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

TiVo vs. Echostar Court Case: Post Hearing Discussion

Discussion in 'Legislative and Regulatory Issues' started by Tom Robertson, Feb 17, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Feb 22, 2009 #361 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    I was actually quoting the USPTO. As I said I rarely quote E* nor TiVo, in the case I must quote E*, I always at the same time quote TiVo's response too.

    If you read the USPTO's decision to grant E*'s reexamination request, the USPTO clearly stated substantial new questions (SNQ) now exist, else they would not have granted that request.
     
  2. Feb 22, 2009 #362 of 1468
    James Long

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

    45,940
    1,023
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Audio and Video are separated at the uplink center. They are received as separate digital streams within an MPEG2 or MPEG4 MUX that can contain dozens of channels. The normal function of a satellite receiver is to choose two of those streams, display the video one and play the audio one.

    The separation of audio and video does not even occur withing the receiver, beyond choosing which of the dozen or more video and audio feeds to pull from the mux. What is done in the receiver is selection, not separation.
     
  3. Feb 22, 2009 #363 of 1468
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    And I am looking for the words from the PTO. Haven't seen any...
     
  4. Feb 22, 2009 #364 of 1468
    Ron Barry

    Ron Barry 622 Tips & Trick Keeper

    9,881
    0
    Dec 10, 2002
    Well you did say he made it up Curtis and obviously based on the link provided it was not just pulled out of thin air. Might not be the evidence that the PTO is going off of but it is evidence as to someone making something up? Ofcourse Dish can be making it up or the blogger that wrote the article but that is another topic.

    Got a link PTO link jacmyoung?
     
  5. Feb 22, 2009 #365 of 1468
    James Long

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

    45,940
    1,023
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The software is the only thing that physically changed, although DISH claims their new software also bypasses the 'hardware' claims of the patent that DISH was found guilty of infringing (but were reversed and remanded).

    It is an odd situation. One has software claims and hardware claims that are not all software and hardware. Since DISH didn't do a physical recall the focus must be on what did change - which is the software. Infringement is ALL about whether the new software causes the product to no longer infringe, or not.
     
  6. Feb 22, 2009 #366 of 1468
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    When one is "choosing", an analysis is performed.

    And DISH/SATS expert stated that "choosing which of the dozen or more video and audio feeds to pull from the mux" meets the step limitation, during the jury trial.
     
  7. Feb 22, 2009 #367 of 1468
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Yet the DISH/SATS team can only state they put the new software in the stream but cannot state that software was installed on ANY of the receivers. So there is NO CERTAINTY that ANY of the DVR's no longer infringe.

    Without any closed-loop evidence that the DVR's are running the newer software, it certainly looks as if the Herculean Effort was just lip service, as there is no proof to back up the claim that the receivers are running the "Hercules" version of the software.
     
  8. Feb 22, 2009 #368 of 1468
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    From the ST Micro STi5518 (used in the DVRs) data sheet:
    This is the parsing mentioned in claim 31. The appeals court said that any indexing occurs after this step not before. Claim 31 mentions no further parsing or indexing. It just ain't there.
     
  9. Feb 22, 2009 #369 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    What is E* saying now? Are you saying the judge will just catch whatever E* said last time, right or wrong, regardless what the law says? Somehow many here believe if the citizens of this government make some stupid statements or mistakes, the government may use that against them to penalize them, throwing all the rules and the law aside?

    What is this? China? Even China does not do that any more for the most part.
     
  10. Feb 22, 2009 #370 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    But TiVo does not dispute the notion that E* made all the changes E* said they made, so the above is pointless.
     
  11. Feb 22, 2009 #371 of 1468
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    I don't know how to say this, and I fully expect this to be redacted...

    If one is to use case law as the basis for what should happen, then one must expect that the pattern in law is that as the evidence is there, the information from other cases is used to continually improve upon the process.

    If one cannot use what was presented before, then it is a sham to believe the courts can actually ever render a decision.

    Therefore, if DISH/SATS agreed during the jury trial that PID filtering meets the "parse" step, and it is now part of the record, that somehow this "mistake" can be just glazed-over?
     
  12. Feb 22, 2009 #372 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006

    Can't give out the link but here is the quote from the USPTO's decision:

     
  13. Feb 22, 2009 #373 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Why?

    I consider that a valid question:) The only problem is the judge must decide whether the new design is still an infringement or not, and when he does that, he must follow the same rules he laid out for the jury, as I have posted earlier.

    I have asked you to answer the question based on that instruction, you avoided so for good reasons. But the judge may not avoid those questions when making his decision.

    Yes, he must consider all the facts and statements made in the past, but ultimately his decision must be based on the answers to those questions, not what he said, what she said.
     
  14. Feb 22, 2009 #374 of 1468
    James Long

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

    45,940
    1,023
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Ahh, but is "substantial new questions" the same as "substantial new evidence"?

    From the patent office: (emphasis added)
    [Page 2]
    A substantial new question of patentability affecting claims 31 and 61 of United States Patent Number 6,233,389 is raised by the request for ex parte reexamination. The examiner considers a substantial new question of patentability has been raised by at least a combination of the following prior art references:
    U.S. Patent 6,018,612 to Thomason et al. ("Thomason")
    U.S. Patent 5,949,948 to Krause et al. ("Krause")

    ... The Thomason Patent was not before the Examiner at the time of the original allowance but was made of record during the previous reexamination proceeding. The Krause Patent was als not before the Examiner at the time of original allowance but was also made of record during the previous reexamination proceeding. Accordingly, both Thomason and Krause are old art. However, neither Thomason or Krause were previously applied against the claims at issue. Thomason and Krause are now being viewed in a new light since the combination of Thomason and Krause was never considered during either the original examination or the previous reexamination proceeding.

    [Page 4]
    During the previous reexamination proceeding, the requester proposed rejections based on the Krause Patent. These rejections were not applied by the examiner against claims 31 and 61. The Thomason Patent was of record, but never considered in combination with Krause with regard to claims 31 and 61.
    (Of course this action is separate from the court case being discussed in this thread. TiVo has until March 7th to reply to USPTO on the patent challenge. Nothing new has come out of USPTO on the issue since early January.)
     
  15. Feb 22, 2009 #375 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Again you continue to follow only TiVo's logic, not what the judge told the jury how they might find infringement or not.

    Had TiVo's logic been sound, the "sword" would have fallen on E* long time ago you'd think?:) Because TiVo was saying the same thing before 9/4/08 too, what happened after the last hearing?

    The "parsing" mentioned in claims 31 and 61 is the "analyzing, separation, I frame identification, index table building." Nothing to do with PID filtering. Again one must answer the question of:

    What does the "parsing" serve as an function, in what way, and to achieve what results? Every answer to one of the three questions must have everything to do with the DVR trickplay functions because this is after all a DVR patent, not an MPEG STB patent.
     
  16. Feb 22, 2009 #376 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006

    I guess so?
     
  17. Feb 22, 2009 #377 of 1468
    James Long

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

    45,940
    1,023
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I really doubt that they used MY WORDS in a trial years ago. :rolleyes:

    We'll find out in a few weeks (I hope) what was actually said this week and what both parties believe what was said leads to under the law. Then a couple of months from now (at least) we'll get a verdict.

    I believe any confusion over what parsing is has been cleared up in court.
    Nice exaggeration. Are you absolutely 100% sure from the chicken scratch minutes that the word "ANY" should be so emphasized?

    DISH can't prove that ALL of their DVRs took the upgrades ... but to claim they can't claim ANY were upgraded is just crazy talk.
     
  18. Feb 22, 2009 #378 of 1468
    James Long

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

    45,940
    1,023
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Sorry, cut and paste went bad ... that was supposed to be:

    Ahh, but is "substantial new questions" the same as "substantial new evidence"?

    You were using the word evidence earlier. :)
    Hopefully the rest of the post was read.
     
  19. Feb 22, 2009 #379 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Good point, I guess Curtis52 wins another round by catching a wrong choice of word of mine:)

    On the other hand, I don't think it is wrong to say there are substantial new evidence, as long as the evidence (combining two prior art) had not been applied before, it is new isn't it?:)
     
  20. Feb 22, 2009 #380 of 1468
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Now glad to see some proof regarding what the PTO said about the reexam. Nice to see there isn't any new evidence, just questions of application...
    Link, please.

    I seem to believe, however, that the "parsing" described in Claims 31 and 61 were addressed by DISH/SATS expert Dr. Rhyne, and that PID filtering meets that step. At least that is how it appears from the evidence presented by Curtis52.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page