Your idea, is pretty much identical to TiVo's current implementation.
So it is probably 99.999% chance it is covered by their patent.
So it is probably 99.999% chance it is covered by their patent.
Fast Forward Autocorrection idea
OK, we know that TiVo has the patent on FF autocorrection. I haven't read the actual patent so my idea might be moot, but I believe that the patent revolves around automatic correction (not manual).
The way I do it now is by simply hitting the JUMP BACK button while in 30-second slip mode. It works ok, but I find myself usually needing to hit it two or three times (rarely once). Why couldn't DirecTV simply adjust the JUMP BACK time based on which mode the playback is in. If it's in PLAY mode, then jump back 6-seconds as expected, but if it is in 30-second skip mode, jump back about 15 seconds. I'm sure that good jump back times could be determined for 1, 2, 3 and 4x FF speeds as well. Again, it is possible that this will tread on the Patent, I haven't read it. However, it seems worth investigating.
The way I do it now is by simply hitting the JUMP BACK button while in 30-second slip mode. It works ok, but I find myself usually needing to hit it two or three times (rarely once). Why couldn't DirecTV simply adjust the JUMP BACK time based on which mode the playback is in. If it's in PLAY mode, then jump back 6-seconds as expected, but if it is in 30-second skip mode, jump back about 15 seconds. I'm sure that good jump back times could be determined for 1, 2, 3 and 4x FF speeds as well. Again, it is possible that this will tread on the Patent, I haven't read it. However, it seems worth investigating.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Here's tivo's auto correction patent (thank you Google!).
I've read it a couple times and I'm not a patent lawyer, but as far as I can tell, there are three parts to it and it's pretty comprehensive so that it would be hard to get around.
This blog asks if MS is breaking the patent and I know that Time Warner's SD DVR has an auto correction feature, so I really wish D* would just do it (or write the check to Tivo). I know that you can selectively go against people for violating your patent, but I have to believe that MS and TW have deeper pockets than D* so if MS and TW are really breaking their patents, you'd think Tivo would want to challenge them.
I know I've said this before here, but this is probably my biggest issue with the HR20. I've gotten used to it not being there and when going back to my Directivo every once and awhile, it's almost hard to use it. But everytime I see my wife try to FF, I really wish the autocorrection was there.
I've read it a couple times and I'm not a patent lawyer, but as far as I can tell, there are three parts to it and it's pretty comprehensive so that it would be hard to get around.
This blog asks if MS is breaking the patent and I know that Time Warner's SD DVR has an auto correction feature, so I really wish D* would just do it (or write the check to Tivo). I know that you can selectively go against people for violating your patent, but I have to believe that MS and TW have deeper pockets than D* so if MS and TW are really breaking their patents, you'd think Tivo would want to challenge them.
I know I've said this before here, but this is probably my biggest issue with the HR20. I've gotten used to it not being there and when going back to my Directivo every once and awhile, it's almost hard to use it. But everytime I see my wife try to FF, I really wish the autocorrection was there.
Thanks Matt, the patent and blog make interesting reads. It seems that Tivo have tried to cover all the bases with a single patent. I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that claim 4 which refers to auto correction by a fixed value would fail a prior-art test, in that many VCRs had such a correction process prior to 2000. Nowhere do I see a reference to digital material versus analogue.
The question is; if one part of a patent fails a prior-art test, does that make the whole patent invalid?
It is also interesting to note that not all the patent has been implemented by Tivo, for instance claim 5 where the offset is calculated using a test video. I can't see that being practical in most households as there would be multiple users. Not that it matters to the validity of the patent.
Have D* lawyers really looked into challenging the patent or is D* using this as an excuse to toe the network line?
The question is; if one part of a patent fails a prior-art test, does that make the whole patent invalid?
It is also interesting to note that not all the patent has been implemented by Tivo, for instance claim 5 where the offset is calculated using a test video. I can't see that being practical in most households as there would be multiple users. Not that it matters to the validity of the patent.
Have D* lawyers really looked into challenging the patent or is D* using this as an excuse to toe the network line?
Great points. In fact I've brought up some of them previouslyAndrew_J_M said:Thanks Matt, the patent and blog make interesting reads. It seems that Tivo have tried to cover all the bases with a single patent. I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that claim 4 which refers to auto correction by a fixed value would fail a prior-art test, in that many VCRs had such a correction process prior to 2000. Nowhere do I see a reference to digital material versus analogue.
The question is; if one part of a patent fails a prior-art test, does that make the whole patent invalid?
It is also interesting to note that not all the patent has been implemented by Tivo, for instance claim 5 where the offset is calculated using a test video. I can't see that being practical in most households as there would be multiple users. Not that it matters to the validity of the patent.
Have D* lawyers really looked into challenging the patent or is D* using this as an excuse to toe the network line?
I'd love to know the answers to your questions (prior art invalidate the whole thing and whether it was even looked at or they just assumed they couldn't do it so they didn't even try).
I've read parts of the Patent now. Looks like, technically, the HR20 already violates the Patent. The act of the HR20 jumping back by a fixed value when restarting playback (using JUMP BACK to stop FF) violates #4. So Andrew, they are already breaking that rule and they may agree with you on the whole prior-art thing.
After my quick read, it appears most of the other claims are based on calculating the time based on user reaction.
I say, don't automatically calculate based on user reaction time, but instead change the "fixed offset" of the JUMP BACK button based on the FF speed. Arguably, though, any Focus Group method for determining the best numbers would violate the Patent, but if some SW Engineer just plucked some numbers out of the air, would that violate it? I'd say technically yes, but I'd also claim that they are technically violating it now. This method would require, of course, that you use the JUMP BACK button to exit FF. PLAY or any other method for escape would be even more invalid than using the JUMP BACK button.
Oh well .. just a thought. Thanks for input guys.
After my quick read, it appears most of the other claims are based on calculating the time based on user reaction.
I say, don't automatically calculate based on user reaction time, but instead change the "fixed offset" of the JUMP BACK button based on the FF speed. Arguably, though, any Focus Group method for determining the best numbers would violate the Patent, but if some SW Engineer just plucked some numbers out of the air, would that violate it? I'd say technically yes, but I'd also claim that they are technically violating it now. This method would require, of course, that you use the JUMP BACK button to exit FF. PLAY or any other method for escape would be even more invalid than using the JUMP BACK button.
Oh well .. just a thought. Thanks for input guys.
But what if a user derived number was used. For example, I have long wished that the TiVo 30-sec skip would have allowed the user to input the value, ie. Select-Play-Select- X # of sec - Select.brott said:any Focus Group method for determining the best numbers would violate the Patent, but if some SW Engineer just plucked some numbers out of the air, would that violate it?
Have similar backdoor where the user decides how many seconds they want it to jump back using the Jump Back feature. I currently have to press it twice and end up slight behind where I want, so I would start with a 10-second Jump Back and adjust from there.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me it seems like on the HR20 that hitting the REPLAY button after FFing doesn't really jump back with one press. It seems like it just stops the FF process. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what it seems like to me.brott said:I've read parts of the Patent now. Looks like, technically, the HR20 already violates the Patent. The act of the HR20 jumping back by a fixed value when restarting playback (using JUMP BACK to stop FF) violates #4. So Andrew, they are already breaking that rule and they may agree with you on the whole prior-art thing.
And really, 6 seconds is no where near enough when coming out of 3 or 4x. You just can't stop it fast enough. So, if they really thought the patent was invalid, then they really should have implemented it better anyway.
HOW CAN THEY PATENT that? That's unreal! Thats like patenting the play button. Or patenting the steering wheel on a car. Unreal.
You think that's unreal? How about this patent?Slyster said:HOW CAN THEY PATENT that? That's unreal! Thats like patenting the play button. Or patenting the steering wheel on a car. Unreal.
TW's HD-DVR also has the autocorrection... so I agree... D* should just do it, or at the very least question the patent based on the fact that no only do some VCR's have the ability... but I had a Sony cassette deck back in the early 90's that did the same thing! But... they may not have patented the idea...mtnagel said:Here's tivo's auto correction patent (thank you Google!).
I've read it a couple times and I'm not a patent lawyer, but as far as I can tell, there are three parts to it and it's pretty comprehensive so that it would be hard to get around.
This blog asks if MS is breaking the patent and I know that Time Warner's SD DVR has an auto correction feature, so I really wish D* would just do it (or write the check to Tivo). I know that you can selectively go against people for violating your patent, but I have to believe that MS and TW have deeper pockets than D* so if MS and TW are really breaking their patents, you'd think Tivo would want to challenge them.
I know I've said this before here, but this is probably my biggest issue with the HR20. I've gotten used to it not being there and when going back to my Directivo every once and awhile, it's almost hard to use it. But everytime I see my wife try to FF, I really wish the autocorrection was there.
Maybe if we all called them up and told them we were switching to another company who's DVR has the autocorrection featureSwartzy said:TW's HD-DVR also has the autocorrection... so I agree... D* should just do it, or at the very least question the patent based on the fact that no only do some VCR's have the ability... but I had a Sony cassette deck back in the early 90's that did the same thing! But... they may not have patented the idea...
It's a "little" different the patenting a play button.Slyster said:HOW CAN THEY PATENT that? That's unreal! Thats like patenting the play button. Or patenting the steering wheel on a car. Unreal.
As they where patenting the technique in doing the auto-correction, which is algorithmic in nature, and thus a process.
But as with all patents... the "How can they patent" that is a valid question, and pretty much the basis for nearly all of the current ?????s about the patent process.
ROFL - I just sent that link to my brother - he's a patent attorney. I don't know if he's seen that one before.mtnagel said:You think that's unreal? How about this patent?
I sure hope my kids don't have to pay royalties for playing on their swingset!
Has DirecTV patented having to hit guide twice to get into the guide?
Definitely an annoying feature.ouijal said:Has DirecTV patented having to hit guide twice to get into the guide?
My single biggest gripe with the HR20 is the inferior jumpback capability.
Then just pay Tivo for use of the Patent then....
TiVo has to first "offer" it as an option, to pay them for usage of that feature.Kenwood said:Then just pay Tivo for use of the Patent then....
Everything is for sale for a price...Earl Bonovich said:TiVo has to first "offer" it as an option, to pay them for usage of that feature.
Your right... but what is the price...Jaysv said:Everything is for sale for a price...
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
DBSTalk Forum
A forum community dedicated to digital bit streaming enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about programming, content, and reception, home theaters, displays, models, styles, satellites, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
