Did they program around the infringement?8bitbytes said:
Can they program around the infringement?
Will they be able to program around the infringement?
Tivo hearing today?
- Thread starter danknapp76
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 246
- Views 28K
Can they program around the infringement?
Will they be able to program around the infringement?
How about the 622 and 722, not (yet) found to infringe? Do you believe that these should be Tivo licensed?
If they cannot, then effectively TIVO owns the DVR process and everyone will have to pay.
Not the DVR process, but the Time Warp process, and only one specific implementation of it.8bitbytes said:
Let's say that this next statement is an assumption.HDRoberts said:
The 722 is simply a 622 with a larger hard drive.
DISH/SATS redid the software on the 622 and 722 for some reason. DISH/SATS informed their dealers that the 622 and 722 received the redesigned software, so that means both used the old infringing software.
Which, according to TiVo, means both must use the new modified software which still allows the receivers to infringe.
TiVo is pushing for a license. I would.
You stated that it cannot be programmed around. How so?
Do you have an answer for why a very specific implementation of a subset process of a dvr function cannot be done in a substantially different way or not?
Of course Tivo wants a free revenue stream without having to do anything. But the bottom line is no one has ruled that the 622 and 722 violate the "time warp" patent (god I hate that name, since when does recording a TV program cause time to warp?). No judge has ruled that they be shut down; Tivo has yet to ask for them to be shut down. Innocent until proven guilty: they don't infringe on the Tivo patent until a judge says so. So why shoud Dish agree to pay Tivo for the 6/722, when it doesn't use Tivo technology? Particualarly when it sets the dangerous precident that future DVRs (like the 922) will be expected to fall under the agreement even if designed form the ground up to avoid Tivo technology.
I'm fine with Dish ponying up for the infinging DVRs (if only to end the uncertainty and legal battles). But as long as new technology DVRs don't infrine, the agreement needs to stop. I doubt Tivo would agree to that.
TiVo Collects $104 Million From EchoStar
EchoStar Pays Up After Supreme Court Declines Request to Review Infringement Ruling
By Todd Spangler -- Multichannel News, 10/9/2008 11:32:00 AM
TiVo said it received $104.6 million from EchoStar on Oct. 8, after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to review a lower court’s ruling that the satellite operator had infringed one of the DVR maker’s patents.
TiVo said the $104,600,472 from EchoStar included the initial $74 million in damages awarded by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, after the satellite company was found to have infringed TiVo’s “Time Warp” patent for DVR controls, plus interest and supplemental damages accrued since Sept. 8, 2006.
The companies are still awaiting a decision from the Texas court on TiVo’s request to hold EchoStar and Dish Network in contempt for not disabling its DVR functionality as previously ordered under the court’s permanent injunction. The judge in the case said he would try to rule by Oct. 1 but indicated a decision could come as late as November.
In a statement Thursday, TiVo said, “We remain confident that the District Court will enforce the injunction and award further damages from EchoStar's continued infringement of our Time Warp patent."
Dish and EchoStar, in a joint statement earlier this week, reiterated their position that the satellite operator's updated DVR code does not infringe TiVo’s patent and that TiVo’s pending motion for contempt should be denied.
Source: http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6603769
EchoStar Pays Up After Supreme Court Declines Request to Review Infringement Ruling
By Todd Spangler -- Multichannel News, 10/9/2008 11:32:00 AM
TiVo said it received $104.6 million from EchoStar on Oct. 8, after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to review a lower court’s ruling that the satellite operator had infringed one of the DVR maker’s patents.
TiVo said the $104,600,472 from EchoStar included the initial $74 million in damages awarded by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, after the satellite company was found to have infringed TiVo’s “Time Warp” patent for DVR controls, plus interest and supplemental damages accrued since Sept. 8, 2006.
The companies are still awaiting a decision from the Texas court on TiVo’s request to hold EchoStar and Dish Network in contempt for not disabling its DVR functionality as previously ordered under the court’s permanent injunction. The judge in the case said he would try to rule by Oct. 1 but indicated a decision could come as late as November.
In a statement Thursday, TiVo said, “We remain confident that the District Court will enforce the injunction and award further damages from EchoStar's continued infringement of our Time Warp patent."
Dish and EchoStar, in a joint statement earlier this week, reiterated their position that the satellite operator's updated DVR code does not infringe TiVo’s patent and that TiVo’s pending motion for contempt should be denied.
Source: http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6603769
But we are now back to the same argument as before. In TiVo's mind, the newer DVR's also infringe. So why wouldn't TiVo demand royalty payments for those as well?HDRoberts said:
In TiVo's mind the "new technology" rolled out to all of DISH/SATS DVR's still infringes on the patent. If DISH/SATS doesn't want to agree to those terms, fine, but TiVo will then systematically attempt through the courts to disable any product found as an infringement. And does anyone really want to have the courts preside over rolling contempt and/or suits determining infringement? The courts can continually order millions of DVR's disabled, taking out large percentages of the customer base in a shot, with one large disable order looming (yes, it can be appealed).
Tivo can think whatever it wants; that doesn't make it true. Same as those guys who claimed to patent the hyperlink, and then demanded that they be paid royalties. I don't think they were successful, regardless of what they thought. If Tivo is so convinced that the VIP series DVRs infringe, why have they been taking so much time in filing the patent infringement lawsuit?
Yes it is a risk for Dish. But it is also a big business risk to tie themselves to giving Tivo a bunch of cash to do essentially nothing but sit back and count said cash for years to come. As I remember from reading about the trial, there were very specific things in the receiver being done that Dish was found to be infringing on. It wasn't a case of "we patented DVRs, they have their own DVRs" --> Judgment and Injunction. If they stop doing those things, no more infringement. Seems reasonable to me.
You have ignorant, greedy humans involved so you can't count on anything. The patent office found that RIM did not infringe on any of the patents claimed in their suit and still had to pay $600 million.
But TiVo was successful in proving patent infringement on eight models of receivers.HDRoberts said:
Because TiVo believes they are going the quickest route to getting a licensing agreement signed: DISH/SATS on the other end of a legal gun forcing close to 3 million DVR's to have their functionality disabled.HDRoberts said:
And it wouldn't necessarily be another patent infringement suit; there may be enough similarity between the ViP series and the eight models adjudged as infringements that a simple contempt motion may do the trick. However, if successful getting the injunction's disable order enforced puts DISH/SATS at a severe disadvantage at the bargaining table.
Reasonable, yet during the last filing before the contempt hearing on 4 September, TiVo threw down the gauntlet and stated the court could find DISH/SATS in contempt on sales of the eight products with the new software as those models still infringe.HDRoberts said:
The software was changed on the 622/722 as well. I'd bet TiVo believes those infringe, simply because it appears that DISH/SATS "new modification" to the eight models still infringe.
If Dish is successful and not named in contempt, indicating the workaround doesn't infringe, Tivo is the one at a huge disadvantage. Dish has no more reason to work with them. Tivo is not without risks.
Personally, I also would think another lawsuit on the docket would up the caliber of that legal gun to get an agreement going. Or, could it be they just don't believe their odds of winning are high?
Again, Tivo can say whatever they want. No doubt Dish said the court could throw out the contempt motion because the workaround doesn't infringe. Just because Dish said it doesn't make it true. We have to wait for a judge's ruling to determine the truth, at least, as it matters.
Only if there is a ruling regarding the workaround. DISH/SATS could still be found in contempt without having an evaluation of the modified products...HDRoberts said:
Okay - so what's the reality here?
Let's say we speed up time, the end is here and Dish is guilty. Will they really turn off the DVRs? What are the odds of that?
Frankly, I loved my TiVo and I liked the software much better than I like the Dish DVR. But I have HD and I want my damned DVR to be safe. I don't like anyone trying to mess with my DVR viewing, whether it's a TiVo or a 622!
So what I want to know is...what does this really mean for me (it's all about me) and is there really danger of my DVR being disabled in the middle of the night?
Let's say we speed up time, the end is here and Dish is guilty. Will they really turn off the DVRs? What are the odds of that?
Frankly, I loved my TiVo and I liked the software much better than I like the Dish DVR. But I have HD and I want my damned DVR to be safe. I don't like anyone trying to mess with my DVR viewing, whether it's a TiVo or a 622!
So what I want to know is...what does this really mean for me (it's all about me) and is there really danger of my DVR being disabled in the middle of the night?
Dish will NOT turn off their DVRs. If it came to that, they'd pay TiVo the license fees or simply buy TiVo. They're simply buying time by dragging this through the courts year after year.
