It is hard to imagine life before broadband, and one of the best uses for broadband might just be the delivery of video content over the Internet. While IPTV is a generic term for digital video services delivered over the Internet, typically via broadband connections, the problem is that there are a great number of patents that might influence IPTV delivery and applications. In fact, there is currently pending and active litigation against TiVo that might have a dramatic impact on IPTV as a whole.
Who is Suing Who?
Depending on where one gets their news, they may or may not believe that AT&T is suing TiVo, but that is not necessarily true. TiVo filed suit against AT&T in a federal court located in Texas approximately a year ago, claiming that AT&T’s U-verse system infringed on no less than three of TiVo’s patents. Unfortunately, the issue is not nearly so simple as TiVo filing a law suit based on patent infringements.
The first issue that obscures the matter is the fact that Microsoft and AT&T have partnered to deliver the U-verse IPTV system. Believe it or not, U-verse might actually be one of the most successful and stable Microsoft products to date, and it is full of potential to take the television experience to the next level via the Internet. One potential outcome of the TiVo vs. AT&T law suit is that AT&T would lose and might be required to pay damages and/or cease providing U-verse service in its current form.
While it is unlikely that AT&T customers would be cut off from their U-verse system in its current form regardless of the outcome of the TiVo vs. AT&T law suit, AT&T would probably need to find a backup solution that would be expensive. That expense would probably be measured in more ways than the initial expense, as the company’s image may be battered. If all of this were to be the result of using a technology licensed from Microsoft, AT&T would probably seek to sue Microsoft on the grounds that the company did not perform due diligence regarding its software offerings versus previous patents.
Microsoft, seeing this potential outcome, decided to require a proactive stance by requesting to become a party to the proceedings. This request makes sense not only for the aforementioned reason, but also because AT&T is not the only company to be using Microsoft’s Mediaroom technology. By allowing Microsoft and its team of expert lawyers to assert themselves in an issue that is clearly about their own technology, the chances would seem to be against a TiVo victory. After all, suing a certified used card dealer for selling a vehicle that they knew was a lemon is one thing, but suing a dealership over a vehicle defect attributable to the design team at the corporate level would be equally as appropriate at TiVo suing AT&T.
Microsoft Sues TiVo
Adding to the law suit confusion is the fact that Microsoft decided to launch its own legal offensive against TiVo. The problem is that all sides are using very vague language, including a patent for, and this is a direct quote from a patent for a technology: “[a device or service]…allows the user to store selected television broadcast programs while the user is simultaneously watching or reviewing another program.”
Virtually every major digital cable provider on the planet offers DVR STBs, and AT&T’s U-verse has been up and running with such functionality for a very long time. At some point, one would have to call foul on a company that would base legal action off such a vague patent, and direct it only at a single entity when there are plenty of legitimate targets based on the language and the technology. Consumers would be best served with the entire concept of modern DVR functionality not being owned by any one entity.
A Question of Timing
AT&T’s U-verse network now includes well over 20 million consumers, which makes TiVo’s law suit timing particularly interesting. Is it unreasonable to posit that TiVo might be scared that a unified standard such as Microsoft’s Mediaroom gaining traction might be the beginning of the end for devices such as the TiVo lineup? After all, if nearly any home theater device or gaming console can also be a DVR STB, then where will that leave dedicated DVRs? Chances are that it would leave devices such as TiVo in the pages of history books, and in museums dedicated to gadgets.
Interpreting the Outcomes
There could be little worse than a guilty verdict in the TiVo vs. AT&T law suit from the standpoint of the average consumer. IPTV is still an emerging technology, but is already being deployed across massive networks. The future of such networks might render devices such as dedicated DVR boxes obsolete, and that might not be such a bad outcome. If TiVo wins, such a future might never come to pass.
