 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
 ·row44
| reply to curtis33
Re: How can you patent something you did not invent??? said by curtis33:"this patent was from 2001, way after people have already been doing what the patent claims" Lots of misinformation in this thread. The patent was filed in 1998. Even if their patent was filed in 1998 people were still using computers as DVRs. Tivo did not invent anything.
Also replay TV had a DVR out before Tivo. Replay TVs version worked without a subscription fee meaning their technology was much better than Tivo's.
I do not see Tivo going after all DVRs they seem to be picking and choosing who they go after while ignoring the many many other DVRs out there that were created with no technology or knowledge stolen from Tivo. If Tivo can have a broad patent of technology not invented by them then why can't I just go and broadly patent whatever I want.
Hmmm.... A box that outputs calculations from inputs through a hand operated device. I'll be waiting for my royalties.
--
For those of you playing a drinking game.... MY FRIENDS! |
|
| TiVo's patent has been reexamined by the USPTO upon the request of Echostar and subsequently validated without a single word being changed. If their high priced lawyers couldn't uncover prior art I'm guessing the readers of this board haven't either. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | reply to r81984
said by r81984: Replay TVs version worked without a subscription fee meaning their technology was much better than Tivo's. If by that you mean "ReplayTV cost a lot more up front because the cost of the subscription was built into the price of the box," you are correct.
And if I might ask, what software were people using to record TV to their PC in 1998 that had trick play features? I first got a PCI TV tuner that had software to record in about 2000.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
| said by wierdo:said by r81984: Replay TVs version worked without a subscription fee meaning their technology was much better than Tivo's. If by that you mean "ReplayTV cost a lot more up front because the cost of the subscription was built into the price of the box," you are correct. It is a DVR there is no reason for a subscription.
--
For those of you playing a drinking game.... MY FRIENDS! |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
| said by r81984:It is a DVR there is no reason for a subscription. Tell that to TiVo, Replay, the cable companies, and the satellite companies. The guide data doesn't magically appear, you know.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX | It does on my Media Center PC. |
|
|
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | said by r81984:It does on my Media Center PC. And someone is paying for the data itself and the cost of distributing it to you. That Microsoft or whoever hides that cost from you does not make it nonexistent, only hidden from view. I don't know what they charge for Media Center, so they could be building it into the price of the OS for all I know.
(Somehow I expect a TiVo HD+Lifetime would have been cheaper, anyhow)
Neyland, they offer the ability because people want to occasionally do so (and the folks who use it solely for trick play on sporting events want to view live), but the device is designed to primarily be used for watching time-shifted content.
There are a lot of things I disagree with TiVo on (no free space indicator, for one!), but they adamantly stick to their idea of how the device should be used and develop for that. Much like Apple in that respect, actually.
Edited to correct punctuation error
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to r81984
Even if you had the capability to do this on a computer pre-1998, it wasn't widespread enough to deny the patent. |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | If Paris Hilton can patent the phrases "That's Hot" and "That's Huge", I wouldn't be surprised if we all don't end up paying for a patent on breathing air. Every time we take a breath, we owe another nickel. Yikes!  |
|
| reply to r81984
You actually need to say what software was available in 1998 or before 1998 that you claim people were using to make their computers DVR's, as well as the capture card being used.
If you're just saying it because capture cards were available with software to capture video from a source, then that's not the same thing in 1998 that TiVo and ReplayTV were doing. They had on screen guides and recorded TV shows.
PC's did not have this software capability at the time. Sure, you could capture video to them. But they weren't doing what you claim before TiVo patented it. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to curtis33
said by curtis33:TiVo's patent has been reexamined by the USPTO upon the request of Echostar and subsequently validated without a single word being changed. If their high priced lawyers couldn't uncover prior art I'm guessing the readers of this board haven't either. If ReplayTV had not been destroyed by the Hollywood copyright Facists then Tivo would never be in the position they are in now.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
 GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | reply to Matt
said by Matt:Even if you had the capability to do this on a computer pre-1998, it wasn't widespread enough to deny the patent. That's not how the patent system works. |
|
GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4
1 edit | reply to KrK
said by KrK:said by curtis33:TiVo's patent has been reexamined by the USPTO upon the request of Echostar and subsequently validated without a single word being changed. If their high priced lawyers couldn't uncover prior art I'm guessing the readers of this board haven't either. If ReplayTV had not been destroyed by the Hollywood copyright Facists then Tivo would never be in the position they are in now. Yeah, I miss ReplayTV. I still have a couple of their units with lifetime. I don't use them because they aren't HD. But, they had features that Tivo is only now starting to implement--years later. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to Goober
said by Goober:said by Matt:Even if you had the capability to do this on a computer pre-1998, it wasn't widespread enough to deny the patent. That's not how the patent system works. Yes, it is. The first person to patent an idea is the one awarded the rights to it. However, if an idea is widespread or considered too common or already in widespread usage, you can't patent it. Unless of course you improve upon the common use that is. |
|
GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4
2 edits | said by Matt:said by Goober:said by Matt:Even if you had the capability to do this on a computer pre-1998, it wasn't widespread enough to deny the patent. That's not how the patent system works. Yes, it is. The first person to patent an idea is the one awarded the rights to it. However, if an idea is widespread or considered too common or already in widespread usage, you can't patent it. Unless of course you improve upon the common use that is. My point was that your comment implies that prior art has to be in widespread use to deny a patent. That's not true.
Also, the USA is a first to invent country, not a first to file. So, your follow up comment is inaccurate also. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Goober
They are/were sweet units. They pushed the parameters out on what was available for users--- Imagine if all this time they'd been continuing to build new units and improve.
ReplayTV and Tivo were developed side by side at the same time yet completely separate efforts. I personally feel that some of the patents Tivo now enjoys exclusive control of would have worked out differently if ReplayTV was around. For example if Tivo sued ReplayTV in much the same manner they did Dish they'd not have won IMHO.
Ah well, it's water under the bridge at this point. I just wish consumers had more choices for DVR's that DON'T require monthly fees. Other then a build-your-own, I don't think that's available atm.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to Goober
said by Goober:My point was that your comment implies that prior art has to be in widespread use to deny a patent. That's not true. Also, the USA is a first to invent country, not a first to file. So, your follow up comment is inaccurate also. My comment is true, but not an absolute. There are many reasons to deny a patent, but if DVR technology was as widespread and as common as the previous poster claimed, then the TiVO patent would have been denied.
And yes, I realize we are a first to invent country. But if no one else can prove prior work or bothers to even file, then the point is moot. In this case, obviously, no one did. |
|
GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | said by Matt:said by Goober:My point was that your comment implies that prior art has to be in widespread use to deny a patent. That's not true. Also, the USA is a first to invent country, not a first to file. So, your follow up comment is inaccurate also. My comment is true, but not an absolute. There are many reasons to deny a patent, but if DVR technology was as widespread and as common as the previous poster claimed, then the TiVO patent would have been denied. And yes, I realize we are a first to invent country. But if no one else can prove prior work or bothers to even file, then the point is moot. In this case, obviously, no one did. Your original statement(s) as it stands is misleading/incorrect.
I don't know enough about the Tivo situation and the dates to comment on that specifically. They very well may have gotten their patents because they were able to show inventor's notebooks with conception dates prior to other parties' claims or showings of prior use/art. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by Goober:Your original statement(s) as it stands is misleading/incorrect. You and I constantly have this problem. My statement is not misleading nor incorrect. Your interpretation of it is incorrect.
I can't possibly structure everything I post in such a way that it covers every possible interpretation that someone may read into it. So let's just agree to disagree and if you think my statement is misleading or incorrect, instead of simply stating that which doesn't help anyone understand why you feel it is incorrect or misleading, how about you provide clarification and or supporting material? Otherwise, it looks like you're just trolling. |
|
GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4
2 edits | LOL.
In 15 years the patent office has never called me a troll, but you are?
»www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mp···_102.htm
35 USC 102(a) and 102(f) address your first set of comments regarding prior use and 102(g) addresses the last regarding first to invent.
Read the statutes and learn something. |
|
