Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by Curtis52, Nov 20, 2008.
If I am that far off, just shoot me! :eek2:
No, from all we have seen, the only argument from DISH/SATS regarding DVR's is that pre-storage analysis is gone. TiVo's response has always been that the pre-storage analysis is done by the PID parser.
DISH/SATS went the extra step to identify that they also removed the "automatically flow-controlled" limitation in the Broadcom DVR's.
There was no mention of any other step limitations that were removed, especially...
DISH/SATS has yet to make that argument as a defense, and we don't know if your argument was discussed during the trial, so there is no sense in arguing a point which does not exist.
I don't have access to the transcript, but it is entirely possible that TiVo did also prove the PID filter (which is included in the physical data source) also temporarily stores parsed data and a "source object" extracts such parsed data.
If Tivo is going to say this, I'd like to see what are they calling a "PID parser".
I'd intrepret the PID Parser to be part and parcel of a satellite receiver, and the indexing function is the actual start of the Tivo process. If Tivo is calling the whole thing a "PID Parser", well then, in the famous words of Cool Hand Luke - "What we have here is a failure to communicate".
Too bad an "indexing function" is not part of the "TiVo process", nor especially part of Claim 31 of the TiVo Time Warp patent.
What indexing function? Perhaps you are thinking of a different claim.
Mr. Bimson - WHAT is a PID Parser ?
Straight question - straight answer. Where does it start, where does it end, and what does it do ?
After you give your answer - I'll give you mine, and outline differences (if any) between the two.
Along the same line scooper asked, E* as the defendent only needs to create the doubt, because in the colorable difference analysis, there is only the need to point out what the differences are, and whether such differences may establish the doubt.
In order to prove infringement the first time, the "index table" and the "stop the flow of the data" were used as the very evidence, and now E* can prove that both such evidence are gone, that by itself creates the doubt whether infringement still exists, and when there is the doubt, it is also the same as saying the differences are more than colorable, and therefore contempt cannot be found.
Beyond that, the simple question to ask is does a PID filter perform substantially the same function (DVR frame info analysis), in substantially the same way (temporarily store the frame info), and achieve substantially the same result (to do DVR trickplays)?
I think I just hit the salient point of the arguement - "What is a PID Parser ? Where does it start, where does it end, and what does it do ?"
It analyzes a data stream to select data, parse out an audio and video component of MPEG data.
What, TiVo doesn't make a "receiver"?
Here is what the PID parser in the ST Micro device within the physical data source does:
Here is the court record of what Dish thought the "parse" in claim 31 meant:
Notice the similarity?
I have a patent where a physical data source parses the incoming data, then temporarily stores the data, then a source object extracts such data...
It turns out the data parsed is the data read by robotic arm sensors, the patent relates to an invention where a user uses a remote control to control the robotic arm to repeat, move forward, or backward to get the guy a drink.
The whole patent claim "1660" can read the same as the TiVo's patent claims 31, but there cannot be infringement from one another.
This TiVo's patent is about DVR trickplay functions, there is no way TiVo can possibly prove the PID filter is there to make the DVR trickplays happen, that is, according to the patent, to create "a process for the simultaneous storage and playback of multimedia data"--the result it seeks to achieve.
The PID filter serves no DVR functions, it is available in all receivers where MPEG data needed to be processed.
Another point to make is, if PID filter were ever a part of the DVR functions and therefore had contributed to the patent infringement, the judge's injunction would have ordered E* to disable the "receiver functionalities" not the "DVR functionalities."
For that reason, even if TiVo can possibly convince the judge that the PID filter is the culprit, TiVo still cannot prove that E* violated the injunction, because TiVo had failed to ask the judge to disable the receiver functions, only the DVR functions.
So TiVo needs to go back to the drawing board and ask for a new injunction, this time make sure the injunction says to disable the receiver functions, not the DVR functions.
Since the PID filter has nothing to do with "the DVR functionalities"--the only things the injunction seeks to disable, having a working PID filter in the DVR in no way violates the injunction.
I was expecting more detail, but OK - at this level - I'd say the same thing.
I was also expecting that Tivo is considering the "parsing" to create their index file / indices as part of this.
So we're in agreement that parsing STOPS when the A/V streams are presented to the next stage. And if this is what Tivo means - they've lost this arguement. Echostar should be able to argue that this is prior art.
In Tivo's / old Echostar software case - this is where the indices for trick play are generated. From there, it goes onto the storage medium (memory buffers implied for the speed differences).
In the new Echostar software - it goes straight to storage medium (essentially with today's tech - the harddrive)(memory buffers implied for the speed differences).
I think we have our "more than colorably difference" .
OK - now you're thinking - "what about displaying the streams previously created ?"
Tivo / old SW - read a chunk of file off the storage medium, collect the index information in our table, strip it out and send to the display circuitry. Again -
memory buffers implied for the speed differences.
New SW - read a chunk of file off the storage medium. Run it through the "counters" for frame types, then pass on to the display circuitry. Again -
memory buffers implied for the speed differences.
For summary -
PID parser => custom silicon for analysis/indexing => storage => custom silicon to strip out / place in table => display circuits
PID Parser => storage => frame count function => display circuits.
Echostar knew what it meant. They had their chance with the USPTO during the reexamination they instigated and again at trial and during their appeals with the Federal Circuit and to the Supreme Court.. They can't argue patent invalidity during the contempt hearing. The patent is the law of the case.
Fine - it still doesn't prove infringment either. The PID Parsing is just a strawman put up by Tivo.
I just showed you the plain language essentials of how each DVR method works. They look pretty different to me.
Actually they can, in the infringement analysis, and the USPTO will also re-examine the validity of the TiVo's patent in two months. E* will have another chance.
Yes it is too late for the previous judgment, but not too late for all the new DVRs. My question again is, can you see the writing on the wall if TiVo can only attack the old "pre-historic" E* DVRs?
As for the PID filter, E* will be able to argue it is a prior art if TiVo insists that the PID filter meets the patent limitations. The reason E* failed on the "prior art" argument last time was because TiVo did not use the PID filter to prove infringement, it was the MPEG processor.
And let me say this again, if TiVo thinks the PID filter argument may work, TiVo needs to first prove the PID filter is a part of the DVR functionalities, because this injunction only seeks to disable the DVR functionalities, not the receiver functionalities.
Oh my gosh. The patent includes storing data on a storage device and using buffers. People have been doing that for years. TiVo is in trouble.
And just WHY do you think I've been saying that Tivo shouldn't have gotten that patent in the first place ?
When you break it down to its essentials - the whole '389 patent has been done before...
If that's how the patent system worked, no one would ever get a patent that used a wheel, and the innovation the system protects would never exist.
The whole lesson of KSM was that the similarities and differences must be analyzed in the context of the patent claims. Since an index table is not mentioned in the claims, the presence or absence of an index table is irrelevant.
Maybe they will be soon, what do you think?