Judge denies EchoStar's request on Tivo patent case [Text View]

jmoak

03-18-2006, 02:47 PM

MarketWatch now wants you to pay to read it, so...

via smartmoney.com:
Judge denies EchoStar's request on Tivo patent case (http://aol.smartmoney.com/news/on/index.cfm?story=ON-20060317-000935-1428)NEW YORK (SmartMoney) -- EchoStar Communications Corp. (DISH), which is being sued by TiVo Inc. (TIVO) for patent infringement, was denied its request to have certain accusations thrown out this week.
EchoStar, an Englewood, Colo., satellite TV company, filed a motion for partial summary judgment arguing that TiVo had "insufficient evidence" to prove infringement. In his court order, Judge David Folsom said that TiVo's expert reports and deposition "sufficiently addressed infringement."...and the band played on

:)

morgantown

03-18-2006, 02:59 PM

Phantom Gremlin

03-18-2006, 03:00 PM

Sigh. I've said it so many times myself, and I'm sure others have said it also.

TiVo and Dish should settle immediately. They should make a deal whereby Dish provides DVRs with TiVo functionality to their customers. A win-win for everyone but the parasite lawyers.

Does Dish want to play patent system roulette? Look at what happened to RIM with the Blackberry.

ChuckyBox

03-18-2006, 03:28 PM

...and the whole lawsuit is based on watching a recorded show while recording another? I'm no patent attorney (obviously) but this seems really narrow. Is this just the best "first strike" at the the competition on the twenty or so patents TiVo holds?
I think the idea is that it is a very straightforward patent that may be broadly applicable (TiVo's lawyers have said in court that TiVo is unaware of any non-infringing devices). Having something that can be explained to a jury in a brief time and kept in focus through a trial is a big bonus to the plaintiff -- the entire trial is scheduled to last just three weeks. It will be hard for Echostar to wander around and try to confuse the issues when the scope of the trial is so narrow.

morgantown

03-18-2006, 03:39 PM

Thanks for the elaboration.

ChuckyBox

03-18-2006, 03:41 PM

TiVo and Dish should settle immediately. They should make a deal whereby Dish provides DVRs with TiVo functionality to their customers. A win-win for everyone but the parasite lawyers.
TiVo has very little incentive to settle unless Echostar completely capitulates and offers both damages for past infringement and recurring royalty payments. And, as they are aligning themselves with cable operators, against satellite, TiVo has no interest in a TiVo-branded solution running on the DISH network.

Look at it from TiVo's point of view: they have everything to gain and very little to lose by taking this to trial. If they win, they have a legal precedent and their position in the industry is dramatically improves. If they lose, nothing changes -- everybody continues doing what they are doing (i.e., violating TiVo's patents -- remember we are in TiVo's point of view here). There is some risk to TiVo in that they are spending a lot, and could get hit with Echostar's legal fees, but they wouldn't have gone this far unless they really believed they were going to win. Given the quality of their representation, they are likely in pretty good shape.

Does Dish want to play patent system roulette? Look at what happened to RIM with the Blackberry.
No kidding. But we are talking about Charlie Ergen here, after all. I have no problem seeing him allowing his ego to ruin his company.

mtchamp

03-18-2006, 03:59 PM

jmoak

03-18-2006, 04:02 PM

...and the whole lawsuit is based on watching a recorded show while recording another? Nope.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=266833

tbeckner

03-18-2006, 04:09 PM

TiVo has very little incentive to settle unless Echostar completely capitulates and offers both damages for past infringement and recurring royalty payments. And, as they are aligning themselves with cable operators, against satellite, TiVo has no interest in a TiVo-branded solution running on the DISH network.

Look at it from TiVo's point of view: they have everything to gain and very little to lose by taking this to trial. If they win, they have a legal precedent and their position in the industry is dramatically improves. If they lose, nothing changes -- everybody continues doing what they are doing (i.e., violating TiVo's patents -- remember we are in TiVo's point of view here). There is some risk to TiVo in that they are spending a lot, and could get hit with Echostar's legal fees, but they wouldn't have gone this far unless they really believed they were going to win. Given the quality of their representation, they are likely in pretty good shape.

No kidding. But we are talking about Charlie Ergen here, after all. I have no problem seeing him allowing his ego to ruin his company.I agree completely. Charlie Ergen's EGO has changed many things over the years. If his EGO hadn't got in the way, Charlie and Murdoch would be running the NEWS CORP DISH NETWORK (Dish and ASkyB), but because of his ego, Charlie still is in charge of EchoStar and Murdoch ended up buying DirecTV for a song and a dance. And TiVo is in their current situation with DirecTV because of Charlie's EGO and the situation with Murdoch back in the 90's.

morgantown

03-18-2006, 04:11 PM

Not a very good description in the original link.

jmoak

03-18-2006, 05:01 PM

Not a very good description in the original link.I agree. It's more of a blurb than a description.

But after 24 hours, it continues to be the only mention of the decision obtainable via an internet news search.
:confused:

stevel

03-18-2006, 05:48 PM

samo

03-18-2006, 07:22 PM

I wonder how these patents relate to the case:

6,480,667 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,480,667.WKU.&OS=PN/6,480,667&RS=PN/6,480,667)
6,591,058 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,591,058.WKU.&OS=PN/6,591,058&RS=PN/6,591,058)

The second is a continuation of the first. Note the first's filing date. Compare to TiVo's Time Warp patent (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6233389.WKU.&OS=PN/6233389&RS=PN/6233389).
I'm sure that both parties to the lawsuit have reviewed existing patents. TiVo even purchased one these some time ago (don't remember details, but it was one of many DVR type patents that was pre-dating TiVo patent by about 5 years). I don't think that lawsuit will be about validity of TiVo patent at all, most likely scope of the trial will be limited to infringement issue. Until it is over (including likely appeals by losing party) we wouldn't know what an outcome will be. Based on history we will not see resolution for a long time. Charlie was a lone wolf fighting Gemstar in court for years. He even prevailed at some point, but eventually lawsuit was settled with him buying substantial part of TVGuide assets for bargain price.
No kidding. But we are talking about Charlie Ergen here, after all. I have no problem seeing him allowing his ego to ruin his company.
Not only he has an ego, but he also built personal wealth of $8 billion from scratch. Anybody who was able to accomplish that deserves the right to have ego. He also owns over 50% of Echostar - it is his company. He never sold a single share of his personal holdings in Echostar until company started to make profits (unlike CEO's of most corporations including TiVo). If he does ruin his company, he has a right to do it because it his own money that are at stake (of course I don't see how losing TiVo lawsuit will ruin his company, but that is another topic).

ChuckyBox

03-18-2006, 08:26 PM

If he does ruin his company, he has a right to do it because it his own money that are at stake (of course I don't see how losing TiVo lawsuit will ruin his company, but that is another topic).

The courts don't agree with you. As Chairman and CEO he has a fiduciary responsibility to the company's shareholders. All of them.

OldTownTreadles

03-19-2006, 12:41 AM

The way I read it, TiVo is drawing a line in the sand. Echostar is the test case for validating a broad interpretation of the "time warp patent". TiVo's patent covers the invention of a device that simultaneously records, pauses and plays back live TV. It is hoped a win for TiVo in this case will clearly place all generic DVR's in violation of this patent. Wouldn't it be something if suddenly TiVo was collecting licensing fees from everybody after a call from McKool Smith, TiVo's attorneys down in Texas?
]

Back a century or more ago, when sewing machines were the hot new thing, a lot of manufacturers "borrowed" the technology for the lockstitch from one maker. That maker got on his hind legs and took a lot of the big companies to court, and wound up having all of them pay him for use of his patents till the patents expired. So, it's happened before, it could happen again.

Sounds like an interesting case. Any links where updates in the fray are posted?

samo

03-19-2006, 04:11 AM

Back a century or more ago, when sewing machines were the hot new thing, a lot of manufacturers "borrowed" the technology for the lockstitch from one maker. That maker got on his hind legs and took a lot of the big companies to court, and wound up having all of them pay him for use of his patents till the patents expired. So, it's happened before, it could happen again.

Sounds like an interesting case. Any links where updates in the fray are posted?
One interesting thing is that patent holder did not invent lockstitch but won in court anyhow because first inventor did not patent his invention and second inventor's patent was lost in patent office. http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blsewing_machine.htm
Just tells you how important it is to have a good lawyer. :)

mtchamp

03-19-2006, 09:50 AM

I saw this in a movie about Alexander Graham Bell's patent lawsuit. Don't know if it's Hollywood or true. There was an issue as to when he came up with the idea for the telephone compared with the other inventor. Luckily he had jotted down a diagram of his invention on a piece of paper that he later used the other side as a love letter and he dated it. His wife had remembered such a letter and had it saved and it was introduced as evidence that confirmed his idea for the telephone predated anyone elses documentation.

jmoak

03-20-2006, 11:31 AM

another news service finally carries the story:

"Judge Denies EchoStar's Request On TiVo Patent Case" (http://money.cnn.com/services/tickerheadlines/for5/200603171428DOWJONESDJONLINE0 00935_FORTUNE5.htm)
from money.cnn.com

HDTiVo

03-20-2006, 11:37 AM

TiVo is also a defendant in patent litigation, beyond the Dish counter suit...

Forgent Uses 'Trolling' As Business Model
- Mar 17, 2006 02:52 PM (AP Online)
- http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=56784783

===================================

By MATT SLAGLE AP Technology Writer

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- While most technology companies make money by developing software, building hardware or providing services, Forgent Networks Inc. has taken a different route: It produces threats and lawsuits that try to cash in on ideas.

Forgent and other companies with similar strategies _ often called "patent trolling" by critics _ amass intellectual property portfolios and file suits against other businesses, accusing them of infringement.

With a skeleton crew of 30 employees and the help of a law firm, Forgent has built a business out of suing _ or threatening to sue _ companies, even though it offers no related products and does no development of the technology itself.

-------

Forgent, which has about 30 other technology patents waiting in the wings, is already moving ahead with its next potential profit generator: U.S. Patent No. 6,285,746, which relates to how digital video recorders to allow playback during recording.

EchoStar Communications Corp., Motorola Inc., TiVo Inc. and 12 other companies have been named as defendants in the case. A federal judge has set a mediation date for next month in U.S. District Court in Marshall, Texas.

jmoak

03-20-2006, 12:11 PM

TiVo is also a defendant in patent litigation, beyond the Dish counter suit..."Tivo, The Defendant" seems to be much more popular than "Tivo, The Plaintiff" to the media, that's for sure.

And an internet news search returns 72 articles for "The fine art of 'patent trolling'"

whereas a search for the "Judge Denies EchoStar's Request On TiVo Patent Case" returns 2.

Billy66

03-20-2006, 12:19 PM

Denying a summary judgement is far from big news. An equivalent headline might read:

"Man Awakes and Brushes Teeth"

Sure, most people do just that. Every once in a while not. It would be news if it were granted. It's not really news that it wasn't.

jmoak

03-20-2006, 12:59 PM

Ahhh, I get it. I was fixated simply on how much play a "bad" tivo story gets in comparison to a "good" tivo story.

As the trial progresses, will it be considered more than just another "Man Awakes and Brushes Teeth" story, not worthy of a mention? ...or does it simply depend upon the outcome?

When the case was delayed last year there were dozens of stories about it repeated all over the net. I was actually expecting the same reaction about the "delay denied" story. My Bad.:o

I may be over concerned, but I see the case as pretty much a make or break for the licensing future for tivo and their patents, hence my interest in how the rest of the media is viewing this and their reaction to it, as well as the outcome.

Billy66

03-20-2006, 01:12 PM

Oh, I think you're right jmoak. Definitely once it gets going it will be really interesting. I likened summary judgement denial to tooth brushing because it is my understanding that summary judgement is requested close to 100% of the time. IANAL.

HDTiVo

03-20-2006, 02:28 PM

Summary judgement is denied almost all the time.

There is more than one piece of patent litigation. TiVo and Dish are suing each other, both with patent claims of their own. This Forgent has their own. It is completely impossible to assign value or a date to the outcome. Some have posted as if TiVo will win and collect enormous sums from past violations and future licenses. This is highly speculative.

ChuckyBox

03-20-2006, 08:13 PM

The trial is now scheduled to start 3/29, instead of 3/27. Echostar wanted a continuance of two weeks to prepare after the judge allowed TiVo two new claims (5 and 36). They got two days.

This was a bit of a ploy on Echostar's part. They knew a two week delay would most likely mean a much more significant delay as the court and parties would have to adjust numerous schedules (courtroom, jurors, witnesses, etc.).

As I understand it, TiVo wanted to assert the preamble to claims 1 and 32, or if not the preamble, then claims 5 and 36. But the judge did not allow the preambles and TiVo had not filed the appropriate paperwork for 5 and 36 (or didn't do it in time), thinking they were being considered as well. The judge heard a bunch of motions and finally agreed that TiVo had reason to believe what it believed so he allowed the claims. Since he had already allowed extra time for discovery on the claims, and Echostar was fully aware that TiVo was asserting them, there was really no reason for a two week continuance.

ChuckyBox

03-20-2006, 08:32 PM

Summary judgement is denied almost all the time.

Interestingly, TiVo asked for summary judgement on some claims and was also denied. The judge ruled that there were still questions of fact to be determined. In particular, he mentioned that it was still to determined whether Echostar's broadcasts are digital or analog. (The difference is important because of the way the patented process/device operates.)

So Echostar is going to claim that their broadcasts are digital and TiVo is going to claim they are analog. The case could very well hinge on this issue. Obviously, Echostar's broadcasts encode digital information. Just as obviously, the radio waves Echostar broadcasts are analog and need to be converted to digital information in the receiver. The winner will be the side that explains their point of view more clearly and convincingly to the jury. Personally, based on the laws of physics and the intent of the patent, I'd rather have TiVo's argument. (And if they didn't believe they could win this point, they would have dropped the case last fall when the judge issued the claim construction order.) But juries can be fickle.

samo

03-20-2006, 10:05 PM

Interestingly, TiVo asked for summary judgement on some claims and was also denied. The judge ruled that there were still questions of fact to be determined. In particular, he mentioned that it was still to determined whether Echostar's broadcasts are digital or analog. (The difference is important because of the way the patented process/device operates.)

So Echostar is going to claim that their broadcasts are digital and TiVo is going to claim they are analog. The case could very well hinge on this issue. Obviously, Echostar's broadcasts encode digital information. Just as obviously, the radio waves Echostar broadcasts are analog and need to be converted to digital information in the receiver. The winner will be the side that explains their point of view more clearly and convincingly to the jury. Personally, based on the laws of physics and the intent of the patent, I'd rather have TiVo's argument. (And if they didn't believe they could win this point, they would have dropped the case last fall when the judge issued the claim construction order.) But juries can be fickle.
Interesting. So by TiVo definition digital cable and digital phone service does not exist. Neither does government requirement to switch to digital TV. Just as Digital Broadcast Satellite (DBS) they all use analog carrier. If I was on a jury, it wouldn't fly with me. Converting analog broadcast to digital stream to record it on HD is not a same as to extract digital stream to record. But I think that there should be little more to TiVo claim than to prove that DBS is a same as analog broadcast.

ChuckyBox

03-20-2006, 10:49 PM

Interesting. So by TiVo definition digital cable and digital phone service does not exist. Neither does government requirement to switch to digital TV. Just as Digital Broadcast Satellite (DBS) they all use analog carrier. If I was on a jury, it wouldn't fly with me. Converting analog broadcast to digital stream to record it on HD is not a same as to extract digital stream to record. But I think that there should be little more to TiVo claim than to prove that DBS is a same as analog broadcast.
There is more to the claim, but with a patent claim you have to prove the whole thing. If something is missing or different (beyond "the doctrine of equivalents"), then the defendant doesn't infringe.

I think TiVo will try to make the distinction between the carrier (analog) and the way the information is encoded (digital or analog). As an engineer (right?) you could probably make this argument either way.

Here is the Judge's actual statement:

The present motion is not amenable to summary judgment because outstanding issues of material fact remain in dispute. For instance, the fact issue of whether or not EchoStar broadcasts digital MPEG formatted data streams or analog data streams remains unresolved. See Dkt. Nos. 438 and 447. This fact issue alone precludes summary judgment of literal infringement as both claims 1 and 32 contain the limitation of an “Input Section [that] converts said specific program to a Moving Pictures Expert Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation.” EchoStar takes the position that it broadcasts in a digital format so
that the accused devices never convert specific programs into a MPEG format. Dkt. No. 261 at 11-14. TiVo disagrees arguing that it is undisputed that EchoStar broadcasts in analog and, as an example of the Accused Products performing a ‘conversion’ per the claim limitation, it is undisputed that the Accused Products convert analog signals into digital MPEG signals. Dkt. No. 447 & Reply at 4-6. As it appears the experts disagree as to the form of EchoStar’s broadcasts, an issue of material fact remains. TiVo’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Infringement of Claims 1 and 32 is therefore DENIED.
Case 2:04-cv-00001-DF-CMC Document 529 Filed 03/15/2006 Page 3 of 3

HDTiVo

03-20-2006, 11:22 PM

TiVo needs to make the issue of fact become whether Dish broadcasts a TV signal based on a standard, not whether the signal is analog or digital.

As it stands, the judge is going down the wrong path for TiVo.

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;

ChuckyBox

03-21-2006, 01:12 AM

TiVo needs to make the issue of fact become whether Dish broadcasts a TV signal based on a standard, not whether the signal is analog or digital.

TiVo has no control in that issue. The judge has interpreted the claims in the patent as matters of law and provided interpretation, where needed. The jury's job is to decide the matters of fact (i.e., whether or not the accused device does the things in the claims).

In this particular instance, the Input Section needs to convert signals to an MPEG formatted stream. Echostar will argue that there is no conversion because the signals are already an MPEG stream. TiVo will argue that the analog radio waves have to be converted into a digital stream.

HDTiVo

03-21-2006, 03:38 AM

TiVo has no control in that issue. The judge has interpreted the claims in the patent as matters of law and provided interpretation, where needed. The jury's job is to decide the matters of fact (i.e., whether or not the accused device does the things in the claims).

In this particular instance, the Input Section needs to convert signals to an MPEG formatted stream. Echostar will argue that there is no conversion because the signals are already an MPEG stream. TiVo will argue that the analog radio waves have to be converted into a digital stream.
If that is what the issue comes down to then TiVo is going to lose. As you can see from the claims language, there is no claim related to analog vs. digital - the judge obviously has ruled based on that issue mattering as to validity. From TiVo's standpoint, the judge has misread the patent and will have to be convinced - along with the jury - to read it properly at trial, or an appeal will have to be taken of the summary judgement motion (which is unlikely since it sounds like there are other issues of fact.)

The patent claim however specifically lists as TV signals, NTSC (obviously analog), ATSC (what everyone commonly understands to be digital, and is MPEG only) and satellite transmission (which it shouldn't be to hard to show is what Dish does,) without limitation. Thus a form of TV signal - including one transmitted by satellite - that is digital MPEG is clearly included in the patent language. The the question will be, is Dish's transmission a broadcast based on a standard: Does a single entity using a particular method constitute a standard? Is the Dish method based on some standardized specs defined by others? Is the Dish transmission a broadcast?

samo

03-21-2006, 05:37 AM

The patent claim however specifically lists as TV signals, NTSC (obviously analog), ATSC (what everyone commonly understands to be digital, and is MPEG only) and satellite transmission (which it shouldn't be to hard to show is what Dish does,) without limitation. Thus a form of TV signal - including one transmitted by satellite - that is digital MPEG is clearly included in the patent language.
It is not how I read it (and I'm not a lawyer, I just read as if I was on a jury).
TiVo patented process that has several steps. Step one - receiving any kind of signal. That is a standard step for multitude of devices. Step two - tuning this signal, again all kind of tuners do that including IRDs for satellite. Step three is one in question - converting tuned signal to MPEG. DBS and digital cable do not have this step - signal is already formatted as MPEG. TiVo pretends that they don't understand that and claims that extracting MPEG in IRD is a same as encoding analog signal to MPEG. Depending on a composition of the jury and quality of presentation by lawyers it can go either way. The fact is that judge, who I presume is not very technical person by nature of his profession, has a question in his mind about validity of TiVo's claim and wants better explanation. If I was trying to explain the difference to him, I would stress that conversion to MPEG in case of satellite happens outside of DVR. I would use something more understandable like you can process sugar cane to make sugar and deliver it to the blood by injection or you can eat sugar cane and let body do all the work of conversion to sugar. End result is sugar in your blood, but process of conversion in a stomach is not present with injection. But again, I'm not a lawyer and I have no idea what works and doesn't work in court.

HDTiVo

03-21-2006, 06:12 AM

TiVo's lawyer's need to focus the issue on the highlighted portion of the claim below, coupled with the fact that ATSC is necessarily MPEG. The argument would be that read together, there is no way to interpret the claim other than that any MPEG based TV transmission is included. The conversion for internal transfer and manipulation still occurs even with an MPEG based broadcast, so Dish's argument is irrelevant.

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;

jmoak

03-21-2006, 10:02 AM

This is highly speculative.Boy,.....:eek:
If I didn't see your point before, I damn sure see it now.

lajohn27

03-21-2006, 10:13 AM

The the question will be, is Dish's transmission a broadcast based on a standard: Does a single entity using a particular method constitute a standard? Is the Dish method based on some standardized specs defined by others? Is the Dish transmission a broadcast?

Echostar/Dish uses DVB-S for all their transmissions. This is why free to air receivers can pirate the signal quite easily. DVB is a worldwide standard with a few variations, including a terrestrial one called DVB-T. DVB is an "open" standard. Many satellites carry DVB-S based signals that are unrelated to Echostar or DishNetwork. (see lyngsat.com for more details)

DSS is the method that DirecTV uses and must be licensed from them. It's proprietary and they own the technology.

So.. to sum up, Echostar is transmitting in an industry standard format with encryption.

J

ChuckyBox

03-21-2006, 10:15 AM

TiVo's lawyer's need to focus the issue on the highlighted portion of the claim below, coupled with the fact that ATSC is necessarily MPEG. The argument would be that read together, there is no way to interpret the claim other than that any MPEG based TV transmission is included. The conversion for internal transfer and manipulation still occurs even with an MPEG based broadcast, so Dish's argument is irrelevant.
I tend to agree. That's why I said earlier that when you combine the facts with the intent of the patent, TiVo has a reasonable case. Since they specifically mention satellite, DBS, ATSC, they clearly intended to include those situations. It can be shown that the inventors knew how DBS works, so their intent was clearly to include that process. TiVo then shows the jury that an analog signal is converted to MPEG inside the system -- no specification is made for how this conversion is done: television signal goes in, MPEG comes out. Does the jury accept that? Nobody knows.

But I'm not a lawyer or a judge, either, so it is possible that the issue isn't that simple.

ChuckyBox

03-21-2006, 10:30 AM

If I was trying to explain the difference to him, I would stress that conversion to MPEG in case of satellite happens outside of DVR.
If it goes this direction, TiVo might argue that it is all part of the same system -- the "tuner" is simply separated from the box for practical reasons, but the functionality would be exactly the same if it were inside the box. The claimed device receives broadcast television signals, so that appears to include the antenna (or at least input from the antenna) in cases where an antenna is used.

herdfan

03-21-2006, 10:47 AM

HDTiVo

03-21-2006, 11:46 AM

I tend to agree. ...
It is a little mysterious why TiVo's Lawyers wouldn't have stipulated to the Dish "digital" argument - eliminating that issue of fact - and proceeded to explain why it was an irrelevent issue. That's how you build a winning summary judgement motion.

Instead, somehow the judge has gotten the ani-TiVo impression that analog/digital matters, and now that is an obstacle to overcome at trial.

ChuckyBox

03-21-2006, 12:40 PM

TiVo might not have an option. If E* loses big, all Charlie has to do is purchase TiVo, or at least as big of stake as he can get. He has the money. Any judgement against E*, he would own.

TiVo has a poison pill that makes a hostile takeover very difficult.

If Charlie wanted to end this thing for less than TiVo is asking, he should make a settlement offer not to TiVo, but to Cisco or Comcast. "Buy TiVo," he says to them, "and I'll give you X dollars to license the IP." Cisco or Comcast then makes a friendly offer to TiVo's board, partially subsidized by Echostar. If TiVo takes the offer, everybody wins. If they don't, nothing has changed.

ChuckyBox

03-21-2006, 12:51 PM

Instead, somehow the judge has gotten the ani-TiVo impression that analog/digital matters, and now that is an obstacle to overcome at trial.
I would guess that this is one of the things the lawyers are arguing about. I haven't read all of the motions, so I'm not certain what the exact positions are, I'm just going by the Judge's ruling. It appears that Echostar is saying "we don't convert to MPEG" and TiVo is saying "yes you do." TiVo is probably going to argue this in depth -- analog signals converted to digital stream, digital stream converted (decrypted) to MPEG, etc.

herdfan

03-21-2006, 01:14 PM

TiVo has a poison pill that makes a hostile takeover very difficult.
Any idea about the structure? Is it just money or a triggering event that might send IP offshore or similar?

ChuckyBox

03-21-2006, 02:00 PM

Any idea about the structure? Is it just money or a triggering event that might send IP offshore or similar?

Here is TiVo's description:

On January 9, 2001, our board of directors adopted a Rights Agreement. Each share of our common stock has attached to it a right to purchase one one-hundredth of a share of our Series B Junior Participating Preferred Stock at a price of $60 per one one-hundredth of a preferred share. Subject to limited exceptions, the rights will become exercisable following the tenth day after a person or group announces the acquisition of 15% or more (or 30.01% or more in the case of America Online, Inc. and its affiliates and associates until such time as America Online and its affiliates and associates cease to beneficially own any common shares) of our common stock, and thereby becomes an “acquiring person,” or announces commencement of a tender offer or exchange offer, the consummation of which would result in the ownership by the person or group of 15% or more (or 30.01% or more in the case of America Online and its affiliates and associates until such time as America Online and its affiliates and associates cease to beneficially own any common shares) of our common stock. The rights are not exercisable as of April 1, 2005. We will be entitled to redeem the rights at $0.01 per right at any time prior to the time that a person or group becomes an acquiring person.

dstoffa

03-21-2006, 05:20 PM

The way I read it, TiVo is drawing a line in the sand. Echostar is the test case for validating a broad interpretation of the "time warp patent". TiVo's patent covers the invention of a device that simultaneously records, pauses and plays back live TV. It is hoped a win for TiVo in this case will clearly place all generic DVR's in violation of this patent. Wouldn't it be something if suddenly TiVo was collecting licensing fees from everybody after a call from McKool Smith, TiVo's attorneys down in Texas?

http://www.mckoolsmith.com/

Wouldn't this type of patent infringment be akin to someone trying to patent a Word Processor? a spreadsheet? a radio? a car?

I always thought you could NOT patent an idea, but only patent a specific way to bring that idea to life....

megazone

03-26-2006, 07:18 AM

I always thought you could NOT patent an idea, but only patent a specific way to bring that idea to life....Yeah, well, welcome to the current US patent system, where you can patent the flimsiest of wrappers for an idea. Some software patents are for things that are blatantly obvious to anyone with two neurons and some technical knowledge, but they get a patent anyway.

The patent system needs a major overhaul.

goony

03-28-2006, 01:50 AM

Trial finally begins Wednesday (March 29th) (http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7BD8733CAD%2D041E%2D4FAD%2D94FF%2DF44C5ADC3 34F%7D&dist=newsfinder&siteid=google&keyword=).

JoeBarbs

03-28-2006, 06:02 AM

Trial finally begins Wednesday (March 29th) (http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7BD8733CAD%2D041E%2D4FAD%2D94FF%2DF44C5ADC3 34F%7D&dist=newsfinder&siteid=google&keyword=).

and expected to last only 2 weeks. I have my fingers crossed!

dt_dc

03-28-2006, 03:37 PM

Broadcasting & Cable article

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6319753.html?display=Breaking+News

TiVo Has Statistical Edge in DVR Suit
(...)
According to patent attorney Brad Lyerla of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun, in Chicago, and former editor in chief of Intellectual Property Litigation, TiVo's advantage is not necessarily because its case is obviously better but because the statistics are in its favor. ""Plaintiffs," says Lyerla, "enjoy the advantage in patent jury trials." And they enjoy it specifically in the Texas venue where the trial is being held.

"Recent statistics for the Eastern District of Texas," says Lyerla, "show that juries there find for plaintiffs in patent trials in about eight out of 10 trials.

"The challenge for Echostar," he says, "will be to find a way to overcome the jury's native sympathy for the underdog while at the same time teaching the jury what it will need to know in order to understand Echostar's unavoidably complicated defense."
(...)No wonder E* tried to get the venue changed.

ZeoTiVo

03-28-2006, 04:51 PM

Wouldn't this type of patent infringment be akin to someone trying to patent a Word Processor? a spreadsheet? a radio? a car?

I always thought you could NOT patent an idea, but only patent a specific way to bring that idea to life....

Not a lawyer either, in case all my scholarly legal postings confused anyone ;)

well you have to read further into the time warp patent. it gets very specific about the idea of being able to do the multiple parts of recording, playback adn copying recordings. It really is patenting a sound approach to it.

so it would be more akin to Microsoft suing wordstar if the logic in wordstar was found to be the same logic as Microsoft used to make its word processor work well. In other words if wordstar just ripped off the code.

so the striking similarity is the strong point of TiVo Inc's case but you are asking judge and jury to basically compare the design/code and agree it is the same design/code given that both are already acknowledged to be DVR/word processor adn the patent is not completely about that larger context of both being a DVR/word processor. Not an easy task and they already hit some "legal technicalities: in the first 3 lines of the patent

HDTiVo

03-28-2006, 05:00 PM

well you have to read further into the time warp patent. it gets very specific about the idea of being able to do the multiple parts of recording, playback adn copying recordings. It really is patenting a sound approach to it.

so it would be miore akin to Microsoft suing wordstar since the logic in wordstar was found to be the same logic as mocrosoft used to make its word processor work well. In other words if wordstar just ripped off the code.

so the striking similarity is the strong point of TiVo Inc's case but you are asking judge and jury to basically compare the design/code and agree it is the same design/code given that both are already acknowledged to be DVR/word processor adn the patent is not completely about that larger context. Not an easy task and they already hit some "legal technicalities: in the first 3 lines of the patent
Couldn't Dish just demo a TiVo and a Dish DVR at trial and throw themselves on the mercy of the court? No jury would think they are the same thing. :D