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 11, 2010 #321 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    I don't think anyone has ever questioned that, so I don't know mentioning it will help you much.

    It explains why TiVo has yet touched on the new DVRs, because of the risk of been forced into a new jury trial to resolve it.

    TiVo will and has been applying max pain, if you think TiVo is leaving some leverages behind for later, I have a bridge to sell you. But sometimes other measures can have higher risk.
     
  2. Mar 11, 2010 #322 of 1017
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    jac, you're missing the point.

    Unless there is some hail mary at the end, the devices will have to be disabled. Perhaps that is why we haven't seen the en banc request; DISH/SATS may be trying to delay until the last possible moment their requests, simply to stretch out the amount of time it takes to get the case back to Judge Folsom and the injunction to go in effect.

    There is no need for TiVo to go after the ViP series when at some point DISH/SATS will have to come to TiVo to stop the disable clause...
     
  3. Mar 11, 2010 #323 of 1017
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,318
    38
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    Source for this -?

    Quote:
    "If we are unsuccessful in overturning the District Court's ruling on Tivo's motion for contempt, we are not successful in developing and deploying potential new alternative technology and we are unable to reach a license agreement with Tivo on reasonable terms, we would be required to eliminate DVR functionality in all but approximately 192,000 digital set-top boxes in the field and cease distribution of digital set-top boxes with DVR functionality."
     
  4. Mar 11, 2010 #324 of 1017
    They'reBaaaack

    They'reBaaaack New Member

    2
    0
    Aug 8, 2009
    Check some of Echostars recent SEC filings. Charlie et al expect you to.
     
  5. Mar 11, 2010 #325 of 1017
    Maverickjoe

    Maverickjoe Mentor

    44
    0
    Jan 10, 2010
    It's from Dish most recent 3/1/2010 10-K SEC filing. For Gods sake if you just google "eliminate DVR functionality" you will find links to several Dish SEC filings that use that exact expression. Does anyone who uses Dish have a GED?:D
     
  6. Mar 11, 2010 #326 of 1017
    Michael P

    Michael P Hall Of Fame

    3,114
    22
    Oct 27, 2004
    I wonder who (and/or what models) are included in the 192,000 STB's?
     
  7. Mar 11, 2010 #327 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    If so then TiVo is risking it too and stupid. I don’t know how many of those old DVRs are still around, what we know is E* has started installing those all-MPEG4 DVRs some time ago, not to mention that the VIP DVRs have gone through several generations already. Waiting for the final resolution on just those 8 named old DVRs, which can take another 6 months or a year?

    Going after the newer DVRs will be a whole new ball game though, not only because the software, but the hardware are different, as I have quoted Judge Folsom saying earlier, if both software and hardware are different, the issue of infringement will be more complex, not to mention they are not subject to the disabling order, therefore very likely things will have to be sorted out by a jury again. TiVo cannot let that happen for two very simple reasons, E* has already proven they do not infringe on the hardware claims, and the software claims are under rejection by the PTO for now. A new trial will have to take all these into consideration.
     
  8. Mar 11, 2010 #328 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    E* has always put out the worst case numbers so Charlie cannot be liable if the investors later complain, they should have known for a long time what they are getting into when they invest in E* and DISH.
     
  9. Mar 11, 2010 #329 of 1017
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    It's just a number. Dish was free to choose individual boxes to leave active.
     
  10. Mar 11, 2010 #330 of 1017
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,318
    38
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    Mostly the 721, 921, 941,942 receivers - receivers that Dish decided were not worth trying to update. Most of these have long since been retired.
     
  11. Mar 11, 2010 #331 of 1017
    Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,741
    42
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    DISH's DVRs will never end up being disabled.

    Book it.
     
  12. Mar 11, 2010 #332 of 1017
    deaincaelo

    deaincaelo AllStar

    70
    0
    Feb 5, 2009
    I'm disappointed by this. The majority opinion ignored my biggest concern- the apparent contradiction between the ideas that tivo did not invent the DVR and that you can't have a DVR without (infringing on) TIVO ('s patent.)

    In fact, they seem to hold the opinion that you cant record tv without TIVO. ("TiVo’s patent covers various features essential to the working of a DVR.") Maybe I'm wrong about that. It's disappointing in any case.
     
  13. Mar 11, 2010 #333 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Very simply put, if Judge Folsom approves the new design for implementation, the DVRs will not be disabled. The timing is not even relevant because Judge Folsom will almost certainly have started the review process before the stay is lifted, unless of course if TiVo actually succeeds in having the stay lifted before Judge Folsom begins the review.

    If the stay is lifted before Judge Folsom completes his review and approval but after he starts the review, as long as he has already started the review, the process will have to be concluded, so the eventual approval will keep the DVR functions on. He may come back and sanction E* for the continued use of the DVR functions after the lift of the stay, and before his approval and implementation, but the DVR functions will not be disabled.

    Of course if he disapproves the new design, it will be a different story. BTW, the standard of approval will be based on the issue of infringement and infringement only. If he decides the new design no longer infringes, he will have to approve it for implementation.

    This is why TiVo is trying to get the stay lifted ASAP, hopefully before Judge Folsom even has the chance to begin the review of the new design.
     
  14. Mar 11, 2010 #334 of 1017
    Maverickjoe

    Maverickjoe Mentor

    44
    0
    Jan 10, 2010
    Here is a guarantee, as sure as the sun comes tomorrow. As long as Dish is in Contempt of Court, Folsom will not even consider reviewing any more of their b/s excuses, "design-arounds", "next-generation-DVR-software", etc. There is no Court in this country that will give 1 iota to any party that is adjudged and affirmed on appeal to be in contempt. That you people don't get this is becoming clearer every day. You have drank Charlie's kool-aid and you're all going to...:eek2:

    Take it to the bank.:D
     
  15. Mar 11, 2010 #335 of 1017
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,318
    38
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    If his Honor DOESN"T do that review - I'd bet it will be hauled up to the Appeals Court again - contempt or not...
     
  16. Mar 11, 2010 #336 of 1017
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    That is one of the most intelligent posts ever. I completely agree with your perspective.
     
  17. Mar 11, 2010 #337 of 1017
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    The DVR's in the field will still need licensing or they will be in contempt at a much higher sanction. And that's a fact. Charlie can appeal all he wants but he is out of stays.
     
  18. Mar 11, 2010 #338 of 1017
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    How long will the review and the inevitable appeals take? Two years?
     
  19. Mar 11, 2010 #339 of 1017
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    Dish is not currently in contempt of court.
     
  20. Mar 11, 2010 #340 of 1017
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    How so?

    The stay of the injunction only delays the enforcement of the injunction. Until they comply with the injunction or a court overturns Folsom, Dish is in Contempt.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page