchoStar provides a DVR feature that is found to infringe a patent. In response to an injunction, EchoStar implements around the infringing idea by doing something it called "Indexless DVR". Now they're found in contempt of the injunction, essentially, because they found another way to implement the same feature.
This patent is, in effect, not being interpreted as covering an implementation. Or rather, the implementation being covered is so effing broad ("analyze this data and provide this functionality") that it may as well be covering something more broad than a single implementation.
This business of the container format being interpreted as part of A/V data is one thing that broadens the interpretation so.
You have a good point, and here my car analogy, and those like it, break down because of the complexity of the beast.
I had forgotten about F1, instead referring people to go online to find answers to their computer questions. But I wonder if I haven't been doing the wrong thing directing people to community support when they're ill-equipped to distinguish good advice from bad.
You pretty much defeat defeat your own argument without realizing it.
GP is comparing two broad classes of knowing how things works, and asserting that ignorance of one of them is a problem. This is not contradiction, it is drawing a distinction.
I don't need to know how my fuel injection system works, but I had better know what to do at a stop sign.
I find that people who feel the need to perform stunts like this to make a point usually have trouble making a point in any other way, and a need for attention for themselves and their "cause." Yes, we get it, you hate the Bible. But you have no actual arguments against it beyond your dislike, and you're boring.
I find that people who feel the need to write a post like this to make a point usually have trouble making a point in any other way, and a need for attention for themselves and their "thesis." Yes, we get it, you are superior to everyone. But you have no actual arguments for it beyond your pretentious attitude, and you're annoying.
"There is a way, my good brave intellectual... But it will be a challenging quest...", while the disoriented geek looks up, licking his thinkgeek caffeine soapbar, bubbling a partial disoriented yet interested:
"Wut?"
And they are storing that cookie everywhere on the internet now a days. Google can build a pretty accurate profile about you (unless you've blocked it, but 'casual' people usually don't)
Google Analytics uses cookies called __utma, __utmb, __utmc, and __utmz (they have different expiry characteristics so GA can distinguish a "visit" from a "visitor"). Hands-on experiment: If you're not one of the people who blocks GA, open up your cookie jar right now and look for "utma". I expected to find a lot in mine, and I'm still surprised by how many are in there.
Have you actually used the Analytics service? It shows very detailed information about visitors, where they are coming from and what they do on the website.
It's pretty darn slick. GA got to be popular on its merits. But now that it's everywhere I worry about the aggregative power available to Google (not the individual GA users). Now that NoScript is gaining ground I occasionally worry that I ought to be doing my tracking locally because I won't know how many people have opted out of GA by declining its cookies.
I guess I'm not sure what you want to talk to my printer about. Maybe you're alluding to some story I haven't haerd
If I may, I believe this is about some of the DMCA takedown notices received by University of Washington from the MPAA in the summer of 2008. A few of them were directed at laser printers because researchers at the university pulled some tricks with IP addresses in an attempt to prove that, no, they really don't tell you about identity and, no, the MPAA doesn't care.
How the hell did he get the boot off his car? Does he have some super [...] lock picking skillz or just a set of bolt cutters?
I'm guessing that's where "possession of stolen property" comes from. They're supposed to come and remove the boot after your payment has gone through the proper channels. It strikes me as pleasantly smart-assy to remove the boot for them and include it with payment. Physical locks usually only serve to keep honest people honest anyway. Arresting someone over this procedural irregularity is downright stupid.
My first thought was, "Whatis this, Boston?" With the hyperlinks and everything. But no, the student hails from nearby Andover.
TFA doesn't call it a "hoax bomb" this time (i.e., we thought it was a bomb, and it turned out not to be, so rather than admit the false positive and send you on your way, we're charging you for confusing us, kthx) but "terroristic mischief", especially in the obvious absence of any such intent, is at least as bad. We might as well accuse him of being a witch.
Yet too often our schools lack support for teachers or the other resources needed to convey the practical utility and remarkable beauty of science and engineering.
That's nothing. I keep my mouse stationary, and rotate Earth to scroll.
You rotate Earth to scroll? I have a teamouse. It scrolls by Brownian motion and then I simply destroy the Universe when the cursor moves in a way I didn
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure why EchoStar couldn't use a similar technique; unfortunately, it's possible that the courts interpret the patent broadly and figure that difference doesn't matter.
Such an interpretation seems probable. From the fine ruling, as linked from TFA (look for "2. Infringement of the '389 Patent"), emphasis mine:
EchoStar argues that because TiVo failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the redesigned devices infringe, it is not in contempt of the infringement portion of the injunction. ...[A]t the very list, the claim limitation "parses video and audio data from said broadcast data" is not met by its new software. It argues that the district court improperly found infringement based on the simple fact that the software includes a PID filter [a mechanism designed to distinguish between various television programs] that parses some data. The filter, however, EchoStar argues, looks only at the header of a data packet, not the payload where the video and audio are contained. Therefore, EchoStar urges, its modified software does not parse any audio and video data.
TiVo responds that the district could has previously construed the term "parses" broadly to mean "analyzes," a construction that has never been challenged, and all that is required for the modified software to meet this limitation is a component that analyzes video and audio data. TiVo argues that EchoStar's attempt to differentiate header data from the packet payload is improper because both are part of an MPEG packet, and the whole packet is video and audio data. Moreover, TiVo argues that experts for both sides testified at trial that PID filtering meets the parsing limitation under the court's claim construction.
The ruling is a great read, and great fodder for at least one aspect of what is wrong with software patents, even when they verge on hardware. EchoStar provides a DVR feature that is found to infringe a patent. In response to an injunction, EchoStar implements around the infringing idea by doing something it called "Indexless DVR". Now they're found in contempt of the injunction, essentially, because they found another way to implement the same feature.
This patent is, in effect, not being interpreted as covering an implementation. Or rather, the implementation being covered is so effing broad ("analyze this data and provide this functionality") that it may as well be covering something more broad than a single implementation.
This business of the container format being interpreted as part of A/V data is one thing that broadens the interpretation so.
someone else is probably better than me at finding the patent in question... and I'm just too damn tired at this point to care.
It's linked! I linked to it!
Granted, since I'm not actually going to read it, I wonder if a MythTV box would infringe?
Because it's spelled "Interop Ability", at least when it appears on MS banner ads.
I was expecting the Spanish Inquisition.
Man, I feel like a douche. Sorry :(
Thank goodness, because Dawkins DID assert that sexual assault on a child is sometimes less damaging than teaching a child to follow Christianity.
The comparison is apt.
I had forgotten about F1, instead referring people to go online to find answers to their computer questions. But I wonder if I haven't been doing the wrong thing directing people to community support when they're ill-equipped to distinguish good advice from bad.
You pretty much defeat defeat your own argument without realizing it.
GP is comparing two broad classes of knowing how things works, and asserting that ignorance of one of them is a problem. This is not contradiction, it is drawing a distinction.
I don't need to know how my fuel injection system works, but I had better know what to do at a stop sign.
Can I change another key to be the any key? I can never find that darn thing.
I.. you... damn, what were we talking about?
Huh. You don't get out much.
Excellent management of your forum persona.
I find that people who feel the need to perform stunts like this to make a point usually have trouble making a point in any other way, and a need for attention for themselves and their "cause." Yes, we get it, you hate the Bible. But you have no actual arguments against it beyond your dislike, and you're boring.
I find that people who feel the need to write a post like this to make a point usually have trouble making a point in any other way, and a need for attention for themselves and their "thesis." Yes, we get it, you are superior to everyone. But you have no actual arguments for it beyond your pretentious attitude, and you're annoying.
That is perhaps the most pretentious coffee-sip I have ever experienced in text form. My fedora is off to you.
Can we call it a guild though (as the writers do)? Guilds are much cooler than unions.
Is it just me, or do the photos look like a big blob of yellows and grays?
I sort of see a face in the last one. Admittedly, it is the face of Rorschach, but it's still a start!
"There is a way, my good brave intellectual... But it will be a challenging quest...", while the disoriented geek looks up, licking his thinkgeek caffeine soapbar, bubbling a partial disoriented yet interested: "Wut?"
You mean that caffeinated bar was SOAP?
And they are storing that cookie everywhere on the internet now a days. Google can build a pretty accurate profile about you (unless you've blocked it, but 'casual' people usually don't)
Google Analytics uses cookies called __utma, __utmb, __utmc, and __utmz (they have different expiry characteristics so GA can distinguish a "visit" from a "visitor"). Hands-on experiment: If you're not one of the people who blocks GA, open up your cookie jar right now and look for "utma". I expected to find a lot in mine, and I'm still surprised by how many are in there.
Have you actually used the Analytics service? It shows very detailed information about visitors, where they are coming from and what they do on the website.
It's pretty darn slick. GA got to be popular on its merits. But now that it's everywhere I worry about the aggregative power available to Google (not the individual GA users). Now that NoScript is gaining ground I occasionally worry that I ought to be doing my tracking locally because I won't know how many people have opted out of GA by declining its cookies.
But if we get rights from laws, who gives laws rights so the laws can give us rights?
Other laws. Some might call it circular reasoning, but I prefer to think of it as having no loose ends.
I guess I'm not sure what you want to talk to my printer about. Maybe you're alluding to some story I haven't haerd
If I may, I believe this is about some of the DMCA takedown notices received by University of Washington from the MPAA in the summer of 2008. A few of them were directed at laser printers because researchers at the university pulled some tricks with IP addresses in an attempt to prove that, no, they really don't tell you about identity and, no, the MPAA doesn't care.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/the-inexact-science-behind-dmca-takedown-notices/
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/05/entertainment-indust-1.html
I don't know if any changes have been made in response to the embarrassment, nor whether the embarrassment has even been acknowledged as such.
How the hell did he get the boot off his car? Does he have some super [...] lock picking skillz or just a set of bolt cutters?
I'm guessing that's where "possession of stolen property" comes from. They're supposed to come and remove the boot after your payment has gone through the proper channels. It strikes me as pleasantly smart-assy to remove the boot for them and include it with payment. Physical locks usually only serve to keep honest people honest anyway. Arresting someone over this procedural irregularity is downright stupid.
My first thought was, "What is this, Boston ?" With the hyperlinks and everything. But no, the student hails from nearby Andover.
TFA doesn't call it a "hoax bomb" this time (i.e., we thought it was a bomb, and it turned out not to be, so rather than admit the false positive and send you on your way, we're charging you for confusing us, kthx) but "terroristic mischief", especially in the obvious absence of any such intent, is at least as bad. We might as well accuse him of being a witch.
Yet too often our schools lack support for teachers or the other resources needed to convey the practical utility and remarkable beauty of science and engineering.
This looks like a job for...Sagan-Man!
Okay, I'm done being pedantic.
In that case, I can say this:
Half of all people are more pedantic than average.
Oh look at db32 and his fancy schmancy pencil. Why can't you record information by typing knots in string like everyone else?
That's nothing. I keep my mouse stationary, and rotate Earth to scroll.
You rotate Earth to scroll? I have a teamouse. It scrolls by Brownian motion and then I simply destroy the Universe when the cursor moves in a way I didn
That is clearly a FlightGear mouse.