| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Future of TIVO ?
Seems everyone including the cable companys are jumping into their own
version of TIVO, I'm just wondering where that is going to leave TIVO ? |
Future of TIVO ?
Along side Kleenex.
't aclue wrote in message ng.com... Seems everyone including the cable companys are jumping into their own version of TIVO, I'm just wondering where that is going to leave TIVO ? |
Future of TIVO ?
In article , "Bill" wrote:
Along side Kleenex. And Bandaid 't aclue wrote in message ing.com... Seems everyone including the cable companys are jumping into their own version of TIVO, I'm just wondering where that is going to leave TIVO ? |
Future of TIVO ?
On Apr 26, 4:10 pm, 't aclue wrote:
Seems everyone including the cable companys are jumping into their own version of TIVO, I'm just wondering where that is going to leave TIVO ? TiVo holds the patent on watching one channel while recording another. They successfully sued Replay TV and won a $93 million judgement. Assuming that is not overturned in appeals, they will probably go after licensing deals with all the other DVR manufacturers, as once the precedent is established, they would be sure to be able to enforce that ruling in other court cases. TiVo could makes deals where the DVR maker uses TiVo software, or they could charge royalties on every box sold. So even if they don't end up with a large market share of their own, there should be a decent revenue stream coming into TiVo down the road. Brad Houser www.siliconvalleyupgrades.com |
Future of TIVO ?
SVU wrote:
TiVo holds the patent on watching one channel while recording another. I assume the patent is a little more complex than that, because VCRs have allowed you do that for decades. -- Stephen Harris The truth is the truth, and opinion just opinion. But what is what? My employer pays to ignore my opinions; you get to do it for free. |
Future of TIVO ?
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:53:27 GMT, Stephen Harris wrote:
SVU wrote: TiVo holds the patent on watching one channel while recording another. I assume the patent is a little more complex than that, because VCRs have allowed you do that for decades. Not on a single device. VCR records one channel. While it's doing that, you can't use it to watch something else. You can only watch what it's recording, or ignore it all together. -- I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing. Probably a bad thing; most things are bad things. -- Nile Evil ******* |
Future of TIVO ?
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 06:56:00 -0700, SVU wrote:
On Apr 26, 4:10 pm, 't aclue wrote: Seems everyone including the cable companys are jumping into their own version of TIVO, I'm just wondering where that is going to leave TIVO ? TiVo holds the patent on watching one channel while recording another. Really? How in the hell did they get a patent on something that was being done years before they were even a company. They successfully sued Replay TV and won a $93 million judgement. Stupid people make stupid laws. Assuming that is not overturned in appeals, they will probably go after licensing deals with all the other DVR manufacturers, as once the precedent is established, they would be sure to be able to enforce that ruling in other court cases. TiVo could makes deals where the DVR maker uses TiVo software, or they could charge royalties on every box sold. So even if they don't end up with a large market share of their own, there should be a decent revenue stream coming into TiVo down the road. Patents shouldn't last more than 7 years. They shouldn't have gotten a patent in the first place. -- Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php |
Future of TIVO ?
Peter H. Coffin wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:53:27 GMT, Stephen Harris wrote: SVU wrote: TiVo holds the patent on watching one channel while recording another. I assume the patent is a little more complex than that, because VCRs have allowed you do that for decades. Not on a single device. VCR records one channel. While it's doing that, And _now_ you're making it "a little more complex." you can't use it to watch something else. You can only watch what it's recording, or ignore it all together. Actually, there were dual-deck VCR machines, some with independent tuners for each deck. They weren't very cheap. My school had one in the A/V department. So, again, the TiVo patent is presumably more complex, yet. [ I'm not saying TiVo don't have valid patents; I'm saying that what you wrote is too simple. ] -- Stephen Harris The truth is the truth, and opinion just opinion. But what is what? My employer pays to ignore my opinions; you get to do it for free. |
Future of TIVO ?
SVU shaped the electrons to say:
TiVo holds the patent on watching one channel while recording another. Uh, the 'Time Warp' patent is a bit more complex than that. And they actually hold a number of DVR related patents on both hardware and software. They successfully sued Replay TV and won a $93 million judgement. While TiVo *did* sue ReplayTV a number of years ago, and ReplayTV sued TiVo at the same time (I forget who started it and who counter-sued), that was settled out of court and the two companies agreed to swap patents as a settlement. You're referring to TiVo's more recent suit, and victory, against EchoStar/Dish Network. It has already gone to appeal and the appeals court upheld the victory for the most part, though they did send the hardware infringement claim back to the lower court for rehearing. Dish has stated they now intended to appeal to the US Supreme Court. -MZ -- megazone-at-megazone.org http://www.MegaZone.org/ Gweep, Geek, Human, me. http://www.GizmoLovers.com/ http://www.Eyrie-Productions.com/ -- Hail Eris "A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men" 508-852-2171 |
Future of TIVO ?
SVU wrote:
On Apr 26, 4:10 pm, 't aclue wrote: Seems everyone including the cable companys are jumping into their own version of TIVO, I'm just wondering where that is going to leave TIVO ? TiVo holds the patent on watching one channel while recording another. They successfully sued Replay TV and won a $93 million judgement. Assuming that is not overturned in appeals, they will probably go after licensing deals with all the other DVR manufacturers, as once the precedent is established, they would be sure to be able to enforce that ruling in other court cases. TiVo could makes deals where the DVR maker uses TiVo software, or they could charge royalties on every box sold. So even if they don't end up with a large market share of their own, there should be a decent revenue stream coming into TiVo down the road. Tivo made a $1.37 profit 1 quarter. Their only salvation is the cable companies lock on content distribution, which deters other mfg from making set top DVRs. The Federal government recently classified Fios as "cable" which means the total number of subscribers is close to the level where gov regulation begins. A free for all will start that will leave a lot of bodies. And don't count on any "we invented recording to hard disk" decisions. |
Future of TIVO ?
Howard wrote:
I think the patent may be watching a 'recorded show' while recording another. A trick your average VCR just can't learn. The average VCR, sure, but dual-deck VCRs can. DVD RAM can even do time shifting, but I'm not sure if that came before/after the patent. -- Stephen Harris The truth is the truth, and opinion just opinion. But what is what? My employer pays to ignore my opinions; you get to do it for free. |
Future of TIVO ?
On Apr 27, 9:53 am, (Stephen Harris) wrote:
SVU wrote: TiVo holds the patent on watching one channel while recording another. I assume the patent is a little more complex than that, because VCRs have allowed you do that for decades. -- Stephen Harris Yes it is a little more complex. The patent (#6233389) states in its abstract: "A multimedia time warping system. The invention allows the user to store selected television broadcast programs while the user is simultaneously watching or reviewing another program. A preferred embodiment of the invention accepts television (TV) input streams in a multitude of forms, for example, National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) or PAL broadcast, and digital forms such as Digital Satellite System (DSS), Digital Broadcast Services (DBS), or Advanced Television Standards Committee (ATSC). The TV streams are converted to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation and are parsed and separated it into video and audio components. The components are stored in temporary buffers. Events are recorded that indicate the type of component that has been found, where it is located, and when it occurred. The program logic is notified that an event has occurred and the data is extracted from the buffers. The parser and event buffer decouple the CPU from having to parse the MPEG stream and from the real time nature of the data streams which allows for slower CPU and bus speeds and translate to lower system costs. The video and audio components are stored on a storage device and when the program is requested for display, the video and audio components are extracted from the storage device and reassembled into an MPEG stream which is sent to a decoder. The decoder converts the MPEG stream into TV output signals and delivers the TV output signals to a TV receiver. User control commands are accepted and sent through the system. These commands affect the flow of said MPEG stream and allow the user to view stored programs with at least the following functions: reverse, fast forward, play, pause, index, fast/slow reverse play, and fast/slow play." Note: "store selected television broadcast programs while the user is simultaneously watching or reviewing another program", meaning watching a live program, or one that is recorded, as well as one that is still being recorded. (VCR's, dual or otherwise, don't let you backup and pause what you are currently recording.) Also note the "temporary buffers", and information about the "event components" such as where it is located and when it occurred. I don't know of consumer VCRs that have the title, time, date, and other info about the recording automatically saved and displayable on screen while watching. In my opinion, competing DVRs will have a tough time doing all but manual recording and other basic features without infringing. Brad Houser |
Future of TIVO ?
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 06:32:55 -0700 (PDT), SVU wrote:
Note: "store selected television broadcast programs while the user is simultaneously watching or reviewing another program", meaning watching a live program, or one that is recorded, as well as one that is still being recorded. (VCR's, dual or otherwise, don't let you backup and pause what you are currently recording.) Also note the "temporary buffers", and information about the "event components" such as where it is located and when it occurred. I don't know of consumer VCRs that have the title, time, date, and other info about the recording automatically saved and displayable on screen while watching. In my opinion, competing DVRs will have a tough time doing all but manual recording and other basic features without infringing. Perhaps not, but the two non-TiVo DVRs that I have experience with, a ReplayTV (Panasonic ShowStopper) and a Motorola DVR leased from the cable company, both offer most of those features. Of course, neither of them can compete with TiVo's software, but that's another story. -- Dave Seaman Third Circuit ignores precedent in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/03/29/18489281.php |
Future of TIVO ?
Wes Newell wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 06:56:00 -0700, SVU wrote: On Apr 26, 4:10 pm, 't aclue wrote: Seems everyone including the cable companys are jumping into their own version of TIVO, I'm just wondering where that is going to leave TIVO ? TiVo holds the patent on watching one channel while recording another. Really? How in the hell did they get a patent on something that was being done years before they were even a company. Because the patent is far more specific than just that. Read it at: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...ivo&RS=AN/tivo Be sure to read the claims, not just the abstract, which really has no legal force. Assuming that is not overturned in appeals, they will probably go after licensing deals with all the other DVR manufacturers, as once the precedent is established, they would be sure to be able to enforce that ruling in other court cases. This is the standard path for enforcing a patent. They shouldn't have gotten a patent in the first place. Why not? Which specific prior art teaches or makes obvious *all* of the elements of the *exact* claims in the patent? -- Doug |
Future of TIVO ?
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:23:24 +0000, Douglas Johnson wrote:
They shouldn't have gotten a patent in the first place. Why not? Which specific prior art teaches or makes obvious *all* of the elements of the *exact* claims in the patent? Because there was really nothing new about what they did. Everyone was just waiting for large enough cheap HDD's to come out before doing it. Their whole app is a joke. The whole patent process should be revised or done away with. And this is just one example of why. The best example is probably the woman that submitted, and received a patent for the hair loop thing, thus giving her rights to something that has been used for hundreds of years. She then sued anyone trying to make one. I'm surprised she didn't get a patent on the hairdo. Give me a break. And patents shouldn't last more than 3-5 years. If you can't profit from it in that time, it wasn't worth much to begin with. -- Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php |
Future of TIVO ?
Wes Newell wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:23:24 +0000, Douglas Johnson wrote: They shouldn't have gotten a patent in the first place. Why not? Which specific prior art teaches or makes obvious *all* of the elements of the *exact* claims in the patent? Because there was really nothing new about what they did. Everyone was just waiting for large enough cheap HDD's to come out before doing it. Their whole app is a joke. Do you have specifics? If not, you're just blowing smoke. -- Doug |
Future of TIVO ?
Dave Seaman shaped the electrons to say:
Perhaps not, but the two non-TiVo DVRs that I have experience with, a ReplayTV (Panasonic ShowStopper) and a Motorola DVR leased from the cable TiVo and ReplayTV sued each other years ago, and settled out of court with a patent swap. That's how ReplayTV manages to not be infringing. As for Motorola, it is possible that they are infringing but TiVo hasn't sued them yet. TiVo went after EchoStar first to set a precedent. Hopefully, if they win the final appeal at the Supreme Court (or the SC refuses to hear the case, which is also a win for TiVo) then they won't have to sue others - they'll have leverage to negotiate deals. -MZ -- megazone-at-megazone.org http://www.MegaZone.org/ Gweep, Geek, Human, me. http://www.GizmoLovers.com/ http://www.Eyrie-Productions.com/ -- Hail Eris "A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men" 508-852-2171 |
Future of TIVO ?
On 2008-04-27, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:53:27 GMT, Stephen Harris wrote: SVU wrote: TiVo holds the patent on watching one channel while recording another. I assume the patent is a little more complex than that, because VCRs have allowed you do that for decades. Not on a single device. VCR records one channel. While it's doing that, you can't use it to watch something else. You can only watch what it's recording, or ignore it all together. That's just a side effect of the recording medium. Magnetic disc based devices have been able to handle multiple readers and writers for decades. -- Sure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have ||| better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't / | \ want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist. Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
Future of TIVO ?
On 2008-04-28, JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2008-04-27, Peter H. Coffin wrote: On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:53:27 GMT, Stephen Harris wrote: SVU wrote: TiVo holds the patent on watching one channel while recording another. I assume the patent is a little more complex than that, because VCRs have allowed you do that for decades. Not on a single device. VCR records one channel. While it's doing that, you can't use it to watch something else. You can only watch what it's recording, or ignore it all together. That's just a side effect of the recording medium. Magnetic disc based devices have been able to handle multiple readers and writers for decades. True. So TiVo put together the idea and patented it. It could have just as easily been someone else, if someone else had put together the idea and patented it (or even, not patented it, to be used as prior art against TiVo's patents). -- This is my .sig |
Future of TIVO ?
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:40:07 +0000, Douglas Johnson wrote:
Wes Newell wrote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:23:24 +0000, Douglas Johnson wrote: They shouldn't have gotten a patent in the first place. Why not? Which specific prior art teaches or makes obvious *all* of the elements of the *exact* claims in the patent? Because there was really nothing new about what they did. Everyone was just waiting for large enough cheap HDD's to come out before doing it. Their whole app is a joke. Do you have specifics? If not, you're just blowing smoke. -- Doug Specifics on what. Who was waiting? Me for one. I'd been wanting to record to HDD since long before Tivo was even a dream. And I'm sure there must have been thousands of other people. I think Tivo and Replay were the first to actually build a working consumer box, but the idea for one has been around for at least 10 years before that. And the fact that anyone can get a patent on ideas like this is just plain stupid. All they should have been able to do is copyright their code and patent any special IC's they designed. -- Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php |
Future of TIVO ?
Wes Newell wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:40:07 +0000, Douglas Johnson wrote: Wes Newell wrote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:23:24 +0000, Douglas Johnson wrote: They shouldn't have gotten a patent in the first place. Why not? Which specific prior art teaches or makes obvious *all* of the elements of the *exact* claims in the patent? Because there was really nothing new about what they did. Everyone was just waiting for large enough cheap HDD's to come out before doing it. Their whole app is a joke. Do you have specifics? If not, you're just blowing smoke. -- Doug Specifics on what. Specifics on what prior art invalidates their patent. Have you read and understood the patent? Do you know what they claim to have invented? You're still blowing smoke. -- Doug |
Future of TIVO ?
|
Future of TIVO ?
On 2008-04-28, Mike Hunt wrote:
On 2008-04-28, JEDIDIAH wrote: On 2008-04-27, Peter H. Coffin wrote: On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:53:27 GMT, Stephen Harris wrote: SVU wrote: TiVo holds the patent on watching one channel while recording another. I assume the patent is a little more complex than that, because VCRs have allowed you do that for decades. Not on a single device. VCR records one channel. While it's doing that, you can't use it to watch something else. You can only watch what it's recording, or ignore it all together. That's just a side effect of the recording medium. Magnetic disc based devices have been able to handle multiple readers and writers for decades. True. So TiVo put together the idea and patented it. It could have just as easily been someone else, if someone else had put together the idea and Except it shouldn't have been anyone else either. The classic patents are on things that no one else could figure out or things that the entire planet was trying to develop for decades before someone finally made it work. patented it (or even, not patented it, to be used as prior art against TiVo's patents). The patent is narrow enough that there seem to be plenty of ways to attack the problem with obvious methods that don't quite conform to what's in the patent. -- Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997 ||| reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \ both at the same time was something worth patenting. Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
Future of TIVO ?
Douglas Johnson shaped the electrons to say:
Specifics on what prior art invalidates their patent. Have you read and understood the patent? Do you know what they claim to have invented? You're still blowing smoke. And the patent was challenged, reviewed, and upheld by the USPTO. No one was able to show prior art that invalidates it. -MZ -- megazone-at-megazone.org http://www.MegaZone.org/ Gweep, Geek, Human, me. http://www.GizmoLovers.com/ http://www.Eyrie-Productions.com/ -- Hail Eris "A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men" 508-852-2171 |
Future of TIVO ?
"Douglas Johnson" wrote in message ... Wes Newell wrote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:23:24 +0000, Douglas Johnson wrote: They shouldn't have gotten a patent in the first place. Why not? Which specific prior art teaches or makes obvious *all* of the elements of the *exact* claims in the patent? Because there was really nothing new about what they did. Everyone was just waiting for large enough cheap HDD's to come out before doing it. Their whole app is a joke. Do you have specifics? If not, you're just blowing smoke. Wes is a newgroup troll, and an idiot in general. Don't feed his insanity by replying. |
Future of TIVO ?
Wes Newell writes:
Specifics on what. Who was waiting? Me for one. I'd been wanting to record to HDD since long before Tivo was even a dream. And I'm sure there must have been thousands of other people. I think Tivo and Replay were the first to actually build a working consumer box, but the idea for one has been around for at least 10 years before that. Actually, that is the point of a patent and show why the TiVo patent is a good one. Patents are about successfully doing something that "everyone" has wanted to do (but has not succeeded in doing) for years. I believe this is called "reducing to practice". The first person who actually succeeds in doing something gets the patent, because they have shown that it is not only theoretically possible, but also practically possible and that's what patents are rewards for. Lots of people are good at hand-waving arguments that say something should be possible, many fewer can actually execute and create that possible thing. |
Future of TIVO ?
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:06:00 -0400, Bill Kearney wrote:
Wes is a newgroup troll, and an idiot in general. Don't feed his insanity by replying. And you have the intelligence of a door knob. What else is new. -- Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php |
Future of TIVO ?
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:14:38 -0400, Chris F Clark
wrote: Wes Newell writes: Specifics on what. Who was waiting? Me for one. I'd been wanting to record to HDD since long before Tivo was even a dream. And I'm sure there must have been thousands of other people. I think Tivo and Replay were the first to actually build a working consumer box, but the idea for one has been around for at least 10 years before that. Actually, that is the point of a patent and show why the TiVo patent is a good one. Patents are about successfully doing something that "everyone" has wanted to do (but has not succeeded in doing) for years. I believe this is called "reducing to practice". The first person who actually succeeds in doing something gets the patent, because they have shown that it is not only theoretically possible, but also practically possible and that's what patents are rewards for. Lots of people are good at hand-waving arguments that say something should be possible, many fewer can actually execute and create that possible thing. Well, that's not entirely correct. One can't simply execute something, it also has to be "new" in the sense that it was not described before. An outstanding example is the geosynchronous orbiting satellites for communication, an idea explained by Arthur c. Clarke years ago, thus making it impossible for anyone to patent them (and he couldn't patent them either, because at the time he came up with the idea, it was impossible to actually produce one). IMO, the patent for Tivo might well have been denied had the idea been known beforehand. The fact that the patent was granted seems to indicate that the "Tivo idea" was NOT generally known beforehand, at least not to the examiners in the Patent Office. -- Charlie Hoffpauir http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/ |
Future of TIVO ?
In article , Charlie
Hoffpauir wrote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:14:38 -0400, Chris F Clark wrote: Wes Newell writes: Specifics on what. Who was waiting? Me for one. I'd been wanting to record to HDD since long before Tivo was even a dream. And I'm sure there must have been thousands of other people. I think Tivo and Replay were the first to actually build a working consumer box, but the idea for one has been around for at least 10 years before that. Actually, that is the point of a patent and show why the TiVo patent is a good one. Patents are about successfully doing something that "everyone" has wanted to do (but has not succeeded in doing) for years. I believe this is called "reducing to practice". The first person who actually succeeds in doing something gets the patent, because they have shown that it is not only theoretically possible, but also practically possible and that's what patents are rewards for. Lots of people are good at hand-waving arguments that say something should be possible, many fewer can actually execute and create that possible thing. Well, that's not entirely correct. One can't simply execute something, it also has to be "new" in the sense that it was not described before. An outstanding example is the geosynchronous orbiting satellites for communication, an idea explained by Arthur c. Clarke years ago, thus making it impossible for anyone to patent them (and he couldn't patent them either, because at the time he came up with the idea, it was impossible to actually produce one). IMO, the patent for Tivo might well have been denied had the idea been known beforehand. The fact that the patent was granted seems to indicate that the "Tivo idea" was NOT generally known beforehand, at least not to the examiners in the Patent Office. As to Clarke's idea, he didn't patent it because ideas can't be patented. He said for years that he should have patented his idea, apparently in the belief that such was possible. He finally learned the truth of the matter and got over it, though. The story about not being able to patent communications satellites because Clarke had described them sounds very much like the urban legend about how the submarine couldn't be patented because Jules Verne had already described one so well. That one isn't true, either. |
Future of TIVO ?
On 2008-04-29, MegaZone wrote:
Douglas Johnson shaped the electrons to say: Specifics on what prior art invalidates their patent. Have you read and understood the patent? Do you know what they claim to have invented? You're still blowing smoke. And the patent was challenged, reviewed, and upheld by the USPTO. No one was able to show prior art that invalidates it. Considering the notion that the original grant was in error this doesn't really demonstrate anything. It also wouldn't be the only case where clear prior art was ignored. Prior art has even been acknowledged and then ignored. -- Truth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good. ||| / | \ Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
Future of TIVO ?
On 2008-04-29, Chris F Clark wrote:
Wes Newell writes: Specifics on what. Who was waiting? Me for one. I'd been wanting to record to HDD since long before Tivo was even a dream. And I'm sure there must have been thousands of other people. I think Tivo and Replay were the first to actually build a working consumer box, but the idea for one has been around for at least 10 years before that. Actually, that is the point of a patent and show why the TiVo patent is a good one. Patents are about successfully doing something that Hardly. The relevant components became cheap enough that the obvious bits of systems integration could be done. The device just became cheap enough to produce as a consumer product. It wasn't inachievable before that. "everyone" has wanted to do (but has not succeeded in doing) for years. I believe this is called "reducing to practice". The first person who actually succeeds in doing something gets the patent, because they have shown that it is not only theoretically possible, but also practically possible and that's what patents are rewards for. Lots of people are good at hand-waving arguments that say something should be possible, many fewer can actually execute and create that possible thing. You're the one that's doing the handwaving and ignoring the relevant practitioners. -- Truth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good. ||| / | \ Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
Future of TIVO ?
Wes Newell wrote:
Specifics on what. Who was waiting? Me for one. I'd been wanting to record to HDD since long before Tivo was even a dream. And I'm sure there must have been thousands of other people. I think Tivo and Replay were the first to actually build a working consumer box, but the idea for one has been around for at least 10 years before that. And the fact that anyone can get a patent on ideas like this is just plain stupid. All they should have been able to do is copyright their code and patent any special IC's they designed. I had an ATI All-in-Wonder video card and was using that years beore TiVo ever came out. I would capute shows while I was out and watch them again later. I had a DirecTV box in the office so I could watch TV on the computer and play back recorded shows. Must have been 7-8 years ago because I have an 8500DV now and that's old. |
Future of TIVO ?
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2008-04-29, MegaZone wrote: Douglas Johnson shaped the electrons to say: Specifics on what prior art invalidates their patent. Have you read and understood the patent? Do you know what they claim to have invented? You're still blowing smoke. And the patent was challenged, reviewed, and upheld by the USPTO. No one was able to show prior art that invalidates it. Considering the notion that the original grant was in error this doesn't really demonstrate anything. It also wouldn't be the only case where clear prior art was ignored. Prior art has even been acknowledged and then ignored. I'll ask you the same question I asked Wes. What specific prior art teaches or makes obvious all of the elements of any of the claims in the patent? Actually, to invalidate the entire patent, you need to invalidate all of the claims. If you've read the patent, you'll know you'll need to do more than say "VCR" or "hard drive" or "saving one program while watching another". If you haven't read the patent in detail, you're blowing smoke. -- Doug |
Future of TIVO ?
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:26:13 -0500, Douglas Johnson wrote:
I'll ask you the same question I asked Wes. What specific prior art teaches or makes obvious all of the elements of any of the claims in the patent? Actually, to invalidate the entire patent, you need to invalidate all of the claims. Do you really want to waste your time going over the claims? Even their first claim is not correct. The rest of pretty much just says we're going to save it to disk and you can play it back at your convenience. The whole damn patent is a joke. Invent a cure for AIDS or something and get a patent. This is ridiculous. Just a bunch of legalese describing how to save and read data from HDD. Should have been laughed out of the patent office. What is claimed is: 1. A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising the steps of: *OK, this is a false claim. the operation is not simultaneous.* accepting television (TV) broadcast signals, wherein said TV signals are based on a multitude of standards, including, but not limited to, National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) broadcast, PAL broadcast, satellite transmission, DSS, DBS, or ATSC; tuning said TV signals to a specific program; providing at least one Input Section, wherein said Input Section converts said specific program to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation; providing a Media Switch, wherein said Media Switch parses said MPEG stream, said MPEG stream is separated into its video and audio components; storing said video and audio components on a storage device; providing at least one Output Section, wherein said Output Section extracts said video and audio components from said storage device; wherein said Output Section assembles said video and audio components into an MPEG stream; wherein said Output Section sends said MPEG stream to a decoder; wherein said decoder converts said MPEG stream into TV output signals; wherein said decoder delivers said TV output signals to a TV receiver; and accepting control commands from a user, wherein said control commands are sent through the system and affect the flow of said MPEG stream. 2. The process of claim 1, wherein said Input Section directs said MPEG stream to the destination indicated by said control commands. 3. The process of claim 1, wherein said Output Section extracts said video and audio components from the storage device indicated by said control commands. 4. The process of claim 1, further comprising the step of: creating custom video output sequences, wherein said sequences are specified by a user or program control. 5. The process of claim 1, wherein the storing and extracting of said video and audio components from said storage device are performed simultaneously. 6. The process of claim 1, wherein said Media Switch calculates and logically associates a time stamp to said video and audio components. 7. The process of claim 1, wherein said Media Switch extracts time stamp values from a digital TV stream and logically associates said time stamp values to said video and audio components. 8. The process of claim 1, further comprising the steps of: placing said video component into a circular video buffer; posting an event in a circular event buffer, wherein said event contains an indication that a video component was found and the location of said video component in said circular video buffer; and sending notice of said event posting. 9. The process of claim 1, further comprising the steps of: placing said audio component into a circular audio buffer; posting an event in a circular event buffer, wherein said event contains an indication that an audio component was found and the location of said audio component in said circular audio buffer; and sending notice of said event posting. 10. The process of claims 8 or 9, further comprising the steps of: receiving said notice; retrieving said event posting from said event buffer; and indexing into the appropriate buffer indicated by the type and location information in said event buffer. 11. The process of claim 10, further comprising the steps of: generating a buffer containing the logical audio or video segments in order, including ancillary information, wherein each of said logical segments points to the appropriate circular buffer location where corresponding audio or video components have been placed. 12. The process of claim 1, further comprising the step of: increasing the decoder system clock rate for fast playback or fast reverse playback. 13. The process of claim 1, further comprising the step of: decreasing the decoder system clock rate for slow playback or slow reverse playback. 14. The process of claim 1, further comprising the step of: combining system audio cues and on-screen displays with said TV output signals. 15. The process of claim 1, further comprising the steps of: decoding the Vertical Blanking Interval (VBI) data or private data channel information from said TV signal; and examining said data to determine the starting or ending indicators of a specific program. 16. The process of claim 1, further comprising the step of: scanning the words contained within the closed caption (CC) fields to determine program starting and ending times, wherein particular words or phrases are used to trigger the recording of a specific program and wherein the CC information is preserved in time synchronization with the audio and video, and can be correctly presented to the viewer when the stream is displayed. 17. The process of claim 16, further comprising the step of: performing a specific action when a specific word is found in said CC information. 18. The process of claim 1, wherein said Media Switch has a data bus connecting it to a CPU and DRAM. 19. The process of claim 1, wherein said Media Switch shares an address bus with a CPU and DRAM. 20. The process of claim 1, wherein said Media Switch operates asychronously and autonomously with a CPU. 21. The process of claim 1, wherein said storage device is connected to said Media Switch. 22. The process of claim 1, wherein said Media Switch allows the CPU to queue up Direct Memory Access (DMA) transfers. 23. The process of claim 1, wherein said Media Switch is implemented in hardware. 24. The process of claim 1, further comprising the step of: providing a multimedia recording device, including, but not limited to, a Video Cassette Recorder (VCR) or a Digital Video Disk-Random Access Memory (DVD-RAM) device, wherein said recording device is attached to the output side of said decoder, allowing said user to record said TV output signals. 25. The process of claim 24, wherein said user queues up programs from said storage device to be stored on said recording device. 26. The process of claim 24, wherein said user sets time schedules for said programs to be sent to said recording device. 27. The process of claim 24, wherein title pages may be sent to said recording device before sending a program to be stored on said recording device. 28. The process of claim 24, wherein a program that is longer in duration than a magnetic tape in said recording device allows, is sped up to fit within the desired time limit. 29. The process of claim 24, wherein a program that is longer in duration than a magnetic tape in said recording device allows, has frames dropped from it to fit within the desired time limit. 30. The process of claim 24, wherein the output of said recording device is routed to said Input Section, allowing said recording device to act as a storage back up system, said recording device accepts overflow storage, TV programs, software updates, or other data that are later retrieved and sent to said Input Section. 31. A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising the steps of: providing a physical data source, wherein said physical data source accepts broadcast data from an input device, parses video and audio data from said broadcast data, and temporarily stores said video and audio data; providing a source object, wherein said source object extracts video and audio data from said physical data source; providing a transform object, wherein said transform object stores and retrieves data streams onto a storage device; wherein said source object obtains a buffer from said transform object, said source object converts video data into data streams and fills said buffer with said streams; wherein said source object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object; providing a sink object, wherein said sink object obtains data stream buffers from said transform object and outputs said streams to a video and audio decoder; wherein said decoder converts said streams into display signals and sends said signals to a display; wherein said sink object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object; providing a control object, wherein said control object receives commands from a user, said commands control the flow of the broadcast data through the system; and wherein said control object sends flow command events to said source, transform, and sink objects. 32. An apparatus for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising: a module for accepting television (TV) broadcast signals, wherein said TV signals are based on a multitude of standards, including, but not limited to, National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) broadcast, PAL broadcast, satellite transmission, DSS, DBS, or ATSC; a module for tuning said TV signals to a specific program; at least one Input Section, wherein said Input Section converts said specific program to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation; a Media Switch, wherein said Media Switch parses said MPEG stream, said MPEG stream is separated into its video and audio components; a module for storing said video and audio components on a storage device; at least one Output Section, wherein said Output Section extracts said video and audio components from said storage device; wherein said Output Section assembles said video and audio components into an MPEG stream; wherein said Output Section sends said MPEG stream to a decoder; wherein said decoder converts said MPEG stream into TV output signals; wherein said decoder delivers said TV output signals to a TV receiver; and accepting control commands from a user, wherein said control commands are sent through the system and affect the flow of said MPEG stream. 33. The apparatus of claim 32, wherein said Input Section directs said MPEG stream to the destination indicated by said control commands. 34. The apparatus of claim 32, wherein said Output Section extracts said video and audio components from the storage device indicated by said control commands. 35. The apparatus of claim 32, further comprising: a module for creating custom video output sequences, wherein said sequences are specified by a user or program control. 36. The apparatus of claim 32, wherein the storing and extracting of said video and audio components from said storage device are performed simultaneously. 37. The apparatus of claim 32, wherein said Media Switch calculates and logically associates a time stamp to said video and audio components. 38. The apparatus of claim 32, wherein said Media Switch extracts time stamp values from a digital TV stream and logically associates said time stamp values to said video and audio components. 39. The apparatus of claim 32, further comprising: a module for placing said video component into a circular video buffer; a module for posting an event in a circular event buffer, wherein said event contains an indication that a video component was found and the location of said video component in said circular video buffer; and a module for sending notice of said event posting. 40. The apparatus of claim 32, further comprising: a module for placing said audio component into a circular audio buffer; a module for posting an event in a circular event buffer, wherein said event contains an indication that an audio component was found and the location of said audio component in said circular audio buffer; and a module for sending notice of said event posting. 41. The apparatus of claims 39 or 40, further comprising: a module for receiving said notice; a module for retrieving said event posting from said event buffer; and a module for indexing into the appropriate buffer indicated by the type and location information in said event buffer. 42. The apparatus of claim 41, further comprising: a module for generating a buffer containing the logical audio or video segments in order, including ancillary information, wherein each of said logical segments points to the appropriate circular buffer location where corresponding audio or video components have been placed. 43. The apparatus of claim 32, further comprising: a module for increasing the decoder system clock rate for fast playback or fast reverse playback. 44. The apparatus of claim 32, further comprising: a module for decreasing the decoder system clock rate for slow playback or slow reverse playback. 45. The apparatus of claim 32, further comprising: a module for combining system audio cues and on-screen displays with said TV output signals. 46. The apparatus of claim 32, further comprising: a module for decoding the Vertical Blanking Interval (VBI) data or private data channel information from said TV signal; and a module for examining said data to determine the starting or ending indicators of a specific program. 47. The apparatus of claim 32, further comprising: a module for scanning the words contained within the closed caption (CC) fields to determine program starting and ending times, wherein particular words or phrases are used to trigger the recording of a specific program and wherein the CC information is preserved in time synchronization with the audio and video, and can be correctly presented to the viewer when the stream is displayed. 48. The apparatus of claim 47, further comprising: a module for performing a specific action when a specific word is found in said CC information. 49. The apparatus of claim 32, wherein said Media Switch has a data bus connecting it to a CPU and DRAM. 50. The apparatus of claim 32, wherein said Media Switch shares an address bus with a CPU and DRAM. 51. The apparatus of claim 32, wherein said Media Switch operates asychronously and autonomously with a CPU. 52. The apparatus of claim 32, wherein said storage device is connected to said Media Switch. 53. The apparatus of claim 32, wherein said Media Switch allows the CPU to queue up Direct Memory Access (DMA) transfers. 54. The apparatus of claim 32, further comprising: a multimedia recording device, including, but not limited to, a Video Cassette Recorder (VCR) or a Digital Video Disk-Random Access Memory (DVD- RAM) device, wherein said recording device is attached to the output side of said decoder, allowing said user to record said TV output signals. 55. The apparatus of claim 54, wherein said user queues up programs from said storage device to be stored on said recording device. 56. The apparatus of claim 54, wherein said user sets time schedules for said programs to be sent to said recording device. 57. The apparatus of claim 54, wherein title pages may be sent to said recording device before sending a program to be stored on said recording device. 58. The apparatus of claim 54, wherein a program that is longer in duration than a magnetic tape in said recording device allows, is sped up to fit within the desired time limit. 59. The apparatus of claim 54, wherein a program that is longer in duration than a magnetic tape in said recording device allows, has frames dropped from it to fit within the desired time limit. 60. The apparatus of claim 54, wherein the output of said recording device is routed to said Input Section, allowing said recording device to act as a storage back up system, said recording device accepts overflow storage, TV programs, software updates, or other data that are later retrieved and sent to said Input Section. 61. An apparatus for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising: a physical data source, wherein said physical data source accepts broadcast data from an input device, parses video and audio data from said broadcast data, and temporarily stores said video and audio data; a source object, wherein said source object extracts video and audio data from said physical data source; a transform object, wherein said transform object stores and retrieves data streams onto a storage device; wherein said source object obtains a buffer from said transform object, said source object converts video data into data streams and fills said buffer with said streams; wherein said source object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object; a sink object, wherein said sink object obtains data stream buffers from said transform object and outputs said streams to a video and audio decoder; wherein said decoder converts said streams into display signals and sends said signals to a display; wherein said sink object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object; a control object, wherein said control object receives commands from a user, said commands control the flow of the broadcast data through the system; and wherein said control object sends flow command events to said source, transform, and sink objects. -- Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php |
Future of TIVO ?
On 2008-04-29, Wes Newell wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:26:13 -0500, Douglas Johnson wrote: I'll ask you the same question I asked Wes. What specific prior art teaches or makes obvious all of the elements of any of the claims in the patent? Actually, to invalidate the entire patent, you need to invalidate all of the claims. Do you really want to waste your time going over the claims? Even their first claim is not correct. The rest of pretty much just says we're going to save it to disk and you can play it back at your convenience. The whole damn patent is a joke. Invent a cure for AIDS or something and get a patent. This is ridiculous. Just a bunch of legalese describing how to save and read data from HDD. Should have been laughed out of the patent office. What is claimed is: 1. A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising the steps of: *OK, this is a false claim. the operation is not simultaneous.* Actually, the operation could be simultaneous. I don't think the current implementation is simultaneous, but there isn't a technical reason why it couldn't be. I do believe everyone (minus Wes) will be ok saying "within a few ms" is close enough to simultaneous, such that it wouldn't invalidate the entire patent. -- This is my .sig |
Future of TIVO ?
Wes Newell wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:26:13 -0500, Douglas Johnson wrote: I'll ask you the same question I asked Wes. What specific prior art teaches or makes obvious all of the elements of any of the claims in the patent? Actually, to invalidate the entire patent, you need to invalidate all of the claims. Do you really want to waste your time going over the claims? Even their first claim is not correct. The rest of pretty much just says we're going to save it to disk and you can play it back at your convenience. The whole damn patent is a joke. Invent a cure for AIDS or something and get a patent. This is ridiculous. Just a bunch of legalese describing how to save and read data from HDD. Should have been laughed out of the patent office. What is claimed is: 1. A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising the steps of: *OK, this is a false claim. the operation is not simultaneous.* Are you saying TiVo can't play one program and store another simultaneously? Doesn't matter one way or the other. How TiVo has chosen to implement their boxes doesn't effect their patents. Are you saying that low level disk operations are serialized and thus not simultaneous at that level? Doesn't matter. With buffers, it is simultaneous at the system level. I'm never heard "false claim" as a term of art in the patent world. A claim is either valid or not. You're still blowing smoke. You said the patent was invalid. To invalidate a patent, you need specific prior art that teaches or makes obvious each element of each claim of the patent. I keep asking for that, you keep dodging and weaving. -- Doug cut and paste of patent text deleted |
Future of TIVO ?
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:07:12 GMT, Wes Newell wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:26:13 -0500, Douglas Johnson wrote: What is claimed is: 1. A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising the steps of: *OK, this is a false claim. the operation is not simultaneous.* Sure it is. Simultaneous means "at the same time", not "in synchronization." Even if TiVo's input and output streams happen to belong to entirely different programs, they are still operating simultaneously. -- Dave Seaman Third Circuit ignores precedent in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/03/29/18489281.php |
Future of TIVO ?
Doug,
Wes is our resident troll. You are trying to teach a pig to sing here. In strict technical matters he has been proven wrong time and time again. In something like this, that would require him to actually become educated and do a little reading, he will probably just end up insulting you or your mother and throw another hissy fit. I would assume the defendants lawyers looked over the claims and would have tried to invalidate any that the could, that's enough for me to know that they're probably all good. The odds that the Supreme Court will hear this is essentially nil, so the only thing left to do is wait until they formally state they will not hear it. On Apr 29, 7:24*pm, Douglas Johnson wrote: You're still blowing smoke. *You said the patent was invalid. To invalidate a patent, you need specific prior art that teaches or makes obvious *each element of each claim of the patent. *I keep asking for that, you keep dodging and weaving. -- Doug |
Future of TIVO ?
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:48 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com