This brings to mind RIM and SCO. Some folks find it worth their while to "invest in lawsuits" so to speak. Bottom fishing TiVo could pay off big if they provide enough money to keep the suits going and then TiVo wins.
Dish's en banc request APPROVED!
- Thread starter Jhon69
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 203
- Views 30K
This brings to mind RIM and SCO. Some folks find it worth their while to "invest in lawsuits" so to speak. Bottom fishing TiVo could pay off big if they provide enough money to keep the suits going and then TiVo wins.
Actually according to a 10K filed by DISh in March they DID pay out the money
During January 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the April 2006 jury verdict concluding that certain of our digital video recorders, or DVRs, infringed a patent held by Tivo. As of September 2008, we had recorded a total reserve of $132 million on our Consolidated Balance Sheets to reflect the April 2006 jury verdict, supplemental damages through September 2006 and pre-judgment interest awarded by the Texas court, together with the estimated cost of potential further software infringement prior to implementation of our alternative technology, discussed below, plus interest subsequent to entry of the judgment. In its January 2008 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict of infringement on Tivo’s “software claims,” and upheld the award of damages from the District Court. The Federal Circuit, however, found that we did not literally infringe Tivo’s “hardware claims,” and remanded such claims back to the District Court for further proceedings. On October 6, 2008, the Supreme Court denied our petition for certiorari. As a result, approximately $105 million of the total $132 million reserve was released from an escrow account to Tivo.
Read more: DISH DBS CORP - FORM 10-K - March 9, 2010
You raly need to research tehse things BEFORE posting Chief.
Last edited:
Yes. Dish paid TiVo the initial judgement. The question is now is how much more for continuing infringment. Dish admits continuing to infringe up to the time the replaced the software, and of course argues that they should just pay for that much more time. The court said their current software did not design around the patent, so they are continuing to build up a larger balance owed. Now the appeals court will weigh in.
Yep. $105 million from the judgment that is not in question.
He probably thought you were kidding. But if he dis not know tivo received $104 million it is unlikely that the answer to your question is yes.
The question I was referring to is the one I asked "Thomas" several days ago. What would tivo say if they knew one of the members of their legal team was talking about the case on a public message board?
None of this really address the original verdict regarding the original listed DVR's. All this is really addressing whether the subsequent DVR's should also be considered infringing along with the original, specific DVR's listed in the original trail and if Dish should have been granted a new trial to determain if the software work around is, even it its new form, infringing.
However, even this limited scope, if Dish prevails, really is everything because it is a win if the court finds that the lower court may NOT include other than the original DVR's listed, and that a hearing regarding the new software workaround was insufficient, and Dish is entitled to a new trial for software workaround. That would be the slam duck for Dish, and THE END of TiVo's strategy to sue any carriers who will not come to licensing agreements with them because it means TiVo will have to start all over again, like Groundhog Day, reliving the same tortuous, 6+ year nightmare, this time trying to prove the new DVR's and the software workaround are still infringing.
It is clear the higher court finds this case extremely important, and it is, as the judges are surely aware of TiVo's subsequent similar suits against AT&T and Verizon (legal journals report all the minutiae) . In other words they know what TiVo is trying to do as a business model, and the higher court feels it should clear the muddy legal waters (as best they can when it comes to the law). This is a reflection of the real world judges share with the rest of us; they are aware of the impacts of such cases and do read the newspapers and sites on the business end, but judges don't like to say that such things have a bigger impact on them they would admit.
Everyone will be watching this case, and if Dish prevails, AT&T and Verizon will uncork champagne and TiVo really will be finished, as any parties sued by TiVo will take the same, LONG, legal route Dish has, and TiVo does not have that kind of time left. That makes for a mighty incentive for TiVo to sell for a reasonable or bargain price, if anyone wants to buy. Don't worry about Tom Rogers, et al. negotiating with a low stock price, those guys always have their Golden Parachutes.
However, even this limited scope, if Dish prevails, really is everything because it is a win if the court finds that the lower court may NOT include other than the original DVR's listed, and that a hearing regarding the new software workaround was insufficient, and Dish is entitled to a new trial for software workaround. That would be the slam duck for Dish, and THE END of TiVo's strategy to sue any carriers who will not come to licensing agreements with them because it means TiVo will have to start all over again, like Groundhog Day, reliving the same tortuous, 6+ year nightmare, this time trying to prove the new DVR's and the software workaround are still infringing.
It is clear the higher court finds this case extremely important, and it is, as the judges are surely aware of TiVo's subsequent similar suits against AT&T and Verizon (legal journals report all the minutiae) . In other words they know what TiVo is trying to do as a business model, and the higher court feels it should clear the muddy legal waters (as best they can when it comes to the law). This is a reflection of the real world judges share with the rest of us; they are aware of the impacts of such cases and do read the newspapers and sites on the business end, but judges don't like to say that such things have a bigger impact on them they would admit.
Everyone will be watching this case, and if Dish prevails, AT&T and Verizon will uncork champagne and TiVo really will be finished, as any parties sued by TiVo will take the same, LONG, legal route Dish has, and TiVo does not have that kind of time left. That makes for a mighty incentive for TiVo to sell for a reasonable or bargain price, if anyone wants to buy. Don't worry about Tom Rogers, et al. negotiating with a low stock price, those guys always have their Golden Parachutes.
Last edited:
This is an interesting case, including the reasoning presumed in this thread for the Appeals Court deciding to hear the case En Banc. As the order allowing the En Banc proceeding states, the Appeals Court's order of March 4, 2010 is vacated. I am not an attorney, but my understanding is that "vacated" means made null and void, i.e., abandoned. The rationale used by the panel majority in making the March 4 decision is thus discarded.
The Appeals Court asked for briefings on the essential questions that typically have been answered in making decisions on patent infringement cases. Judge Folsom and the 2 judge majority in the March 4 ruling have totally ignored patent law precedent in their rulings, even to the extent of saying that it makes no difference whether Dish successfully crafted a non-infringing work-around of the Tivo patent! Allowing the March 4 ruling to stand could be interpreted to mean that work-arounds of patents would no longer be permitted; that would be insanity of the highest order and indicates to me that the 2 judges in the majority on the previous ruling may be suffering from senile dementia. (I don't claim that they are, just that their ruling is very suggestive of the possibility...)
As to the possibility that Dish would ever agree to pay Tivo upwards of $500 million per year in patent fees for DVRs, I think Dish would just as soon wait until the patents are declared invalid upon the motion of the Patent Office. That should happen within the next 2 years. And Dish is not going to try to buy Tivo for $7.5 billion. I believe that if Dish does ultimately lose on the "newly infringing" patent infringement issue (which I don't think they will) Dish will just shut down all the "found to be infringing" receivers and issue new VIP receivers to those customers. So far as I know, Tivo has never claimed the VIP receivers to be infringing, since those receivers have both new hardware and new software from that originally found to infringe.
Regards,
Fitzie
The Appeals Court asked for briefings on the essential questions that typically have been answered in making decisions on patent infringement cases. Judge Folsom and the 2 judge majority in the March 4 ruling have totally ignored patent law precedent in their rulings, even to the extent of saying that it makes no difference whether Dish successfully crafted a non-infringing work-around of the Tivo patent! Allowing the March 4 ruling to stand could be interpreted to mean that work-arounds of patents would no longer be permitted; that would be insanity of the highest order and indicates to me that the 2 judges in the majority on the previous ruling may be suffering from senile dementia. (I don't claim that they are, just that their ruling is very suggestive of the possibility...)
As to the possibility that Dish would ever agree to pay Tivo upwards of $500 million per year in patent fees for DVRs, I think Dish would just as soon wait until the patents are declared invalid upon the motion of the Patent Office. That should happen within the next 2 years. And Dish is not going to try to buy Tivo for $7.5 billion. I believe that if Dish does ultimately lose on the "newly infringing" patent infringement issue (which I don't think they will) Dish will just shut down all the "found to be infringing" receivers and issue new VIP receivers to those customers. So far as I know, Tivo has never claimed the VIP receivers to be infringing, since those receivers have both new hardware and new software from that originally found to infringe.
Regards,
Fitzie
This is what also baffles me. If "I did" work for Dish, E*, or Tivo, I couldn't say so on a message board because the wrong comment could start all kinds of fires. Thinking that Tivo is paying big bucks for high end lawyers, why would they troll satelliteguys steadily throughout the day (not bashing at all!). My theory is this, he is a Tivo manager/employee with enough position to over hear stuff about the case. Any lawyer or member of a legal team knows rule number 1 is dont talk to the media. Especially a message board where everything you say sticks. He is a TiVO employee is my guess.
p
I don't think I am the one that had something escape them. The link clearly states that the money was released to Tivo. You can find that information in my earlier ost, in Mr. Landis' posting from the Tivo 10k, or in the 10Ks themselves. How much clearer could it be?
Last edited:
I understood what your question was. I just think that there is very little likelihood that he is who you think he is. If he were he would know more about the status of the earlier payment.
I've asked him. Scott has asked him. He's never answered. Not even a denial. The closest thing was "This isn't about me". I think most people would have responded with something along the lines of "Yeah right. you're nuts". But not a peep out of "Thomas".
I would not answer either. You teLly don't haveuch to base this onand answering only gives credence to the charge.
Once more time: I corrected a poster who thought the $105 million judgment is in question. It is not in question. It was appealed fully. The Supreme Court declined the appeal. It is history and is not in question.
