ccarlin
join:2000-12-28
Deerfield, IL | I had the last one long before the patent application My Microsoft UltimateTV which according to wikipedia was released in 2000, already had the overshoot correction built in.
Would that constitute prior art? I know I can fast forward at 300x normal speed and when I stop it jumps back. Pretty much exactly the same. So how does stuff like this get thru the patent system and by all the lawyers as well? |
|
 ILpt4UPremium
join:2006-11-12
Lisle, IL
kudos:4
1 edit | Why is not Microsoft a named party? |
|
| because if MSFT had it before it was even a patent it would give MSFT the right to use it. Also how do you know MSFT doesn't have some agreement with TiVO? |
|
ILpt4UPremium
join:2006-11-12
Lisle, IL
kudos:4 | I bring up MSFT because MSFT's MediaRoom software is what runs on AT&T U-Verse's DVR... |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to ccarlin
because MSFT could lawyerstomp Tivo into the dirt. or just revoke all of Tivo's licenses accidently.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
| reply to ILpt4U
said by ILpt4U:Why is not Microsoft a named party? Assuming that ATT isn't stupid, MS will be on the hook for any damages because it is their software that implements the DVR functionality... |
|
|
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| reply to ILpt4U
Absolutely. TiVo needs to be going after Microsoft, not AT&T. AT&T's is just licensing a Microsoft product.
This would be like TiVo suing you for running Windows Media Center.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
|
|
KenAF
join:2006-01-23
Arlington, VA
2 edits | reply to ccarlin
TiVo shipped its first DVR with that feature in March, 1999.
A TiVo patent on an earlier method of overshoot protection was filed in March, 2000 and granted in February, 2005.
You really have to be careful about making conclusions from a patent title or description. TiVo (and hundreds of other companies) have multiple patents with the same name and description that address different methods and/or refined versions of their method. The patent applies to the method described, not the name or description. |
|
| reply to djrobx
ATT is the end-user though, which you go after them. If it wasn't for ATT, MSFT WOULD NOT make the product since they wouldn't have a buyer for the product. DCMA would apply here. |
|
ILpt4UPremium
join:2006-11-12
Lisle, IL
kudos:4 | There are other customers of MSFT MediaRoom |
|
