A compulsory license allows the defendant to continue using the patent by paying a court determined fee.
An injunction requires that the defendant stop infringing the patent.
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 178K
- Status
An injunction requires that the defendant stop infringing the patent.
Thanks. Since Charlie and Tivo can't seem to agree on a settlement, Is it to late for Judge Folsom to revisit a compulsory license? Judge Folsom keeps hinting that he wants them to settle on their own and I'm wondering if that might spark settlement talks.
I don't think that reinventing the wheel is a possible outcome of a contempt hearing. All that stuff has already been determined. Acquittal or damages would seem to be the only outcomes.
Did you read the DirecTV forum?
TiVo's latest generation of DVRs are more powerful, the problem with Comcast and DirecTV is in part because the platforms used by those companies may not have the latest hardware and power to accomodate all the TiVo features.
Low power processors are thing of the past, again you are still living in the old era.
Did you read this thread? Other than you and a few TiVo diehards, how many Comcast, D* or E* subs care about the TiVo interface?
So what if TiVo gets some licensing deals, if the public will not embrace TiVo even if it is free, how do you expect TiVo to get paid? Not to mention the $14/mo. for the standalones, did you read my earlier post about for the first time TiVo's standalone accounts are shrinking by a large number in the last quarter?
Last edited:
Bingo, "a lot of dough" is pie in the sky, it will not fall on TiVo if there is no contempt.
But since the final ruling is not out yet, one cannot completely rule out a settlement, however just looking at both parties' latest filings, there is no indication at all they are even talking about any settlement.
But as I said, never say never, sometimes things happen when least expected.
But, yes another but, if one knows who Charlie is, settlement is probably the last thing on his mind.
Last edited:
What is really funny is this TiVo supporter character, kept changing his usernames and not-so-funny avatars, both at the other site and now here, telling everyone how much Charlie will have to pay and blah blah blah, as if Charlie is shaking in his boots.
If this were DirecTV or Time Warner, he might have some point, but Charlie? Did he not read that story I posted before how Charlie defeated Forgent, while D* and TW chickened out?
If this were DirecTV or Time Warner, he might have some point, but Charlie? Did he not read that story I posted before how Charlie defeated Forgent, while D* and TW chickened out?
Had no idea Charlie is a Nintendo DS fan
I know I know, I had no idea what you were talking about, hopefully you will educate me on that one.
Oh I know, if your point is, D* is no longer a chicken like they were in 2006, well then it should not make a TiVo supporter too hopeful, don't you think?
Everyone knows Charlie would rather litigate than sign a deal in good faith. He's "stubborn" you know.
You have to admire the business skills of a guy that after being caught stealing someones IP could have signed a deal for $1.50 a box, decided to litigate himself into a contempt charge, $6.00 a box (for ALL his boxes) and $200 million more in damages.
Awsome!
Oh, and wait until the class action suits start.
I hope nothing I wrote led you to believe that a TiVo windfall is unlikely. Far from it. A finding of contempt is very likely and the damages assessed wil be historic.
Absolutely not, my belief of a no contempt is based on all the case law I researched, and facts I have read about this case in the last year, not on any of yours.
Though I respect your knowledge and viewpoints.
But you are already wrong on one thing, even using the ridiculous TiVo's $220M figure, the damages will not be historic
jacmyoung said:
What possible reason would I have for doing that? TiVo's not even available for DirecTV. What does that have to do with anything?
So I guess that means you have no source, as usual, for your completely fake "facts."
jacmyoung said:
Oh, once cap-and-trade is implemented by King Obama you may change your tune. Running a DISH DVR is MUCH more expensive in terms of electricity usage.
The goal is to use as little power as possible while giving the best user experience possible. DISH has demonstrably failed in both cases. I know you don't like to hear that, and maybe it hurts your feelings because you are on the design team at DISH, but hey, facts are facts.
It's also very apparent that DISH users are not happy with the reliability of DISH DVRs. Hopefully the newer receivers fix this problem.
I gave you the source, if you refuse to read or has no ability to see why such source is relevant, that is not my fault. You are only making yourself look bad.
It is against the forum rule to use politics as an attack form, which is irrelevant to this subject anyway.
Please do not assmue anything, you are not that smart to guess what I like, what I do not like, or who I am.
I do not agree but please do not change the subject, the subject is, if you read this thread and many others, you will know except you or a few diehard TiVo supporters, most people do not care for TiVo, they are just happy with their own non-TiVo DVRs.
Last edited:
Charlie thinks he's going to get away with 16 million. Tivo says it's over $200 million.
Now I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet, but if Charlie thinks Judge Folsom is going rule in favor of $16 million dollars in damages, he really is a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.
$6.00 a box for ALL the boxes and $200 million in damages. Yowch!
All because Charlie's "stubborn"
When E* wins this case, maybe the DVR fee will be reduced to "per account" instead of "per DVR"!!!
Maybe if I keep posting THIS statement over and over and over (like another poster on this thread) again, I TOO will get to giggle like a little school-girl. Sheesh!
Maybe if I keep posting THIS statement over and over and over (like another poster on this thread) again, I TOO will get to giggle like a little school-girl. Sheesh!
I can't help it, I'm "stubborn".
Besides, I've been told by the best and the brightest that the boxes still infringe.
I thought if any D* boxes use TiVo's technologies D* will have to pay TiVo a fee. I don't think D* is paying TiVo anything other than for those DirecTiVo units which of course by the end of the year will probably go down to an insignificant number to even be relevant, I mean those MPEG2 HD DirecTiVo boxes.
But you are already wrong on one thing, even using the ridiculous TiVo's $220M figure, the damages will not be historic
TiVo's "ridiculous" $220 million figure only includes damages for the named DVRs through April 2008. Let's say there are 6 million DVRs in place now. That's 6 million x 12 months x $6 per month = $432 million.
Add that to the $220 million plus interested and we are certainly in historic-figure range approaching $700 million.
Remember, though, that Charlie figured he'd lose $90 million PER MONTH if he didn't continue to steal TiVo's technology. So he's already said that it was worth it for him to steal it.
- Status
