# This just in: TiVo Files Complaints Against AT&T and Verizon



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

> TiVo Files Complaints for Patent Infringement Against AT&T and Verizon Communications in United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas; Seeking Damages and Injunction


source: Tivo Media Room


----------



## sgip2000 (Jun 19, 2009)

Looks like they're going after anyone who's made DVR software. Is Microsoft next?


----------



## kevinwill1 (Apr 18, 2004)

sgip2000 said:


> Looks like they're going after anyone who's made DVR software. Is Microsoft next?


Uh oh.. TiVo is on the warpath, I think. Too bad they can't use some of this aggressive energy to tell us more about the new TiVo machine or at least an idea of when we may see one!!


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Didn't Echostar just file for a patent review? 

I guess this means that the patents were upheld, or at least Tivo thinks they will be.


----------



## sgip2000 (Jun 19, 2009)

steve614 said:


> Didn't Echostar just file for a patent review?
> 
> I guess this means that the patents were upheld, or at least Tivo thinks they will be.


Tivo's request to have Echostar's request thrown out was thrown out.

Can this get anymore confusing?


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

Earnings webcast in progress now http://investor.tivo.com/phoenix.zh...tId=2372342&WebCastId=901861&StreamId=1352371

Details being provided


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

sgip2000 said:


> Can this get anymore confusing?


Definitely confusing the way you worded that.

Did you mean to say -- ''Tivo's request to have Echostar's request thrown out was successful.'' Meaning that the patent review was declined?


----------



## mchief (Sep 10, 2005)

Since Tivo is losing subs, I guess there methodology for making money will be law suits. Hell of a business model.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

mchief said:


> Since Tivo is losing subs, I guess there methodology for making money will be law suits. Hell of a business model.


Actually, it's more like TiVo wants to see it's IP on more and more devices. I'm guessing they are going to be working toward more and more licensing deals.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

kevinwill1 said:


> Uh oh.. TiVo is on the warpath, I think. Too bad they can't use some of this aggressive energy to tell us more about the new TiVo machine or at least an idea of when we may see one!!


What "new TiVo machine"?


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

mchief said:


> Since Tivo is losing subs, I guess there methodology for making money will be law suits. Hell of a business model.


It is hell of the business model. TiVo made profit on E* law suit, they lost money on everything else. They are going back to the same court and everybody knows that this court has a record of awarding damages in more than 80% of all cases. Very good extortion technique. I bet AT&T and Verizon will settle, nobody is as stubborn as Charlie.


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

It seems simple to me. TiVo believes they came up with a unique idea, and a unique way of implementing it, they patented their ideas, and now they feel they have the rights to be paid by anyone who wants to use it. Why invest money in creating if anyone else can just pick up your work product and profit off it it?


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

During the conference call, TiVo said the new DirecTiVo product was "on track" and that it expected to roll out new product and "new product developments" with Best Buy in early 2010. TiVo alluded to some user interface improvements on the new product.

During the conference call, TiVo suggested the hardware business wasn't going anywhere. Their focus for deployment is on the combination of their hardware and software. TiVo suggested that writing for middleware was not an effective use of their resources in many situations, especially on cable systems with older hardware / infrastructure.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

TiVo Cowboy to other DVR companies:.

"Hey, nice little DVR ya got ther pardner. Now it looks to me like you dun stolen that there little patent thingy we got in file with them gov boys over in warshington. I ben thinkn y'all need to pony up a ltl protection fee to us so you can keep using yor ltl dvr thingy, we can get u a purty ltl lisence thata wayso we can all be happy. Now whatya say?"

*TiVo Cowboy draws his big gun and points it*

Nice plan if it works.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

With their win against Echostar, I guess it was only a matter of time.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/329084-TiVo_Sues_Verizon_AT_T_For_Patent_Infringement.php


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=432267


----------



## fasTLane (Nov 25, 2005)

MScottC said:


> It seems simple to me. TiVo believes they came up with a unique idea, and a unique way of implementing it, they patented their ideas, and now they feel they have the rights to be paid by anyone who wants to use it. Why invest money in creating if anyone else can just pick up your work product and profit off it it?


Right on. Who do these jerk-wads think they are. *China?*


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

mchief said:


> Since Tivo is losing subs, I guess there methodology for making money will be law suits. Hell of a business model.


Well if the reason they are losing subs is because other companies are using the Tivo technology for their own benefit, at Tivo's expense, then yea it is a good business model.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Looks like someone took my advice to merge my thread and this one and update the title. 

Thanks.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Is taking on two behemoths at once really a good idea? 

Especially since they technically haven't finished with Echostar yet.


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

Will they ever be finished with Echostar?


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Will antitrust laws permit TIVO to have a monopoy on the DVR market?


----------



## TishTash (Jan 24, 2008)

steve614 said:


> Definitely confusing the way you worded that.
> 
> Did you mean to say: ''Tivo's request to have Echostar's request thrown out was successful.'' Meaning that the patent review was declined?


I took it to mean that TiVo's request to dismiss Echostar's patent review was turned down, i.e., Echostar was granted their request to review the patent.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

I don't know who's next, but this, on the surface, reminds me of the Gemstar cases a few years ago, when Gemstar filed suit against almost anybody that used an EPG.


----------



## kingkong316 (Jul 13, 2008)

[QUOTE} I bet AT&T and Verizon will settle, nobody is as stubborn as Charlie.[/QUOTE]

I hope so. But that all depends. If Verizon and AT&T already refused to strike deals Tivo may be in trouble.

These are old ma bell telcos. The amount of money Verizon has invested in their FIOS network is amazing. They certainly have the money and lawyers to keep this going for years. If Tivo continues to post losses by the time this is finished in the courts it may be cheaper for one of them to buy Tivo.

VZ has certainly positioned its own DVRs to compete with Tivo.

It will be interesting.


----------



## jfelbab (Jan 18, 2002)

AT&T and Verizon have much, much deeper pockets and leagues upon leagues of lawyers compared to E*. This could easily be in the courts for decades. In fact, at TiVo's current rate of sub decline, I suspect they may well be gone by the time this would be resolved.

Yup, this will be interesting.


----------



## tivohaydon (Mar 24, 2001)

shwru980r said:


> Will antitrust laws permit TIVO to have a monopoy on the DVR market?


That's what patent law allows to happen. Provided your patents hold up.

Personally I think the TiVo patents are patently obvious.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

And that's how strategic industry partnerships are formed. (bows)


----------



## lofar (Mar 21, 2008)

shwru980r said:


> Will antitrust laws permit TIVO to have a monopoy on the DVR market?


Yes. There's really no reason for the government to bring an anti-trust lawsuit against tivo. They have not formed or created a cartel and implemented any type of price pact with anyone, they have not engaged in predatory pricing or marketing strategies, and they have not purchased any other companies so as to create a less competitive market. Simply because a company is the only company manufacturering widget X does not mean that there are grounds to bring about an anti-trust lawsuit. It could simply be the case that there is only enough demand for widget X to support one company or that widget X is proprietary to the one company that makes it. If you look around you I bet you would find all sorts of things in your house that are technically 'monopolies' for that particular market. Progress would never be made if an antitrust lawsuit could be brought up simply because there is only one manufacturer of a product, otherwise everytime someone inveted something new they would be forced into bankruptcy fighting lawsuits or there would be no incentive for creating new products because you would be forced to give away your product and ideas.

Basically, I think as said by someone else that's what patents are for and designed to protect. And that is why there is a patent review process. Once you have a patent on something you are free to monopolize the market on it as much as you want. And if someone steals your widget X and makes it blue widget X or makes it widget XY you still own all rights and royalties for widget X regardless if its painted blue or glued onto widget Y.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

samo said:


> I bet AT&T and Verizon will settle, nobody is as stubborn as Charlie.


One would think that TiVo approached both AT&T and Verizon to settle before filing the lawsuit since lawsuits aren't cheap. If it's already in the suit stage, I would think that they refused TiVos advances.

Unlike Dish which supposedly outright stole their DVR model from TiVo, neither AT&T nor Verizon have had any direct contact with TiVo. TiVo will have to prove that AT&T and Verizon's DVR runs software that infringes on TiVo's patents. Though TiVo picked three patents this time instead of one, so they do have more ammunition then they did going into the Echostar fight. Still this isn't a slam dunk case.


----------



## sgip2000 (Jun 19, 2009)

TishTash said:


> I took it to mean that TiVo's request to dismiss Echostar's patent review was turned down, i.e., Echostar was granted their request to review the patent.


Correct.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MScottC said:


> It seems simple to me. TiVo believes they came up with a unique idea, and a unique way of implementing it, they patented their ideas, and now they feel they have the rights to be paid by anyone who wants to use it. Why invest money in creating if anyone else can just pick up your work product and profit off it it?


+1



lofar said:


> Yes. There's really no reason for the government to bring an anti-trust lawsuit against tivo. They have not formed or created a cartel and implemented any type of price pact with anyone, they have not engaged in predatory pricing or marketing strategies, and they have not purchased any other companies so as to create a less competitive market. Simply because a company is the only company manufacturering widget X does not mean that there are grounds to bring about an anti-trust lawsuit. It could simply be the case that there is only enough demand for widget X to support one company or that widget X is proprietary to the one company that makes it. If you look around you I bet you would find all sorts of things in your house that are technically 'monopolies' for that particular market. Progress would never be made if an antitrust lawsuit could be brought up simply because there is only one manufacturer of a product, otherwise everytime someone inveted something new they would be forced into bankruptcy fighting lawsuits or there would be no incentive for creating new products because you would be forced to give away your product and ideas.


+1

Good points made by both of you. I think "monopoly" is the new "the sky is falling" war cry by consumerists, who erroneously think of capitalism as a way for them to get _things _rather than a system whereby the means of production and service are privately-owned with profits going to the owners.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Many different companies manufacture VCRs and DVD recorders. Why would the courts permit TIVO to own the right to offer a DVR service?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

That isn't what the patent it for. It is much more specific to certain implementations of certain aspects of certain features. That's what these companies alleged (and Echostar has been found) to have infringed on.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

morac said:


> Unlike Dish which supposedly outright stole their DVR model from TiVo, neither AT&T nor Verizon have had any direct contact with TiVo. TiVo will have to prove that AT&T and Verizon's DVR runs software that infringes on TiVo's patents. Though TiVo picked three patents this time instead of one, so they do have more ammunition then they did going into the Echostar fight. Still this isn't a slam dunk case.


Verizon's Motorola DVRs are based on the same Broadcom CPUs as the Dish Network and TiVo DVRs. I believe the AT&T DVR is as well, although I'm not certain.

In the Dish Network case, there was a long parade of experts telling how the Broadcom CPU worked and how software interacted with it, with differing opinions as to what software interactions constituted infringement. TiVo has a number of legal precedents ("finding of facts") relating to those arguments, which were established and re-confirmed at the district and appellate levels. TiVo is not starting from scratch with these cases.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

bkdtv said:


> Verizon's Motorola DVRs are based on the same Broadcom CPUs as the Dish Network and TiVo DVRs. I believe the AT&T DVR is as well, although I'm not certain.
> 
> In the Dish Network case, there was a long parade of experts telling how the Broadcom CPU worked and how software interacted with it, with differing opinions as to what software interactions constituted infringement. TiVo has a number of legal precedents ("finding of facts") relating to those arguments, which were established and re-confirmed at the district and appellate levels. TiVo is not starting from scratch with these cases.


The Dish DVR hardware was never found to infringe and TiVo never pressed the matter, so it doesn't matter if the hardware is the same.

So it all comes down to software. TiVo isn't starting from scratch, but they still have to prove the software infringes.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

morac said:


> The Dish DVR hardware was never found to infringe and TiVo never pressed the matter, so it doesn't matter if the hardware is the same.
> 
> So it all comes down to software. TiVo isn't starting from scratch, but they still have to prove the software infringes.


I think you misunderstand the software claims. Many of the key software claims are hardware related. They describe how the software should use the hardware to provide DVR functionality. All of those claims were upheld.

Much of the DVR functionality in these boxes is accomplished through built-in hardware functions, and the act of using those functions in software can constitute infringement. The Broadcom SoCs provide very little in the way of general computing power, so there aren't many choices available in software design for a vendor that wants use those low-cost SoCs in a DVR product. Dish Network thought they'd found a way, but the District Court ruled that they had not.

You're right that the Appeals Court remanded the hardware claims to the District Court, and TiVo decided (so far) not to further pursue those claims. The jury found the Dish hardware to infringe, but the Appeals Court determined that the jury was given an improper set of instructions, which could have influenced its verdict on the hardware claims. If TiVo had asked for a jury decision based on the doctrine of equivalents, then those hardware claims would probably still stand.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

gotta make money somehow....
...paid advertising and patent cases...

subs? nah, who needs customers?


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

The other side of the issue. Assume FiOS and AT&T don't agree on licensing terms. Assume FiOS and AT&T think they might be infringing. Also assume bkdtv is correct with the relationship between tivo software and the Broadcom SoCs. I suspect Broadcom has a much bigger market if they can sell chipsets to vendors other then tivo. Broadcom will have incentive to produce a "next generation" chipset that will work with non infringing software. They might not even produce a "tivo only" chipset.

Henry Ford didn't get a patent on the assembly line. The first supermarket didn't get a patent on the idea of a checkout line. I'd be surprised if tivo wins a court case, and possible patent review, that gives tivo a patent on the idea of using a computer as a VCR with enhanced features.

It's in tivo's interest to come up with licensing terms acceptable to FiOS and AT&T.



bkdtv said:


> I think you misunderstand the software claims. Many of the key software claims are hardware related. They describe how the software should use the hardware to provide DVR functionality. All of those claims were upheld.
> 
> Much of the DVR functionality in these boxes is accomplished through built-in hardware functions, and the act of using those functions in software constitutes infringement. The Broadcom SoCs provide very little in the way of general computing power, so there aren't many choices available in software design for a vendor that wants use those low-cost SoCs in a DVR product. Dish Network thought they'd found a way, but the District Court ruled that they had not.
> 
> You're right that the Appeals Court remanded the hardware claims to the District Court, and TiVo decided (so far) not to further pursue those claims. The jury found the Dish hardware to infringe, but the Appeals Court determined that the jury was given an improper set of instructions, which could have influenced its verdict on the hardware claims. If TiVo had asked for a jury decision based on the doctrine of equivalents, then those hardware claims would probably still stand.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> That isn't what the patent it for. It is much more specific to certain implementations of certain aspects of certain features. That's what these companies alleged (and Echostar has been found) to have infringed on.


exactly - Microsft Media Center for instance does not violate a TiVo patent simply because it can record a show to the hard drive as an mpeg2 file.

For all we know currently -ATT&T and Verizon may not violate the patents.

we do know the why TiVo brought the suits though



> TiVo president and CEO Tom Rogers, on the company's earnings call Wednesday, said TiVo had made unsucessful attempts to reach commercial deals with AT&T and Verizon similar to those it has with Comcast, Cox Communications, RCN and DirecTV.
> 
> "Unfortunately, there are multichannel operators that compete with us due to the unauthorized use of our intellectual property," Rogers said.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

lew said:


> I suspect Broadcom has a much bigger market if they can sell chipsets to vendors other then tivo. Broadcom will have incentive to produce a "next generation" chipset that will work with non infringing software. They might not even produce a "tivo only" chipset.


That's just the problem they face. It is TiVo's innovation that made today's DVR functionality possible in low cost hardware. No one else has figured out an alternative (non-infringing) means of doing it cheaply. The first company to do so will make $$$$.

For now, the only alternative appears to be a brute force design with a lot of processing power (i.e. high-performance PC CPUs). No DVR manufacturers are interested in that, because they want to build dual-tuner DVRs for $200, not $800 or $1000.



ZeoTiVo said:


> exactly - Microsft Media Center for instance does not violate a TiVo patent simply because it can record a show to the hard drive as an mpeg2 file.


Storing the A/V streams together in a single muxed MPEG file does not mitigate infringement, because the audio and video streams are still separated in memory during the decoding process. That was established in the Dish Network suit.

I suspect Windows Media Center is non-infringing for other reasons.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> Many different companies manufacture VCRs and DVD recorders. Why would the courts permit TIVO to own the right to offer a DVR service?


Many different companies manufacture DVD-related items because they _license the applicable patents_, including patents related to MPEG-2, AC3, the design of the DVD disk itself, the format of the files placed on said disk, and others.

I don't think TiVo would have any problem being in a similar position to DVD CCA and DVD6C.

IIRC, there were also several patents that applied to VHS, although those may have expired by this point.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bkdtv said:


> Storing the A/V streams together in a single muxed MPEG file does not mitigate infringement, because the audio and video streams are still separated in memory during the decoding process. That was established in the Dish Network suit.
> 
> I suspect Windows Media Center is non-infringing for other reasons.


my statement was not that the mpeg2 file mitigated infringement, but that storing the recording on the hard drive as mpeg2 did not establish infringement. It was a response to the idea that any DVR or HTPC out there infringed solely because it was a DVR type device. As you point out, that is not the case.



wierdo said:


> Many different companies manufacture DVD-related items because they _license the applicable patents_, including patents related to MPEG-2, AC3, the design of the DVD disk itself, the format of the files placed on said disk, and others.
> 
> I don't think TiVo would have any problem being in a similar position to DVD CCA and DVD6C.
> 
> IIRC, there were also several patents that applied to VHS, although those may have expired by this point.


Indeed - TiVo as well had to deal with the applicable patents and Macrovision license when they made the DVD player/recorder models - and had to charge for Desktop plus mainly becasue they did the correct legal thing of paying a royalty for the mpeg encoder/decoder needed to make desktop plus work.


----------



## MitchW (Jun 5, 2002)

Like all the rest I read this article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aNMTG0WgrQmE

Tivo suing ATT and Verizon would really upset the applecart if they win. I have ATT Uverse and a Lifetime Sub to Tivo. As soon as ATT Uverse appeared I left cable and placed my Tivo in storage.

ATT Uverse has so much more in their package that I cannot imagine how Tivo hopes to win this lawsuit. There is simply no comparison.

In addition the DVR's are not manufactured by ATT. They are manufactured by 2 other companies (I believe Motorola and one other company). If anything in the Tivo claim is valid, why aren't they suing Motorola? They make the DVR. ATT merely functions as the cable company once did delivering TV, Internet and phone service (wireless was recently added as well).

The major difference is that ATT Uverse has major software upgrades monthly versus NONE in 5 years for my Cable company. They also allow total control of the DVR from the Internet in ways that Tivo never even imagined.

What has happened is that ATT Uverse has made it impossible to properly use the Tivo versus the Cable company which supplied Cable Cards. The Motorola DVR is much smaller than the Tivo in size and there is no room there for Cable cards.

The other difference is that ATT Uverse will replace the DVR the SAME day if it fails. Mine did fail and I received the replacement in just 6 hours. I am not sure how long Tivo would take to replace a failed DVR.

By the way, Scientific Atlanta also supplied DVR's to the Cable company but it in no way matched the Motorola I received. I had 3 of those and they did last 5 years but never did receive a software upgrade.

In addition all the software is manufactured by Microsoft who keeps the upgrades coming. Why isn't Tivo suing Microsoft. Microsoft is now introducing Media Share so pictures and music can be operated from the TV. Did Tivo patent that software before Microsoft or did Microsoft do it first? Windows Media Player is the operating software for that. Does Microsoft pay Tivo a royalty for WMP?

Tivo should upgrade their units so they can work with ATT Uverse. That is the path they should follow rather than the lawsuits.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

MitchW said:


> Tivo should upgrade their units so they can work with ATT Uverse. That is the path they should follow rather than the lawsuits.


It's at&t who are flouting the law, not TiVo. at&t somehow decided the separable security mandate doesn't apply to them.

Not that I care, the quality is sub-par. The only thing U-Verse has going for it over my cable company and TiVo is a larger channel selection. Of course, with the restrictions on simultaneous viewing along with the poor quality, inability to get more than one DVR, inability to schedule recordings from the secondary boxes, the online scheduling only working with iPhone, and many other shortcomings that extra selection isn't worth much


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The reason TiVo can't sue Motorola, or Broadcom, is because their patents have to do with how the software interacts with the hardware. Motorol sells cable companies DVRs, but the cable companies develop (or license) the software that actually runs on that hardware, so they are the ones infringing on the patents not Motorola.

As for the rest of your comments... The AT&T DVR could be the best thing since sliced bread, but as long as it uses TiVo's patented technology at it's core it's still infringing. TiVo shouldn't be expected to just roll over and die because some company with more money comes along and figures out how to use the technology they invented to better effect. That's just not how it works.

Dan


----------



## MitchW (Jun 5, 2002)

wierdo said:


> It's at&t who are flouting the law, not TiVo. at&t somehow decided the separable security mandate doesn't apply to them.
> 
> Not that I care, the quality is sub-par. The only thing U-Verse has going for it over my cable company and TiVo is a larger channel selection. Of course, with the restrictions on simultaneous viewing along with the poor quality, inability to get more than one DVR, inability to schedule recordings from the secondary boxes, the online scheduling only working with iPhone, and many other shortcomings that extra selection isn't worth much


One can watch simultaneously on many TV's the same or other programs. The one DVR enables all other STB's to record, watch and totally manipulate the programing. Internet programming works from the Internet; an Iphone is NOT required. Picture quality beats cable pictures HANDS DOWN.

Microsoft provides the programming and Motorola supplies the DVR. ATT only provides the TV, Internet and phone service. The difference is that fiber optics are used and not coax cable.

All TV programs are controlled from the internet for recorded programs, searching for new programs and viewing and changing scheduled series and individual programs.

ATT does NOT provide the software. Microsoft does that. Is Microsoft required to pay royalties to Tivo? Did Microsoft copy Tivo's patents for their Media Share functions or did Tivo copy that from Microsoft? Who pays who royalties?

The DVR and remotes are produced by Motorola under their own patents. Did they copy them from Tivo?

The only area where Tivo may have been wronged in my opinion is that ATT Uverse did not enable their process to run on Tivo units. There may be something wrong with that outcome. The Cable companies always allowed one to use Tivo units. That may have happened since ATT is not classified as a cable company. It is classified as a phone company and may not be subject to regulations governing cable companies.

There is no question that Tivo invented the first DVR and did patent it. Are all other manufacturers of DVR's required to pay royalties to Tivo? Ford invented the automobile here in America. Were all other automobile companies required to pay royalties to Ford?

It just may be that major industrial breakthroughs invalidate prior patents never used in those ways. That is a legal question and I am sure our courts will resolve it in the future.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

bkdtv said:


> They describe how the software should use the hardware to provide DVR functionality. All of those claims were upheld.
> 
> Much of the DVR functionality in these boxes is accomplished through built-in hardware functions, and the act of using those functions in software can constitute infringement.


Tivo doesn't own the hardware, but they have a patent on practical use of the hardware? Seems like broadcom is getting screwed. How can the courts uphold a patent on the use of something that TIVO doesn't own?


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> The AT&T DVR could be the best thing since sliced bread, but as long as it uses TiVo's patented technology at it's core it's still infringing.


The AT&T suit should be much more interesting than Verizon's, should it proceed, because the U-Verse software is largely powered by Microsoft (Mediaroom).



MitchW said:


> There is no question that Tivo invented the first DVR and did patent it.


ReplayTV has some reasonable claims as well. Although their IP has been gobbled up by TiVo partner DirecTV.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

bkdtv said:


> Much of the DVR functionality in these boxes is accomplished through built-in hardware functions, and the act of using those functions in software can constitute infringement.


Can you give more detail about this?



lew said:


> Henry Ford didn't get a patent on the assembly line. The first supermarket didn't get a patent on the idea of a checkout line. I'd be surprised if tivo wins a court case, and possible patent review, that gives tivo a patent on the idea of using a computer as a VCR with enhanced features.


First of all, Henry Ford did not invent the assembly line. Second of all, do you know if he even *tried* to get patents on his great *advancements* of the assembly line? I don't know, but at least according to Wikipedia, he did get a lot of patents in his lifetime.

Also, IMHO, it's more than a "VCR with enhanced features", since 1 Tivo (or any other DVR nowadays) replaces at least 1 VCR and 1 VCP, since you can play something else (or the same show, earlier) while recording.



shwru980r said:


> Many different companies manufacture VCRs and DVD recorders. Why would the courts permit TIVO to own the right to offer a DVR service?


Any other company can offer a DVR service, as long as they don't infringe on patents.

I believe Tivo patents are at least one reason why non-Tivo DVRs have a "time slip" mode, where you have to enter a specific mode to watch previous parts of the currently recording program.. rather than simply rewinding, or playing it from the normal list-of-episodes screen.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

MitchW said:


> One can watch simultaneously on many TV's the same or other programs. The one DVR enables all other STB's to record, watch and totally manipulate the programing. Internet programming works from the Internet; an Iphone is NOT required. Picture quality beats cable pictures HANDS DOWN.
> 
> Microsoft provides the programming and Motorola supplies the DVR. ATT only provides the TV, Internet and phone service. The difference is that fiber optics are used and not coax cable.


This is a complete derail, but as a former U-Verse subscriber, I have to respond.

First, U-Verse has a hard limit of no more than 2 HD programs at a time, so if you're recording two and want to watch another live? Out of luck. Recording one and have an HDTV in both the bedroom and living room and want to watch two different live HD programs? No dice.

The other STBs can not record programs, cannot trick play, or do anything else. They can play back shows already recorded on the DVR and watch live TV. That is the full extent of their functionality, much to my consternation.

You can indeed use a regular browser to record programming, however, the programming of the website is so poor that it can't be made to work on my completely standards compliant mobile phone. So if you want to schedule a program from your phone, you're stuck with the iPhone.

The picture quality on HD programming on a 47" 1080p set is noticeably inferior to Cox cable, despite Cox now cramming 3 HD channels on each QAM. When Cox was only 2 HD channels per QAM, it was like night and day. Now they have similar amounts of macroblocking, but the U-Verse signal is much softer most of the time. The odd part is that when the picture is completely static, the U-Verse MPEG encoders switch modes and the picture is razor sharp. As soon as something moves on the screen, it's right back to Vaseline on the lens time. The worst part is how it switches between sharp and soft continuously on a lot of programming. Very, very, very distracting.

Those artifacts are not nearly as noticeable on my 37" 720p set.

So no, unless your cable provider sucks, U-Verse loses _HANDS DOWN_ in quality.

And just for the record, almost all U-Verse customers are fiber-to-the-node using VDSL for transport over a single copper pair for the last thousand feet. Infuriatingly, despite my being literally next door to the VRAD and having a line that would easily support 4 or 5 HD channels at once (my sync rate was about 65Mbps), I was stuck in the same bucket as everybody else since they budget for a maximum of 25Mbps to any particular subscriber.

And also for the record, I tried out U-Verse because it looked rather decent at a friend's house. However, that friend a) only has one TV set, and b) does not have an HDTV. My conclusion: For someone with only one or two SD sets, U-Verse is quite good, aside from the DVR issues. If you have HD, it's pretty crappy.

To relate this to the thread, at&t gets sued because they are the ones distributing the boxes and software to the end user.

And FWIW, at&t is unambiguously a multichannel video provider, so calling themselves a 'phone company' does not exempt them from the separable security mandate. Verizon has chosen not to try to skirt the law and offers CableCARDs. (at&t doesn't have to, nor is it possible for them to offer CableCARDs, but they do have to have separate security card that third party devices can use)


----------



## GoHalos (Aug 30, 2006)

wierdo said:


> This is a complete derail, but as a former U-Verse subscriber, I have to respond.
> ...
> The other STBs can not record programs, cannot trick play, or do anything else. They can play back shows already recorded on the DVR and watch live TV. That is the full extent of their functionality, much to my consternation.


I won't comment on your other points (HD quality, etc., since I didn't have other HD providers before AT&T to compare to), but this point shows that you are indeed a former U-Verse customer, and not a current subscriber. The latest update to the software ( around 2-3 months ago) has allowed some DVR functionality to all set top boxes (watching shows, deleting shows, setting up recordings, managing season passes, etc.). It still does not have "trick play" functionality (pause and rewind live TV) except on the actual DVR unit.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

GoHalos said:


> I won't comment on your other points (HD quality, etc., since I didn't have other HD providers before AT&T to compare to), but this point shows that you are indeed a former U-Verse customer, and not a current subscriber. The latest update to the software ( around 2-3 months ago) has allowed some DVR functionality to all set top boxes (watching shows, deleting shows, setting up recordings, managing season passes, etc.). It still does not have "trick play" functionality (pause and rewind live TV) except on the actual DVR unit.


They must have updated the software the week after I canceled. Go at&t! 

There are other issues with the DVR that make it inferior to TiVo. That said, I have to give them props for the instant channel changes. It's pretty nifty how the streams start off unicast with the first frame always an I-Frame then seamlessly switches to the regular multicast stream.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MitchW said:


> Tivo suing ATT and Verizon would really upset the applecart if they win. I have ATT Uverse and a Lifetime Sub to Tivo. As soon as ATT Uverse appeared I left cable and placed my Tivo in storage.
> 
> ATT Uverse has so much more in their package that I cannot imagine how Tivo hopes to win this lawsuit. There is simply no comparison.


IANAL but then obviously neither are you. AN infringemnet suit is not about comparisons of systems. If you want to tout the benefits of Uverse then that is best served by starting another thread.


----------



## akaye (Jan 3, 2004)

bicker said:


> +1
> 
> +1
> 
> Good points made by both of you. I think "monopoly" is the new "the sky is falling" war cry by consumerists, who erroneously think of capitalism as a way for them to get _things _rather than a system whereby the means of production and service are privately-owned with profits going to the owners.


:up: F'in'-A, bubba.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

mattack said:


> ...
> I believe Tivo patents are at least one reason why non-Tivo DVRs have a "time slip" mode, where you have to enter a specific mode to watch previous parts of the currently recording program.. rather than simply rewinding, or playing it from the normal list-of-episodes screen.


As I heard TiVo patented the time line display and/or with jump to tick. I have seen close copies of that on other DVRs. You _never_ see other DVRs having jump back and multispeed FF and RW which I cannot live without.

I need jump back _in life._ I've tried to jump back things I see out the window.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Interesting to note that this suit includes two additional patents besides the original Time Warp that they've been fighting Echostar over. The second appears to be a refinement of the Time Warp patent and the third is their system for automatic playback overshoot correction.

6,233,389 B1 ("Multimedia Time Warping System")
7,529,465 B2 ("System for Time Shifting Multimedia Content Streams")
7,493,015 B1 ("Automatic Playback Overshoot Correction System").


----------



## MitchW (Jun 5, 2002)

In comparing the ATT Uverse/Motorola DVR to the Tivo DVR two points are important to note:

1. The ATT Uverse/Motorola DVR can control ALL TV's in the house which are NOT DVR's. The Tivo DVR can NOT do this. Recording is possible from ALL TV's in the house, not just the DVR. All of them direct a site on the Internet to set them up. Tivo does NOT do this.

2. If the ATT Uverse/Motorola DVR fails only the recordings on the DVR are lost - NOT the schedule of future recordings. Mine did fail just a few days ago and all my 228 recordings into the future were PRESERVED on the internet and returned to the new DVR when it was enabled. So far as I understand all Tivo scheduled recordings into the future are LOST if the unit fails.

Those two points make the Tivo suit against ATT Uverse pretty unlikely to succeed. That is why ATT refused to even discuss any compromises with Tivo. Their case is locked since now even if Tivo tries to implement those same features, they would have to pay ATT royalties with a license.

As I remember prior cases with different plaintiffs and defendants in the past, MAJOR changes in products destroy patent rights of past patent holders. These cases have cropped up frequently especially in the last 20 years. Tivo is not the first company to have been upstaged by major technology advances.

There is a third situation which makes the Tivo case look dim. Tivo DVR's were developed to work mainly on CABLE broadcasts. TELEPHONE broadcasts were never in their domain. Here in CT all the cable companies took ATT to court to block their threat to their monopolies. They LOST after higher courts ruled that ATT is NOT a cable company and not subject to cable company regulations by the FCC. I was paying $ 270 per month with my cable company without any upgrades for FIVE YEARS. I've had ATT Uverse for one month with TEN TIMES the channels available and software upgrades EVERY WEEK at a total cost of $ 148 for 6 months, 168 for the next 6 months and 188 thereafter. I subscribed to their most expensive plan.

When I had DVR problems with either TIVO or the Cable company, it took awhile to resolve and were resolved in TIME. My one failure with the ATT Uverse/Motorola DVR was resolved in SIX HOURS with a new unit installed without questions. They had a computer program in a notebook computer which located the problem in my system from the technician's truck exactly long before he even got to my house.

Frankly, I think that Tivo should drop their suit against ATT and work to develop a unit compatible with their system. The Tivo unit, if unique, could replace the Motorola DVR to control all other units in the house. ATT will probably defeat the cable companies totally within about 5 years. Verizon as well is using this new technology and will split the market with ATT.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

netringer said:


> You _never_ see other DVRs having jump back and multispeed FF and RW which I cannot live without.


I've used those on other DVRs.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Uh, patent infringement does not have anything to do with how *different* something is from what is patented. Patent infringement has to do with how *similar* it is to what is patented. So, for example, if what is patented is "Automatic Playback Overshoot Correction", then *anything* that implemented that one bit of functionality the same way without permission is infringing, even if it does a billion other things differently, and *even *if it builds on that one bit of functionality to accomplish many other things.


----------



## 98dbk3 (Jun 21, 2006)

bicker said:


> Uh, patent infringement does not have anything to do with how *different* something is from what is patented. Patent infringement has to do with how *similar* it is to what is patented. So, for example, if what is patented is "Automatic Playback Overshoot Correction", then *anything* that implemented that one bit of functionality the same way without permission is infringing, even if it does a billion other things differently, and *even *if it builds on that one bit of functionality to accomplish many other things.


I think I have to agree with bicker on this one. Having said that I still have to wonder if taking on two corporate behemoths like AT&T and Verizon at the same time, especially with their combined political influence, and deep pockets is such a good idea.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

MitchW said:


> In comparing the ATT Uverse/Motorola DVR to the Tivo DVR two points are important to note:
> 
> 1. The ATT Uverse/Motorola DVR can control ALL TV's in the house which are NOT DVR's. The Tivo DVR can NOT do this. Recording is possible from ALL TV's in the house, not just the DVR. All of them direct a site on the Internet to set them up. Tivo does NOT do this.
> 
> 2. If the ATT Uverse/Motorola DVR fails only the recordings on the DVR are lost - NOT the schedule of future recordings. Mine did fail just a few days ago and all my 228 recordings into the future were PRESERVED on the internet and returned to the new DVR when it was enabled. So far as I understand all Tivo scheduled recordings into the future are LOST if the unit fails.


Both of these points are irrelevant because it doesn't matter how the AT&T box sets up recordings or where the "To Do" list is kept. TiVo's patents have nothing to do with how recordings are scheduled, only on how the recordings (and playback) are actually done.

To make things easier to understand, here's an example. The mp3 codec is patented by a company named Fraunhofer. As such any hardware or software product that has mp3 playback capability, must license the technology from Fraunhofer. It doesn't matter what else those products do or how they do it. The list of companies that have licensed mp3 runs the gambit including TiVo, Apple, IBM, AOL, Garmin and Electronic Arts, just to name a few.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

bicker said:


> Uh, patent infringement does not have anything to do with how *different* something is from what is patented. Patent infringement has to do with how *similar* it is to what is patented. So, for example, if what is patented is "Automatic Playback Overshoot Correction", then *anything* that implemented that one bit of functionality the same way without permission is infringing, even if it does a billion other things differently, and *even *if it builds on that one bit of functionality to accomplish many other things.


Correct but it's possible some of the other DVR companies have different features, that might be protected by a patent. Some of those companies could enter into a cross licensing agreement with tivo as part of a settlement. FiOS uses MoCA to get guide data. I have no idea who has a patent on that application.

Tivo's current products are marketed to cable customers. It took a long time before tivo released a software version that works properly with FiOS. Years ago there was a joke that said Microsoft didn't release a new version of Windows until they made sure Lotus wouldn't run on it. Tivo is having enough issues with SDV dongles and cable cards already.

It is difficult to obtain, keep and enforce a patent on an "idea" (using a computer to store AV programming). I suspect tivo might be able to patent whatever algorithm they use for automatic playback overshoot. It's likely to be harder to prevent a company from implementing the feature in a different way.

Companies license mp3 because it works and because it's a standard. I don't think there is anything stopping a company from developing their own method of compressing AV data.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MitchW said:


> In comparing the ATT Uverse/Motorola DVR to the Tivo DVR two points are important to note:.


you are now just a troll just thread crapping for the sake of thread crapping. makes you look ridiculous.

Oh, BTW - youa re also wrong about points you make about TiVo.


----------



## MitchW (Jun 5, 2002)

It doesn't matter what any of us think of this lawsuit. The courts will decide and it will take many years.

What this points up is the Tivo Tragedy. Nine years ago when I first purchased my first Tivo, I was very excited about it and so was everyone else. It was cutting edge technology.

Movie producers were threatening to sue because Tivo was "illegally" copying their products. Advertisers were threatening to sue because Tivo allowed users to cut out their advertisements. Networks as well were all upset.

Cable companies as well said that Tivo had to pay them for the rights to copy their product. I believe many lawsuits were filed at the time. I do not know what their outcomes were.

It really didn't matter. Tivo had given us a new toy and we were not going to part with it regardless of the outcome of those controversies. It was fabulous. Tivo had repeated in 2000 what Sony had done with tape recorders in the 1980's. Folks sued Sony as well and they won their right to make copies on their VHS recorders after years of litigation were decided in the Supreme Court.

Today the shoe is on the other foot. Fiber Optics is the new toy on the block and everyone else is upset. Cable companies are suing and Tivo is suing. The outcomes of those suits are also irrelevant.

The new toys are ATT Uverse and Verizon FIOS. They will battle each other for dominance. For me I have spent more time playing with the new toy than even watching TV. Every week we get a new feature to exlore. Today's ATT Uverse IS THE TIVO of year 2000.


----------



## JimboG (May 27, 2007)

MitchW,

Do you have an HDTV? If so, what size and resolution?

If you do in fact have an HDTV, try this simple experiment:
hook up an over the air antenna and compare the picture quality on a CBS football game to a so-called HD channel with fast motion on U-verse.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

davezatz said:


> I've used those on other DVRs.


You mean you've used those on the DVRs of future patent suit defendants.


----------



## MitchW (Jun 5, 2002)

JimboG said:


> MitchW,
> 
> Do you have an HDTV? If so, what size and resolution?
> 
> ...


I have 3 HD TV's - all Sony 32". Frankly, I don't watch any sports even though my U450 service includes it. I watch only news programs (FOX, MSNBC), documentaries and political and historical dramas with a few religious programs mixed in.

So far as I am concerned, my ATT Uverse beats my old Charter displays. Its just fine for my purposes. I also watch historical dramas using Netflix to stream to my 24" Dell HD Monitor and with their DVD's on my TV's.

So far I've been more involved with all the Uverse features than even watching the TV, itself. I enjoy electronic "toys" and Tivo was my favorite one back in 2000.

Sony had to reinvent itself with TV's after their Betamax Standard for VHS was exploited by others with a different standard even though Sony sued their successors over it. Tivo should now reinvent itself as well. There is plenty of room for a new Total Home DVR Fiber Optic Capable like the Motorola. Of course to sell it a lot of new features will be required to distinguish it from the Motorola.

By the way that "time skip adjust" patent that Tivo owns has been used by Scientific Atlanta and Motorola for years. I don't know if Tivo ever sued them over that patent and, if they did, what was the outcome.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

MitchW said:


> I have 3 HD TV's - all Sony 32". Frankly, I don't watch any sports even though my U450 service includes it. I watch only news programs (FOX, MSNBC), documentaries and political and historical dramas with a few religious programs mixed in.
> 
> By the way that "time skip adjust" patent that Tivo owns has been used by Scientific Atlanta and Motorola for years. I don't know if Tivo ever sued them over that patent and, if they did, what was the outcome.


Ah, the 32" explains why you don't mind the poor PQ, although it's still not relevant to the thread.

As far as Motorola and SA/Cisco using time skip adjustment, they don't (at least motorola doesn't). Motorola boxes come bare. The cable company chooses what software to load on them. (Usually Passport on the Moto boxes). SARA may be an SA/Cisco product. I'm not sure.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

lew said:


> It is difficult to obtain, keep and enforce a patent on an "idea" (using a computer to store AV programming). I *suspect tivo might be able to patent whatever algorithm they use for automatic playback overshoot.* It's likely to be harder to prevent a company from implementing the feature in a different way.


Uh, they already did. That's one of the patents TiVo is claiming is being infrindged in the law suit.



lew said:


> Companies license mp3 because it works and because it's a standard. I don't think there is anything stopping a company from developing their own method of compressing AV data.


Well technically it's not a standard, but since everyone uses it, it might as well be. Also I didn't say there's anything stopping a company from developing their own compression methods and a number have done so. All I was saying is that if a company uses mp3 (for whatever reason), they have to license it.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

MitchW said:


> Sony had to reinvent itself with TV's after their Betamax Standard for VHS was exploited by others with a different standard even though Sony sued their successors over it. Tivo should now reinvent itself as well. There is plenty of room for a new Total Home DVR Fiber Optic Capable like the Motorola. Of course to sell it a lot of new features will be required to distinguish it from the Motorola.


Sony came up with the Betamax video standard. A year later JVC came up with the VHS format, a competing standard. Sony had nothing to do with VHS. Many people think the extended recording time available with VHS was the main reason why the Betamax format failed. 8-track lost to cassete. Blue-Ray format won the HD disk "format war".

It looks like tivo might want to "re-invent" themselves as Gemstar. Enforce their patents and collect licensing fees.


----------



## Dennis Wilkinson (Sep 24, 2001)

morac said:


> Well technically it's not a standard, but since everyone uses it, it might as well be.


<ntipick>Sure it is. 'MPEG' is, after all, a standards body, and 'mp3' is just shorthand for 'MPEG 1 Layer III Audio'.</nitpick>


----------



## MitchW (Jun 5, 2002)

See this link:

http://www.multichannel.com/article..._s_Time_Warp_Claims_In_Preliminary_Review.php

Here are some quotes from this article:

"The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, acting on a request by Dish Network and EchoStar, on Monday issued a preliminary rejection of two claims in TiVo's so-called "Time Warp" patent at issue in the years-long litigation between the companies.

In a statement, TiVo said the action taken by the patent office "is a preliminary finding, entered in the normal course before TiVo has had any opportunity to present its views."

The patent in question is TiVo's "Multimedia Time Warping System" patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389, which describes a DVR system that allows for simultaneous storage and playback of TV programming from a cable or satellite source.

The patent office, in its Aug. 3 re-examination, said two claims in the '389 patent related to indexing "now appear to be rendered obvious" by prior art in two patents: 6,018,612, granted to Philips for a system that simultaneously stores and plays back a TV program; and 5,949,948, granted to iMedia for a compressed video-playback system."

As in all lawsuits nothing is ever clear until the Supreme Court finally makes a ruling unless the parties agree to settle before that happens.

So far as the effect on us, the users, enjoyment of the device is the only important issue. Who wins this lawsuit will only determine how the profits are divided. As I see it, any outcome is possible at this stage. ATT and Verizon have not yet agreed to pay license fees to Tivo.

If the Patent Office affirms its preliminary decision, Tivo may have to pay license fees to Philips and iMedia. Interesting. Perhaps all the Cable companies, DVR manufacturers and telephone companies may have to pay license fees to Philips and iMedia. This lawsuit is really turning out to be a big can of worms for the entire industry.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Dennis Wilkinson said:


> <ntipick>Sure it is. 'MPEG' is, after all, a standards body, and 'mp3' is just shorthand for 'MPEG 1 Layer III Audio'.</nitpick>


Yeah you're right. I'm not sure what I was thinking when I wrote that. For some reason I equated standard to free.

Oh and your first "nitpick" is spelled wrong.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

MitchW said:


> The patent in question is TiVo's "Multimedia Time Warping System" patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389, which describes a DVR system that allows for simultaneous storage and playback of TV programming from a cable or satellite source.
> 
> The patent office, in its Aug. 3 re-examination, said two claims in the '389 patent related to indexing "now appear to be rendered obvious" by prior art in two patents: 6,018,612, granted to Philips for a system that simultaneously stores and plays back a TV program; and 5,949,948, granted to iMedia for a compressed video-playback system."


That's probably while TiVo is also using the other two patents since they still stand at this point.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

MitchW said:


> 2. If the ATT Uverse/Motorola DVR fails only the recordings on the DVR are lost - NOT the schedule of future recordings. Mine did fail just a few days ago and all my 228 recordings into the future were PRESERVED on the internet and returned to the new DVR when it was enabled. So far as I understand all Tivo scheduled recordings into the future are LOST if the unit fails.
> 
> Those two points make the Tivo suit against ATT Uverse pretty unlikely to succeed. That is why ATT refused to even discuss any compromises with Tivo.


Your points have absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with whether AT&T violated a patent or not.

Plus, I don't recall what feature it is, but others have talked about after turning on some feature, their season passes *were* backed up and came back on another Tivo. (Season passes being what you are referring to as "future recordings".) I would call this a side effect since whichever feature it is isn't advertised as a way to back up your season passes.



MitchW said:


> Movie producers were threatening to sue because Tivo was "illegally" copying their products. Advertisers were threatening to sue because Tivo allowed users to cut out their advertisements. Networks as well were all upset.
> 
> Cable companies as well said that Tivo had to pay them for the rights to copy their product. I believe many lawsuits were filed at the time. I do not know what their outcomes were.


[citation needed]

Tivo never had any automatic commercial removing (unfortunately). It sounds like you're talking about ReplayTV.

You would have to provide more info about suits from "movie producers", because "copying" their products for time shifting is clearly protected. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.


----------



## Dennis Wilkinson (Sep 24, 2001)

morac said:


> Oh and your first "nitpick" is spelled wrong.


Ha! That'll teach me!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MitchW said:


> See this link:
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/article..._s_Time_Warp_Claims_In_Preliminary_Review.php
> 
> ...


So essentially, the challenge is effectively not questioning that there was infringement, but rather is a matter of who was infringed against. Very interesting.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> So essentially, the challenge is effectively not questioning that there was infringement, but rather is a matter of who was infringed against. Very interesting.


yep. I expect AT&T and Verizon to put up a much better argued fight than DISH did. TiVo does have good lawyers as well that are now seasoned. Time to get the popcorn machine installed.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

So there will be a new TiVo Box at BestBuy next year? Maybe I should hold off on this future Lifetime service on my S3 this December?


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> So there will be a new TiVo Box at BestBuy next year?


Yes. But we don't know how the hardware will differ (if it differs at all) and we don't know the extent of the user interface enhancements.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

AT&T I might understand, but Verizon? A lot of FIOS subscribers own Tivos. If Tivo really goes ahead with this lawsuit, FIOS users may "suddenly" have all kinds of problems with Tivos. Just as Tivo finally fixed the signal strength issue, too.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

bkdtv said:


> Yes. But we don't know how the hardware will differ (if it differs at all) and we don't know the extent of the user interface enhancements.


My guess which is usually wrong is we will probably at least see a bigger hard drive along the lines of 320gb like the RCN model. I could see them possibly adding a couple other things like maybe not the newest broadcom one but the model newer then the one in the series 3/Tivo HD. I would imagine it could be some type of stepping stone to a true Series 4 similar to the Series 2 DT. This way it would be a newer product while keeping costs low. I don't see how it would make sense to offer a BB branded Tivo HD with nothing different other than branding even at a lower price point. This is not to say they couldn't offer multiple model BB Tivos.

Either way between CEDIA in September for possible new cable card tuners from ATI and Ceton and CES where I would expect to see the new Directivo and possible BB Tivo this could turn out to be an interesting next few months not to mention the launch of Windows 7.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

bkdtv said:


> Yes. But we don't know how the hardware will differ (if it differs at all) and we don't know the extent of the user interface enhancements.


For years posters have been asking for a free space indicator. 
How about a pop up that says your hard drive is 80% full. Do you want to order an expander? Do you want it delivered or do you want to pick it up at your nearest BB store? Installed by the geek squad?

I agree the user interface my be different on the BB branded tivo's but I'm not sure most of us will call the changes "enhancements".


----------



## ciucca (Jun 29, 2004)

Goodbye TIVO!

All that is left is a few shelves in the radio and TV section of the Smithsonian.

When these guys go bankrupt in a few months, what are all you lifetime subscribers going to do?


----------



## fasTLane (Nov 25, 2005)




----------



## NotVeryWitty (Oct 3, 2003)

The Verizon employee has returned.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

ciucca said:


> Goodbye TIVO!
> When these guys go bankrupt in a few months, what are all you lifetime subscribers going to do?


In a few months, we'll be watching our TiVos occasionally laughing at your weak troll-fu and thinking of you trying to do anything useful with your DVR.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

netringer said:


> ... occasionally laughing at your weak troll-fu ...


 Hahahahah! I've never seen that term before.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

lew said:


> For years posters have been asking for a free space indicator.
> How about a pop up that says your hard drive is 80% full. Do you want to order an expander? Do you want it delivered or do you want to pick it up at your nearest BB store? Installed by the geek squad?


I was previously one of those who asked for a free space indicator (based on my frustrations with DirectTiVos). I still think that TiVo should provide one. But now I have less need for it. With the TiVoHD I can easily determine how much space an individual program takes. Also, using the deleted items folder I can "approximately" determine the free space. Much better than the best previous method of seeing how many "suggestions" were stored on the TiVo.

I do like your "out of the box" ideas of how TiVo can make more money. E.g. more TiVo customers would probably be interested in installation by Geek Squad than in the ads TiVo has been running for "the band", whatever the f*** that is!


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

morac said:


> The Dish DVR hardware was never found to infringe and TiVo never pressed the matter, so it doesn't matter if the hardware is the same.
> 
> So it all comes down to software. TiVo isn't starting from scratch, but they still have to prove the software infringes.


slightly inaccurate - the hardware was found to infringe - then the higher court said the wrong qualifications* to ascertain that was used and it would need to go through the lower court again using the right qualifications. TiVo opted to not hold everything up doing that since it correctly saw it had a strong win on the software as it was.

For ATT and verizon - they could go after hardware or just software


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> I was previously one of those who asked for a free space indicator (based on my frustrations with DirectTiVos). I still think that TiVo should provide one. But now I have less need for it. With the TiVoHD I can easily determine how much space an individual program takes. Also, using the deleted items folder I can "approximately" determine the free space. Much better than the best previous method of seeing how many "suggestions" were stored on the TiVo.
> 
> I do like your "out of the box" ideas of how TiVo can make more money. E.g. more TiVo customers would probably be interested in installation by Geek Squad than in the ads TiVo has been running for "the band", whatever the f*** that is!


Yes Geek Squad. Where I can pay them $60 to defrag my hard drive. Or $150 to set up a wireless router and a PC. And have someone come out that barely has a clue as to what they are doing.

I would have serious reservations about Geek Sqad touching any of my TiVos.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> Yes Geek Squad. Where I can pay them $60 to defrag my hard drive. Or $150 to set up a wireless router and a PC. And have someone come out that barely has a clue as to what they are doing.
> 
> I would have serious reservations about Geek Sqad touching any of my TiVos.


Considering the strange and unscrupulous things that Geek Squad does, not to mention expensive, I wouldn't trust them to change a light bulb let alone play with my TiVo.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

morac said:


> Considering the strange and unscrupulous things that Geek Squad does, not to mention expensive, I wouldn't trust them to change a light bulb let alone play with my TiVo.


yep. If anyone actually knew anything of value about computers they would also look elsewhere for a job. Thus the level of professionalism in a geek squad will always be suspect even in these high unemployment times.


----------



## fasTLane (Nov 25, 2005)

morac said:


> I wouldn't trust them to change a light bulb let alone play with my TiVo.


I don't know *anyone *well enough to let them play with my Tivo.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

ciucca said:


> Goodbye TIVO!
> When these guys go bankrupt in a few months, what are all you lifetime subscribers going to do?


I suppose this may be urban legend; but it is my understanding TiVo has a "poison pill" final update that will make all TiVos (at least that receive it) at least manually record without service, and they will release it in the event of the service being possibly turned off.
Or at least they will release source code and the keys to sign files, so no EPROM mods are required.

Of course if the TiVo service does get shut down in any case, the hacks to enable service will come out of the woodwork.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

classicsat said:


> I suppose this may be urban legend; but it is my understanding TiVo has a "poison pill" final update that will make all TiVos (at least that receive it) at least manually record without service,
> 
> Of course if the TiVo service does get shut down in any case, the hacks to enable service will come out of the woodwork.


how is that a poison pill?? But yes Urban legend, TiVo has of course never said anything at all about such an event.

You are correct though that many current low key hackers would no longer have a reason to keep low key. TiVo resell prices would actually go up on Ebay in the event of such a business shutdown.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

classicsat said:


> I suppose this may be urban legend; but it is my understanding TiVo has a "poison pill" final update that will make all TiVos (at least that receive it) at least manually record without service, and they will release it in the event of the service being possibly turned off.
> Or at least they will release source code and the keys to sign files, so no EPROM mods are required.
> 
> Of course if the TiVo service does get shut down in any case, the hacks to enable service will come out of the woodwork.


I remember that a few departing TiVo founding employees (TiVoevangelist?) vowed to lend a hand after the plug was pulled. By now guys like him don't have knowledge since Series 1.

The problem is bankruptcy doesn't mean nobody cares. Some company will buy the rights and look to restart the company and/or continue the products and support. They could go after anyone spilling the beans.

I'd still trust the hackers to take advantage of what comes out so the genie can't be put back into the bottle.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Replay has changed hands several times but current subscribers still get support and guide data.

I don't see any circumstances in which tivo would diminish the value of it's customer base by allowing for use without a subscription.

AFAIK current tivo units can't be hacked without changing a chip soldered to the motherboard or having access to the keys tivo uses to sign the files.

There may be some "low key" hackers who found a solution but I can't picture them wanting to get sued by DTV (or whatever company buys tivo) in the future any more then they'd want to get sued by tivo now.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> I would have serious reservations about Geek Sqad touching any of my TiVos.


You might not want Geek Squad to touch your TiVos. I certainly wouldn't let them near mine. But there are *many* ordinary non-nerds who would welcome the opportunity to pay for 3rd party service.

There are many non-technical people out there who enjoy using TiVo but who don't know, and don't want to know, the simplest things such as the difference between component and composite cables. TiVo isn't just for nerds anymore.

I agree with those who worry about the abilities of Geek Squad employees: the best ones look elsewhere. But wouldn't Geek Squad be a good part-time job for a college student?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

98dbk3 said:


> I think I have to agree with bicker on this one. Having said that I still have to wonder if taking on two corporate behemoths like AT&T and Verizon at the same time, especially with their combined political influence, and deep pockets is such a good idea.


actually perhaps that is part of the equation in tivo's mind- politics. And the current weakening of the political influence of the big gods.

It's clear the Obama administration and its regulatory folks have a different frame of mind then the previous admin in regards to large companies like ATT and Verizon. The FCC is already all over the two of them about a variety of issues and the new carpet in the oval office probably still smells like fresh carpet. There have been plenty public pronouncements about the anti-trust division acting more aggressively also.

So maybe tivo thinks that politically they best kick both bigger kids in the shins now so they have a better shot over the next 3+ (or 7+ years) with this administration, if not help them, at least not impede them?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> So essentially, the challenge is effectively not questioning that there was infringement, but rather is a matter of who was infringed against. Very interesting.


that is pretty funny actually- thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

TiVo just got some more ammunition for this fight. TiVo was just awarded another $200 million for Dish's violation of the injuction.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

An update:

* Court rules that Dish pay TiVo $2.25 per DVR
* Sanctions bring court costs against Dish to $400 mln


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

Don't forget legal fees, it could boost that number to somewhere in the range of $450 million total. Of course Dish has to loose the appeal first. I hope that happens sooner rather than later.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Those court costs and fees are rougthly $100 per TiVo subscriber. 

Can TiVo survive if they don't recover those costs?


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

Yes, they have been running near break-even while paying those costs so far. Imagine how much more they can do once Dish picks up that tab.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

morac said:


> TiVo just got some more ammunition for this fight. TiVo was just awarded another $200 million for Dish's violation of the injuction.


Big victory for Echo. One, the amount was smaller than it might have been. Two, treble damages are not immediately imposed; that issue has been temporarily postponed.

Tivo is reeling today!

That's about the best I can come up with until the real Echos get a chance to post here.


----------



## jones07 (Jan 30, 2001)

DISH NETWORK AND ECHOSTAR STATEMENT REGARDING TIVO

ENGLEWOOD, Colo.  Sept. 4, 2009  DISH Network L.L.C., a subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH), and EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., a subsidiary of EchoStar Corporation (NASDAQ: SATS), issued the following statement regarding recent developments in EchoStar Communications Corporation vs. Tivo:
We are pleased that the district court rejected Tivos request to award a billion dollars in sanctions and that it found that any violation of the injunction was not willful. While we disagree that any amount of sanctions was warranted, the decision confirms our belief that we designed around Tivos patent in good faith. We believe that we ultimately will prevail on appeal.
__________________

And the Battle continues
Lawyers everywhere are overjoyed


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

Is this correct? Did the court find that there was no willful action or did they just delay saying?

Al


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

tivo said:



> Additionally, we are pleased that the Court 'will seriously entertain the award of enhanced sanctions' if 'EchoStar is unsuccessful on appeal and nevertheless continues to disregard this Court's orders.'


does that mean the court can make the damages treble later? Or only on damages awarded from this point forward?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

jones07 said:


> DISH NETWORK AND ECHOSTAR STATEMENT REGARDING TIVO
> 
> ENGLEWOOD, Colo.  Sept. 4, 2009  DISH Network L.L.C., a subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH), and EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., a subsidiary of EchoStar Corporation (NASDAQ: SATS), issued the following statement regarding recent developments in EchoStar Communications Corporation vs. Tivo:
> We are pleased that the district court rejected Tivos request to award a billion dollars in sanctions and that it found that any violation of the injunction was not willful. While we disagree that any amount of sanctions was warranted, the decision confirms our belief that we designed around Tivos patent in good faith. We believe that we ultimately will prevail on appeal.
> ...


It seesm like they just rejected TiVos request to be awarded $1B in sanctions.
$400 million still sounds like a lot, which is the total that has been awarded so far.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

acvthree said:


> Is this correct? Did the court find that there was no willful action or did they just delay saying?
> 
> Al


The court is saying that it believes that Dish made an honest attempt to design around, but it wasn't good enough to succeed. Because it was an honest attempt, not a sham, the infringement of the design around was not willful. The court went on to say that if Dish loses on appeal, but continues to allow this version of software to work, instead of shutting down the DVR functions of the subject units, then the court will consider whether or not the continued infringement will be willful or not.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> does that mean the court can make the damages treble later? Or only on damages awarded from this point forward?


The damages for the period in question won't ever be trebled. If Dish keeps infringing and refuses follow the courts order in the future, and loses their current appeal, damages for that future time frame could be enhanced. (possibly trebled, possibly changed to disgorgement of profits)

Of course if Dish does a new design around, they might escape going forward. This appeal is giving them plenty of time to work on such a design around.


----------



## wesmills (Mar 8, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> AT&T I might understand, but Verizon? A lot of FIOS subscribers own Tivos. If Tivo really goes ahead with this lawsuit, FIOS users may "suddenly" have all kinds of problems with Tivos. Just as Tivo finally fixed the signal strength issue, too.


This is the part that worries me the most. I've read here about all the hassles people have with "traditional" cable companies and getting CARDs to work, signal problems, or just any other of the myriad of things that go wrong. I don't want that to happen to my TiVos and FiOS, plus this happens just as there appeared to be a solution on the (distant) horizon for getting FiOS and TiVoHD users VOD.

Come on TiVo, cut Verizon a sweet licensing deal such as "$1, a TiVo advertising insert in the next three bills and work with us to implement VOD through the Sea...whatever system."


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

If FIOS starts to mess with my TiVos, I will have no choice but to switch my TV service to Comcast. I will not use a TV service if they don't work with with TiVo.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

wesmills said:


> Come on TiVo, cut Verizon a sweet licensing deal such as "$1, a TiVo advertising insert in the next three bills and work with us to implement VOD through the Sea...whatever system."


I assume you mean $1/mo per box! 

What you say makes too much sense for it to actually happen. Charlie could have probably had such a deal many years ago, and instead decided to play "mine is bigger than yours" with his shareholder's money at stake.

But that's how these guys think. If they didn't think that way, then most likely they wouldn't have gotten to the CEO level.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

As long as my next TiVo is not called 'AT&TiVo' or 'VeriTiVo' 

When the kitten goes after the lions, there better be a real good team of sharks.

Though I guess I could live with the new names if it was a joint venture with the lions - And not a takeover of TiVo.


----------

