1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

TiVo vs. Dish: TiVo won appeal

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by Curtis52, Mar 4, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mar 12, 2010 #361 of 1017
    dfd

    dfd Legend

    168
    0
    Aug 29, 2008
    All other court business should be pushed aside so that a confirmed infringer gets their next crack at it?
     
  2. Mar 12, 2010 #362 of 1017
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    There is no requirement to comply with an injunction that is stayed. That's the quintessential purpose of a stay, to signal that the injunction has no requirements in effect in need of compliance.
     
  3. Mar 12, 2010 #363 of 1017
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    All true, but irrelevant to the damages. Damages still apply during a stay when you lose. And under Amado v Microsoft, the contempt damages are a clear consideration for stay damages.

    $2.25 is the most likely amount they pay for the stay period when you combine Amado with Folsom's last stay damage calculation.

    However, I wouldn't be surprised to see TiVo ask for something higher such as $3/box. You have to base damages on E* losing on all grounds, contempt being involved, and no workaround existing until just recently.

    In other words, the "bargaining position" is almost totally in TiVo's favor.
     
  4. Mar 12, 2010 #364 of 1017
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    I know.
     
  5. Mar 12, 2010 #365 of 1017
    Maverickjoe

    Maverickjoe Mentor

    44
    0
    Jan 10, 2010
    Do you think Charlie realizes that every day this goes on without a settlement it is costing Dish $543,000 per day! Which is almost exactly 1 cent per share profit for TiVo every 2 days!:)

    For 9 months now, Charlie's genius infringing-design-around plan has added $146.8M in additional damages and sanctions (yes, sanctions continue to accrue from the June, 2009 Amended Injunction). That equals $1.36 cents per share for TiVo! :D

    If someone doesn't tackle him soon, this "strategy" will produce $195.7M per year to TiVo's bottom line, or $1.81 per share. The funniest thing is that the $195.7M per year is costing Dish shareholders a whopping 44 cents per share!
     
  6. Mar 12, 2010 #366 of 1017
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    I think Charlie realizes that despite that payment that will be made to TiVo, they are still making a lot more profit that $543,000 per day by continuing to infringe on the patent as much as possible.
     
  7. Mar 12, 2010 #367 of 1017
    SaltiDawg

    SaltiDawg Active Member

    2,384
    0
    Aug 30, 2004
    Let's see. Mr. Ergen owns more Echostar Stock then all the rest of us combined. He probably understands fully the consequences of the actions with which you disagree. lol
     
  8. Mar 12, 2010 #368 of 1017
    Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,500
    98
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    Why? They have ignored the courts order to shut down the infringing DVR's, so why should they get preferential treatment? Now if they followed the order and shut them off, then maybe give them a chance to get them back on, but not as long as they are in contempt.
     
  9. Mar 12, 2010 #369 of 1017
    dfd

    dfd Legend

    168
    0
    Aug 29, 2008
    100% agree. That message was in response to another message.
     
  10. Mar 12, 2010 #370 of 1017
    Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,719
    41
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    DISH DVRs will never have to be disabled.

    In that regard, Charlie has nothing to worry about.
     
  11. Mar 12, 2010 #371 of 1017
    Curtis0620

    Curtis0620 Hall Of Fame

    1,491
    24
    Apr 22, 2002
    Not if they don't get a licensing deal with TiVo. I don't think TiVo is all that happy with DISH right now.
     
  12. Mar 12, 2010 #372 of 1017
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Yes, but now you are touching on the problem...
    So when discussing a corporations' earnings per share numbers, if there are one-time charges, they are left out of the equation to promote "true" EPS. One-time charges are not seen as an ongoing expense. So none of these penalties issued by the court show in the "true" EPS numbers. Many people look only at the EPS without the one-time charges.

    First, if a licensing agreement were struck for the amounts listed here, that money would be an ongoing expense to DISH/SATS and would therefore end up reflected in the "true" EPS number. TiVo would have added their $1.81 per share money, and that money would have come directly out of DISH/SATS EPS.

    Second, because those numbers are only for the infringing receivers, a licensing agreement would cover many more DVR's and therefore be much higher than the numbers listed.

    Now you understand why an agreement hasn't been struck. Even with the fines, it still promotes a better EPS to DISH/SATS than striking a licensing agreement.
     
  13. Mar 12, 2010 #373 of 1017
    Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,719
    41
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    Happy or not, DISH's DVRs will not be disabled.
     
  14. Mar 12, 2010 #374 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    I don't think this is the issue but it is an interesting thought, maybe TiVo should have asked for a compulsory license deal from Judge Folsom, instead of an injunction back then?
     
  15. Mar 12, 2010 #375 of 1017
    Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,500
    98
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    Yep. Missed the ? :blush:
     
  16. Mar 12, 2010 #376 of 1017
    Doug Higley

    Doug Higley Legend

    123
    0
    Dec 31, 2005
    Sorry for the ignorance BUT did I see a TEST the other night?

    About TWO something in the morning opperations of the DVR were BLOCKED and where the MUTE icon usually appears there was a RED Circle with a line through it if you tried to rewind or use other DVR functions. It was ok again the next morning when I woke up.
     
  17. Mar 13, 2010 #377 of 1017
    Jhon69

    Jhon69 Hall Of Fame

    4,714
    5
    Mar 27, 2006
    Central San...

    Between 2 AM and 3AM is when Dish connects to the DVRs and if needed does software updates or other stuff.
     
  18. Mar 13, 2010 #378 of 1017
  19. Mar 13, 2010 #379 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    John, you must be familiar with those old DVRs? I recall the earlier DVRs all have some external connections such as a serial port or at least a phone jack. What the sizes of the hard drives do those DVRs generally use?

    We know the injunction calls for disabling the DVR functionalities (i.e. disable all storage and playback from the hard drives) of the Infringing Proudcts...

    We know E* knows how to do DVR trickplays with external hard drives, they have done so for some of their non-DVR boxes for years. How much does it cost to get a 50GB drive these days, put it in a casing, ship it to the user, ask him to plug it in, then wait for a download?

    Would it not meet the requirement of "disable all storage and playback from the hard drive of the Infringing Product"? What is left is to also demonstrate that the DVRs no longer infringe, case closed.

    Not that I have conceded anything and believe the above is necessary, my point is, the bottom line in this case has always been, while TiVo's particular DVR technology is a good one, it is still a 13-year-old one. It is inconceivable that in today's world, new technology cannot easily replace the old. Ultimately it is a question of how you compete in the market, relying on old technology, or relying on continued innovation?
     
  20. Mar 13, 2010 #380 of 1017
    dfd

    dfd Legend

    168
    0
    Aug 29, 2008
    And this would be more than colorably different how?

    How much money would E* be saving by this plan compared to shipping out new/refurbished DVRs that are not included in the current list of Infringing Devices? ?Remember that they'll need to develop, test, and push new s/w as well as develop and produce the new hardware.

    If this approach doesn't pass the colorably different test either I would bet the rate for infringing continues to escalate.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page