• Case Opinions – Music Choice v. Stingray Digital

    Introduction

    I will start quoting, MultiChannel article that describes the genesis of this dispute..

    Stingray and Music Choice have a long history. In 2015, Music Choice sued Stingray for patent infringement after AT&T U-verse dropped Music Choice in favor of the Canadian company. Music Choice had claimed that Stingray’s service included digital audio music and video-on-demand features that infringed on its patents, features that Stingray enhanced after getting access to confidential information during talks about possibly buying Music Choice in 2015. Stingray counter-sued, asserting “claims of unfair competition, defamation, trade libel, tortious interference with existing and prospective contractual relationships, and unfair competition.” (Source: Multichannel)

    It was very interesting that in 2017, Stingray made a $120M offer to Music Choice, that was, rejected, not publicly, simply ignored. The offer was sweet basically no strings attached, and likely this case in dispute completely dismissed.

    “Canadian digital and music video company Stingray Digital Group said it has made an unsolicited offer to purchase pay TV stalwart Music Choice for $120 million. (Id) “

    As  consequence of this lawsuit, multiple other litigation steps have followed this case: IPR,  Counter Claims, Daubert challenges, and much more. I have been tracking this case I have a portfolio in the same are as “Music Choice” & “Stingray Digital”

    Now all my observations have become a reality and in a way, my analysis of this cases even in 2017 is now a reality. In summary, I concluded that:

    • Stingray IPRs was not going to be super successful, as the PTAB judges were not fully convinced with the arguments.
    • I still believe that Music Choice’s slashed patents by PTAB might have some light in appeal.
    • Damages Report, challenged by Stingray, with a multi-million dollar award was going to be accepted by the court
    • Alice defenses were futile by Stingray
    • Trial was going to be conducted and all other defenses denied

    Now this case is scheduled for trial Dec 9th, 2019 in Marshall, TX.

    Opinions

    Several rulings have gone unfavorable to Stingray Digital which includes adoption of Magistrate judge opinions and ordering denying the Daubert challenge made to Dr. Keith Ugone, the damages expert in the case representing Music Choice, Inc.  Clearly, a big reverse to Stingray specially when Dr. Ugone has testified that a “non-infringing alternative” presented by Stingray was not suitable and hence, the damages model was at least $23M from the numbers released in a court ruling.

     For that reason and the other reasons stated within the Order, the Court agrees with the conclusion reached within the Order. The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is therefore ADOPTED. 

    Music_Choice_v_Stingray_Digital_Group_Inc__txedce-16-00586__0324.0

    On second adverse ruling, Judge Payne has provided to Judge Gilstrap its report and recommendations regarding the Alice challenge that Stingray has made against Music Choice, Inc patents. The adverse ruling indicates that as a matter of law, Alice Step One, fails and there is no need to conduct any further steps,

    The Court concludes that each of the remaining asserted claims are not directed to an abstract idea at Alice Step One. Because the Court resolves the Alice inquiry at Step One, the Court need not proceed to Alice Step Two. Thus, the Court recommends that Music Choice’s cross-motion be GRANTED and that Stingray’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be DENIED. 

    Music_Choice_v_Stingray_Digital_Group_Inc__txedce-16-00586__0325.0

    As jury selection is due December 9th, 2019, clearly Stingray has a low change of surviving and in my opinion, Stingray has increase its chances to be found guilty of infringement and pay a hefty amount, likely a multi-million dollar judgment and a potential injunction relief favorable to stingray.

    What will happen?

    Stingray digital has to find a way to now settle this case or, discuss a way to present my patents as a non-infringing alternative to Music Choice, either way, its is not good to be in this position.

    Stingray made an offer for $120M to purchase Music Choice, and Music Choice rejected the offer, risked a trial and now their position has been getting more solid day after day.  I would assume that it will have to make an offer around that to settle? That means that Stingray’s revenues in the US, which totals $9M per Quarter or $36M/year are now at risk.

    The current damages report shows a $23M loss profits made by Music Choice as of this date, however a full report is only REDACTED and unavailable to the public.

    “Revenues in the United States increased 12.2% to $9.4 million (12.9% of total revenues) and in Other Countries, revenues increased by 31.3% to $16.1 million (22.1% of total revenues)” (Source: Globenewswire).

    Greenberg and Trauig is defending Stingray and Dechert Law, LLP is Music Choice’s plaintiff. I will keep track on more updates to follow.

     


     

  • Assisted Cases: Technical Expert & Damages Expert

    Technical Expert Witness for Intellectual Property and Patent Cases

    • University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. et. al. vs. Motorola Mobility LLC.Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida – Case settled
    • Virtela Technology Services Andrew Funk, File in the US District Court of Denver, Colorado, Representing Andrew Funk – Case Settled
    • Del Castillo vs. Bank of America– Representing Bank of America – Case settled.
    • Seven Networks vs. Google– Representing Seven Networks
    • Blue Radios Kopin – Representing Blue Radios – Colorado
    • Mobility Workx T-Mobile– Case Settled
    • Mobility Workx Verizon Wireless, Representing Mobility Workx, LLC in E.D. Texas
    • Mobile Manufacturer Carrier, Eastern District of Texas, Representing Mobile Manufacturer (Confidential)
    • Talent Mobile Development Headios Group (California Federal Court, Trademark/Mobile Software) – Jury trial testimonial with 700k award to my client.
    • Key West Golf Club vs. Cable Provider – Preliminary study – Key West, FL
    • Express Mobile DreamHost, LLCExpert Witness – US District Court of Delaware.
    • StoneAT&T, Velocity – Expert Witness – Representing AT&T and Velocity – US District of San Diego
    • Express Mobilevs Magento, BigCommerce, others – Representing Express Mobile, U.S. E.D District of Texas and California Northern District, Audited code for client, claim charts, invalidity defenses.
    • Advising – Pre-trial / 4 Confidential Defendants/Plaintiffs

    Damages Expert Witness for Intellectual Property and Patent Cases

    • Mobility Workx CellCo Partnership (Verizon Wireless), Representing Mobility Workx, LLC in E.D. Texas, Daubert challenged, scheduled to testify in court for reasonable Royalty

    Inter-Parties Reviews (IPR)

    • Workspot Citrix– Expert Witness IPR2019-01002-– Representing CITRIX  – PTAB
    • DISH Network LLC vs Multimedia Content Management LLC– IPR2019-01014 and IPR2019-01015, Representing Multimedia Content Management, LLC

     

    “Assisting startups, mid- to large-corporations with their intellectual property needs”

  • Why Cloud to Cable : MVPD Licensing Portfolio and Technology.

    Why Cloud to Cable?

    Cloud to Cable is a patented solution for music streaming providers to distribute content to MVPDs. Amplify your offering from online streaming to Cable TV & IPTV systems with linear channels and SVOD subscritions. Create visually appealing streams with great sound, bundled with a mobile experience through the MEVIA app.

    Music and Video are ready in all broadcasting platforms for easy monetization from your affiliates in MVPD, IPTV, Smart TVs & Mobile systems.Cloud to Cable are high-performance servers ready for your customer’s CABSAT headend, with a fault-tolerance design forquick integration. The content is available in mobile applications and Cable TV Broadcasts as SVOD or linear channels, all at once.

    For more details:

    Technology Licensing

    Some existing patents, now expiring, cover VOD linking and Visual Complement to generate music streams for MVPD (Multi-video Programming Distribution) providers.

    Our innovative technologies achieve better results and more benefits under patents US Pat. 10,123,074 , US20190037271, PCT 16/152,606 and EP3238457 (under prosecution) with 39 approved claims.

    The MEVIA App is in charge of interfacing with the end-user via mobile phone or smart TV.

    These patents are implemented in software and hardware for music broadcasting as a “Music for Cable TV” service for operators.

    The software includes modules in Python, C/C++, and PHP, Linux OS-baseline only. Servers are configured for high-reliability and fault-tolerance designed for MVPD systems.

    The system creates visual components and mixes high-end audio with the HTML-based interfaces that are then broadcasted into the CABLE TV System, IPTV Network, or to the mobile devices.

    The technology and patents are available for licensing or acquisition.

  • Global Mobile Awards – Judge for Mobile World Congress 2020

    Dr. Edwin A. Hernandez will be attending a judge for the Global Mobile Awards at the Mobile World Congress 2020 in Barcelona, Spain.
    Stay tuned for coverage from TECHED.tv

  • An innovative approach to compute damages models KPI-based businesses

    This analysis only works when Panduit testfails for a computation of loss profits and only works for a reasonable royalty damagers model.

    I personally submitted a damages report in a the case: Mobility Workx, LLC vs Cellco Partnership aka Verizon Wireless in the E.D. Texas, and Judge Mazzant ordered me to present it to a jury which means a Daubert challenge was made and survived..

    The model I created for damages can be used for many technology disputes where “Key Performance Indicators” are measured to map a business performance, and how and what intellectual property maps to the revenues generated by a business and its performance.

    My report mapped, KPIs from ETSI Specification “TS 32.451 Version 8.0.0 Release 8”  describing the following subcategories:

    • Accessibility
    • Retainability
    • Integrity
    • Availability
    • Mobility

    Judge Mazzant accepted my report due to my experience at Motorola and all my overall resume working with startups, licensing deals, and being part of multiple patent and technology licensing agreements that involved companies like Qualcomm, Google, and many others.

    For example, TS 32.451 contain several KPIs for LTE Systems or E-UTRAN and you can map an Intellectual Property piece to one or several subcategories, and then from that category you can then establish the proper proportion of what an intellectual property maps to, which means that clearly a percentage of the revenues that a company generates can be mapped to a certain technology.

    Key performance Indicators are part of not only 4G LTE systems but are found in most technological systems.  The process is presented in the following slides:

    KPI - Damages Reports
    In summary, one can say that many KPIs have a mapping to revenues, and that’s how companies can value performance to value.

    Once these mappings are determined, which all KPIs may offer the same proportion of value to the generated revenues of a corporation, then one can map the features of a patent portfolio to one or many KPIs and create a weighed average of contribution to the KPIs and hence to the revenues.

    In the following charts, I represent that maybe a single patent or IP maps to a KPI which equates to a percentage of the revenues, let’s say it is 20%. Assume for a second that the KPI category contains 20 parameters, that for simplicity will be equally weighted.  As such, the technology where damages are being calculated corresponds to 2 parameters let’s say, hence a 10% of the KPI is then affected or benefited by the patents or technologies.

    Setting up a royalty rate, of let’s say 3% to 5% seems reasonable and affects only the percentage of the revenues a KPI is affected by the patents. Hence, there is no dispute on how much effect a patent or an IP affects a business model.

    KPIs are usually defined by the defendant or an industry-defined, like in LTE, and each are granular enough that a mapping between a patent portfolio and /or an intellectual property can be mapped to. 

     

    As such a simply royalty yield of 5% can be used to compute an overall royalty that only affects the revenues generated by let’s say LTE Revenues for example, or any other technology with KPIs.

    if you have any questions you can contact me or hire me to calculate your damages report.

    ts_132451v080000p
  • Cloud to Cable – Second Patent Allowed

    September 5, 2019 edwin Uncategorized

    Second Patent – Allowed for Cloud to Cable

    Besides US Patent 10,123,074 a new patent is allowed within the same family. A second set of claims were allowed on September 3rd, 2019 and that means that several claims that cover MPEG TV and Music broadcasting, MPEG 2-way communications, HTTP Live Streaming broadcasting, and fault-tolerance for carriers.

    The patent covers a system to deliver multiple video and audio broadcasts that combine web pages with multimedia to be delivered to cable operators.

    The following summary of inventions and claims for the following inventions:

    ✪ MPEG Broadcasting – DVB (Digital Video Broadcasting)

    ✪ MPEG 2-way broadcasting (On Demand)

    ✪ HTTP Live Streaming (Applications, OTT TV, Over-the-Top)(

    ✪ Fault-Tolerance and broadcasting

    The  claims allowed are essential for modern broadcasting systems for video, music, and web-pages

    The Cloud to Cable TV patents are a bridge between cloud systems and TV & Audio broadcasting platforms where the convergence of HTML and Virtualization make possible, what is called today Edge Computing.

    In 4G & 5G systems, Edge Computing is classified as:

    Edge computing provides compute and storage resources with adequate connectivity (networking) close to the devices generating traffic. The benefit is the ability to provide new services with high requirements on e.g. latency or on local break-out possibilities to save bandwidth in the network – data should not have to travel far in the network to reach the server. Regulatory compliance and network scalability are also important edge computing drivers. Source (Ericsson)

    In a way, Cloud to Cable brings compute and storage resources for TV broadcasting systems, either DVB, Content Delivery Networks, or other similar systems.

    You can review a summary of what’s been published by the USPTO.

    For Licensing Information:

    Licensing-Technologies-Presentation-small

     

    USPTO Public PAIR Information:

    16152606-2
  • IPR Declaration and Expert Witness Assistance

    August 26, 2019 edwin IPR, Patents, USPTO

    What is an IPR?

    IPR is an intellectual property process called “Inter-Parties Review” or IPR. This process includes a “Petitioner,” a company filing a petition,  and a “Patent Owner” that owns a disputed patent.

    The “Petitioner” files this petition because it believes a “Patent Owner” (PO) owns an invalid patent, and decides to challenge its validity, not as part of a jury trial, but in front of the “Patent Trial and Appeals Board” (PTAB).   The PTAB was created as part of American Invents Act (AIA), but has suffered numerous criticisms from patent owners as it is been known to kill many patents usually in favor of petitioners.  However, recent statistics indicate that:

    Out of 4,139 decisions made by the PTAB, 2,512 (61%) didn’t touch a single challenged claim.  9

    The IPR process can be filed, in some cases with evidence using other patents and prior-art, that Petitioner seems to think invalidates the claims in a patent.

    Many inventors face challenges and criticize that some reviews are overly broad and many times, PTAB’s judges extend greatly sometimes with not sufficient clarity of how broad a claim is interpreted, and some may dare to say that this is still an unpredictable outcome.

    After filing a petition, this process may take a total of 12 months to complete. First a Petitioner files a brief or what’s called “Petition” that contains the patent to be be invalidated and an expert declaration made by a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Arts (POSA).

    The grounds for the petition filed by a “Petitioner” must be based under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103. 

    The USPTO presents the following timeline from filing to other steps.

    How can I help you as an Expert?

    You will definitely need an expert witness to assist you in filing and filing a reply brief.  I can help you drafting a declaration and review what is being filed with assistance of your patent attorneys.

    if you are a petitioner filing, you will need an expert declaration that is attached to your petition, if you are a “Patent Owner” your response must also include an Expert Witness declaration.

    The expert declaration will include technical background on why the prior-art covers the patent being challenged or doesn’t cover it, if you are the patent owner.

    As a Patent Owner (PO), you may receive a notification that a petition is file and a reply is due at a certain date. You will then have two options:

    • First, respond in great detail with your best arguments and obtain a denial of the IPR being instituted,
    • or Second, respond superficially and don’t disclose all your arguments and let the IPR be instituted, then file a declaration and obligate petitioner to disclose all their arguments.

    Once petitioner has disclose all these arguments, those cannot be changed. In fact, there could be estoppel consequences in US Federal court if a case is in trial, for those cases you may contact your patent attorney.

    In general, the challenges filed by a Petitioner in an IPR trial, are very similar to what you will find in “Invalidity Contentions” or an Invalidity Report in an infringement matter.

    Personally, I have assisted Citrix, Multimedia Content Management, LLC, and others in their IPR proceedings. I am an experience expert and can assist you in other patent matters.

    Usually, I will work together with your patent attorney,  Your patent attorney will  will draft the response, attach my declaration,  and other exhibits that supplement that declaration that ultimately give a strong foundations to the technical arguments that are being disputed.

    These arguments need to be carefully crafted to ensure prior matters, including other claim constructions or invalidity contentions are  sound and not contradicting with each other.  I as a witness may also be deposed by the Petitioner or the Patent Owner.

    Feel free to reach me and I will help you with your needs.

    751 Park of Commerce Dr. Suite 128,
    Boca Raton, FL, 33487     561.306.4996
    edwin@edwinhernandez.com

    What to write in a declaration?

    The declaration must be able to detect offensive and defensive arguments. Offensive is that a POSA would have known how to combine a patent or use prior-art available to re-create the invention.

    Defensively, you must know exactly if there are missing components and whether nor not a POSA would have been inclined to combine what a petitioner argues.  Many times, there are words chosen or similar capabilities are forced by a petitioner to make their arguments infant of the PTAB board.

    My declaration will have as a final objective:

    • Teach the PTAB board, how far-fetched a Petitioner arguments may be, can they be combined, are disclosures sufficient and how similar,
    • Teach the PTAB board how close Petitioner or a POSA would combine art and generate the patent claim, meaning is that claim disclosed in one or several combinations of prior art?

    In general, my job as an expert is to sit the foundation that your attorney will use to craft legal arguments and persuade a positive outcome to your case.

    If you need an Expert for IPR, contact me!

    If my area of expertise is not sufficient, or I may be busy in other cases I  can find you the right person for the job, contact me asap to study your case and what options you may have.

    Declaration Cost

    An expert may cost between $375 to $575 per hour with retainers ranging from $5,000 to $10,000.  Additional fees for depositions or additional declarations.  Contact me for pricing and what kind of arrangement can I make for you.


    For more information, rates, and references contact us at:

  • Cloud to Cable TV – Intellectual Property Portfolio

    Cloud to Cable TV is the platform that makes it easy to send music channels, video channels, video on demand, and any other multimedia streaming content to millions of subscribers.  Cloud to Cable enables a friendly distribution system for media owners, content providers, to subscribers in IPTV, Cable TV, OTT, or even satellite operators.
    CLOUD TO CABLE
    Mobile and Cable TV distribution
    We have developed a technology that sim greatly simplifies multimedia delivery of deliver music & TV content to cable operators and mobile devices, all in one-stop shop. Upload your content to our online drive or cloud storage, and get ready for distribution and monetization.;
    Our intellectual property portfolio includes the following assets:
    • US patents
    • European patents
    • Software and trade secrets
    Our patented innovative technology is called:    CLOUD to CABLE
    In essence, cloud to cable brings value by bringing to you, an easy way to do:
    • Music broadcasting to Operators, mobile, IPTV, cable TV, or even satellite,
    • Modern virtualization and cloud technologies integrated into our software,
    • Broadcasting with fault-tolerance, ready for high-reliability, and great quality of service.
    • Parallel transcoding meaning you can deliver 5, 10, 50, even 100 music or TV channels depending on the hardware chosen, number of instances, and bandwidth purchased from us,
    • Web-based approach, yes all is web-based, no funky DIGICIPHER II, MPEG TS, or any of that, all if works on the web, works with Cable TV, Satellite, all and all.
    • Interactive and VOD integration
    • TV & Music all in one Platform
    PDF file with our presentation slide deck:
  • Cloud to Cable TV Patent Issued Today.

    US Patent 10,123,074

    Today, the US Pat 10,123,074 issued for Cloud to Cable, after a provisional was filed December 2014. This patent covers the currently commercialized Cloud to Cable TV system.  The process was not that long, considering that the initial firm, NOVAK DRUCE was disbanded and I had to transfer the case to Greg Nelson and Fox & Rothschild, LLP in West Palm Beach, FL.The patent issued  is titled: Method, system, and apparatus for multimedia content delivery to cable TV and satellite operators 
    A patent continuation was filed in October to cover other aspects of the invention, as shown in the picture the patent generates video with an MPEG Transport Stream that is compatible with a Cable TV system.

    What is Cloud to Cable?

    The main aspects and novelty of the invention include but are not limited to the following items:
    • Integration of web-elements, web pages, or HTML5-related content with rendering of this content on OTT, IPTV, and most importantly, Cable TV systems.
    • Virtualization and use of containers in the distribution of music and TV content to cable operators, by provision at virtual machine or docker container with the web page plus content for rendering purposes.
    • Essentially, the patent covers music and TV distribution to cable operators and systems for broadcasting.
    • Over-the-Top, IPTV systems, or Cable TV operators can now integrate novel ReactJS, Javascript, and all advanced mechanisms for designing user interfaces into their video feeds.
    • Audio and music channels can be integrated and created by just connecting to the web-based content provider.
    • Fault-tolerance and high-reliability is presented in the disclosure.
    In many ways, the invention covers a device, system, and methods to accomplish media distribution with ease, reducing costs, and implementing a novel mechanism that replaces satellite delivery, hardware encoders, and many other devices,

    Cloud to Cable Video

    A video can be found at EGLA’s Youtube Channel:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80G-rh6Dlns

  • NBC Universal Hackathon – Miami 2018

    This weekend I went and spent some time hacking some code at the “NBC Universal Hackathon” and trying it out new ideas, meeting new friends, and learning a ton on many technological aspects and innovating.  The particular problem that we decided to to solve was the irrelevance  aspects of current TV and how more interactive could it be with current technologies.  The way to solve it thru a collaborative experience where users can interact with their phones and cameras with the video shown on screen.The team was composed by: Satya, Paul Valdez, Juan Gus, Myself, and Chris.What we did what simple, we could create a website that could have a canvas that could be treated with effects, add the TV/Video feeds into it and  that distribute the content using a platform like “Cloud to Cable TV” to cable operators or OTT/IPTV systems.
    Cloud to Cable TV
    The solution required a few items to be setup and configured:
    • RTMP Server or WebRTC Setup to receive video feeds from Smartphones or your laptop,
    • FFMPEG to encode, compress, and publish  video/audio feeds
    • Mobile App with RTMP Client or WebRTC Client or laptop. We tried several but this one worked out ok.
    • A web application in Python to map each feed and position it on top of the TV Channel video source (assuming an M3U8 feed or a movie in MP4)
    With this in place, it is a matter compiling CRTMP, FFMPEG, and we tried other components as Deep Learning such as the “Deep Fakes” project. The idea that we had was to replace one of the actors image, as well as superimposed our live feeds into the video.Issues:
    • The safari browser doesn’t allow you to play content with autoplay features, meaning that the user MUST initiate a playback. If SAFARI sees or detects that onLoad the content autoplays this fails.
    • There are issues with SAFARI and dynamically loading the content and video.oncanplaythrough() is required to be added to the javascript.
    The live feeds had a delay of about 30-40seconds, as it had to:
    • Convert and push from mobile phone to RTMP Server,
    • Grab RTMP Stream and send it as an m3u8 encoded file to the website.
    The standard CRTMP Screen would look like and connections from Gus and Pablo successfully took place:
    
    +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
    |                                                                     Services|
    +---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
    | c |      ip       | port|   protocol stack name   |     application name    |
    +---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
    |tcp|        0.0.0.0| 1112|           inboundJsonCli|                    admin|
    +---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
    |tcp|        0.0.0.0| 1935|              inboundRtmp|              appselector|
    +---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
    |tcp|        0.0.0.0| 8081|             inboundRtmps|              appselector|
    +---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
    |tcp|        0.0.0.0| 8080|             inboundRtmpt|              appselector|
    +---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
    |tcp|        0.0.0.0| 6666|           inboundLiveFlv|              flvplayback|
    +---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
    |tcp|        0.0.0.0| 9999|             inboundTcpTs|              flvplayback|
    +---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
    |tcp|        0.0.0.0| 5544|              inboundRtsp|              flvplayback|
    +---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
    |tcp|        0.0.0.0| 6665|           inboundLiveFlv|             proxypublish|
    +---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
    |tcp|        0.0.0.0| 8989|         httpEchoProtocol|            samplefactory|
    +---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
    |tcp|        0.0.0.0| 8988|             echoProtocol|            samplefactory|
    +---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
    |tcp|        0.0.0.0| 1111|    inboundHttpXmlVariant|                  vptests|
    +---+---------------+-----+-------------------------+-------------------------+
    
    We were trying to use WebRTC but we had many issues with latency and delays.The FFMPEG command required and that was used for the demo was:
    ffmpeg -re  -i rtmp://96.71.39.58/live/pablo -c:v libx264 -c:a aac -ac 1 -strict -2 -crf 18 -profile:v baseline -maxrate 200k -bufsize 1835k -pix_fmt yuv420p -flags -global_header -hls_time 3 -hls_list_size 4 -hls_wrap 10 -start_number 1 /var/www/html/live/pablo.m3u8
    
    ffmpeg -re  -i rtmp://96.71.39.58/live/gus -c:v libx264 -c:a aac -ac 1 -strict -2 -crf 18 -profile:v baseline -maxrate 200k -bufsize 1835k -pix_fmt yuv420p -flags -global_header -hls_time 3 -hls_list_size 4 -hls_wrap 10 -start_number 1 /var/www/html/live/gus.m3u8
    The Mobile App published an RTMP Stream to the server under /live/pablo and /live/gus.  The demo video on what it will look like:
    https://vimeo.com/299048743
    Screen capture in Vimeo using Safari
    For screen capturing in a Mac with FFMPEG with 3 screens, list your devices and capturing to avoid any MOOV issues and useless MOV/MP4 files.
    ffmpeg -f avfoundation -list_devices true -i "" 
    
    ffmpeg -f avfoundation -i "3:0" -t 120 -pix_fmt yuv420p -c:v libx264 -c:a libmp3lame -r 25 teleport.mov
    The presentation we made to the judges at the “NBC Universal Hackathon” can be found here:
    https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1sKAvnC-Y-KHu2qclulH2Fp-8yWvTslq6bLaocyEgtfQ/edit?usp=sharing
    The source code consists on an HTML site using DOM objects, video source, and a canvas. As shown, the video is hidden it is native format in ways that you can use canvas drawing to copy the video from the “src” in m3u8, MOV, MP4 or whatever format your browser can handle to the canvas. The canvas is then the placeholder for all the overlays and divs. The idea with the canvas is that messages can then by typed and exchange between users, as a WhatsApp application or any other chat application that uses the canvas.
    var canvas = document.getElementById("c");
    var context = canvas.getContext("2d");
    
    window.onload = function() {
     // document.getElementById("fb-profile").style.display = "none";
      
        var canvas = document.getElementById("c");
        var context = canvas.getContext("2d");
        // grab the video element
        // var video = document.getElementById("v");
        
        // drawVideo(context, video, canvas.width, canvas.height);
        // calls drawVideo() function, passing all the objects
    
    }
    
    var splayer = {};
    
    function showIt(id, url, hideOrNot) {
      console.log(id+"  "+url+ " setting it to " +hideOrNot); 
    
      splayer["v_"+id] = document.getElementById("v_"+id);
      document.getElementById(id).style.display = hideOrNot;
      if (document.getElementById(id).style.display == "none" ) { 
         document.getElementById(id).style.display = "block";
         var vId = "vsrc_"+id; 
         console.log("playing "+vId + "  "+url);
         document.getElementById(vId).src = url;
         if (splayer["v_"+id].paused) { 
            console.log("Video paused.... ");
            splayer["v_"+id].load();
            splayer["v_"+id].oncanplaythrough = function() {
                splayer["v_"+id].play();
             };
         } else {
           console.log("Video is playing already..."); 
         }
      } else {
         console.log(" Stopping .... v_"+id);
         splayer["v_"+id].pause();
         document.getElementById(id).style.display="none";
      }
    }
    
     var player = document.getElementById("v");
     
    function ChangeHarry(){
        console.log("Playing Harry Potter.... ");
        document.getElementById("vsrc_main").src = "http://s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/teleportme/videos/HarryPotterClip.mp4";
        player.load();
        player.play();
        drawVideo(context, player, canvas.width, canvas.height);
    }
    
    function ChangeQueen(){
      console.log("Playing Queen of the South ... ");
      player.pause();
      document.getElementById("vsrc_main").src="http://96.71.39.58/queen0.mp4";
      player.load();
      player.play();
      // drawVideo(context, player, canvas.width, canvas.height);
    }
    
    setTimeout(function() {
           showIt ("first", "https://mediamplify.com/teleport/iwantharry.mp4", "none");
           setTimeout(ChangeHarry, 6000);
         } , 2000 );
    
    setTimeout(function() { 
          showIt ("first", "https://mediamplify.com/teleport/iwantharry.mp4",  "block"); 
    }, 8000 ); 
    
    setTimeout(showIt, 5000, "second", "http://96.71.39.58/live/pablo.m3u8", "none");
    setTimeout(showIt, 6000, "third",  "http://96.71.39.58/live/gus.m3u8", "none");
    console.log("Starting changing stuff"); 
    
    setTimeout(function() {
                console.log("Preeping to switch to Queen of the South" ); 
                showIt ("first", "https://mediamplify.com/teleport/iwantqueen.mp4", "none"); 
              }, 13000);  
    
    setTimeout(showIt, 15000, "third",  "http://96.71.39.58/live/pablo.m3u8", "none"); 
    setTimeout(showIt, 15010, "second", "http://96.71.39.58/live/gus.m3u8" ,  "none"); 
    
    // setTimeout(showIt, 20000, "third", "http://96.71.39.58/live/gus.m3u8", "none"); 
    setTimeout(function() { 
                console.log("Queen of the South");
                ChangeQueen();                        
                showIt("first", "", "block");
               }, 19000); 
    
    
    
    function fbProfile() {
        var x = document.getElementById("fb-profile");
        if (x.style.display === "none") {
            x.style.display = "block";
        } else {
            x.style.display = "none";
        }
    }
    
    function drawVideo(context, video, width, height) {         
       context.drawImage(video, 0, 0, width, height); // draws current video frame to canvas     
       var delay = 100; // milliseconds delay for slowing framerate
       setTimeout(drawVideo, delay, context, video, width, height); // recursively calls drawVideo() again after delay
    }
    For a functional demo, 1st allow the site to play video in autoplay:
    Update your settings in SAFARI
    We didn’t win the “NBC Universal Hackathon” but had a ton of fun doing it!.  We failed in the presentation, it was only 3 minutes and our presenter disappeared in the last minute, and Gus improvised and didn’t use all the time provided by the judges. We knew we were done when no questions were asked. …. Anyways!!! You cannot always win.