DVR functions that could be disabled

[MikeD-C05]

Charlie should be able to afford to give Tivo $1 from the $6 he collects from Dish DVR users.

Especially since Charlie charges:$ 5.98 PER DVR RECEIVER!

 

[GaryPen]

Exactly!

 

[Hall]

...I believe that I read that D* and Comcast are licensing their TIVO boxes in the $3 range.

Per month ? And what is the total charge ? If it's the typical $5-6/month, $3 is way too high and frankly, not believable.

 

[Voyager6]

Per month ? And what is the total charge ? If it's the typical $5-6/month, $3 is way too high and frankly, not believable.

Here is the post that I was referring to. It is in the TIVO vs. E* thread.

When the Judge in TX finds Charlie in contempt and orders him to turn off all his DVR's, what do you think is a fair price for a license, considering Tivo originally asked for $1.50 a box?

Now that Charlie decided to go the litigation route (big surprise there) and lost do you think $5.00 a box is fair?

Since DirecTV just signed a deal with Tivo for $3.00 a box without the cost of litigation/lost profits etc. I'm thinking Tivo should demand $6.00 to $7.00 a box.

What do you guys think?

Then there is this post about non-exclusive licensing which TIVO has chosen.

Moffett has been a TiVo cheerleader, he also says he is invested in TiVo himself.

I would not say "E* will be forced to settle" just yet, because TiVo themselves appeared to lack such confidence. I do agree if the appeals court lifts the stay pending appeal, the only logical option for E* is to settle.

Also the notion that E* can be slapped with a rate that is far less competitive than Comcast and D* is not true, if TiVo chooses a non-exclusive licensing model which it does, the rates cannot put one of the licensees in a competitive disadvantage, just ask the Justice Department. And as much as people want to say hey E* lost the case, but the lawsuit has nothing to do with competitive pricing in non-exclusive licensing. E*'s disadvantage is E* will have to pay all the damages if the ruling stands, not to mention their own legal cost, and a chance to have the damages tripled in the future assessment, and even to pay TiVo's future attorney fees.

But there should not be competitive disadvantage if they sign a licensing agreement.

TiVo can however refuse to license to E*, the patent law gives them such right. That alone may refute Vampz's "extortion" argument If I am not selling it to you, then you cannot accuse me of extortion. But if you say signing a licensing agreement alone is an "extortion" then I cannot argue with you, I do not agree but also won't argue with you on this one.

TIVO can ask for a higher licensing fee for E* but not so high as to put E* at a competitive disadvantage or just refuse to license to E* at all. Not much profit in not licensing E* though.

 

[GaryPen]

Per month ? And what is the total charge ? If it's the typical $5-6/month, $3 is way too high and frankly, not believable.

Comcast was charging around $15/mo for their HD DVR around here, iirc.