TiVo Community
TiVo Community
TiVo Community
Go Back   TiVo Community > Main TiVo Forums > TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion
TiVo Community
Reply
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-06-2006, 04:13 PM   #61
Dajad
Registered User
 
Dajad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoak
"When Barton approached him in either 2001 or 2002 about building a set-top box for EchoStar, Kummer said the company already had its own."

Didn't Ramsey testify that they presented a "prototype" to echostar in 1997?
We don't have that date. In this article:

http://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com...31MARtivo.html

it was stated that the company was started in 1997 and " Very early on, he testified, he took "a prototype" of his invention to EchoStar". Exactly how early and how this overlaps with Echostar's claimed invention is unclear from the press accounts I'm reading.

...Dale
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
<- Get the gifts you REALLY want! (now in public beta) -
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Dajad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2006, 04:47 PM   #62
shady
We have chickens!
 
shady's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Morgan Hill, California
Posts: 3,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dajad
Echostar first made routine motions for dismissal (arguing Echostar's use of non-infringing alternative technology) that were rejected by Fudge Folsom.
Would that be Judge Fudge Folsom?
__________________
Winner of the July 2005 TC Heads Up Poker tournament
Third place in the TC-Con-06 Paper airplane competition
shady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2006, 04:56 PM   #63
jmoak
Beware of Conky!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: florida
Posts: 2,574
I'll have to hunt for where I read it, but I was thinking that they had their first meeting w/echostar when they were trying to get seed money when they first started the company.

I'll do my best to find it. But like I pointed out, who knows what the real story is.

edit:

I think I found it, but I can't link to it. It's a sub investor report.

But one can question their conclusion.

There were two preliminary meetings between tivo and echostar. One before the patent, one after.

"At the time of the first session, Barton said the TiVo system had not yet been patented, a situation that had changed by the second meeting."

Are they talking about the filling? or the awarding?

The report I got the idea from seems to assume that the "situation" was that tivo had applied for the patent between the first and second meeting, which would put it between august '97 and the end of july '98.

If the "situation" was after the actual awarding of the patent, it would put the second meeting sometime after may of 2001.


...and now I'm as lost as I was to begin with.

Last edited by jmoak : 04-06-2006 at 07:41 PM.
jmoak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 10:49 AM   #64
jmoak
Beware of Conky!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: florida
Posts: 2,574
and to add to the confusion...

This mornings update from yesterday:

Differences in TV technologies compared in TiVo trial

Today's cross should be very interesting.
jmoak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 11:19 AM   #65
ping
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,205
Ugh.

Quote:
"We know we don't have a media switch," Minnick said. "Because we broadcast in MPEG, we have no need for software that will convert (television signals) to MPEG."
Um, OK, I guess you don't know what the hell the media switch is for, then.

Quote:
He said the plaintiff asked for a DVR (digital video recorder) chip capable of transporting mpeg streams in which audio and video components are mixed. And while Broadcom tried to talk TiVo into a similar chip, he said the company opted for separation.
That paragraph makes no sense unless you change "plaintiff" to "defendant", no?

Man, I wish I could see the transcripts.
ping is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 11:29 AM   #66
HDTiVo
Not so Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,556
Quote:
Rhyne said EchoStar boxes do not convert analog television signals into "MPEG (motion picture expert group) streams;
This was significant in the Judge's Ruling denying Summary Judgement. The Judge interperets the language in the Patent Echostar's way. So far there is no reporting on testimony from TiVo's side which would disuade the Judge's opinion.

The Broadcom testimony also appears very damaging to TiVo.

I'd say this was a very bad day for TiVo, as reported in the article.
HDTiVo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 11:32 AM   #67
HDTiVo
Not so Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,556
What is the process from here. After trial the jury makes a decision...

Does the jury decide both "guilt" and penalty or is there as seperate penalty phase with a new trial and jury?
HDTiVo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 11:34 AM   #68
ping
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,205
Quote:
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;
That describes a satellite tuner just as well as it describes an NTSC tuner coupled with an MPEG encoder, IMO.

However, if it's true that Echostar don't separate audio and video, TiVo is screwed.
ping is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 11:36 AM   #69
ping
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,205
BTW, do you suppose there's any chance that there's even one person on the jury that really understands this stuff?
ping is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 11:40 AM   #70
jmoak
Beware of Conky!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: florida
Posts: 2,574
Quote:
Rhyne said EchoStar boxes do not convert analog television signals into "MPEG (motion picture expert group) streams; the defendant's boxes do not separate audio and video components, as do TiVo products, and, therefore, EchoStar does not reassemble these audio and video portions of the television signal, as the TiVo patent claims.
Keeping in mind that echostar uses the dvb standard for encoding and transmission (which transmits the channel via mpeg2 elementary streams) and that their expert says:
"the defendant's boxes do not separate audio and video components"
"EchoStar does not reassemble these audio and video portions of the television signal"

Check out this:
The MPEG-2 Transport Stream. How receivers know what's where

Check out the page and note:
What are PIDs and how the separate audio and video PIDs make up a PES stream.

The dvb standard receiver/ird (what echostar uses) does not "encode analog to digital" but simply receives a digital signal made up of individual audio and video PIDs, extracts the PIDs for the requested audio and video and reassembles them into a mpeg2 transport stream which is then converted back to analog to be viewed on a tv.

That quote has got to be an error. Broadcom manufactures the damn chips!!!!!


Do a goggle search for dvb and dvb-s for more detailed info on the makeup of the streams.
jmoak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 11:41 AM   #71
ping
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,205
Also, for anyone thinking DirecTV might be next (after the agreement runs out), I don't think that's going to happen. I've seen it documented in dbstalk that, unlike a DTiVo, on an R15 you can switch to alternate audio on playback (a DTiVo can playback only the audio stream that was recorded). Since it's unlikely they are splitting out all the audio streams, it's more likely they are just recording the satellite stream whole.
ping is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 12:00 PM   #72
jmoak
Beware of Conky!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: florida
Posts: 2,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by ping
Also, for anyone thinking DirecTV might be next (after the agreement runs out), I don't think that's going to happen. I've seen it documented in dbstalk that, unlike a DTiVo, on an R15 you can switch to alternate audio on playback (a DTiVo can playback only the audio stream that was recorded). Since it's unlikely they are splitting out all the audio streams, it's more likely they are just recording the satellite stream whole.
Check out DSS - the "other other" MPEG-2 satellite standard used in North Amercia

btw, if "they are just recording the satellite stream whole", it would be a ~31mBps stream recorded on the disk.


many thanks to Rod Hewitt and the coolstf.com site!!
jmoak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 12:02 PM   #73
ping
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,205
OK, well of course I meant for just that channel, not transponder.

BTW, it's not whether the audio and video are separate logical parts of the MPEG stream. Of course they are. It's whether those are broken out into separate physical streams for storage on the hard drive.
ping is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 12:07 PM   #74
HDTiVo
Not so Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by ping
That describes a satellite tuner just as well as it describes an NTSC tuner coupled with an MPEG encoder, IMO.

However, if it's true that Echostar don't separate audio and video, TiVo is screwed.
That's what the Patent says. One of TiVo's problems is that the Judge interprets it the way Echostar does.
HDTiVo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 12:09 PM   #75
ping
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,205
Well, it'll be moot if it can be proven the Echostar boxes don't separate audio and video, but if they do, then maybe the jury will get it right
ping is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 12:29 PM   #76
Puppy76
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,101
Sort of off topic (hope you guys don't mind), but WHY does Tivo seperate the audio and video streams? I mean I guess a show is recorded as two seperate files on Tivo? Why? And what does that have to do with this patent? Isn't this about the hardware that lets Tivos stream stuff from disk without much CPU involvement? What does that have to do with encoding MPEG, or mixing audio and video together?
Puppy76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 12:29 PM   #77
jmoak
Beware of Conky!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: florida
Posts: 2,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by ping
OK, well of course I meant for just that channel, not transponder.

BTW, it's not whether the audio and video are separate logical parts of the MPEG stream. Of course they are. It's whether those are broken out into separate physical streams for storage on the hard drive.
sorry, your "it's more likely they are just recording the satellite stream whole" threw me off.

as far as "Well, it'll be moot if it can be proven the Echostar boxes don't separate audio and video",

Check out the Dishrip (echostar dvr) group at yahoo and compare it to the info about TyTool or MFSFTP (dtivo/tivo dvr) for real info on how the streams are stored on the hard drives.

I'm beginning to think I may be starting to look like a real wanker here, so I'll be quiet now.

jmoak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 12:37 PM   #78
Dajad
Registered User
 
Dajad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,534
DAY SIX: TiVo-EchoStar Trial (Thursday Apr. 6)

http://daledietrich.com/imedia/2006/...hursday-apr-6/

Echostar called three witnesses. First up, Tom Rhyne, TiVo's Expert witness - a retired electrical engineering professor from Texas A&M. Rhyne testified that while there were some similarities between TiVo's patents and Echostar's products, there were a number of ways the Echostar box differed from the functions outlined in TiVo's patent. Ryan, [Dale's note: stating the obvious], said EchoStar boxes do not convert analog signals into MPEG streams. He pointed out that Echostar's boxes do not separate audio and video components, as do TiVo products [Dale's note, since Echostar's product is an all-digital end-to-end, why would it?] and therefore do not reassemble them as the TiVo patent claims [Dale's note, the unstated premise being that this is all the TiVo patent claims]. Since MPEG is already in digital format, there is no need to do the two-step conversation as is needed on TiVo boxes that use analogue inputs. Rhyne said EchoStar products do not have/use a media switch as TiVo alleges.

Next up, Dan Minnick, vice president of software for EchoStar. Minnick also testified that there was no media switch. He also testified that after Echostar's engineers met with TiVo's engineers "early on", they followed-up with Echostar's inhouse counsel, Kerry Miller and that Miller gave them a verbal legal opinion over the telephone that Echostar did not infringe TiVo's patent [Dale's note: I wonder if Miller rues the day he gave that opinion?] Minnick said "We know we don't have a media switch because we broadcast in MPEG, we have no need for software that will convert (television signals) to MPEG. [Dale's Note: Interesting how they are narrowly defining the scope of the patented media switch with this testimony.]. Minnick explained that an in-house e-mail from an EchoStar engineer on the day TiVo's patent was announced saying "Oh no, tell me it isn't so?" was a sarcastic e-mail mimicking a clay cartoon character.

Finally, Jason Demas a senior Broadcom director testified that Echostar chose to source a DVR chip from Broadcom whereas TiVo, after being approached by Broadcom to do this on a chip, opted to use software instead. On cross-examination, Demas conceded that Echostar's boxes are capable of the same "trick play' features of pausing, re-winding and fast-forwarding live television as outlined in the Barton patent. Demas was not aware, as TiVo's lawyer put it, that "Echostar has demanded -- if they lose this trial -- that Broadcom will pay for all the damages this jury may award".

Tom Rhyne will be cross-examined Friday April 7.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
<- Get the gifts you REALLY want! (now in public beta) -
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by Dajad : 10-27-2006 at 08:48 PM.
Dajad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 12:40 PM   #79
ping
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoak
Check out the Dishrip (echostar dvr) group at yahoo and compare it to the info about TyTool or MFSFTP (dtivo/tivo dvr) for real info on how the streams are stored on the hard drives.
Oooh, thanks for that. Interesting. From one of the tutorials:

Quote:
Muxing – to merge the audio and video portions of the recorded show together into one file (in our case, a 'mpeg' file). For some silly reason, they seem to be stored separately on the PVR and need to be reintroduced to each other. It's quite romantic, even though it can be done automatically by software like 'PVR Explorer'.
"For some silly reason" indeed.
ping is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 12:44 PM   #80
Dajad
Registered User
 
Dajad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puppy76
Sort of off topic (hope you guys don't mind), but WHY does Tivo seperate the audio and video streams? I mean I guess a show is recorded as two seperate files on Tivo? Why? And what does that have to do with this patent? Isn't this about the hardware that lets Tivos stream stuff from disk without much CPU involvement? What does that have to do with encoding MPEG, or mixing audio and video together?
TiVo separates them because it maintains full audio quality for ALL recordings but the TiVo user gets to choose what level of quality the video is recorded in. In order to save video in varying quality levels while maintaining the audio as pristine highest quality, this necessarily necessitates two recorded streams.

And, by the way, nothing that I read in today's testimony seems particularly damaging to Tivo. It appears that EchoStar's strategy here is to pick away at the various TiVo patent claims and to argue that because they don't infringe claim a, b or c, that they don't infringe the patent. TiVo only needs to convince the jury that Echostar infringed ANY claim, not every claim to succeed. Rhyn's point that there are a number of ways in which Echostar's products differ fom TiVo's patent, it seems to me, is beside the point. What is relevant is the way in which Echostar's products incorporate technologies claimed in TiVo's patent - not in the relevant or irrelevant ways in which it is different.
...Dale
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
<- Get the gifts you REALLY want! (now in public beta) -
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by Dajad : 04-07-2006 at 12:57 PM.
Dajad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 12:54 PM   #81
jmoak
Beware of Conky!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: florida
Posts: 2,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by ping
"For some silly reason" indeed.
That's from the Dishrip group, eh?

jmoak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 12:58 PM   #82
Dajad
Registered User
 
Dajad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by shady
Would that be Judge Fudge Folsom?
OOPS!!! UMMMMM,,, I LIKE FUDGE!!!!!! [stated in a Homeresque kind-of-way].

Typo noted and corrected. Thanks shady!

...Dale
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
<- Get the gifts you REALLY want! (now in public beta) -
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Dajad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 01:14 PM   #83
ping
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dajad
TiVo separates them because it maintains full audio quality for ALL recordings but the TiVo user gets to choose what level of quality the video is recorded in. In order to save video in varying quality levels while maintaining the audio as pristine highest quality, this necessarily necessitates two recorded streams.
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:
Quote:
Rather than having to parse through an immense data stream looking for the start of where each frame would be, the program logic only has to look at the circular event buffer in DRAM 714 and it can tell where the start of each frame is and the frame type. This approach saves a large amount of CPU power, keeping the real time requirements of the CPU 713 small. The CPU 713 does not have to be very fast at any point in time. The Media Switch 701 gives the CPU 713 as much time as possible to complete tasks. The parsing mechanism 705 and event queue 708 decouple the CPU 713 from parsing the audio, video, and buffers and the real time nature of the streams, which allows for lower costs. It also allows the use of a bus structure in a CPU environment that operates at a much lower clock rate with much cheaper memory than would be required otherwise.

The CPU 713 has the ability to queue up one DMA transfer and can set up the next DMA transfer at its leisure. This gives the CPU 713 large time intervals within which it can service the DMA controller 709. The CPU 713 may respond to a DMA interrupt within a larger time window because of the large latency allowed. MPEG streams, whether extracted from an MPEG2 Transport or encoded from an analog TV signal, are typically encoded using a technique called Variable Bit Rate encoding (VBR). This technique varies the amount of data required to represent a sequence of images by the amount of movement between those images. This technique can greatly reduce the required bandwidth for a signal, however sequences with rapid movement (such as a basketball game) may be encoded with much greater bandwidth requirements. For example, the Hughes DirecTV satellite system encodes signals with anywhere from 1 to 10 Mb/s of required bandwidth, varying from frame to frame. It would be difficult for any computer system to keep up with such rapidly varying data rates without this structure.

ping is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 01:29 PM   #84
ChuckyBox
Registered User
 
ChuckyBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTiVo
This was significant in the Judge's Ruling denying Summary Judgement. The Judge interperets the language in the Patent Echostar's way. So far there is no reporting on testimony from TiVo's side which would disuade the Judge's opinion.
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.

Quote:
The Broadcom testimony also appears very damaging to TiVo.

I'd say this was a very bad day for TiVo, as reported in the article.
There appears to be nothing in any of the testimony that TiVo wasn't expecting or won't be prepared to address under cross.
ChuckyBox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 01:33 PM   #85
ChuckyBox
Registered User
 
ChuckyBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by ping
However, if it's true that Echostar don't separate audio and video, TiVo is screwed.
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.
ChuckyBox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 02:01 PM   #86
ping
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,205
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.

Quote:
The use of digital computer systems to solve this problem has been suggested. U.S. Pat. No. 5,371,551 issued to Logan et al., on Dec. 6, 1994, teaches a method for concurrent video recording and playback. It presents a microprocessor controlled broadcast and playback device. Said device compresses and stores video data onto a hard disk. However, this approach is difficult to implement because the processor requirements for keeping up with the high video rates makes the device expensive and problematic. The microprocessor must be extremely fast to keep up with the incoming and outgoing video data.

It would be advantageous to provide a multimedia time warping system that gives the user the ability to simultaneously record and play back TV broadcast programs. It would further be advantageous to provide a multimedia time warping system that utilizes an approach that decouples the microprocessor from the high video data rates, thereby reducing the microprocessor and system requirements which are at a premium.

ping is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 05:20 PM   #87
morgantown
DTV + Tvio = ;-)
 
morgantown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wild Wonderful WV
Posts: 1,084
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...
__________________

H20-100S x2, HR10-250, DVR40 - 120 hrs, DSR708, R10, R15 (inactive).
DTV & NFLST Since 1997, not looked back yet...
morgantown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 05:56 PM   #88
jautor
Also wants a pony
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by morgantown
But how much have processing speeds increased and the costs decreased since 1994?
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...

Jeff
jautor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 07:24 PM   #89
morgantown
DTV + Tvio = ;-)
 
morgantown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wild Wonderful WV
Posts: 1,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by jautor
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...

Jeff
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.
__________________

H20-100S x2, HR10-250, DVR40 - 120 hrs, DSR708, R10, R15 (inactive).
DTV & NFLST Since 1997, not looked back yet...
morgantown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2006, 10:15 PM   #90
ChuckyBox
Registered User
 
ChuckyBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,663
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiVo

TiVo’s BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS REQUEST FOR A CURATIVE
INSTRUCTION REGARDING IMPROPER CLAIM CONSTRUCTION TESTIMONY
BY ECHOSTAR WITNESSES


TiVo's Motion in Limine No. 4 to preclude argument, evidence, or suggestion that is inconsistent with the Court's claim construction. EchoStar responded that "it ha[d] no intention of challenging or having its experts challenge the Court's claim construction." Jan. 26, 2006 Order at 4 [docket #422]. EchoStar, however, has now presented a series of witnesses, both fact and expert, who each have construed the claim terms "converts" and "object." Through fact witnesses Dave Kummer, Dan Minnick, Jason Demas, and by its expert witness Dr. V. Thomas Rhyne, EchoStar has presented the very same construction of these claim terms that EchoStar argued to the Court and that the Court did not adopt.1 In other words, EchoStar witnesses have usurped the role of the Court on claim construction.

The testimony from EchoStar witnesses has been that the claim term "converts" requires an MPEG encoder that converts from non-MPEG to MPEG, the same narrow grounds urged by EchoStar but not adopted by the Court in its claim construction. EchoStar witnesses have also testified that the term "object" requires a particular kind of programming language, again the same narrow grounds urged by EchoStar but not adopted by the Court during claim construction.

The seriousness of the situation created by EchoStar is demonstrated by the case of Medtronic Navigation v. Brainlab Medinzinische Computersystems Gmbh, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10102 (D. Colo. 2006). In Medtronic, the district court rejected Medtronic's proposed construction of "reference means" to mean "one or more sensors and receivers" and instead interpreted it to mean "an array of microphones." Id. at *35. Medtronic's fact witness Dr. Smith and a testifying expert Dr. Grimson referenced, during their trial testimony, Medtronic's prior sensor claim construction argument. Id. at *35-*36. The Court held this to be a "deliberate distortion of the court's claim construction rulings" and consequently, set aside the jury verdict on this basis. Id. at *34, *42. The Court noted, "At trial Medtronic's counsel ignored the
limitations of the Bucholz claim made by this court and misdirected the jury to adopt a different reading of the claim language." Id. at *35. "Medtronic's disagreement with the court's claim construction does not give counsel license to mislead the jury by their presentation of evidence and argument." Id. at *36.

In TI Group Automotive Systems,NA, Inc. v. VDO North America, LLC, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17783 (D. Del.), the Court also set aside a jury verdict for the patentee because the patentee's technical expert testified using a broad construction of the claim language that the patentee had advanced earlier and that the trial court had not adopted. The court rebuked the patentee for making "arguments about what the term should mean, notwithstanding what the court has already said it does mean." Id. at *12.

TiVo respectfully submits that EchoStar's deliberate use of claim construction that was not adopted by the Court is a very serious matter and requests, at a minimum, that the Court provide the jury with a limiting instruction on this issue. A proposed instruction is attached for the Court's consideration.

Dated: April 7, 2006 By: /s/ Christine Byrd
Christine Byrd

TiVo's PROPOSED CURATIVE JURY INSTRUCTION
REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION


Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have previously interpreted certain claims of the patent at issue in this case as a matter of law.

One of the claims at issue is "converts said specific program to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation" in claims 1 and 32.

I have previously ruled that this language does not require an MPEG encoder and it does not require "changing the format of the TV program data signal from non-MPEG to MPEG." To the extent that certain witnesses have testified that the claim requires either of these, you should disregard that testimony entirely.

I also previously ruled on the term "object" in claims 31 and 61 to mean: "a collection of data and operations." This language does not require any particular computer programming method. Again, to the extent that certain witnesses have testified that the claim requires a particular computer programming method, you should disregard that testimony.

ChuckyBox is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Forum Jump




Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Advertisements

TiVo Community
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media

(C) 2013 Magenium Solutions - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVo® is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not owned or operated by TiVo Inc.
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:16 AM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |