# Patent partially voided?! So says WSJ



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

YIKES!

wall street journal says US Patent Office Rejects TiVo's Software Claims 



> NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Dish Network Corp. (DISH) and Echostar Corp. (SATS) scored a legal victory after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled that TiVo Inc.'s (TIVO) patent claims over its "time-warp" digital video recorder technology were invalid.
> 
> The ruling comes after a second reexamination of the patents by the PTO. Dish and Echostar applauded the ruling, and TiVo said it would follow up with additional arguments.
> 
> ...


what do you lawyers think?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

A JPMorgan analyst doesn't think this will hurt TiVo's chances in the En Banc hearing.

TiVo actually lost two patents, though it doesn't say which ones. This ruling isn't final though since TiVo can appeal and the patents remain valid and enforceable during the entire appeal which can take over a year.

Also TiVo has a boat load of patents and if I recall a few of them were sited in the law suit against DISH. The "time-warp" one was the big one though. If this ruling stays, it does considerably weaken TiVo's position and diminishes the chances of the law suits against Verizon and AT&T, but TiVo's not finished yet (despite what the market thinks). It could draw things out several more years though.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I dunno... maybe they should have gotten out while the getting-out was good.

Can you say, "Microsoft TiVo"? Has a nice ring to it, eh?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> I dunno... maybe they should have gotten out while the getting-out was good.
> 
> Can you say, "Microsoft TiVo"? Has a nice ring to it, eh?


might wind up more like "Google DVR" 

will be interesting to see but boy sure does look like they should have sold themselves in the bast few months.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> I dunno... maybe they should have gotten out while the getting-out was good.
> 
> Can you say, "Microsoft TiVo"? Has a nice ring to it, eh?





MichaelK said:


> might wind up more like "Google DVR"
> 
> will be interesting to see but boy sure does look like they should have sold themselves in the bast few months.


I doubt either company wants them - MS has WMC and can skip the hardware - and GooGle likely has little to know interest in recording things but in finding the files already in digital form out on the web. Even Apple would have little interest in DVR tech.
it all boils down to what Jobs said - until there is a way to easily access the shows and other interactive services of broadcasters in a 3rd party box then there simply is no easy "go to market" plan. TiVo has a big asset in already being in the market but they suffer from having such a hard "get the market" path.
If the FCC actually did something useful and created that easy 3rd party access then TiVo would be worth more than the sum of its parts. Still TiVo has its own pile of cash and no debt so it does not need buyers to stay around even 10 more years.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

Best thing to happen. Maybe they will finally stop paying attention to lawyers and start paying attention to their cruddy UI!


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

Joe3 said:


> Best thing to happen. Maybe they will finally stop paying attention to lawyers and start paying attention to their cruddy UI!


I don't know if I agree with that statement. Property was (allegedly) stolen from TiVo. Imagine if someone came into your house and took your TV. Would it be correct to state "maybe it's time for you to stop watching TV, and for you to start reading books?" 

The engineers will continue to work on the hardware/software regardless of what the lawyers are doing. It's not like the engineers are waiting on the outcome of the trial before doing anything...


----------



## killzone (Oct 19, 2000)

orangeboy said:


> I don't know if I agree with that statement. Property was (allegedly) stolen from TiVo. Imagine if someone came into your house and took your TV. Would it be correct to state "maybe it's time for you to stop watching TV, and for you to start reading books?"
> 
> The engineers will continue to work on the hardware/software regardless of what the lawyers are doing. It's not like the engineers are waiting on the outcome of the trial before doing anything...


Unfortunately for Tivo it's more along the lines of they think they are the only ones that should be able to write data to a hard drive while reading back other data. Maybe they should patent the 'On' button and make everyone pay up for being able to turn on their TV.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

killzone said:


> Unfortunately for Tivo it's more along the lines of they think they are the only ones that should be able to write data to a hard drive while reading back other data. Maybe they should patent the 'On' button and make everyone pay up for being able to turn on their TV.


I don't see the connection of your response to my reply. 

Regardless, I don't think TiVo thinks they should be the only one to do "something"; I think TiVo just doesn't want everyone else to profit from _how_ they are doing it. If TiVo came up with a way to make one right turn while everyone else makes 3 left turns, so be it. If the others take the right turn method and says "look what I did!" and doesn't pay TiVo for using that method, then there's a problem.


----------



## killzone (Oct 19, 2000)

orangeboy said:


> I don't see the connection of your response to my reply.
> 
> Regardless, I don't think TiVo thinks they should be the only one to do "something"; I think TiVo just doesn't want everyone else to profit from _how_ they are doing it. If TiVo came up with a way to make one right turn while everyone else makes 3 left turns, so be it. If the others take the right turn method and says "look what I did!" and doesn't pay TiVo for using that method, then there's a problem.


You are trying to equate something that Tivo is claiming a patent on (in this case the ability to record a stream to a HD, while playing one back) as to stealing a tangible object (someones TV) which is cut and dry. They may call it Trick Play, but there is nothing tricky, new or original about it.

My post was because i agree with the previous poster that Tivo should spend more time developing a more compelling product rather than trying to collect for patents on things that were never worthy of a patent in the first place.

If Dish stole source code to do the reads and writes, that would be a different story, but to me reading and writing a hard drive (no matter if it's a TV stream or whatever the data), is just as fundamental as breathing and not something that should be patentable.

As for Wishlists and suggestions that is something they came up with.


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

I am thrilled by this to be honest. Tivo has done nothing but sue and release crap products just to stick around enough in the market to support these lawsuits. I doubt it will happen, but now they may actually have to make a better product. Fast Forward and skip ahead 30 seconds were around WAY before Tivo. So it is a shame we don't see it used in many more DVR products. Fact is, some people just run and copyright anything and everything not nailed down and then make a living off of that. Sad.

Case in point, I was watching an episode of "How'd you get so rich". This guy got a patent for a multi-tube bubble blower, ya know, just a bunch of straws put together. Then with Patent in hand, he went around and sued anyone using anything like it. He got VERY VERY rich. What a smart guy. He made no products, manufactured no goods, nor really invented anything. He just was the only person smart enough to go get a patent on such a silly idea, then he sued till the cows came home. Thus he got very rich.


----------



## MrFlibble1 (May 23, 2010)

orangeboy said:


> I don't see the connection of your response to my reply.
> 
> Regardless, I don't think TiVo thinks they should be the only one to do "something"; I think TiVo just doesn't want everyone else to profit from _how_ they are doing it. If TiVo came up with a way to make one right turn while everyone else makes 3 left turns, so be it. If the others take the right turn method and says "look what I did!" and doesn't pay TiVo for using that method, then there's a problem.


It's not a good analogy. Choosing to make a right turn over three left turns is obvious. Could be wrong, (Mr. Flibble is not a lawyer nor does he play one on TV) but Mr. Flibble believes you can not patent something which is that obvious.

Perhaps recording video to a hard drive and playing it back is also obvious.

Perhaps a patent lawyer could chime in and correct Mr. Flibble if he is mistaken. . .


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

tivo's patent isn't just about writing to a hard drive while playing back. people are so ignorant. If one takes just a few minutes to read they would find out it's way more complex then that. The fact that they have been locked in a battle with Dish all these years shows it's a hell of a lot more complex then that.

one could argue if there patent has merit or if it's obvious, stupid or novel, whatever. 

But making ignorant remarks that it's simply about reading and writing at the same time is foolish.

that all aside- if it does work out that tivo takes a significant hit in the validity of their patents it will be interesting to see if they can execute a business model that doesn't have their patent portfolio as a leg to stand on. 

If they can't, I hope that google steps in, otherwise we're all going to be stuck with cable company dvrs which although better lately dont exactly knock tivo's stagnant butt to the curb.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

Joe3 said:


> Maybe they will finally stop paying attention to lawyers and start paying attention to their cruddy UI!





killzone said:


> My post was because i agree with the previous poster that Tivo should spend more time developing a more compelling product ...





MichaelK said:


> it will be interesting to see if they can execute a business model that doesn't have their patent portfolio as a leg to stand on.


I also wish that we would see more technical innovation out of TiVo. Half-baked products like the Premiere are not a good sign of that.

Unfortunately I think it will be business as usual unless we get regime change, starting at the top. Tom Rogers is a glad-handing media type. He's happy to go around making deals and filing lawsuits. But delivering compelling new products .... not so much!


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> I also wish that we would see more technical innovation out of TiVo. Half-baked products like the Premiere are not a good sign of that.
> 
> Unfortunately I think it will be business as usual unless we get regime change, starting at the top. Tom Rogers is a glad-handing media type. He's happy to go around making deals and filing lawsuits. But delivering compelling new products .... not so much!


Agree completely. Rogers is there to make deals, not to run an engineering company. The premiere is a perfect example of his leadership.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> Unfortunately I think it will be business as usual unless we get regime change


I think it will be business as usual until a massive change in consumer behavior fosters a more profitable marketplace for DVRs.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

bicker said:


> I think it will be business as usual until a massive change in consumer behavior fosters a more profitable marketplace for DVRs.


That is the bottom line - people think DVRs should be cheap or even free. Of course both the cable and satellite companies have promoted this by using DVRs as loss leaders (building most of the cost into other areas of their services) to get you to stay on their equipment and with their service. So even if the FCC somehow magically gets a solution so third party DVRs function properly and seamlessly with cable and satellite video services it will still be very hard (mostly impossible) for third party DVR providers like TiVo to compete on price.

Access to web content is the one area where a third party DVR provider can provide added value over what a cable or satellite provider would be willing to provide. TiVo has work on this for several years, but most (all?) of what they offered is now being built into TVs, Blu-Ray players, and other cheap subscription free add on boxes.

Lets be honest in the future if someone has a device with Google TV on it why would they need a DVR to do anything more than be a DVR? TiVo must provide a superior web access and TV viewing experience to what Google TV is claiming they will provide or there will be no way for TiVo to command a high enough price to survive.

Thanks,


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> That is the bottom line - people think DVRs should be cheap or even free. Of course both the cable and satellite companies have promoted this by using DVRs as loss leaders (building most of the cost into other areas of their services) to get you to stay on their equipment and with their service. So even if the FCC somehow magically gets a solution so third party DVRs function properly and seamlessly with cable and satellite video services it will still be very hard (mostly impossible) for third party DVR providers like TiVo to compete on price.
> 
> Access to web content is the one area where a third party DVR provider can provide added value over what a cable or satellite provider would be willing to provide. TiVo has work on this for several years, but most (all?) of what they offered is now being built into TVs, Blu-Ray players, and other cheap subscription free add on boxes.
> 
> ...


Your analysis leaves out the hassle factor that comes with any 3rd pty DVR (like TiVo) as your cable co installs and services their DVR (on sight) at no extra cost to the customer. Most people on this Forum can handle the TiVo but the vast majority of technical challenged people find it hard (how many people only used their VCRs to watch a rented movie as they could not even set the time never mind record on the unit).


----------



## killzone (Oct 19, 2000)

MichaelK said:


> tivo's patent isn't just about writing to a hard drive while playing back. people are so ignorant. If one takes just a few minutes to read they would find out it's way more complex then that. The fact that they have been locked in a battle with Dish all these years shows it's a hell of a lot more complex then that.
> 
> one could argue if there patent has merit or if it's obvious, stupid or novel, whatever.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but if the summary of what they are claiming the patent on doesn't hold up then the details are irrelivent. If they are claiming some stolen code or logic, then fine, but the concept that they are claiming a patent on is just fundamental functionality. If they can't compose a compelling summary, then they should lose before it even starts. The pause, playback, live stream, recorded blah blah blah it's all fundamental operations.

They need to focus on a compelling product that they do better than anyone else and then it won't be an issue of trying to sue for income.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

killzone said:


> ...claiming a patent on is just fundamental functionality.


If you are referring to recording video to a hard drive, then yes. But TiVo can play back the same video it's recording before it is finished. As far as I know that a unique feature that didn't exist before TiVo created it. It may be ruled to be an obvious patent, but I would think that 1 click purchasing should be as well and it's held up under scrutiny. I believe TiVo calls this feature, Time Warp.


----------



## aaroncgi (Apr 13, 2010)

atmuscarella said:


> That is the bottom line - people think DVRs should be cheap or even free. Of course both the cable and satellite companies have promoted this by using DVRs as loss leaders (building most of the cost into other areas of their services) to get you to stay on their equipment and with their service. So even if the FCC somehow magically gets a solution so third party DVRs function properly and seamlessly with cable and satellite video services it will still be very hard (mostly impossible) for third party DVR providers like TiVo to compete on price.
> 
> Access to web content is the one area where a third party DVR provider can provide added value over what a cable or satellite provider would be willing to provide. TiVo has work on this for several years, but most (all?) of what they offered is now being built into TVs, Blu-Ray players, and other cheap subscription free add on boxes.
> ...


Let's not forget another source of content which you won't find on a lot of cable and satellite DVRs (or Moxi) - Off The Air reception/recording. Or if their DVR does have it, you won't be able to use it without buying their service, which at a minimum is probably going to be $30-40 per month. And you don't own the DVR, so as soon as you drop cable/satellite, there goes your OTA recording as well.

The fact that a cable or satellite provider can lease a DVR to us for next to nothing means squat if we have to spend $30+ a month for their services. That's like our local phone company who constantly wants us to 'bundle and save'. Except in order to save $5-10 a month, we would have to spend $30 more per month than we do now. It's the new math. Our goal with the Tivo was to reduce our monthly fees. The fact that it allows us easy access to Netflix as well as the media libraries on our home computers is added icing on the cake. We were perfectly happy with the DVR performance of our Dish DVR - just not the monthly bill. Now that we've seen what else the Tivo can offer us in addition to live TV, we see no reason to go back to Dish or sign up for Comcast.

We understand that most people want way more content than OTA/Netflix can provide, and are willing to pay for it, that's totally cool. We are pleased as punch that Tivo offers us all the functionality of our Dish DVR, but using OTA signals, plus a whole lot more. I know we're probably in the smallest niche of consumers, but Tivo perfectly fills our needs. Do we wish the Tivo subscription was less expensive? Sure, but give us another option that will do what the Tivo can using OTA, for less money! We didn't find any options other than building another computer, and the cost analysis of that vs a Tivo is certainly debateable.


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> If you are referring to recording video to a hard drive, then yes. But TiVo can play back the same video it's recording before it is finished. As far as I know that a unique feature that didn't exist before TiVo created it. It may be ruled to be an obvious patent, but I would think that 1 click purchasing should be as well and it's held up under scrutiny. I believe TiVo calls this feature, Time Warp.


Also, a method for doing that with less expensive hardware. Devices that could record video to hard drives where significantly more expensive at the time and not really available to the consumer.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> I think it will be business as usual until a massive change in consumer behavior fosters a more profitable marketplace for DVRs.


I think that the fact DVR's are having such trouble gaining market share is due to their cost and continuing fees associated with them. Most people aren't willing to put out so much cash for a device that many consider a "smart VCR". They'd rather use a VCR or a DVD recorder if pressed. Others don't feel like doing the research needed to determine which DVR to get, so they go the easy route and get the one their provider offers.

When DVR's are offered at less than $100.00 with no recurring fees everyone will get one. Until TiVo decides they want to sell hardware that will never happen for them as they are currently hung up on selling software with recurring fees and licensing. TiVo needs to have an inexpensive recorder that does manual recordings with no fees, but is expandable with both hardware and software.


----------



## aaroncgi (Apr 13, 2010)

lessd said:


> Your analysis leaves out the hassle factor that comes with any 3rd pty DVR (like TiVo) as your cable co installs and services their DVR (on sight) at no extra cost to the customer. Most people on this Forum can handle the TiVo but the vast majority of technical challenged people find it hard (how many people only used their VCRs to watch a rented movie as they could not even set the time never mind record on the unit).


From what I saw helping a friend correct her A/V system problems yesterday, cable company installation is _not_ a benefit! The way they screwed up her system cabling was unreal. I had to basically disconnect every component and start from scratch.


----------



## killzone (Oct 19, 2000)

Stormspace said:


> If you are referring to recording video to a hard drive, then yes. But TiVo can play back the same video it's recording before it is finished. As far as I know that a unique feature that didn't exist before TiVo created it. It may be ruled to be an obvious patent, but I would think that 1 click purchasing should be as well and it's held up under scrutiny. I believe TiVo calls this feature, Time Warp.


In a commercially available DVR yes, perhaps they were the first, only because fundamentally you couldn't do something like that in a VCR. But from a computer persepective, that had been done before. That is where I have the problem with the patent. They may have brought the hardware to the consumer level (as an appliance), but functionality like being able to read from a file being written too is not special at all. Once you bring a hard drive into the equation that kind of functionality comes along with it. You would almost have to go out of your way to not allow it.

I really think there are some serious problems with the patent office. Something like 1-click purchasing is really pushing the limits. I think they have a tendency to favor any usage of an existing feature as patentable. To me that's just not the same as someone forging metal into the shape of a funnel and patenting the design. When it comes to UI design (and one could possibly stretch 1-click to it), I do think there is more of a design aspect to it than just claiming some existing functionality as being new and unique.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

killzone said:


> In a commercially available DVR yes, perhaps they were the first, only because fundamentally you couldn't do something like that in a VCR. But from a computer persepective, that had been done before. That is where I have the problem with the patent. They may have brought the hardware to the consumer level (as an appliance), but functionality like being able to read from a file being written too is not special at all. Once you bring a hard drive into the equation that kind of functionality comes along with it. You would almost have to go out of your way to not allow it.


What Tivo patented is a way to create an on the fly video index on disk that allows trick play to work much smoother on low powered cpu's. Tivo is trying to stretch that patent to cover just about anyway you could make a dvr work. The patent office seems to feel their patent is much narrower than Tivo claims.


----------



## aaroncgi (Apr 13, 2010)

Stormspace said:


> I think that the fact DVR's are having such trouble gaining market share is due to their cost and continuing fees associated with them. Most people aren't willing to put out so much cash for a device that many consider a "smart VCR". They'd rather use a VCR or a DVD recorder if pressed. Others don't feel like doing the research needed to determine which DVR to get, so they go the easy route and get the one their provider offers.
> 
> When DVR's are offered at less than $100.00 with no recurring fees everyone will get one. Until TiVo decides they want to sell hardware that will never happen for them as they are currently hung up on selling software with recurring fees and licensing. TiVo needs to have an inexpensive recorder that does manual recordings with no fees, but is expandable with both hardware and software.


In theory I agree with most everything you say. I used VCRs to record for many years. However, the advantages of name-based recording and dual tuners recording at the same time cannot be understated as compared to VCR (or DVD) recording. While I like the idea of an inexpensive Tivo recorder with manual recording and no fees, in reality, I don't think it's a device we'd be interested in, especially if it only had one tuner. If we had never owned a name-based dual tuner recorder, then sure, we'd probably be the first to buy such a device. But since we spent 4 years using a Dish DVR, there's no way we are going back to timer based recordings and only being able to record one thing at a time (yes even with OTA only, a single tuner is a major limitation).

Compared to using a VCR, Tivo really was a revolutionary way to record. Putting out an inexpensive Tivo that does not possess any more functionality than a VCR would really be a huge step backwards and I don't think it would sell well, either. How many people are buying VCRs, DVD recorders, or hard-drive recorders to record TV now, honestly? And you know how feature-stripped upgradeable products are priced. By the time you add all the upgrades, you have spent as much (usually more) as the complete product was to begin with.


----------



## killzone (Oct 19, 2000)

HiDefGator said:


> What Tivo patented is a way to create an on the fly video index on disk that allows trick play to work much smoother on low powered cpu's. Tivo is trying to stretch that patent to cover just about anyway you could make a dvr work. The patent office seems to feel their patent is much narrower than Tivo claims.


Even breaking it down to the specifics of what they are claiming, doesn't really help their cause. Indexing on the fly is a fundamental function of any database. Trying to bring low powered cpu's into the mix is just their attempt to try to pretend there is something unique about what they are doing.

I'm certainly glad Tivo brought the DVR to the consumer level and I wish they did keep their product miles ahead of the competition, such that it didn't pay for them to build their own. Unfortunately, they have let innovation slide and are trying for some cheap shots.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

killzone said:


> In a commercially available DVR yes, perhaps they were the first, only because fundamentally you couldn't do something like that in a VCR. But from a computer persepective, that had been done before. That is where I have the problem with the patent. They may have brought the hardware to the consumer level (as an appliance), but functionality like being able to read from a file being written too is not special at all. Once you bring a hard drive into the equation that kind of functionality comes along with it. You would almost have to go out of your way to not allow it.


this is where you have not read the details and are making some enormous and incorrect assumptions. The patents that DISH was initially charged with infringing boil down to a software and a hardware piece of the puzzle.
The software part - and where TiVo made its innovation was to specifically hash mark particular frames in the mpeg stream as the encoded stream was being written to the drive (recorded). This allowed for very simple playback and trickplay as all the playback hardware had to do was move x number of those hash-marks and 'display the frame for that hash-mark. The algorithms TiVo came up with were new and patentable. The hash marking system also allowed for an easy to make piece of hardware to buffer the reading and writing from the hard drive. It was that hardware that was patented, not the hard drive or how it performed reads and writes. Indeed the fact that they could just use simple off the shelf hard drive with no special firmware in it was what allowed for a cheap consumer priced DVR. Oh - they also had broken out the audio to its own stream and used the same markups to keep it in sync. that was part of the low powered CPU design
Dish was found to have use the same algorithms and initially similar hardware in its DVR designs and that specific part of the patents was likely not overturned by the patent office.
a higher court said the incorrect use case was used to determine the hardware itself infringed and TiVo elected to not go back to lower court and do that part all over again. Important to note that the higher court never said the hardware did _not_ infringe, just that the lower court did not use the correct test to determine that.

so fear mongering aside - this does indeed mean that TiVo has no patent on simply taking media and putting it in digital format on a drive. Other folks can come up with their own way and actually most digital streams today are simply written as is with no markup. 
TiVo does still however have the patent on their algorithms for hash marking for smooth trick play they are famous for and that can not just be duplicated without a license agreement.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

aaroncgi said:


> In theory I agree with most everything you say. I used VCRs to record for many years. However, the advantages of name-based recording and dual tuners recording at the same time cannot be understated as compared to VCR (or DVD) recording. While I like the idea of an inexpensive Tivo recorder with manual recording and no fees, in reality, I don't think it's a device we'd be interested in, especially if it only had one tuner. If we had never owned a name-based dual tuner recorder, then sure, we'd probably be the first to buy such a device. But since we spent 4 years using a Dish DVR, there's no way we are going back to timer based recordings and only being able to record one thing at a time (yes even with OTA only, a single tuner is a major limitation).
> 
> Compared to using a VCR, Tivo really was a revolutionary way to record. Putting out an inexpensive Tivo that does not possess any more functionality than a VCR would really be a huge step backwards and I don't think it would sell well, either. How many people are buying VCRs, DVD recorders, or hard-drive recorders to record TV now, honestly? And you know how feature-stripped upgradeable products are priced. By the time you add all the upgrades, you have spent as much (usually more) as the complete product was to begin with.


While I agree that it would be going backwards, I think that TiVo and other DVR manufacturers have gotten everyone they are going to get. They need something to break the status quo and get them moving again. Additional features for more cost doesn't seem to be working for them, so the alternative is to lower prices, remove features, and hope you can have a product that appeals to a broader market.

How about this for a TiVo:
@< $100 
TiVo Personal: 10 hours of recording time with manual recordings. Use flash memory instead of a HDD as a cost savings.
+12.95/month
TiVo Personal Plus: Add a subscription to get guide data and the assorted software features.

Allow TiVo branded add-on products, or with a sub unlock the ports that allow you to connect add-on drives to the device to increase storage.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

killzone said:


> ...The pause, playback, live stream, recorded blah blah blah it's all fundamental operations...


Well it is now, after TiVo made it happen that way, and others mimicked (or stole?) the idea...


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

orangeboy said:


> Well it is now, after TiVo made it happen that way, and others mimicked (or stole?) the idea...


+1

Issues with the PTO aside, there is no doubt that TiVo invented/revolutionized the DVR market. They were granted patents and should be able to take advantage of those. I do think that recording video to a hard drive is an obvious thing, however TiVo has done some things that aren't obvious and should be rewarded for that.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

aaroncgi said:


> From what I saw helping a friend correct her A/V system problems yesterday, cable company installation is _not_ a benefit! The way they screwed up her system cabling was unreal. I had to basically disconnect every component and start from scratch.


Yes I have seen this type of cable screw up also, but not every cable installation gets screw up, and with a TiVo you do have to do it yourself.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> TiVo does still however have the patent on their algorithms for hash marking for smooth trick play they are famous for and that can not just be duplicated without a license agreement.


Which Dish has shown they no longer use. They now do an on the fly average and guess that works almost as well without using any disk space for the index.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

orangeboy said:


> Well it is now, after TiVo made it happen that way, and others mimicked (or stole?) the idea...


Replay did the same thing at the same time. It wasn't just Tivo that made it happen.


----------



## killzone (Oct 19, 2000)

ZeoTiVo said:


> this is where you have not read the details and are making some enormous and incorrect assumptions. The patents that DISH was initially charged with infringing boil down to a software and a hardware piece of the puzzle.
> The software part - and where TiVo made its innovation was to specifically hash mark particular frames in the mpeg stream as the encoded stream was being written to the drive (recorded). This allowed for very simple playback and trickplay as all the playback hardware had to do was move x number of those hash-marks and 'display the frame for that hash-mark. The algorithms TiVo came up with were new and patentable. The hash marking system also allowed for an easy to make piece of hardware to buffer the reading and writing from the hard drive. It was that hardware that was patented, not the hard drive or how it performed reads and writes. Indeed the fact that they could just use simple off the shelf hard drive with no special firmware in it was what allowed for a cheap consumer priced DVR. Oh - they also had broken out the audio to its own stream and used the same markups to keep it in sync. that was part of the low powered CPU design
> Dish was found to have use the same algorithms and initially similar hardware in its DVR designs and that specific part of the patents was likely not overturned by the patent office.


Ok that points to specifically stolen code. If this is what they are claiming the infringement on, the summary should have at least mentioned that fact (i.e. the Timewarp, trickplay and all that is just sideshow nonesense that isn't the infringement).


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

HiDefGator said:


> Replay did the same thing at the same time. It wasn't just Tivo that made it happen.


TiVo did it about a month earlier than Replay


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

killzone said:


> Ok that points to specifically stolen code. If this is what they are claiming the infringement on, the summary should have at least mentioned that fact (i.e. the Timewarp, trickplay and all that is just sideshow nonesense that isn't the infringement).


Tivo has never once suggested that Dish stole their code. Tivo haas always said that the DVR's independently designed by Dish used the same design they patented.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

orangeboy said:


> TiVo did it about a month earlier than Replay


Tivo "shipped" a DVR one month before Replay. Both first editions were so buggy that I'm not sure that says much. Maybe who had the lowest quality standards at the time. Honestly they were both unreliable for months.


----------



## killzone (Oct 19, 2000)

HiDefGator said:


> Tivo has never once suggested that Dish stole their code. Tivo haas always said that the DVR's independently designed by Dish used the same design they patented.


Ok, so either they used their specific algorithm for hash marking specific frames in a special way (i.e. stole or used their code as the basis) or they didn't. If we are comming back to indexing, then I don't care if it's video data or just plain bytes, it's indexing and that has been done for decades in various forms. If they have some very specific groundbreaking methodology, then I don't for a second believe Dish would have come up with the same thing independently. If they truly did, then it is plainly trivial or fundamental and isn't worthy of a patent.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

killzone said:


> Ok, so either they used their specific algorithm for hash marking specific frames in a special way (i.e. stole or used their code as the basis) or they didn't. If we are comming back to indexing, then I don't care if it's video data or just plain bytes, it's indexing and that has been done for decades in various forms. If they have some very specific groundbreaking methodology, then I don't for a second believe Dish would have come up with the same thing independently. If they truly did, then it is plainly trivial or fundamental and isn't worthy of a patent.


Do you imagine that ATT, VZ, Microsoft, NDS, Comcast, Cox, TW, Motorola, Replay, et. al. all stole their software source and copied it? The simple truth is the way Tivo did it is the way any software engineer assigned the problem would come up with.

Dish no longer uses an index for positioning and trick play. The index method was what Tivo patented.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

The problem with the Patent Office is that the examiners that approve them rarely have CS degrees. In fact, at one time CS degrees weren't on the list of approved degrees for examiners (not sure about today). That meant that examiners couldn't recognize what would, to any experienced software engineer, be obvious as the noonday sun prior art.

Also, have you ever read a software patent? The way lawyers word them is totally bizarre, far from how an engineer would do it, and it makes figuring out what is actually being patented very, very hard. I could write a patent for strcpy and most engineers couldn't figure out that's what I patented. It makes getting overbroad patents past an examiner much too easy.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

orangeboy said:


> Well it is now, after TiVo made it happen that way, and others mimicked (or stole?) the idea...


Are you forgetting that latest Patent Office decision was based on a fact that there was a prior art to TiVo patent and TiVo should not been granted patent in a first place? Assuming that Patent Office did spent some time reviewing prior art and TiVo patent before they wrote 32 page decision, what makes you say that TiVo made it happen and not stole the idea from the available prior art and patented it under fancy "time warp" title?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

killzone said:


> ... the concept that they are claiming a patent on is just fundamental functionality.


Since this patent fight has being going on for so long, with TiVo winning as often as not, you must come to realize that your statement here is an opinion, and one that is only held by a portion of the folks who know. The fact is that reasonable people disagree about this. It is not "just" anything. It is a matter of reasonable disagreement, the resolution of which, if that ever occurs, will be objectively arbitrary, favoring one side over another, for no reason other than there is no way for both sides to prevail.



killzone said:


> They need to focus on a compelling product that they do better than anyone else and then it won't be an issue of trying to sue for income.


That is absolute bull. You're assuming that there is a healthy, highly-profitable marketplace for DVRs. Ten years of history shows that that's not the case.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> When DVR's are offered at less than $100.00 with no recurring fees...


They'll be as crappy as VCRs were when they dropped in price below what it would take to foster high-quality VCRs in the marketplace.



Stormspace said:


> everyone will get one. Until TiVo decides they want to sell hardware that will never happen for them as they are currently hung up on selling software with recurring fees and licensing.


If selling the hardware was such a good deal, then CE manufacturers that had put out DVRs in the past but no longer do so would never have stopped doing so.

So we're faced with a choice: Either consumers change, and start being willing to pay big money, or all that we'll have available to us is utter crap.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> They'll be as crappy as VCRs were when they dropped in price below what it would take to foster high-quality VCRs in the marketplace.
> 
> If selling the hardware was such a good deal, then CE manufacturers that had put out DVRs in the past but no longer do so would never have stopped doing so.
> 
> So we're faced with a choice: Either consumers change, and start being willing to pay big money, or all that we'll have available to us is utter crap.


Because what they are doing now is working so good. 

It's possible you have been spoiled by TiVo. Utter crap might just be "good enough" for the masses. 

The issue is price. No one is willing to take the risk on something with so many options it's hard to understand at the price points being offered, continuing fees, and with a long term commitment.

By offering something under a hundred dollars with no fees they would at least be getting a foot in the door. As it is now, cable is kicking their butt with almost free units. Of course cable hasn't made it easy for third party DVR manufacturers either with all the infrastructure shuffling they've been doing.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Satellite TV represents 29% of the TV market and TIVO is shut out of that market. This lawsuit seems to be the only way TIVO can generate revenue from the satellite TV market. As an investor, I'm skeptical about investing in a DVR company that is shut out of 29% of the market.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

shwru980r said:


> Satellite TV represents 29% of the TV market and TIVO is shut out of that market. This lawsuit seems to be the only way TIVO can generate revenue from the satellite TV market. As an investor, I'm skeptical about investing in a DVR company that is shut out of 29% of the market.


I would be leery about cable industries efforts to sabotage the third party market as well.


----------



## killzone (Oct 19, 2000)

HiDefGator said:


> Do you imagine that ATT, VZ, Microsoft, NDS, Comcast, Cox, TW, Motorola, Replay, et. al. all stole their software source and copied it? The simple truth is the way Tivo did it is the way any software engineer assigned the problem would come up with.
> 
> Dish no longer uses an index for positioning and trick play. The index method was what Tivo patented.


I think that was part of my point. If everyone comes up with the same solution independently, then it is such a fundamental solution (and hardly Intelectual property) that it's rediculous to grant a patent on it. They didn't develop something special, they just coded it first or were the only ones with the balls to patent something that's already been done in concept a million times.


----------



## killzone (Oct 19, 2000)

bicker said:


> That is absolute bull. You're assuming that there is a healthy, highly-profitable marketplace for DVRs. Ten years of history shows that that's not the case.


Perhaps your right, there is just no way to make money with a DVR or perhaps they just haven't done anything special enough to make it so it's more cost effective for companies to come to them for boxes rather than develop their own. Maybe there are too few people that truly care about DVR functionality and a standard POS cable box with 15 hours is good enough.

Personally, I think the premier is a dissapointment. For the amount of money they are spending on development it should have had 4 tuners, DLNA support, much better HMO (streaming options) and an extender.


----------



## killzone (Oct 19, 2000)

shwru980r said:


> Satellite TV represents 29% of the TV market and TIVO is shut out of that market. This lawsuit seems to be the only way TIVO can generate revenue from the satellite TV market. As an investor, I'm skeptical about investing in a DVR company that is shut out of 29% of the market.


71% of the market is nothing to sneeze at. Apple is doing rather well with iPhone specific revenue and they have access to under 20% of the market.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

killzone said:


> 71% of the market is nothing to sneeze at. Apple is doing rather well with iPhone specific revenue and they have access to under 20% of the market.


They have a product that's easy to understand and for their iPod/iPad lines have devices that don't require a monthly fee, yet at the same time generate income by selling content.


----------



## killzone (Oct 19, 2000)

Stormspace said:


> They have a product that's easy to understand and for their iPod/iPad lines have devices that don't require a monthly fee, yet at the same time generate income by selling content.


True, but they are making a LOT of money just looking at iPhone sales alone, and that does require a subscription (data plan, cell phone contract, etc) and right now they have access to under 20% of the cell phone market.

I'm just pointing out that being shut out of 29% of the sattelite market, in and of itself is not a huge limit on profitability potential.

They just need better penetration into the 71% of Cable, OTA and FIOS users that seem content with either no DVR or whatever their provider offers.

Of course it's easier said than done, but in theory if apple can come up with a phone and interface that gets people to want to shell out big bucks for it over the free phones offered by cell providers, Tivo could to do the same with the DVR market.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

killzone said:


> Of course it's easier said than done, but in theory if apple can come up with a phone and interface that gets people to want to shell out big bucks for it over the free phones offered by cell providers, Tivo could to do the same with the DVR market.


the "public" has been trained to buy a cell phone themselves. the public knows they need a cell phone. The public will search out a cell phone to buy. when the average joe wants a dvr he calls his cable company. that is tivo's big problem. there just is no viable retail market for standalone dvr's today.

the other problem tivo has is that the average consumer only wants\needs the basic dvr features. joe average does not need amazing search features to find dancing with the stars. he already knows when it runs.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

killzone said:


> I'm just pointing out that being shut out of 29% of the sattelite market, in and of itself is not a huge limit on profitability potential.


I'm pointing out that there's a new DirecTivo HD coming out some year, so they aren't even shut out of satellite.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

killzone said:


> If everyone comes up with the same solution independently, then it is such a fundamental solution (and hardly Intelectual property) that it's rediculous to grant a patent on it. They didn't develop something special, they just coded it first or were the only ones with the balls to patent something that's already been done in concept a million times.


That's just how the US patent system works. It's stupid, but it's a fact. E.g. here's an egregious example. One choice quote:

_The integrated microprocessor memory management unit (MMU) was developed by Childs et al. of Intel, and awarded U.S. patent number 4,442,484._​
An MMU is logic that allows a CPU to manage memory more easily. The concept has been known for decades. But, thanks to Moore's law, it became possible to "integrate" the CPU logic and MMU logic. And so Intel did it. The concept of "integrating" more and more functionality onto a single piece of silicon has been blindingly obvious for decades. And yet patents continue to be awarded for such simple ideas.

In broad terms:

fabrication limitations mean function C is on a single silicon chip​fabrication limitations mean function M is on a different silicon chip​
Moore's law means that over time you can fit more transistors onto a single silicon chip, so we get:

function C and function M are both fabricated on the same silicon chip​
Voila! A patent!

And, in the chip game, if it's too simple to get patented, then all all the "inventors" need to do is something "stupid". It doesn't matter what; just patent it and use it. Someone trying to clone your product must do that same "stupid" thing to be compatible. There might be a better way to do things, but you can't do things better. That was the essence of how Intel kept AMD down. Do a stupid MMU, patent it, profit!


----------



## Ennui (Sep 2, 2008)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> That's just how the US patent system works. It's stupid, but it's a fact. E.g. here's an logic that allows a CPU to manage memory more easily. The concept has been known for decades. But, thanks to Moore's law, it became possible to "integrate" the CPU logic and MMU logic. And so Intel did it. The concept of "integrating" more and more functionality onto a single piece of silicon has been blindingly obvious for decades. And yet patents continue to be awarded for such simple ideas.
> 
> In broad terms:
> 
> ...


Many years ago when I was writing patent applications for Honeywell, one of the first tests for non-patentability was "obvious to one skilled in the art". I assume this is still the case.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Because what they are doing now is working so good.


Stop thinking the whole world revolves around you.



Stormspace said:


> It's possible you have been spoiled by TiVo. Utter crap might just be "good enough" for the masses.


"Might"? What are you talking about with "might"?



Stormspace said:


> By offering something under a hundred dollars with no fees they would at least be getting a foot in the door.


If you think it is such a good idea, why not let them use your money? 

Get a grip on reality, kid.


----------



## vurbano (Apr 20, 2004)

I am a big Tivo user but at this point isnt this case a bit like Henry Ford complaining to the patent office about Toyota, GM and etc?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

vurbano said:


> I am a big Tivo user but at this point isnt this case a bit like Henry Ford complaining to the patent office about Toyota, GM and etc?


No.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

I think that Tivo has been complaining and has had a lawsuit pending with Dish for many years now. It's not like Tivo said it was okay to steal from us for now and we'll make you pay later.



vurbano said:


> I am a big Tivo user but at this point isnt this case a bit like Henry Ford complaining to the patent office about Toyota, GM and etc?


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> Stop thinking the whole world revolves around you.
> 
> "Might"? What are you talking about with "might"?
> 
> ...


So good for TiVo of course. Stop being such a prat.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)




----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> So good for TiVo of course. Stop being such a prat.


You have to be kidding. You spat B.S. about needing a TiVo needing to cost less than $100 and how terrible the monthly fees are (which of course you could eliminate by paying for lifetime up front) and at the same time say how great it is that apples ipod and ipad don't have any fees. Well lets see and ipad will run $700-$1000 or more than a TiVo Premiere with lifetime. Even an ipod will cost you $100-$350 and it is primarily an MP3 player.

Frankly if someone wants a POS DVR they can get it from their provider but it will cost more than $100/year (not just a $100). If they want one for OTA they will either have to build their own or pay $1000s for a costume one as no one else currently makes one. The last one that available was from dish-network, cost $250, and had 1000s of completes on all the forums I checked.

Bicker is right TiVo's problem is people like you that think a high quality DVR shouldn't cost anything. Which is B.S.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> Bicker is right TiVo's problem is people like you that think a high quality DVR shouldn't cost anything. Which is B.S.


All 4 of my HR's were either free or less than $100. Numbers 2, 3, & 4 cost me $6 each per month for programming and dvr service combined.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

HiDefGator said:


> All 4 of my HR's were either free or less than $100. Numbers 2, 3, & 4 cost me $6 each per month for programming and dvr service combined.


True, but if you wanted to buy them outright they would cost you over $400 each. If TiVo could afforf the subsidy like DirecTV does they could make TiVo HD or Premiere hardware free.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

HiDefGator said:


> All 4 of my HR's were either free or less than $100. Numbers 2, 3, & 4 cost me $6 each per month for programming and dvr service combined.


See my earlier post (Number 17 in this thread). Both Dish and Direct use DVRs as loss leaders and justification to lock new subscribers into lengthy contracts. However you will not get free DVRs past the first one now, one of my friends just went with dish and had to pay a $200 upfront additional rental fee for the second DVR. There are also lots of people that paid big bucks for Direct HD TiVos. Even now if you want to own a dish or direct DVR the Costs are pretty high. However I agree there have been many points in time when the loss leader and/or retention deals from dish or direct were great - timing has been/is everything with Satellite DVR deals.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

samo said:


> True, but if you wanted to buy them outright they would cost you over $400 each. If TiVo could afforf the subsidy like DirecTV does they could make TiVo HD or Premiere hardware free.


why would I want to buy them outright? the monthly fee is the same either way. and with them being leased I get free replacement if one dies instead of being out $400. as you say Tivo simply cannot afford to give them away the way the MSO's do. it isn't a level playing field. never has been.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> However you will not get free DVRs past the first one now, one of my friends just went with dish and had to pay a $200 upfront additional rental fee for the second DVR.


My newest HR is less than 6 months old. I paid $99 for it just like all the others. And for my $99 a man came to my house, set it up, tried to show me how to use it, and tweaked my dish alignment while he was here.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

HiDefGator said:


> My newest HR is less than 6 months old. I paid $99 for it just like all the others. And for my $99 a man came to my house, set it up, tried to show me how to use it, and tweaked my dish alignment while he was here.


You must be a better negotiator than most people. My friend was already with direct and had 2 SD DVRs and couldn't get them to upgrade her to HD ones when they purchased new HD TVs without paying more than she did to dish for a completely new setup. On the negative side with Dish my parents had their dish move in a windstorm last month just enough so it had to be re-aligned (took 5 minutes) and dish charged them $100 for the visit. I personally had to pay dish $120 for the 510 receiver I purchased back in 2004 and that was a clearance deal after a newer model had been released (plus the $6/mo).

So I would say you are doing better than most by getting things as low as your are.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> You have to be kidding. You spat B.S. about needing a TiVo needing to cost less than $100 and how terrible the monthly fees are (which of course you could eliminate by paying for lifetime up front) and at the same time say how great it is that apples ipod and ipad don't have any fees. Well lets see and ipad will run $700-$1000 or more than a TiVo Premiere with lifetime. Even an ipod will cost you $100-$350 and it is primarily an MP3 player.
> 
> Frankly if someone wants a POS DVR they can get it from their provider but it will cost more than $100/year (not just a $100). If they want one for OTA they will either have to build their own or pay $1000s for a costume one as no one else currently makes one. The last one that available was from dish-network, cost $250, and had 1000s of completes on all the forums I checked.
> 
> Bicker is right TiVo's problem is people like you that think a high quality DVR shouldn't cost anything. Which is B.S.


I'm going to assume I wasn't clear and you didn't just fail to read my posts. Everyone here in this forum is perfectly happy with the state of things cost wise for the most part or we wouldn't have TiVo's. What I was suggesting was that in order for TiVo to gain market share they needed to create an entry level device with no fees. I suggested one way to do this would be to offer an inexpensive upgradable device.

TiVo is not growing, expensive lifetime memberships and hardware isn't working for them either. Even the low cost hardware with a monthly fee hasn't worked for them, so that leaves a device that many of us would consider to be crippled but has no fees, or a change in consumer behavior and what they value as Bicker has suggested.

TiVo can't really control how people think, so offering a product that more people find enticing (not just us) is where they need to go.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> What I was suggesting was that in order for TiVo to gain market share they needed to create an entry level device with no fees. I suggested one way to do this would be to offer an inexpensive upgradable device.


TiVo tried this about 5 years ago with their TiVo Basic devices (DVD players and DVD recorders). There was no service fee, but functionality was limited. They didn't do very well so they stopped selling them.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

My suggestion many years ago was for them to offer a reduced feature set at no subscription fee for the cost of the hardware. Then once those users are hooked they can sign up for a subscription and a software update gives them full functionality. But today I'm not sure that strategy would even work. The burden of researching them, buying one, installing it with cable cards is just too great compared to the leased one from the MSO for a single phone call.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

morac said:


> TiVo tried this about 5 years ago with their TiVo Basic devices (DVD players and DVD recorders). There was no service fee, but functionality was limited. They didn't do very well so they stopped selling them.


These devices of which you speak were very expensive. 

I'm talking about a device under a hundred dollars. TiVo has never sold a DVR for under a hundred dollars you could buy in a store. They've offered sub 100.00 DVRs on their web site several times, but you couldn't walk into a Best Buy and pick up one for that.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> These devices of which you speak were very expensive.
> 
> I'm talking about a device under a hundred dollars. TiVo has never sold a DVR for under a hundred dollars you could buy in a store. They've offered sub 100.00 DVRs on their web site several times, but you couldn't walk into a Best Buy and pick up one for that.


The Series 2 540 was well under $100 (after rebates of $150 each) but with Lifetime costing $300, that puts the floor under TiVo pricing, even a free TiVo would cost you at least $299.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

lessd said:


> The Series 2 540 was well under $100 (after rebates of $150 each) but with Lifetime costing $300, that puts the floor under TiVo pricing, even a free TiVo would cost you at least $299.


Rebates complicate things and they aren't available everywhere. I'm talking about a product for under a 100.00 to entice the masses into trying TiVo. HighDefGator has a very good point about the current cable environment making decisions difficult for the user.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

HiDefGator said:


> . But today I'm not sure that strategy would even work. The burden of researching them, buying one, installing it with cable cards is just too great compared to the leased one from the MSO for a single phone call.


this is waht Stormspace is overlooking - a cheap SD box would be feasible. Heck just make the S2 record by time only and sell what is left for 200$ each. Then if they want they can buy full TiVo service, but if they wnat HD capability built in or can be upgraded to then you have the TiVo HD line at bottom and selling those for 200$ would just be a loss to TiVo and a gamble at best that they would get service on enough to make money. To Further complicate things - people that spent 800$ on the original S3 and could not do a manual recording without service ever would pitch a ***** that would have a kernel of justification in it, etc...


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Since this discussion has wandered so far off topic, I'll just add here that we went on vacation recently and were stuck with a Comcast DVR. It's amazing to me that people think that they're getting a bargain with these things. 

I guess it goes to show how much people value the convenience of plugging something in and being assured that it will work with no hassle. Reaching that hassle-free state either through a change in content delivery paradigms or FCC regulations is really TiVo's only hope of regaining more than niche status for it's subscription service.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> this is waht Stormspace is overlooking - a cheap SD box would be feasible. Heck just make the S2 record by time only and sell what is left for 200$ each. Then if they want they can buy full TiVo service, but if they wnat HD capability built in or can be upgraded to then you have the TiVo HD line at bottom and selling those for 200$ would just be a loss to TiVo and a gamble at best that they would get service on enough to make money. To Further complicate things - people that spent 800$ on the original S3 and could not do a manual recording without service ever would pitch a ***** that would have a kernel of justification in it, etc...


I completely agree that the proposed product would not make anyone here happy, except maybe Medialivingroom. 

Even a unit that controlled the cable box or DTA, recorded SD and did an upconvert to HD would be fine for the "average" person. Of course TiVo can do nothing and hope that they can reproduce the Apple model of a boutique item for a small number of people. I just thought that with the ad revenue model they have been shooting for, getting these into more homes was the goal.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

killzone said:


> I think that was part of my point. If everyone comes up with the same solution independently, then it is such a fundamental solution (and hardly Intelectual property) that it's rediculous to grant a patent on it. They didn't develop something special, they just coded it first or were the only ones with the balls to patent something that's already been done in concept a million times.


If TiVo said the patent was broad and covered any recording an anlog media stream to the hard drive in a digital format I would agree with this interpretation. However the specifics of the patent are much more detailed than that and cover software and *hardware* that was designed by TiVo directly. You should really get more familiar with the patent if you want to keep making public statements about it. Being so far off base about it just negates any point you may have.

Also patents are there specifically to insure businesses can invest money in the simple and obvious without getting run out of town by a bigger company who just takes it over and wins by sheer size and market power. Which is exactly what DISH is trying to do.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

nrc said:


> Since this discussion has wandered so far off topic, I'll just add here that we went on vacation recently and were stuck with a Comcast DVR. It's amazing to me that people think that they're getting a bargain with these things.
> 
> I guess it goes to show how much people value the convenience of plugging something in and being assured that it will work with no hassle. Reaching that hassle-free state either through a change in content delivery paradigms or FCC regulations is really TiVo's only hope of regaining more than niche status for it's subscription service.


Honestly I think that because these things are easy to acquire people see them and assume the TiVo will work the same way. I don't know this, I'm just guessing. I do know that many people I talk to don't want another bill associated with TV. A subscription free device is the only thing most people will consider and if it means manual recordings that's what they will do, however most of the people I know that might have bought a TiVo choose Hulu and internet video instead.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> Even a unit that controlled the cable box or DTA,


I know of a few folks who were just totally mystified by the 2 box setup. One was an ER nurse and others of decent intelligence. But they simply hated they could not 'watch live TV" no matter how many different ways I showed them it could be done if they just kept in mind it was 2 boxes one controlling the other.

They might sell but they would not be something you would see in correct use a lot. Steve Jobs said the fundamental problem is that no 3rd party can currently do the broadcasters services on their box and that negates any 'go to market' plan as it always becomes another box instead of THE box. Even TiVo is half beholden to the cable company in the form of cable cards and SDV dongles or else the older style IR blaster rig. We all know that has been a big part of the tough sell TiVo has faced all along. A low price point in itself does not fix the beholden to the cable company problem.

Actually my neighborhood is full of people who are amazed when they see the "now playing" list on our TVs. I had one child's friend whom I had to politely steer away from the TV as she kept coming over mainly to watch some shows . However the adults did _not even feel like calling the cable company_ to get a DVR no matter how much the exclaimed over the ease of watching with the TiVo. Cable Cards put them in a tizzy.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I know of a few folks who were just totally mystified by the 2 box setup. One was an ER nurse and others of decent intelligence. But they simply hated they could not 'watch live TV" no matter how many different ways I showed them it could be done if they just kept in mind it was 2 boxes one controlling the other.
> 
> They might sell but they would not be something you would see in correct use a lot. Steve Jobs said the fundamental problem is that no 3rd party can currently do the broadcasters services on their box and that negates any 'go to market' plan as it always becomes another box instead of THE box. Even TiVo is half beholden to the cable company in the form of cable cards and SDV dongles or else the older style IR blaster rig. We all know that has been a big part of the tough sell TiVo has faced all along. A low price point in itself does not fix the beholden to the cable company problem


That's a very good point, but at a low enough price you might get more experimenters.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> These devices of which you speak were very expensive.
> 
> I'm talking about a device under a hundred dollars. TiVo has never sold a DVR for under a hundred dollars you could buy in a store. They've offered sub 100.00 DVRs on their web site several times, but you couldn't walk into a Best Buy and pick up one for that.


As lessd pointed out there was a time when TiVo was giving away the hardware. Both of my Series 2 TiVos were free after rebates. I paid $300 for lifetime on the Humax that I am still using and $7/mo on the TiVo Series 2 until I retired recently in March. That didn't workout very well for them either according to their financial reports. There is no way to build a cable DVR and sell it for $100 without losing money. Cable card licensing adds substantial to the cost of the product. There is also no way for them to under cut providers as the providers can subsidize the cost with subscription fees. So they have to compete on added value.

Until people believe TiVo adds value that is worth paying a premium for Tivo will continue to have limited success.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> Until people believe TiVo adds value that is worth paying a premium for Tivo will continue to have limited success.


and that is the bottom line


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> I completely agree that the proposed product would not make anyone here happy, except maybe Medialivingroom.


oh - and this was funny  - especially the maybe part.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> What I was suggesting was that in order for TiVo to gain market share they needed to create an entry level device with no fees.


The objective of a for-profit enterprise is profit, not market share. Greater market share for an unprofitable product means that they lose money faster.



Stormspace said:


> TiVo is not growing, expensive lifetime memberships and hardware isn't working for them either. Even the low cost hardware with a monthly fee hasn't worked for them, so that leaves a device that many of us would consider to be crippled but has no fees, or a change in consumer behavior and what they value as Bicker has suggested.


There may be no profitable business case for a stand-alone HD DVR. The Moxi doesn't seem like it's offering its owners substantial profitability. (Heck, sometimes it seems like even non-stand-alone DVR maker Motorola is trying to dump its division. Maybe there isn't enough profit to be had in making cable-company-provided DVRs.)

TiVo's best way forward may to just maintain this foothold in the stand-alone marketplace as a proving ground for their skunkworks (like TiVo Search beta) and focus their business on providing software to service providers.



Stormspace said:


> TiVo can't really control how people think, so offering a product that more people find enticing (not just us) is where they need to go.


*Only *if doing so would provide enough revenue to justify the cost of such a superior product.


----------



## tivohaydon (Mar 24, 2001)

ZeoTiVo said:


> If TiVo said the patent was broad and covered any recording an anlog media stream to the hard drive in a digital format I would agree with this interpretation. However the specifics of the patent are much more detailed than that and cover software and *hardware* that was designed by TiVo directly. You should really get more familiar with the patent if you want to keep making public statements about it. Being so far off base about it just negates any point you may have.
> 
> Also patents are there specifically to insure businesses can invest money in the simple and obvious without getting run out of town by a bigger company who just takes it over and wins by sheer size and market power. Which is exactly what DISH is trying to do.


Think I've said it before - pretty obvious stuff. Lots of people who have a clue have come to that conclusion and now apparently the Patent Office has gotten a clue and determined that too. I don't know how you're defending the patent when the Patent Office itself is tearing it down.

Many times adding detail to patents has nothing to do with the functionality being integral to the patent. It's there to obscure the fact there's no real invention.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

tivohaydon said:


> Think I've said it before - pretty obvious stuff. Lots of people who have a clue have come to that conclusion and now apparently the Patent Office has gotten a clue and determined that too. I don't know how you're defending the patent when the Patent Office itself is tearing it down.


The Patent Office ruled against TiVo's patents last time they reviewed and then reversed their decision. The same thing could happen this time.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> Since this patent fight has being going on for so long, with TiVo winning as often as not, you must come to realize that your statement here is an opinion, and one that is only held by a portion of the folks who know.


It's more (or less, if you will) than that. It's a foolish statement. Many lawyers may lack integrity (many do not), but virtually no high powered lawyer is stupid, and few judges are, either. His posts suggests the individuals involved in the lawsuit are idiots who cannot understand simple concepts. This is just nonsense.



bicker said:


> The fact is that reasonable people disagree about this.


Well, not so much, I think. Dish and its lawyers realize there is a big difference between being a thief and being jailed as one. I think their maneuvers in this case suggest very strongly they know perfectly well Dish infringed on the patents in question, and continue to do so. The fact does not prevent them from realizing they stand a very good chance of getting away with it, at least for a time extending into the future.



bicker said:


> It is not "just" anything. It is a matter of reasonable disagreement, the resolution of which, if that ever occurs, will be objectively arbitrary, favoring one side over another, for no reason other than there is no way for both sides to prevail.


Not necessarily. The resolution may not favor either one, or it's even possible a compromise solution might be reached that favors both. I'm not saying it's the case: legally TiVo has Dish by the cojones right now, but until someone actually forces Dish to quit ignoring court orders against them, it's a temporally moot point.



bicker said:


> That is absolute bull. You're assuming that there is a healthy, highly-profitable marketplace for DVRs. Ten years of history shows that that's not the case.


I think your intent is correct this time, but I think you stated the case a little vaguely. There doesn't seem to be a highly profitable marketplace for CONSUMER DVRs. I'm not sure how important that really is, since there doesn't seem to be a highly profitable marketplace for almost any consumer item, yet hundreds of consumer item manufacturers are doing quite well. From cutlery to kitchen mixers to toilet seats, plenty of companies are out there making money. More to the point, however, is the fact Cisco and Motorola are making a very pretty penny selling DVRs. Cisco is very happily selling DVRs - and lousy ones, at that - to their highest volume customers at $450 a pop in lots of 10,000 or more. I imagine they sell to their smaller customers at over $600, each. Of course, Cisco and Motorola don't subsidize the expense of producing the hardware with a fee for delivering a guide.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> The objective of a for-profit enterprise is profit, not market share. Greater market share for an unprofitable product means that they lose money faster.


It's amazing how many businessmen don't understand this. In the vernacular, one cannot sell at a loss and make up for it in volume. OTOH, many companies have made a winning gamble out of underselling their competition by incurring a loss, and then raising prices once they have the market cornered. It's a very risky strategy, though, and one only a company with very deep pockets can contemplate. More generally, incurring short-term financial stress for the sake of long-term profitability is a winning strategy - if one can pull it off.



bicker said:


> There may be no profitable business case for a stand-alone HD DVR.


There may be no profitable business case for selling electricity, or gasoline. Anything can happen to a market sector, and when it does, hugely profitable enterprises can dry up almost overnight, or previously stagnant sales can suddenly skyrocket. Few people, however, have ever gone broke over-estimating the capacity of the American consumer to purchase.



bicker said:


> The Moxi doesn't seem like it's offering its owners substantial profitability.


'No surprise, there. They're late into the game in a soft economy, they have almost zero brand recognition, and they offer a less than superior product at a higher price than their competition. It doesn't help that they don't offer the financial incentives and discounts (especially for multiple devices) TiVo does, either.



bicker said:


> (Heck, sometimes it seems like even non-stand-alone DVR maker Motorola is trying to dump its division. Maybe there isn't enough profit to be had in making cable-company-provided DVRs.)


I wouldn't be surprised if it were true, but I expect it isn't due to a lack of profitability. I would expect it is due to Cable's well documented intent to implement downloadable security and the efforts of companies like Pace. Cisco and Motorola have something of a choke-hold on the CATV companies right now, but with DS, that choke-hold is broken, and they can no longer charge exorbitant prices to the CATV companies, for essentially non-patented hardware. OTOH, if it turns out TiVo can make a case for the hardware being under patents - TiVo's patents - the CATV equipment providers are once again scuttled. They aren't right now, but soon they may be standing between a rock and a hard place.



bicker said:


> TiVo's best way forward may to just maintain this foothold in the stand-alone marketplace as a proving ground for their skunkworks (like TiVo Search beta) and focus their business on providing software to service providers.


Someone has to provide the hardware. If it isn't profitable to do so, then it won't be done. There are far too many DVRs entering the marketplace for this to be the case, and no one is in any better position than TiVo to do it - especially if Dish is ultimately forced to pay the piper. It does need to happen soon, though. If it doesn't happen within the next 24 months, TiVo is going to be facing a tough road ahead of them.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> I think your intent is correct this time, but I think you stated the case a little vaguely. There doesn't seem to be a highly profitable marketplace for CONSUMER DVRs.


I used to say pretty-much precise that. I've started posting a more "vague" statement, because of how displeased Motorola seems to be with their division. With Comcast choosing UK-based Pace for their next-generation STBs, that's just going to make the whole sector yet-even-less profitable.



lrhorer said:


> I'm not sure how important that really is, since there doesn't seem to be a highly profitable marketplace for almost any consumer item, yet hundreds of consumer item manufacturers are doing quite well.


It is different for other consumer products: Higher volume perhaps would have only helped TiVo lose money faster, while for most consumer products, even though they don't make much money on each unit, they do make some money on each unit, and therefore selling more of them makes up for not making much on each. As you yourself said:


lrhorer said:


> In the vernacular, one cannot sell at a loss and make up for it in volume.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> OTOH, many companies have made a winning gamble out of underselling their competition by incurring a loss, and then raising prices once they have the market cornered. It's a very risky strategy, though, and one only a company with very deep pockets can contemplate. More generally, incurring short-term financial stress for the sake of long-term profitability is a winning strategy - if one can pull it off.


As you pointed out, the companies pursuing such a strategy must have deep pockets. I suppose one can speculate that Apple and Microsoft are well-positioned to do this, in this space, but haven't been successful in doing so.

Beyond that, what I've noted is that once a company does successfully use this strategy, the same consumers who were calling for more choices so that they could enjoy lower prices are the ones complaining most loudly at the inevitable end-result of getting what they asked for -- as you indicated, the end-result would be fewer choices at higher prices. Consumers, especially those who are the ones clamoring in this regard now, would be *far* better-off engaging the market the way it is, paying healthily-profitable prices for what they want.

Indeed, if I wasn't a capitalist, I'd say that what you've described makes it clear that consumers would be better off with markets subject to regulation ensuring that consumer products cannot be sold at a loss. (Of course, it would be practically impossible to impose record-keeping requirements necessary to prove that, but that's neither here nor there.)


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

morac said:


> The Patent Office ruled against TiVo's patents last time they reviewed and then reversed their decision. The same thing could happen this time.


It could but I'll bet the odds are against it. I haven't seen any stats for how many get rejected twice by 2 different sets of reviewers then go on to be ruled OK. And Tivo had plenty of time to work with both sets of reviewers and they both still said no.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> It's amazing how many businessmen don't understand this. In the vernacular, one cannot sell at a loss and make up for it in volume.


I think that when many people talk about this concept, it has to do with the manufacturer buying in bulk to realize a profit. Reselling something you purchased 50 of will have a higher cost than one you purchased 1000 of on a per unit basis. This is primarily due to the cost of manufacturing being on the front end with machine setup, r&d, and such. So making up for it in volume would apply if the manufacturer was able realize a cost savings by purchasing raw materials in volume thus spreading out the fixed cost over a greater number of units.


----------



## killzone (Oct 19, 2000)

lrhorer said:


> 'No surprise, there. They're late into the game in a soft economy, they have almost zero brand recognition, and they offer a less than superior product at a higher price than their competition. It doesn't help that they don't offer the financial incentives and discounts (especially for multiple devices) TiVo does, either.


That is not exactly true. How many 3 tuner units does Tivo offer? How many extender units does Tivo offer?

If you can get by with 1 3 tuner unit and an extender or 2 or 3, you will save money with a Moxi.

In any case they are in the same boat as Tivo with respect to the masses not caring if they have a cable co DVR at all (a surprising number of people still just use a standard cable receiver) , let alone something better than that.

Until a real DVR becomes a must have to a lot more people, it's going to be a tough market.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> As you pointed out, the companies pursuing such a strategy must have deep pockets. I suppose one can speculate that Apple and Microsoft are well-positioned to do this, in this space, but haven't been successful in doing so.


Steve Jobs is quoted as saying there simply is no 'go to market' strategy with a 3rd party DVR that is so reliant on broadcasters to work well. Apple still has zero interest in the DVR space and sees apple TV as a hobby thing.

Now if things changed and it was easy to hook up a 3rd party device and get the full interactive broadcast service - then I assume he sees a 'go to market' plan that is workable.


----------

