1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Tivo vs. Dish: Petition for rehearing en banc granted

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by dfd, May 14, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nov 19, 2010 #761 of 1139
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,300
    33
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    No it doesn't - all the PID filter does is read those 13 bits of the PID header and decide where to route them - it's basic packet reading.

    However - to "parse audio and video data" you MUST read the packet's contents. There is no way the PID filter can do that.
     
  2. Nov 19, 2010 #762 of 1139
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    Straight from Judge Bryson in the 2008 panel decision:

     
  3. Nov 19, 2010 #763 of 1139
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,749
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    True. Audio and video is separate at the uplink. The standard DISH uses uses separate PIDs to transmit each video stream separate from each audio stream. A raw look at the mux coming from a transponder will show many video feeds and many audio feeds (how many varies depending on the content of that transponder). The receiver knows which video and audio PID to use based on a table that is transmitted on that transponder. That table is what tells the receiver which PID is what for further processing. It is very similar to the way an ATSC TV tunes the channels on an OTA TV feed and is a basic function of satellite transmission that existed long before Tivo existed.
     
  4. Nov 19, 2010 #764 of 1139
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    That is your opinion. In this case, parsing simply means analyze. And both sides argued that the PID Filter parses at trial. And if you need any more proof, internally it was undisputed that E*'s engineers referred to PID Filters as "parsers".

    Besides, do you want to limit video and audio data to pictures or sounds or more reasonably any data related to that end product? The buffer travels along with the encrypted data. It all works together and is all necessary for the pictures and sounds on your TV to be displayed properly. Otherwise there would be no purpose for that header at all!
     
  5. Nov 19, 2010 #765 of 1139
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    Only true if one substitutes their own definitions of the claims. The claim construction and arguments in this case are what is relevant.
     
  6. Nov 19, 2010 #766 of 1139
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,300
    33
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    I would go so far as to say that DBS PID processing is EXACTLY like ATSC PID processing, except there are far more PIDs to process in DBS.
     
  7. Nov 19, 2010 #767 of 1139
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,749
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    A PID separator on a receiver that separates audio and video is the same as a separating all video mail that is my mailbox from the all audio mail that is my neighbors. Hint ... the mailboxes are 2 ft apart but have different ZIP+4 codes.

    The receiver going to one mailbox for the video and another for the audio was a function of the very first receivers - long before Tivo. Tivo CANNOT hold a patent on this prior art ... so whatever they define in their patent MUST be something else other than separating the audio and video. It is already separated by the address. No receiver processing is needed. Everything in one mailbox is video and everything in the other mailbox is audio before the DVR function is introduced.
     
  8. Nov 19, 2010 #768 of 1139
    dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    I didn't realize that E* had downloaded non-infringing software. What is your source for this? It clearly depends on what the injunction says; there is a fallacy going around that injunctions can old prohibit unlawful behavior. Injunctions can prohibit just about anything a judge wants to prohibit.

    I'm pretty sure that Tivo isn't conceding any of those points but rather doing what you are doing; making an on the alternative argument. They are saying that even if we are wrong on everything, the time to debate the merits of the injunction is long passed. I have no idea what type of legal system they have in North Korea, if any, but we have a legal system here based upon rules governing waiver. These rules are well known and serve a useful purpose. This is the way our legal system has been run since the founding of the union. There is nothing gotcha about it. The rules are clear, fail to follow the rules at your own peril.
     
  9. Nov 19, 2010 #769 of 1139
    dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    Could you please provide a quote from where you read this?
     
  10. Nov 19, 2010 #770 of 1139
    dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    Another point that seems to be overlooked, eventually this case will end up back in Judge Folsom's court one way or another. Think he will suddenly become sympathetic to E* regardless of what the CAFC rules?
     
  11. Nov 19, 2010 #771 of 1139
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,749
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Personally I wish the contempt hearing was solely about not disabling the DVR functionality instead of not replacing the DVR functionality with non-infringing functionality. I would like to have seen how the "these devices can no longer ever become DVRs again" instruction (restated, not quoted) would have held up.

    Not too well since there was discussion over whether the modified products infringed the patent. Discussion that should not have occurred if the Judge enforced the "disable forever" provision of the original injunction. Perhaps Judge Folsom was unsure of what his injunction really meant?

    Not likely. :)
     
  12. Nov 19, 2010 #772 of 1139
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    This is all about parsing the data in order to have the trick play function on the DVR. TiVo created an index at the media switch and E* simply moved where the analysis was done to the PID filter. The PID filter analyzes the headers to algorithmically determine an index. The claims require a specific place for the parsing to be done and at that point, E*'s workaround became invalid.
     
  13. Nov 19, 2010 #773 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Two things I am trying to respond to without quoting several of you.

    One is to respond to dgordo, please understand, all of my arguments are based on the belief that the modified DVRs no longer infringed. E* had already conceded long ago that if the modified DVRs still infringed by clear and convincing evidence, they would in fact be in contempt.

    Therefore you should not even bother to say, but you cannot say they had downloaded a non-infringing software because Judge Folsom said it was still infringing and the CAFC has not ruled on it yet.

    Yes I can because all of my arguments, as well as E*’s, will only stand if the new software is non-infringing, end of the story.

    The second point is this, I don’t care how much some of you know how the PID works, in fact if I remember correctly P. Smith was really the one who knew all the technical aspects of any of those things, albeit it was sometimes difficult to read him:)

    But whatever the technical details are not important as long as E* and TiVo are not arguing on them. The fact is, E* said the PID cannot analyze any “audio and video data” because at the PID stage, such data are scrambled, cannot be read by the PID. TiVo does not dispute E*’s assertion that the audio and video data are scrambled, TiVo’s only response is, so what, the PID can still read them. The judges will have to read the two statements and decide which one is more believable.

    That is why I said, we need to stick to what E* has said, and what TiVo has said, and go from there. The judges will not read what you and I have said, regardless how smart and correct we think our explanations are.

    Oh BTW dgordo, you being a lawyer, I think it is reasonable to request that you cite the law if you have some questions about my understanding of the law, rather asking me to cite the law. You can correct me, I am all ears, but if you want to dispute me on an issue specific to a question of law, I don’t think it is too much to ask that you explain to me, rather I explain to you. Because I am not a lawyer, you are.

    I will never have the same demand on Tivonomo because he is no lawyer either, what's fair is fair.
     
  14. Nov 19, 2010 #774 of 1139
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,300
    33
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    Two comments (mine) here -

    Folsom will not be too pleased to see this case back on his docket.

    Dish / Echostar will be back at the CAFC if Folsom doesn't rule their new method is "more than colorably different" and if Folsom doesn't order a new trial based on that.

    It goes without saying that he will not be sympathetic to E*. He'll do the others only because he will be forced to (via the law / decisions of the CAFC).
     
  15. Nov 19, 2010 #775 of 1139
    dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    You made a factual statement that I was not familiar with based upon something you read. I didn't think it was too much to ask of you to show were you read that statement. Personally I dont think the statement you made was correct, but I don't know for sure, please back up your statement, "The way I read the rule is in rare cases a judge might be needed to break a tie to produce a binding ruling, but not brought in to nullify a binding majority decision."
     
  16. Nov 19, 2010 #776 of 1139
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    Get used to it. Jacmyoung has never responded to any of my requests for references for his so-called "facts". I can only interpret that as those facts were "made up" to "further" this debate.
     
  17. Nov 19, 2010 #777 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    It was my impression after reading the rules posted by tivonomo, and his research that only 4% of the en banc cases ended in a tie, and his refusal to respond to my question, among the 4% what % was the result of a judge later brought in to turn a majority decision into a tie?

    My conclusion was therefore that any of those rare cases where there was a tie, was likely because the en banc had an even number of the judges in the first place, and no judge were later brought in to break the tie.

    Have you ever read an en banc case where it had a majority decision made only later a judge was brought in to turn it into a tie?
     
  18. Nov 19, 2010 #778 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    No, the data is descrambled before the media switch so the media switch can look for the start codes in them. Don't question me, E* said so and TiVo did not dispute it.
     
  19. Nov 19, 2010 #779 of 1139
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    Are start codes "audio and video data"? Or are they simply header information inside each data packet?
     
  20. Nov 19, 2010 #780 of 1139
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    I didn't refuse to respond to your question, I probably just missed it.

    The research was a published paper and it did not break down those 4% further. So I have no idea how many were en bancs with an even number of judges. And have no knowledge of why a judge would be "brought in to break the tie".

    All we know from published procedures is that a judge from the original panel who elects Senior Status can still participate.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page