TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 178K
- Status
You missed it...again...
Since when is a Tivo STB with HD support anything NEW? HD Tivo has been around for YEARS no matter who's STB it integrates with...where have you been?
The whole D* mpeg4 HD-Tivo vaporware thing is what I'm referring too...its a complete reimplementation from the ground up...even the old D* technology that Tivo was familiar with doesn't even come to play here...
You are either reaching, or just plain don't get it...
You keep changing the story. I don't think you have any idea what you are trying to say.
No, same story...nothing new...I know what I'm trying to say, and I know what I said....I can't help if your confused but don't push it off on me...
Not true. E* started to develop their DVR technologies before TiVo even existed, this much has been quoted in the trial, in fact this was one of the reasons why Judge Folsom denied TiVo's motion for treble and attorney fees.
E* had working DVRs such as the Dishplayers before TiVo applied for the patent. E* also owns a few DVR patents that pre-dated TiVo's patent.
Unfortunately you are correct E* later copied TiVo's patented DVR technology at TiVo's objection, which was why E* was forced to pay TiVo $105 million last month.
That is not to say TiVo owns the only DVR technology in the world, in fact during the trial, TiVo said there were many DVR technologies out there, TiVo was only going after that one E* used that infringed on TiVo's patent.
What you initially said was as an example of TiVo's lack of innovation in the recent years, TiVo failed to manufacture an MPEG4 box.
TiVo could not have developed an MPEG4 box on its own because it would have been useless, TiVo's standalone boxes only receive OTA and unencrypted cable singals, or anything coming out of the A/V outputs (SD only no HD) from another cable or DBS STB.
The only way for TiVo to even begin to develop an MEPG4 box was to first have an agreement with a DBS company, then work with the DBS company to co-develop that box, not to do so on their won.
One thing I can agree is, TiVo's focus was too much on this litigation in the recent years, not trying to come up with more DVR innovations. The problem TiVo faced was that they themselves were not a content carrier, they had to rely on agreement with another content carrier. Going after E* was TiVo's way of trying to get more content carriers such as cable and D* to sign agreements, for fear that they would end up paying TiVo big damages like E* did.
It is hard to blame TiVo for such approach, they can have the best DVR gigs, but if all the content carriers can also develop similar DVR gigs on their own, TiVo has no chance simply because TiVo is not a content carrier.
The Dishplayers were functional DVRs pre-dated any working TiVo DVRs, and did not use TiVo's patented technology because they were developed before TiVo even came up with its own DVR technology.
TiVo later approached E* to offer its new DVR technology and work with E* on developing DVRs together, E* looked at TiVo's products, then told TiVo to take a hike. But after that, E* used the TiVo technology anyway in their later DVR models.
experience is the best teacher...
I'm a divorced man with a kid... I KNOW the courtrooms are BS...
And given my fair share of life experience, I KNOW they have power over me as you said, but you honestly don't expect that simple fact to give them any credibility now, do you? Why should it? I consider it proof to my claims against them...
You, given a fair share of life experience, would KNOW same thing...
BTW, your experience is not something new, most divorced people will tell you they have the same experience, maybe in their view the Court has no credibility also, but that is beyond the point.
The Court has the power over us, and unless parties decide to settle out of the court, if they decide to let the court make the decision for them, they better pay attention to the court.
And this is what we are doing here. Since both E* and TiVo had decided to let the court make the decision for them, what the court rules is of course important, even if you do not agree with the court.
It is not as if the Court likes to make decisions for the parties in civil cases. In fact the Court makes a point of trying to coax parties to settle out of the court in civil cases. Judge Folsom kept hoping E* and TiVo settled already long time ago, it did not happen, and he did not like it a bit.
But he cannot run away from a litigation, his job is to settle for the parties, if they cannot or refuse to settle between themselves and insist the Court do the job for them.
Look, we aren't talking about me here, nor are we talking about the subtle differences between how different courts conduct themselves. All I did was choose a dead-to-rights example that was very close to home to effectively illustrate the fundamental weaknesses in the court system in general. That is lack of knowledge. For example, no judge I've ever been in front of can ever atest to my character in any way, shape, or form...yet sure enough they will pass judgements based on my character that will affect my life. Ergo, I can guarantee you that some judge in Texas...who is basically nothing more than an ex-attorney who failed in private practice and probably couldn't have gotten a job anywhere but in government thanks to is buddy Mr. Clinton, has no clue about how E* or Tivo conduct themselves as a business, knows even LESS about DVR technology as a whole, yet here we are with a multi-million dollar decision resting on the shoulders of ignorance...
What do you want me to say? If you ask me, given Folsoms connections, I'd expect the whole outcome of this trial to go completely in Tivo's favor, but not because of whatever is right, wrong, or even fair...I expect it to go that way because this country is so screwed up financially already (thanks to Folsom's 'buddy', but I'm not going there) with both goods and services being marketted from abroad, that the only thing this country has left to sell on the world market IS its innovation, so it wouldn't surprise me one bit of Mr. "New World Order" Clinton has his buddy totally stick the final stake through the heart of E* just to sacrifice Tivo, for no other reason than the US / Tivo can start charging licensing fees for DVRs manufactured overseas, and at least generate some revenue in this country regardless of where the DVR is eventually made.
Thats where this whole thing is going...
Except for three simple things, the lies in the above paragraph:vampz26 said:
1) DISH/SATS infringed.
2) "better DVR" is subjective, especially when the basis for a DISH/SATS DVR was the same patented technology as the TiVo
3) This was not a software trial.
jacmyoung said:
TiVo's were first shipped on 31 March 1999, and sold in April, beating out the DishPlayer by a month.
And if the underlying technology is patented, free enterprise is that you license the IP, or get sued for infringement. Once the suit is lost, then have sympathists explain all the infringer did was "innovate", but forget to mention that the infringer should have licensed the technology, and start screaming "free enterprise".vampz26 said:
I'm sure you'd like everyone at your company to take all credit for the work you do. Free enterprise.
I have to agree with greg on the first point, based on the courts. Personal opinions don t count here. Simple as that.
I also agree with him on the second point. Too subjective to get an absolute answer, even though some people will try to give you one (in this thread or others).
The third, I will simply take your word on. I havent done as much research as you, or others. Different people will tell you different
Lies? Now, now...no need for personal attacks here...
1) Dish did not infringe. Tivo claims they did, Dish claims they didn't. I'm siding with Dish. Its ones word against the other? WHat make one right, one wrong, and for you to claim my siding with Dish is a lie? I've already pointed out that even a judgement in court is no proof of fact, so who do you think YOU are?
2) Better, improved, and using more up-to-date technology. Thats not subjective, thats a FACT! Just like my car uses the same technology as the horse and buggy...
Its a better product, pure and simple...to bad Tivo didn't come up with something that good that actually caught on. To bad D* sabotaged the HD-Tivo.3) Technology trial with a software component, software trial...more similiarities than differences. Perhaps you should share some of your IP litigation experience. At least how you justify calling me a liar with nothing to go on but repeating a courtroom fallacy...
Actually, IP litigation such as this where a company failed to innovate, and is trying to create a licensing monopoly to hinder innovation, and is basically using consumer terrorism and corporate extortion to accomplish such a thing, as opposed to just 'building a better mousetrap. I don't know where you went to school...but thats everything BUT free enterprise...
Do you even work for a living....that kind of office nonsense happens all the time, and has nothing to do with this discussion. But if myself and a co-worker are working on similiar projects, and one just happens to be better than the other...who well...sorry...the best project wins. Whining to the boss over who's idea it was just doesn't quite cut it...
A jury, a federal district court judge, three federal appeals court judges, and the Supreme Court.
To paraphrase Adam from Mythbusters, "Vampz rejects your reality and substitutes his own."
LOL...which supreme court...last I checked they chose not even to be bothered with the case...
As for your little list there...thats all the people who have yet to actually make a decision stick...
(Gee...if it was so obvious as you like to make it sound, this should have been over a long time ago...hmmm....there is a reason for the delay you know...)
To paraphrase Adam from Mythbusters, "Vampz rejects your reality and substitutes his own."
Yep. I understand Vampz has a different opinion on what is right or wrong, or what did or didnt happen, but even if you dont agree with the courts, as far as anyone is concerned, thats what actually counts.
Edit: supreme court aside, as Vampz pointed out. That fact does not change the actual findings of the previous courts though
To paraphrase Adam from Mythbusters, "Vampz rejects your reality and substitutes his own."
Sit in court and tell me whats real and whats not when you get out....
Those lawyers will make your head spin, I assure you...
Sit in court and tell me whats real and whats not when you get out....
Those lawyers will make your head spin, I assure you...
Maybe, but THOSE cases have NO bearing on THIS case. I think you are letting your previous experience play into your statements here. They are not the same thing.
There is no doubt that many lawyers are crooked, and spin things, its not like E* doesnt have any either. So what is true for one, might be true for the other when it comes to your statements.
- Status
