TIVO vs E*

[CuriousMark]

Scott has posted repeatedly that those DVRs will not be shut off. Period. TiVO knows this. They don't even want them turned off. They want money out of Dish. Worst case, if it all goes against Dish, is that they will pay a fortune to TiVO or buy them. TiVO is publicly traded, at a bit over $6 per share.

TiVO's whole business plan seems to have become one of making a profit thru legal maneuvers when you can't thru business actions.

I think it is less about getting the money out of Dish than it is getting their Intellectual Property respected so that others (cable companies for example) doing the same as Dish will see that taking a license is the correct thing for them to do. For that to happen Dish has to be willing or forced to take a license. The current lever to force that is DVR shutdown. It may not be the lever TiVo would prefer, but it is the only one they have at the moment.



While all of this has been going on TiVo's business plan has morphed from one of "fight them" to one of "join them" in that they now have partnerships with DirecTV, Comcast, Cox, Amazon, Disney, Netflix, Jaman and Google youTube. Dish is still refusing to come around and join the big happy family and is choosing to continue going it alone. The current situation has arisen out of Dish's legal maneuverings to avoid obeying an injunction. Dish could end that today if they wanted. They could buy a license, join the family and not a single DVR would be at risk.

[navychop]

I think it is less about getting the money out of Dish than it is getting their Intellectual Property respected ....

1. They are a business. Getting it "respected" means getting money for it.

2. It is a massive stretch, admittedly one they are getting away with, to say it is "their" intellectual property. DVRs were out before TIVO ever hit the streets. Look at Replay. The concept is fairly simple, and obvious. But we can believe the patents are way too broad and easily granted till the cows come home- it's what the courts say that matters.

3. Come the revolution, I'll fix it all!

[CuriousMark]

1. They are a business. Getting it "respected" means getting money for it.

2. It is a massive stretch, admittedly one they are getting away with, to say it is "their" intellectual property. DVRs were out before TIVO ever hit the streets. Look at Replay. The concept is fairly simple, and obvious. But we can believe the patents are way too broad and easily granted till the cows come home- it's what the courts say that matters.

3. Come the revolution, I'll fix it all!

My point is that an ongoing license arrangement is more important than a one time cash settlement. If all they wanted was money, they could have gone for the one time payout and left it at that.

It is the court that is saying there was infringement on the specifics of this one patent, which is only a small but critical part of the whole DVR picture.

I'll be selling torches and pitchforks at the edge of the village to anyone willing to storm the legal system castle.

[Greg Bimson]

2. It is a massive stretch, admittedly one they are getting away with, to say it is "their" intellectual property. DVRs were out before TIVO ever hit the streets. Look at Replay.

So let's take a look at Replay...

In 2001, ReplayTV's owner SonicBlue sued TiVo over the implementation of DVR's. ReplayTV was trying to defend its patent portfolio against violations by another company. Two months later, in February 2002, TiVo countersued ReplayTV. TiVo was trying to defend its patent portfolio against infringement by another company. However, TiVo sued ReplayTV over alleged infringement of TiVo's Time Warp patent, the same patent that DISH/SATS DVR's have been found to infringe. It is quite possible they both infringed upon each other's patents. And the suit was dismissed by both parties when they agreed to end the lawsuit.

So I don't buy that just because DVR's were available that aspects of DVR functionality aren't patentable. Heck, Alexander Graham Bell was able to patent the telephone even though wires were strung across America for the telegraph. The Time Warp patent was upheld upon review by the PTO, thus making it bulletproof.

So it isn't like this is some exceptional case.

[jacmyoung]

...So it isn't like this is some exceptional case.

Agreed.

For the same reason, if the patent can be designed around, well it can be.

E*'s biggest mistake was back then they simply copied everything TiVo gave them, then told TiVo to take a hike. TiVo's DVR patent was not diffecult to work around, if what E* described of their new DVR software is true.

TiVo said themselves during the trial that there were many DVR technologies, TiVo was only going after the one they had the patent on, that E* infringed on.

[flyingsquirrel]

Has anyone considered that the delay may be the judge's way of encouraging the parties to settle? I think that if this were a priority with him, he would have ruled. Is there any requirement that he rule in any kind of timeframe? I don't think so.

Is his ruling going to make all that much difference? Whoever loses will appeal. In this case NOT issuing a ruling may lead to a conclusion faster than an actual ruling.

[CuriousMark]

Has anyone considered that the delay may be the judge's way of encouraging the parties to settle?

Yes, several have suggested the same. His comment to TiVo and Dish Lawyers at the last hearing that these kinds of cases drag on forever seems to bolster that belief too. It sounds like he wants it to be over, and isn't thrilled to have to deal continued hearings, so taking his time certainly could be a way of saying "settle already".

[Greg Bimson]

But what exactly will a delay accomplish? DISH/SATS thinks TiVo wants too much money, so they won't settle. TiVo will want quite a bit of money, so they won't settle until they get what they want.

There will be no settlement until after the decision is rendered, either leaving TiVo in the drivers seat or DISH/SATS driving the getaway car until TiVo can try to pin something else on them.

Is his ruling going to make all that much difference? Whoever loses will appeal. In this case NOT issuing a ruling may lead to a conclusion faster than an actual ruling.

If the decision is issued in TiVo's favor and a stay of the following order is not granted by the Court of Appeals, that will make the whole case come to a conclusion more quickly. And much more costly for DISH/SATS.

[jacmyoung]

I agree with what Greg said, only to add that if judge rules DISH not in contempt, and tells TiVo they must seek a new trial on the new design around, the whole case will come to a conclusion even faster

[jclewter79]

I am not very well versed in these things so, I will ask. Since tivo is a publicly traded company, what would stop E* from buying a controlling amount of their stock?