3 ms·

For the record, this is the patent held by the foreman. Imho, it is not the kind of thing I'd like to see the patent office approving. http://www.google.com/pa

by harryh 14y ago

For the record, this is the patent held by the foreman. Imho, it is not the kind of thing I'd like to see the patent office approving. http://www.google.com/patents/US7352953 http://www.google.com/patents/US7352953

jhaglund 14y ago
2008, why didn't the patent office say this is basically Tivo? Is there really anything new here? It was filed in 2002, but Tivo (and diy copycats) were already out in 2000, iirc.
- weaksauce 14y ago
  If you trust wikipedia it was 1999 that the first tivo came out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TiVo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TiVo
- davidp 14y ago
  IANAL but here are two things I found interesting about the patent: 1. It doesn't claim the methods, only the systems. My (dim) understanding is that this means it isn't a software patent (a "method" patent), it's just a patent on a "system" (e.g. a device) implementing those methods. If you want to claim the algorithm, you have to claim the methods too; these claims commonly mirror the claims for the system, but with the words "a method" generally replacing "a system". 2. A claim stakes out an area of ownership; the more "and"s there are, the narrower the claim, just like a SQL query returns fewer results with the more AND phrases you include in the WHERE clause. That first long claim (on which all the others are based) could be paraphrased as "Like Tivo, but with the user additionally being able to cut/copy/paste ('edit') sections of video, but only when there's a hard drive, and only when there's a CD burner, etc." So a system that omitted or replaced one of those components would not infringe the patent. The other claims basically just preemptively stake out further sub-sections of the area of ownership so that the next guy to come along can't do what this guy did and just specialize/narrow/tweak the existing invention in those ways.
- papercrane 14y ago
  Claim 1 is for a system with tv tuner, internal hardrive and a removable media. So it is slightly different then a Tivo. Although I don't think taking a Tivo and slapping a CD writer on it should be eligible for a patent. Especially if TV tuners where available at retail at the time (pretty sure they were, but I have no evidence of that.) Basically anybody that put a TV tuner into a computer with a CD writer is prior art for claim 1.
  - crististm 14y ago
    I think I'm infringing.
  - jhaglund 14y ago
    Pretty sure I wanted an analog tuner/video VLB-card in the 90s. Couldn't afford one, but I imagine the people who bought them, did this stuff with them.
ricardobeat 14y ago
That description may fit an Apple TV. Or any computer One embodiment of the invention includes an apparatus equipped with a wireless keyboard and software that enables a user to access the Web and email services […] and other functions
- ryanhuff 14y ago
  Sorry, if you actually read the claims of his patent before making your comment, you would have seen the phrase "consisting of one tuner" on the second line. Apple TV has no tuner. You can't cherry pick the claims.

by harryh 14y ago

jhaglund 14y ago

2008, why didn't the patent office say this is basically Tivo? Is there really anything new here? It was filed in 2002, but Tivo (and diy copycats) were already out in 2000, iirc.

weaksauce 14y ago
If you trust wikipedia it was 1999 that the first tivo came out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TiVo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TiVo
davidp 14y ago
IANAL but here are two things I found interesting about the patent: 1. It doesn't claim the methods, only the systems. My (dim) understanding is that this means it isn't a software patent (a "method" patent), it's just a patent on a "system" (e.g. a device) implementing those methods. If you want to claim the algorithm, you have to claim the methods too; these claims commonly mirror the claims for the system, but with the words "a method" generally replacing "a system". 2. A claim stakes out an area of ownership; the more "and"s there are, the narrower the claim, just like a SQL query returns fewer results with the more AND phrases you include in the WHERE clause. That first long claim (on which all the others are based) could be paraphrased as "Like Tivo, but with the user additionally being able to cut/copy/paste ('edit') sections of video, but only when there's a hard drive, and only when there's a CD burner, etc." So a system that omitted or replaced one of those components would not infringe the patent. The other claims basically just preemptively stake out further sub-sections of the area of ownership so that the next guy to come along can't do what this guy did and just specialize/narrow/tweak the existing invention in those ways.
papercrane 14y ago
Claim 1 is for a system with tv tuner, internal hardrive and a removable media. So it is slightly different then a Tivo. Although I don't think taking a Tivo and slapping a CD writer on it should be eligible for a patent. Especially if TV tuners where available at retail at the time (pretty sure they were, but I have no evidence of that.) Basically anybody that put a TV tuner into a computer with a CD writer is prior art for claim 1.
- crististm 14y ago
  I think I'm infringing.
- jhaglund 14y ago
  Pretty sure I wanted an analog tuner/video VLB-card in the 90s. Couldn't afford one, but I imagine the people who bought them, did this stuff with them.

ricardobeat 14y ago

That description may fit an Apple TV. Or any computer One embodiment of the invention includes an apparatus equipped with a wireless keyboard and software that enables a user to access the Web and email services […] and other functions

ryanhuff 14y ago
Sorry, if you actually read the claims of his patent before making your comment, you would have seen the phrase "consisting of one tuner" on the second line. Apple TV has no tuner. You can't cherry pick the claims.