4 ms·

From the patent number link: """ Method and apparatus for recording and storing video information April 1, 2008 A personal video recording/storage apparatus

From the patent number link: """ Method and apparatus for recording and storing video information April 1, 2008 A personal video recording/storage apparatus for downloading streaming video and data contents from a number of sources and storing the video files to an internal storage device, such as a disk drive. ... """ Would a video cassette recorder (VCR) fit the bill for prior art? The source in this case would be a television signal and the storage device a VHS tape. I believe the VCR predates April 1, 2008.

msbarnett 14y ago
You need to look at the Claims to figure out what the patent covers. The title and abstract have no legal force. And since the claims include such things as the compression algorithm being user-selectable, it's trivially obvious that a VCR is not covered.
- deerparkwater 14y ago
  Are you trolling? A video compression algorithm being selected is not obvious? Has the patent office/this scumbag troll not heard of gnu video libs?
- cromwellian 14y ago
  But VCRs did allow one to select SP, EP, and SLP modes, arguably a user selectable 'analog compression' setting to trade off quality for storage space. It's the idea that adding a drop down menu to select installed compression codecs constitutes the ability to differentiate something enough to make it patentable that really irritates people. Almost any modern operating system sports abstract interfaces or services which have a number of pluggable providers: compression codecs, cryptography algorithms, database drivers, input and output drivers. The idea that anytime there's more than one choice, if you simply add a user selectable feature as a claim, you can then obtain a new patent, is a very annoying feature of software patents. If every software patent currently not-expired on record was maximally enforced, the courts would meltdown, and everyone would go bankrupt from legal fees. The only way the industry has been able to avoid gridlock and continue innovation is by essentially ignoring 99.99% of all software patents. The fact that no one pays attention to them, until one is losing in the marketplace or attempting to blockade competitors indicates that the system is broken.
  - msbarnett 14y ago
    I'm not arguing for patents, merely attempting to explain to the OP how to evaluate what they cover. You're ranting to the choir. And EP, SP, SLP aren't compression algorithms in the sense that any court would recognize. Let's not engage in sloppy thinking merely because we dislike software patents. There are plenty of rigorous reasons to oppose them.
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  A codec is only mentioned in claim 2, having more than one codec in claim 3 and letting the user choose in claim 4. I'm no patent expert, but doesn't that mean he's claiming things without codecs (e.g. the VCR) too? The first claim is generally the broadest and people seem to just laugh it off that these are often so ridiculously broad. But as far as I'm aware these are legally binding until someone overturns them with a presumption of legitimacy due to the USPTO seal of approval.

msbarnett 14y ago

You need to look at the Claims to figure out what the patent covers. The title and abstract have no legal force. And since the claims include such things as the compression algorithm being user-selectable, it's trivially obvious that a VCR is not covered.

deerparkwater 14y ago
Are you trolling? A video compression algorithm being selected is not obvious? Has the patent office/this scumbag troll not heard of gnu video libs?
cromwellian 14y ago
But VCRs did allow one to select SP, EP, and SLP modes, arguably a user selectable 'analog compression' setting to trade off quality for storage space. It's the idea that adding a drop down menu to select installed compression codecs constitutes the ability to differentiate something enough to make it patentable that really irritates people. Almost any modern operating system sports abstract interfaces or services which have a number of pluggable providers: compression codecs, cryptography algorithms, database drivers, input and output drivers. The idea that anytime there's more than one choice, if you simply add a user selectable feature as a claim, you can then obtain a new patent, is a very annoying feature of software patents. If every software patent currently not-expired on record was maximally enforced, the courts would meltdown, and everyone would go bankrupt from legal fees. The only way the industry has been able to avoid gridlock and continue innovation is by essentially ignoring 99.99% of all software patents. The fact that no one pays attention to them, until one is losing in the marketplace or attempting to blockade competitors indicates that the system is broken.
- msbarnett 14y ago
  I'm not arguing for patents, merely attempting to explain to the OP how to evaluate what they cover. You're ranting to the choir. And EP, SP, SLP aren't compression algorithms in the sense that any court would recognize. Let's not engage in sloppy thinking merely because we dislike software patents. There are plenty of rigorous reasons to oppose them.
ZeroGravitas 14y ago
A codec is only mentioned in claim 2, having more than one codec in claim 3 and letting the user choose in claim 4. I'm no patent expert, but doesn't that mean he's claiming things without codecs (e.g. the VCR) too? The first claim is generally the broadest and people seem to just laugh it off that these are often so ridiculously broad. But as far as I'm aware these are legally binding until someone overturns them with a presumption of legitimacy due to the USPTO seal of approval.