Then if Charlie does ask I can see Tivo giving Charlie a typical Charlie answer,"See you in court"!.
Tivo Statement on Echostar Lawsuit
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 74
- Views 10K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
Then if Charlie does ask I can see Tivo giving Charlie a typical Charlie answer,"See you in court"!.
Then if Charlie does ask I can see Tivo giving Charlie a typical Charlie answer,"See you in court"!.
Your right, but it would be easy for E* to prove damages given the new findings. They could argue that the courts ruling was based off of inaccurate facts and they were damaged due to the errounous ruling based off of facts. It wouldnt be hard for them to do that. It would just cause tivo to loose more money in the end. But then again im not a attorney.
I am no lawyer myself but I think the legal term used is "collateral estoppel". Believe me, there are very good reasons for it, I just do not have the time and depth of understanding to explain it
I am no lawyer myself but I think the legal term used is "collateral estoppel". Believe me, there are very good reasons for it, I just do not have the time and depth of understanding to explain it
Collateral estoppel (CE), known in modern terminology as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. One summary is that "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision ... preclude
Parties may be estopped from litigating determinations on issues made in prior actions. The determination may be an issue of fact or an issue of law. Preclusion requires that the issue decided was actually and necessarily decided as part of a valid final judgment. Valid final judgments of state courts are given preclusive effect in other state and federal courts under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Valid final judgments must be issued by courts with appropriate personal and subject matter jurisdiction. It is notable, however, that an error does not make a decision invalid. Reversible errors must be appealed. The legal defense (CE) applies even if an erroneous judgment, or erroneous use of legal principles, occurred in the first action. An incorrect conclusion of the court in the first suit does not cause defendant to forsake the protection of res judicata (and by extension, of CE)[2] A judgment need not be correct to preclude further litigation; it is sufficient that it be final, and that it have been decided on the merits of the case.
Collateral estoppel does not prevent an appeal of a decision, or a party from asking the judge for re-argument or a revised decision. In federal court, judgments on appeal are given preclusive effect. However, if the decision is vacated, the preclusive effect of the judgment fails.
jacmyoung-
I have enjoyed all your posts on this topic but I must disagree with you on one concept you make. It is the idea that Dishnetwork using a TIVO software would make a superior DVR. I hope I understood you correctly.
Let me say that my opinion is based on my own history of owning several TIVO's as well as several DishNetwork DVR's. The TIVO DVR system was indeed superior back prior to 2006 but since then Echostar technology has, IMO, taken the technological lead. MY worst fear is that E* would be taking a step backward by contaminating any of it's latest VIP series DVR's with TIVO goofy software. I respect that there are some who really do like TIVO approach just as there are still people who continue to use VHS VCR's to time shift. It it comes to this and if the numbers dictate, DishNetwork should make the option of having TIVO DVR OS, but never a combination or as I referred to it, as a contamination of their superior DVR system.
I do, however, favor Dish licensing the TIVO software, or even buying the company, but that has to do with simply shutting down their game in the courtroom, not that I desire to use TIVO again.
I have enjoyed all your posts on this topic but I must disagree with you on one concept you make. It is the idea that Dishnetwork using a TIVO software would make a superior DVR. I hope I understood you correctly.
Let me say that my opinion is based on my own history of owning several TIVO's as well as several DishNetwork DVR's. The TIVO DVR system was indeed superior back prior to 2006 but since then Echostar technology has, IMO, taken the technological lead. MY worst fear is that E* would be taking a step backward by contaminating any of it's latest VIP series DVR's with TIVO goofy software. I respect that there are some who really do like TIVO approach just as there are still people who continue to use VHS VCR's to time shift. It it comes to this and if the numbers dictate, DishNetwork should make the option of having TIVO DVR OS, but never a combination or as I referred to it, as a contamination of their superior DVR system.
I do, however, favor Dish licensing the TIVO software, or even buying the company, but that has to do with simply shutting down their game in the courtroom, not that I desire to use TIVO again.
Don, please do not conclude from my previous statement as me saying I prefer TiVo's user interface. I have never used a TiVo DVR long enough to have an opinion on its interface, therefore I could not have relied on that part.
My statement was rather based on a few other observations. For one, TiVo (and ReplayTV) have patents on MRV at least to some extent, something E* can use to compete with DirecTV and cable.
For another, as much as I have talked about why the E* new design is successful, the TiVo's DVR technology is a more efficient one, its start code detection and indexing at the front end does relieve the CPU much power needed for other functions.
Of course like-mindedness of the two companies (which led them to meet years ago in the first place) in terms of innovation is in favor of them working together, and working together in synergy was what I spoke of, not copying each other's weaknesses.
That said however, it was only a hypothesis which I do not give it a lot of odds of happening soon, if ever. But I learned to never say never.
My statement was rather based on a few other observations. For one, TiVo (and ReplayTV) have patents on MRV at least to some extent, something E* can use to compete with DirecTV and cable.
For another, as much as I have talked about why the E* new design is successful, the TiVo's DVR technology is a more efficient one, its start code detection and indexing at the front end does relieve the CPU much power needed for other functions.
Of course like-mindedness of the two companies (which led them to meet years ago in the first place) in terms of innovation is in favor of them working together, and working together in synergy was what I spoke of, not copying each other's weaknesses.
That said however, it was only a hypothesis which I do not give it a lot of odds of happening soon, if ever. But I learned to never say never.
Please. This suit is driving Tivo to the edge. Dish is doing quite well and has much deeper pockets than Tivo. Even if Dish loses, the damages and favorable deal with Tivo won't come near to putting Dish out of business. It would take far more than even a billion dollars--in one feel swoop--to really hurt dish. To the contrary, it is Tivo who have stated publicly that this lawsuit is an extreme financial burden upon the company wiping out any profit in several quarters and that its legal costs are the most significant financial challenge it faces.
No, this suit has hurt Tivo far more than Dish and more than some know. This suit is everything to Tivo.
Because at the at time of the ruling, it was a valid patent. It's like if no law against speeding existed today and you were driving 100 mph on a street and tomorrow a law was passed saying the speed limit was 60 mph on that same street. They can't go back and give you a ticket for what you did yesterday.
One has to remember that these are legal charges that TiVo is paying willingly. They are the ones suing. They are having their day in court and if their patent holds up they will make a ton of money. If, however, by suing they end up getting their patent invalidated they still made a lot of money that Dish already paid them for what ended up being nothing.
As of the Q1 2009 10Q Tivo had cash in the amount of ~$150,000,000.00 and the firm reported a net loss of $(4,130,000.00).
Much of the cash was contributed by E*'s $105M in the Q4 of 08, the only quarter TiVo reported a profit in the recent history. It was reported TiVo burnt $20M on that 02/09 court "bench trial" alone.
To TiVo's credit, they have been going after other revenue streams, more visibly the advertising revenue. But then this advertising and data-mining trend can backfire. How many of you like the idea of your viewing habit constantly data-mined by your provider and sold to other companies?
OK, then in the hypothetical situation where Dish wins on appeal or the decision is vacated, why can't they go back to Folsom and ask him to revise his decision?
I think Dish is trying to find out how deep their pockets are with their mid year price increase and believe all these lawsuits are the reason.
Maybe, ultimately, the Dish Work-Around is not really necessarily. Trick play is just not the same on my 510/622/722 (with the 510 being the worst). I assume this has to do with how the software indexes into the compressed video (mpeg) file.
I'd love to see the work-around go away.
I'd love to see the work-around go away.
This appeal is for a different thing, called the new design, not the old design.
The old design was found to infringe by the jury, E* in fact did ask Judge Folsom to reivew and reverse or revise the finding, the judge denied such request, after the judge issued his final judgment and the injunction, E* again asked the judge to reverse, revise, or at a minimum to stay his order, the judge again denied such request.
E* then appealed to the appeals court, got a stay, then managed to reverse half of the jury's verdicts on the ground that Judge Folsom erred on two claim constructions, but that was not enough to overturn the infringement verdict.
After the appeals court unheld Judge Folsom's final judgment and the injunction, E* actually petitioned the appeals court for a rehearing, but that request was denied, and after that, E* petitioned the Supreme Court for a review, when the SC declined the review request, that was the end of the game for E*.
Believe me when I said E* had exhausted all its appeals. That decision was final and cannot be revisited. Charlie is not the kind of person who would have left any stone unturned. But then had his attorneys thought about combining the two prior patents together, rather separately during the first reexamination, things could have been a lot different.
What we have now will be a different decision regarding the new design, different than the old, related but not the same.
Not a lawyer so don't quote me on this, but if the PTO makes the rejection final, E* might just revert back to the old design, there are risks involved but it is not as if Charlie had not taken any risk before. It will depend on the conditions on the ground at that time.
For example, by that time E* may have already replaced all the 50X DVRs, it will be very safe to put start code indexing back into the newer Broadcom DVRs, as long as they no longer use the so called "automatic flow control" in TiVo's patent.
At most this ruling gives a little negotiating power to Dish to settle the lawsuit and reach a licensing agreement. First USPTO did not invalidate the patent. They issued a preliminary ruling that Dish’s workaround doesn’t infringe on those patents. It has nothing to do with the validity of the original patents. Second it is easy and common to get a preliminary ruling in your favor as the preliminary process is one sided, just like a grand jury. All Dish had to do is state their case how they see it and USPTO rules based on that. The next step in the process is the USPTO to review Tivo’s response and then make a final ruling. That process can take over a year. Once that’s completed both side can still appeal that ruling, which could take years. Also after hearing both sides of the argument the judge in the contempt case ruled for Tivo. Nothing today indicated after hearing both sides of the story the USPTO would rule any different.
Basically today’s ruling has little effect on anything.
Basically today’s ruling has little effect on anything.
If they no longer had to worry about a work around, they can take advantage of some of the Firmware code in the Broadcom chips. This is what would make the DVR's work better, and use less software cycles on the main processor.
I'm so confused. What's this lawsuit about anyways? My dish dvr does what the cable dvr did. (Even though the cable dvr didn't remember shows you want to record each week so you had to tell it to record each week) the main functions were the same. Why isn't Tivo have lawsuits with other dvr's?
