Editing Digital video recorder (section)

== Patent and copyright litigation ==
{{Globalize|US|date=December 2010}}
On July 14, 2005, [[Forgent Networks]] filed suit<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.forgent.com/ip/746cases.shtml |title=Home &#124; Asure Software |publisher=Forgent.com |access-date=November 21, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060114095749/http://www.forgent.com/ip/746cases.shtml |archive-date=January 14, 2006 }}</ref> against various companies alleging infringement on {{US patent|6285746}}, entitled "Computer controlled video system allowing playback during recording". The listed companies included EchoStar, DirecTV, Charter Communications, Cox Communications, Comcast, Time Warner, and Cable One.

[[Scientific-Atlanta]] and [[Motorola]], the manufacturers of the equipment sold by the above-mentioned companies, filed a counter-suit against Forgent Networks claiming that their products do not violate the patent, and that the patent is invalid. The two cases were combined into case 6:06-cv-208, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.

According to court documents, on June 20, 2006, Motorola requested that the United States Patent and Trademarks Office reexamine the patent, which was first filed in 1991, but has been amended several times.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.forgent.com/ip/docs/208-327-1.pdf |title=Home &#124; Asure Software |publisher=Forgent.com |access-date=November 21, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190525164447/http://www.forgent.com/ip/docs/208-327-1.pdf |archive-date=May 25, 2019 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

On March 23, 2007, Cablevision Systems Corp lost a legal battle against several Hollywood studios and television networks to introduce a network-based digital video recorder service to its subscribers.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pvrwire.com/2006/04/06/tivo-vs-echostar-lawsuit-update/ |title=AOL TV |publisher=Pvrwire.com |access-date=2011-11-21 |archive-date=2009-01-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090116021829/http://www.pvrwire.com/2006/04/06/tivo-vs-echostar-lawsuit-update/ |url-status=dead }}</ref> However, on August 4, 2008, Cablevision won its appeal. John M. Walker Jr., a Second Circuit judge, declared that the technology "would not directly infringe" on the media companies' rights.<ref name="nytimes.com">{{cite news| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/business/media/05adco.html?ref=business | work=The New York Times | title=A Ruling May Pave the Way for Broader Use of DVR | first=Brian | last=Stelter | date=August 5, 2008 | access-date=May 1, 2010}}</ref> An appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected.

In court, the media companies argued that network digital video recorders were tantamount to video-on-demand, and that they should receive license fees for the recording. Cablevision and the appeals court disagreed. The company noted that each user would record programs on his or her own individual server space, making it a DVR that has a "very long cord".<ref name="nytimes.com"/>

In 2004, TiVo sued EchoStar Corp, a manufacturer of DVR units, for patent infringement. The parties reached a settlement in 2011 wherein EchoStar pays a one-time fee (in three structured payments) that grants Echostar full rights for life to the disputed TiVo patents upon first payment(as opposed to indefinite and escalating license fees to be constantly renegotiated), and Echostar granted TiVo full rights for life to certain Echostar patents and dropped their counter-suit against TiVo.

In January 2012, AT&T settled a similar suit brought by TiVo claiming patent infringement (just as with Echostar) in exchange for cash payments to TiVo totaling $215 million through June 2018 plus "incremental recurring per subscriber monthly license fees" to TiVo through July 2018, but grants no full lifetime rights as per the Echostar settlement.

In May 2012, [[Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC|Fox Broadcasting sued Dish Network]], arguing that Dish's set-top box with DVR function, which allowed the users to automatically record prime-time programs and skip commercials, was copyright infringement and breach of contract. In July 2013, the 9th circuit rejected Fox's claims.