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

TiVo vs EchoStar: Echostar found to be in Contempt

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by Curtis52, Jun 2, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jun 30, 2009 #441 of 2012
    david_jr

    david_jr Godfather

    555
    8
    Dec 10, 2006
    Well right now Echostar seems to be thier biggest source of income, albeit, not from agreements, but from judgements. If the appeal goes Tivo's way they should be set for a while. They really had no other significant customer base anyway due to their equipment and service being overpriced for the mass market. With agreements with D* and forced agreements with E* I think they will be ok. Their future (most likely already planned) lawsuits against cablecos may be in significant jeopardy now.
     
  2. Jun 30, 2009 #442 of 2012
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Sure. Not until the Court of Appeals remands the case back to Judge Folsom. The EchoStar v. TiVo case is stayed and will be stayed indefinitely, as there is no sense in proceeding when this case was simply filed to subvert the actions regarding the motion for contempt in Judge Folsom's court.

    This Cablevision "centralized DVR" thing will be a while, and it could be quite expensive for Cablevision to implement. The devil is in the details.
     
  3. Jun 30, 2009 #443 of 2012
    CuriousMark

    CuriousMark Icon

    505
    0
    May 21, 2008
    They can do it with or without TiVo providing the user facing interface and the office facing advertising and audience measurement tools TiVo can provide.

    So depending on how they position their offering, it could even be a TiVo offering if they choose to contract with TiVo to provide some of the necessary software. As such, I see it as a business opportunity for TiVo to try to sell their services to the MSOs.

    Perhaps TiVo could leverage that fear into a better bargaining position when they go to the MSO to sell their wares, but even if not, TiVo needs these customers and will need to offer a price the MSOs are willing to consider.


    TiVo has Comcast and Cox, they probably won't loose them even if they both implement a network DVR. I expect such a DVR would just be TiVo branded and help Comcast market it. I expect TiVo would want Standalone DVRs available from the MSOs as a luxury option for those willing to pay extra.

    Yes, too many are spinning this as being really bad for TiVo. It might be, or it might just be a new opportunity. In any event, TiVo will always have to live in a world of competition.
     
  4. Jun 30, 2009 #444 of 2012
    Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,503
    98
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    Just curious as to why you think that. Is there any "new" issue that the CAFC did not cover the last time. After all, all he really did was enforce the injunction that they left alone the last time the case was there.

    They may have many years of past infringement to collect on. Plus as Greg noted, deploying a central DVR on a large scale may not be as easy as planned. Also, Cablevision has a relatively small footprint as compared to a Comcast or TW so while it may work for CV and its densely populated service areas, it may not work for others.
     
  5. Jun 30, 2009 #445 of 2012
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    Well, a procedural error is justification for an appeal. There was a jury trial on the infringement issue the first time so the subject of whether there should have been a jury trial never came up at the first appeal.

    Dish:
     
  6. Jun 30, 2009 #446 of 2012
    HobbyTalk

    HobbyTalk Hall Of Fame

    1,685
    0
    Jul 14, 2007
    I read a piece a couple of years ago about the huge savings a networked dvr would have over stand alone dvr's. Not only in the cost of a basically dumb box over the cost of a high priced DVR, but the maintenance, periodic upgrades and saved service calls. Much of the basic software and infrastructure is already in place since most MSO's currently have PPV.

    If I remember correctly it was figured that the combined savings and extra income (want more storage? Only $1 per 5 Gig extra a month, thank you very much) could easily equal $400 a year. Wish I knew where I read that article.
     
  7. Jun 30, 2009 #447 of 2012
    CuriousMark

    CuriousMark Icon

    505
    0
    May 21, 2008
    Doesn't a densely populated service area work against the network DVR? If lots and lots of people on a given node want to watch something pre-recorded during prime time, the node could run out of bandwidth to service them all. Maybe CV has lots and lots of small nodes and that works in their favor. Whatever it is, how well it works is definitely going to be sensitive to the architecture of the cable plant.
     
  8. Jun 30, 2009 #448 of 2012
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    Bingo :)

    In some areas, cable companies at least have fibre to the distribution nodes, so can run higher bandwidth to the node and do some video switching locally.

    Some will be running IP, perhaps.

    And I'd like to compare picture quality... :)

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
  9. Jun 30, 2009 #449 of 2012
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Well, precisely!

    Technically, the only real procedural issue is how Judge Folsom found that the modifications made to the eight models of DVR still allow those DVR's to infringe AND do so in a merely colorably different way.

    Just because upon appeal DISH/SATS needs to paint the picture that TiVo's arguments were somehow different at trial than during the bench hearing doesn't mean there were any differences. Even Judge Folsom's memorandum points to the fact that the arguments during the trial were taken into consideration and that there were only colorable differences with respect to the patent claims, another evaluation that DISH/SATS mentions wasn't performed.

    It is my belief the Court of Appeals will want to find a way to set a precedent. Upholding both a finding of contempt for violations of an injunction on its face and violations of an injunction against ongoing infringement would be a great way for the Court of Appeals once and for all rule and create case law for any field-modifiable devices which have been found to infringe.
     
  10. Jun 30, 2009 #450 of 2012
    Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,503
    98
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    I get that part, but didn't he also rule that DISH never followed the original injunction, the one the CAGC left alone, and he was going to enforce that and the non-colorably difference was just "extra"?


    With field-modifiable devices becoming more common, this is probably a good thing for the court to address. However, it just keeps this going for another couple of years.
     
  11. Jun 30, 2009 #451 of 2012
    Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,503
    98
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    If they can easily deploy Switched Digital Video, then a networked DVR would just be an extention of that, especially if they have fiber to the node.

    My thoughts on the density are related to the distance from each customer, to the node. In someplace like NYC or LI, that distance would be much shorter that someplace like Orlando FL where the population is spread out. In NYC a customer may only be a mile from the node, where in Orlando, they may be 15 miles from the node. Talk about a non-responsive DVR.
     
  12. Jun 30, 2009 #452 of 2012
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    That's another thing that wasn't covered at the first appeal: the question of whether the injunction allowed a work around.
     
  13. Jun 30, 2009 #453 of 2012
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    It was covered.

    A large number of devices placed with an end user were found to infringe, and the order was to disable all but 192,708 of them. DISH/SATS could have modified the DVR functionality 300,000 times, but once the injunction became active, the last action would be to follow the order, i.e., disable them.

    If DISH/SATS had wanted relief from the disable order, they should have asked for it. Until they received relief, they should have complied with the order: disable all but 192,708 DVR's found infringing with end users as of September, 2006.

    Any other action or inaction than the one ordered would be simply contempt of the court's order.
     
  14. Jul 1, 2009 #454 of 2012
    CuriousMark

    CuriousMark Icon

    505
    0
    May 21, 2008
    Yes, but even SDV runs out of bandwidth if it is heavily used. It relies on statistics to a certain degree, the assumption that not everyone wants to use it at the same time.

    You are right that lower latency will help a lot. For transport controls, I think it is the distance to the head end that counts not the node, but your point is well taken. The processing speed of the equipment is still likely to have more effect on the responsiveness than distance. When the headend is only 10s of miles away, distance delays are nearly nothing.
     
  15. Jul 1, 2009 #455 of 2012
    tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    2,374
    57
    Apr 28, 2005
    East...
    Just received the following from Dish:

    DISH Network and EchoStar Statement Regarding Tivo





    ENGLEWOOD, Colo., July 1, 2009 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- DISH Network Corporation (Nasdaq: DISH) and EchoStar Corporation (Nasdaq: SATS) issued the following statement regarding today's ruling in EchoStar Communications Corporation vs. Tivo:

    We are pleased that the Federal Circuit has blocked the district court's injunction pending our appeal. The Federal Circuit found that EchoStar "met its burden of demonstrating the requisites for a stay," including, at a minimum, that we have a substantial case on the merits. As a result of the stay, our customers can continue using their DISH DVRs.
     
  16. Jul 1, 2009 #456 of 2012
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,051
    317
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Hmmm. Combined with this from Barron's earlier this week, I'd expect a drop in TiVo shares tomorrow:
    As I said before:
     
  17. Jul 1, 2009 #457 of 2012
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    I guess the CAFC decided they hadn't previously ruled on whether the disable order covered non-infringing DVRs after all. They are going to slap Folsom hard with a copy of the KSM decision. If he hadn't thumbed his nose at the CAFC with that gratuitous statement they might have denied the stay.
     
  18. Jul 1, 2009 #458 of 2012
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,091
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    Huh? The fact that the stay has been extended doesn't mean Judge Folsom is being slapped at all. You might want to understand what the role of an appeals court is and an extension of a stay. Also note that the court sped up a hearing on the full issue to it's November calendar as opposed to 2010. This means they intend to resolve this controversy in a more quickly than the normal process. That could mean a lot of things, but I hardly believe that means Judge Folsom is being slapped.

    My gut is that they want to see if the recent Supreme Court decision in the Cablevision case offers them any guidance on this issue, although it probably doesn't. This will give the panel a chance to read it. But the move up to the November calendar means they want to put an end to all of this, which is good.
     
  19. Jul 1, 2009 #459 of 2012
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    No one said it did. It's a matter of tense.
     
  20. Jul 2, 2009 #460 of 2012
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    It isn't as if DISH/SATS used every single trick in the book in their brief to the Court of Appeals. There are arguments there that were never brought up to Judge Folsom; there are misrepresentations about what transpired once the motion was filed and history was revised quite a few times in two briefs.

    This will be interesting.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page