With regard to the TiVo v. Dish case, I was more correct than most people including Greg.
I was the one predicted a settlement when almost everyone said there would be no end.
I was the one pointed out the en banc panel actually invalidated the injunction, when everyone said no, they did not say that, but a few days later when they sent the case back to Judge Folsom, they did not reinstate the injunction.
Had the original en banc panel remained the same, Dish would have won, but in the final vote, they added two newly installed judges, who did not participate in the hearing, and who clearly had reason to sympathize with their own fellow Judge Folsom, voted to tip the case in TiVo's favor.
The dissenting judges were all experienced patent judges, they never backed off from their initial dissent. To the contrary, the two judges (out of three) who were against Dish, had to change their stance on the most important issue in order to hand a split decision.
In the end, Dish only had to pay TiVo a reasonable fee to continue to use TiVo's DVR technology for the next 7 years, they did not have to pay any past fees. Not because TiVo was stupid, but because TiVo knew if Dish continued to appeal, they would not be so lucky next time.
Why after the settlement, Dish's stock went up, TiVo's stock went down, and stayed low.
The reason I am pointing out all this is not trying to defend myself, but to demonstrate that, the analysts are not always right. You can claim victory when you in effect have lost.
TiVo lost that case, why else it's value had gone down after the case was over?
I am certainly not speculating on this case now, because I have not read any of the court papers. On the other hand, from the past case, I am reluctant to believe what the analysts are saying. In the TiVo case, they have proven that their stock performance evaluations were wrong, despite the fact they could claim they were right.
I was the one predicted a settlement when almost everyone said there would be no end.
I was the one pointed out the en banc panel actually invalidated the injunction, when everyone said no, they did not say that, but a few days later when they sent the case back to Judge Folsom, they did not reinstate the injunction.
Had the original en banc panel remained the same, Dish would have won, but in the final vote, they added two newly installed judges, who did not participate in the hearing, and who clearly had reason to sympathize with their own fellow Judge Folsom, voted to tip the case in TiVo's favor.
The dissenting judges were all experienced patent judges, they never backed off from their initial dissent. To the contrary, the two judges (out of three) who were against Dish, had to change their stance on the most important issue in order to hand a split decision.
In the end, Dish only had to pay TiVo a reasonable fee to continue to use TiVo's DVR technology for the next 7 years, they did not have to pay any past fees. Not because TiVo was stupid, but because TiVo knew if Dish continued to appeal, they would not be so lucky next time.
Why after the settlement, Dish's stock went up, TiVo's stock went down, and stayed low.
The reason I am pointing out all this is not trying to defend myself, but to demonstrate that, the analysts are not always right. You can claim victory when you in effect have lost.
TiVo lost that case, why else it's value had gone down after the case was over?
I am certainly not speculating on this case now, because I have not read any of the court papers. On the other hand, from the past case, I am reluctant to believe what the analysts are saying. In the TiVo case, they have proven that their stock performance evaluations were wrong, despite the fact they could claim they were right.
Last edited:
