TIVO vs E*

[Weezknight]

Hopefully Dish won't drag their feet on this and get it settled so that no boxes end up getting shut down.

If they need any incentive I'll put my 3 year old on the line and they can listen to her when she can't watch Mickey Mouse Clubhouse or Yo Gabba Gabba! off the DVR anymore.

 

[nobody99]

But can E* replace the 501x, [5]22s and 625s fast enough if a stay is not granted by the appeals court? Or put it this way, how many of those legacy DVR users will leave if their DVR functions are stopped?

But here's the problem. Any replacement is also likely going to be held in contempt. So do you go through the expense only to have to replace them again, or do you just take your medicine and settle?

Remember, there's a hearing in July for post-stay damages from April 2008. Judge Folsom has not yet come up with a dollar figure, so that's another carrot for DISH to settle. But let's look at some basic math:

In Paice v Toyota, the post-verdict rate was 4 times the pre-verdict rate. If we assume the exact same ratio, the licensing rate becomes $1.25 (awarded per DVR per month yesterday) x 4 = $5 per month.

Assume DISH has 7 million DVRs (including those which were not named but will ultimately be found in contempt as merely colorably different).

That's $35 million per month. And that's not some pie-in-the-sky number, that's a very realistic amount for being in contempt. Since there have been 14 months that have passed since the stay of the injunction dissolved, that's a total of $490 million.

So DISH has plenty of reason to settle still.

Jacmyoung, you keep pointing out all these victories that DISH has had in this case. Could you enumerate them for me again?

 

[hometheaterman]

I don't have time to read all through this so it's probably been mentioned but what units infringe here?

 

[Thomas22]

Exactly, offer to buy the stock at something higher than market price and see who sells.

TiVo is owned 74% by institutions, for what it's worth. They have no vested interest in the company and will sell to the highest bidder.

It doesn't matter, TiVo has a poison pill.

Here is part of it:

"Each share of our common stock has attached to it a right to purchase 0ne one-hundredth of a share of our Series B Junior participating Preferred Stock at a price of $60 per one one-hundredth of a preferred share. The rights will become exercisable following the tenth day afrer a person or group announces the acquistion of 15% or more of our common stock ..."

and then the preferred stock price doubles or something like that.

I'll bet it works pretty well.

 

[vampz26]

But here's the problem. Any replacement is also likely going to be held in contempt. So do you go through the expense only to have to replace them again, or do you just take your medicine and settle?

Remember, there's a hearing in July for post-stay damages from April 2008. Judge Folsom has not yet come up with a dollar figure, so that's another carrot for DISH to settle. But let's look at some basic math:

In Paice v Toyota, the post-verdict rate was 4 times the pre-verdict rate. If we assume the exact same ratio, the licensing rate becomes $1.25 (awarded per DVR per month yesterday) x 4 = $5 per month.

Assume DISH has 7 million DVRs (including those which were not named but will ultimately be found in contempt as merely colorably different).

That's $35 million per month. And that's not some pie-in-the-sky number, that's a very realistic amount for being in contempt. Since there have been 14 months that have passed since the stay of the injunction dissolved, that's a total of $490 million.

So DISH has plenty of reason to settle still.

Jacmyoung, you keep pointing out all these victories that DISH has had in this case. Could you enumerate them for me again?

Forget all that nonsense...let's focus on what's really important.

How many shares of tivo stock did you purchase prior to the ruling?

 

[riffjim4069]

At this point, I see Tivo wanting E* to license all past, present (VIP series), and future DVRs to include the T2200S tru2way model. Unfortunately, E* put themselves in this position which why I see (unfortunate for Dish Network customers) Charlie continuing his fight:

1. E* appealing the case
2. E* formally requesting the court to review their "new" workaround
3. All but 192K DVRs of the infringing DVRs having their DVR functionallity disabled
4. Tivo back in court pursuing the other infringing DVR models

I guess I know where all the money in multiple DVR fees went for my three VIP622s.

 

[Hall]

Explain the usefulness of the poison pill today. It was put in place years ago when TiVo had the potential to become a much more valuable company than they were at the time. Those days never came.... TiVo was "hot" in the 90s and in 2000 but fell to a single-digit stock for most of 2001 until now.

Remember, they have the right to exercise this. Doesn't mean they will. Anyone think back in 2004-2005 when they were in the $3-4 range that they would have stopped a sale ? Today is no different .... their jump in stock price likely will not hold out.

 

[nobody99]

Forget all that nonsense...let's focus on what's really important.

How many shares of tivo stock did you purchase prior to the ruling?

None immediately prior. Many of my shares were purchased in the 4's and 5's. I've got 500 shares from 2000 that I paid 13-something for. I also bought some in the 8's after the appeals decision.

 

[nobody99]

.... their jump in stock price likely will not hold out.

Ok, then short it.

Not quite as confident now, or are you just talking trash?

 

[vampz26]

Explain the usefulness of the poison pill today. It was put in place years ago when TiVo had the potential to become a much more valuable company than they were at the time. Those days never came.... TiVo was "hot" in the 90s and in 2000 but fell to a single-digit stock for most of 2001 until now.

Remember, they have the right to exercise this. Doesn't mean they will. Anyone think back in 2004-2005 when they were in the $3-4 range that they would have stopped a sale ? Today is no different .... their jump in stock price likely will not hold out.

Agreed.

 

[vampz26]

Ok, then short it.

Not quite as confident now, or are you just talking trash?

Um...it sounds more like you are...

 

[HDRoberts]

including those which were not named but will ultimately be found in contempt as merely colorably different.

Assume much?

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Stay on topic and avoid the attacks on each other.

 

[nobody99]

Assume much?

I don't have to. After yesterday's ruling, I can pay people to assume for me

 

[vampz26]

I don't have to. After yesterday's ruling, I can pay people to assume for me

You should save your money. Tivo is a historic volitile stock. Great for short term gains, but definitely not a keeper. Once the hype settles, it will drop and stabilize.

 

[jacmyoung]

But here's the problem. Any replacement is also likely going to be held in contempt. So do you go through the expense only to have to replace them again, or do you just take your medicine and settle?

That all depends on whether E* can get the appeals court to stay the order or not. But if they replace the old DVRs with the VIPs, TiVo cannot easily get another contempt as they must prove the VIPs are only colorably different, but the hardware is certainly very different. The problem with the old DVRs is the hardware was never different, only the software.

Remember, there's a hearing in July for post-stay damages from April 2008. Judge Folsom has not yet come up with a dollar figure, so that's another carrot for DISH to settle.

Again depends on if the order may be stayed or not.

But let's look at some basic math:

In Paice v Toyota, the post-verdict rate was 4 times the pre-verdict rate. If we assume the exact same ratio, the licensing rate becomes $1.25 (awarded per DVR per month yesterday) x 4 = $5 per month.

We had already done the math on this one, in Paice, the patentee asked for $250/per car, Toyota asked for $17/per car, Judge Folsom ruled initially $25/per car. Paice appealed and the appeals court said Judge Folsom needed to redo the math, so he did and came back with $96/per car.

In this case, TiVo asked for $220M, E* asked for $16M, and Judge Folsom didn't make the same mistake in Paice, my last estimate based on Paice was about $100M, which is close.

TiVo will not get four times of the $100M. You need to put things in the context when using Paice as an example.

But if you say in any settlement TiVo will likely ask for $5/month, of course they can, but that will only force E* to appeal all the way rather settle.

Jacmyoung, you keep pointing out all these victories that DISH has had in this case. Could you enumerate them for me again?

When E* had lost, I had no problem admitting they had lost. The wins were still standing, but I also said all the incremental wins will be nothing if they do not win a stay and ultimately win on appeal.

TiVo also won many incremental battles, but the bottom line is TiVo had won two key battles so far, though this second one is not final unless E* settles.

 

[nobody99]

TiVo also won many incremental battles

LOL. I'm done with you. Have a nice life you clueless moron. (please, ban me for life already?!?!?)

 

[tomcrown1]

E will win in the appeal courts why because if TIVO wins then their maybe a big political back bro ha ha. What will happen if 25 million people have their DVR cut off??

Could a smart politician take advantage of this??

 

[spec1alk]

Even if the newer models are not under the same criteria, it will still cost E* a lot if they give away free equipment.

True, the equipment has a cost, but what is customer satisfaction worth? How much would it cost E* in attrition if customers with infringing receivers suddenly lost the DVR ability of their receiver?

Free equipment is also nothing new. They give away free equipment with a 2yr contract currently. So if they keep these customers happy, the ones that stay with E* will end up essentially paying for the *free* upgrade after 2 years anyways.

 

[Curtis0620]

E will win in the appeal courts why because if TIVO wins then their maybe a big political back bro ha ha. What will happen if 25 million people have their DVR cut off??

Could a smart politician take advantage of this??

They don't have to win, all they have to do is sign a licensing deal.

That is the only thing that will prevent the DVR's from being shut off. Is Charlie that stupid that he would consider shutting them off?