Comments on: Sweet - my Dish DVR is illegal! http://www.capnken.com/wisdom/2008/04/21/sweet-my-dish-dvr-is-illegal/ All The Wisdom That Fits Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:52:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Robert http://www.capnken.com/wisdom/2008/04/21/sweet-my-dish-dvr-is-illegal/#comment-786 Robert Mon, 14 Jul 2008 06:29:05 +0000 http://www.capnken.com/wisdom/2008/04/21/sweet-my-dish-dvr-is-illegal/#comment-786 Excellent web site I will be visiting oftenp Excellent web site I will be visiting oftenp

]]> By: Cap'n Ken's Homespun Wisdom » Dish Network killing my illegal TiVo-patent-violating 942 DVR after all http://www.capnken.com/wisdom/2008/04/21/sweet-my-dish-dvr-is-illegal/#comment-710 Cap'n Ken's Homespun Wisdom » Dish Network killing my illegal TiVo-patent-violating 942 DVR after all Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:29:03 +0000 http://www.capnken.com/wisdom/2008/04/21/sweet-my-dish-dvr-is-illegal/#comment-710 [...] back in April Dish Network was slapped with an injunction against selling certain DVRs in the wake of the TiVo patent infringement case. The models affected included the HD 942 DVR that [...] [...] back in April Dish Network was slapped with an injunction against selling certain DVRs in the wake of the TiVo patent infringement case. The models affected included the HD 942 DVR that [...]

]]> By: TCL http://www.capnken.com/wisdom/2008/04/21/sweet-my-dish-dvr-is-illegal/#comment-74 TCL Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:56:36 +0000 http://www.capnken.com/wisdom/2008/04/21/sweet-my-dish-dvr-is-illegal/#comment-74 Word Word

]]> By: Cap'n Ken http://www.capnken.com/wisdom/2008/04/21/sweet-my-dish-dvr-is-illegal/#comment-71 Cap'n Ken Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:40:42 +0000 http://www.capnken.com/wisdom/2008/04/21/sweet-my-dish-dvr-is-illegal/#comment-71 Thank you, counselor. So much written about the case and the ruling, so little actual context given. Searching for the "loctl" term you referred to got me a little more information about that argument, but not much. I would think in today's patent-happy and device-happy world, the TiVo v Echo case would be a fertile topic for tech writers to examine and explain how such technical details can influence an infringement case. You and I have talked enough about how patent litigators earn their keep for me to have a sense of how small the details can be that swing a case, but little is out there really talking about the intricacies of the field. Thank you, counselor. So much written about the case and the ruling, so little actual context given. Searching for the “loctl” term you referred to got me a little more information about that argument, but not much.

I would think in today’s patent-happy and device-happy world, the TiVo v Echo case would be a fertile topic for tech writers to examine and explain how such technical details can influence an infringement case. You and I have talked enough about how patent litigators earn their keep for me to have a sense of how small the details can be that swing a case, but little is out there really talking about the intricacies of the field.

]]> By: TCL http://www.capnken.com/wisdom/2008/04/21/sweet-my-dish-dvr-is-illegal/#comment-69 TCL Sat, 26 Apr 2008 04:29:48 +0000 http://www.capnken.com/wisdom/2008/04/21/sweet-my-dish-dvr-is-illegal/#comment-69 Not hanging around so much as swinging by, thanks to RSS. Just on a quick read, because I'm wrapped up in the world of carboxylated nitrile butadiene rubber gloves right now, the answer is, nope, not the encoding standard. Briefly, the Echostar DVRs were found by the district court to infringe two "hardware" claims and two "software" claims. The CAFC reversed on the hardware claims, but upheld the infringement of the software claims. The issue of encoding standard would have arisen with respect to the hardware claims. The hardware claims were found not infringed on a basis unrelated to encoding standard; indeed, the CAFC noted, in rejecting Echo's argument that the patent required processing of both digital and analog signals, that the patent spec describes both MPEG standards: "After describing how Figure 7 operates to process analog signals, the specification adds the following: 'If a digital TV signal is being processed instead, the MPEG encoder is replaced with an MPEG2 Transport Demultiplexor, and the MPEG audio encoder and VBI decoder are deleted.'” [Col. 6, ll. 30-33]. Instead, my best guess, again on a quick read, is one of two things: (a) Bullshit that the "next gen" software is a non-infringing work-around, and Echo will be in contempt of the injunction soon; or (b) the software push has something to do with the "Ioctl" command and the way in which the chip and temporary storage buffer work together. The CAFC affirmed infringement of the software claims with the following conclusion: "Based on evidence that the Broadcom chip and the temporary data storage buffer operate together in the process of moving data from the physical data source, it was reasonable for the jury to find that the temporary data buffer was simply an extension of the physical data source where data was stored pending its extraction for further processing. From that evidence, the jury could permissibly find that the “Ioctl” command, the relevant portion of the source object in the EchoStar DVRs, extracts video and audio data from the physical data source. . . . and because we agree that the pertinent data and operations do not need to be housed within a particular file or grouping of lines of code, the EchoStar DVRs satisfy the 'extracting' limitation." That is, it was "reasonable for the jury to find that the two-part process of moving data from the physical data source to the source object, as practiced in the EchoStar devices, constitutes extraction by the source object of video and audio data from the physical data source." And therefore, perhaps Echo pushed some software that simply places another step, or some more distinct separation in the operation of the physical data source and the temporary storage buffer, such that they are no longer linked together as one process of retrieving from the physical data source. But what do I know, I have two crappy cable DVRs. Not hanging around so much as swinging by, thanks to RSS. Just on a quick read, because I’m wrapped up in the world of carboxylated nitrile butadiene rubber gloves right now, the answer is, nope, not the encoding standard. Briefly, the Echostar DVRs were found by the district court to infringe two “hardware” claims and two “software” claims. The CAFC reversed on the hardware claims, but upheld the infringement of the software claims. The issue of encoding standard would have arisen with respect to the hardware claims. The hardware claims were found not infringed on a basis unrelated to encoding standard; indeed, the CAFC noted, in rejecting Echo’s argument that the patent required processing of both digital and analog signals, that the patent spec describes both MPEG standards: “After describing how Figure 7 operates to process analog signals, the specification adds the following: ‘If a digital TV signal is being processed instead, the MPEG encoder is replaced with an MPEG2 Transport Demultiplexor, and the MPEG audio encoder and VBI decoder are deleted.’” [Col. 6, ll. 30-33].

Instead, my best guess, again on a quick read, is one of two things: (a) Bullshit that the “next gen” software is a non-infringing work-around, and Echo will be in contempt of the injunction soon; or (b) the software push has something to do with the “Ioctl” command and the way in which the chip and temporary storage buffer work together. The CAFC affirmed infringement of the software claims with the following conclusion: “Based on evidence that the Broadcom chip and the temporary data storage buffer operate together in the process of moving data from the physical data source, it was reasonable for the jury to find that the temporary data buffer was simply an extension of the physical data source where data was stored pending its extraction for further processing. From that evidence, the jury could permissibly find that the “Ioctl” command, the relevant portion of the source object in the EchoStar DVRs, extracts video and audio data from the physical data source. . . . and because we agree that the pertinent data and operations do not need to be housed within a particular file or grouping of lines of code, the EchoStar DVRs satisfy the ‘extracting’ limitation.” That is, it was “reasonable for the jury to find that the two-part process of moving data from the physical data source to the source object, as practiced in the EchoStar devices, constitutes extraction by the source object of video and audio data from the physical data source.” And therefore, perhaps Echo pushed some software that simply places another step, or some more distinct separation in the operation of the physical data source and the temporary storage buffer, such that they are no longer linked together as one process of retrieving from the physical data source.

But what do I know, I have two crappy cable DVRs.

]]> By: John http://www.capnken.com/wisdom/2008/04/21/sweet-my-dish-dvr-is-illegal/#comment-50 John Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:04:43 +0000 http://www.capnken.com/wisdom/2008/04/21/sweet-my-dish-dvr-is-illegal/#comment-50 Yeah, I wouldn't go quoting Charleton Heston on that point. The prying's been done. Yeah, I wouldn’t go quoting Charleton Heston on that point.

The prying’s been done.

]]>