Yes,a verdict, but Dish had removed the vast majority of "offenxing" DVRRs and had a ready inventory to replace the few that were still in some homes. Knowing this TiVo changed tactics and focused on the work around as the only hope for leveraging a traditional and more lucrative licencing deal (the ViPs were never a part of the suit as the handle DVR trick play based upon some hardware). The cuicut ruling sharply criticising the Tyler Texas court for how it proceeded and ruled during both phases, ruled pretty much (a long detailed explanation of what would be proper legal test) that whole new trail for the work around would need begin from step 1. The incentive to settle at this point for TiVo is not waiting another 5+ years for anything to show for expensive and extended legal fees that were bringing TiVo breaths away from having no financial resources whatsoever, nor the lesser wait time for a Supreme Court decision IF they would even hear the case at all and lost likely go out of business waiting a likely rejection that would have put TiVo in a place to name the terms to Dish, but settling would give TiVo the cash influx it desperately need and a "victory" it could wave in the face of the, numerous others it also sued and a few others they had not gotten around to serving yet; for Dish it would end it's expensive legal costs, uncertainty of how to proceed and grant Dish TiVo's entire patent portfolio for life in exchange for some chump change cash. It was good for both, not the truly lucrative licencing deal TiVo always wanted without granting lifetime rights to all its patents. However, for TiVo, this settlement was a psychological victory that did force many of the others into far more lucrative and restrictive licencing deals TiVo always wanted.
No we do not know that, in truth, Dish stole the TiVo patents. Unfortunately may never know. Sure, Dish may have, but the Tyler Texas trial never proved it. The proof would be in the code, we know at least 2 jurors (and many forum posters) never considered the examination of the software itself, but ONLY the fact that TiVo left their DVR with Dish after a presentation. And while it is true Dish never returned the unit and later claimed it lost it (suspicious, to be sure), neither did TiVo EVER ask for its return, an equally suspicious set-up to a lawsuit. Fishy, yes, but not proof of patent infringement. Further, Broadcom engineers and Broadcom and 3rd party Lynix software code writers all testified explaining the long and boring technical jury sleep inducing reasons and parts of code demonstrating how it was not infringing on patents. Dish's "offending" DVRs were, essentially a 3rd party work for hire that Dish would patent, not the other companies who actually created it (Dish engineers did contribute some of the tech with Dish or those engineers holding the patents. Why weren't Broadcom, other Lynix code writers nor the individual Dish engineers who hold the patents also sued? Because they haven't business to provide TiVo with a steady stream of payments because the do not manufactured (Just about all the set top.box manufacturers who make DVRs were sued) nor sell nor place DVRs.
This was an abuse of the tort and patent system by a company going out of business, and, as it has for many others and still does for.companies like Vizio, worked to great success. Unlike TruCrypt, we ma never see an unbiased 3rd party examination of the code presented in trial to know the truth, if we can get computer scientists who understand it and come to agreement. I won't go in to that amount of money TiVo blatantly pumped into the Tyler Texas economy with cash gifts to local "causes" and sponsorships of local events, but if you do some Googling, you will find Tyler Texas to be the Stepford CT of legal company towns. No wonder higher courts regularly chide His Honor and a Supreme Court justice openly refers to it as a rouge court.
