# Tivo Lawsuit: Federal Court Blocks Injunction for the Length of the Appeals Process



## Curtis52

Dish has to turn off DVRs within 30 days.

http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2006-08/tivo-wins-permanent-injunction-against-echostar-and-cash/

http://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/2006/08/injunction_gran.html


----------



## dswallow

The judge has ordered Echostar to shut off the DVR functionality in all but 192,708 infringing receivers within 30 days and prevents them from enabling the DVR feature on any new placement of infringing products.

http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2006-08/tivo-wins-permanent-injunction-against-echostar-and-cash/


----------



## Geronimo

As the link says "the ruling is appealable"


----------



## dvbfan

Curtis52 said:


> Dish has to turn off DVRs within 30 days.
> 
> http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2006-08/tivo-wins-permanent-injunction-against-echostar-and-cash/
> 
> http://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/2006/08/injunction_gran.html


This is crazy! No way they're going to shut down the DVRs.


----------



## Shellback X 23

Which DVR's are they? And which are the 192,708, any one specific model number?


----------



## Richard King

The ones that are not in the injunction are the 7100 and 7200 models, their very earliest (I think).


----------



## James Long

{Threads Merged}



dswallow said:


> in all but 192,708 infringing receivers


I like the way that is worded ... all the receivers are infringing, but they only have to turn off the DVR in all but 192,708 of them. So E* is allowed to keep "infringing" on those receivers?


----------



## dswallow

Shellback X 23 said:


> And which are the 192,708, any one specific model number?





James Long said:


> I like the way that is worded ... all the receivers are infringing, but they only have to turn off the DVR in all but 192,708 of them. So E* is allowed to keep "infringing" on those receivers?


Since the court awarded profit damages for 192,708 products that probably means Echostar can pick any 192,708 DVR's and leave them active.

From http://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/local/content/shared/news/stories/TIVO_ECHOSTAR_0414_COX.html

The jury found TiVo lost sales of 192,708 products because of EchoStar and awarded $32,663,906 in lost profit damages.


----------



## Delta5

IANAL, so what does all this really mean for us E* DVR users? I've read the news reports and the one link does have a statement from E* that DVR users are unaffected - but that seems contradictory to the rest of the article. 

Is there seriously going to come a time in the next XX days when the 625 or 622 receivers just simply won't record anything? 

I'm two weeks into E*, still within my 30 day return policy and mostly happy with the service and equipment. However, if there's a chance that my 625 will simply stop DVR'ing then E* can have their equipment and their service back. 

I'll take my crummy cable provider + real Tivo or D* and their crummy DVR over a DVR-less E* any day. :nono2:


----------



## James Long

E* will not be turning of DVRs. They will be appealing the ruling and getting the judgement delayed as long as possible as they look forward to their countersuit in February.


----------



## cj9788

How are they going to shut them down?

If they in the end lose the appeal. Is it a software down load and if so can we simply not allow the software to down load?


----------



## foghorn2

We need a web page supporting Dish and our DVRs. We shall not allow our DVRs to be messed with stupid patents. We need to be vocal about this.


----------



## James Long

cj9788 said:


> How are they going to shut them down?
> 
> If they in the end lose the appeal. Is it a software down load and if so can we simply not allow the software to down load?


A paranoid person woud consider that E* built an off switch into their software a long time ago.

But E* has no intention of turning off their DVRs - so why build it in? The perfect "excuse", similar to Microsoft's imbedding of Internet Explorer in Windows (where it couldn't be removed without destroying the operating system). "We cannot comply because disabling the DVR code would disable the entire receiver."

This will not get to the point where a DVR is disabled. E* has too much riding on the technology.

(Of course there is one reason to have an "off switch" - so they can disable it and charge $5.95 to turn it back on.  )


----------



## Wrecker06

Please tell me this is a joke:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060818/tv_nm/echostar_dc

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - A judge has ordered EchoStar to disable the digital video recorders used by several million subscribers to its Dish satellite TV service because they infringe on patents held by TiVo.

Thursday's ruling from U.S. District Judge David Folsom in Marshall, Texas, demands that within 30 days EchoStar must basically render useless all but 192,708 of the DVR units it has deployed.

The decision comes four months after a jury ruled that EchoStar should pay TiVo $74.9 million because it willfully infringed TiVo patents that allow for the digital storage of TV programming.

The judge also denied EchoStar's request that the injunction be stayed pending appeal, making it difficult for EchoStar to continue offering its subscribers' DVR functionality without striking a quick licensing deal with TiVo or another DVR maker.

While the injunction battle clearly was won by TiVo, the scrappy pioneer of the DVR industry also was handed a loss Thursday when Folsom ruled against its request that the jury award be tripled. The judge, however, ordered EchoStar to pay an additional $5.4 million in interest payments and $10.3 million in supplemental damages, bringing the amount EchoStar owes TiVo to nearly $90 million.

{trim}


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Guess I'd better start watching my backlog of recorded programs before they disappear!

But seriously... given some of the recent court rulings, and the screwed-up patent process as it is, I would not be surprised if Dish loses out ultimately.

I hope not... and I don't believe they should lose... but stranger messed up things have happened in court.


----------



## James Long

It isn't a joke, Wrecker06, but it is not the last word either.


----------



## diospyros

TIVO exists to make money. Echostar exists to make money. If the DVRs are shut off 
neither Tivo nor E* will make the money they want. Therefore a licensing agreement is almost a certainty. If I may speculate: perhaps a portion of the E* $5.98 monthly DVR fee is already earmarked for Tivo and there will be no increase in rates. Maybe not. In any event, it's unlikely the DVRs will be shut off for any appreciable amount of time. (This is kind of scary though.)


----------



## JohnH

EchoStar Asks Federal Court to Stay Texas Injunction
ENGLEWOOD, Colo., Aug 18, 2006 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- EchoStar Communications Corporation (NasdaqISH) issued the following statement regarding recent developments in the Tivo Inc. v. EchoStar Communications Corp. lawsuit:

"This morning, EchoStar will ask the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals to block an injunction issued by a Texas Court yesterday, while EchoStar appeals that decision. The Texas judge did not grant treble damages or attorney fees to Tivo, but he did let stand the jury decision that EchoStar digital video recorders infringe a Tivo patent, and immediately enjoined continued sale of allegedly infringing DVRs. The injunction would also require that allegedly infringing DVRs in consumer homes be shut off within 30 days.

We are pleased the Court concluded EchoStar did not act in bad faith and did not copy Tivo's technology, and we intend to continue our vigorous defense of this case. We believe that, for a number of reasons, the Texas Court should be reversed in all other respects on appeal. We also continue to work on modifications to our new DVRs, and to our DVRs in the field, intended to avoid future infringement. Existing DISH Network customers with DVRs are not immediately impacted by these recent developments, and we will keep consumers informed as events develop. We hope to have additional information for our customers very soon."

About EchoStar

EchoStar Communications Corporation (NasdaqISH) serves more than 12.46 million satellite TV customers through its DISH Network(TM), the fastest growing U.S. provider of advanced digital television services in the last five years. DISH Network offers hundreds of video and audio channels, Interactive TV, HDTV, sports and international programming, together with professional installation and 24-hour customer service.

SOURCE: EchoStar Communications Corporation

For EchoStar Communications Corporation
Kathie Gonzalez, 720-514-5351
[email protected]


----------



## Curtis52

James Long said:


> E* will not be turning of DVRs. They will be appealing the ruling and getting the judgement delayed as long as possible as they look forward to their countersuit in February.


This is from Echostar's 8-9-06 Quarterly Report:

"TiVo filed requests for reexamination during May 2006. During July 2006 the case was stayed pending the reexamination process, which could take many years".


----------



## invaliduser88

Possible outcomes of this:

Echostar buys license from Tivo...nothing changes for customers, Tivo sets sight on next victim.

Echostar buys Tivo...eventual integration of Tivo software into future DVRs.

Patent review invalidates patent.

Echostar disables DVR function on existing receivers...not likely to happen.


----------



## cap

invaliduser88 said:


> ...eventual integration of Tivo software into future DVRs.


This is what needs to happen.
I want a Dish-Tivo


----------



## cruiserparts-1

This past Feb, I was struggling with the Dish v DTV issue........

My R-15 is looking better and better every day......


----------



## AllieVi

Much ado about nothing.

However this issue is resolved, I'd be willing to bet that it won't involve losing DVR functionality.


----------



## SaltiDawg

foghorn2 said:


> ... We shall not allow our DVRs to be messed with stupid patents. ...


Say what?


----------



## Delta5

They need to settle this case or adopt Tivo. I'm going to try to look on the bright side of this and hope that maybe this means that there's a future for a DishTivo. That would be awesome. 

I just hope that E* understands that if they push down a software patch that renders their DVRs unable to record or play, they will face a massive exodus of DVR subscribers. How many of you would stick with E* if this actually happened?

I can promise that I'll be on the phone with D* or my cable company in less than 5 minutes if they shut down the DVRs.


----------



## Curtis52

invaliduser88 said:


> Possible outcomes of this:
> 
> Echostar buys license from Tivo...nothing changes for customers, Tivo sets sight on next victim.
> 
> Echostar buys Tivo...eventual integration of Tivo software into future DVRs.
> 
> Patent review invalidates patent.
> 
> Echostar disables DVR function on existing receivers...not likely to happen.


The TiVo patent review is going well. TiVo and the patent examiner have reached an agreement. RIM had to pay NTP $612 million in the Blackberry lawsuit even though the patent office rejected NTP's patent during reexamination in the Blackberry case.

If Dish disables the DVR function on their DVRs they won't even be able to be used for "live" TV. It isn't really live. It comes off the hard drive. This falls into the category of trick play. It is watching a recorded program while recording progresses.

Dish won't be able to buy TiVo unless TiVo wants to sell. They have a poison pill.


----------



## normang

According to a article I read, Tivo is trading at about $6.30 a share.. I would think that E* at this point would just starting buying shares in Tivo until it has a controlling interest. 

All this is really going to ultimately do IMHO, is enrich a handful of Tivo execs, Tivo will then fade into the Sunset and perhaps some of their software features will eventually make it into a future release of E* DVR's.. 

Tivo screwed themselves long ago by not playing well with others and demanding more than their software was worth when negotiating licensing.. If the exec's really cared about their company, they would have found another way, the lawsuit method of survival only hastens their demise even if they win as I see it..


----------



## Ray_Clum

Delta5 said:


> They need to settle this case or adopt Tivo. I'm going to try to look on the bright side of this and hope that maybe this means that there's a future for a DishTivo. That would be awesome.
> 
> I just hope that E* understands that if they push down a software patch that renders their DVRs unable to record or play, they will face a massive exodus of DVR subscribers. How many of you would stick with E* if this actually happened?
> 
> I can promise that I'll be on the phone with D* or my cable company in less than 5 minutes if they shut down the DVRs.


I wonder if this will also affect the Homezone receiver from at&t? If not, then they'd better begin offering this to all customers (not just new) otherwise churn for at&t will get nasty because many of us got in with no contract...


----------



## tomcrown1

How about our current system kills off Tivo How??? Dierct Tv buys echostar making TIVO suit mute since direct tv has a license agreement with dierct tv. Then Rupert buys TIVO and fires everyone at TIVO. well that may happen----


----------



## Curtis52

tomcrown1 said:


> How about our current system kills off Tivo How??? Dierct Tv buys echostar making TIVO suit mute since direct tv has a license agreement with dierct tv. Then Rupert buys TIVO and fires everyone at TIVO. well that may happen----


not mute [sic] or moot.

The DTV license agreement only covers specific DTV DVR models and only for 3 years beginning fairly recently.


----------



## normang

Curtis52 said:


> Dish won't be able to buy TiVo unless TiVo wants to sell. They have a poison pill.


Poison pills didn't exactly help Peoplesoft fend off Oracle as I recall..


----------



## Bullwinkle501

Until this is settled, Dish cannot Lease any new DVRs, nor can it activate any old DVRs that someone might buy.

And there is no reason to think that this will be stayed pending appeal. There has to be some reasonable expectation that Dish would prevail on appeal, and I don't see that.

I would think that Dish has 30 days to settle with TiVo in some manner, or else it would have to cut off all DVRs. 

Cutting them off is simple, by the way. Preventing them from storing video is only a little more difficult, and I am sure someone is working on it right now.

Has anyone been watching Dish financial statements close enough to know whether or not they have been putting aside a reserve for this? If I were Tivo, I wouldn't settle for less than $500 million, and then I would go after Comcast, Directv, etc.


----------



## Curtis52

Bullwinkle501 said:


> Cutting them off is simple, by the way. Preventing them from storing video is only a little more difficult, and I am sure someone is working on it right now.
> 
> Has anyone been watching Dish financial statements close enough to know whether or not they have been putting aside a reserve for this? If I were Tivo, I wouldn't settle for less than $500 million, and then I would go after Comcast, Directv, etc.


All output comes off the hard drive. There is no way around this without a hardware change.

TiVo has deals with DTV and Comcast already.


----------



## SJ HART

Better disable the software update on my receiver


----------



## monetnj

Bullwinkle501 said:


> Until this is settled, Dish cannot Lease any new DVRs, nor can it activate any old DVRs that someone might buy.
> 
> And there is no reason to think that this will be stayed pending appeal. There has to be some reasonable expectation that Dish would prevail on appeal, and I don't see that.
> 
> I would think that Dish has 30 days to settle with TiVo in some manner, or else it would have to cut off all DVRs.
> 
> Cutting them off is simple, by the way. Preventing them from storing video is only a little more difficult, and I am sure someone is working on it right now.
> 
> Has anyone been watching Dish financial statements close enough to know whether or not they have been putting aside a reserve for this? If I were Tivo, I wouldn't settle for less than $500 million, and then I would go after Comcast, Directv, etc.


I believe that D* recently extended a licensing arrangement with Tivo, so I don't think they would be next on the list.


----------



## BillJ

Well, look at the bright side. Those complaining about the DVR fee won't have to pay it anymore.

Seriously, E* needs to find an intelligent judge who will not force the shutdown while the case is still under appeal. Then in time they will reach a settlement with TIVO. And TIVO needs to re-think some of their business decisions. They got behind the technology curve and are desperately trying to stay in business. It's an old story and the landscape is littered with companies who didn't keep up.


----------



## foghorn2

Why did not Tivo licence technology from E* to add Dish's tuners to their boxes?

If they stated that the sales of their boxes was hurt by E*, did they even go this route first? 

(are the lawyers listening?)


----------



## Todd H

Damn! I just had an E* dish/DVR installed a few weeks ago. I am going to be royally pissed if they deactivate my DVR.


----------



## JohnH

SJ HART said:


> Better disable the software update on my receiver


There is a forced upgrade capability which is not affected by the cutoff option.


----------



## Delta5

Because I believe that Tivo (feels) they are not the ones that need to license anything from E*. The story goes that at some point in time Tivo and E* were in talks to make a 'DishTivo' receiver. This would have meant that E* would license the Tivo technology, and pay Tivo to do so.

Tivo says that E* stole their ideas and thus we're where we are today.

This case has the potential for huge repercussions throughout the cable and satellite industry. If Tivo really wins and E* pays millions, then a dangerous precedent is set and Tivo can start going after all of the other DVR's on the market.



foghorn2 said:


> Why did not Tivo licence technology from E* to add Dish's tuners to their boxes?
> 
> If they stated that the sales of their boxes was hurt by E*, did they even go this route first?
> 
> (are the lawyers listening?)


----------



## James Long

Tivo doesn't want to build E* receivers. E* doesn't want Tivo (or anyone outside their control) building E* receivers. I'm surprised 2Wire has been able to build the E* receivers used for HomeZone - probably a lot of money involved there.

Tivo just wants to be paid for having the idea. Best case for them, they get a boatload of money from the lawsuit followed by a boatload of money for licensing the idea of being able to record TV on a hard drive and play it back. Two boats that are very unlikely to ever set sail.

E*'s best outcome is that the patent gets thrown out. That the idea that they are claiming patent to is so common that it can't be patented. They don't want to pay Tivo a dime - but even if they end up paying they could buy the rights and leave Tivo's version of the technology at the curb.

Right now Tivo is winning by controlling the panic. People worried that their DVRs will go away. People already considering switching or not buying E*'s products because of the threat. But it isn't an immediate threat.

*DO NOT PANIC!*

This case is not the last word.


----------



## ebeeks

Delta5 said:


> They need to settle this case or adopt Tivo. I'm going to try to look on the bright side of this and hope that maybe this means that there's a future for a DishTivo. That would be awesome.
> 
> I just hope that E* understands that if they push down a software patch that renders their DVRs unable to record or play, they will face a massive exodus of DVR subscribers. How many of you would stick with E* if this actually happened?
> 
> I can promise that I'll be on the phone with D* or my cable company in less than 5 minutes if they shut down the DVRs.


You got that straight. I have been holding out to upgrade to the 622. If they shut down DVR service on my existing 942. Consider me going back to D*.


----------



## JohnH

Super Slo-Mo not with-standing.


----------



## ebaltz

Well I for one won't put off with getting screwed in the deal, I paid for a machine that has these functions, if they go away, I would require a full refund on that. They punish us for breaking our end of the contract (early termination etc...) so we would need to punish them for breaking their end of the contract.


----------



## Moridin

Curtis52 said:


> Dish has to turn off DVRs within 30 days.
> 
> http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2006-08/tivo-wins-permanent-injunction-against-echostar-and-cash/
> 
> http://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/2006/08/injunction_gran.html


The US patent system is broken beyond belief. The interested parties in this case are headquarted in Alviso and Englewood, so the case should have been tried in either California or Colorado. Instead, thanks to quirks in patent law, Tivo was able to shop venues before settling on filing this case in Marshall, TX, which has a solid history of _always_ siding with patent holders in patent infringement suits.

For anyone who thinks the patent system is not horribly broken, I offer Exhibit A: Dog waste catcher and holder. Yes, if you use a grocery bag on a stick to catch dog poop, you are now infringing on a USPTO issued patent that passed both the "non-obvious" clause and the "no prior art" clause.


----------



## Curtis52

Moridin said:


> The US patent system is broken beyond belief. The interested parties in this case are headquarted in Alviso and Englewood, so the case should have been tried in either California or Colorado. Instead, thanks to quirks in patent law, Tivo was able to shop venues before settling on filing this case in Marshall, TX, which has a solid history of _always_ siding with patent holders in patent infringement suits.


No. The Eastern District Court is known as the Rocket Docket because they specialize in patent cases and work quickly not because of particular outcomes. E* chose to sue TiVo there. That case is without merit and has been stayed while the Patent Office reexamines the patent. So much for favoring patent holders.


----------



## brian24740

The case will be settled,just like the Gemstar(TV Guide) lawsiut was.Dish's dvr's will be ordered to carry the Tivio logo in thier menus and guides and moving forward they will have the Tivio logo on the boxes the dvr fee will go up to 9.99 a month and Dish will buy Tivo and all will be happy.


----------



## Lyle_JP

> Dierct Tv buys echostar making TIVO suit mute since direct tv has a license agreement with dierct tv. Then Rupert buys TIVO and fires everyone at TIVO. well that may happen----


The justice dept wouldn't let Dish buy DirecTV, why would they allow the opposite to happen?


----------



## Moridin

Curtis52 said:


> No. The Eastern District Court is known as the Rocket Docket because they specialize in patent cases and work quickly not because of particular outcomes. E* chose to sue TiVo there. That case is without merit and has been stayed while the Patent Office reexamines the patent. So much for favoring patent holders.


This is a rather interesting article about why companies choose Marshall, TX as the venue for filing infringement suits. Yes, when I said "always" that was an exaggeration, but 88% of cases siding with patent holders (especially when the national average is 68%) is almost always.


----------



## pjmrt

Richard King said:


> The ones that are not in the injunction are the 7100 and 7200 models, their very earliest (I think).


As probably being one of the very few with a 7200 still being used - I guess I will have at least one DVR still working. No so I guess for my 721 though?


----------



## Mark Holtz

From cNet News:

*Judge to EchoStar: Disable your DVRs* (Dated August 18th)



> Thursday's ruling from U.S. District Judge David Folsom in Marshall, Texas, demands that within 30 days, EchoStar must basically render useless all but 192,708 of the DVR units it has deployed. ming.
> 
> The judge also denied EchoStar's request that the injunction be stayed pending appeal, making it difficult for EchoStar to continue offering its subscribers' DVR functionality without striking a quick licensing deal with TiVo or another DVR maker.


FULL ARTICLE HERE


----------



## Geronimo

i see that this has inspired anumber of threads here and elsewhere. I see to that people are largely assuming that they will be shut off in 30 days etc. i think we all need to understand that developments like this are not that uncommon in the legal processs---and that they are subject to appeal. I think that we can safely assume thaat this will be appealed by DISH.


----------



## sixr

I've been watching the 622 threads waiting for things to stablize before I upgraded. This news is very bad. The industry as a whole seems to have death wish. Customers are equated with pirates, when in reality it's the companies that act like pirates.

Frankly the shine is gone from satellite services. Their strength was picture quality but it's not what it used to be with the compression games they play. My biggest beef in the last year is content. Although not E's fault the the premium channels cant seem to show movies made in the last 10 years, but I'm getting sick of seeing the same movies I'm paying for being shown for free on other channels.

Disgusted


----------



## Lyle_JP

> Their strength was picture quality but it's not what it used to be with the compression games they play.


Their strength has not been picture quality for a very long time (at least 7 years). Their strength has been *price *for most people, when compared with the utter highway robbery of cable rates.


----------



## koji68

Delta5 said:


> I can promise that I'll be on the phone with D* or my cable company in less than 5 minutes if they shut down the DVRs.


That's right!

Come on E*! Settle with Tivo and add their distinctiveness to your collective.


----------



## Mark Lamutt

*EchoStar Announces Federal Circuit Blocks Tivo Injunction*

ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 18, 2006--EchoStar Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH) issued the following statement regarding recent developments in the Tivo Inc. v. EchoStar Communications Corp. lawsuit:

"We are pleased that this morning, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. temporarily blocked an injunction issued by a Texas Court, while it considers a longer-term stay of that injunction.

As a result of the stay EchoStar can continue to sell, and provide to consumers, all of its digital video recorder models. We continue to believe the Texas decision was wrong, and should be reversed on appeal. We also continue to work on modifications to our new DVRs, and to our DVRs in the field, intended to avoid future alleged infringement."

About EchoStar

EchoStar Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH) serves more than 12.46 million satellite TV customers through its DISH Network(TM), the fastest growing U.S. provider of advanced digital television services in the last five years. DISH Network offers hundreds of video and audio channels, Interactive TV, HDTV, sports and international programming, together with professional installation and 24-hour customer service.

CONTACT: EchoStar Communications Corporation
Kathie Gonzalez, 720-514-5351
[email protected]

SOURCE: EchoStar Communications Corporation


----------



## MarcusInMD

That didn't take long.


----------



## tomcrown1

So what this monkey?? Is it the fear the Dish will have to shut down the use o DVR?? To try and guess what will happen in the next 30 days is nuts. Dish could win its appeal---TIVO can be bought out by dish or direct tv---The pateint office can claim that Dis DVr and TIVo DVR us different methods to achieve the same thing. Microsoft can sue TIVO. etc.


----------



## Todd H

Whew! I feel better now.


----------



## Mark Lamutt

I'm editing the title of this thread to update the situation.


----------



## Greg Bimson

James Long said:


> E*'s best outcome is that the patent gets thrown out. That the idea that they are claiming patent to is so common that it can't be patented. They don't want to pay Tivo a dime - but even if they end up paying they could buy the rights and leave Tivo's version of the technology at the curb.


Dish Network already tried to invalidate the patent at the PTO. The patent claims were upheld. Therefore, the only way for Dish Network to gain any wiggle room at this point is through the appeals process.


----------



## moman19

cap said:


> This is what needs to happen.
> I want a Dish-Tivo


Ditto. The TiVo user interface is superior. IMHO, a 622 with a TiVo-like front end would be a good thing......as long as it doesn't cost me $20/month in lawsuit-related fees.:nono:


----------



## JohnH

Well, I don't particularly care for the Tivo interface. My 721 does what I tell it to. I have no use for the automatic episode getter in the Tivo. I'm sure some do though.


----------



## djlong

It's not the idea of a DVR that TiVo is suing over. There are some very technical details in how some DVR features are implement and THAT is what TiVo is claiming they have a patent on. Ok, they DO have the patents but they claim that some of the E* implementations of those ideas are too close to their patent.

This is why there are over 190K DVRs that are NOT covered in the original order. THOSE DVRs (I think they are the original DishPlayers - I have one) are coded differently. Heck, they have a different 'operating system' entirely.

I said early on that the one thing that TiVo had working against them is that they can't claim that E* copied their DVRs TOO closely because, if they did, E*'s DVRs wouldn't be so notoriously bug-ridden. They'd WORK like TiVos work.


----------



## FrankD1

I'm scratching my head with these supposed Tivo patents... Back in the mid-late 90's, I pre-ordered a Tivo unit when I read about it. After constant push-backs in the release date, I came across Replay and ordered one of their units, which shipped immediately. So from my perspective, Replay was the first to the field in DVRs. Some of Tivo's unique "idiot proof" GUIs I can see valid patents on, but not general DVR time-shifting ideas.


----------



## Curtis52

FrankD1 said:


> I'm scratching my head with these supposed Tivo patents... Back in the mid-late 90's, I pre-ordered a Tivo unit when I read about it. After constant push-backs in the release date, I came across Replay and ordered one of their units, which shipped immediately. So from my perspective, Replay was the first to the field in DVRs. Some of Tivo's unique "idiot proof" GUIs I can see valid patents on, but not general DVR time-shifting ideas.


TiVo was the first to ship on March 31, 1999. Replay didn't come until several months later.


----------



## Paradox-sj

My HTPC does tricks as well is it also patent infringed on TIVO? Will they be sueing everyone that makes a dvr card? 

I have friends that work at TIVO as they are just accross town from me and this will be a witch hunt.


----------



## foghorn2

We should as of now refer to Tivo as "Patent Troll Tivo". :lol:


----------



## mplsjeffm

I think the judge was way off the mark when he said " the loss of DVR will not irrevocably hurt E*"
He doesn't know what life is like when you can time shift TV and zap commercials.


----------



## FrankD1

Curtis52 said:


> TiVo was the first to ship on March 31, 1999. Replay didn't come until several months later.


If that was their release date, it must have been a ceremonial, for-the-press thing, because I ordered mine in May 99 (I looked through my emails) and was told "we're not shipping yet". After a couple weeks of the "we're not shipping yet" is when I gave up and went to Replay.


----------



## boylehome

mplsjeffm said:


> I think the judge was way off the mark when he said " the loss of DVR will not irrevocably hurt E*"
> He doesn't know what life is like when you can time shift TV and zap commercials.


Lest we forget, "Justice is Blind."


----------



## pdxsam

James Long said:


> A paranoid person woud consider that E* built an off switch into their software a long time ago.
> 
> )


Their actually is an off switch of sorts. I'm not a paranoidal one. When I got my replacement 622 it started off as an SD receiver. Then had it activated and the HD receiver started up but I couldn't access any DVR functions. A subequent call and the flipped the DVR bit in their system and down came the DVR functions. So I think they can turn it on and off piece by piece from the system end.


----------



## Wrecker06

cap said:


> This is what needs to happen.
> I want a Dish-Tivo


Me too, but I don't want to spend another 699.00 for it.


----------



## normang

I do not recall Tivo's patent's being upheld, I thought the review process is still ongoing, thus E*'s lawsuit coming to a court near you next year.. I could be wrong..


----------



## Geronimo

normang said:


> I do not recall Tivo's patent's being upheld, I thought the review process is still ongoing, thus E*'s lawsuit coming to a court near you next year.. I could be wrong..


Tivo won their lawsuit which is being appealed. this was an injuction granted by one judge yesterday that has apparenly been stayed already. The Echostar case is technically a separate matter.


----------



## Curtis52

djlong said:


> This is why there are over 190K DVRs that are NOT covered in the original order. THOSE DVRs (I think they are the original DishPlayers - I have one) are coded differently. Heck, they have a different 'operating system' entirely.


From the Marshall, Texas newspaper after the jury tria 4-14-06:

The jury found TiVo lost sales of 192,708 products because of EchoStar and awarded $32,663,906 in lost profit damages. It also determined TiVo lost "reasonable royalties" on 4,179,253 boxes because of EchoStar sales and was entitled to $41,328,058.

The award total was $73,991,964, although TiVo had asked for more than $87 million. The jury exercised an option of deciding TiVo was not entitled to damages before it began marking its DVR products with the patent number.

That date was Jan. 2, 2002. TiVo witnesses said the company failed to mark its Series 1 products."


----------



## scooper

If my DVR is shutdown - I'm out of E* as soon as I can get a replacement.


----------



## kstuart

Just to clarify a few small points:

1) EchoStar DVRs will work without the hard drive. I had a very early 501 where the HD crashed and it still continued to work the same as a 301 live-only receiver, complete with timers.

2) I used to own a TiVo in order to do searches until E* implemented a search function on their DVRs. The TiVo was *not* more reliable than E* DVRs, it had plenty of bugs in the software, and was generally quite slow. The E* DVRs are much superior in playing back existing recordings, in terms of play, rewind, FF, etc. The TiVo's area of superiority was in finding programs to record, but due to inadequacies in the listings submitted by the channels, that system has its problems as well.


----------



## James Long

Mark Lamutt said:


> As a result of the stay EchoStar can continue to sell, and provide to consumers, all of its digital video recorder models.


As expected ... I just hope that E* won't be harmed by the publicity surrounding the story.


Greg Bimson said:


> Dish Network already tried to invalidate the patent at the PTO. The patent claims were upheld. Therefore, the only way for Dish Network to gain any wiggle room at this point is through the appeals process.


Isn't the patent claim what is going to court in February? This case was to decide if E* violated the patent. The next case is to decide, in court, whether there should be a patent at all.


scooper said:


> If my DVR is shutdown - I'm out of E* as soon as I can get a replacement.


That is just the message that Tivo wants to hear (D* and cable providers are happy to hear that too).

*Don't panic.*

E* is doing all they can to keep your DVRs running.


----------



## Curtis52

James Long said:


> Isn't the patent claim what is going to court in February? This case was to decide if E* violated the patent. The next case is to decide, in court, whether there should be a patent at all.


The TiVo patent suit against E* is the win beeing discussed. The E* patent suit against TiVo is on hold while the patent office reexamines the E* patent. E* said in their quarterly report that the reexamination process could take years.


----------



## wrzwaldo

James Long said:


> A paranoid person woud consider that E* built an off switch into their software a long time ago.
> 
> *But E* has no intention of turning off their DVRs - so why build it in?* The perfect "excuse", similar to Microsoft's imbedding of Internet Explorer in Windows (where it couldn't be removed without destroying the operating system). "We cannot comply because disabling the DVR code would disable the entire receiver."
> 
> This will not get to the point where a DVR is disabled. E* has too much riding on the technology.
> 
> (Of course there is one reason to have an "off switch" - so they can disable it and charge $5.95 to turn it back on.  )


Why not, they had a way to push out a software update to my 942 with updates disabled.


----------



## cap

Wrecker06 said:


> Me too, but I don't want to spend another 699.00 for it.


I don't want to spend it either, but for a dishtivo I'd gladly pay 699.
Not to mention singing praises to any who will listen.


----------



## Moridin

James Long said:


> That is just the message that Tivo wants to hear (D* and cable providers are happy to hear that too).


Let us not forget that *if* Tivo ultimately prevails over Echostar, executives at that company have stated that all other providers of DVRs that similarly infringe on their patents (including the Scientific Atlanta/Cisco DVRs many cable providers use) will be next in line. So you can run elsewhere, but there's no guarantee that the same *possible* outcome won't occur.


----------



## rabit ears

Apparently, the order had been blocked by an appellate court - assume the 5th Circuit, but nothing about that in the announcement........... update, the appeal was granted by the DC Circuit - smart move on the part of E*, that should fast track it to the SC which E* has in their pocket due to Charlie's contributions to the Bush retirement fund.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060818/ap_on_hi_te/tivo_echostar

Does anyone know why this was in the 5th Circuit? TiVo would have had a better chance in the 9th Circuit and E* in the 10th. I assume TiVo was the plaintiff, but the only reason to go to the 5th was the possibility that the "bubba" factor would play and they'd get some A&M graduate as a judge.


----------



## wrzwaldo

JohnH said:


> There is a forced upgrade capability which is not affected by the cutoff option.


Yep, I found that out a week or so ago.


----------



## scooper

Oh - I'm staying with Dish - until the DVR is shut off. When that's gone - I'm gone.

I sure won't be buying a TiVO, just on spite. Same as I won't buy Sony anymore either.


----------



## Richard King

rabit ears said:


> the appeal was granted by the DC Circuit - smart move on the part of E*, that should fast track it to the SC which E* has in their pocket due to Charlie's contributions to the Bush retirement fund.


Ah, the internet.
http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Charles_Ergen.php


----------



## tomcrown1

Richard King said:


> Ah, the internet.
> http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Charles_Ergen.php


and the point is???


----------



## Nick

Richard King said:


> The ones that are not in the injunction are the 7100 and 7200 models, their very earliest (I think).


I still have a Dishplayer 7200 (PVR) that was working just fine when I took it offline last year.

Any offers? :sure:


----------



## normang

tomcrown1 said:


> and the point is???


Appears to me that if you went to the link that Charlie contributes to both political parties, whether its equal or not would take more time than I want to spend to add it up.


----------



## FTA Michael

kstuart said:


> EchoStar DVRs will work without the hard drive. I had a very early 501 where the HD crashed and it still continued to work the same as a 301 live-only receiver, complete with timers.


Ditto. My 510's hard drive crashed, and after it verified that the drive was a goner, it seamlessly switched to showing live content. Not its optimal usage, but much more functional than a doorstop.


----------



## dave1234

Greg Bimson said:


> Dish Network already tried to invalidate the patent at the PTO. The patent claims were upheld. Therefore, the only way for Dish Network to gain any wiggle room at this point is through the appeals process.


Hum, that's new news.. When did the PTO change the result of their reexamination. The last I heard numerous claims were invalidated by the PTO.(and some were upheald) Please point to where I can read that all claims were upheald.


----------



## Delta5

normang said:


> Appears to me that if you went to the link that Charlie contributes to both political parties, whether its equal or not would take more time than I want to spend to add it up.


No need to add, it's right at the top...

$377,050 for Republicans
$375,500 for Democrats

Clearly a huge bias.


----------



## neilo

Delta5 said:


> No need to add, it's right at the top...
> 
> $377,050 for Republicans
> $375,500 for Democrats
> 
> Clearly a huge bias.


And the point is that with all those contributions he has "earned" some consideration from the politicians that his business won't collapse due to TiVo. Something will be worked out.

Neil


----------



## Curtis52

neilo said:


> And the point is that with all those contributions he has "earned" some consideration from the politicians that his business won't collapse due to TiVo. Something will be worked out.


Federal judges are appointed for life. They aren't elected.


----------



## normang

Curtis52 said:


> Federal judges are appointed for life. They aren't elected.


Something that should be changed to be more easily remove judges that are clearly biased one way or another and not appropriately evaluating the case based on existing law or the constitution. Yes, they can be impeached, but that been extremely difficult, even when they've obviously broken the law.


----------



## Greg Bimson

dave1234 said:


> Hum, that's new news.. When did the PTO change the result of their reexamination. The last I heard numerous claims were invalidated by the PTO.(and some were upheald) Please point to where I can read that all claims were upheald.


I'm sorry, I should have been a bit more careful in choosing my words:

The PTO examined TiVo's patent claims, and the important ones which Echostar was found guilty of infringment still remained valid.


----------



## Paul Secic

ebeeks said:


> You got that straight. I have been holding out to upgrade to the 622. If they shut down DVR service on my existing 942. Consider me going back to D*.


It isn't Dish's fault, it's greedy TIVO'S. By the way does this effect the 501 series?


----------



## Paul Secic

sixr said:


> I've been watching the 622 threads waiting for things to stablize before I upgraded. This news is very bad. The industry as a whole seems to have death wish. Customers are equated with pirates, when in reality it's the companies that act like pirates.
> 
> Frankly the shine is gone from satellite services. Their strength was picture quality but it's not what it used to be with the compression games they play. My biggest beef in the last year is content. Although not E's fault the the premium channels cant seem to show movies made in the last 10 years, but I'm getting sick of seeing the same movies I'm paying for being shown for free on other channels.
> 
> Disgusted


Personally I love old movies. No ads.


----------



## agreer

The funny part is that the minute they kill DVR, they will have a huge class action law suit from all the folks that did the whole 12 month agreement thing...


----------



## MadScientist

What happens to customers that have bought their DVR? Will dish network refund the money that I spent if they have to turn my DVR off or do I have to go to small claims court for that? Just asking!


----------



## Lyle_JP

> The funny part is that the minute they kill DVR, they will have a huge class action law suit from all the folks that did the whole 12 month agreement thing...


Only if Dish refuses to waive the early cancellation fee. If the Dish DVRs all died, it would be Dish in violation of that agreement first. It would take some chutzpah for them to hold subscribers to a 12 or 18 month contract on receivers that no longer function as advertised (if at all).

If Dish _does _decide to take its legal loses out on its own subscribers, count me in on the class action lawsuit.


----------



## TBoneit

Curtis52 said:


> From the Marshall, Texas newspaper after the jury tria 4-14-06:
> 
> The jury found TiVo lost sales of 192,708 products because of EchoStar and awarded $32,663,906 in lost profit damages. It also determined TiVo lost "reasonable royalties" on 4,179,253 boxes because of EchoStar sales and was entitled to $41,328,058.
> 
> The award total was $73,991,964, although TiVo had asked for more than $87 million. The jury exercised an option of deciding TiVo was not entitled to damages before it began marking its DVR products with the patent number.
> 
> That date was Jan. 2, 2002. TiVo witnesses said the company failed to mark its Series 1 products."


Am I being stupid? The jury awarded Tivo for lost reasonable royalties. Therefor IMHO Tivo got their royalties for those boxes and they should be excluded from anything that happens. I know that isn't the way the world works but it seems a reasonable point of view to me. Final result for E* should be if the court loss stays any new boxes can not be built or sold and existing ones at the time of the legal decision should be entitled to stay functional.

The whole legal system is broken! Shopping for the right place for your lawsuit? Wrong! Totally bad for any individual being sued by a large entity that can sue anywhere favorable to them.


----------



## Curtis52

TBoneit said:


> Am I being stupid? The jury awarded Tivo for lost reasonable royalties. Therefor IMHO Tivo got their royalties for those boxes and they should be excluded from anything that happens. I know that isn't the way the world works but it seems a reasonable point of view to me.


The award for the 4M boxes was calculated based on the number of months each box was in service. As more months pass, TiVo loses more royalties. The award was not based on a lifetime subscription. That would have been several hundred thousand dollars.

The award for the 169K boxes was apparently for hypothetical lifetime subscriptions. That's why they aren't part of the injunction.


----------



## foghorn2

Richard King said:


> Ah, the internet.
> http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Charles_Ergen.php


No money to Bush, Murdocs buddy?


----------



## foghorn2

Delta5 said:


> No need to add, it's right at the top...
> 
> $377,050 for Republicans
> $375,500 for Democrats
> 
> Clearly a huge bias.


It's the same actually, dems are penny pinchers :lol:

But really, you have to give to both sides otherwise when you really need them , the wrong party may be in control.


----------



## sat tech

James Long said:


> E* will not be turning of DVRs. They will be appealing the ruling and getting the judgement delayed as long as possible as they look forward to their countersuit in February.


the goverment thru Martha Stewart in jail!!!!! There is a strong possibilty that this could happen. I hope that it doesn't happen. I have a lot of friends that are installers and retailers


----------



## normang

sat tech said:


> the goverment thru Martha Stewart in jail!!!!! There is a strong possibilty that this could happen. I hope that it doesn't happen. I have a lot of friends that are installers and retailers


Get real... what Martha Stewart did and what's happening here are completely different, no one is going to jail..


----------



## Slamminc11

sat tech said:


> *the goverment thru Martha Stewart in jail!!!!! *There is a strong possibilty that this could happen. I hope that it doesn't happen. I have a lot of friends that are installers and retailers


Umm, what? What does Martha Stewart going to jail have to do with this?


----------



## TomH

cruiserparts said:


> This past Feb, I was struggling with the Dish v DTV issue........
> 
> My R-15 is looking better and better every day......


How is that? Has the horrible Tivo user interface changed?


----------



## Darrell

Curtis52 said:


> All output comes off the hard drive. There is no way around this without a hardware change.
> 
> TiVo has deals with DTV and Comcast already.


There seems to be some confusion. There is indeed an off switch. Although the live feed is spooled to and from disc before output to monitor, this by no way prevents E* from disabling the DVR "features" at will. If you don't believe it, call them and request to stop paying the DVR fee. It will then act as a simple receiver, though you could probably still play programs already recorded.


----------



## Darrell

TomH said:


> How is that? Has the horrible Tivo user interface changed?


The TiVo interface, most would say, is not "horrible" but the best DVR software by far on the planet. But the R-15 is not a TiVo.


----------



## Darrell

cj9788 said:


> How are they going to shut them down?
> 
> If they in the end lose the appeal. Is it a software down load and if so can we simply not allow the software to down load?


They simply "hit" the box with a command to disable the features, in much the same way a commad is sent to add a premium channel, and such. Disabling software updates in the user interface, if possible, has nothing whatsoever to do with this.


----------



## Darrell

invaliduser88 said:


> Possible outcomes of this:
> 
> Echostar buys license from Tivo...nothing changes for customers, Tivo sets sight on next victim.
> 
> Echostar buys Tivo...eventual integration of Tivo software into future DVRs.
> 
> Patent review invalidates patent.
> 
> Echostar disables DVR function on existing receivers...not likely to happen.


You left one out 

E* disables DVR function on existing receivers but users hack the boxes (very probable if it came down to it.)


----------



## James Long

Darrell said:


> E* disables DVR function on existing receivers but users hack the boxes (very probable if it came down to it.)


Fortunately hackers are an extreme minority of users. But it isn't going to be an issue. E*'s DVRs will not be turned off.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Actually, in this case, hackers are an interesting monkey wrench in the "must disable DVR" scenario.

Dish could disable the DVRs, but hackers could turn them back on again and Dish may not be able to prevent that. IF TiVo did not actively pursue (and I mean find and sue them) the hackers for doing this, then they would in essence invalidate their suit against Dish... since you have to actively pursue any and all violators in order to defend your patent.

Could be interesting... TiVo likely wouldn't have the cash to hunt down every hacker and sue them... but if they didn't, then Dish could win on that count too.

Stranger things have happened!


----------



## mrmaico

Interesting. I switched to cable with a 2 tuner HD DVR about 5 months ago after 10 years with Dish (501). I was thinking of going back to Dish for a couple different reasons, namely a buggy DVR. If you think Dish's DVRs have bugs you should try a Motorola DCT6416 III! Another VERY annoying thing with this cable DVR is whenever there is severe weather anywhere nearby my local cable system likes to broadcast an emergency message that takes over your screen and you lose anything in a buffer that you were watching. 

I was thinking of going back to Dish mainly for a more stable DVR and the distant nets (miss a show and I could watch it 2 hours later) even though it would cost me more for a comparable setup with Dish, the 2 things Dish could possibly lose. Looks like I will just have to sit tight here for a while and see how things shake out.


----------



## James Long

HDMe said:


> IF TiVo did not actively pursue (and I mean find and sue them) the hackers for doing this, then they would in essence invalidate their suit against Dish... since you have to actively pursue any and all violators in order to defend your patent.


Somehow I believe the responsibility would remain E*'s for failing to turn off the DVR function. It is easier to go after E* for failing to secure their system than the thieves.

But it is a moo/mute/moot point (pick one depending on your level of humor). It will not get to that point.


----------



## tnsprin

TBoneit said:


> Am I being stupid? The jury awarded Tivo for lost reasonable royalties. Therefor IMHO Tivo got their royalties for those boxes and they should be excluded from anything that happens. I know that isn't the way the world works but it seems a reasonable point of view to me. Final result for E* should be if the court loss stays any new boxes can not be built or sold and existing ones at the time of the legal decision should be entitled to stay functional.
> 
> The whole legal system is broken! Shopping for the right place for your lawsuit? Wrong! Totally bad for any individual being sued by a large entity that can sue anywhere favorable to them.


Surprisingly bad article posted by the local Texas paper. The found that all but the 192K machines violated the patents. The Dishplayer machines (those 192k) were designed with Microsoft who had an agreement with Tivo.


----------



## James Long

tnsprin said:


> Surprisingly bad article posted by the local Texas paper. The found that all but the 192K machines violated the patents. The Dishplayer machines (those 192k) were designed with Microsoft who had an agreement with Tivo.


To be fair, the words they used were in the judge's order (visible here as linked from the first post in this thread).

Defendants are hereby *FURTHER ORDERED* to, within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this order, disable the DVR functionality (i.e., disable all storage to and playback from a hard disk drive of television data) in all by 192,708 units of the Infinging Products that have been placed with an end user or subscriber. The DVR functionallity i.e., disable all storage to and playback from a hard disk drive of television data) shall not be enabled in any new placements of the Infringing Products.​
The infinging products are listed as the DP-501, DP-508, DP-510, DP-522, DP-625, DP-721, DP-921 and the DP-942. All of these products are called infringing - not all but 192k.

Hmmm ... there are a couple models not listed. (The ViP-622 DVR apparently wasn't born at the time of the suit - Tivo will have to sue separately on that product if they feel it infringes.) There is also a good definition of what the court considers "DVR functionality" ... all storage to and playback from.


----------



## Dr. Smoke

The lawsuit won was about the following:


> ... a jury decision in April that EchoStar infringed on TiVo's patent for "time-warp" technology -- the ability to record a live television program while playing another.


... and this week's TiVO injunction was pursuant to that. Then E* got a temporary stay of that injunction.

I have not changed from my 942 to the 622, because I'm still mad that three months after paying $250 for the 942, they expected me to pay _again_ for the 622. So I am fuming with 3 HD channels, while paying their damned "HD" fee and no-telephone fee. Can't go to D* tho... it's owned by the anti-Christ, Rupert Murdock, who also owns the Faux channel.

But I have learned my lesson: No more dependence on giant monopolies for my TV recording. KnoppMyth for me, when my DVR contract is up. 

MythTV is superior to DVRs anyway. All I need is an HD hardware codec card, as my final DVR expense. Corporations sue KnoppMyth? Get it overseas in a minute.

Enough, with monopolies behaving like dictators and pirates, while treating their _customers_ like pirates.



TBoneit said:


> The whole legal system is broken! Shopping for the right place for your lawsuit? Wrong! Totally bad for any individual being sued by a large entity that can sue anywhere favorable to them.


Works both ways. I filed an international lawsuit against Marantz for $8,300, and they didn't even put up a fight. Small cases just aren't worth the legal expenses to them. When you are in the right, sue them, if you are disciplined enough to do your homework.

:bonk1:


----------



## tnsprin

James Long said:


> To be fair, the words they used were in the judge's order (visible here as linked from the first post in this thread).
> 
> Defendants are hereby *FURTHER ORDERED* to, within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this order, disable the DVR functionality (i.e., disable all storage to and playback from a hard disk drive of television data) in all by 192,708 units of the Infinging Products that have been placed with an end user or subscriber. The DVR functionallity i.e., disable all storage to and playback from a hard disk drive of television data) shall not be enabled in any new placements of the Infringing Products.​
> The infinging products are listed as the DP-501, DP-508, DP-510, DP-522, DP-625, DP-721, DP-921 and the DP-942. All of these products are called infringing - not all but 192k.
> 
> Hmmm ... there are a couple models not listed. (The ViP-622 DVR apparently wasn't born at the time of the suit - Tivo will have to sue separately on that product if they feel it infringes.) There is also a good definition of what the court considers "DVR functionality" ... all storage to and playback from.


It says "but" not "by" (at least in one place). But its interesting since the infringing products are mentioned by model numbers, what are the excluded 192k machines?

Personally I think Tivo's basic patent filing is not valid, and that Dish's implementation is not the same. But the Patent review is still in the air.

I am also curious on comments from Dish on how they are planning to modify the machines to avoid violating the patent.


----------



## normang

Media coverage of this is abysmal, in fact the print media that merely gets pasted online, has been going down hill for years and continues to sink. I would't rely on AP or Reuter's for real facts on most anything these days.. its always hidden between the lines or you have to assemble it yourself from multiple sources if you can find them..

Todays reports are filled with what if's from "analysts" that more often than not, are wrong. And then some analyst says that the stay of the injunction could only last for days, when he has no clue since earlier in the same article, the stay on the injunction was done to allow appeals to move forward. They jus toss that in to gloss it up and make it look worse than it really is..

With that said, if reports are "accurate", Dish has 3 million DVR's for 12-13 million subscribers.. Who here would have thought it was that low after all these years.. I think thats a low number.. Significant yes, but not what I expected after years of Dishplayer, 501/508 and now newer models and HD models.

I've thought for a while, this is merely Tivo's last gasp.. When you cannot compete, you litigate. The concepts on all this is built are pretty generic, there isn't anything about this technology that has not been done before in some way shape or form. Its like the several examples given if you can get some generic concept patented, then you can try and force money from someone else that may have something similiar, the only claim to fame is you patented it..

As James and others have thought, Dish is not going to disable DVR features for 3 million or whatever the number actually is, subscribers. Its just not going to happen. 

Dish will win a legal battle somewhere, Tivo loses, story ends.

Tivo wins, Dish buys Tivo out, Tivo Execs have big bucks, disappear.

Dish Licenses the technology, Tivo lives on doing nothing but living off something that they really didn't invent, just had the luck to patent.

Tivo has been dying for a long time, hanging by threads as I see it. They've made their software invasive, monitoring and reporting what you watch and how you pause, what you skip, what you rewind to re-watch.. And whether they tie that to you or not, I personally don't want my viewing habits tabulated.

You pay big bucks for their service, what is their DVR fee for a standalone Tivo.. $16+ a month, thats pretty steep IMHO depending on the plan you buy.. over and above your programming costs.. yeesh, and we complain about $5 DVR Fee's from Dish..


----------



## albert71292

Reading about stuff like this makes me glad, the few times I actually "time shift" shows, that I still record the "old fashioned way"... on a VHS recorder!


----------



## Dr. Smoke

normang said:


> Media coverage of this is abysmal, in fact the print media that merely gets pasted online, has been going down hill for years and continues to sink. I would't rely on AP or Reuter's for real facts on most anything these days.. its always hidden between the lines or you have to assemble it yourself from multiple sources if you can find them.


Yep. Very perceptive.

I've written an editorial on exactly that, being the consolidation and homogenization of Big Media, and the reasons why. "Our Stolen Nation" will appear here this Monday:
seattlepi DOT nwsource DOT com SLASH opinion
(I am not allowed to post URLs here yet... this is also why I didn't annotate my post above, with references)


----------



## Curtis52

tnsprin said:


> what are the excluded 192k machines?


"The jury found TiVo lost sales of 192,708 products because of EchoStar and awarded $32,663,906 in lost profit damages. It also determined TiVo lost "reasonable royalties" on 4,179,253 boxes because of EchoStar sales and was entitled to $41,328,058. "

My guess is that the jury knew that a certain percentage of lost business was lost lifetime subscriptions and 192K was the number they picked. These were excluded from the injunction because no ongoing monthly payments were involved in the penalty calculation.

The rest are included in the injunction because of ongoing lost monthly income.


----------



## mattcav1

Reuters 09:15 AM Aug, 18, 2006

TiVo said Friday that a federal court in Texas has ordered EchoStar Communications to halt the use and sale of several of its digital video recorders after a jury ruled in April that EchoStar had infringed on a TiVo patent.

EchoStar, owner of the No. 2 U.S. satellite television broadcaster Dish Network, said it planned to ask a federal appeals court to block the permanent injunction while it launched an appeal.

While Dish network has 12.5 million U.S. subscribers, the injunction covers only those who use any of eight DVR models. It was unclear how many subscribers would be affected by the ruling. An EchoStar representative was not immediately available for comment.

TiVo shares jumped 17 percent in early trading, while EchoStar shares fell 2.6 percent.

The injunction, issued Thursday, would require many DVRs used by Dish Network customers to be shut off within 30 days, EchoStar said in a statement. DVRs allow viewers to record dozens of hours of programming, while they watch or pause live TV.

U.S. District Court Judge David Folsom also on Thursday ordered EchoStar pay $5.6 million in interest and $10.3 million in additional damages, TiVo said, on top of a jury damage award of $74 million in April.

The judge's ruling was the latest step in a lengthy dispute over technology built into TV set-top boxes, and follows a jury decision in April in favor of TiVo's patent claim. TiVo subsequently asked the court to hand down specific damages.

The judge also denied EchoStar's request to stay the injunction, pending appeal.

EchoStar said in a statement the judge concluded that it did not act in bad faith or copy TiVo's technology, and denied TiVo's request for damages to be tripled.

"We believe that, for a number of reasons, the Texas court should be reversed in all other respects on appeal," EchoStar said. "We also continue to work on modifications to our new DVRs, and to our DVRs in the field, intended to avoid future infringement."

TiVo brought the case to federal court in Texas, accusing EchoStar of stealing its technology. Last year, EchoStar countersued TiVo, saying the company used technology patented by EchoStar between 1998 and 2003. Analysts have suggested that the ruling could lead to a licensing deal between the two companies, and that TiVo may use this decision to take on other companies that make and distribute DVRs.

"This decision recognizes that our intellectual property is valuable and will ensure that moving forward EchoStar will be unable to use our patented technology without our authorization," TiVo said in a statement.

Satellite providers have used DVRs to woo customers away from cable companies. In turn, more cable TV providers have been placing DVRs in subscriber homes.


----------



## jaybo1

weren't they originally partnered with Direct TV?..... If so is there a lawsuit looming there as well..? 

Furthermore can a Tivo DVR be compatible with Echostar just like a Dish DVR?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Badger

jaybo1 said:


> weren't they originally partnered with Direct TV?..... If so is there a lawsuit looming there as well..?
> 
> Furthermore can a Tivo DVR be compatible with Echostar just like a Dish DVR?
> 
> Thanks in advance.


Direct recently signed a three year agreement with Tivo so their OK.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James Long said:


> Somehow I believe the responsibility would remain E*'s for failing to turn off the DVR function. It is easier to go after E* for failing to secure their system than the thieves.


Hmmm... I'm not really up on legalese enough to know for sure... I was working on the premise that Dish was told to disable the DVR, not to refund or confiscate the receivers. If the ruling was to destroy/confiscate/refund then I'd say this was a done deal pending the appeal.

But "disable" is a dodgy term. Dish could disable the DVR functions, but someone could re-enable them... would Dish be supposed to continually send "kill" signals to DVR receivers? If not, I am not sure how the law would interpret it if customers re-enabled themselves.

Case in point... the whole Napster mess... Music companies went after Napster, but that just stopped the central MP3 sharing servers... Music companies had to go after individual users who had downloaded songs illegally if they wanted to retract them... they couldn't force Napster to do it... just to stop perpetuating it.

So it seems like legally they could only force Dish to make an honest effort to diable (such as a software "downgrade" to disable DVR features)... this couldn't extend to liability for the hacker community that could reprogram EEPROMs or whatever and flash hacked code back to the boxes and re-enable them.



James Long said:


> But it is a moo/mute/moot point (pick one depending on your level of humor). It will not get to that point.


But I think and hope you are right... and smarter heads will ultimately prevail and see this for the sham lawsuit that it really is.


----------



## normang

Curtis52 said:


> "The jury found TiVo lost sales of 192,708 products because of EchoStar and awarded $32,663,906 in lost profit damages. It also determined TiVo lost "reasonable royalties" on 4,179,253 boxes because of EchoStar sales and was entitled to $41,328,058. " My guess is that the jury knew that a certain percentage of lost business was lost lifetime subscriptions and 192K was the number they picked. These were excluded from the injunction because no ongoing monthly payments were involved in the penalty calculation. The rest are included in the injunction because of ongoing lost monthly income.


This is a really big assumption on anyone's part to be able to determine whether Tivo would have sold anywhere near that number of systems if Dish had not been selling and leasing them. I know Tivo would not have been my first choice. To me this could be considered monopolistic, because I could say that have no DVR choice, other than to get some form of Tivo.. Where is the competition??


----------



## James Long

albert71292 said:


> Reading about stuff like this makes me glad, the few times I actually "time shift" shows, that I still record the "old fashioned way"... on a VHS recorder!


E* receivers have the ability to trigger a VCR. One can set up a "VCR event" to tell their VCR to record a show.


----------



## Curtis52

"A Special Message To DISH Network Subscribers

TiVo is a pioneer in Digital Video Recorder (DVR) products and services. TiVo is a relatively small company whose entire business centers around expanding and advancing DVR functionality and technology. TiVo introduced DVRs to consumers and protected its inventions with patents. EchoStar is a very large media company that provides DVR products and services in direct competition with TiVo. Unlike TiVo partners such as DIRECTV and Comcast, EchoStar has refused to enter into an agreement with TiVo which left TiVo no choice but to defend its intellectual property in federal court.

After several years of expensive litigation, in April 2006, EchoStar's DVR products were found by a jury to be infringing one of TiVo's patents. TiVo is pleased that a federal court has recognized that TiVo's business will be irreparably harmed if EchoStar were allowed to continue to infringe TiVo's patent. Any shutdown of DVR functionality for existing DISH Network customers is entirely and directly due to EchoStar's infringement of TiVo's patent rights. It is unfortunate that DISH Network's actions have put its customers in the awkward position of potentially having DVR functionality disabled but DISH Network customers who want to ensure uninterrupted DVR service can get DVR products and services from TiVo and its partners.

If you would like more information about products from TiVo and its partners, please complete the form below."

from http://www.tivo.com/tivodishinfo.asp


----------



## scooper

Tivo is on my Sony List...

(I.E. don't buy or support)....


----------



## normang

If people flock to Tivo over this, they are benefiting a company that does not deserve to get a dime. I think their trying to take advantage of the ruling, even before its all said and done, is also really slimey...


----------



## ClaudeR

Where can we sign a petition to the judge? Tivo sucks, had one for 1.5 days. Betamax, Mac - People don't want the high priced proprietary stuff. Give it up Tivo, we wouldn't use your crap. We like our Dishes, don't mess with them.


----------



## generalpatton78

"TiVo Statement in Response to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals' Decision to Temporarily Block Injunction


ALVISO, Calif., Aug. 18 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- TiVo Inc. (Nasdaq:
TIVO), the creator of and a leader in television services for digital video
recorders (DVR), today offered the following statement on the Federal
Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. decision to temporarily block
the injunction ordered by U.S. District Court Judge David Folsom:
The company said, "We are very pleased by recent developments involving
the issuance of a permanent injunction in our patent case against EchoStar
by the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas. The court
of appeals temporarily stayed the district court injunction until it
reviews the papers submitted by the parties and decides whether a stay
should or should not be in effect for the duration of the appeals process.
The court stated that the temporary stay is not based on a consideration of
the merits of EchoStar's request, and is entered to preserve the status quo
while the court considers the parties' papers."


I though you guys would want to see this. This appears to be a very short stay.


----------



## oldave

heh.. ya don't suppose TiVo would let individual subscribers just pay whatever fees to keep their E* DVR running do ya?

It's a joke, y'all, but something that occurred to me... right before I took my meds


----------



## dave1234

generalpatton78 said:


> "TiVo Statement in Response to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals' Decision to Temporarily Block Injunction
> 
> I though you guys would want to see this. This appears to be a very short stay.


Yes until the request for a permanant injuction is denied... Especially since the PTO has ruled as invalid all the hardware claims in the TIVO patent. Of coarse TIVO will be contesting that PTO finding. Dish will file a counterprotest if TIVO is successful in challenging the PTO and so on and so forth until several years have passed. Until then it's likely the courts will let the status quo prevail, in my opinion...


----------



## oldave

ClaudeR said:


> Where can we sign a petition to the judge? Tivo sucks, had one for 1.5 days. Betamax, Mac - People don't want the high priced proprietary stuff. Give it up Tivo, we wouldn't use your crap. We like our Dishes, don't mess with them.


Any petition would do no good whatsoever.

A jury has found that E* infringed TiVo's patents. Unless/until *that* finding is overturned on appeal, the matter is settled.

No petition, even if signed by millions, will carry any weight in any court.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I would like to start a petition *against* starting petitions!


----------



## oldave

HDMe said:


> I would like to start a petition *against* starting petitions!


Yeah... so many believe that all they have to do in order to get what they want is to start a petition.

In the instant case, a petition would be an absolute waste of time. Personally, I'm not thrilled that I'll lose the recordings I've made of shows - which is why over the next week or so, all those recordings will be going to DVD.

I understand the issues involved, and I also realize that it is *likely* that Echostar will enter into an agreement if necessary to preserve the DVR functionality.

One thing that occurs to me - any such agreement would likely become null and void should the USPTO find TiVo's patents invalid. And if it were me, I'd be sure that language was specifically included in any agreement.... but I'm sure the high powered legal minds will cover that base.

Ah, well... I ramble... basically, all any of us can really do is sit and wait to see how this all plays out.


----------



## Darrell

James Long said:


> Fortunately hackers are an extreme minority of users. But it isn't going to be an issue. E*'s DVRs will not be turned off.


I agree. E* will settle with TiVo before it ever comes to that.


----------



## audiomaster

Darrell said:


> I agree. E* will settle with TiVo before it ever comes to that.


I expect soon all Dish DVR owners will start getting solicitations from money grubbing lawyers promising them big bucks to join a class action against Dish if they turn off the DVR function on receivers!

And what about PPV movies recorded on DVR hard drives. Wouldn't owners want to be refunded something for not having access to them any longer?

By the way, has anyone heard any rumors about what might be in the receiver pipeline after the 622? And why do they have to record on hard drives? Just give us a bunch of non volatile solid state memory cards! Take up a lot less space than VHS tapes. And we could use them in the dishplayer too. 
And how would this affect the Dishplayers?


----------



## DonLandis

The whole idea of a patent is to protect an inventor's right to monopoly for 17 years. So, for the one who felt this is monopolistic and wrong is wasting time. Monopolies being prevented have to do with companies being the only ones in a business. Not inventions. Besides, TIVO has licensed their technology to others and I'm sure they would do the same for DishNetwork but it is most likely Dish Network is the one who is refusing to add TIVO service and products to their lineup. IMO, while I don't believe the patent is unique to TIVO, Dish should have licensed the technology years ago because it IS superior by a majoriety of opinions. Having TIVO option at E* would only be a plus for everyone but Dish appears to be stubborn on this and wants to keep subscribers ensconced in thire own brand of receiver/DVR's.

I'm afraid that if Dish continues to fight this we, the subscribers will lose. FInally we have a company that is giving us an excellent choice of High Definition variety of excellent quality and won't work a deal for the many TIVO lovers in the market place. 

I feel Dish Needs to swallow some pride and regardless of the court case outcome, offer its subscribers a choice of TIVO or their own (which would have a TIVO royalty charge attached). 

While the DVR HR10-250 works very well on DirecTV, I own one, the latest VIP622 does equally well on Dish. IT would be a shame if that DVR were to be shut down as part of the court order ( I understand it was not specifically mentioned). I can honestly say that given a choice between an HR10-250 with MP4 on Dish and a VIP 622, I would choose the TIVO as it has superior tuner compliment and superior NBR implementation. The only reason to use the 622 is the ability to use the Dual mode that TIVO model can't do, but for me, I don't need that function.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

audiomaster said:


> And what about PPV movies recorded on DVR hard drives. Wouldn't owners want to be refunded something for not having access to them any longer?


In this particular case, no. When you order a PPV you have the right to watch it once, whether you record it or not. You could rightfully complain if the satellite died during the original transmission or the order didn't complete or for whatever reason you didn't initially get to record/watch the entire show due to a signal issue or hardware failure at that time...

but if it worked long enough to make the full recording... then the onus would be on you for not having watched it already.

This would be no different than if you had ordered a PPV and recorded to VHS, but someone stole the tape from your room before you watched the movie.


----------



## andrewmeyers

cruiserparts said:


> This past Feb, I was struggling with the Dish v DTV issue........
> 
> My R-15 is looking better and better every day......


You may like your R-15, but I will never give up my 622, with the ability to control 2 TVs and 30 HD channels.


----------



## James Long

audiomaster said:


> I expect soon all Dish DVR owners will start getting solicitations from money grubbing lawyers promising them big bucks to join a class action against Dish if they turn off the DVR function on receivers!
> 
> And what about PPV movies recorded on DVR hard drives. Wouldn't owners want to be refunded something for not having access to them any longer?
> 
> By the way, has anyone heard any rumors about what might be in the receiver pipeline after the 622? And why do they have to record on hard drives? Just give us a bunch of non volatile solid state memory cards! Take up a lot less space than VHS tapes. And we could use them in the dishplayer too.
> And how would this affect the Dishplayers?


External storage is coming for the ViP-622 DVR and other receivers. That might help. It will be connected via the USB ports. (Interesting that the H20-700 was built with a SATA port for that purpose. Which is better is a topic for another thread. Actually "the next DVR" is a topic for another thread - but I don't expect there will be one more advanced than the 622 for a while.

PPV is an interesting concept. They are in the guide as "all day" shows and E* has allowed customers to record them and keep them on the hard drive as long as they wish. But shouldn't we remember what PPV stands for? Pay Per View?

Is it really PPV when one can capture a program and watch it many times over an unlimited length of time? It seems the "per view" definition fails when a DVR is involved. VOD is actually closer to a 'per view' service, giving you a fixed time rental of 24 hrs to view the program. You pay, you view, it goes away.

Not that I don't mind PPV being able to be DVRd forever. It took me a week to make it through "The Producers" because of other things I had to do and wanted to watch. That is one of those movies I kept for an additional play.

Dishplayers are not on the list of receivers in the judge's order. Neither is the ViP-622 DVR for that matter. It appears the shut off order does not affect them at all. (Not that the shut off order will affect any receivers.)


HDMe said:


> This would be no different than if you had ordered a PPV and recorded to VHS, but someone stole the tape from your room before you watched the movie.


I'd love to see that litigated. "So you see, your honor, I dubbed the movie to a tape but never viewed it." Fair use allows a lot but that would be an interesting case.

That example does fail as E* didn't steal your VHS tape. If E* deleted a DVR'd PPV it would be the same company that sold you the rights to view the program that prevented your further viewing. But I do believe they have no responsibility to allow further viewing forever. It is a PER VIEW program.


----------



## dl7265

a rather interesting article about why companies choose Marshall, TX as the venue for filing infringement suits. Yes, when I said "always" that was an exaggeration, but 88% of cases siding with patent holders (especially when the national average is 68%) is almost always. [/QUOTE]

Well thats ridiculas some 2 boot town judge, will effect millions and millions. Hopefully , court of appeal's will see the light.

Interestingly, how its mentioned that TIVO has not made a profitt since 1997...


----------



## dave1234

dl7265 said:


> a rather interesting article about why companies choose Marshall, TX as the venue for filing infringement suits. Yes, when I said "always" that was an exaggeration, but 88% of cases siding with patent holders (especially when the national average is 68%) is almost always.
> 
> Well thats ridiculas some 2 boot town judge, will effect millions and millions. Hopefully , court of appeal's will see the light.
> 
> Interestingly, how its mentioned that TIVO has not made a profitt since 1997...


Dish's countersuit is scheduled for trial next spring in the same area. It will be interesting to see how that turns out...


----------



## Curtis52

dave1234 said:


> Dish's countersuit is scheduled for trial next spring in the same area. It will be interesting to see how that turns out...


This is from Echostar's 8-9-06 Quarterly Report:

"TiVo filed requests for reexamination during May 2006. During July 2006 the case was stayed pending the reexamination process, which could take many years".


----------



## generalpatton78

James Long said:


> External storage is coming for the ViP-622 DVR and other receivers. That might help. It will be connected via the USB ports. (Interesting that the H20-700 was built with a SATA port for that purpose. Which is better is a topic for another thread. Actually "the next DVR" is a topic for another thread - but I don't expect there will be one more advanced than the 622 for a while.
> 
> PPV is an interesting concept. They are in the guide as "all day" shows and E* has allowed customers to record them and keep them on the hard drive as long as they wish. But shouldn't we remember what PPV stands for? Pay Per View?
> 
> Is it really PPV when one can capture a program and watch it many times over an "unlimited length of time? It seems the "per view" definition fails when a DVR is involved. VOD is actually closer to a 'per view' service, giving you a fixed time rental of 24 hrs to view the program. You pay, you view, it goes away.
> 
> Not that I don't mind PPV being able to be DVRd forever. It took me a week to make it through "The Producers" because of other things I had to do and wanted to watch. That is one of those movies I kept for an additional play.
> 
> Dishplayers are not on the list of receivers in the judge's order. Neither is the ViP-622 DVR for that matter. It appears the shut off order does not affect them at all. (Not that the shut off order will affect any receivers.)I'd love to see that litigated. "So you see, your honor, I dubbed the movie to a tape but never viewed it." Fair use allows a lot but that would be an interesting case.
> 
> That example does fail as E* didn't steal your VHS tape. If E* deleted a DVR'd PPV it would be the same company that sold you the rights to view the program that prevented your further viewing. But I do believe they have no responsibility to allow further viewing forever. It is a PER VIEW program.


I don't want to get into a big argument here, but the very early DPs aren't on the list because the judge said tivo didn't label the Series 1 products properly in regards to it's patent. However the last sentence in this I believe covers the 622.

"...U.S. District Court Judge David Folsom granted TiVo's motion for permanent injunction to prevent EchoStar Communications Corp. (Nasdaq: DISH; "ECC") from making, using, offering for sale or selling in the United States their DVR products at issue in the case (DP-501, DP-508, DP-510, DP-721, DP-921, DP-522, DP-625, DP-942, and all EchoStar DVRs that are not more than colorably different from any of these products)...."


----------



## Paul Secic

Curtis52 said:


> This is from Echostar's 8-9-06 Quarterly Report:
> 
> "TiVo filed requests for reexamination during May 2006. During July 2006 the case was stayed pending the reexamination process, which could take many years".


If cable gets sued by TIVO you can say That's all folks for TIVO and it's execs!


----------



## generalpatton78

They wouldn't sue the cable companies. They would sue the box manufactors (moto,SA).


----------



## DonLandis

(DP-501, DP-508, DP-510, DP-721, DP-921, DP-522, DP-625, DP-942, and all EchoStar DVRs that are not more than colorably different from any of these products)...."

OK, what is the definition of "Colorably different"? The 622- is MP4 capable and records MP4 data streams to the hard drive as well as MP2 which is the main technology done by TIVO. Does the Patent cover all future compression schemes as well? It's a good trick to patent something that is not demonstratabble now for future protection. If So then I will draw up a patent right now for a Time machine to travel into the future!

Second, the 622 is a dual mode receiver capable of offering dual video DVR playback and recording assignments uniquely different for two TV locations at the same time. 

In the nutshell, just these two unique features make the 622 "colorably different" then the ones listed, don't you think? Well, I think so and that's the story I'm sticking to. I hope Dish takes this attitude about any decision to shut down the 622. If they feel compelled to kill the 622 as well as all the rest of their DVR's, they are as good as dead as a sat provider in my book.


----------



## boylehome

DonLandis said:


> It's a good trick to patent something that is not demonstratabble now for future protection. If So then I will draw up a patent right now for a Time machine to travel into the future!


It would be a good trick but you could get better gains if you made it so it goes back in time. No one has demonstrated that a time machine works, so no patent. If for the future passage, if they work, they only work in one direction. :lol:


----------



## James Long

DonLandis said:


> Second, the 622 is a dual mode receiver capable of offering dual video DVR playback and recording assignments uniquely different for two TV locations at the same time.
> 
> In the nutshell, just these two unique features make the 622 "colorably different" then the ones listed, don't you think?


The only difference between the _function_ of the 942 (which is on the list) and the 622 is the ability to receive MPEG4.

Tivo's patent isn't based on the encoding technology ... just the idea of recording television content on a hard drive for playback. In February we will find out if one of those special Texas juries believes that idea was unique enough to be patented.


----------



## Curtis52

James Long said:


> In February we will find out if one of those special Texas juries believes that idea was unique enough to be patented.


The suit E* filed is on hold.

This is from Echostar's 8-9-06 Quarterly Report:

"TiVo filed requests for reexamination during May 2006. During July 2006 the case was stayed pending the reexamination process, which could take many years".


----------



## normang

> Tivo's patent isn't based on the encoding technology ... just the idea of recording television content on a hard drive for playback. In February we will find out if one of those special Texas juries believes that idea was unique enough to be patented.


If the patent is for recording TV material to a hard drive, then they should sue all computer makers, Microsoft for its media center, MythTV, the list could go on if the patent was only because of recording to a TV hard disk. Which makes this whole thing silly to begin with...


----------



## Lyle_JP

> If the patent is for recording TV material to a hard drive, then they should sue all computer makers,


Ampex was doing video-to-harddrive recording back in 1967, so I know that Tivos patent is different from just that.


----------



## James Long

All good arguments for Tivo to lose the patent.


----------



## Richard King

Lyle_JP said:


> Ampex was doing video-to-harddrive recording back in 1967, so I know that Tivos patent is different from just that.


Ampex may not have patented the "idea" of recording video to a hard drive back then thinking it was obvious. Did the Ampex machine offer the ability to play back one stream while at the same time recording another? I assume this was an instant replay machine of some kind?


----------



## djlong

The TiVo patents are HIGHLY technical. They did NOT patent the IDEA of a DVR. If memory serves, there are two very particular patents in question. Given this, they absolutely DO have the right to protect their investment.

You'll notice TiVo didn't sue Replay or Microsoft. They *did* sue the company that they showed a prototype to. You think TiVo didn't pick apart an E* box to look at the code to see if they had a case first?


----------



## tnsprin

djlong said:


> The TiVo patents are HIGHLY technical. They did NOT patent the IDEA of a DVR. If memory serves, there are two very particular patents in question. Given this, they absolutely DO have the right to protect their investment.
> 
> You'll notice TiVo didn't sue Replay or Microsoft. They *did* sue the company that they showed a prototype to. You think TiVo didn't pick apart an E* box to look at the code to see if they had a case first?


Actually they did claim to patent that. BUt that part has been been more recently rejected so now they are working on some techincal software details.

I believe they did sue replay, but settled. And didn't Microsoft at some point trade some license agreements which allows them to manufacture DVR's.


----------



## TomH

Dr. Smoke said:


> Enough, with monopolies behaving like dictators and pirates, while treating their _customers_ like pirates.
> :bonk1:


I'm confused as to what "monopoly" you're referring to? Who are you claiming has a monopoly? This isn't a monopoly issue.

Doesn't the fact that you have an alternative show that there is no monopoly?


----------



## Slordak

I'm confused by this whole thing. I thought the primary reason we were paying the $5/month or $6/month "DVR fee" was so that Dish could have extra money to use to license the appropriate intellectual property when the inevitable lawsuits arrived. Basically, it's a tax which DVR users are paying so that Dish can license the patents of interest. 

But... This seems not to be the case.


----------



## TomH

Curtis52 said:


> It is unfortunate that DISH Network's actions have put its customers in the awkward position of potentially having DVR functionality disabled but DISH Network customers who want to ensure uninterrupted DVR service can get DVR products and services from TiVo and its partners.


Like I'm actually going to replace my DVR with a TiVo.


----------



## FTA Michael

Slordak said:


> I thought the primary reason we were paying the $5/month or $6/month "DVR fee" was so that Dish could have extra money to use to license the appropriate intellectual property when the inevitable lawsuits arrived. Basically, it's a tax which DVR users are paying so that Dish can license the patents of interest.


:rolling: Dish started promoting DVRs for an excellent reason: They reduce churn and increase customer satisfaction. They were free, but Dish thought that was okay. Then at some point, somebody there pointed out that most DVR customers are willing to pay a monthly fee for them. Rather than leave all that money on the table, Dish added the fee to improve its profits, just as any good business would do.

All great ideas are obvious in retrospect. The patent system's purpose is to move such ideas into the public domain -- after the inventor has had a few years to reap the profits of his good, well-documented idea. I look forward to Dish and TiVo reaching a settlement one of these days.


----------



## pjmrt

TomH said:


> Like I'm actually going to replace my DVR with a TiVo.


Amen to that! Hopefully cool & reasonable heads will eventually push forward - either some kind of buyout of TiVo or other more reasonable concession be made. But as far as I'm concerned, its a lose-lose situation now for TiVo. If they succeed and force Dish to disable the PVR functions on their receivers, I will look elsewhere for my DVR - but now it is totally out of the question that my choice will include a TiVo receiver/DVR. Speaking for 1 customer, myself, I think the court ruling against Echostar was wrong and the sanctions against Echostar excessive. It also is anticompetitive and anticonsumer. The only winner is TiVo's lawyers who probably earned a big bonus while the biggest whiner, TiVo, will watch its customer base slip away. The stay in this fed judge's ruling is good, and hopefully will allow the time needed for a fair settlement.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Slordak said:


> I'm confused by this whole thing. I thought the primary reason we were paying the $5/month or $6/month "DVR fee" was so that Dish could have extra money to use to license the appropriate intellectual property when the inevitable lawsuits arrived. Basically, it's a tax which DVR users are paying so that Dish can license the patents of interest.
> 
> But... This seems not to be the case.


Nope... just extra profit margin.

In fact, IF TiVo could prove that Dish was collecting a DVR Fee and saving it in a fund designed to head-off future litigation... *that* in and of itself would be proof enough that Dish was knowingly violating Tivo's patents and I'm sure that would have been used as evidence against Dish in court. Though to be fair, for all I know it was used against them in court! I haven't seen transcripts 

But seriously... such a thing, collecting a fee and earmarking it for future potential patent violation lawsuits would imply that they were knowingly violating other companies' patents... and that would be a bad smoking gun to have.


----------



## steveT

Sorry if this question is a bit out of date... Doesn't Tivo implement DVR differently than Dish does? I thought the rap on Tivo boxes years ago were that they performed additional compression to programs they recorded to the HD, whereas the Dish DVRs recorded every bit of the MP2 stream, with no additional data compression. Meaning that pre-recorded shows on a Tivo unit would play with lower picture quality than those recorded on a Dish unit.


----------



## FTA Michael

You're close, steveT. TiVo compresses any signal it records, no matter what input source is used (Dish, cable, OTA antenna, VCR, anything). The one exception is the DirecTiVo. The Dish DVR, and DirecTiVo if I heard right, take the already-compressed satellite stream and save the stream as is on the hard drive to be played back later. So if you're comparing Dish DVR vs. Dish to TiVo to TV, then the latter route requires decompression (from the Dish receiver) and recompression (from the TiVo), resulting in a relative loss in video quality. A small loss, IMHO.


----------



## manicd

djlong said:


> The TiVo patents are HIGHLY technical.


But the jurors who decided the patent issue were not engineers. They probably had no idea what what really all was being said. Decisions like this should be made by a jury of qualified experts in the field that is being contested.

That way an intelligent decision (not based on an emotional feeling or whatever lawyer was able to BS better) could be made.

IMO, as to TIVO. They are a poor quality company. If their product was so much better, then people would have flocked to them instead of the other manufacturers. Hopefully they will just go out of business like they should.

I never liked their product when it first rolled out and I still don't like it.


----------



## James Long

steveT said:


> Sorry if this question is a bit out of date... Doesn't Tivo implement DVR differently than Dish does? I thought the rap on Tivo boxes years ago were that they performed additional compression to programs they recorded to the HD, whereas the Dish DVRs recorded every bit of the MP2 stream, with no additional data compression. Meaning that pre-recorded shows on a Tivo unit would play with lower picture quality than those recorded on a Dish unit.


Due to the nature of the signal (it is already in MPEG format) E*'s DVRs do not need to compress the signal. It comes "precompressed" from satellite.

Tivo's inputs generally need to be converted to an MPEG format.

Dale Dietrich, a poster at our sister site Tivo Community has been following this issue on his website.
Here is a link to the latest episode:
http://www.daledietrich.com/imedia/Aug06.htm#18Aug06a
(Links are in each article to the previous reports on the matter.)

To READ the actual patent (what a concept!) you can visit here and search for "6233389".
Note that the claims E* was found guilty of violating were:
Hardware
1 - A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising the steps of:
accepting television (TV) broadcast signals, wherein said TV signals are based on a multitude of standards, including, but not limited to, National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) broadcast, PAL broadcast, satellite transmission, DSS, DBS, or ATSC;
tuning said TV signals to a specific program;
providing at least one Input Section, wherein said Input Section converts said specific program to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation;
providing a Media Switch, wherein said Media Switch parses said MPEG stream, said MPEG stream is separated into its video and audio components;
storing said video and audio components on a storage device;
providing at least one Output Section, wherein said Output Section extracts said video and audio components from said storage device;
wherein said Output Section assembles said video and audio components into an MPEG stream;
wherein said Output Section sends said MPEG stream to a decoder;
wherein said decoder converts said MPEG stream into TV output signals;
wherein said decoder delivers said TV output signals to a TV receiver; and
accepting control commands from a user, wherein said control commands are sent through the system and affect the flow of said MPEG stream.

5 - The process of claim 1, wherein the storing and extracting of said video and audio components from said storage device are performed simultaneously.

21 - The process of claim 1, wherein said storage device is connected to said Media Switch.

23 - The process of claim 1, wherein said Media Switch is implemented in hardware.

32 - An apparatus for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising:
a module for accepting television (TV) broadcast signals, wherein said TV signals are based on a multitude of standards, including, but not limited to, National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) broadcast, PAL broadcast, satellite transmission, DSS, DBS, or ATSC;
a module for tuning said TV signals to a specific program;
at least one Input Section, wherein said Input Section converts said specific program to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation;
a Media Switch, wherein said Media Switch parses said MPEG stream, said MPEG stream is separated into its video and audio components;
a module for storing said video and audio components on a storage device;
at least one Output Section, wherein said Output Section extracts said video and audio components from said storage device;
wherein said Output Section assembles said video and audio components into an MPEG stream;
wherein said Output Section sends said MPEG stream to a decoder;
wherein said decoder converts said MPEG stream into TV output signals;
wherein said decoder delivers said TV output signals to a TV receiver; and
accepting control commands from a user, wherein said control commands are sent through the system and affect the flow of said MPEG stream.

36 - The apparatus of claim 32, wherein the storing and extracting of said video and audio components from said storage device are performed simultaneously.

52 - The apparatus of claim 32, wherein said storage device is connected to said Media Switch.

Software
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.

61 - An apparatus for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising:
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;
a source object, wherein said source object extracts video and audio data from said physical data source;
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;
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;
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.

And that is what it all is about!


----------



## Doug Higley

Sadly most Jurors are only Jurors because they are too stupid to get out of Jury Duty.
Don't expect too much...especially if Tivo is seen as the 'David' to the big nasty Giant 'E'.

By listening to some Judges, they aren't much wiser...an out of court settlement is the real hope.


----------



## manicd

I hope Dish wins on appeal. Why should they have to settle with some poor quality company? 

If they settle, and then win on appeal, would TIVO pay back the money they extorted from Dish?


----------



## Jolard

If they settle, that is it. There would be no appeal. You can't settle a lawsuit and then appeal it. The settlement is basically agreeing that you want the lawsuit process to be over, and you come to an agreement as to terms.


----------



## James Long

manicd said:


> If they settle, and the win on appeal, would TIVO pay back the money they extorted from Dish?


If they settle the process ends with TIVO withdrawing their complaint. It is a civil case, not a criminal one, so if the parties are happy with each other the state walks away (with court costs, of course).

Here are some numbers:

For how many receivers is Tivo entitled to lost profit damages? 192,708
What is the total amount Tivo is entitled to in lost profit damages? 32,663,906
That boils down to $169.50 profit per Tivo unit not sold due to E*'s DVRs.

For how many receivers is Tivo entitled to receive reasonable royalty damages? 4,179,253
What is the total amount Tivo is entitled to in reasonable royalty damages? 41,328,058
That boils down to $9.88 royalty per E* unit.

If Tivo gets their money, they get paid for the units they didn't sell plus royalties for the units they did sell. Consider that a break even (or better) with the parallel universe where E* licensed the patent and paid royalties up front. Except under the judgement E* must also turn off most of it's DVRs. Which means E* pays what it would have paid for the rights to use the patented technology but still doesn't get to use the patent. Seems unfair.

It is like (here comes another analogy) stealing a CD from WalMart, getting caught and being forced to pay for the CD but not be able to keep it. (Assuming that shoplifing was a civil crime - here it is a felony where the penalty is paid to the state not the victim. Lossy analogy as usual.  )


----------



## Curtis52

James Long said:


> If Tivo gets their money, they get paid for the units they didn't sell plus royalties for the units they did sell. Consider that a break even (or better) with the parallel universe where E* licensed the patent and paid royalties up front. Except under the judgement E* must also turn off most of it's DVRs. Which means E* pays what it would have paid for the rights to use the patented technology but still doesn't get to use the patent. Seems unfair.


The reasonable royalties were calculated on a monthly payment per box basis not a lifetime subscription basis. The clock started on additional royalties owed to TiVo in April when the jury trial ended.


----------



## orenr

Related to the claims, I'm not a patent lawyer, but I found the following very interesting:
"providing at least one Input Section, wherein said Input Section converts said specific program to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream"

All the ATSC and satellite broadcasts are already MPEG encoded, only the analog OTA needs to be converted to MPEG. Since the Vip 622 doesn't have an analog OTA receiver, I wonder if the 622 violates this patent (and maybe that's why it doesn't have an analog receiver)

Also, there's probably going to be a big argument over what "MPEG" means in that patent. I'm guessing that MPEG4 wasn't yet invented when the patent was filed.


----------



## harsh

orenr said:


> Related to the claims, I'm not a patent lawyer, but I found the following very interesting: "providing at least one Input Section, wherein said Input Section converts said specific program to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream"


That's the baffling part; nobody can figure out how the TiVo offense was able to convince a jury that there was much of anything in common with the TiVo patent. None of the Dish Network DVRs in question will record analog.


> ...I wonder if the 622 violates this patent (and maybe that's why it doesn't have an analog receiver)


Perhaps given the Texas jury's interpretaton.


> Also, there's probably going to be a big argument over what "MPEG" means in that patent. I'm guessing that MPEG4 wasn't yet invented when the patent was filed.


It doesn't really matter either way. The Dish DVRs may have borrowed some technologies from the TiVo receivers, but as far as I can tell, none of the stuff that they are accused of using.


----------



## James Long

This is where "the idea" of doing it comes in - In 1998 Tivo filed to say 'we have this idea:accepting television (TV) broadcast signals, wherein said TV signals are based on a multitude of standards, including, but not limited to, National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) broadcast, PAL broadcast, satellite transmission, DSS, DBS, or ATSC;​They covered all bases.


----------



## Curtis52

orenr said:


> Related to the claims, I'm not a patent lawyer, but I found the following very interesting:
> "providing at least one Input Section, wherein said Input Section converts said specific program to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream"
> 
> All the ATSC and satellite broadcasts are already MPEG encoded, only the analog OTA needs to be converted to MPEG. Since the Vip 622 doesn't have an analog OTA receiver, I wonder if the 622 violates this patent (and maybe that's why it doesn't have an analog receiver)


The Markman hearing distilled the patent down into terms the jury could understand.

Anyway, the patent covers several different types of input signals:

"A preferred embodiment of the invention accepts television (TV) input streams in a multitude of forms, for example, analog forms such as National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) or PAL broadcast, and digital forms such as Digital Satellite System (DSS), Digital Broadcast Services (DBS), or Advanced Television Standards Committee (ATSC). Analog TV streams are converted to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation, while pre-formatted MPEG streams are extracted from the digital TV signal and presented in a similar format to encoded analog streams. "

Note the last sentence.


----------



## montge

Even thought I have a 622, I half hope that Tivo prevails because I miss a lot of the Tivo functions, and miss the ability to download for archive.


----------



## Geronimo

montge said:


> Even thought I have a 622, I half hope that Tivo prevails because I miss a lot of the Tivo functions, and miss the ability to download for archive.


do you think that you will somehow get those features if Tivo wins?


----------



## Charise

I don't like my DVRs being counted in the section of "lost profit," as I wouldn't have ever purchased a Tivo, nor will I ever buy one.

As far as I'm concerned towards purchasing their product, they are dead already.

I absolutely love my DVRs, but I got along just fine before I had one, and I still would be fine if I'd never used one--I'd just watch less TV. Tivo's product and marketing didn't convince me I wanted Tivo, and with their "sue to stay alive" philosophy, I'll never buy one.


----------



## James Long

Charise said:


> I don't like my DVRs being counted in the section of "lost profit," as I wouldn't have ever purchased a Tivo, nor will I ever buy one.


Chances are, they are not being counted as lost profit. Note the difference between the # of units Tivo didn't sell due to the availability of E* PVR/DVRs and the # of units E* produced and needs to pay royalties on. The jury recognizes that there are a few million more E* receivers out there than Tivo would have sold.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

I had a stand alone series 2 tivo before I had the hd 921 . I hated the picture quality of the Tivo. I hated the suggestions feature and quickly turned it off . Ditto on the video game sounds when you used the remote. Besides it was a single tuner and I record much more than one program at a time. The 622 rules with three tuners- 1 ota /2 sat . I ended up selling the Tivo on E-bay. IF Dish does end up turning off their dvrs then two things will happen. I will NOT buy a tivo and I will most likely go with cable and their generic dvrs. A giant step backwards on both fronts of technology and hd channels. The only way Tivo can survive is to keep suing companies to extort money out of them. A SAD, Pathetic company in my eyes.


----------



## DonLandis

Doug Higley said:


> Sadly most Jurors are only Jurors because they are too stupid to get out of Jury Duty.
> Don't expect too much...especially if Tivo is seen as the 'David' to the big nasty Giant 'E'.
> 
> By listening to some Judges, they aren't much wiser...an out of court settlement is the real hope.


OK, if you believe that then some people post their comments here because they are too stupid to write real editorial, right? Hey- Don't be so presumptuous about the IQ of jurors. Getting out of civic duty is not something to be proud of and certainly has nothing to do with intelligence. Some people have needs that prevent them from serving on a jury at a particular time when called and can get it postponed, only to return at a more convenient time. I did this and then returned to serve, twice, and enjoyed every minute of it. But then, I'm not afraid of my civic obligations to my community.


----------



## Jason Nipp

DonLandis said:


> OK, if you believe that then some people post their comments here because they are too stupid to write real editorial, right? Hey- Don't be so presumptuous about the IQ of jurors. Getting out of civic duty is not something to be proud of and certainly has nothing to do with intelligence. Some people have needs that prevent them from serving on a jury at a particular time when called and can get it postponed, only to return at a more convenient time. I did this and then returned to serve, twice, and enjoyed every minute of it. But then, I'm not afraid of my civic obligations to my community.


Well stated Don, agree with every word.

I have also served, and I wanted to. My company paid me for the days I missed and I got to learn a bit about how a trial works.


----------



## dbconsultant

DonLandis said:


> OK, if you believe that then some people post their comments here because they are too stupid to write real editorial, right? Hey- Don't be so presumptuous about the IQ of jurors. Getting out of civic duty is not something to be proud of and certainly has nothing to do with intelligence. Some people have needs that prevent them from serving on a jury at a particular time when called and can get it postponed, only to return at a more convenient time. I did this and then returned to serve, twice, and enjoyed every minute of it. But then, I'm not afraid of my civic obligations to my community.


Yay, Don. Good for you! It's too bad there aren't more people out there that don't just try to shirk their duty. My husband and I have both served and we don't get paid by our company because we own our company! If we don't work, we don't get paid, but everyone is entitled to a fair trial and a jury of peers.

Good on ya, guy!


----------



## ebaltz

dbconsultant said:


> Yay, Don. Good for you! It's too bad there aren't more people out there that don't just try to shirk their duty. My husband and I have both served and we don't get paid by our company because we own our company! If we don't work, we don't get paid, but everyone is entitled to a fair trial and a jury of peers.
> 
> Good on ya, guy!


Okay enough already forum hijackers.


----------



## dbconsultant

ebaltz said:


> Okay enough already forum hijackers.


Wasn't trying to hijack; just adding support to someone who made a good point.


----------



## tomcrown1

dbconsultant said:


> Wasn't trying to hijack; just adding support to someone who made a good point.


to get back on track how about TIVO trying to hijack E*....chances are D* will buy E* and then sue TIVO for patent infirgment(thats Texas Justice)


----------



## James Long

tomcrown1 said:


> to get back on track how about TIVO trying to hijack E*....chances are D* will buy E* and then sue TIVO for patent infirgment(thats Texas Justice)


No chance of that --- although there is a suit by E* that will be heard in February.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

James Long said:


> No chance of that --- although there is a suit by E* that will be heard in February.


 What good will that suit be now if Dish has to settle with Tivo now in order to avoid the turn off of all their Dish dvrs? That is what Directv did with Tivo when they came up with a three year contract. They agreed not to sue each other for the next three years. IF Dish does settle with Tivo then the Dish vs Tivo lawsuit would have to be withdrawn as well .


----------



## Curtis52

James Long said:


> No chance of that --- although there is a suit by E* that will be heard in February.


For the 4th time:

The E* countersuit is on hold.

"This is from Echostar's 8-9-06 Quarterly Report:

"TiVo filed requests for reexamination during May 2006. During July 2006 the case was stayed pending the reexamination process, which could take many years"."


----------



## James Long

Perhaps you need to find a better and less rude way to say that. 
The case will be heard. The current shutoff order is blocked. It isn't all gloom and doom.


----------



## Curtis52

James Long said:


> Perhaps you need to find a better and less rude way to say that.
> The case will be heard. The current shutoff order is blocked. It isn't all gloom and doom.


I'm just repeating what E* said.

E*s countersuit won't be heard in February. Echostar said it may take years before it is heard.


----------



## Chris Walker

Can't wait for E* to buy Tivo so this will go away. I'm tired of Tivo whining about everything because no one wants their product.


----------



## Curtis52

Chris Walker said:


> Can't wait for E* to buy Tivo so this will go away. I'm tired of Tivo whining about everything because no one wants their product.


If Dish didn't want TiVo's product they wouldn't be in the mess they are in.


----------



## normang

Curtis52 said:


> If Dish didn't want TiVo's product they wouldn't be in the mess they are in.


Actually if Tivo had a reasonable product and service, then they wouldn't have to litigate to stay in business.


----------



## bobukcat

normang said:


> Actually if Tivo had a reasonable product and service, then they wouldn't have to litigate to stay in business.


I have to say that I looked at TIVO, liked the idea but not the execution - I am NOT a fan of letting any s/w tell me what my so called preferences are, nor am I fond of noises / graphics with every button I push. When the 501 came out I was thrilled as it gave me the functionality I really wanted, and none of the stupid other stuff. I know there are lots of people who love the TIVO interface but my 501, 921 (buggy but not on a LOT of issues not related to DVR), and now my 622 give me what I want without a lot of other crap I don't and at a lower price. I'm still rooting that E* wins and TIVO is relegated to the scrap-heap.


----------



## TBoneit

My first DVR was and still is aTivo Standalone, Then Dish came out with there 7100s and I bought two and upgraded the drives.

Then I bought two 501s and later on a 721 and now a 622.

They've all been more useful to me than the Tivo. The things others rave about were the first things I turned off, sugeestions, Noises, Never used wishlists (?)

Enabled the 30 second skip.

It still works and I still use for the nightly news (Manual timer).

7100 Dishplayers, better interface just as slow.
501s, snappy performers, not as nice an interface
721 decent speed almost as good a interface as the 7100s.
622 better than the 721 but not much excluding the HD abilities.
Tivo SA, still slow and ugly interface. However I paid for a lifetime sub so I'm keeping it.


----------



## scooper

The DVR is perfect - without the TiVO interface. A plain box, that can record and playback on manually set timers, without tapes - That's my ticket. I like my 510 just the way it is. If somebody would manufacture such a box (heck - you can BUILD it with off the shelf stuff), where I didn't have to pay monthly...

I might still think about building one.


----------



## Curtis52

normang said:


> Actually if Tivo had a reasonable product and service, then they wouldn't have to litigate to stay in business.


If banks gave away money they wouldn't get robbed.


----------



## dojoman

Uh oh! I just checked dishdepot.com to see if they're still selling Dish DVR and they've took them off the site. Not a good sign guys. So how many days left until all DVRs are shut down? This is not good at all since fall season premiers start soon.


----------



## James Long

Still available on other sites. Don't panic based on one retailer.


----------



## Michael P

If they shut off the DVR function, will we still be able to get to previously recorded programs?


----------



## Lyle_JP

> If they shut off the DVR function, will we still be able to get to previously recorded programs?


The retreival of recorded material is every bit a fundemental "DVR function" as recording something, so my guess would be a big *NO*.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Curtis52 said:


> If banks gave away money they wouldn't get robbed.


Not true.

Inevitably no matter how much money was given away, a few people would always feel they were entitled to even more... and thus, more robbery!

Evidence of this are the rich people who sometimes steal even though they have plenty of money to live on... motivations for crime aren't always for the obvious reasons.


----------



## VDP07

Curtis52 said:


> "A Special Message To DISH Network Subscribers
> 
> TiVo is a pioneer in Digital Video Recorder (DVR) products and services. TiVo is a relatively small company whose entire business centers around expanding and advancing DVR functionality and technology. TiVo introduced DVRs to consumers and protected its inventions with patents. EchoStar is a very large media company that provides DVR products and services in direct competition with TiVo. Unlike TiVo partners such as DIRECTV and Comcast, EchoStar has refused to enter into an agreement with TiVo which left TiVo no choice but to defend its intellectual property in federal court.
> 
> After several years of expensive litigation, in April 2006, EchoStar's DVR products were found by a jury to be infringing one of TiVo's patents. TiVo is pleased that a federal court has recognized that TiVo's business will be irreparably harmed if EchoStar were allowed to continue to infringe TiVo's patent. Any shutdown of DVR functionality for existing DISH Network customers is entirely and directly due to EchoStar's infringement of TiVo's patent rights. It is unfortunate that DISH Network's actions have put its customers in the awkward position of potentially having DVR functionality disabled but DISH Network customers who want to ensure uninterrupted DVR service can get DVR products and services from TiVo and its partners.
> 
> If you would like more information about products from TiVo and its partners, please complete the form below."
> 
> from http://www.tivo.com/tivodishinfo.asp


TiVo, D*and Cable trolling for new customers. No doubt the panic will produce a few. CALM DOWN


----------



## oldave

VDP07 said:


> TiVo, D*and Cable trolling for new customers. No doubt the panic will produce a few. CALM DOWN


I still can't find a number I can call and pay TiVo and get 'em to tell E* to leave my DVR on.


----------



## mplsjeffm

to bad I sold my old Dishplayer on ebay. I may have to look on ebay and buy one back. 
Is it true that the dishplayer will still work because itwas a Microsoft product?


----------



## Curtis52

Chris Walker said:


> Can't wait for E* to buy Tivo so this will go away. I'm tired of Tivo whining about everything because no one wants their product.


Thursday August 24, 8:44 am ET
TiVo in Deal With Cox Communications for DVR, Interactive Advertising Service

ATLANTA (AP) -- Digital video recorder maker TiVo Inc. said Thursday it signed a deal with cable operator Cox Communications to provide its DVR and interactive advertising service to certain Cox subscribers.

Financial details of the agreement were not disclosed.

Under terms of the deal, TiVo will customize its cable software for deployment on compatible Cox DVR set-top-boxes. TiVo's downloadable software will allow Cox to deliver TiVo to its subscriber homes without replacing existing DVR boxes and without an installation appointment.

The service is expected to launch in select Cox markets in the first half of next year.


----------



## RockStrongo

Ok...just to clear up....if we disable the auto software updates, will we be ok once the change is made?? Is there anything we can do to stop this??


----------



## normang

RockStrongo said:


> Ok...just to clear up....if we disable the auto software updates, will we be ok once the change is made?? Is there anything we can do to stop this??


Dish can still deploy mandatory software updates, unless your receiver is unplugged, and then probably the next time you power up, you'll either get it or if you forget and go into standby, you'll get it, unless you turn off power each time you use your reciever, and even then you may still get it.. So basically, there is nothing you can do, never was..

However that said, it is my opinion and others that Dish is NOT going to let 4 million DVR's go dark. They'll either win legally, or license the technology. It would be extremely foolish for Dish not do whatever it takes to keep their DVR's alive after all the legal wrangling is done. Which could still take months or years.


----------



## scooper

Norman - they probably won't go dark - just loose the DVR functionality


----------



## normang

scooper said:


> Norman - they probably won't go dark - just loose the DVR functionality


Scooper.. IMHO, there is no difference, if I can watch TV, but cannot record anything, its virtually useless. Which is why I say, Dish really has minimal options. They have to win in court somewhere, or they have to license the technology, or the seeming last resort if they elected to try and buy out Tivo, one way or another..

But Dish will do something, they are not just going to let 3-4 million DVR's become just another vanilla reciever with hard disk.


----------



## TBoneit

Well as near as I can tell the main infringment is the ability to watch as it is recording?

If so, Then MY Hard disk equipped DVD recorder also allows that. 
Panasonic has timeslip feature if you record to DVD RAM, Also infringing, I believe Panasonic is who I'm thinking of with that feature. Difference is Tivo can not get them to shut off that feature unless all the units were recalled for new firmware. 

So since I'm thinking of getting a newer model Pioneer with Hard disk drive. I can just get one a little earlier is all and have either the 622 IF DVR shut off two TVs should still work for example or a 722 & 501 Same scenario feed to 2 DVD Recorders and still Timeshift and store for later.

I'm thinking Tivo didn't check Charlies personality before they sued. Or they would have gone after someone easier. Charlie doesn't seem make a easy target.

One other point, how could Tivo patent storing a DBS/DSS stream? I though you had to demonstrate to get a patent.


----------



## tnsprin

TBoneit said:


> Well as near as I can tell the main infringment is the ability to watch as it is recording?
> 
> If so, Then MY Hard disk equipped DVD recorder also allows that.
> Panasonic has timeslip feature if you record to DVD RAM, Also infringing, I believe Panasonic is who I'm thinking of with that feature. Difference is Tivo can not get them to shut off that feature unless all the units were recalled for new firmware.
> 
> So since I'm thinking of getting a newer model Pioneer with Hard disk drive. I can just get one a little earlier is all and have either the 622 IF DVR shut off two TVs should still work for example or a 722 & 501 Same scenario feed to 2 DVD Recorders and still Timeshift and store for later.
> 
> I'm thinking Tivo didn't check Charlies personality before they sued. Or they would have gone after someone easier. Charlie doesn't seem make a easy target.
> 
> One other point, how could Tivo patent storing a DBS/DSS stream? I though you had to demonstrate to get a patent.


Some companies already have agreements with Tivo. Others can expect to be sued or settle if this decision stands. Echostar actually has some other companies hoping that the can overturn this decision.

They probably picked Echostar despite being a harder target, because it was also the largest distributer of DVR's.


----------



## oldave

normang said:


> if I can watch TV, but cannot record anything, its virtually useless.


Awww, c'mon... what'd you do before the DVR? Never watch television?

I don't want to lose the DVR functionality, either, but if (real big if, 'cause I don't believe it'll come to that) it goes away, then I'll do what I did before the DVR... I'll see what I want to see live, or I will miss it.

If it's really important to me, I'll dust off the VHS recorder and have it catch the program.

Sometimes I think that we (as a nation and world) are becoming *far* too dependant on technology. I remember when phones had wires... just as an example


----------



## zmark

oldave said:


> Awww, c'mon... what'd you do before the DVR? Never watch television?
> 
> I don't want to lose the DVR functionality, either, but if (real big if, 'cause I don't believe it'll come to that) it goes away, then I'll do what I did before the DVR... I'll see what I want to see live, or I will miss it.
> 
> If it's really important to me, I'll dust off the VHS recorder and have it catch the program.
> 
> Sometimes I think that we (as a nation and world) are becoming *far* too dependant on technology. I remember when phones had wires... just as an example


I think you're underestimating how much the DVR has changed our lives, or at least how we use TV. Before the DVR, I basically sat my but down in front of the tube at 8pm on most nights to watch the primetime shows. Now, I don't need to; I can watch it whenever I want on my terms. My lifestyle has adjusted accordingly.

If I lost the DVR, could I (would I ) go back to being a slave of the tv schedules? I don't think so.


----------



## DAG

RockStrongo said:


> Ok...just to clear up....if we disable the auto software updates, will we be ok once the change is made?? Is there anything we can do to stop this??


You can't disable the updates on any DISH DVR. I asked this question several days ago in another forum.


----------



## terfmop

bobukcat said:


> I have to say that I looked at TIVO, liked the idea but not the execution - I am NOT a fan of letting any s/w tell me what my so called preferences are, nor am I fond of noises / graphics with every button I push. When the 501 came out I was thrilled as it gave me the functionality I really wanted, and none of the stupid other stuff. I know there are lots of people who love the TIVO interface but my 501, 921 (buggy but not on a LOT of issues not related to DVR), and now my 622 give me what I want without a lot of other crap I don't and at a lower price. I'm still rooting that E* wins and TIVO is relegated to the scrap-heap.


Most of my Tivo experience comes from the use of my series one stand-alone unit(Sony), and a friends series 2. The one feature I think I like the most, which Tivo no longer offers, is the lifetime subscription. I was able to pay one price and never pay a DVR fee again(it took about 2 years to be beneficial). Another option that Tivo(series 2) gives, is the ability to network your Tivo with your computer, or another Tivo. I like that fact, that I can watch a show in my bedroom off of the Tivo in my living room, or I can watch my own media(after I convert it to MPEG2) stored on my hard drive through my Tivo. Or with my Tivotogo software, I can burn to a DVD.

I understand that alot of the bashing of Tivo unit is due to what the company is doing in the courts, but the Tivo unit does have a few features that the Dish receivers have not(cannot) offered


----------



## RockStrongo

DAG said:


> You can't disable the updates on any DISH DVR. I asked this question several days ago in another forum.


Ah, I checked last night....you can only disable the program guide update. I thought it was software updates. Oh well.


----------



## gilunionhall

HI GUYS - FOUND A LINK TO THIS TIVO SITE -----

TiVo is a pioneer in Digital Video Recorder (DVR) products and services. TiVo is a relatively small company whose entire business centers around expanding and advancing DVR functionality and technology. TiVo introduced DVRs to consumers and protected its inventions with patents. EchoStar is a very large media company that provides DVR products and services in direct competition with TiVo. Unlike TiVo partners such as DIRECTV and Comcast, EchoStar has refused to enter into an agreement with TiVo which left TiVo no choice but to defend its intellectual property in federal court.

After several years of expensive litigation, in April 2006, EchoStar's DVR products were found by a jury to be infringing one of TiVo's patents. TiVo is pleased that a federal court has recognized that TiVo's business will be irreparably harmed if EchoStar were allowed to continue to infringe TiVo's patent. Any shutdown of DVR functionality for existing DISH Network customers is entirely and directly due to EchoStar's infringement of TiVo's patent rights. It is unfortunate that DISH Network's actions have put its customers in the awkward position of potentially having DVR functionality disabled but DISH Network customers who want to ensure uninterrupted DVR service can get DVR products and services from TiVo and its partners.

If you would like more information about products from TiVo and its partners, please complete the form below.


----------



## normang

oldave said:


> Awww, c'mon... what'd you do before the DVR? Never watch television?
> 
> I don't want to lose the DVR functionality, either, but if (real big if, 'cause I don't believe it'll come to that) it goes away, then I'll do what I did before the DVR... I'll see what I want to see live, or I will miss it.
> 
> If it's really important to me, I'll dust off the VHS recorder and have it catch the program.
> 
> Sometimes I think that we (as a nation and world) are becoming *far* too dependant on technology. I remember when phones had wires... just as an example


Of course there are other time-shifting options, however none as convienent as a single box that does it all.

As I said elsewhere, if part of the issue is recording to a hard disk, then why isn't Tivo suing MythTV or Microsoft for their MediaCenter.. Tivo sue Microsoft, that'll happen :lol:

So, I could easily connect some other recording means and capture what I want, and then watch it later.. But it would require more hardware, more money, for something I already have in my Dish DVR, all because Tivo believes they own the rights to what I consider generic concept merely because the patent office is too stupid to determine what should be patentable and what should not be. How many millions and billions of dollars are wasted each year for companies suing each other over ideas & concepts that should have never had a patent applied to it in the first place.

While As I've said in several posts, I don't believe for a minute that Dish will disable 3-4 million DVR's. The question maybe, how can they alter the behavior of their DVR or alter the software so that its not in conflict with the supposed patent without significantly changing how you or I use a Dish DVR.

So, bottomline.. Dish wins a legal battle, Dish licences the tech, Dish buys or controls Tivo, or finds a software change that eliminates the compliance issue, but I think that will change how you and I use a Dish DVR.. But they will not be turned off.


----------



## LtMunst

gilunionhall said:


> HI GUYS - FOUND A LINK TO THIS TIVO SITE -----
> 
> TiVo is a pioneer in Digital Video Recorder (DVR) products and services. TiVo is a relatively small company whose entire business centers around expanding and advancing DVR functionality and technology. TiVo introduced DVRs to consumers and protected its inventions with patents. EchoStar is a very large media company that provides DVR products and services in direct competition with TiVo. Unlike TiVo partners such as DIRECTV and Comcast, EchoStar has refused to enter into an agreement with TiVo which left TiVo no choice but to defend its intellectual property in federal court.
> 
> After several years of expensive litigation, in April 2006, EchoStar's DVR products were found by a jury to be infringing one of TiVo's patents. TiVo is pleased that a federal court has recognized that TiVo's business will be irreparably harmed if EchoStar were allowed to continue to infringe TiVo's patent. Any shutdown of DVR functionality for existing DISH Network customers is entirely and directly due to EchoStar's infringement of TiVo's patent rights. It is unfortunate that DISH Network's actions have put its customers in the awkward position of potentially having DVR functionality disabled but DISH Network customers who want to ensure uninterrupted DVR service can get DVR products and services from TiVo and its partners.
> 
> If you would like more information about products from TiVo and its partners, please complete the form below.


Lifetime was putting the same kinds of Dump Dish and go to DirectTV stuff on their website as well. Then Dish and Lifetime kissed and made up.

Now Lifetime and Direct are suing each other. :lol:


----------



## Greg Bimson

normang said:


> So, I could easily connect some other recording means and capture what I want, and then watch it later.. But it would require more hardware, more money, for something I already have in my Dish DVR, all because Tivo believes they own the rights to what I consider generic concept merely because the patent office is too stupid to determine what should be patentable and what should not be.


That is the issue. TiVo invented a process to trick-play a recording of live TV. That is what was patented. It may not have been obvious, but you have now stated that fact:


> But it would require more hardware, more money, for something I already have in my Dish DVR...


Because TiVo patented that process, and Dish Network directly profited from it without licensing TiVo, why don't you just go spend more money on more hardware and replace your Dish DVR? Simple. Because you found the process TiVo invented and Dish Network implemented without licensing is the easiest method. And TiVo, which had the patent stand in review, stands to benefit from it.


----------



## normang

Greg Bimson said:


> That is the issue. TiVo invented a process to trick-play a recording of live TV. That is what was patented. It may not have been obvious, but you have now stated that fact:Because TiVo patented that process, and Dish Network directly profited from it without licensing TiVo, why don't you just go spend more money on more hardware and replace your Dish DVR? Simple. Because you found the process TiVo invented and Dish Network implemented without licensing is the easiest method. And TiVo, which had the patent stand in review, stands to benefit from it.


If this is the case, then why isn't Tivo sueing everyone that can record TV to a hard disk, all software makers that provide software that do this, all card makers that provide a means of capturing signals and the software they use to do it. Why don't they sue Microsoft for MediaCenter, MythTV, or Elgato for their EyeTV software, ATI for their capture cards, the list could go on and on.

If its as you say, then ALL these things are covered by this silly patent, which is riduculous on the face of it. Its a generic process for doing this, should have never been patentable in the first place.

I can see defending something that has merit, but this is Tivo's means to stay in business, they lose this anywhere, they are done. And I never cared at all for companies that litigate to remain in business, when they should just fade into the sunset and call it a day, or find some means other than litigation to compete and stay in business.


----------



## oldave

normang said:


> If this is the case, then why isn't Tivo sueing everyone that can record TV to a hard disk, all software makers that provide software that do this, all card makers that provide a means of capturing signals and the software they use to do it. Why don't they sue Microsoft for MediaCenter, MythTV, or Elgato for their EyeTV software, ATI for their capture cards, the list could go on and on.


When the dust settles on this whole thing, if their patent isn't ruled invalid and they get E* to write a big check, you can be sure they'll be going after everyone else.



normang said:


> If its as you say, then ALL these things are covered by this silly patent, which is riduculous on the face of it. Its a generic process for doing this, should have never been patentable in the first place.


I would agree that there's sufficient prior art to make the process ineligible for patent on its face, but the devil's in the details, and I've not read the patent application, nor am I a patent attorney.


----------



## Greg Bimson

normang said:


> If this is the case, then why isn't Tivo sueing everyone that can record TV to a hard disk, all software makers that provide software that do this, all card makers that provide a means of capturing signals and the software they use to do it. Why don't they sue Microsoft for MediaCenter, MythTV, or Elgato for their EyeTV software, ATI for their capture cards, the list could go on and on.


Because you have to start defending your patent somewhere. TiVo chose the company they believed violated their patents the most. And with a win in the courtroom, the rest of the possible patent infringers would then sign up for licenses.


normang said:


> If its as you say, then ALL these things are covered by this silly patent, which is riduculous on the face of it. Its a generic process for doing this, should have never been patentable in the first place.


The point is that it isn't generic. I take you back to  the great telephone debate. The Patent Office granted these patents, which were all extensions of the telegraph. All involved logical next-step uses.

Why is this one any different?


----------



## normang

Its all a matter of interpretation, you feel its not generic, I do. Your defending Tivo, I am not. However ultiimately, the decision will not depend on anything written here. As I've said, I think its a lousy way to do business..


----------



## dave1234

Greg Bimson said:


> Because you have to start defending your patent somewhere. TiVo chose the company they believed violated their patents the most. And with a win in the courtroom, the rest of the possible patent infringers would then sign up for licenses.The point is that it isn't generic. I take you back to  the great telephone debate. The Patent Office granted these patents, which were all extensions of the telegraph. All involved logical next-step uses.
> 
> Why is this one any different?


I would disagree they sued Dish because they "violated the patents the most". Tivo sued Dish because they stood to gain the most monitarily. It had nothing to do with how bad the violation may have been. All the other companies with similar products wouldn't owe TIVO nearly as much as Dish if the ultimate outcome is TIVO's patents are valid.


----------



## Greg Bimson

dave1234 said:


> I would disagree they sued Dish because they "violated the patents the most". Tivo sued Dish because they stood to gain the most monitarily.


Yep. I should have been more concise.

By "violated the patents the most", of course I mean that there are 4 million DVR's currently subscribed by Dish Network. I don't think anyone else may come close.


----------



## Duncan

Greg Bimson said:


> there are 4 million DVR's currently subscribed by Dish Network. I don't think anyone else may come close.


You know, that's an excellent point, one I hadn't thought of. Not to mention the fact that each one of those subscribers is paying a monthly fee. That's opposed to the amount per month that MythTV users pay 

Duncan


----------



## harsh

Greg Bimson said:


> That is the issue. TiVo invented a process to trick-play a recording of live TV. That is what was patented.


I think if you read the various accounts, it is not the "trick play" features that Dish was found in violation of. The patent in question is the "Multimedia Time Warping System" which involves how the material is processed and recorded on the hard drive. It prescribes that the input signal be converted to MPEG2 and then parsed into separate video and audio packets. This is not the technology used in the Dish receivers (nor the DirecTiVo receivers, I suspect). The Dish Network receivers lay down the MPEG stream directly without transcoding or parsing.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> The Dish Network receivers lay down the MPEG stream directly without transcoding or parsing.


Yet the '389 patent specifically lists DSS and DBS as signal sources. Demonstrated or not, the jury decided that the patent as awarded was good enough to hold E* in violation.


----------



## Curtis52

harsh said:


> The Dish Network receivers lay down the MPEG stream directly without transcoding or parsing.


The patent covers several different types of input signals:

"A preferred embodiment of the invention accepts television (TV) input streams in a multitude of forms, for example, analog forms such as National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) or PAL broadcast, and digital forms such as Digital Satellite System (DSS), Digital Broadcast Services (DBS), or Advanced Television Standards Committee (ATSC). Analog TV streams are converted to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation, while pre-formatted MPEG streams are extracted from the digital TV signal and presented in a similar format to encoded analog streams. "

Note the last sentence.


----------



## hockeyinsd

I may have the details off slightly, but I seem to remember reading something over at a tivo forum that after echostar first came out with the dishplayer, they were looking into forming some sort of partnership with tivo to develop a better DVR. Tivo gave them a working prototype and then echostar came back to them and told them they would develop their own. When tivo asked about their prototype, it had disappeared. I think that is a big key in this case. As far as going after others, I think Tivo's main plan is to license the tivo software/interface to as many as they can, look at the comcast deal and now a deal with cox. I imagine that tivo's ultimate goal is to work up some sort of deal to put the tivo software on dish's DVRs.


----------



## Doug Higley

Please...all keep in mind that every one on this board is light years ahead of any jury...you can argue all the technical details you like but the jury will be made up of people without jobs and retire-ees who complain about the black bars on top and bottom of widescreen movies. The Jury will decide based on the emotional aspect (if any) and whether they like the way the lawyers dress that day. It is ALL BS when up to a jury. The last thing a technical decision needs.


----------



## Curtis52

Doug Higley said:


> Please...all keep in mind that every one on this board is light years ahead of any jury...you can argue all the technical details you like but the jury will be made up of people without jobs and retire-ees who complain about the black bars on top and bottom of widescreen movies. The Jury will decide based on the emotional aspect (if any) and whether they like the way the lawyers dress that day. It is ALL BS when up to a jury. The last thing a technical decision needs.


I suspect the jury was more up to speed than the posters here.

The jury did its thing in April. Don't use future tense.


----------



## James Long

As with any aspect of our legal system, the jury is asked to make a decision based on what is PRESENTED to them and not what knowledge they bring into the courtroom. We probably wouln't be allowed on such a jury as this because we know too much.


----------



## Curtis52

James Long said:


> We probably wouln't be allowed on such a jury as this because we know too much.


Aren't you the guy that still thought the E* countersuit would be heard in February?


----------



## boylehome

Curtis52 said:


> Aren't you the guy that still thought the E* countersuit would be heard in February?


When is the counter suit going to be heard, if not in Feb. of 2007?


----------



## Curtis52

boylehome said:


> When is the counter suit going to be heard, if not in Feb. of 2007?


"U.S. Magistrate Judge Caroline M. Craven of Texarkana blocked EchoStar Communications Corp.'s patent-infringement lawsuit against TiVo and Humax USA Inc. while the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviews patents claimed by EchoStar.

EchoStar spokeswoman Kathie Gonzalez said Monday the company is "anxious to get to trial because we believe Tivo's DVRs infringe on our technology," but acknowledged it will be a long process. In a regulatory filing, the company said the Patent Office review "could take many years.""

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060828/tivo_echostar.html?.v=4


----------



## James Long

Curtis52 said:


> Aren't you the guy that still thought the E* countersuit would be heard in February?


You're the guy who couldn't get a simple point across without multiple posts.


Curtis52 said:


> "U.S. Magistrate Judge Caroline M. Craven of Texarkana blocked EchoStar Communications Corp.'s patent-infringement lawsuit against TiVo and Humax USA Inc. while the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviews patents claimed by EchoStar.
> 
> EchoStar spokeswoman Kathie Gonzalez said Monday the company is "anxious to get to trial because we believe Tivo's DVRs infringe on our technology," but acknowledged it will be a long process. In a regulatory filing, the company said the Patent Office review "could take many years.""


ALWAYS provide sources for your quotes. Thanks.


----------



## foghorn2

boylehome said:


> When is the counter suit going to be heard, if not in Feb. of 2007?


Good, longer time for Tivo to extinguish their funds before E* finishes them off.


----------



## TBoneit

Or it may be Tivo will be hard to settle with since they are getting their Series Three Tivo ready?

http://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=307962

Looking at the picture o fthe back I see two USB ports, Component & HDMI, Ethernet & Digital Audio. Also supposedly ESATA port.

They may be hoping that stopping E* DVRs will make us buy their box. Like I'd pay the current montly rate! HA!

I have a Tivo bought many years ago. And wouldn't even pay that montly rate forget the current monthly rate. My lifetime sub fee gamble has gone way past the payback period so I'm ahead on that, I hear they no longer do Lifetime subs?


----------



## foghorn2

TBoneit said:


> Or it may be Tivo will be hard to settle with since they are getting their Series Three Tivo ready?
> 
> http://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=307962
> 
> Looking at the picture o fthe back I see two USB ports, Component & HDMI, Ethernet & Digital Audio. Also supposedly ESATA port.
> 
> They may be hoping that stopping E* DVRs will make us buy their box. Like I'd pay the current montly rate! HA!
> 
> I have a Tivo bought many years ago. And wouldn't even pay that montly rate forget the current monthly rate. My lifetime sub fee gamble has gone way past the payback period so I'm ahead on that, I hear they no longer do Lifetime subs?


Well if they licence a E* tuner inside their HD box, we might be willing to pay the monthly rate. But that will never happen.


----------



## Curtis52

Echostar has agreed to settlement. Details to follow.


----------



## foghorn2

Curtis52 said:


> Echostar has agreed to settlement. Details to follow.


What settlement?


----------



## Curtis52

foghorn2 said:


> What settlement?


Well, I guess that's the "to follow" part.

hmmm wrong lawsuit

$100 million. I hope they dont use it all up.

http://news.com.com/EchoStar+to+pay+100+million+in+TV+station+dispute/2100-1026_3-6110376.html


----------



## James Long

Curtis52 said:


> Well, I guess that's the "to follow" part.
> 
> hmmm wrong lawsuit
> 
> $100 million. I hope they dont use it all up.
> 
> http://news.com.com/EchoStar+to+pay+100+million+in+TV+station+dispute/2100-1026_3-6110376.html


Yep. We have a perfectly good thread about that *right here*.

Thanks for editing in the source in your previous post.


----------



## Curtis52

James Long said:


> Thanks for editing in the source in your previous post.


Thanks for a reduction in the misinformation posts.


----------



## koralis

TBoneit said:


> Or it may be Tivo will be hard to settle with since they are getting their Series Three Tivo ready?
> 
> They may be hoping that stopping E* DVRs will make us buy their box. Like I'd pay the current montly rate! HA!


No chance of that. The surpreme court has set the bar very high with regards to injunctive relief when monetary payment will do.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1153744535390


> Legal relief in the form of an *injunction -- a shutdown to prevent continued use of an infringing device or process -- has long been considered the birthright of any patent owner*. Patent trolls have made use of that fact, and the threat of prolonged patent litigation, to extract exorbitant license fees from allegedly infringing companies. Companies fearful of being shut down, or afraid of the cost of patent litigation, often will take the license as the path of least resistance. But *the U.S. Supreme Court recently has taken away the patent owner's birthright of the permanent injunction*, which may have the intended effect of deterring patent trolls. In the process, this decision may also have decreased the value of potential licenses.
> 
> In eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, the Supreme Court returned injunctive relief back to basics, *requiring a patent owner, like any other plaintiff seeking an injunction, to prove entitlement to injunctive relief*. In the dispute, eBay was accused of infringing MercExchange's patented buy-it-now feature on its auction site. MercExchange was not in the business of providing buy-it-now services, but rather of selling licenses to third parties under its patent.
> 
> ...
> 
> *The court reasoned there was no irreparable harm from eBay's continued use of the infringing product because MercExchange had made it a business strategy to license its intellectual property rights. Therefore, monetary damages and not an injunction would suffice. *
> 
> ...
> 
> But the Supreme Court disagreed with this reasoning. In vacating and remanding the case, the high court ruled that a patent infringement plaintiff, like any other plaintiff, must demonstrate the four factors required for injunctive relief, namely:
> 
> *It will suffer irreparable harm.
> 
> That remedies at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate compensation.
> 
> That considering the balance of hardships between plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity, such as an injunction, is warranted.
> 
> That the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. *


----------



## havlicek

normang said:


> I can see defending something that has merit, but this is Tivo's means to stay in business, they lose this anywhere, they are done. And I never cared at all for companies that litigate to remain in business, when they should just fade into the sunset and call it a day, or find some means other than litigation to compete and stay in business.


Some companies must litigate to survive. This is a prime example. If Tivo does not sue, Dish may drive them out of business by taking away customers using technology (which was based on Tivo's patents).

There must be enforcement of intellectual property in order to drive innovation. Company A will not have an incentive to perform R&D, if company B can steal the developed technology.


----------



## harsh

havlicek said:


> Some companies must litigate to survive. This is a prime example. If Tivo does not sue, Dish may drive them out of business by taking away customers using technology (which was based on Tivo's patents).


If TiVo made a product that competed directly with the DVRs offered by Dish Network, you might have an argument. As it is, they offer a compromise product that lacks the integration, PQ and efficiency of the Dish Network DVR.

TiVo doesn't offer any kind of HD solution for Dish Network subscribers.


----------



## havlicek

harsh said:


> If TiVo made a product that competed directly with the DVRs offered by Dish Network, you might have an argument. As it is, they offer a compromise product that lacks the integration, PQ and efficiency of the Dish Network DVR.
> 
> TiVo doesn't offer any kind of HD solution for Dish Network subscribers.


I dont agree that Tivo would not be injured by allowing this infringement to continue. Tivo is losing licensing revenue.

Assume that Dish could not provide DVR functionality (because of this decision) and that a licensee of Tivo's patents did provide such functionality (for example Direct TV). I would argue that at least some customers would choose Direct TV over Dish. Therefore, Tivo would generate more revenue based on the royalties from the license.


----------



## normang

havlicek said:


> Some companies must litigate to survive. This is a prime example. If Tivo does not sue, Dish may drive them out of business by taking away customers using technology (which was based on Tivo's patents).
> 
> There must be enforcement of intellectual property in order to drive innovation. Company A will not have an incentive to perform R&D, if company B can steal the developed technology.


If they really created something truly unique, I would agree, but they haven't. All they've done is managed to patent something blatently obvious and has been done for years prior in some way, shape or form. This wasn't innovation, Tivo just managed to run it into the incompetent patent office before someone else might have.. I am not going to say that someone else would not have done it if Tivo had not. In any event, its one concept that should have remained available to all.


----------



## Greg Bimson

harsh said:


> As it is, they offer a compromise product that lacks the integration, PQ and efficiency of the Dish Network DVR.


Yet DirecTV contracted and licensed with TiVo for the DirecTV DVR for the past few years.

If you use someone else's patented implementation without their consent, this is what happens...


normang said:


> All they've done is managed to patent something blatently obvious and has been done for years prior in some way, shape or form. This wasn't innovation, Tivo just managed to run it into the incompetent patent office before someone else might have.. I am not going to say that someone else would not have done it if Tivo had not. In any event, its one concept that should have remained available to all.


So, two people walk into the patent office the same day, and the one that was there first was granted a patent.

Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray did this on the telephone patent. Since they both filed the same day, I guess that the telephone was obvious, and should have never been patented.

I mean, if you are going to use that strong wording about an incompetent patent office, maybe you can give us a patent that is competent. Almost *every single patent*, in one way, shape or form, is built off of an existing idea, for a specific implementation. In TiVo's case, it is to make a DVR cheaper by using one processor and a specific way to access the content, thus making DVR's cheaper.


----------



## havlicek

normang said:


> If they really created something truly unique, I would agree, but they haven't. All they've done is managed to patent something blatently obvious and has been done for years prior in some way, shape or form. This wasn't innovation, Tivo just managed to run it into the incompetent patent office before someone else might have.. I am not going to say that someone else would not have done it if Tivo had not. In any event, its one concept that should have remained available to all.


I cant argue against your opinion on the validity of the patent or that some patents are issued that should not be. However, if they are this far along in the litigation w/o a reexamination by the patent office, I would assume that the claims are valid. The patent office has already performing a reexam of Dish patents being asserted against Tivo. These issues are on the patent office's radar. Does anyone know if the Tivo patents have been reexamined by the patent office?

Also, note that the Tivo patent has a priority date of 1998. In all practicality, to invalidate the claims, Dish needs a single prior art reference that teaches all of the claim limitations and that was published earlier than July 1997. Trying to combine multiple prior art references to invalidate claims of a patent is very difficult.

I did take a look at the claims of the patent and it does require a separation of the audio and video. I assume that this is needed for MPEG or this is required because of the lack of processing power; otherwise Dish could have done a easy design around based on that limitation.


----------



## normang

Unfortunately, no matter how much we dredge up the past, its not going to change the current situation. Patents get invalidated every year, perhaps for good and bad reasons. Sometimes it is the first one in the door with the same idea that wins, sometimes the idea is based on a previous idea, the bottomline here as I see it, way to often, concepts and Ideas are patented that have been done for a long time, and just because someone has a persuasive way of presenting that arguement to the patent office, should not make one party the controlling interest of a generic idea. The patent review process is poorly done, which is why patents are invalidated, when someone challenges it.

Time will tell if Dish has a persuasive case in their countersuit, or any other part of the legal battle.

The bottomline is some will defend Tivo, others won't. Dish as I've said in this thread and others has 3 ways to go, if they win a legal battle somewhere, then the whole discussion changes. They eventually give up, and license the technology and move on, or three they can perhaps move to buy Tivo or a controlling interest. They are not going to IMHO, let their DVR business be shut down over this issue. With 3-4 _million_ customers, they are not going to just say oops.. and turn them all off, or alter signifcantly how a DVR functions.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

NOT unless they want to go out of business practically over night. 

This is a deal breaker for me. No dvr like it is today- NO Dishnetwork.


----------



## Greg Bimson

normang said:


> Unfortunately, no matter how much we dredge up the past, its not going to change the current situation. Patents get invalidated every year, perhaps for good and bad reasons. Sometimes it is the first one in the door with the same idea that wins, sometimes the idea is based on a previous idea, the bottomline here as I see it, way to often, concepts and Ideas are patented that have been done for a long time, and just because someone has a persuasive way of presenting that arguement to the patent office, should not make one party the controlling interest of a generic idea. The patent review process is poorly done, which is why patents are invalidated, when someone challenges it.


Good.

TiVo's patents were reaffirmed during the review process of the Patent and Trademark Office. In other words, the claims TiVo pressed against Echostar were upheld.

However, Dish Network has also sued TiVo for violating their patents. The suit has been delayed because of a patent review. This could take years.

And since TiVo won and if Dish Network loses their countersuit, then I guess you'll put all your issues with the process to bed.

One must work within the process in order to further it to their advantage. Ignoring process, like Dish Network has done with their DVR's and their distant network offerings paints a target on their back.


----------



## havlicek

normang said:


> Unfortunately, no matter how much we dredge up the past, its not going to change the current situation. Patents get invalidated every year, perhaps for good and bad reasons. Sometimes it is the first one in the door with the same idea that wins, sometimes the idea is based on a previous idea, the bottomline here as I see it, way to often, concepts and Ideas are patented that have been done for a long time, and just because someone has a persuasive way of presenting that arguement to the patent office, should not make one party the controlling interest of a generic idea. The patent review process is poorly done, which is why patents are invalidated, when someone challenges it.


I understand your position. However, looking back almost 10 years, many ideas seem obvious.

If you can find in one reference (that published earlier than 07/97) all of the limitations in the infringed claims of the Tivo patent, I am sure that Dish would be more than willing to pay you a lot of money for that info. Just a guess, I dont think there is such a reference. I would assume that many attorneys, engineers, consultants, etc. have looked on Dish's behalf and have not found one.

I could be wrong. Maybe a good reference was found. The case was litigated in the Eastern Dist. of TX - a paradise for patent plaintiffs. I have heard that that court has never invalidated a patent. However, even if this court did not invalidate, I think that the patent office would have invalidated in a reexam, if there was such a reference.


----------



## Budget_HT

harsh said:


> If TiVo made a product that competed directly with the DVRs offered by Dish Network, you might have an argument. As it is, they offer a compromise product that lacks the integration, PQ and efficiency of the Dish Network DVR.
> 
> TiVo doesn't offer any kind of HD solution for Dish Network subscribers.


Apparently you are not familiar with the TiVo-software-based DVRs in use by DirecTV subscribers for at least 6 years.

These are not "compromise products" in that they record the incoming digital bit stream directly, including DD 5.1 audio when present, with 2 tuners and the ability to watch a prerecorded show while recording 2 others. Sounds a lot like some Dish DVR products to me. I don't know whose product went to market first.

The HD TiVo has an integrated local channel HDTV program guide that is apparrently lacking on similar products from Dish.

Perhaps you are referring to some other aspect of these devices that I am missing here? One attractive feature that Dish offers is the dual output device, offering one HD program and a separate SD program (routed to PIP or separate TVs). There is no comparable TiVo-based feature that I know of.


----------



## harsh

Budget_HT said:


> Apparently you are not familiar with the TiVo-software-based DVRs in use by DirecTV subscribers for at least 6 years.


I'm well aware of these receivers.


> Perhaps you are referring to some other aspect of these devices that I am missing here?


The aspect of the DirecTiVo receivers that you are missing is that they don't work with Dish Network.

My original statement was clear: TiVo offers nothing in the way of HD capability for Dish Network subscribers. Even DirecTiVo HD users are beginning to be shut out of HD locals and after next year, they may receive only a handful of HD channels from DirecTV; I'm speculating HBO-HD and SHO-HD will continue to be available in MPEG2.


----------



## dave1234

Greg Bimson said:


> Good.
> 
> TiVo's patents were reaffirmed during the review process of the Patent and Trademark Office. In other words, the claims TiVo pressed against Echostar were upheld.
> 
> .


That is not true. The PTO has ruled all the hardware claims in TIVO's patent invalid.


----------



## kstuart

Reuters (no other details):


> U.S. appeals court judge granted EchoStar Communications Corp. the right to continue selling their own recorders during the appeals process.
> 
> The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted EchoStar's (DISH.O: Quote, Profile, Research) request stay a permanent injunction barring it from selling digital video recorders after it lost a patent infringement suit filed by TiVo.


----------



## Mark Lamutt

*EchoStar Announces Federal Court Blocks Tivo Injunction* 
ENGLEWOOD, Colo., Oct 03, 2006 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- EchoStar Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH) issued the following statement regarding recent developments in the Tivo Inc. v. EchoStar Communications Corp. lawsuit:

"We are pleased the Federal Court found that EchoStar has a 'substantial case on the merits' and blocked the Texas decision for the duration of the appeal. This action by the Federal Court reinforces our belief that the Texas court made significant errors during the trial process and we look forward to complete vindication of our position.

As a result of the Court action, our customers will not be disrupted and all of our DVR models will continue to be available through the EchoStar distribution system."

About EchoStar

EchoStar Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH) serves more than 12.46 million satellite TV customers through its DISH Network(TM), the fastest-growing U.S. provider of advanced digital television services in the last five years. DISH Network offers hundreds of video and audio channels, Interactive TV, HDTV, sports and international programming, together with professional installation and 24-hour customer service.

SOURCE: EchoStar Communications Corporation

EchoStar Communications Corporation
Kathie Gonzalez, 720-514-5351
[email protected]


----------



## James Long

One down, one to go!

http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2006-10/interesting-news-dave-hasnt-covered-60/

"Echostar has met its burden of showing that there is a substantial case on the merits and that the harm factors militate in it's favor."

Certainly a step in the right direction.


----------



## Michael P

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Sto...&guid={D18AFE42-7F42-4212-BD10-E04CE5075496}&


----------



## Mike D-CO5

HOw long does this appeal process last typically? Are we talking years or months?


----------



## keenan

It could take years, probably less than 2 though.


----------



## kstuart

keenan said:


> It could take years, probably less than 2 though.


Whoa - I didn't realize the time period was so long - that's a major victory for E* to continue to sell DVRs during that period of time.

No wonder TiVo stock went down almost 6% in after-hours trading (quite a large amount for after-hours).

This gives Dish plenty of time to create alternate DVR software that is non-violating - just in case the judgement goes against them - so now Dish is safe from having to turn off DVRs.


----------



## cobra2225

ebaltz said:


> Well I for one won't put off with getting screwed in the deal, I paid for a machine that has these functions, if they go away, I would require a full refund on that. They punish us for breaking our end of the contract (early termination etc...) so we would need to punish them for breaking their end of the contract.


i agree with that 100%, i don't remember the installer telling me when he installed my 625 and i sighned a contract for this service that i might be losing this service because of a law suite before my contract was up, as far as i'm concerned if this does happen and i lose dvr service then E broke the contract,and i pay no cancellation fee,but i will talk to my brother-in-law (an atty) to make sure.


----------



## James Long

REGARDLESS of the outcome of the Tivo case, E* is not going to leave their customers without a DVR.

They made that clear during the last Charlie Chat.


----------



## UTFAN

Mike D-CO5 said:


> HOw long does this appeal process last typically? Are we talking years or months?


Unlike the majority of posters here, I'm not a legal "expert." But despite all the claims to the contrary, all three of our DISH DVR-equipped receivers continue to work today, and I expect years and years into the future.

Echostar may not "win" this case, but they sure as heck won't lose it.

HOOK'EM HORNS! Barbeque OU!!


----------



## PBowie

while Im happy that E* will not face disruption it still dont alter the fact that they dont carry the Setanta soccer PPV channel !!!

:-(


----------



## dave1234

Mike D-CO5 said:


> HOw long does this appeal process last typically? Are we talking years or months?


We are talking years. Maybe by 2010 this will be resolved. By that time the 622 will be an ancient artifact...


----------



## kstuart

dave1234 said:


> We are talking years. Maybe by 2010 this will be resolved. By that time the 622 will be an ancient artifact...


Clearly the market has the same perception, as TiVo is down over 12% as I type this...


----------



## Geronimo

Echostar has made a lot of things clear during Charlie chats that have not necessarily come to pass. As Burgess Meredith said in the first rocky film "It ain't necessarily gonna be a matter of choice."

I don't think that anyone should worry about their DVR service being shut off for awhile. But we do not know if Echostar will be able to keep the vague promise made in a Charlie Chat. There is a difference after all betweena promise being made and a promise being kept. Besides we wouldn't want to pull programmers away from developing NBR on the 50x series.


----------



## kstuart

Geronimo said:


> Echostar has made a lot of things clear during Charlie chats that have not necessarily come to pass. As Burgess Meredith said in the first rocky film "It ain't necessarily gonna be a matter of choice."
> 
> I don't think that anyone should worry about their DVR service being shut off for awhile. But we do not know if Echostar will be able to keep the vague promise made in a Charlie Chat. There is a difference after all betweena promise being made and a promise being kept. Besides we wouldn't want to pull programmers away from developing NBR on the 50x series.


In this case, it wasn't a "promise", it was instead a clarification that E* could simply upgrade all affected DVRs with new DVR software that would not include any software elements that the court decided violated TiVo patents.

The court decision yesterday clearly gives E* plenty of time to be able to develop that software, and thus also insures that consumers will not experience a disruption.

PS While I do not know any details about the lawsuit, my use of a variety of DVRs would cause me to *guess* that NBR is indeed the feature that violates the TiVo patents.


----------



## James Long

Geronimo said:


> I don't think that anyone should worry about their DVR service being shut off for awhile. But we do not know if Echostar will be able to keep the vague promise made in a Charlie Chat.


And yet there is no reason to constantly assume that the will fail to keep the 'promise'. Keeping DVR service is more important to E* than any other 'promise' I've heard on a chat.


Geronimo said:


> Besides we wouldn't want to pull programmers away from developing NBR on the 50x series.


They have not given up on that one. It is hard to say when new features will be available (especially giant leaps that if not done right could be huge problems). Would you like it done right _or_ right now?


----------



## Geronimo

I don't costantly assume anything. I just point out that it is not a certainty that a thing will happen because it is promised in a Charlie Chat. I personally think th at they are working to bring NBR to all their receivers----but they have not done so. I point it out to illustrate that their is a difference between a promise made a and a promise kept. And the comments on how hard they have tried or do i want it done right or done now simply reinforce that point.


----------



## DonLandis

With the TIVO stock tumbling- maybe now is the time for E* to buy them out and solve all TIVO's financial headaches.


----------



## TechnoCat

Geronimo said:


> I don't costantly assume anything. I just point out that it is not a certainty that a thing will happen because it is promised in a Charlie Chat. ... I point it out to illustrate that their is a difference between a promise made a and a promise kept.


True, there is a difference, but...

Offhand I can't think of any promises in the last two years they haven't kept
Even if they lose on the patents (which I think is really unlikely - but let's assume), the patents don't cover all concept of time-shifting and PVR; avoiding them is a low-risk low-cost change. The trouble would be a loss of some features, not a loss of PVR.
But honestly I think Tivo will cut a deal, if Charlie lets them, before this goes too far into the Appeal because that would be better for them than to risk losing the case and all appearance of I.P.


----------



## Geronimo

TechnoCat said:


> True, there is a difference, but...
> 
> Offhand I can't think of any promises in the last two years they haven't kept
> Even if they lose on the patents (which I think is really unlikely - but let's assume), the patents don't cover all concept of time-shifting and PVR; avoiding them is a low-risk low-cost change. The trouble would be a loss of some features, not a loss of PVR.
> But honestly I think Tivo will cut a deal, if Charlie lets them, before this goes too far into the Appeal because that would be better for them than to risk losing the case and all appearance of I.P.


My only point is that we don't know one way or the other if they will be able to solve any alleged infringement with a software update---or that the courts would turn around and accept it.

i too think that this will be settled. All I am saying is that all of this is our opinion, our educated guess, or the result of our analysis but people are discussing it as if it were a certainty.

Sure they want to avoid losing the DVR functionality. I would imagine that they are also planning for that contingency. But in s/w development there is sometimes a difference between what companies strive for and what they deliver. Saying that they have not been unable to deliver for two years is encouraging but, in the end, it points out that they sometimes cannot do waht they intended.


----------



## kstuart

Geronimo said:


> My only point is that we don't know one way or the other if they will be able to solve any alleged infringement with a software update---or that the courts would turn around and accept it.


I can't imagine why you would think that.
If a court said that Chrysler violated a trademark or patent by selling cars with Corinthian Leather Seats, then if they did a recall and replaced all the seats with Fabric Seats, then obviously the customers can continue to drive the cars !
Similarly, in this case, only the *software* is thought to be in violation, and in fact, E* is suing TiVo for violation of DVR hardware patents.
So, there could be no doubt that downloading new DVR software that did not contain any of the patented features, would solve the problem.
And this is exactly what Charlie said on the Chat.
Not to mention that Dish stock has gone up since the news and TiVo stock has gone way down...


----------



## Geronimo

kstuart said:


> I can't imagine why you would think that.
> If a court said that Chrysler violated a trademark or patent by selling cars with Corinthian Leather Seats, then if they did a recall and replaced all the seats with Fabric Seats, then obviously the customers can continue to drive the cars !
> Similarly, in this case, only the *software* is thought to be in violation, and in fact, E* is suing TiVo for violation of DVR hardware patents.
> So, there could be no doubt that downloading new DVR software that did not contain any of the patented features, would solve the problem.
> And this is exactly what Charlie said on the Chat.
> Not to mention that Dish stock has gone up since the news and TiVo stock has gone way down...


Intellectual property cases are a bit more complex than the analogy you presented. many of us thought that the whole Tivo case would have lost much earlier than this. ther is always doubt both about the ability to prodice the new code and whether the courts would accept it.

BTW i don't belive that Mr. ergen was that specific on the chat. If he was I missed it---which can happen ona Charlie Chat.

i agree though that if I had to palcea wagere in this I would wager on echostar. But that means that there is risk. that is all I am saying.

But i really think that we have beaten this one to death. There is enough out tehre for any reader to decide what he thinks.


----------



## kstuart

Geronimo said:


> BTW i don't belive that Mr. ergen was that specific on the chat. If he was I missed it---which can happen ona Charlie Chat.


What I remember him saying was - *paraphrased from memory* - "You shouldn't worry about losing your DVR capability, because our lawyers think we have a good chance of winning the appeal, but even if we don't, we have the capability to download completely new DVR software to all receivers that would not be in violation of the patents."
He may have used different words in a few places, but that was essentially the content of the sentence.


----------



## Geronimo

Like I said I believe that we have beaten it to death.


----------



## James Long

I believe most of us have agreed, yet one member here keeps giving life support to the poor horse so the flogging can continue.


----------



## kstuart

Geronimo said:


> Like I said I believe that we have beaten it to death.
> __________________
> I never cared for all the signatures that insult posters with other points of view.


I agree with that latter sentiment in your signature.
But also, I personally never cared for people who decide when discussions are over (other than moderators - it's their job, of course).
There is no law requiring someone to reply to a post.
There is no reason to feel anxiety because someone else has said something more in a thread you are reading.
I've been discussing topics on the Internet for a little over 20 years now, and over that time, there has been a constant stream of posts giving a point a view, and then concluding with:


> But I think we have exhausted this topic now and should go on to something else.


Aside from the egotistical aspect of one person deciding that there cannot be further light shed on the topic by someone else, there is the larger issue that this behavior is appropriate for an in-person conversation in real-time *which can only be about one topic*, but not appropriate in an Internet Discussion Forum *which is about many topics*.


----------



## oldave

James Long said:


> I believe most of us have agreed, yet one member here keeps giving life support to the poor horse so the flogging can continue.


I'm afraid the equine is deceased, regardless of CPR efforts. Continued application of devices designed to cause pain seem pointless.


----------



## kevreh

After using DirecTivo for 6 years I recently signed on with E* and now have the 622. All the legal talk and debating aside, its a superior product IMHO. By far. Seems to me that its so different from Tivo, with many improvements, that the E* dvr's will never get "shut down". 

Personally, I could see a lawsuit if the 622 had something like a "Thumbs Up", which would be a direct copy of Tivo, but there's nothing that literal. This is a software issue, and you can't copyright a type of software. That's why we have various word processing apps, photo editing apps, anti-virus apps, etc....

Tivo was king a few years ago, but now there struggling to stay competitive. Hence the lashing out. If they would have stayed current and innovated more they wouldn't be in this position.

Later-
Kevin


----------



## Darkman

November 1, 2006

TiVo v EchoStar Update, Part 2

By Guest Blogger

While Davis Freeberg believes recent developments in the TiVo/Echostar patent infringement suit may indicate an imminent settlement, a ZNF secret agent has a different take. -DZ

The story so far&#8230;
TiVo filed a patent infringement suit against Echostar covering most of Echostar's DVRs. In April, a jury found that Echostar infringed TiVo's patent on all the contested claims, that the patent was valid, and that the infringement was willful. The jury awarded TiVo about $73 million dollars in damages. Later the judge in the case increased the damages to about $88 million (for interest during the period of infringement and damages and interest from the time between the jury award and the final judgment). He also ordered an injunction, preventing Echostar from further use or sale of the infringing DVRs (i.e., Echostar had to "turn off" more than three million of their customer's DVRs). Echostar appealed the verdict, and was given a stay of the injunction.

What just happened&#8230;
Recently Echostar made a motion to the appeals court to extend the time, by 60 days, for them to file their so-called "Blue Brief" (i.e., the appellant's primary brief to the court). The brief was due 10/23. It was an unusual request because appeals courts are notoriously unforgiving, and would likely reject such a request unless it was for a very good reason. Tivo responded to the motion, and Echostar replied to TiVo's response.

Today, the motion was ruled moot (i.e., irrelevant), because the court issued this order:

ORDERED: Briefing schedule stayed. EchoStar to notify this court within 14 days of date of disposition of final postjudgment motion in dist ct.

What this means is that the entire appeal has been put on hold. Why? Because the court has determined that some aspect of the "final postjudgment motion" must be resolved before the case can proceed. (This issue was probably the reason that Echostar requested the delay, but the court, being no-nonsense, realized that 60 days was arbitrary, and simply said, "tell us when it has been resolved.")

... etc ....

--
( The entire article (quite LONG) is at the following source: http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2006-11/tivo-v-echostar-update-part-2/ )


----------



## Darkman

Lots of "Echostar vs TiVo" information.. including "Part 1" of the above post.. could also be found here:
http://www.zatznotfunny.com/index.php?s=echostar

....
Actually,
"TiVo v EchoStar Update, Part 1" 
Source: http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2006-11/tivo-v-echostar-update-part-1/


----------



## Darkman

More from "Zats Not Funny":

Dave Researches TiVo v EchoStar

By Dave Zatz (November 7, 2006)

"While everyone was busy discussing TiVo's new pricing scheme yesterday, I was downtown at the US Court of Appeals researching TiVo v EchoStar. For whatever reason, many documents from this Federal Circuit court haven't made it online - Fortunately, the building is just a short subway ride away and photocopies are only 15 cents a page. Without seeing the documents we've speculated on the rationale behind the extension/delay, but now we're a little more informed. EchoStar justifies their 10/16 motion for an extension due to several appeals that should be combined, outstanding motions in district court must be ruled on, and that their legal team is very busy with other cases. TiVo's reply on 10/19 argues damages will continue during an extension and that the schedules of Echostar's lawyers are irrelevant.

I've passed these documents on to my secret agent for a more thorough analysis and expect I'll be picking up soon-to-be released documents within in the next week. When will it end!? One ZNF reader theorizes, "I've mapped out the major milestones in the RIM lawsuit as signposts to the TIVo one. If that's any indication, it won't be resolved until 2008&#8230; and settlement will be at a much higher dollar amount." Stay tuned..."

---
Source: http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2006-11/dave-researches-tivo-v-echostar/


----------



## James Long

The appeals court did open up a new case number for the Tivo issue on October 26th. The initial filings are not available yet. In the old case the filed papers at the district court are all related to paying legal costs ... TiVo presenting bills and EchoStar refusing to pay what TiVo wants to be paid.

Slow process !!!


----------



## James Long

Tivo's appeal to the US Supreme Court will be going to conference on December 7th.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/06-485.htm


----------



## Darkman

By BLOOMBERG NEWS
Published: November 28, 2006

EchoStar Communications lost a bid yesterday for a new trial in a patent-infringement lawsuit over digital video recorders that it lost to TiVo.

Judge David Folsom of United States District Court in Marshall, Tex., said that EchoStar had not raised any new legal issues to merit a new trial in the case. EchoStar, based in Englewood, Colo., is trying to overturn a jury award of $89.6 million for violating a TiVo patent.

TiVo, based in Alviso, Calif., accused EchoStar of infringing its patent on so-called time warp technology, which lets users record one program while watching another. EchoStar provides digital video recorders to as many as four million customers.

The case will now go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. The Federal Circuit, which specializes in patent law, said last month that EchoStar could continue to provide its digital video recorder service while the appeal was pending.

EchoStar officials did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

TiVo shares fell 18 cents, or 2.8 percent, to $6.26. EchoStar shares fell $1.15, or 3.1 percent, to $35.46.

---
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/t...EWS&adxnnlx=1164690686-QNxp/bnifKmTzQl86U0c6A


----------



## hankmack

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116468538911734236.html?mod=home_whats_news_us


----------



## James Long

hankmack said:


> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116468538911734236.html?mod=home_whats_news_us


Subscription required.


----------



## Darkman

Texas judge refuses to grant new trial in patent dispute.

By Joyzelle Davis, Rocky Mountain News 
November 28, 2006

EchoStar's hopes to overturn a $89.6 million jury verdict in favor of TiVo now rest in the hands of an appeals court after a district court judge on Monday refused to grant a new trial in the patent infringement dispute.

--- etc ---

...EchoStar spokeswoman Kathie Gonzalez said the ruling is "yet another step in a lengthy process, which we anticipated. We now look forward to our appeal, where we are confident we will prevail."

----
( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_5173938,00.html )


----------



## hankmack

James Long said:


> Subscription required.


Sorry you can not see it. Basically the article said the US Sup Ct is looking and rejecting some of the decisions made by the Patent appeals court in DC. Saying that patents for "obvious" inventions were not valid. Seems to fit the Tivo-Dish situation, but (not like many posters seem to be?) I am no lawyer.

Is it OK to cut and paste an entire article from the WSJ o this group?


----------



## FTA Michael

No, it's not okay to cut and paste an entire article unless it's a press release. You are encouraged to summarize or describe it _in your own words_ as you already did. (Thanks!) You may copy and paste maybe one or two sentences, particularly quotes, to illustrate your summary.


----------



## JohnGfun

What is the most recent update on this subject. I haven't been around here for a while so I don't know what the FINAL word is.

Thanks!
John


----------



## James Long

The 'final' word has not been spoken ... but there are many irons in the fire.
The highest level this case is at is the US Supreme Court.
There is a conference scheduled for next Thursday to discuss the appeal.


----------



## James Long

The Supreme Court denied "writ of certiorari" in Tivo's filing against E*, which basically means they won't be deciding whatever Tivo was asking them to decide.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/06-485.htm


----------



## Mike D-CO5

So James how about a recap on what is going on with this Tivo vs Echostar ? Where do we stand right now today in this saga?


----------



## Chris Blount

TiVo vs. EchoStar Continues...

Posted Jan 31st 2007 4:21PM by Chris Tew
Filed under: News, Dish Network, TiVo, Lawsuit

The U.S. District Court Judge Duffey is now getting very frustrated with Echostar for not getting these documents in on time. It's rare for a court to give a company an extended time for appeal and Echostar is really dragging its heals in the mud and as a result is rubbing the courts up the wrong way.

Judge Duffey has now ordered that Echostar must now get the documents together by February 15th.

More *HERE*.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman

Alot of people will be upset, Dish has had a bad year, and so has xm radio.. DirecTV left it's technology behind, wonder if TIVO will sue them. Motorola hd dvr unit sell's at Best Buy, last time I checked. I wonder if TIVO is going to sue Motorola. The only thing TIVO might not have authority over suing, is computer hard drive goods by microsoft, THE H.P. COMPANY AND OTHERS. My hp could be converted into a DVR unit, and since TIVO believe's they have a patent.. WHAT ABOUT CHOICE... I better wait until Dish is out of trouble before the motorhome get a Dish ViP 622. Why take a chance. TIVO IS WRONG TO ACCUSE A COMPANY, THEN GO OUT AND SUE. Many will be upset, They have a right.. TIVO is wrong.


----------



## emerson42

Tivo has very specific patents that it feels Dish is infringing upon. As a patent holder you have to defend your patents, that's the way it works. Its not quite as broad as suing everyone who records media on a hard drive, its specific ways of doing things.

As far as DirecTV is concerned, I believe at one point the two reached a deal that said they wouldn't sue each other and DirecTV would keep providing the Tivo service to its customers. Don't know if that was in perpetuity or if it was a short term thing.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

Tivo is suing to get Dish to pay them for their software and to get a contract to get continual fee residuals. That is the only way that they will ever get carried by Dish - if they force it legaly. Dish should go ahead and change the offending part of thier software so they can be ready if the judge decides in Tivo's favor. Dish should have plenty of money saved to pay the lawsuit fines due to them charging the fees all these years. IF they were smart they would have left it in a bank account with lots of interest generated by now.


----------



## MikeW

They were ready to settle the Distants suit with $100 MM. Now they have that money to settle Tivo and have some spare change.


----------



## Greg Bimson

MikeW said:


> They were ready to settle the Distants suit with $100 MM. Now they have that money to settle Tivo and have some spare change.


The problem is that $100 million doesn't "settle" TiVo anymore.

TiVo has been given an award of just over $90 million. That dollar amount is only based upon estimates for past licensing fees. That doesn't say anything about the current and future licensing fees. That would require a "going-forward" agreement by Dish Network for the TiVo software.

I would suspect that it would cost Dish Network an immediate $100 million and DVR licensing for the next couple of years for TiVo to "settle". That would easily be closer to $300 million over the next couple of years.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Mike D-CO5 said:


> IF they were smart they would have left it in a bank account with lots of interest generated by now.


I believe once the original judgment was issued, Dish Network put the dollars in an escrow account and also took a charge on their books. The management team then stated they don't believe they'll lose, so they will not put any more money into that account.


----------



## jhrain

Protecting your patents is a huge deal, just ask Apple or IBM.

TIVO's core business could be at stake if the law does not protect them. DirecTV was smart enough to work something out with TIVO.

Companies don't file for patents to keep others from using their technology. They file patents so they can "sell" them. This has been a huge financial resource for IBM for years. 

Now.. if we could just convince DirecTV to pay for more of the patents TIVO uses then maybe, just maybe the HR20 wouldn't be such a piece of junk.


----------



## James Long

The trouble is when a company patents an idea instead of a solution. Perhaps TiVo should patent "the flying car" so that when someone eventually builds one they can sue for royalties.

TiVo was developing their unit while E* and D* were developing their own. D* gave up and had TiVo design their DVRs ... now they are designing their own. There are accusations of corporate espenage, but E* was delevoping their own system when TiVo developed theirs.

If D* can build a "TiVo free" DVR I'm sure that E* can. Perhaps that is part of the reason why E* is happy to have this hung up in the courts --- an injunction in place to keep the status quo providing time for a "TiVo free" DVR to be introduced by E*. (Charlie Ergen talked about removing the offending code last year on a Charlie Chat.)

In any case, E* does need to stay on top of the court cases. Delays don't make judges happy and when one stands in judgement over your company you want to make them happy.


----------



## Guest

James Long said:


> TiVo was developing their unit while E* and D* were developing their own. D* gave up and had TiVo design their DVRs ... now they are designing their own. There are accusations of corporate espenage, but E* was delevoping their own system when TiVo developed theirs.
> 
> If D* can build a "TiVo free" DVR I'm sure that E* can. Perhaps that is part of the reason why E* is happy to have this hung up in the courts --- an injunction in place to keep the status quo providing time for a "TiVo free" DVR to be introduced by E*. (Charlie Ergen talked about removing the offending code last year on a Charlie Chat.)


I have a question. What is it about Echostar's DVRs that Tivo claims violates their patents? Is there specific code that was copied from Tivo or are they suing because the Echostar DVRs have the same functionality as the Tivos? I'm trying to figure out why they are suing Echostar and not DirecTV. The new DTV DVRs clone nearly all of the functionality of the Tivo (they couldn't have stolen the program code or it would work a lot better than it does).


----------



## wje

rcoleman111 said:


> I have a question. What is it about Echostar's DVRs that Tivo claims violates their patents? Is there specific code that was copied from Tivo or are they suing because the Echostar DVRs have the same functionality as the Tivos? I'm trying to figure out why they are suing Echostar and not DirecTV. The new DTV DVRs clone nearly all of the functionality of the Tivo (they couldn't have stolen the program code or it would work a lot better than it does).


Tivo isn't suing D* because they worked out a deal and signed an agreement a while back. E* wouldn't.


----------



## hankmack

Greg Bimson said:


> The problem is that $100 million doesn't "settle" TiVo anymore.
> 
> TiVo has been given an award of just over $90 million. That dollar amount is only based upon estimates for past licensing fees. That doesn't say anything about the current and future licensing fees. That would require a "going-forward" agreement by Dish Network for the TiVo software.
> 
> I would suspect that it would cost Dish Network an immediate $100 million and DVR licensing for the next couple of years for TiVo to "settle". That would easily be closer to $300 million over the next couple of years.


And they did not save the $100m in the distant action. They are loosing money from the loss of the subscriptions.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

rcoleman111 said:


> I have a question. What is it about Echostar's DVRs that Tivo claims violates their patents? Is there specific code that was copied from Tivo or are they suing because the Echostar DVRs have the same functionality as the Tivos? I'm trying to figure out why they are suing Echostar and not DirecTV. The new DTV DVRs clone nearly all of the functionality of the Tivo (they couldn't have stolen the program code or it would work a lot better than it does).


 I believe it is over Tivo's "Time Warp Technology ". The ability to start a program from the start when it is already recording. THey claim this is their software.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman

hankmack said:


> And they did not save the $100m in the distant action. They are loosing money from the loss of the subscriptions.


 Yea, there loose more money. Lawsuits our hurting the company and the company, has to deal with two major headache's.. HBO and TIVO. Three consective lawsuit's our bad news. Distant networks, TIVO and HBO.. What's next. Timewarner suing Dish for lose of CourtTV. The bad thing is lawsuit. CHARLIE ERGINS INTEGURITY HAS BEEN DAMAGED, and Dammit, it going to hurt them in the pocket book. I hope We can see that. I am more so disappointed by TIVO, We will have to plug our Dvr's into a phone line, just for a fricken service. Something RVrs didn't want to do.


----------



## FTA Michael

James Long said:


> The trouble is when a company patents an idea instead of a solution. Perhaps TiVo should patent "the flying car" so that when someone eventually builds one they can sue for royalties.
> 
> TiVo was developing their unit while E* and D* were developing their own. D* gave up and had TiVo design their DVRs ... now they are designing their own. There are accusations of corporate espenage, but E* was delevoping their own system when TiVo developed theirs.


That's the quirk of patents - two people can work completely independently, come up with the same idea, but the one who's first to the patent office gets exclusive rights to the idea for the length of the patent.

To respond to another poster, the issue of "copying" is irrelevant to a patent violation. You can't use an identical product, even if you created it and had never heard of the original patented product, without the consent of the patent owner. Until the patent expires.


----------



## harsh

hankmack said:


> They are loosing money from the loss of the subscriptions.


And yet Dish Network is adding subscribers at a rate almost 40% higher than DirecTV as of recent earnings discussions. You'll have to think of a more believable statement.


----------



## harsh

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> Timewarner suing Dish for lose of CourtTV.


Time Warner's current beef is with D* spreading false information about their picture quality. Court TV cannot sue E* because Court TV raised their prices and E* chose not to carry them anymore. The contract expired, E* removed Court TV and that's that.

For those who haven't been paying attention, Court TV is a company of Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., not Time Warner.


----------



## harsh

FTA Michael said:


> That's the quirk of patents - two people can work completely independently, come up with the same idea, but the one who's first to the patent office gets exclusive rights to the idea for the length of the patent.


There's some other issues too:

Patenting ideas is pretty difficult. TiVo's patent consists of a lot of diagrams and not much nitty gritty detail. It is arguable whether they've described something that can even be built. TiVo is running a serious risk. They have everything to gain but they will lose huge if Echostar prevails.

Another side of patent law is the one that considers existing technology. Do they really have something that wasn't independently developed into the ReplayTV and/or UTV products?


----------



## harsh

emerson42 said:


> Don't know if that was in perpetuity or if it was a short term thing.


The DirecTV-TiVo agreement was of the 36 month variety. DirecTV doesn't get sued by TiVo and TiVo gets to keep a very large percentage of their boxes out there; or so they thought...


----------



## Ray_Clum

FTA Michael said:


> That's the quirk of patents - two people can work completely independently, come up with the same idea, but the one who's first to the patent office gets exclusive rights to the idea for the length of the patent.


Not exactly.

If both parties can show independent development, with no knowledge of the other persons work, then the first parties patent generally comes with a caveat of "except for number two guy". I believe that by showing prior work (that must be dated in some way, shape or form) that invalidates the patent infringement case against the 2nd inventor.


----------



## Greg Bimson

FTA Michael said:


> That's the quirk of patents - two people can work completely independently, come up with the same idea, but the one who's first to the patent office gets exclusive rights to the idea for the length of the patent.
> 
> To respond to another poster, the issue of "copying" is irrelevant to a patent violation. You can't use an identical product, even if you created it and had never heard of the original patented product, without the consent of the patent owner. Until the patent expires.





Ray_Clum said:


> Not exactly.
> 
> If both parties can show independent development, with no knowledge of the other persons work, then the first parties patent generally comes with a caveat of "except for number two guy". I believe that by showing prior work (that must be dated in some way, shape or form) that invalidates the patent infringement case against the 2nd inventor.


Well, we can simply go back to the 1880's for something like this: the telephone. Two different people were researching the telephone, and both people marched into the Patent Office on the same day. Alexander Graham Bell won; Elisha Gray lost.

I can tell anyone the idea for the telephone is obvious if two people were working on its development. However, it is the "process" which is patented.

Yes, this TiVo patent is related to the playing of material while something else is recording, only using a single processor. This process is what kept hardware costs down, otherwise DVRs would need multiple processors to perform separate actions. TiVo figured out a way to get this done and applied for their patent in the late 1990's.

Even if Echostar developed their own DVR, it is not allowed to infringe on the process patent TiVo was granted by the PTO. The patent withstood review by the PTO during the appeals process.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman

Tivo's patent is there right, so E* violates it. What about those who invested in a Dish DVR unit. If they spent $600.00 dollars, there disapointted, That E* infringed on TIVO right. Alot of people, may end up with a new hd DIsh ViP 622 DVR. IS the Dish ViP 622 safe to get? I want to buy 2 Dish ViP 622, as plan, but if this judge Duffy applies a injunction, will this judge screw every Dish DVR owner? Or will it not.. Patent was the worst thing, but it the america way, I geuss. I totally forgot about TIVO last year, giving E* problem, just on acct. of infringement. 

D*TIVO subs have been frustrated with there goods and they decided to disconnect and give Dish a try, which sounds good, since E* service is better, and E* added [email protected] HD 2/1/07. I still perfer Dish, but I hope not too many lawsuit's hurt them and there subs. It will cost me a additional $25.00 a year for Dish Network A.T. 250, but find Dish far better over Direct. And I betcha E* will attempt to compete with new competer, F*. As for patent, maybe the judge has to see it as infringement. Maybe after all that trouble, maybe fast forward won't work. God only Knows, No for right now, I will wait for a verdict on Dish vs. TIVo verdict.


----------



## bigpuma

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> We will have to plug our Dvr's into a phone line, just for a fricken service. Something RVrs didn't want to do.


Why would you have to do that? DirecTivos don't have to be plugged into a phone line to work, with the exception of the original setup. That said even if TiVo ends up winning this lawsuit at worst Dish will just have to pay them and/or change their current DVRs.


----------



## BNUMM

Greg Bimson said:


> Well, we can simply go back to the 1880's for something like this: the telephone. Two different people were researching the telephone, and both people marched into the Patent Office on the same day. Alexander Graham Bell won; Elisha Gray lost.
> 
> I can tell anyone the idea for the telephone is obvious if two people were working on its development. However, it is the "process" which is patented.
> 
> Yes, this TiVo patent is related to the playing of material while something else is recording, only using a single processor. This process is what kept hardware costs down, otherwise DVRs would need multiple processors to perform separate actions. TiVo figured out a way to get this done and applied for their patent in the late 1990's.
> 
> Even if Echostar developed their own DVR, it is not allowed to infringe on the process patent TiVo was granted by the PTO. The patent withstood review by the PTO during the appeals process.


Just want to clarify that the PTO did not rule on the validity of the patent. The jury ruled that the patent was valid and that it was infringed upon. This info. was provided by James ( who does an excellent job of finding and posting the court documents so that we are not misinformed ). The only authority given to the PTO is to approve or disapprove patents. During the review process others have the opportunity to challenge the patent. If there are no challenges and the PTO finds no reason to deny the application then it is approved. I understand the need for patents ( to protect inventions of the little guy until he can get the money to produce it so that the big companies cannot overrun them).


----------



## harsh

Greg Bimson said:


> Yes, this TiVo patent is related to the playing of material while something else is recording, only using a single processor.


I don't think this is part of the deal. There are actually several processors involved and I'm doubting that the patented technology is used in the DirecTiVo receivers. I'm almost sure they're not using it in the Series 3.


----------



## Greg Bimson

BNUMM said:


> Just want to clarify that the PTO did not rule on the validity of the patent.


As I recall, Echostar did appeal at the PTO, and the appeal was heard after the court case. The PTO threw out the hardware claims on the patent, but kept the software claims.


harsh said:


> I don't think this is part of the deal. There are actually several processors involved and I'm doubting that the patented technology is used in the DirecTiVo receivers. I'm almost sure they're not using it in the Series 3.


I am definitely not that much of a "techie". It has something to do with a video chip/processor that is not the main processor. The software can look back at frame ID's from the video chip without the need to invoke the main processor.

And it is the way the data is accessed and played back that is patented.


----------



## BNUMM

Greg Bimson said:


> As I recall, Echostar did appeal at the PTO, and the appeal was heard after the court case. The PTO threw out the hardware claims on the patent, but kept the software claims.I am definitely not that much of a "techie". It has something to do with a video chip/processor that is not the main processor. The software can look back at frame ID's from the video chip without the need to invoke the main processor.
> 
> And it is the way the data is accessed and played back that is patented.


If you should happen to recall where you read that would you be kind enough to post it. I would like to read it. It is no big deal if you can't, I am just curious. I am trying to learn more about the Patent Office and the Patent process. Thanks in advaance.


----------



## Geronimo

harsh said:


> And yet Dish Network is adding subscribers at a rate almost 40% higher than DirecTV as of recent earnings discussions. You'll have to think of a more believable statement.


I must have missed that. When did DISH start adding more net new subs than D*.


----------



## BNUMM

Geronimo said:


> I must have missed that. When did DISH start adding more net new subs than D*.


I believe during the 3rd quarter of 2006 Skyreport had an article stating that D* had 190,000+ (can't remember the exact numbers) and E* had a little over 200,000. I don't think it came out to 40% more. I believe it would be in late Sept. or early Oct. archives for Skyreport.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Geronimo, BNUMM and harsh are correct, to a point. During the last available quarter numbers (third quarter, 2006) Dish Network added about 40 percent more net new subs than DirecTV. However, over the past four years or so, it has largely been a wash.

BNUMM, I'll try to find that article.


----------



## harsh

Greg Bimson said:


> Geronimo, BNUMM and harsh are correct, to a point. During the last available quarter numbers (third quarter, 2006) Dish Network added about 40 percent more net new subs than DirecTV. However, over the past four years or so, it has largely been a wash.


In other words, since the advent of HD, Dish has been adding subscribers at a much higher rate. Obviously, delivering the goods has been good to Dish Network.

Now if DirecTV can turn it around by delivering more and/or better HD content (as opposed to promises and deceptions), that will indeed be something noteworthy.

Note that the important number is how many _net_ adds there are. It may be that one provider signs up more new subscribers than another, but if they lose (or slough off bad subscribers as DirecTV prefers to think of it) many existing subscribers, then the only number that goes up is subscriber acquisition cost (SAC). I suspect that DirecTV's Q4 report will present a much rosier ratio of gains to losses than their dismal Q3 report.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman

bigpuma said:


> Why would you have to do that? DirecTivos don't have to be plugged into a phone line to work, with the exception of the original setup. That said even if TiVo ends up winning this lawsuit at worst Dish will just have to pay them and/or change their current DVRs.


 Nice for DVR for satellite not to need a phone line. Rightfully, a judge may still rule in favor of TIVO, and the complaints I have been hearing about TIVO and DirecTV products is so-so. Once a deal is set, then Dish will get there headache too. Life is hard. Alot of the DirecTV-Tivo units have to be reboot and They stall. IF TIVO wins, will E* do business with TIVO, since DirecTivos has been continuously have problems. Our DVR fait on a judgement in Feb 15. One of the DVR owners on Dish, said if Dish turn's the networks off, then disable DVR, he not pay up and throw unit out the window. That may still happen. Dish Network has it headache, and xm radio has its headache over Recording Industry Association of America-(R.I.A.A.). TIVO said the Recording Industry Association of America (R.I.A.A.) repersents Digital video recording, and pays R.I.A.A. group royalities fee. xm and Sirius pays Digital audio service recording. I wasn't paying for royalities fee.


----------



## jhoweaa

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> ... and the complaints I have been hearing about TIVO and DirecTV products is so-so. Once a deal is set, then Dish will get there headache too. Life is hard. Alot of the DirecTV-Tivo units have to be reboot and They stall. IF TIVO wins, will E* do business with TIVO, since DirecTivos has been continuously have problems. ...


I'm currently a DirecTV customer with 3 DirecTivos. Other than a recent problem with season passes (a problem caused by DirecTV), my Tivo's have operated flawlessly since I've owned them (about 2 years). The problems you may be referring to related to the *non-Tivo* PVR that DirecTV is foisting on their customers. In particular, their HR-20 has been plagued with problems. This is *not*, however, a TiVo unit, nor does it run TiVo software.


----------



## Geronimo

Greg Bimson said:


> Geronimo, BNUMM and harsh are correct, to a point. During the last available quarter numbers (third quarter, 2006) Dish Network added about 40 percent more net new subs than DirecTV. However, over the past four years or so, it has largely been a wash.
> 
> BNUMM, I'll try to find that article.


I must have mised that. But youa re talking about ONE quarter. To say that is since the advent of HD (that ws not you Greg) is misleading. e* led for several quarters when the merger was going on. Afterward D* retook the lead each quarter for awhile.

I belive you but I would be interested in seeing the article. thanks.


----------



## Geronimo

I did the research. It was not easy as D* did not highlight sub adds for the quarte----which shows you something. In the end it is true that E* won in the 3rd quarter of 2006. 

Congrats to E* I guess they have not won in awhile.


----------



## Geronimo

harsh said:


> Time Warner's current beef is with D* spreading false information about their picture quality. Court TV cannot sue E* because Court TV raised their prices and E* chose not to carry them anymore. The contract expired, E* removed Court TV and that's that.
> 
> For those who haven't been paying attention, Court TV is a company of Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., not Time Warner.


True but TBS inc is owned by time Warner.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman

jhoweaa said:


> I'm currently a DirecTV customer with 3 DirecTivos. Other than a recent problem with season passes (a problem caused by DirecTV), my Tivo's have operated flawlessly since I've owned them (about 2 years). The problems you may be referring to related to the *non-Tivo* PVR that DirecTV is foisting on their customers. In particular, their HR-20 has been plagued with problems. This is *not*, however, a TiVo unit, nor does it run TiVo software.


 Yeah, I am refferring to HR20-700. It sound to me like there having problems. Many perfer Dish Network DVR or just a regular TIVO series 3. I do not want a TIVO hassell, if a can have a zero problem. Record DVR viewership is a surprise, over super bowl and the record sales and business on DVR's, for Super Bowl sunday and commercial free sports. If Febraury 15 court date, bother charlie and TIVO headaches, then 25-50 million DVR viewers may bother National Association of Broadcasters and General manager Craig Jahelka- KERO TV 23 was concern.. A fricken broadcaster concern of corperate moolau and there greed..

I find it hard to believe, many have invested there money in Dish networks DVR unit, then finds out a court wants to judge every unit. Charlie Ergen will put his DBS operating license on DVR. I hope congress and SENATOR DIANE FEINSTEIN doesn't be a ass, legislation. Greedy corperation is so dumb founded, and doesn't care about people satellite tv investment. Broadcaster do not care about choice, only local corperate revenue. I betcha dumb ass David K. Rehr, just wants to screw around with PVR-DVR units, and just do his part, and it wouldn't make a difference. PVR-DVR numbers are great, but what do lobbyist do?


----------



## Mathwiz

I am new to this forum and thread, and I have a DVR-510 (leased).
I am reading about a Feb court date where a judge may rule the E* DVR's violate a patent of Tivo.

My question is this.......If E* is made to disable the DVR function after this ruling (or some ruling in the future), should I unplug my phone line to preserve DVR functionality or is that even a viable option. Excuse me if I am totally ignorant of the situation, but I like my DVR function. I dont want to hit the button one day and see a screen saying "Sorry, but this function is no longer available"


----------



## JohnH

Your phone line will have nothing to do with a change of functionality if one is sent. They come via the satellite signal path.

You will have no choice, so don't worry until it happens, if ever.


----------



## archer75

I sure hope that if it does happen and they shutdown DVR functionality that they let us out of our contracts.


----------



## James Long

I just wish that people would stop worrying about it.
We've been over this many times. E* will not be turning off DVR service.


----------



## archer75

James Long said:


> I just wish that people would stop worrying about it.
> We've been over this many times. E* will not be turning off DVR service.


Why not? They've already lost once so there is a very good chance Tivo is going to win this thing and Dish would then have to shut off service.


----------



## James Long

There are too many other options short of turning off the DVRs. I'm not going to rehash this again. Please re-read the thread for all the argument, pro and con.


----------



## bavaria72

James Long said:


> There are too many other options short of turning off the DVRs. I'm not going to rehash this again. Please re-read the thread for all the argument, pro and con.


Fight the good fight Don Quixote!


----------



## Greg Bimson

In a nut shell, just like the RIMM (makers of the Blackberry) patent lawsuit, Dish Network would actually settle before a cutoff would ever occur.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman

IF Dish doesn't settle, many will be screwed and there dumped there Dish Network and head off into the sunset. Since this may affect all DVR subs, I can betcha lobbyist are deciding whether or not, does DVR hurt corperate broadcasters. I can betcha DVR's would be a piece of junk. Do, they really care? 

Neilson research has been ask to do a survay on viewing habbits.. Viewing habbits our commercial free live tv. It's all about corperate bucks, meanwhile, I hope E* will not screw up. Today is a court room visit.


----------



## normang

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> IF Dish doesn't settle, many will be screwed and there dumped there Dish Network and head off into the sunset. Since this may affect all DVR subs, I can betcha lobbyist are deciding whether or not, does DVR hurt corperate broadcasters. I can betcha DVR's would be a piece of junk. Do, they really care?
> 
> Neilson research has been ask to do a survay on viewing habbits.. Viewing habbits our commercial free live tv. It's all about corperate bucks, meanwhile, I hope E* will not screw up. Today is a court room visit.


Give it a rest.. The chances of Dish doing "anything" to disrupt DVR's is non-existant. They'll do whatever it takes to keep things just as they are or with minimal changes at best no matter what it costs.. This assumes they lose and they may not..


----------



## FTA Michael

Think about it. TiVo isn't suing because it wants to shut off Dish's DVRs. It's suing because it wants some cash from Dish. If Dish were to give TiVo enough cash, and on an ongoing basis, TiVo would be ecstatic.

Dish is promoting this year as the year of the DVR. There's no way it would categorically cut itself off from DVRs.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

I see a new Tivo man dancing on our guides soon if Dish can't prove their case.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman

Hope E* day went fine..


----------



## Paul Secic

Mike D-CO5 said:


> I see a new Tivo man dancing on our guides soon if Dish can't prove their case.


Better than TV GUIDE!


----------



## jjcaudle

As arrogant as Echostar is, they deserve to get their comeuppance from Tivo.


----------



## James Long

The longer this stretches on the more likely that it will be a non-issue for E*.
(Although I would like to see a final court ruling just so this is not hanging.)


----------



## jjcaudle

Well E* infringed the patent and lost. Its similar to RIM and the blackberry patent infringement suit. If they hadn't reached an agreement, blackberries would have been shut off. If Ergen weren't such a turkey, they would reach an agreement with Tivo already like Directv did. I am glad I have cable with the Tivo S3 at least for the moment.


----------



## Richard King

> If Ergen weren't such a turkey, they would reach an agreement with Tivo already like Directv did.


Not if he feels he will win in the appeal. If he feels he will he is doing the right thing, just as he did with Forgent after everyone else folded. He's a bunch smarter than you and the other Tivoites give him credit for.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jjcaudle said:


> If Ergen weren't such a turkey, they would reach an agreement with Tivo already like Directv did. I am glad I have cable with the Tivo S3 at least for the moment.


Umm... DirecTV settled and paid up in a lawsuit with Forgent, meanwhile Dish fought and recently won that battle AND Forgent had to cough up Dish's court costs to boot!

So maybe Charlie knows what he is doing sometimes after all.


----------



## clarkbaker

diospyros said:


> TIVO exists to make money. Echostar exists to make money. If the DVRs are shut off
> neither Tivo nor E* will make the money they want. Therefore a licensing agreement is almost a certainty. If I may speculate: perhaps a portion of the E* $5.98 monthly DVR fee is already earmarked for Tivo and there will be no increase in rates. Maybe not. In any event, it's unlikely the DVRs will be shut off for any appreciable amount of time. (This is kind of scary though.)


Dead on Comments. Everybody just makes money.. and TIVO is the winner. Even if E* has to give them $90MM.. I don't think thats impossible... what it might mean however is they delay the launch of E*11 however.. and might be the reason they havent launched yet as it is supposed to lanch in Sept.. but I"m not sure about the details on that one.


----------



## Richard King

I can assure you that the Tivo case and the launch of Echostar 11 are totally unrelated events. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Why would they be related?


----------



## Slamminc11

clarkbaker said:


> Dead on Comments. Everybody just makes money.. and TIVO is the winner. Even if E* has to give them $90MM.. I don't think thats impossible... what it might mean however is they delay the launch of E*11 however.. and might be the reason they havent launched yet as it is supposed to lanch in Sept.. but *I"m not sure about the details on that one*.


What is in bold is about the only thing you got right.


----------



## harsh

clarkbaker said:


> Everybody just makes money.. and TIVO is the winner.


If you track TiVo's stock, you'll find that they have "made money" at most once or twice in the history of the company.


----------



## Voyager6

clarkbaker said:


> Dead on Comments. Everybody just makes money.. and TIVO is the winner. Even if E* has to give them $90MM.. I don't think thats impossible... what it might mean however is they delay the launch of E*11 however.. and might be the reason they havent launched yet as it is supposed to lanch in Sept.. but I"m not sure about the details on that one.


E11 has been delayed due to the launch failure earlier this year on Sea-Launch. Sea-Launch is scheduled to resume launches in October. http://www.sea-launch.com/mission_recovery/index.html

I believe the E11 is third in line for launch which probably will occur in March/April 2008.

To get back on topic, I believe that E* will fight this one to the bitter end. Too much at stake to give in to Tivo's demands.


----------



## clarkbaker

It appears that Echostar has fully reserved $94MM in the TIVO case. DVR's will not be shut down.. but it looks like you might want to buy TIVO stock if this one gets paid. I suspect it will still take years for this to get paid out via the courts.

http://multichannel.com/article/CA6467840.html


----------



## clarkbaker

LOL.. then they will make money again a third time.. but I agree. Just a lucky patent with an ineffective way for them to work with others.. and the financials show it. Agree with your analysis of the stock... not good fundamentals overall. If they want consistant profitability via lawsuits.. that likely isn't the way to get to 'success'.


----------



## clarkbaker

They 'could' be related. $94mm is a lot of money. SeaLaunch is expensive. I just read however they have 'reserved' the $94mm.. (catching up on my reading) ... and so it actually does not effect operating income / expenses intended for the launch.


----------



## clarkbaker

Voyager6 said:


> E11 has been delayed due to the launch failure earlier this year on Sea-Launch. Sea-Launch is scheduled to resume launches in October. http://www.sea-launch.com/mission_recovery/index.html
> 
> I believe the E11 is third in line for launch which probably will occur in March/April 2008.
> 
> To get back on topic, I believe that E* will fight this one to the bitter end. Too much at stake to give in to Tivo's demands.


Good article. Makes sence. Delay is not because of TIVO.. that makes it pretty clear.


----------



## EXTACAMO

Here is a question for you all. If E* is somehow forced to disable its DVR functions on its 622 & 722's and possibly others because they lose their appeal of this so called patent infringement case brought by TIVO. How many of you out there would jump ship? I know for me this would definitely be the last straw. As a 10 yr. veteran of E* I've suffered through their seemingly endless court battles with programmers, the distant network debacle etc. This would be all she wrote for me. :nono2: Just curious how the rest of you feel.


----------



## scooper

I'm not going to worry about it until it becomes an issue - that's what. I do not think we will lose the functionality of our current E* DVRs - there is too much at stake for Dish to not make some arraingement.


----------



## STDog

EXTACAMO said:


> If E* is somehow forced to disable its DVR functions ...
> How many of you out there would jump ship?


Not me. DVR wasn't even though about when I picked DishNetwork, and I can make my own PVR easily enough.



> As a 10 yr. veteran of E* I've suffered through their seemingly endless court battles with programmers, the distant network debacle etc.


I support Charlie in most of his fights. Particularly the two you mentioned.


----------



## Richard King

I am 100% sure that they have a non "infinging" solution waiting to load into our DVR's as soon as there is a decision.


----------



## James Long

Richard King said:


> I am 100% sure that they have a non "infinging" solution waiting to load into our DVR's as soon as there is a decision.


If not already loaded ... E* has had plenty of time to remove any offending code.


----------



## Lord Vader

Like the way Vonage has? 

Vonage got slapped by the same court that's hearing the Echostar case. That in itself isn't a good sign. If Vonage is forced to do something drastic, Echostar ought to be as well.


----------



## TBoneit

Lord Vader said:


> Like the way Vonage has?
> 
> Vonage got slapped by the same court that's hearing the Echostar case. That in itself isn't a good sign. If Vonage is forced to do something drastic, Echostar ought to be as well.


That makes no sense why should anything that happens to a totally different company have anything to do with E*?

That's like saying that the same decision & penalties reached in the first court case should then be applied to all the following cases.


----------



## Lord Vader

It makes a lot of sense, if you bothered to study both cases. They have a lot in common. Try learning a bit first.


----------



## STDog

TBoneit said:


> That's like saying that the same decision & penalties reached in the first court case should then be applied to all the following cases.


Exactly. The legal term is precedent.
Precedent


> In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body adopts when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.


----------



## Lord Vader

Guess TB has never heard of "precedent."


----------



## James Long

The penalty has already been written in this case ... the only question is if it will be imposed and what that penalty means.

The IF comes down to the appeals system ... which is what we're waiting to complete.

The what it means is disputed. Some would be happy if it meant that E* could have no DVRs at all on their system (similar to the distants death penalty where even legit subscribers had to be dropped). But it is more likely that all it means is that E* will no longer be able to use the disputed code as PART of their DVRs.

Not being able to use the disputed code gives three options:
1) Tivo is paid off and rights to use the disputed code is obtained
2) The code is removed and E* DVRs lose some function
3) The code is removed and there is no noticeable changes in DVR function

It is quite likely that E* has already implemented option 3 ... removing the questioned code with no function loss. Until the appeals are done there is no reason for E* to make any sort of announcement but Charlie mentioned the option of removing the code on a Charlie Chat a while ago ... so it is "quite likely" that the job got done.

In other words, win or lose E* continues to sell working DVRs.


----------



## TBoneit

STDog said:


> Exactly. The legal term is precedent.
> Precedent


I do know what precedent is. Note what I said "That's like saying that the same decision & penalties reached in the first court case should then be applied to all the following cases" Nothing about similar cases.

The problem is that the companies are not in the same business. Based only on precedent if Vonage had bad lawyers everyone else should be penalized severely?

1 precedent has some weight, not as much as several.

The other reason is saying "That in itself isn't a good sign. If Vonage is forced to do something drastic, Echostar ought to be as well."

That is like saying that because the car in front of you hits the pothole in the road you ought to as well. I tend to stay back and not tailgate and avoid potholes as a result. I suspect E* does the same thing in a business sense.

I know I'm most likely not getting my point across clearly. Clearly I would never have made a debate team.

BTW I'm still running a Dishplayer FWIW as well as a 622 and 721.


----------



## STDog

TBoneit said:


> I do know what precedent is. Note what I said "That's like saying that the same decision & penalties reached in the first court case should then be applied to all the following cases" Nothing about similar cases.
> 
> The problem is that the companies are not in the same business. Based only on precedent if Vonage had bad lawyers everyone else should be penalized severely?
> 
> 1 precedent has some weight, not as much as several.


My observations are that once a single case is decided, it's hard to get a different decision.
If a previously decided case is even remotely similar the courts will follow it a precedent, unless a lawyer can convince them it doesn't apply (while the other side is usually trying to convince them it does apply).

The quality of the original council is irrelevant as far as precedent, unless the case is overturned by a higher court based on prior council's mistakes.


----------



## dcb0023

Forgive me if this has already been pointed out (I'm not going to wade through 16 pages of comments, some of which are over a year old), but the funny thing about Tivo is that technically they themselves are in violation of usage law.

Tivo was originally based on the Linux operating system, which states in their usage agreement (the "copyleft") that no products based on or using linux may be produced unless full source code is provided to the end users. This is one reason I avoided Tivo.

On a side note, if my DVR capabilities are removed, I will simply connect my new 722 to my Vista machine, add a dual NTSC reciever and an HD reciever, and continue recording, with the added capability of reletively easily burning recorded programs to DVD.


----------



## harsh

dcb0023 said:


> Forgive me if this has already been pointed out (I'm not going to wade through 16 pages of comments, some of which are over a year old), but the funny thing about Tivo is that technically they themselves are in violation of usage law.


What is flawed may be your understanding of the copyright. What must be provided is code that was derived from existing code. Virgin code is not included.


----------



## FastNOC

It completely depends on the GNU that Linux is licensed under. but my understanding was that ALL of the code would have to be open source. Anything that's used in conjunction with the Linux code had to be made public.

I'm no lawyer and I could easily be wrong, but that was my understanding.


----------



## STDog

FastnoNOC said:


> It completely depends on the GNU that Linux is licensed under. but my understanding was that ALL of the code would have to be open source. Anything that's used in conjunction with the Linux code had to be made public.
> 
> I'm no lawyer and I could easily be wrong, but that was my understanding.


It depends on the exact license used. And that varies with different software. But, closed source code can be developed to run under linux. It get tricky with the low level stuff, but Linus added an exception to the kernel to all closed source modules (aka drivers) to be loaded and use by the kernel. Often a module gets split into 2 parts, the open sourced interface, and the closed drive.

Check out the code DisNetwork released/provides for the 721 as an example.

TiVo my have an issue, but how much the need to supply depends on the technical details of there code. If it's a clean interface, then there wouldn't need to release much that's not generally available. And of course, often someone has to push the issue. I don't think it's ever gone through the courts yet either.
Looks like they have released some code.
http://dynamic.tivo.com/linux/linux.asp

And this is what Linus had to say about TiVo.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/09/torvalds-linux-licensing-cz_dl_0309torvalds2.html


----------



## FastNOC

yeah what you're saying makes a lot of sense.


----------



## jacmyoung

I am surprised no one paid attention to the E* comment about willingness to seek settlement with Tivo regardless of the legal outcome, in the last conference call.

I am hoping code can be rewritten to get around the infringed patent, but I have no confidence in this when E* indicated its desire to settle.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

IN the end DISH already has money in an account making interest so they can pay TIVO for damages if the appeals fail. I think that DISH will also settle with TIVO rather than lose their dvrs . IF DISH lets its dvrs get turned off to spite TIVO, they will be condeming themselves to churn city- ME INCLUDED! The main reason I love DISH is the 622/722 dvrs if they go bye- bye so will I.


----------



## harsh

The part that you're missing is that the litigation is regarding events that happened several years ago. Settling (or expressing a willingness) is something that investors find soothing.

Changing code now doesn't change what happened.


----------



## Lord Vader

jacmyoung said:


> I am surprised no one paid attention to the E* comment about willingness to seek settlement with Tivo regardless of the legal outcome, in the last conference call.
> 
> I am hoping code can be rewritten to get around the infringed patent, but I have no confidence in this when E* indicated its desire to settle.





Mike D-CO5 said:


> IN the end DISH already has money in an account making interest so they can pay TIVO for damages if the appeals fail. I think that DISH will also settle with TIVO rather than lose their dvrs . IF DISH lets its dvrs get turned off to spite TIVO, they will be condeming themselves to churn city- ME INCLUDED! The main reason I love DISH is the 622/722 dvrs if they go bye- bye so will I.


Think _Verizon v. Vonage_, folks! This is what happened to Vonage, who had to pony up a settlement amount of a whopping *$120,000,000*--an amount so large many wonder if Vonage can realistically survive.


----------



## jacmyoung

Lord Vader said:


> Think _Verizon v. Vonage_, folks! This is what happened to Vonage, who had to pony up a settlement amount of a whopping *$120,000,000*--an amount so large many wonder if Vonage can realistically survive.


If E* settles with Tivo, the settlement can not be over the $90M court ordered amount, otherwise why even settle?

The problem is not whether E* can afford to pay the $90M, or something less if they can settle with Tivo, rather that if Tivo refuse to settle, whether E* can in fact recode all their DVR's to avoid infringing the Tivo patent.

E* has always insisted they would win the court battle and the appeal, the fact they are saying they are seeking settlement regardless the appeal outcome, tells me it is not that simple to recode the DVR's to get around the Tivo rights.

It may still be done but the cost of doing so may be high enough that a settlement maybe in E*'s interest at this time. The settlement should result in a lessor amount of payout, but an on-going fee agreement much like with Comcast and D*. But I am no legal, so I could be all wrong.


----------



## Lord Vader

jacmyoung said:


> If E* settles with Tivo, the settlement can not be over the $90M court ordered amount, otherwise why even settle?


Actually, it could still be in excess of $90 million if the settlement is structured that way. Vonage did this in a similar fashion, where their settlement amount was $80 million but if the appeals court sided with Verizon on a couple remaining appellant points, then Vonage would up the amount to $120 million, which they did. They believed they'd win those remaining appeal points; they did not and lost the bet, so to speak, and it cost them an extra $40 million.


----------



## jacmyoung

Lord Vader said:


> Actually, it could still be in excess of $90 million if the settlement is structured that way. Vonage did this in a similar fashion, where their settlement amount was $80 million but if the appeals court sided with Verizon on a couple remaining appellant points, then Vonage would up the amount to $120 million, which they did. They believed they'd win those remaining appeal points; they did not and lost the bet, so to speak, and it cost them an extra $40 million.


Except there are no additional bets in this deal, or is there? If Tivo is convinced it will win and refuses to settle out of the court, E* will have to pay the 90M and shut down their DVRs, unless they can recode the DVRs to get around it.

I think E* can probably do that but it may not worth the cost or interruption to do the recoding, if a desirable settlement can be reached with Tivo, which for Tivo can probably be a good deal too.


----------



## elbodude

Dish should just buy Tivo and get it over with.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

They bought slingbox ,they could sure as hell buy TIVO too. This would make all their problems go away and DISH subs could get some great features that TIVO subs already have .


----------



## James Long

jacmyoung said:


> ... rather that if Tivo refuse to settle, whether E* can in fact recode all their DVR's to avoid infringing the Tivo patent.


It has been long enough and there have been enough software revisions on all models that it is quite possible that a recode has already been done.


----------



## Lord Vader

But I wouldn't doubt the arrogant and egomaniacal Charlie Ergen decided not to do that, instead figuring he could get away with it.


----------



## STDog

Lord Vader said:


> the arrogant and egomaniacal Charlie Ergen


You know those are traits associated with most successful businessmen, especially those that start their own company.

Not sure why you felt the need to slap Charlie like that either. 

The sad part is, Tivo's patents in this case should never have been granted, let alone upheld. The US patent system is now a joke, granting patents on any and every little thing someone bothers to but in an application. Then the holders sit there and wait for someone else to be successful with something similar and file suit.


----------



## Lord Vader

I'm not slapping Charlie. It's just an accurate description of the man. He's a ruthless individual who is also not a people person at all, and he treats his employees like crap. He's also a cheapskate with them.

But he's successful. My kind of guy: soulless, cold, calculating. Filled with the Dark Side he is.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

Lord Vader said:


> I'm not slapping Charlie. It's just an accurate description of the man. He's a ruthless individual who is also not a people person at all, and he treats his employees like crap. He's also a cheapskate with them.
> 
> But he's successful. My kind of guy: soulless, cold, calculating. Filled with the Dark Side he is.


That is actually how the SKYREPORT website kind of described him a couple of days ago in their post of why ATT buyout of DISH is cooling .


----------



## Greg Bimson

STDog said:


> The sad part is, Tivo's patents in this case should never have been granted, let alone upheld. The US patent system is now a joke, granting patents on any and every little thing someone bothers to but in an application. Then the holders sit there and wait for someone else to be successful with something similar and file suit.


So the patent for the telephone should have never been granted, because two people walked into the PTO on the same day with the same technology? I'm afraid you don't understand how the patent system works, and what is considered an innovation.


jacmyoung said:


> If E* settles with Tivo, the settlement can not be over the $90M court ordered amount, otherwise why even settle?
> 
> The problem is not whether E* can afford to pay the $90M, or something less if they can settle with Tivo, rather that if Tivo refuse to settle, whether E* can in fact recode all their DVR's to avoid infringing the Tivo patent.


The settlement can much certainly be over the $90M amount.

Remember that the actual judgment for this case is for Echostar-produced DVR's which violate the TiVo patent between January 2004 and August 2006. The judgment of $74 million was granted for the period between January 2004 and April 2006. An additional $15M was granted between April and August, 2006.

We are now over 15 months from time the case was appealed. Technically, because Echostar has not changed the software to remove the parts of code that violate the TiVo patent, Echostar is still in violation of the patent. When the case is remanded back to the District Court, the Judge will be able to amend judgment to include all products that have continually violated the patent *since the appeals process started*, or since August, 2006. That could be darn near another $90 million at this point. If it drags on another six months, we can probably add another $30 million.

Then, if there is some sort of "settlement", that means Dish Network would not only pay TiVo for prior infringement, but it would also include forward licensing of the TiVo product.

This $90 million judgment can turn into at least a $225 million "settlement" for both dismissing the prior infringement suit and licensing the TiVo software in a few months, if Dish Network loses the appeal.


----------



## STDog

Greg Bimson said:


> So the patent for the telephone should have never been granted, because two people walked into the PTO on the same day with the same technology? I'm afraid you don't understand how the patent system works, and what is considered an innovation.The settlement can much certainly be over the $90M amount.


That is not even close to what I said. The system is screwed up. I understand what is considered innovation, and disagree with that interpretation. Seriously, things like "1-click checkout" or putting a CPU, capture car, and hard drive in a set-top box are not innovation.

My 1st point was equivalent to Bell patenting his idea (which was before the "Watson come here" incident) and then not developing it. Then 5-10 years later someone has a telephone on the market and Bell sues for infringement.



> Technically, because Echostar has not changed the software to remove the parts of *code that violate* the TiVo patent, Echostar is still in violation of the patent.


Right there is my problem with TiVo's patent in this case. Software algorithms should not be patentable,nor should business processes, and neither was for a long time. Copyright covers those (another system that is screwed up today with it's indefinite duration).


----------



## Mike D-CO5

I thought that the main point of the Tivo case was the so called" time warp" software or the ability to start a program from the begining while it is recording. I would love to know if the offending software is still in our DISH dvrs? I would also like to know how DISH software writers will get around this without disabeling our receivers? Without this one code of software the dvr becomes once again a digital vcr, where you can't watch anything from the begining till it is through recording.


----------



## Greg Bimson

STDog said:


> That is not even close to what I said. The system is screwed up. I understand what is considered innovation, and disagree with that interpretation. Seriously, things like "1-click checkout" or putting a CPU, capture car, and hard drive in a set-top box are not innovation.
> 
> My 1st point was equivalent to Bell patenting his idea (which was before the "Watson come here" incident) and then not developing it. Then 5-10 years later someone has a telephone on the market and Bell sues for infringement.


Uh, there was a system of wires throughout the US to transmit dots and dashes. Two people had applications placed at the PTO on the same day to improve the telegraph and allow for voice over wires.

The patent in question is the Time Warp patent, which allows a complex amount of IO data to be read quickly by one CPU, especially while the unit is recording. And this patent was upheld (at least the software side), which means TiVo has a better leg to stand on.

Because without the "innovation", the ability to place what you call, "CPU, capture car, and hard drive in a set-top box" would simply allow the box to record and possibly play-back, but not at the same time. And at least one party thought that was innovative enough to patent the ability to "time warp".

That is a bit unlike the two parties which walked into the patent office the exact same day with darn near the exact same invention. And neither had a working model when they filed.


----------



## mark722

Mike D-CO5 said:


> I thought that the main point of the Tivo case was the so called" time warp" software or the ability to start a program from the begining while it is recording. I would love to know if the offending software is still in our DISH dvrs? I would also like to know how DISH software writers will get around this without disabeling our receivers? Without this one code of software the dvr becomes once again a digital vcr, where you can't watch anything from the begining till it is through recording.


The "function" of starting a program from the begining while it is still recording is still available on my ViP722. Whether the software has been changed that implements this function may not matter. If just this function were disabled on the DVR, I could live without it. Completely disabling all DVR functions would be ridiculous. I also own a Tivo DVR and the only reason I am keeping it is the possibility that the Dish DVR could be disabled.


----------



## Richard King

I would put the ability to start playback of a program while at the same time recording that program in the category of "obvious" and boot the patent for that reason. I can't say that this being disabled would be a deal killer for me or not. I usually find myself watching one program that I had recorded earlier while another is being recorded, although once in a while I will start a show that is 20 minutes into the program and watch it deleting commercials along the way. It would be a shame to see that ability go away.


----------



## BNUMM

I believe everyone can challenge the patent once it has been applied for. If no one challenges it then it is granted ( not exactly that simple ). Why didn't anyone challenge it during the patent process? I don't agree entirely with the process but the purpose is to protect the little guy until he can get financing to produce a product.


----------



## STDog

Greg Bimson said:


> Because without the "innovation", the ability to place what you call, "CPU, capture car, and hard drive in a set-top box" would simply allow the box to record and possibly play-back, but not at the same time. And at least one party thought that was innovative enough to patent the ability to "time warp".


I do that on my PC when making DVDs from VHS-C tapes. I start the capture to an mpeg file with the v4linux recording program. Then I start an mpeg player program, reading that file. I've been doing similar stuff for years with audio files (playing the raw audio back while recording) and other file types.

I do it often enough for text files I have an alias that reads the most recently modifies file so I can check it when I want.
The Unix command tail has the follow option for doing this.
The Unix command less has a similar option too.
I often start processing data files while they are being generated.

Maybe it's new to the M$ wold, but Unix has been doing it since it's beginning.



> That is a bit unlike the two parties which walked into the patent office the exact same day with darn near the exact same invention. And neither had a working model when they filed.


Not quite. Both had demonstrated some of the parts, and others had even gone farther (like Edison) without filing for a patent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_telephone
# 14 February 1876
# 7 March 1876 Bell's patent for the telephone is granted.
# 10 March 1876 "Mr. Watson, come here, I want to see you." episode

Less than one month between filing and prototype.


----------



## STDog

Richard King said:


> It would be a shame to see that ability go away.


It won't "go away", just might not be as easy to access. The whole reason to have a integrated receiver/DVR is the better quality of recording (direct MPG stream) and integration (as anyone who has used a VCR with a satellite/cable setup an attest) not because it offers any "new" functionality.
(Well dual tuners sort of do, since not many PCs can capture/encode 2 analog streams at once)

I can do TiVo functionality with my PC. And even have the receiver signal it (as a VCR).
Poorer quality for sure since the MPEG stream goes back to analog and is recaptured and re-compressed (remember MPEG is a lossy compression).

All using readily available software (I already have) and hardware (I already have) with at most a new set of cables to display the playback on my TV.


----------



## HobbyTalk

I don’t see how this benefits anyone except the person that got the patent. BTW, it isn’t “first to file” for a patent but it is “first to witness” or the first one that gets a “witness” to their idea that would win a patent (known as first or prior art) no matter when they filed. That is trying to be changed to a “first to file” rule like the rest of the world... which in itself has it's own problems.

It hurts everyone else. We all lose because each person could develop that idea in completely different ways. The person winning could even take that patent and shove it in their desk never to be seen again while the other may develop it into a product that would be useful to everyone. We all lose because there would be no competition for an independently developed idea. If an idea is truly developed independently then each should be granted rights.

The next problem are companies (many of created for the sole purpose of patent litigation) scouring long lost patents (many from companies that they purchased and are no longer in business) that they never planned on using or developing, suing those happen upon the same idea a decade later. There should be a use it (or license it) or lose it clause in the patent system.

It has created such things as a patents for an algorithm for assigning bathrooms on a train and Velcro darts!

It is no longer a system used for it’s chartered intent: novel, useful and, not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field. It has created patent trolls such as Forgent, Eolas and SCOs of the world.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Richard King said:


> I would put the ability to start playback of a program while at the same time recording that program in the category of "obvious" and boot the patent for that reason.


So if two people walk into the PTO with the same "idea", it should be tossed? The telephone and many other standards of industry would not have been patented.


STDog said:


> I do that on my PC when making DVDs from VHS-C tapes. I start the capture to an mpeg file with the v4linux recording program. Then I start an mpeg player program, reading that file. I've been doing similar stuff for years with audio files (playing the raw audio back while recording) and other file types.
> 
> I do it often enough for text files I have an alias that reads the most recently modifies file so I can check it when I want.
> The Unix command tail has the follow option for doing this.
> The Unix command less has a similar option too.
> I often start processing data files while they are being generated.
> 
> Maybe it's new to the M$ wold, but Unix has been doing it since it's beginning.


But it isn't running a single program on a platform that it is designed to do so. The software and hardware patents related to the "Time Warp" patent are designed for a specialized box, so that there isn't the need to run more than one processor, or one program. For example, your PC probably costs much more than a TiVo. And since you are running a variant of Unix, I wonder how many processors your PC is running.


STDog said:


> It won't "go away", just might not be as easy to access. The whole reason to have a integrated receiver/DVR is the better quality of recording (direct MPG stream) and integration (as anyone who has used a VCR with a satellite/cable setup an attest) not because it offers any "new" functionality.
> (Well dual tuners sort of do, since not many PCs can capture/encode 2 analog streams at once)


If I am not mistaken, that is the entire point. I recall the patent in question relating to recording one or more data streams with simultaneous playback of another. It is why the suit was filed in the first place.

And trust me. It was innovative. When we first bought the DirecTV TiVo-based DVR, for the first three days we tried to only record one show and watch another live, mainly because my wife was still tied to the need to watch live TV. Didn't take long to see the value in recording all kinds of shows and watching them through the Now Playing list.


Hobby Talk said:


> I don't see how this benefits anyone except the person that got the patent.


Although I see how the complaint is towards patent trolls, TiVo (it appears) doesn't have any of the problems that you have discussed. They did try to license the software and box to Echostar in 1997 or 1998, only to be rebuffed. They did try to come to an agreement with Echostar relating to licensing prior to the court case, but Echostar turned away, waving one of their digits and mentioning that the only way they'll see any money is if they win a court case.

And that is where we are today...


----------



## Mike D-CO5

Echostar should just buy TIVO off of the market -like they did slingbox and their problems would go bye -bye. I would think that TIVO wouldn't care at this point anyway. THey are barely getting by and barely make any profit if at all. A buyout would eliminate the need for a seperate company and DISH could then use the software in their receivers making TIVO gain access to DISH's subs and their receivers. EVERYONE would win. Especially the DISH subs who would gain the ability to share dvr hard drives and Tivo to go features as well. I think this alone would give DISH the better dvr on the market with DISH and TIVO software together. They could advertise these new features like crazy and start adding even more subs.


----------



## Richard King

The interesting thing about a Dish buy out of Tivo is that it would make a nice fit with the spin off of the technology end of the business. Of course, once the spin off occured, the new technology company would sue Dish for theft of patents.


----------



## STDog

Greg Bimson said:


> But it isn't running a single program on a platform that it is designed to do so. The software and hardware patents related to the "Time Warp" patent are designed for a specialized box, so that there isn't the need to run more than one processor, or one program.


Probably not, since everything in it is quite old and out dated. I could put it in a small case, and only a TV interface. The parts (or equivalents) could be assembled for $200-$300.
If I were to make 10,000 then the cost would probably be more like $150 each.
And you know TiVo (and the integrated PVRs) cost more to make than the sell for. 
Give away the razor and sell the blades.
Give away the cell phone with a 1-2 year contract (guarantied revenue).



> And since you are running a variant of Unix, I wonder how many processors your PC is running.If I am not mistaken, that is the entire point. I recall the patent in question relating to recording one or more data streams with simultaneous playback of another.


All of my machines are single processor (single core too). The capture card is in a 1.6GHz Athlon w/2GB, but that's more for the editing/recoding than the capture/playback. Could do the TiVo functions on my 800MHz Athlon with 512MB.

The multiple data streams (If memory serves) means video + stereo audio = 3 in the patent, while most of us would consider that a single, MPEG stream.

My point was more that it's just accessing the stored file while it's being created. That's been done for a long time with other data types, and it's really no different here.

I don't have access to TiVo's code, nor Dish's code, to know the implementation details, but I've combined programs in the past. I could write a GUI wrapper around the two programs I now use, I could add code to one of them to start/stop the other (probably have the play start/stop the capture), fully integrate the two, or completely rewrite both. For my current needs separate programs work fine.


----------



## msmith198025

if this has been posted, sorry

http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/29/patent-office-upholds-tivos-time-warp-patent-echostar-not-so/

could be bad news!


----------



## bobarc

What is different with the Direct Tv dvr's? Why are they not affected?


----------



## msmith198025

bobarc said:


> What is different with the Direct Tv dvr's? Why are they not affected?


I THINK it has to do with how you skip the commercials. Perhaps E* got a little to close with the method they use? D* on the other hand has a 30 second slip mode. I could be WAY off base here. Earl you got any input?


----------



## harsh

bobarc said:


> What is different with the Direct Tv dvr's? Why are they not affected?


Because DIRECTV has a non-litigation agreement with TiVo.


----------



## man_rob

According to CNBC:



> The patent enables the TiVo digital-video recorder to record one program while playing back another.
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/id/22027414


----------



## harsh

msmith198025 said:


> D* on the other hand has a 30 second slip mode.


DIRECTV is in the process of testing skip on some of their more advanced receivers.


----------



## finniganps

They're NOT going to turn off our DVR skip functions. A settlement will be reached at the end of the day.


----------



## Araxen

E* will end up paying alot of money Tivo for past and current infringment. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out now.


----------



## msmith198025

finniganps said:


> They're NOT going to turn off our DVR skip functions. A settlement will be reached at the end of the day.


Probably not, although it IS possible. Just not likely.


----------



## msmith198025

Araxen said:


> E* will end up paying alot of money Tivo for past and current infringment. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out now.


And if this happens to be the case, or they have to retool and release another box or a fix, i can see some price increase coming


----------



## James Long

E* receivers are operated by software ... all they will have to do (if they have not already quietly done so) is send a software update. No retooling needed.


----------



## tomcrown1

I believe that Dish can only use TIVO box if the case holds up---welcome to the new dish AT&T


----------



## Paul Secic

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Echostar should just buy TIVO off of the market -like they did slingbox and their problems would go bye -bye. I would think that TIVO wouldn't care at this point anyway. THey are barely getting by and barely make any profit if at all. A buyout would eliminate the need for a seperate company and DISH could then use the software in their receivers making TIVO gain access to DISH's subs and their receivers. EVERYONE would win. Especially the DISH subs who would gain the ability to share dvr hard drives and Tivo to go features as well. I think this alone would give DISH the better dvr on the market with DISH and TIVO software together. They could advertise these new features like crazy and start adding even more subs.


TIVO just has 1.8 million customers I read today. Charlie could snap these punks up quickly.


----------



## msmith198025

James Long said:


> E* receivers are operated by software ... all they will have to do (if they have not already quietly done so) is send a software update. No retooling needed.


darn it, i wanted to use that word. Thanks alot james


----------



## DIRECTV-11

Sounds identical to the lawsuit that Blackberry settled in 2005 - again after claiming the whole time that they had a work-around. They ended up settling and paying $450 million to settle.

Looks like mirror image to that case as I read it. So, I suppose that some cash will change hands, but that the DVRS will never stop doing their thing.

http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/16/rim-and-ntp-settle-blackberry-patent-lawsuit/


----------



## Lord Vader

And destroy them, too.


----------



## FTA Michael

Got a very short press release in my inbox:



> ENGLEWOOD, Colo., Nov 29, 2007 (PrimeNewswire via COMTEX News Network) -- EchoStar Communications Corporation (Nasdaq: DISH) issued the following statement regarding recent developments in the Tivo Inc. v. EchoStar Communications Corp. lawsuit:
> 
> "We are disappointed in the Patent and Trademark Office's decision. The decision, however, does not impact in any way our pending appeal to the Federal Circuit. We are hopeful that the Federal Circuit will reverse the district court and find that we do not infringe Tivo's patent."


Edit: Oops! Already posted here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=110982


----------



## tsdiesel

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/11/30/were-all-getting-a-tivo.aspx

"The District Court decision under appeal would award TiVo $90 million for damages and force EchoStar to stop selling and servicing any TiVo-like DVR services. Given the legal history of the case and this small but important victory, it's hard to imagine that the Dish Network operator could pull out a win."


----------



## Matt9876

If the Vonage law suite means anything, Dish is gonna end up paying $50mil or more to TiVo corp.:eek2:


----------



## Richard King

Ah, we already know the penalty if the court appeal fails, which it probably will...... approx $97 million plus interest and other charges. Dish has already put the money away to cover the fines, well at least most of them


----------



## Matt9876

No, I'm talking about Dish making a Deal with TiVo to stop this thing.


----------



## Richard King

Why whould Tivo settle for $50mill when they could get $97mill +++?


----------



## Matt9876

Please don't quote me on this but one of the Vonage settlements was for $26mil and a % cut for each subscriber.


Maybe it's too late for Dish to offer out for less but the way things are going it might have paid to do it early on or even try now !


----------



## normang

Tivo's stock is around $7, not sure what the valuation is without looking around, but it seems that Tivo shareholders would go for a few more bucks per share and now Tivo is belongs to E*.. game over....


----------



## Richard King

Market Cap is $735 Million at the moment. If Charlie jumped in with an offer of 1 Billion it would probably go. Of course, $100 million plus of that 1 billion would be financed by not having to pay the fines, sort of an automatic 10% discount. I suspect though that if he did buy it that Tivo would disappear. No cable company would buy the product and I am certain that Directv would break all ties to Tivo if Dish owned them. THAT'S the problem with Dish buying Tivo. They would be buying a worthless (to them) company.


----------



## Greg Bimson

By the way, I realize I could be wrong on this, but the new "news" about the PTO validating the TiVo Time Warp patent means the hardware claims are back. And supposedly, that means any of the Dish Network DVR's which use the "media switch" would be violating the patent.

What specifically hurts Dish Network here is that their entire DVR line is built upon the "media switch". Therefore, simply re-writing software code will not take Dish Network out of compliance.

The best which can be hoped for now is that the Court of Appeals dismisses or invalidates the entire patent (which I don't believe will be done), invalidates parts of the patent (and now that the patent has survived review, will probably not be done), or asks for a retrial based upon some error during the trial process (which is more possible, and happened in the distant networks case). Even if the case is assigned back for a retrial, it is more likely that the newer DVR models will be brought into the mix, and it is quite possible Dish Network would end up with a whopper of a judgment against them. It is also quite possible that Dish Network could somehow work around those points and end up being found not guilty, but I don't foresee that happening.

Heck, it is even possible that the upon the decision of the Court of Appeals, the case heads immediately to the Supreme Court for action. The Supreme Court has been taking many cases regarding patents lately.


----------



## Lord Vader

But SCOTUS has been granting cert less frequently in general, and that doesn't bode well for DISH. I don't foresee SCOTUS granting cert in this case unless the outcome on the appellate level is different from the Verizon v. Vonage case, which has very similar patent claims at issue.


----------



## Richard King

Do you have a link for the new "news", Greg?


----------



## Richard King

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20071122_003480.html
A possible interesting twist in the future... Ain't speculation fun?


----------



## FTA Michael

Richard King said:


> I suspect though that if he did buy it that Tivo would disappear. No cable company would buy the product and I am certain that Directv would break all ties to Tivo if Dish owned them. THAT'S the problem with Dish buying Tivo. They would be buying a worthless (to them) company.


Good point, and maybe _that_ is the reason why E* is talking about splitting into a satellite TV company and an equipment company. Maybe the equipment company could name itself, I dunno, "TiVo"? 

Then "TiVo" and E* could put on a brave face about not sharing info or having sweetheart deals with each other, etc., etc.


----------



## normang

Richard King said:


> Market Cap is $735 Million at the moment. If Charlie jumped in with an offer of 1 Billion it would probably go. Of course, $100 million plus of that 1 billion would be financed by not having to pay the fines, sort of an automatic 10% discount. I suspect though that if he did buy it that Tivo would disappear. No cable company would buy the product and I am certain that Directv would break all ties to Tivo if Dish owned them. THAT'S the problem with Dish buying Tivo. They would be buying a worthless (to them) company.


I guess then the added question would be, lets say Tivo wins, Dish then has to agree to a spendy licensing agreement for years, per receiver, then does that 8-900 million still seem expensive?


----------



## Greg Bimson

Richard, I ripped this from the sister site, TiVoCommunity.com:


> TiVo Statement on the United States Patent and Trademark Office Decision
> Thursday November 29, 12:55 pm ET
> 
> ALVISO, Calif., Nov. 29 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- TiVo Inc. (Nasdaq: TIVO - News), the creator of and leader in television products and services for digital video recorders (DVR), offered the following statement today on the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) decision with respect to the reexamination of TiVo's Multimedia Timewarping System patent, U.S. patent number 6,233,389 (the "Time Warp Patent"):
> 
> "We are extremely pleased that the *PTO has now found all claims of the Time Warp Patent to be valid* after conducting a reexamination of the patent requested by EchoStar. This decision by the PTO is final and not appealable by EchoStar. Today's decision by the PTO brings us another step closer to ending EchoStar's continued infringement and we are hopeful that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will uphold the district court judgment of patent infringement and reinstate the injunction."


----------

