Verizon Figures If It's Already Involved In A Patent Lawsuit With TiVo, Why Not Sue Cablevision For Its DVR Too

from the patent-wars dept

Thu, Mar 18th 2010 6:05pm — Mike Masnick

Ah, the patent wars. As you're probably aware, TiVo spent years fighting a big legal battle with EchoStar/Dish Networks over some patents on DVR technology. TiVo won big, and then immediately turned its patent lawyers on some other companies including Verizon. In Verizon's response to TiVo's lawsuit, it went nuclear back, accusing TiVo of violating Verizon's patents on DVR technology -- including a patent that the world's biggest patent hoarding firm, Intellectual Ventures, gave Verizon for the purpose of being used against TiVo.

So is it any surprise to hear via Broadband Reports that Verizon is now suing Cablevision, claiming patent infringement on its set top box/DVR offerings as well? Cablevision and Verizon have had a really nasty battle going for years on Long Island, with all sorts of dirty tricks being played by both sides. But patent infringement? Given the odd timing of this lawsuit coming so quickly on the heels of the counterclaims against TiVo, you have to wonder if Verizon "woke up" to the fact that it could use these patents against Cablevision, only after provoked by TiVo.

Indeed, if you look down the list of patents in the Verizon Cablevision spat, you'll see that there's some overlap with those found in the TiVo suit:

5,666,293: Downloading operating system software through a broadcast channel
5,635,979: Dynamically programmable digital entertainment terminal using downloaded software to control broadband data operations
5,608,447: Full service network
6,367,078: Electronic program-guide system with sideways-surfing capability

7,561,214: Two-dimensional navigation of multiplexed channels in a digital video distribution system

6,055,077: Multimedia distribution system using fiber optic lines
5,864,415: Fiber optic network with wavelength-division-multiplexed transmission to customer premises
6,381,748: Apparatus and methods for network access using a set-top box and television

The three in bold are found in both lawsuits. Now, to be fair, before looking at the details, I was guessing that Verizon would also be using the patent it got from IV, but that patent (5,410,344) appears to be the one patent that Verizon is asserting against TiVo, but not against Cablevision. I have no idea if this is because nothing Cablevision does is covered by that patent, or if Verizon has limitations on what it can do with the IV patent. Still, given the overlap here, the timing, and the fact that many of these patents are pretty old, you really have to wonder if the lawsuit from TiVo and the scouring of patents for a countersuit also gave Verizon the idea to sue its arch-nemesis in the Long Island market over the same issues.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: dvrs, patents
Companies: cablevision, intellectual ventures, tivo, verizon

15 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Richard Corsale, 18 Mar 2010 @ 7:19pm

@s about right
It's so unbelievable that were still seeing this foolishness in 2010. I seriously thought that in the late 90's Congress would have realized how out of hand this whole "everything is IP" mentality had gotten. Instead of reeling in outrageous entitlements, the powers that be intend to push them on all nations of the world. It's a damn shame. With the economy being what it is, people are suffering all over the world and if theres anything we could do to help promote progress, it's not taking place in a courtroom, of that, I am sure. To anyone that says "defend your IP at all costs" please explain to me how using a patent to retaliate is defending innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2010 @ 7:43pm
  
  Re: @s about right
  "defend your IP at all costs" - using a patent to retaliate is defending innovation by forcing increasing numbers of lawyers to create incrasingly "creative" legal arguments :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tigger, 19 Mar 2010 @ 9:13am
  
  Re: @s about right
  1. Forcing additional design by motivating design-around.
  2. Creating a market for individual inventors who can sell their patent to IV as defensive patents.
  3. You think Apple would really spend as much time coming up with nifty design if HTC could simply steal their ideas?
  4. A few ugly suits do not a bad system make. Have some scope.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2010 @ 6:24am
    
    Re: Re: @s about right
    "1. Forcing additional design by motivating design-around."
    
    In other words, forcing people to use a worse design because someone has a monopoly on the best design (and if there is a better design, someone is free to make that better design without the need for a competitor to have a patent).
    
    "2. Creating a market for individual inventors who can sell their patent to IV as defensive patents."
    
    Taking away the market from individual inventors who can improve on a previous invention and receive a first mover advantage. Taking away incentive for inventors with monopoly power to invent because they already own the market by law.
    
    "3. You think Apple would really spend as much time coming up with nifty design if HTC could simply steal their ideas?"
    
    If not Apple, someone else.
    
    "4. A few ugly suits do not a bad system make. Have some scope."
    
    The whole system is ugly, not just because of the few lawsuits we mention here on techdirt.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2010 @ 8:49pm

The first rule of patent club
is you do not talk about patent club
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vincent Clement, 18 Mar 2010 @ 8:51pm

Two companies suing each other over what is the same technology should be a clear indication that the technology is obvious and that most, if not all, patents should be tossed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2010 @ 6:20am
  
  Re:
  "Two companies suing each other over what is the same technology should be a clear indication that the" patent office frequently grants patents on prior art.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2010 @ 9:49pm

I'm still waiting for IP maximists to come up with a sample of good patents since the overwhelming majority of our patents are good ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2010 @ 10:32pm

Wow. So it seems IV exists as an broker of IP, and provide, on a consignment basis, IP for the purposes of litigation between companies that pay the entry fee, and partner with it.

It's just the business model Thomas Jefferson envisioned when he created the USPTO. Too bad it only took 200 years for someone to figure it out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2010 @ 4:43am
  
  Re:
  "Wow. So it seems IV exists as an broker of IP, and provide, on a consignment basis, IP for the purposes of litigation between companies that pay the entry fee, and partner with it. "
  
  Yeah, way to promote the progress. I just don't see how this is constitutional. The constitution clearly says that IP should be to promote the progress. But corporations pick and choose which parts of the constitution serve their agenda and ignore the rest.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 19 Mar 2010 @ 11:12am

Welcome to the Thunder Dome
Patentgedeon has begun! And like any apocalypse there are no winners, only losers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Cavanaugh, 19 Mar 2010 @ 11:15am

Verizon lawsuit
To me, , none of these patents should be allowed (though if I had time to do a thorough analysis, I might change my mind about one or two (maximum!).
Basically, I don't think business method and software patents should be allowed. Maybe a completely different approach, with much shorter lives, but as they exist - no!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stephen, 19 Mar 2010 @ 11:48am

IV patents
Picking up on Mike's point, I wish Verizon sued Cablevision over the IV patent. How awesome would it be if then IV sued Verizon for not licensing the right to use that patent to sue Cablevision over its use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ronald J Riley (profile), 20 Mar 2010 @ 6:16pm

Telecom-Cable Industries Especially Brutal
These guys flat out refuse to license inventions from smaller entities. Their approach to to take what they want and then try to litigate inventors into submission.

The only reason that IV has been able to buy so many patents is that big companies leave those patents on the market. So there is some poetic justice in someone acquiring those patents and then kicking the tar out of the infringers.

Inventions are property and it is long past time that big companies have to respect those rights. If companies had been buying up rights IV would not have a business and once the dust settles IV will no longer be able to buy patents dirt cheap.

This is the essence of capitalism.

Ronald J. Riley,

I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2010 @ 10:20pm
  
  Re: Telecom-Cable Industries Especially Brutal
  "Inventions are property"
  
  1) The (Earth's) sky is neon purple. I think my fantasy is more interesting than yours.
  
  2) "I speak for myself while listing 4 different organizations and a dead person."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]