Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by Dajad, Mar 30, 2006.
That's from the Dishrip group, eh?
OOPS!!! UMMMMM,,, I LIKE FUDGE!!!!!! [stated in a Homeresque kind-of-way].
Typo noted and corrected. Thanks shady!
I thought it had something to do with making trickplay somehow easier to do with limited resources (something about the timings involved). I admit I never fully understood the why. Just that it somehow allowed them to do it with much cheaper hardware than would otherwise be required (reset your mind to late 90's hardware).
From the description part of the patent:
No, the judge ruled that there was an issue of fact to be determined which precluded a summary judgement. That means he will leave it to the jury unless one side or the other totally fails to make their case.
There appears to be nothing in any of the testimony that TiVo wasn't expecting or won't be prepared to address under cross.
The jury could find this variation insignificant under the doctrine of equivalents. If it accomplishes the same thing in substantially the same way, it still infringes. TiVo's implementation is more general and allows more flexibility, so one could see the E* implementation as a subset of TiVo's.
We could go back and forth on this, but in my opinion, you take out the media switch, you get 5,371,551. Even TiVo says so.
But how much have processing speeds increased and the costs decreased since 1994?
That is a moot point however, since all DVR's are pretty much built the same -- just like a TiVo. I just can't wait until they get to take on NDS...
Ah, but what's good about the TiVo patent is that if you build a DVR without using the media switch, and I build one with it - I'll probably always have a lower cost and/or better performing platform...
Regardless of the actual cost of the processing, having a task use 5% of a CPU instead of 70% (I'm making up numbers) gives me a lot of flexibility. I can either buy a cheaper/slower CPU (and beat you on price), or use that extra 65% to add more functionality (and beat you on features). Or both...
The really sad thing is other folks have been copying the media switch and STILL can not get the rest right. Could you imagine if they (the other DVR makers) had to "play fair?" Again, I can not wait until they have won the case and get to take on NDS mano e mano.
As far as cost, TiVo unfortunately can be steep when you add the fees and the demise of lifetime subscriptions. I, sadly, don't think anyone can really dispute that.
They NEED to be hooked into the cable and DSB providers to provide needed earnings of off the licensing fees. Then provide the "luxury" features to the stand alone side of the business at a luxury cost.
Somehow, I think that is exactly what they are (trying) to do.
TiVo filed an interesting brief today (Docket #662). It addresses some of the issues above, and gives some idea of where the battle lines are:
Sure hope Tivo has at least one lawyer watching this thread ...
Why would Dish have to mux their files if they weren't stored just like Tivos?
I don't know if this is a smoking gun, but it seems like this would be easy enough to explain to a jury ... "If Echostar uses a different process, why is the data stored just like Tivos?"
IMO, it is because the TiVo uses a separate audio encoder, at least it did back to the Series 1.
Going back over posts starting here some time ago, shows what the Judge did and what his reasoning was on the analog/digital issue.
Its an open issue and one that TiVo needed to deal with, but from the reports we read TiVo has not. Conversely Echostar seems to have hammered at the point. TiVo should have taken the whole issue of fact out of play in the SJ motion by stipulating to the Echostar position and explaining that the Patent language covers both situations. They did not, and so the Court is still left with its anti-TiVo view.
Apparently the testimony was so damaging on Thursday that TiVo's lawyers had to file a motion to deal with it. They were seemingly unaware during trial of the problem. Fortunately, someone must have passed my posts on to them, and they woke up subsequently.
I found a Dow Jones News quote while searching on Summary Judgement that TiVo had dropped claims against the 7100 and 7200 box, making Echostar's SJ request on that moot. I'm wondering how that factors into the trial since I think they've talked somewhat about those boxes. Also, how many of those boxes would subtract from the 4.2M units TiVo claims infringe?
TiVo's claims of injury don't even reach the $100M+ bandied about earlier, and appear wildly exaggerated (no surprise.) One way of looking at it would be they are asking about $20/box on the 4.2M claimed infringing boxes. The calculation of $X/month is also absurd; traditionally a per box fee is paid. TiVo's numbers are based on a fully developed product for Echostar rather than the value of using a patent, or some portion thereof. The actual value is in the $1/box range.
I put the exposure to Echostar in the $10M range, based on total victory by TiVo. Industry wide that puts the entire value in the $30M range to date, and perhaps $100M overtime. To collect those sums, TiVo will have to expend significant effort and money suing other parties. Total value of the Patent to TiVo is perhaps $50M over time - provided TiVo completely prevails against all parties.
DirecTV will never come into play because they have a right to license TiVo IP from their earlier agreement.
saturday update from friday:
Expert witness testify how DVR boxes are dissimilar
I don't think anything from the previous agreement involves the DVRs that DirecTV is now pushing (i.e., the NDS derived R15). The NDS DVRs sold all over the world fall into the same category as the E* DVRs. The NDS DVRs started in 2001...
Sure they do... TiVo is under no obligation to license the technology covered by a paten under any terms; DirecTV demonstrated the type of licensing TiVo would do, and Dish Network, by stealing intellectual property from TiVo, has deprived TiVo of income from licensing that technology, and there's no reason to believe TiVo would enter into any different deal than they entered into with DirecTV. It doesn't matter that TiVo didn't develop Dish's DVR, what matters is that TiVo was deprived of the opportunity, and thus the profit, to develop their DVR product in which their technology could have been used. They're not making up numbers. They're using as an example a real live deal they did.
It's funny that you think TiVo's lawyers are less aware of the issues in the case than you, and that they are less aware of what is going on in court than you are from reading a few daily summaries by journalists. Keep it up, it makes me laugh.
You'll note that this was a brief in support of a motion, not the motion itself. The motion was made in court. Without the transcripts it is impossible to know when or how many times TiVo objected to the testimony.
As illustrated by thursday's report of a witness from broadcom supposedly stating how:
"the defendant's boxes do not separate audio and video components"
"EchoStar does not reassemble these audio and video portions of the television signal"
Even though simply by the dvb transmission standard, the video and audio streams for any individual channel are transmitted as separate stream pid's (as per the dvb specifications and verified by common stream analyzers such as TSReader), are stored on the disk separately (as per the coders who have written programs to extract vids from echostar dvr harddrives) and must be recombined into a mpeg ts stream to feed to a d/a converter to output to a tv.
I just can't believe that someone would sit as an expert witness in court and make claims that are so easily refuted by any joe with a small dish, a us dth lnb, a computer with a dvb pci card, a $100 stream analysis software tool and access to the internet.
Is a rep from broadcom lying under oath or is a reporter simply getting it wrong?
I'd like to think the latter, which must bring question to all that's been reported so far.
I'd LOVE to be sitting in that courtroom, as that's the only way to know for sure what's going on.
TiVo's deal with DirecTV is vastly different from the licensing of patents. Fair value for patent license is a small fraction; the DTV deal sets a number to discount from to get to a reasonable value of a patent license.
I don't see anything that indicates where the motion was made. Regardless of when the motion was made, or any objections, the testimony was allowed and TiVo is playing catch up.
TiVo's 10K's reflect this...