Mediostream sues Apple, Acer, Dell and Gateway

It looks like Mediostream is the latest company headed to Texas to fight against alleged violations of its patents, in this case by none other than Apple, Acer, Dell, and Gateway. According to The Inquirer, Mediostream says those companies infringed on patent number 7,009,655-B2, which was issued to the company on March 7, 2006 and describes a "method and system for direct recording of video information onto a disk medium." While Mediostream doesn't seem to have a whole lot to say on the matter at the moment, it did say that it "has been damaged by the infringement and will continue to be damaged unless enjoined by this court," adding that it is seeking "damages, interest, attorney fees and other reliefs deemed just and proper by the court."

[Via The Inquirer]

[Anthony @ Sep 4th 2007 11:29AM]

Direct video recording to a disk medium? I might be mistaken but I think the ability to do that has been out long before March 7, 2006.

[Nick @ Sep 4th 2007 11:47AM]

You are mistaken. We here at Mediostream hold the patent to a "method and system for direct recording of video information onto a disk medium". It will revolutionize the world. This method and system is to use a laser to ,in layman's terms, write information as, what we like to call, "bits" (0's and 1's, which we also own).

Welcome to the US PTO where we allow companies to patent ideas or technology that is already common knowledge.

[Ben F @ Sep 4th 2007 1:14PM]

@Anthony and Nick
The 2006 date is the issue date. The date you want to look at is the priority date. This is most likely the filing date, but in the case of continuations, etc. can be early. The entity who receives the patent must prove novelty (and a bunch of other stuff) as of this date to receive the patent.

[Nick @ Sep 4th 2007 1:43PM]

@ Ben F

First off... it is called humor!

Second off.. the abstract does matter because it explains what they supposedly "own".

Third.. if you were to read the abstract they patented the idea of taking video as format A and converting it to format B. This is not revolutionary nor novel around the date July 23, 2002 which was when the application was filed. Unless it is due to a use of a specific algorithm there should have been no reason for the PTO to award them patent #7,009,655

[Ben F @ Sep 4th 2007 2:13PM]

@ Nick

You need to get a better understanding of the patent system. The abstract has no effect on patentability. The only part of a patent that explains what someone "owns" is the claims. The abstract is merely supporting documentation.

So your third comment about reading the abstract is just pointless. They didn't patent the abstract. The entirety of their legal right is the claims.

[Anthony @ Sep 4th 2007 11:53AM]

One more comment on this subject. Does anyone know why they are targetting just these companies? Are they easier targets in Texas? Surely you'd think with a "patent" like this they'd be going after the companies that have been making the direct to DVD/HDD camcorders. Apple, Dell, Acer, and Gateway don't really strike me as the leaders in that sort of industry. Unless they are going to eventually go after every computer company. But then why not just go to the source and sue the silicon miners that make it all possible?

[Phil @ Sep 4th 2007 5:01PM]

"In a specific embodiment, the invention provides a method for converting video information (e.g., captured, streaming, file) from an incoming format to an outgoing format using a single pass conversion process (e.g. continuous) free from one or more intermediary files. The method includes inputting video information in a first format, e.g., captured, streaming, multimedia files. The method directly converts the video information in the first format to raw video information in an uncompressed format, e.g., RGB, YUV. The method inputs a desired output media format based upon a first input and inputs a desired TV standard (check on this) based upon a second input. Preferably, the first and second inputs are user inputs from a user interface."

This sounds pretty much like the standard practise used in stream ripping, recording digital/analogue TV to disk, DVD ripping and even video conversion!

[Michael R Johnson @ Sep 4th 2007 11:59AM]

If the claim is as vague as it sounds, doesn't it seem inevitable that all digital camera/camcorder manufacturers will also be rolled into this lawsuit soon enough?

It's almost laughable.

[LondonConsultant @ Sep 4th 2007 11:59AM]

Yep, the patent is obviously for a *particular* method of directly recording the video information, not *any* method of directly recording it. But what is Mediostream's particular method and what do they think is novel about it?

[LondonConsultant @ Sep 4th 2007 12:08PM]

I just searched. Here's the patent abstract (still sounds pretty vague to me):

A method for converting video information from an incoming format to an outgoing format using a process free from one or more intermediary files. The method includes receiving video information in a first format and receiving a desired output media format based upon a first input and a desired TV standard based upon a second input. The method decodes the video information in the first format to raw video information in an uncompressed format and directly resizes the raw video information in the uncompressed format into a size associated with the desired output media format and the desired TV standard. The method adjusts the uncompressed format in the size associated with the desired output media format and the desired TV standard to a frame rate associated with the desired TV standard and encodes the uncompressed format in the size and the frame rate into an elementary video stream. A step of multiplexing the elementary video stream with audio information in the desired output media format and the desired TV standard to form video and audio information in a presentation format based upon the desired output media format and the desired TV standard is included.

[Ben F @ Sep 4th 2007 1:15PM]

The Abstract is unimportant. To understand what the legal right is, focus on the claims and only the claims.

[- @ Sep 4th 2007 12:10PM]

I just put my butter information on a toast medium... I think I hear the lawyers knocking.

[kakapo @ Sep 4th 2007 12:11PM]

I just read the patent.
How was this EVER allowed to be submittd as an application in 2002?
What USPTO dip-shite didn't look for prior art? Or public domain?
And all you have is flowcharts... classic!
I guess the originating Attys office (Dewey Cheatem and Howe is in cahoots with the firm of Lie Back and Wackit) to get all of this passed through the BS Judiciary system in Tex-ass.

(Hmmmm, the home state of Dubya You Know who - he is visiting our fine land now - behind barbed wire and baracades). Yes, folks "Merica is so loved because of 'Dubya and his cronnies.

No wonder Steve Jobs and Company is pushing for Patent reform!

[Mike @ Sep 4th 2007 12:30PM]

I fail to see how this has anything to do with our President.

[ososxe @ Sep 4th 2007 12:15PM]

Remember kids... If you want to win some free publicity, and be the laughingstock of everyone on the internet, just sue any successful company for patent infirgement on the most obvious and vague patent claims.

[Dionysus444 @ Sep 4th 2007 2:00PM]

First, Patents are easy to look up, www.uspto.gov, hit patent search by patent number, type in the patent number without the B2 and the ',' and theres the patent.

To sumarize the load of crap that appears on that page however, it seems that the patent is for a way to burn a video without temporary files involved. So as to take one format of video, and to convert it directly to a second format of video.

Why the US patent office would be stupid enough to grant a patent on this idea (see the record button on your old VCR), I have no idea, all I can say is:

"Ain't it great to be Canadian?!?!"

[Ben F @ Sep 4th 2007 3:31PM]

The problem with your "analysis" is that you oversimplify the process. For infringement to occur, someone must infringe "each and every element" of the claimed invention. Below I have copied claim 1. It is a narrow system claim which is not particularly similar to a VCR in action (although has some similarity in result).

1. A system for converting video information from an incoming format to an outgoing format using an integrated computer software application, the integrated computer software application being provided on one or more memories, the one or more memories including: a code directed to receiving video information in a first format; a code directed to receiving a desired output media format based upon a first input; a code directed to receiving a desired TV standard based upon a second input; a code directed to converting the video information in the first format to raw video information an uncompressed format using a decoding process; a code directed to resizing the raw video information in the uncompressed format into a size associated with the desired output media format and the desired TV standard; a code directed to adjusting the uncompressed format in the size associated with the desired output media format and the desired TV standard to a frame rate associated with the desired TV standard; a code directed to processing the uncompressed format in the size and the frame rate into an elementary video stream; and a code directed to processing the elementary video stream with audio information in the desired output media format and the desired TV standard to form video and audio information in a presentation format based upon the desired output media format and the desired TV standard.

[shaun @ Sep 4th 2007 12:18PM]

afaik Dell Acer and Gateway don't make much software, so how could they even be capable of infringement?

I could maybe see it if this patent really was some cool secret way of recording and Apple were violating it with, say the new iMovie or something.


Anyway I have to go and file a lawsuit against Microsoft for calling their OS Windows....I patented the window long ago

[simon.nutsy @ Sep 4th 2007 2:18PM]

Once again another laughable patent claim... And yes, Why the hell is the US patents office allowing through such ridiculous claims... The Method they described in basic terms is Transcoding. The automatic approach to recording media into any available format.

And I’ve been transcoding media since the late 90s. DVDs are transcoded. But not real time.

Every media system out there transcodes. Digital TV cards transcode live TV equipment transcodes. Streaming internet radio and Internet streaming video is an automatic real time transcoded.


This tech is not new and is widely used. It has been in the public domain for well over a decade and mostly has its roots in linux unix and BSD. Anyone with a basic and I mean BASIC understanding of media and the internet should know this. Patents should be vetted. :/

I’m getting sick to death of stupid companies like this coming up and trying to sue on the most flimsiest and vaguest of patents.

i would really love to see these companies counter sue the patent rip offs and make these dodgy companies think twice before running something like this.

Though saying that. The big companies are just as guilty of making dodgy vague patents…

Microsoft and the double click anyone?

[Ben F @ Sep 4th 2007 1:20PM]

If you read the claim it is actually quite narrow and not at all vague. go to google.com/patents and look up the patent. At the end of the patent read claim 1. This is most likely the claim they are suing on. This particular claim is quite long and every limitation must be met for infringement to occur. I do not believe the alleged infringements occurred, however the patent was issued based because the inventors limited themselves severely in this claim. So to the people blaming the USPTO (which I personally despise) for this, need to understand more about how the patent system works.

[Nick @ Sep 4th 2007 1:58PM]

And the USPTO need to employ more technologically savy people in order to look through this stuff. Though it seems and looks like they've limited themselves alot (lets give them a round of applause for that) they really didn't.

[John @ Sep 4th 2007 1:31PM]

Is there some reason you people are so desperate to troll the patent system? The patent is for a method of encoding. Not for the concept of writing video to a digital medium, a method of doing so. It's the difference between patenting the MP3 format and patenting the concept of storing audio as a stream of bits. A concept can not be patented , but a method of achieving that concept can be.