DISH Network and EchoStar Statement Regarding TiVo & NFL. Go Legal Team!

[Tyralak]

The worst that will happen if DISH loses is they will enter into a licensing deal. No one is going to lose their DVR.

As long as they don't foist Tivo's horrible software on us, I'm happy.

[riffjim4069]

As long as they don't foist Tivo's horrible software on us, I'm happy.

I agree. That would akin to placing a Ford Pinto engine into a Ferrari. I would prefer that E* just pay the Tivo Shylock his pound of flesh and tell him to stay the hell out of the way.

[Greg Bimson]

Derailed? No...Delayed? Quite possible...

An argument can be made that Dish's entire strategy during this nonsense is all about being the last man standing...

[From Tyralak, foisting TiVo software onto the DISH/SATS DVR's] would akin to placing a Ford Pinto engine into a Ferrari. I would prefer that E* just pay the Tivo Shylock his pound of flesh and tell him to stay the hell out of the way.

With this re-exam request to the PTO, DISH/SATS is in for a pound, as it appears they will exhaust every legal avenue possible to avoid even thinking about a deal.

Which means if every legal avenue is met by a stop-sign, TiVo will collect "the Ferrari" price, and TiVo will extract a ton of flesh. The TiVo Shylock would collect large from DISH/SATS.

[vampz26]

With this re-exam request to the PTO, DISH/SATS is in for a pound, as it appears they will exhaust every legal avenue possible to avoid even thinking about a deal.

Which means if every legal avenue is met by a stop-sign, TiVo will collect "the Ferrari" price, and TiVo will extract a ton of flesh. The TiVo Shylock would collect large from DISH/SATS.

I'm afraid your only looking at it from one angle...while your scenario is just as viable as any other...the legal aspect is only one-third of the story here. ITs very possible that Dish is attempting to litigate the whole thing into financial oblivion. I don't know how many IP trials you've personally seen in your time, but I've seen more than one get settled in the accounting room, as opposed to the courtroom.

Not to mention the fact that delaying any possible outcome works to Dish's advantage not only financially, but in all practicality as well. Plenty of time to design their 'work around', for whatever thats worth. All things considered, the fact that Dish's work-around is even being considered viable, compiled with all the info regarding replay,etc...and than compile that with the fact that E* has sufficiently advanced the technology while TiVo stayed put, and you have a situation here where the question of a valid patent can be brought into a serious light.

One should not assume TiVo or E* has the upper-hand here...this is a whole new ballgame...one that could very well prove that the verdict of a court proves absolutely nothing...(in some ways it already has...)

[jacmyoung]

...one that could very well prove that the verdict of a court means absolutely nothing...(in some ways it already has...)

While I do not necessarily disagree with everything else you have said, in fact will go one step further to argue that TiVo is indeed in for a big regret of the whole thing, you cannot possibly say the court verdict means nothing, $120 million is not nothing even in the real estate bubble, and sure means a lot more this time around

[vampz26]

While I do not necessarily disagree with everything else you have said, in fact will go one step further to argue that TiVo is indeed in for a big regret of the whole thing, you cannot possibly say the court verdict means nothing, $120 million is not nothing even in the real estate bubble, and sure means a lot more this time around

I'm sorry, I take that back...let me rephrase that statement to say that the verdict of the court 'proves' nothing...and how much a verdict actually 'means' must work itself out over time...

Regardless of how this whole thing plays out, from where we stand today...we are seeing the 'facts' as some people view them, change right before our very eyes...

[Greg Bimson]

I'm afraid your only looking at it from one angle...while your scenario is just as viable as any other...the legal aspect is only one-third of the story here. ITs very possible that Dish is attempting to litigate the whole thing into financial oblivion. I don't know how many IP trials you've personally seen in your time, but I've seen more than one get settled in the accounting room, as opposed to the courtroom.

Almost all deals are settled in the accounting room, whether spending a little or a lot of time in court. So of course DISH/SATS is attempting to litigate this into financial oblivion.

Not to mention the fact that delaying any possible outcome works to Dish's advantage not only financially, but in all practicality as well. Plenty of time to design their 'work around', for whatever thats worth. All things considered, the fact that Dish's work-around is even being considered viable, compiled with all the info regarding replay,etc...and than compile that with the fact that E* has sufficiently advanced the technology while TiVo stayed put, and you have a situation here where the question of a valid patent can be brought into a serious light.

To design another workaround?

I personally believe the workaround is being evaluated for one reason and one reason alone (so keep in mind this is my opinion):

The models of DVR's found infringing are still under jurisdiction of the court. Therefore, the order to disable still stands, to this day. However, since Judge Folsom has to rule on contempt, the order which he issues must reflect the current status of infringement.

My belief is that DISH/SATS is in contempt, simply because the order to disable has been ignored. Judge Folsom can rectify that by granting contempt and issuing a new order to disable. However, issuing another order to disable infringing devices means those devices must still infringe. Therefore, an evaluation of those devices is required before issuing another order.

As far as advancing technology, it isn't like changing from MPEG2 to MPEG4 or adding a few tuners is a novel techological change. That is simply adding a new chipset or a couple of tuners, and tweaking the software to allow those changes.

One should not assume TiVo or E* has the upper-hand here...this is a whole new ballgame...one that could very well prove that the verdict of a court proves absolutely nothing...(in some ways it already has...)

True. I simply believe DISH/SATS has a way to get out if they no longer infringe. If those devices still infringe, then this will be very ugly.

[Derwin0]

My belief is that DISH/SATS is in contempt, simply because the order to disable has been ignored. Judge Folsom can rectify that by granting contempt and issuing a new order to disable.

I don't, because the order was given when both the hardware & software were found to infringe. The appeals court only upheld the software portion of the verdict, not the hardware. Dish has replaced the software in the affected receivers. Therefore if the Judge concludes the software does not violate the patent, than there will be no contempt.

[CuriousMark]

As long as they don't foist Tivo's horrible software on us, I'm happy.

I think you will be safe there. What is being argued is deep under the hood and not really visible to the user at all.

[vampz26]

Almost all deals are settled in the accounting room, whether spending a little or a lot of time in court. So of course DISH/SATS is attempting to litigate this into financial oblivion.To design another workaround?

I personally believe the workaround is being evaluated for one reason and one reason alone (so keep in mind this is my opinion):

The models of DVR's found infringing are still under jurisdiction of the court. Therefore, the order to disable still stands, to this day. However, since Judge Folsom has to rule on contempt, the order which he issues must reflect the current status of infringement.

My belief is that DISH/SATS is in contempt, simply because the order to disable has been ignored. Judge Folsom can rectify that by granting contempt and issuing a new order to disable. However, issuing another order to disable infringing devices means those devices must still infringe. Therefore, an evaluation of those devices is required before issuing another order.

As far as advancing technology, it isn't like changing from MPEG2 to MPEG4 or adding a few tuners is a novel techological change. That is simply adding a new chipset or a couple of tuners, and tweaking the software to allow those changes.True. I simply believe DISH/SATS has a way to get out if they no longer infringe. If those devices still infringe, then this will be very ugly.

Let's not over-complicate the simple concept, while over-simplifying the complex concept.

Let's not simplify the fact that echostar has indeed sufficiently advanced DVR technology over the years while TiVo has stagnated. Whether you want to label the vip622 a 'workaround' or the 922 a breakthru, nothing changes the fact that if you continue to build on an existing technology, you inevitably create new technology. That is that E* is doing, and aside from the obvious financial reasons, that is also why delaying these courtroom antics ad nauseum will continue to work in E*s favor.

And likewise, let's not overcomplicate the simple fact that it only takes one simple question to effect an outcome here. And that question was asked...so like I said, we are looking at a whole new ballgame here and the rules keep changing.

Just think, with the validity of the patent being subject to question, that would mean that any ruling on these issues, past, present, or future, are now all based on nothing more than a glorified 'maybe' until that nonsense gets resolved.