TIVO vs E*

Status
Please reply by conversation.
The reason the dish 'workaround' which does not infringe on Tivo's patent is not an issue is that it is like a bank robber who gets caught and gives the money back. It doesn't mean a hill of beans, the law was broken.

The 'workaround' and then the arrogance saying 'ok, you caught us, but we changed it all out quietly while we prolonged this in court to get the time to do so' pissed off the judge.

What I don't understand is why can Dish keep 192k dvr units in service, where did that number come from?
 
Exactly.. The previous poster annoyed me with the "swat this fly remark". Dish STOLE someone's patent. They're their vampire... sorry for Dish that TIVO is being a hastle by protecting their intelectual property.

Have evidence of this? Do you really think they walked into the patent office and took the Tivo patent to their software. Or, when 2 software engineers are trying to do the same thing, do you think they might some up with the same idea?

I also firmly believe, despite the judges ruling, that Dish removed the infringing software. If this was the software version they walked in on the initial trial, they wouldn't be in this position.

Dish is just the only one not to roll over and pay Tivo big bucks for using their idea that they just happened to patent first.

I can't wait to see the Dish lawsuit against Tivo. I wonder what it is about. We will see if your opinions are still the same if it turns out Tivo stole Dish intellectual property.

RFCExpress - Dish Network Corporation et al v. TiVo Inc.
 
Exactly.. The previous poster annoyed me with the "swat this fly remark". Dish STOLE someone's patent. They're their vampire... sorry for Dish that TIVO is being a hastle by protecting their intelectual property.

If you believed in Tivo so strongly, you should have invested your money in them.

A moral high-ground don't pay the bills. :p
 
What I don't understand is why can Dish keep 192k dvr units in service, where did that number come from?

It has to do with the way damages were calculated in 2006. 192K DVRs were treated is if they were sold with lifetime subscriptions and thus not subject to ongoing royalties. Those can remain on. The rest were awarded reasonable monthly royalty damages through (at that time) 9-06.
The jury accepted Dr. Ugone's damages estimate, awarding TiVo $73.99 million in damages: $32.66 million in lost profits from lost sales of its set-top boxes and an additional $41.33 million that EchoStar should have paid in royalties relating to the sale of more than four million of their DVR devices.
The 192k got the "lost profits" damages calculation.
 
I can't wait to see the Dish lawsuit against Tivo. I wonder what it is about. We will see if your opinions are still the same if it turns out Tivo stole Dish intellectual property.
I've seen it. Dish filed in Delaware asking the court to declare that their DVRs are more than colorably different and that they no longer infringe. That case was transferred to the Texas court a few days ago and will be dismissed shortly as moot. That ship has sailed.
 
Judge Folsom stated very clearly he used his wide discretion in making his decision to find E* in contempt. In doing so he side-stepped E*'s contentions that when E* removed the two most crucial elements of the invention used by TiVo to prove infringement, at a minimum, were E* able to use the same contentions back then, there clearly would be doubt whether the jury might not return a different verdict and found E* not infringing.

Judge Folsom simply said such is not enough, because he wasn't going to be bothered to speculate what the jury might think differently. But the question of whether the doubt existed is not really a speculation, rather an opinion. By the appeals court standard, only when there is no doubt, meaning one can be sure that the jury would have returned the same infringement verdict despite the changed arguments on both sides, one of which the positions totally reversed too, can there be a contempt.

It is also clear the appeals court had looked at the issues with much more care before, the appeals court said over and over, they gave the district courts wide lattitude, but on appeal, it was their job to narrow such wide lattitude if necessary, that was how they ended up overturning the hardware claims verdict. If E* appeals, their bet must be based on such understanding of the different approaches between the two courts. As I said before, for one thing the appeals court heavily relied on TiVo's own patent specifications in their discussion, not just the patent claims themselves, in contrast, Judge Folsom totally ignored the patent specifications, relied exclusively on the patent claims.

The risk however is much greater for E* this time. I will look at two things, one whether E* will carry out its claim to appeal, and if so, whether the appeals court will indeed stay the order again. IMO, only if both are true, will E* have a chance of winning. It is a very risky move.

But the alternative may not be any better. Settle with TiVo is fine, but E* still has to pay all the damages. I don't think TiVo will simply forgive the damages to secure a licensing agreement at this point, I could be wrong, but E* may not have a choice but take the risk to appeal and see whether the appeals court will stay the order. Only if the order is stayed can E* have a realistic chance, not just to win, but simply to have time to manage the issues.

But if there is no stay, short of an agreement with TiVo, I wonder what E* can do. We know there are less of the 501X and 722 DVRs in use, they had been discontinued for a while, I think they can be replaced. But as far as I know the 625s are still been installed.

While TiVo will likely introduce the VIPs in the next round, they must prove the VIPs are only colorably different both in hardware and software, it wouldn't be easy at all because the hardware part had already been viewed by the appeals court to be non-infringing, so I agree the VIPs should be safe.

But can E* replace the 501x, 722s and 625s fast enough if a stay is not granted by the appeals court? Or put it this way, how many of those legacy DVR users will leave if their DVR functions are stopped?
 
Last edited:
I've seen it. Dish filed in Delaware asking the court to declare that their DVRs are more than colorably different and that they no longer infringe. That case was transferred to the Texas court a few days ago and will be dismissed shortly as moot. That ship has sailed.

That I agree, TiVo's next move maybe a motion to dismiss, and since the redesigned DVRs have already been ruled to continue to infringe, the new case will likely be dismissed.

E*'s only concern at this point, short of a settlement, should be to get a stay of the order on appeal.
 
Dish needs to stop dancing. If I were Charlie, I would acquire tivo, take their assets and shut them down. It's time to swat this fly.

That assumes Tivo is for sale. With $100m judgement in the bank, I'm sure Liberty, Comcast, et al would be more than happy to let Tivo burn through some more cash to come up with some great DVRs; especially considering they've been letting them do it WITHOUT a free and clear $100m in cash.
 
That assumes Tivo is for sale. With $100m judgement in the bank, I'm sure Liberty, Comcast, et al would be more than happy to let Tivo burn through some more cash to come up with some great DVRs; especially considering they've been letting them do it WITHOUT a free and clear $100m in cash.

A publicly-traded company is always for sale. :) It's just a matter of the price.
 
I dont know the EXACT details of the patent infringement but it sounds like it's one of those idiotic "they did it the same way as us" claims. Can someone tell me if they copied software code? In that case I would agree but if it's a matter of process then I dont know what the problem is. Also, I don't understand why anyone would want to buy Tivo. It hasnt made a DIME since they started and the only sizable cash they have has been because of this lawsuit.
 
I dont know the EXACT details of the patent infringement but it sounds like it's one of those idiotic "they did it the same way as us" claims.
Here is the patent claim that Dish infringed:
31. A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising the steps of:

providing a physical data source, wherein said physical data source accepts broadcast data from an input device, parses video and audio data from said broadcast data, and temporarily stores said video and audio data;

providing a source object, wherein said source object extracts video and audio data from said physical data source;

providing a transform object, wherein said transform object stores and retrieves data streams onto a storage device;

wherein said source object obtains a buffer from said transform object, said source object converts video data into data streams and fills said buffer with said streams;

wherein said source object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object;

providing a sink object, wherein said sink object obtains data stream buffers from said transform object and outputs said streams to a video and audio decoder;

wherein said decoder converts said streams into display signals and sends said signals to a display;

wherein said sink object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object;

providing a control object, wherein said control object receives commands from a user, said commands control the flow of the broadcast data through the system; and

wherein said control object sends flow command events to said source, transform, and sink objects.
 
A publicly-traded company is always for sale. :) It's just a matter of the price.
Exactly, offer to buy the stock at something higher than market price and see who sells.

TiVo is owned 74% by institutions, for what it's worth. They have no vested interest in the company and will sell to the highest bidder.
 
Liberty does not control TiVo. They are equity investors, but so are Comcast and Time Warner and several other big names. None have a controlling interest. However, I do agree that TiVo and Liberty have mutual interests and are likely to work together where it makes sense for both sides.

It was well over a year after Liberty got D* that the deal to allow TiVo to make a new DVR software for them was announced. Many of us had hoped that would happen quickly, but it didn't and we are still waiting, at least until 2010 now.

Get some thicker tin foil, your current hat isn't keeping out all the satellite rays. :D


No it wasn't.. I Was a D* Employee at the time & it wasn't any more then about 2 months before we were told..
 
While TiVo will likely introduce the VIPs in the next round, they must prove the VIPs are only colorably different both in hardware and software, it wouldn't be easy at all because the hardware part had already been viewed by the appeals court to be non-infringing

No, they don't. They only have to show that the software is only colorably different. And I suspect this is going to be MUCH easier since it probably uses the same source code. Finding all DVRS in contempt is going to be a slam dunk if Charlie refuses to reach an agreement with TiVo.
 
I hope that Dish does decide to license the TiVo patents/software. Perhaps even pick up a few features from TiVo. Right now just charges a monthly DVR profit fee because they can.
 
Have evidence of this? Do you really think they walked into the patent office and took the Tivo patent to their software. Or, when 2 software engineers are trying to do the same thing, do you think they might some up with the same idea?

There are a lot of people here who have a lot more time invested in understanding this case than you do.

The facts speak for themselves. DISH was developing a DVR for the military and could not create a workable consumer-grade product. This fresh new company TiVo gets a meeting with DISH, demos their DVR which works wonderfully. DISH says that they would like to play around with it for a week, so TiVo (in a completely moronic, idiotic move) leaves the DVR with them.

A month or two later, DISH suddenly has solved all their problems and declines TiVO's offer to license their technology.

While TiVo didn't have the evidence to prove it, anyone who's spent more than 10 minutes following this case knows full well that this was an outright theft of TiVo's patent using a prototype box.
 
I dont know the EXACT details of the patent infringement but it sounds like it's one of those idiotic "they did it the same way as us" claims. Can someone tell me if they copied software code? In that case I would agree but if it's a matter of process then I dont know what the problem is. Also, I don't understand why anyone would want to buy Tivo. It hasnt made a DIME since they started and the only sizable cash they have has been because of this lawsuit.

Wow. Really? You can't find the time to be bothered to read up on the case, the literally thousands of posts, and instead ask us?

Thanks. Do you want a cup of coffee, too, sir?
 
Status
Please reply by conversation.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Latest posts