Without a licensing deal with TiVo, those DISH DVRs are nothing but a doorstop.
TiVo Sued: A Taste of Their Own Medicine
- Thread starter DishSubLA
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 195
- Views 17K
Without a licensing deal with TiVo, those DISH DVRs are nothing but a doorstop.
Well then you need to ask those TiVo execs why they are so busy lately preparing for an exist, and provide cover for themselves too. Nowhere did they say whether the TiVo subs and investors will have the same cover though.
Tell them a license deal is near, stop thinking of a change of control, you are counting on them to get DISH to pay big or else crush them.
Maybe D is about to buy TIVO, just to screw over E?
Require E to add a pop up this DVR powered by direct tivo
Stranger things have happened in the past.........
Require E to add a pop up this DVR powered by direct tivo
Stranger things have happened in the past.........
Much more stranger ideas have happened in the past too. Maybe Curtis0620 should ask the DirecTV execs rather the TiVo execs.
Seriously though, DirecTV did try to take the advantage of this case to screw DISH. They announced the new DirecTiVo DVR plan on 9/3/08, one day before the TiVo v. E* first hearing on the contempt charge. They "agreed" to pay TiVo a "significantly higher fee" for this new DVR.
A day later during the hearing, TiVo asked for a significantly higher damage rate of $2.25 (instead of the $1.25 jury rate), in the end the judge still used the $1.25 rate, but it was a nice try on DirecTV's part to squeeze its competitor. Nothing wrong with that.
Since then DirecTV said not one word of this new DirecTiVo DVR and it has been 16 months. So on a second thought I think it is still a good idea Curtis0620 asks the TiVo execs the question, not the DirecTV's execs.
So you did call and ask one of those TiVo execs
Did he explain to you how the TiVo investors and users would be protected after they bail out?
ViP DVR's not part of lawsuit
The newer ViP DVR's have not been declared in violation of anything yet. The lawsuit was about the technology of DISH's older MPEG2 lines of DVR's that code was somehow not developed/evolved 'enough' from when DISH and Tivo worked together. Not that they couldn't be cited as in violation suimilar to the MPEG2's. I or anybody here that has DISH equipment would not leave E* for D* DVR's, maybe for other reasons, but not because of a multi-year lawsuit against an older line of DVR's....
:
The newer ViP DVR's have not been declared in violation of anything yet. The lawsuit was about the technology of DISH's older MPEG2 lines of DVR's that code was somehow not developed/evolved 'enough' from when DISH and Tivo worked together. Not that they couldn't be cited as in violation suimilar to the MPEG2's. I or anybody here that has DISH equipment would not leave E* for D* DVR's, maybe for other reasons, but not because of a multi-year lawsuit against an older line of DVR's....
:
Last edited:
The newer ViP DVR's have not been declared in violation of anything yet. The lawsuit was about the technology of DISH's older MPEG2 lines of DVR's that code was somehow not developed/evolved 'enough' from when DISH and Tivo worked together. Not that they couldn't be cited as in violation suimilar to the MPEG2's. I or anybody here that has DISH equipment would not leave E* for D* DVR's, maybe for other reasons, but not because of a multi-year lawsuit against an older line of DVR's....
don't feed the trolls...lol...
Why friendly advice of course...
Believe me, I've got plenty of friendly advice for you too! LOL!
TiVo just responded to the MSFT motion to intervene in the TiVo v. ATT case. While TiVo seemed to say they did not oppose the MSFT motion, half of their response was trying to argue that MSFT either had no right to intervene, or should not necessarily be allowed to intervene.
But then it seems TiVo also believe MSFT will be allowed to intervene, so they spent the next half of the time asking the court to treat MSFT and ATT as a single party in order to save TiVo cost, and prevent MSFT from trying to move the case to the N. CA court.
I don't know how TiVo got the idea that MSFT was trying to move the case to N. CA. MSFT actually filed their countersuit (declaratory judgment suit) in the E. TX court, asking the court to combine its suit with the TiVo v. ATT case. I dont see how MSFT can later try to move this case out of E. TX.
The case MSFT filed against TiVo in N. CA is about two entirely different patents, nothing to do with the MSFT motion in the E. TX court.
But then it seems TiVo also believe MSFT will be allowed to intervene, so they spent the next half of the time asking the court to treat MSFT and ATT as a single party in order to save TiVo cost, and prevent MSFT from trying to move the case to the N. CA court.
I don't know how TiVo got the idea that MSFT was trying to move the case to N. CA. MSFT actually filed their countersuit (declaratory judgment suit) in the E. TX court, asking the court to combine its suit with the TiVo v. ATT case. I dont see how MSFT can later try to move this case out of E. TX.
The case MSFT filed against TiVo in N. CA is about two entirely different patents, nothing to do with the MSFT motion in the E. TX court.
Perhaps because Microsoft has done it before? Microsoft legal has sought a change of venue on multiple occasions, and given the i4i result, I think they'd do anything possible to avoid another case in the Eastern District of Texas.
In any case, the Court ruled on the motion yesterday.
Haller's avatar really captures the essensce of this thread and discussion. Round and round we go...
Care to give us an example?
Change of venue usually involves a patentee filing a suit in his preferred forum first, then the defendant tries to move the case to a different forum.
In this case, TiVo filed the suit against ATT in E. TX, MSFT motioned to intervene in the case, also at the same time filed a courntersuit aganist TiVo in the same court. Since both TiVo and MSFT have chosen the E. TX venue for this case, there is no reason for change of venue.
My interpretation is TiVo wants to make MSFT look bad by injecting such appearance of MSFT trying to change the venue.
As far as MSFT losing the case against i4i, MSFT is still selling the new Word products with the custom XML editor after the injunction took effect. I don't see any license deal signed. i4i did get the $200M damage award, mainly because MSFT lawyers screwed it up on a narrow procedural issue. They could have the appeals court vacated the damages and remanded the issue had they not made that stupid mistake. But the outcome is still just a one time damage payment, it is over.
I don't like MSFT more than most people, the question is how one defines success. Is it a good thing now TiVo has to work against both MSFT and ATT, also deal with the MSFT suit in N. CA, while working against DISH at the same time?
Last edited:
Haller's avatar really captures the essensce of this thread and discussion. Round and round we go...
and it's always the same people posting over and over on these Tivo's threads.
BTW TiVo just amended its case against Verizon today, adding two Verizon affiliates to the case. I guess no one has decided to settle yet
You know as well as I that no one would settle until after the Court of Appeals issues their decision.
I know it is semantics, but I think that MSFT is selling a version of an XML editor, not "the customer XML editor" that was found infringing. I even seem to recall MSFT had to issue a patch to remove infringing technology from Word.jacmyoung said:
