Tivo sanction request against Echostar uncovered: $1Billion

**diogen** · 07-14-2009 09:58 AM

Anybody remembers the RIM vs. NTP legal shenanigans about patents? Sounds very familiar...
IIRC, at the beginning RIM could buy them out for some $100-200 mil.
In the end they paid a settlement of over $500 mil.

Just like RIM, Dish made some mistakes in the past and most likely will have to pay one way or another.

**JohnL** · 07-14-2009 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by Sponge14

Is this true? Is Tivo serious? If it comes down to it, Dish just needs to buy Tivo and put them to work on Dish only equipment...

TiVo wants href="http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2009-07/tivo-wants-1-billion-out-of-dishechostar/" BILLION out of DISH/EchoStar

Sponge14,

I'd have to agree. What a stupid move on their part, that is unless TIVO is just desperate to sellout their ownership stake in their company.

Echostar could buyout TIVO completely for vastly less than the Billion they are asking for.

This smacks of desperation, TIVO is hemorrhaging money, losing subscribers, and revenue. I believe its a ploy to get Dish to just buy them out completely.

I'd have to say the writing is on the wall for TIVO, the vast majority of Multichannel subs want an integrated DVR from their service provider. TIVO can't survive without getting royalty payments from most if not all MSO's DVR customers.

TIVO is aiming for the Fences in a last ditch effort to survive. Without Dish losing in the appeals process, and Dish paying up completely TIVO is going to be ONE extinct DINO.

If TIVO does win, it is only the beginning of litigation against any and all other companies DVR technology.

Charlie is not stupid, this could be great for Charlie regardless of an Echostar win or loss. If Dish wins they are in the clear, if they lose Echostar could buyout TIVO completely and then use the TIVO patents and the Court Win over Dish to go after any and all other DVR providers.

John

**jacmyoung** · 07-14-2009 10:28 AM

Let's make sure we know how this number was "uncovered." TiVo filed their openinging brief on the damages under seal, which sought this number. They did not want to disclose this number.

It was E* that made this number public. It was made public when E* motioned Judge Folsom to stay his additional sanction proceedings. E* showed their total disrespect for such number. They are telling Judge Folsom when we appeal, there is no way the appeals court would view such number in any positive light when they had already said E* had established strong likelihood of success on the merits, so Judge Folsom, cut this TiVo's crap and stay the sanction proceeding.

The number is not good for E*, E* would not have disclosed it unless E* regarded it as garbage.

**ab187** · 07-14-2009 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Scott Greczkowski

Anyone like my artwork?

Very nice

**Greg Bimson** · 07-14-2009 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by vampz26

Hopefully their obvious greed and criminal mindset will weaken their position as well as their credibility...I mean, God forbid they actually try to make their money off of building better DVRs...

What, you mean a DVR that integrates with DISH Network service? I believe that requires an agreement.

TiVo mentioned before they were unceremoniously dumped by DirecTV that they could have built an MPEG4 DVR for the DirecTV platform.

Originally Posted by Voyager6

Tivo can ask for just about any amount for compensation of the contempt verdict. However, the real issue is whether the judge erred in his finding of contempt. I think his fatal mistake was his decision that even if the new software was non-infringing he still would find the DVR's to infringe. I think the Appeals Court will have something to say about this.

Uh, it wasn't that Judge Folsom would still find that the new software infringes. It was that even if the new software was no longer infringing that Judge Folsom would still find DISH Network and EchoStar in contempt for failure to disable. Big difference.

Originally Posted by ncted

Software patents should be abolished.

But the claims of the patent in question are not only about software. The two claims are for "an apparatus" and "a process", where the process claim even mentions the need for an apparatus. So this is about hardware.

**Hall** · 07-14-2009 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by elwaylite

Aint that the truth. "Troll" is way overused.

And it was a staff member who said it too.... Seems to me it would have been easier for them to delete (or at least pull it for review by Scott or rocky) the post instead.

**rockymtnhigh** · 07-14-2009 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by hall

And it was a staff member who said it too.... Seems to me it would have been easier for them to delete (or at least pull it for review by Scott or rocky) the post instead.

Well, since it was in the pub, I was hesitant to do so. Even though I disagreed with ramy's statement.

But that said -- remember folks,(and I am not aiming this at you Hall, just making two points in one thread

) keep this discussion on topic. The topic is the amount of money being sought. Not regurgitating the all-out thread war of Tivo vs. Echostar.

**rich88** · 07-14-2009 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Greg Bimson

What, you mean a DVR that integrates with DISH Network service? I believe that requires an agreement.

TiVo mentioned before they were unceremoniously dumped by DirecTV that they could have built an MPEG4 DVR for the DirecTV platform.Uh, it wasn't that Judge Folsom would still find that the new software infringes. It was that even if the new software was no longer infringing that Judge Folsom would still find DISH Network and EchoStar in contempt for failure to disable. Big difference.But the claims of the patent in question are not only about software. The two claims are for "an apparatus" and "a process", where the process claim even mentions the need for an apparatus. So this is about hardware.

Please, just STFU. I'm not saying you're right or wrong.

But just please don't repeat the same ole shit you've been saying forever. You're boring us to tears.

**Greg Bimson** · 07-14-2009 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Sponge14

Is this true? Is Tivo serious? If it comes down to it, Dish just needs to buy Tivo and put them to work on Dish only equipment...

Originally Posted by Bob Haller

E should of bought them years ago...... this was all easily avoidable

Originally Posted by MikeD-C05

I agree. It would of made more sense to buy them and make the lawsuits go away. Then they could be receiving payments from stand alone Tivos and Directv with their new Tivos as well. The amount of time wasted on creating software work arounds , fighting lawsuits , appeals is all for nothing.

Originally Posted by JohnL

Echostar could buyout TIVO completely for vastly less than the Billion they are asking for.

No, they can't.

Someone might want to look up a hostile takeover and TiVo's poison pill fighting against one.

**Greg Bimson** · 07-14-2009 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by rich88

Please, just STFU. I'm not saying you're right or wrong.

But just please don't repeat the same ole shit you've been saying forever. You're boring us to tears.

1) Personal attack noted
2) I am not repeating mantras. Others are. I was cleaning up some completely misguided statements and mis-statements
3) People are allowed to have differing opinions, as some of the administrative staff here at satelliteguys.us have stated.

I am trying to guide this back on topic, which is about TiVo's request for $1 billion in sanctional damages. It is not about:

DISH/SATS buying TiVo for less than $1 billion
Software patents need to be thrown out
TiVo cannot build a decent DVR
TiVo's business model stinks
TiVo's a troll (yet they make a product)

and everything else that has been introduced ad nauseum.

In case it has been forgotten, this is not about a $1 billion request because of infringement. This is about a $1 billion request because of contempt of an order from the court, of which infringement is only part of the contempt.