Appeals Court Finds Echostar in Contempt in TIVO Case
- Thread starter rad
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 407
- Views 49K
Older DVR's such as the 50x series, the 721 (which was already shut off) and possibly some other older ones.
I am sure someone has the list.
The current line of DVR's are not included in that list.
And those that are only colorably different.
That would be ALL.
Its not colorably different, the new boxes DVR controls are done by hardware. The hardware has not been found to be infringing.
The older boxes are software based.
Thats a major difference. So that would NOT be all.
The older boxes are software based.
Thats a major difference. So that would NOT be all.
Some general info.
The 8 named models of DVR this effects: 501, 508, 510, 522, 625, 721, 921, 942 These are the DVR's this is about (And only these DVRs as of now)
As far as the VIP series, while TIVO will likely try to go after these models through the contempt route it is most likely (not guaranteed) they will have to go to a separate trial to get at them.
As far as the TIVO '389 (Time Warp) patent - the USPTO is currently in the process of invalidating this patent based on a combination of prior art. It will take some time before this happens and surely TIVO will fight tooth and nail to prevent this from happening as this is one of the two bread and butter patents in their portfolio as it relates to DVR function. It is extremely unlikely this will have any effect on the Echostar case.
As to TIVO and Directv, they have an agreement to not pursue any lawsuits relating to DVR functionality through 2018 when the '389 patent expires. Directv also holds all of the old Replay TV IP. Replay and TIVO went after each other over DVR functionality many years ago with both companies withdrawing their lawsuits as both seemingly had valid patents over various aspects of DVR and Guide functionality.
As far as the TIVO lawsuit against AT&T for infringement it will be interesting to watch unfold as 1) Microsoft was brought in because they wrote/own the software AT&T uses for their DVRs and 2) They get to see the mistakes the DISH/Echostar lawyers made in their case
As far as the TIVO lawsuit against Verizon it will also be interesting to watch as 1) they also get the benefit of seeing Dish's mistakes and 2) they counterclaimed saying that TIVO has been infringing on 5 or 6 patents Verizon owns from the Baby Bell days.
The 8 named models of DVR this effects: 501, 508, 510, 522, 625, 721, 921, 942 These are the DVR's this is about (And only these DVRs as of now)
As far as the VIP series, while TIVO will likely try to go after these models through the contempt route it is most likely (not guaranteed) they will have to go to a separate trial to get at them.
As far as the TIVO '389 (Time Warp) patent - the USPTO is currently in the process of invalidating this patent based on a combination of prior art. It will take some time before this happens and surely TIVO will fight tooth and nail to prevent this from happening as this is one of the two bread and butter patents in their portfolio as it relates to DVR function. It is extremely unlikely this will have any effect on the Echostar case.
As to TIVO and Directv, they have an agreement to not pursue any lawsuits relating to DVR functionality through 2018 when the '389 patent expires. Directv also holds all of the old Replay TV IP. Replay and TIVO went after each other over DVR functionality many years ago with both companies withdrawing their lawsuits as both seemingly had valid patents over various aspects of DVR and Guide functionality.
As far as the TIVO lawsuit against AT&T for infringement it will be interesting to watch unfold as 1) Microsoft was brought in because they wrote/own the software AT&T uses for their DVRs and 2) They get to see the mistakes the DISH/Echostar lawyers made in their case
As far as the TIVO lawsuit against Verizon it will also be interesting to watch as 1) they also get the benefit of seeing Dish's mistakes and 2) they counterclaimed saying that TIVO has been infringing on 5 or 6 patents Verizon owns from the Baby Bell days.
Last edited:
It has software, but most of the management and operation of the DVR functions are done by the chipset.
The coloribly different argument was that the new changed software was not coloribly different, eventhough DISH insisted it was. (and 2 out of 3 judges didn't think it was.)
The coloribly different argument was that the new changed software was not coloribly different, eventhough DISH insisted it was. (and 2 out of 3 judges didn't think it was.)
I didn't realize the new boxes had no software.
Do you really think Folsom is going to allow TIVO to get at the VIP software trough the contempt process rather than a new trial? Especially after the very pointed message Rader had for Folsom in his dissenting opinion?
Do you really think that TiVo will offer a license that does not include all DVR's?
Nope they will want all or nothing.
I don't blame them. (Even though I dont agree with their patent.) But a company needs to do what it can to protect its IP.
Here we go with the hardware/software argument again...Albie2 said:
Colorable difference isn't whether or not functions are done differently. Colorable difference is whether or not functions meet claim limitations in the same mannter.
Rader's problem is that he believed that TiVo flip-flopped on the argument about the PID filter. He also felt that indexing had something to do with the claim construction regarding "parsing video and audio data from said broadcast data", and that those changes made the receiver more than colorable different.
With that being said, TiVo tried to get the ViP 622/722 included in the original trial, but only after the trial was completed. That request was therefore denied. DISH/SATS changed the software on the 622/722 in order to avoid infringement. That tells me those receivers are running the same software as the other eight that were found infringing.
Sure, even with a shot across the bow from Judge Rader, Judge Folsom could easily find the newer ViP receivers merely colorably different, as Judge Rader's opinion was only the dissenting opinion. There are two other judges that sided with TiVo and said the receiver models originally found to infringe but with the new software are merely colorably different and still infringe.
But that is a long ways off.
Long on contemplation which shows in my post numbers. Costomers will lose nothing as Dish will always need to compete with Directs prices and service. End of story.
Agreed. Dish Network, however, will jack prices up, just as they had last month, to try to get as close to Directv and other providers in price as possible. They are not relying on being the cheapest monthly on getting new subscribers. They are relying on the new customer promotions to get these customers, at least for two years. In the future, in order to sustain customer promotions, they may have to go in-house for more sales and/or cut retailer commissions/pay.
If they jack prices up prices again so soon like they just did then they will have a mass of churn.
Jack up prices? To get what I receive on Dish Network, with Uverse or Directv, I'd have to pay more, even with a Uverse/Directv promotional price included! Maybe my cross section of programming is exotic, but I just subscribe to Top 250, which allows me sport and movie programming without additional premiums for either sports or movies. I can watch English Premier League, NHL, NBA, MLB matchups, the Tour de France and get a bunch of Encores for $68 a month (for $10 more, I can watch most of that in HD). If that isn't a bargain, I haven't a bloody clue what would be.
A lot of people who are complaining seem to have a number of boxes at their home. Perhaps some are expecting way too much from companies to just give them numerous boxes for free and whine about "jacking" up the prices. My bill went up a dollar last month. So stop all this hyperbole and start asking yourself, do you really need all those boxes?
And as a result, Dish Network would lose many subscribers to Directv. Dish already jacked their rates way up. Another raise will cause even more churn. He has to stay competitive. This money is coming out of his pocket. Dish, however, may try to come up with even more ways of nickel and diming to make up for it indirectly (not with DVR fees but something else).
Also, expect the Dish DVR fee to go up to $7 since Directv raised it up to $7 already. Maybe that price increase was a result of Tivo's licensing fee.
I bought the 501 model way back to avoid the $5-6 DVR fee since it was "grandfathered in" along with some of the older model DVRs. I still have it as a secondary unit for a bedroom SD TV and it still works like a champ (way better than the 721 I used to have). Do you think I will now be hit with some kind of "future" DVR fee if Dish does reach a licensing deal with Tivo for these models?
Based on their current equipment pricing, DishNet is already charging:
* $9 for the first DVR ($6 per-account DVR fee & $3 difference in rental price between DVR and non-DVR recievers)
* $3 for each additional DVR ($3 difference in rental price between DVR and non-DVR recievers)
This is already significantly higher than DirecTV's charges for DVR ($7 per account).
Not to mention that DishNet is now charging a lot more for rental fees on additional receivers than DirecTV is, even on basic units.
Last edited:
Maybe this is why Charlie said that Dish service is a bargain (that customers have not been paying enough) and they need to jack up the prices.
Nope, there is no lease fee for your primary receiver. So the first is not $9. I have one 622, and I only pay a $6 DVR fee.
Also, DirecTV better be cheaper for additional receivers, as most Dish ones can power a second SDTV, whereas DirecTV needs one box for each TV.
How about the 512 receiver? If the 522/625 is infringing then wouldn't the 512 infringe as well or did they make it different than the 522 by not only putting it into permanent single user mode but making it work off of the hardware instead of software as well?
What I don't get is if they say it works off of the hardware then that hardware it works off of has to have software on it in order to do the job. Is this their "colorful" definition Tivo is talking about?
What I don't get is if they say it works off of the hardware then that hardware it works off of has to have software on it in order to do the job. Is this their "colorful" definition Tivo is talking about?
Why would he? Seems to me if the VIP series is immune to the damages, then the obvious next step is to comply with the court and convert the existing affected subscriber base to VIP 622's I happen to know they have a ton of them ( refurbs) in stock, just needing new connectors on the power supply to prevent the reboot issue and a new hard drive. I guess the 622 is the cheapest DVR they could use for replacements.
Of course, the gamble is that he does sign a license agreement and just pass on the fee to those subscribers with the affected DVR's, then ASAP, offer them a deal on a VIP 622 upgrade to end the number of fees paid to TIVO.
I think TIVO realizes a license agreement based has weak future since Charlie will do everything he can to switch his customers off the affected DVR's. If for no other reason than to stick it to them.
If TIVO has to open up a whole new court case on the VIP series, the patent will have expired by the time it hits trial BUT, they would still be entitled to past damages over that time period, so a case against Dish still would have some level of liability if won. However, if The courts did accept the VIP design as a valid work around then the hearsay on going after VIP's has no merit. At this point I only know that Dish got the OK from an independent law firm that the VIP's were a valid work around. That is hardly a safe bet based on how this court is handling the case.
Is that the same law firm that said the current work-around doesn't infringe?
I would fire them.
Subs would leave long before a new DVR was sent out to them.
