Why don't you just go to the court site and read the related case files?HiDefGator said:Does anyone have a website link or other details that fully explain the Tivo lawsuit against Echostar? I'm looking for more details than it's over Tivo's "timeshifting multimedia patent".
Hahahhahah...............................you guysDesignDawg said:Who needs sources?! Everyone here knows EVERYTHING already!! TiVo has a patent lock on every feature ever implemented, imagined, or planned for any dvr EVER. TiVo has a patent on the very essence of being. TiVo is god. Long live TiVo.
Countdown until someone (you know who you are) comes and posts all the information you could ever hope to hear, as if he sits in the jury box....
Hehe. Marshall is the name of the city where the suit is being heard. The courthouse *in* Marshall was only available for two weeks. The US Marshall there is probably available most of the time.cmtar said:It has been delayed untill March because the Marshall for the courtroom was only available for two weeks.
Ain't gonna happen. The sat rcvr/dvr combo box is designed to store the MPEG compressed datastream that was uplinked at the source; hardware in the box decodes this stream during playback. Not using MPEG would also impact all of the non-DVR receivers as well.grooves12 said:... if they win this lawsuit Dish/DirecTV could change their compression algorithm to something else (say WMV or something different entirely) and successfully argue that it is different.
From the patent:grooves12 said:The big red flag I see, and the one that the entire patent seems to hinge on is that it says that the device will take broadcasts and CONVERT them to an mpeg stream for storage. As we all know... no conversion takes place in the combo boxes that Dish/DirecTV/CableCo's offer. Therefor Tivo's patent is not describing one of those devices.
from the patent:grooves12 said:Then there is also the issue that they SPECIFICALLY mention Mpeg as the storage medium... if they win this lawsuit Dish/DirecTV could change their compression algorithm to something else (say WMV or something different entirely) and successfully argue that it is different.
All good patents cover everything possible under the sun. This is done to prevent competitors from just tweaking one aspect of the patent to come up with a "new" invention. If nobody can create a dvr that does not infringe on the patent, they've done a great job of writing their patent.HiDefGator said:My issue with the patent (and I'm not a patent lawyer) is that it appears to cover everything from A to Z about the Tivo DVR. It dwells on how they manage the data internally, it covers the live buffer manipulation, compressing data, storing data, playing it back, cpu efficiency, etc. It's hard to tell from reading it just exactly what they were trying to patent.
To me the patent is like a shot gun approach, let's decribe everything and maybe some thing will stick.
I tried looking at it from the reverse point of view; what could I do with a dvr to not infringe on the patent. But once again I couldn't tell because the patent is all over the place.
If I designed a really dumb dvr that exactly emulated a vcr, no playback while recording, no wishlists, etc. it appears it would still be covered by the patent. But I don't see how anyone can patent the ability to record a video stream to a hard drive and play it back. That was done long before Tivo came along.