Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by geoff, Oct 6, 2008.
Have you looked at the market as a whole lately? It's not just Dish stock.
Agreed, but DISH has been in a death spiral for a long time now.
Gee you mean because on Valentine's Day SATS closed at $40.16 and today $22.27, a 45% loss, you think its a death spiral?
By that same logic, what do you think of T (AT&T) which closed at $41.09 on December 28 and is now at $24.73, a 40% loss? Of course on December 28 the Dow was at 13,359.61 and is now at 9,258.10, a 31% loss. So maybe the whole market is in a death spiral. My stock portfolio looks like it is.:icon_cry:
We have differing opinions on what a jerk is.
My argument is a contempt hearing is not the time to argue the original charge. That ship has sailed. If Charlie wanted to argue the terms of the injunction, he had plenty of time to do it before it got to a contempt hearing.
Keeping with the drivers license analogy, lets say say a judge finds me guilty of drunk driving and gives me 30 days to turn in my license. 31 days later when I don't turn my license in the judge tells me that I have 5 more days to turn it in or I'm going to jail. 6 days later I appeal on the grounds and ask for a stay because I wasn't driving drunk, I was driving under the influence of prescription medicine. What exactly do you think the Appellate Court is going to tell me?
I feel your pain. My 401K is now a 201K.
Maybe you should buy some Tivo. Rumor has it they are going to sign a deal with another Sat provider soon.
Yet DISH/SATS didn't argue that the injunction was in error.
Become unstubborn and settle, and no one's DVR functionality will be disabled.
Believing that DISH/SATS will prevail in the end will be an expensive proposition if DVR functionality is disabled. But stubborness may just allow that to happen...
Blaming the courts is far from the problem here.
Almost missed that one. The problem is the analogy does not really apply to the patent case, because for the analogy to work one must assume a few conditions here, for one, the car goes to 100 MPH once it exceeds 45 MPH so it would always be a speeding car on the freeway, and there is also a rule that once you paid the fine, and have your driving record shown the point, you will not be able to be found in contempt, unless you are cited a speeding ticket again next time.
Now at the meantime, after the judge had fined the driver, added a point on his driving record, he might also order the driver to turn in the car because the car was built that it would cause the driver to speed next time on the freeway no matter what, in another word it was an illegal car.
Now instead of turning in the car, the driver had it modified to make it a legal car, and shows the judge the proof he now can drive the car at 65 MPH on the freeway.
The question the judge must answer is, should I found the driver in contempt of my order for not turning in the car, or did the driver make a good faith effort to demonstrate that he will not speed again? And not only that, when he tries to make such decision, he also knows that in the past cases, as long as the cars were modified to be legal, the drivers had always avoided a contempt
I know it is a very odd situation, but the truth is in a patent infringement case, it is exactly what the scenario is, if you seriously want to make the analogy comparable.
Very well, and I can almost assure you Charlie will not take that deal. Why? Because once there is no contempt, he would only have to pay up to between 10/06 and 07/07 during which the new software replaced the old, not to pay up to date, and will not have to pay the $1.25 from now on ever. I know you want to ask, but what if there is a contempt? Well as I said if Charlie knows his design around is as good as he says it is, he should be confident there will not be a "what if"
And more importantly why he will not take the deal is because even if it turns out that he is in contempt, your deal will be the deal anyway, because the court will simply ask him to disable the DVRs and to pay damages to date. And if he and Rogers will settle at that point the rate will be $1.25 anyway because there is also law to prohibit unfair rate charging. Yes a reasonable premium but not much more to be unreasonable, once E* has already paid the damages to TiVo.
Put it this way, your deal is not much of a deal at all
And I am still waiting for Greg to offer his deal for Charlie
I got my retirement account statement today ... the value is down 25% from what it was January 1st (and it would be down 34% if I had not funded it this year).
No, it isn't. You have added too many false complications.
When you have already won one case and have more applicable case law than your adversary to back up a contempt hearing, why bother playing the game?
This is detente until brinksmanship. No offer by either party will be good enough, until one party is thoroughly thrashed by a ruling.
Of course I can say the same, your analogy left out too many things relevant to this case.
What have you won so far? Please don't tell me that SC decision was your win, no one, not even E* expected anything different. I am almost sure you thought TiVo could have gotten the treble damages and attorney fees back then, did you win that one? You predicted sparks would fly around 5/30, how did that go so far? You said design around would not be mentioned on 9/4 because it was not on the judge's agenda, how did that go so far? You almost seemed to suggest that the judge had already find E* in contempt, if so please pinch yourself.
And it was precisely you who repeatedly suggested E* to settle NOW, so it is reasonable to ask you what kind of settlement do you have in mind, if you have no clue what a reasonable settlement may be then why suggest it in the first place? But wait, now you seem to say no settlement is good enough for either party, please make up your mind if anyone should settle now or not.
It is you who is refusing to play the game. You are not serious in playing the game when you kept telling E* they need to settle now yet refuse to say what is in it for E* to settle. Oh BTW, please save that one: if E* does not settle now they would end up paying TiVo one billion dollars, not a serious threat you know it. Why? If so you would not have suggested E* to settle, what kind of TiVo's supporter are you to suggest E* to settle now so TiVo will not have the chance to make that $1 billion?
I was expecting you to post this
First off, I said if there should be a license agreement, TiVo cannot unreasonably over-charge, there are laws to prohibit such practice.
Now let's review the proposition that TiVo will refuse to license to E*, and force E* to turn off all DVRs. That is certainly their right, but for what? People will just go to D*, and make D* a lot of money but none for TiVo, and TiVo cannot even sue D* remember? They have their agreement not to sue each other, and that agreement had just been extended. The problem of course is D* subs are dropping DirecTivos like flies, and upgrading to D*'s own MPEG4 DVRs.
How about cable you say? Do you really want to go there? How many of the E* DVR subs will like to go back to cable?
Oh yeah, they will just go out and spend $200/each to buy a few TiVo standalone DVRs and hook them up and pay $12/month fee to watch a few OTA channels. Of course TiVo would want you to believe this is what's going to happen, but I doubt even you believe TiVo's such crap.
Let's face it, the only good thing for TiVo is to have E* sign a license agrement with them. The best thing to happen is to keep E*'s DVRs going so TiVo can collect the $1.25 per DVR fee from them. Threatening Charlie that TiVo will not sign an agreement with him will not work, TiVo knows it, that is why TiVo continues to tell the world they will work with anyone to reach resonable deals for using their technology.
The only problem here is so far Charlie has refused to an agreement. Whether he will change his mind is anyone's guess, what I am saying is he might, but if so, it is likely going to be after the next ruling, not now.
Oooh. Now there is a reverse psychology degree. Or maybe just plain psycho.
I invite everyone else to reread the thousands of posts on here:
1) Never mentioned anything about the trebled damages, but since it appears DISH/SATS obtained an opinion from outside counsel, that was an attempt to avoid willful infringement, and therefore not exceptional to award trebled damages.
2) I said the design around would not be EVAULATED on 9/4. It is immaterial to the proceeding.
3) I never said that DISH/SATS should settle NOW, but did state the longer this is drawn out, the worse it is in terms of both damages and a settlement.
4) Do you have to pick a fight with everyone?
And I will say this, the reason everyone on TiVo's side, including those TiVo analysts, are suggesting E* to settle now, is because deep down they are afraid the judge may find E* not in contempt, as the delay of the decision continues.
Because if they are confident that E* will be in contempt, there is no good reason to suggest E* to settle now. It will only serve TiVo better if they wait for that contempt ruling they so sure they will get, because with that ruling will come the real money.
The only reason I can see to suggest E* to settle now is that they don't want to see a no contempt ruling, because if so it would not be pretty for TiVo at all.
Good then now you are on the record that you did not say E* should settle now, but you only said if E* did not settle E* would regret it. Are you seriously thinking you can explain it away this way so easily
I am not picking a fight with everyone, just you
History has shown you pick a fight with yourself ... but once again, it isn't about you ... it is about Tivo vs Echostar.
Looks like it's time to close another thread, since it's gone circular again.
My bad, I honestly did not think I was talking to myself, I thought I was talking to you, Greg and Curtis52, and occasionally a few others.