Wow! The total is up to $400 million and that doesn't even include the VIP Series DVRs that are going to get dragged into the mix soon. Is this continued litigation really in the "best interests" of shareholders?
DISH NETWORK AND ECHOSTAR STATEMENT REGARDING TIVO
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 90
- Views 15K
The WSJ has an article on this: TiVo in Line to Get $200 Million in Damages - WSJ.com
A couple of quotes:
It could be a while, or never, before TiVo sees anything.
A couple of quotes:
It could be a while, or never, before TiVo sees anything.
Until a higher court says no more, last time the Supreme Court declined the case, that ended the first round.
The sanctions will not be enforced pending the appeal. When Charlie wins on appeal, all the numbers will be smoke blown.
The only real number is the license rate, TiVo wanted $2.25, Charlie conceded $1.50, guess what did the judge say? How about $1.25, the same rate the jury set for the market 4 years ago.
The only real number is the license rate, TiVo wanted $2.25, Charlie conceded $1.50, guess what did the judge say? How about $1.25, the same rate the jury set for the market 4 years ago.
Yup...so long as Tivo tries to steal from Dish, this will go on and on and on and on...
Yup...it was Echostar's job to use bright colored crayons and pretty pictures so that simpleton of a Judge had a clue...lol.
This is the first time I've heard of one party being accountable for the general intelligence, or in this case the lack thereof, of another party...
Actually the judge did the 1.25 plus 1.00 penalty for not complying. TiVo was asking for $9 or 1 billion in damages, they got 2.25 or 200 million. Echostar wanted 25 cents/month/dvr.
what technology has tivo stolen from charlie?
They are in the process of attempting to do just that...
Charlie has a superior DVR technology, Tivo is claiming they invented it.
They are stealing Echostars right to innovate and build a better mousetrap in the open market. They are attempting to steal Charlies right to grow his business and improve the DVR market thru offering new products.
Given that Tivo has made NO attempt what-so-ever to do the same, than attempting to steal somebody elses right to do so is exactly what they are doing.
And now that this re-examination is taking place, lets just hope the truth is allowed to prevail once and for all so we can ALL enjoy superior DVR technology and not have Tivo force some 'has-been' on us...everybody will be better off.
Which is it ? You can't have it both ways.... If TiVo is wrong, on what grounds can Dish sue other DVR makers on if Dish were to buy TiVo ?
You are correct and that was my point.
Both TiVo and E* argued about the reasonable licensing rates at $2.25 and $1.50, respectively. They then each argued for disgorgement of profit, double or treble the damages, and attorney fees, as the forms of sanctions. In doing so TiVo reached as high as nearly $1B, or $650M, E* conceded as high as $360M.
But Judge Folsom used his own logic, locked his reasonable licensing rate at $1.25, calling the extra $1.00 by TiVo, or the $.25 by E*, sanctions. In doing so, a compulsory licensing rate is now set at $1.25.
What that means is, if E* and TiVo were to settle, the highest rate TiVo would get would be $1.25. Because anything higher, E* can ask the court to order a compulsory licensing agreement at $1.25 both E* and TiVo must agreed to as a settlement by the court.
A settlement agreement, whether through consent by both parties, or by court order, will not contain any penalties, only a reasonable licensing rate. As you can see, such low $1.25 rate will not coax Charlie to settle because he had already agreed to a rate of $1.50.
As bad as it may sound, you will find out TiVo will not likely appeal this decision, because TiVo knows they cannot win this appeal. TiVo is only trying to paint as good a picture as they can, for as long as this appeal may last for them.
Last edited:
That could be why Charlie & Co. are fighting Tivo so strongly.
E* believes that their work-around is legit. They just need a more open-minded court to actually review it.In considering costs, please don't forget software development time and resources. Development and related amortization costs frequently far exceed hardware costs on a per-unit basis. Even if Echostar "stole" the technology from TiVo by infringing on their patent, they didn't simply copy the software code from a page in TiVo's dumpster.
This continues to showcase how backwards our patent system is. John LeCarre can't sue every author who wrights a spy novel with a character working for MI-6. TiVo shouldn't be able to collect damages based on gross revenues from anyone who uses their idea in a unique and innovative way.
This continues to showcase how backwards our patent system is. John LeCarre can't sue every author who wrights a spy novel with a character working for MI-6. TiVo shouldn't be able to collect damages based on gross revenues from anyone who uses their idea in a unique and innovative way.
I wonder if the judge in this case still has a VCR blinking 12:00 AM as the main focus of his "entertainment center".
at this point, if the courts are so technically clueless that they feel that Tivo's patents are valid, then E* needs to scoop up Tivo and sue the bejesus out of Verizon, Comcast, D*, etc.....
at this point, if the courts are so technically clueless that they feel that Tivo's patents are valid, then E* needs to scoop up Tivo and sue the bejesus out of Verizon, Comcast, D*, etc.....
I don't think the courts are technically clueless, it is DISH and their programmers that are.
Let me rephrase...
The government spends an awful lot of money trying to make sure that companies don't exert monopoly power and extract excessive profits from consumers.
But then they bless these "inventions" by giving them patents and then watch as these companies extract money from companies in the form of huge royalties or from consumers in the form of higher prices that wouldn't exist if there were more competition in a given category.
I'm all for rewarding innovation. Everyone deserves to make money of of their TRULY innovative products. But many of these products AREN'T innovative. They are derivative. And the patent office merely gives them legitimacy, and costs all of us with higher prices, decreased competition, and decreased capabilities as the monopolist rarely has to increase the quality of his product (anyone remember cable tv before Verizon and the Satellite cos. forced them to get their act together?)
The government spends an awful lot of money trying to make sure that companies don't exert monopoly power and extract excessive profits from consumers.
But then they bless these "inventions" by giving them patents and then watch as these companies extract money from companies in the form of huge royalties or from consumers in the form of higher prices that wouldn't exist if there were more competition in a given category.
I'm all for rewarding innovation. Everyone deserves to make money of of their TRULY innovative products. But many of these products AREN'T innovative. They are derivative. And the patent office merely gives them legitimacy, and costs all of us with higher prices, decreased competition, and decreased capabilities as the monopolist rarely has to increase the quality of his product (anyone remember cable tv before Verizon and the Satellite cos. forced them to get their act together?)
