[mythtv-users] tivo patents cover mythtv?

[Mark Knecht]

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 10:30 AM, John Drescher <drescherjm at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 1. A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia
>>> data, comprising the steps of:
>>> accepting television (TV) broadcast signals, wherein said TV signals are
>>> based on a multitude of standards, including, but not limited to, National
>>> Television Standards Committee (NTSC) broadcast, PAL broadcast, satellite
>>> transmission, DSS, DBS, or ATSC;
>>> tuning said TV signals to a specific program;
>>> providing at least one Input Section, wherein said Input Section converts
>>> said specific program to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted
>>> stream for internal transfer and manipulation;
>>
>> Myth doesn't do that.
>>
>
> This sounds exactly what MythTV does.

I would tend to agree John.
>
>>
>>> providing a Media Switch, wherein said Media Switch parses said MPEG
>>> stream, said MPEG stream is separated into its video and audio components;
>>
>> Myth doesn't do that.
>>
>
> I would bet MythTV does that internally.

Must if it uses Alsa to control audio levels...

People can say what they want about the U.S. patent system. As someone
who designed a number of things that companies I worked for did manage
to get patents for I can __promise__ you that some of my worst ideas
were patentable while some of my best ones never got patents because
of the examiner and not because they didn't meet the burden set down
to get a patent. (In the opinion of our lawyers anyway, but maybe they
just wanted more billable hours...)

What Simon may miss at this point is that it hardly matters anymore
(for Myth anyway) whether the Tivo patent is a valid idea. Once it's
patented it is patented and until someone can show the examiners that
it shouldn't have been it stays that way. That will typically involve
LOTS of lawyers. The defending company has a business that's making
money and wants to put up ever defense to keep it to themselves. The
arguing company wants in. Often this gets worked out outside of the
patent office in some sort of licensing agreement. It's not the sort
of thing that includes groups of interested bystanders.

On the other hand I think a couple of things Myth has going for it are:

1) It's not a complete solution. It's a piece of software. It couldn't
violate the patent until someone takes it and combines it with
hardware. Just because someone _could_ take Myth software and create a
device which violates the Tivo patent doesn't mean the software itself
is in violation. This is the BitTorrent argument. There are legal uses
for BitTorrent even if individuals break the law using it to share
music so BitTorrent continues to enjoy legal protection.

2) The U.S. patent system allows anyone to use patented ideas at no
cost and without reprisal for the sole purpose of study and for
personal betterment. While the idea of mpeg files, circuit ideas,
recipes, etc., might be patented the patent does not prohibit someone
(you and I) from attempting to duplicate them for their own private
improvement/education. If people couldn't do this then how would they
ever improve on the ideas?

I think it's a fine line, but fine lines are often what the law is all
about. Practically speaking even if Myth did violate Tivo patents (I'm
not saying it does. I've not read the patent and don't have standing
anyway...) the chances of Tivo going after a worldwide Open Source
development group is very slim in my opinion. Myth's chances of
survival are high in my opinion because of the way the source is
licensed. However there are cases of individual developers backing
down and changing the licensing on Open Source projects where patents
existed much like the Tivo patent.

Just my 2 cents...

Cheers,
Mark