1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

HD TiVo has no single speed FF on CBS

Discussion in 'TiVo Help Center' started by wwli7p, Oct 22, 2012.

  1. steve614

    steve614 what ru lookin at?

    10,722
    0
    May 1, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    Yeah, the only thing that can be done is to contact CBS corporate and complain that the way they format their broadcast messes up fast forward on the TiVo.

    Good luck with that. :)
     
  2. wwli7p

    wwli7p New Member

    13
    0
    Mar 8, 2005
    A preferred embodiment of the invention accepts television (TV) input streams in a multitude of forms, for example....

    Notice the keyword "EXAMPLE". These were examples. So the patent is generalized to make the statement

    "A preferred embodiment of the invention accepts television (TV) input streams in a multitude of forms"

    and then list some examples, but the EXAMPLES could be any number of examples. Thus it appears that TiVO already has claimed this.

    Patent 6233389 title is "Multimedia time warping system "

    Claim 1 of that patent states

    "1. A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising the steps of:

    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."


    Please due not the specific language of the claim that uses the phrase

    "accepting television (TV) broadcast signals, wherein said TV signals are based on a multitude of standards, including, but not limited to"


    Notice the patent itself states "but not limited to" so if you took a little time to read the patent everything you wrote is irrelevant because they are not limiting the claim to specific standards, but a multitude of standards.


    Secondly Newer patents are submitted all the time stating just the same exact thing, there will be new elements but for the most part the patent could easily be almost identical. the reason for this is two fold. The USPTO has differing time frames for patents, 19 years being the longest. One can go and ask the the USPTO to grant an extension to a patent if they want, sometimes that is done, sometimes it isn't. The other thing is that technology changes and if one has a competitor they need to keep up with their competition, so new patents are written all the time competing.

    sound like here your trying to give someone patent advice and the way it is written I doubt your one of those casual users you claim to be. TiVo claims something on a patent in a general way. There are so many DVR's out there that claim 1 of that patent is no longer unique, therefore it can easily be used again. (this from a professional that worked in Patents for over 2 years). Claim 1 is very general.

    The other element you seem to be stating that they can claim things on a patent yet they are not required to implement it on the device, this is incorrect. If someone goes to the USPTO with a set of claims that a device does certain tasks then the USPTO makes sure the device does just what it says. One cannot make claims on a patent they have a device or method to do something and then not do that something. Someone doesn't get a patent for things that do not work. According you you I could patent a car that not only drives down a road but also flies, then leave off the flying part. Anyone who thinks that is patentable has serious mental problems, but that is what you just stated.



    Professional, I believe, you are not. I was told this site is full of hobbyist, and TiVo has nothing to do with this site. Yet your comment(s) above seem to come from someone who is working for TiVo and do not like posting things on the web about them. Professional you are not because you appear to be attacking me when I make a point about the TiVo and what their patents claim and that they can make any claim and not deliver (which is wrong).

    Moral of the story, TiVo needs competition. I have great ideas and have already talked with donors interested in investing into a competing product. And since this is the United States of America I have the right to start this type of a business. the new 4 tuner Tivo is too light to use as an anchor and too big to use as a paper weight I only have to compete with two models.

    Your more then welcome to weigh in, but your comments are based in ignorance, and a lack of knowledge about patents. I couldn't care less what you know about packets and buffers since those elements would be quite easy to learn, if I have not already learned about them. So as you claim to be professional I claim to your a hobbyist, or maybe just some engineer.

    Tell your buddies at TiVo I said hi, and they still lied to me and didn't care.

    My tirade is not pointless, it has a specific point, TiVo can no longer deliver on their patents nor on the product they advertised. This is called false advertisement, you might think it is OK working for TiVo and all but the end consumer does not. And that is the main reason you are on here saying "pointless tirade", you don't want people to speak their mind about things to protect your product, or your stock which is selling for just under $10 at close today.
     
  3. jrtroo

    jrtroo User

    4,059
    4
    Feb 4, 2008
    You have way too much time on your hands.

    I'm not sure why you are sweating the small stuff so much. Do what you want with your time, I need to chose to ignore this thread.
     
  4. CuriousMark

    CuriousMark Forum Denizen

    2,606
    0
    Jan 13, 2005
    SoCal
    +1, me too, on both sites.
     
  5. wwli7p

    wwli7p New Member

    13
    0
    Mar 8, 2005
    Really, then why bother commenting at all. You guys must have lots of time on your hands to read posts then make comments that you will ignore the thread. It means nothing to me at all if you ignore this thread, thanks. I will spend my time on making an earning, it is now in the DVR business.
     
  6. lrhorer

    lrhorer New Member

    6,922
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Obviously, blithering is your forte. Tons of useless prattle deleted from the quote.
    You seem as clueless about patent law as about video technology. In order for a patent to stand in court, it must be colorably different from any previously submitted application. That means there must be significant differences between the patents. TiVo fought and won a very log, hard patent suit over just such an infringement. It is true a company may submit a colorably different application in addendum to a previous patent, of course, but your statement suggested there was no reason for you to search for such a patent application. Half your argument is that TiVo cannot create a device that only partially complies with the original patent and the other half is that they can. You cannot have it both ways.

    I never even came close to any such thing. You said you wondered why the DVRs that support digital video inputs did not conform to the original TiVo patent. I pointed out that no one who has any understanding of digital video would wonder any such thing. Either this excludes you, or you are a troll, or both. With 12 posts under your belt, the troll thing is highly likely. Given the content of your posts, the clueless thing is certain.

    I never laid claim to being whatever you think a "casual user" might be. I am a professional engineer in the telecommunications industry. I am also a long time TiVo user and a hobbyist, as a brief perusal of my posts in this forum over the last nine years will attest.

    Two whole years, huh? Call me back when that number reaches 30.

    You are sadly, sadly misinformed. A device does not even have to exist in order to patent the idea for the device. If you don't believe me, go look up all the patents on cold fusion. Quite a few have been submitted. None of them have produced a working device. The patent office does not check to make sure whether something works, or not.

    No one, including the patent office, can tell a company what they must manufacture, and many items are manufactured without patents. It is only relatively recent inventions that are manufactured under patent. If a company fails to patent a device or some aspect of it and someone else comes along to produce it after more than 1 year, there is nothing the original manufacturer can do. If TiVo acquired a patent and then produced a machine that did not follow the patent guidelines, just exactly what do you think the patent office would do? Give the CEO a wedgie, perhaps? The machine would not be protected by patent law, but there is absolutely nothing the patent office could (or would care to) do about it.

    I could not possibly care less what you believe.

    So I am not a professional but I am a professional? Get a grip.

    My posting record speaks for itself. I have been highly critical of TiVo and their products in several areas where they deserve criticism, and quite supportive of them in areas where they have done well.

    I never attacked you, except for quite rightfully criticizing you for spouting ignorant nonsense. Far more than attacking you, I attacked the nonsense, and you never made any valid points.

    They had competetion. It went down the tubes like a dead mouse down a toilet.

    Yeah. If you think the TiVo will be blown away by a competing product just because it doesn't FF content from your local CBS affiliate, then I am afraid your ideas are absolutely nothing like "great".

    Yeah. "Donors" do not invest. They donate. Investors invest. On second thought, though, I guess you are correct. Anyone who gives you money for such a venture is donating their money, not investing it.

    No one is arguing with you there. Call us back when your business nets its first $million, why don't you?

    :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    No, I think what I am welcome to do is learn the difference between the second person possessive pronoun and a contraction of the second person pronoun and the present tense second person form of the verb "is"... Oh, wait, that's not me.

    I'm sure no one here needs me to tell them what a moronic mish-mash of unconnected rubbish the rest of your post is. I'm done feeding trolls for the day.
     
  7. lrhorer

    lrhorer New Member

    6,922
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Yeah, he whiffed of troll from the outset, but when he starts blithering on about inventing his own DVR to compete with TiVo, the under-the-bridge smell got overwhelming. This guy is long overdue on exercising his right to remain silent.
     
  8. wwli7p

    wwli7p New Member

    13
    0
    Mar 8, 2005
    Sorry to say you seem to be the troll. I put up comments about patents, and someone who seems to thinks I am on a tirade and then answers with ignorance to invoke a response is a troll. I didn't even want to waste my time with your response since it will contain more trollish behavior.

    But I did notice a very ignorant statement


    Very ignorant to state, particularly since I worked with lawyers on patents for mutiple years. A device needs to be only 15% different from the original for it to be considered "Novel". All I need it to do is combine two patents and I have a new idea, or Novelty. Take three or four patents and a new idea and you just about have gold, but still just Novel. But take a totally new idea, or take 5-6 patents combined in the first claim and you have what is called an "inventive step". This is very basic. A DVR is not unique, the linux OS on it isn't even unique, Unix would be better. The methods disclosed in the TiVo patents and not even unique anymore, patents do not last forever. So you phrase colorably has no meaning here, it depends on being the amount of known prior art and new elements.

    The Tivo patent above discloses use of patent 5572261, Cooper

    "The invention relates to the automated measurement of relative audio to video timing in audio visual communications systems. The invention is of particular use in film and television type systems, as well as any other system where the audio and vision portions of a program are carried separately and delays to one or the other, or both, cause missynchronization of an associated audio and vision signal. This missynchronization is commonly referred to as lip sync error. Other uses and purposes for the present invention will also become known to one skilled in the art from the teachings herein. "

    So that is a great place to start.


    Since you do not know anything about patents, and you think professional engineer means something (are you a professional sanitation engineer?), I will not be trying to have any discussion with you. I will keep posting things and it will appear you will be doing the troll thing and stopping by to spout more spew as you have from the first reply to my post.
     
  9. unitron

    unitron Active Member

    16,387
    2
    Apr 28, 2006
    semi-coastal NC
    The Linux OS on a TiVo isn't unique, but then again, that's not the software that makes it a TiVo, the stuff TiVo wrote (the closed source, proprietary stuff) is what makes it a TiVo.
     
  10. steve614

    steve614 what ru lookin at?

    10,722
    0
    May 1, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    I like the OPs enthusiasm. He thinks he can build a better mousetrap.
    More power to him. TiVo needs some good competition.

    Hey wwli7p. I'll be the first one in line to beta test your product.
    When shall I expect it?
     
  11. lrhorer

    lrhorer New Member

    6,922
    0
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    The problem is, he thinks that's a mouse he is trying to trap, when it really is a grizzly bear.

    I shouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

    Hmm. 13 posts and then nothing. The sun must have come out and sent him running for the dark area under the bridge. The funny thing, though is he does have one post from 2005 and another from 2006.
     

Share This Page