TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 179K
- Status
TiVo shares soar after 'major victory' in court:
TiVo shares soar after 'major victory' in court - Forbes.com
TiVo shares soar after 'major victory' in court - Forbes.com
Add to that it will get a lot of people MPEG4 equipment, which Dish eventually wants to see anyway.
Actually, manufacture and sales appear to have been prohibited immediately. The 30 days is for disabling the already installed boxes.
I just switched to Dish on Sunday from DirecTV. I hope that I did not pick a bad time to switch providers.
I thought that Echostar's current generation of DVR's were supposed to be using software that did not violate the injunction, and that the features that had caused the suit in the first case had been disabled, of course it has been a while since I kept up with this.
I thought that Echostar's current generation of DVR's were supposed to be using software that did not violate the injunction, and that the features that had caused the suit in the first case had been disabled, of course it has been a while since I kept up with this.
If that happens, I'll consider my commitment contract with Dish Network null and void because they won't be providing me with the DVR service I subscribed to when I joined -- and I cannot live without a DVR (yes, sad but true).
Back to the "Dish should buy Tivo" thing..
This judgement is for $100 million.
Tivo's market cap as of this post is $1.12 Billion. Echostar's is $1.38 Billion and Dish Network's is $6.9 Billion. Buying Tivo would not be the most fiscally responsible (nor would it be that possible) for Charlie right now.
Which company is responsible for paying this judgement, Dish or Echostar?
This judgement is for $100 million.
Tivo's market cap as of this post is $1.12 Billion. Echostar's is $1.38 Billion and Dish Network's is $6.9 Billion. Buying Tivo would not be the most fiscally responsible (nor would it be that possible) for Charlie right now.
Which company is responsible for paying this judgement, Dish or Echostar?
Scott Greczkowski said:
Good article. But I had to copy/paste the text from it into Notepad in order to read any of it. The web page had a stupidly obtrusive Flash-based ad from Showtime that totally blocked the view of the article. And the "close" button on the Flash ad didn't work. Ugh.
One down...
Anyone else?:
Your current avatar is especially apt in this situation.
Both the thread topic ( a few DVRs to get quickly replaced or shut down.... I've got two 50xs active in my house right now....) and the poster who dared you to ban him.
Either one of the dish/echostar companies or both. Probably depends on where Charlie can find the best offset of the loss.
If Charlie wants to buy Tivo, he should have done it before the decision. Looks like Tivo's stock price may well double. However buying a company with assets may be fiscally responsible, the cost is offset by any value. Now Tivo's patents would have value that can be used against some of the other players out there. Last I heard Dish/Echostar was the largest of the producers of DVR"S, selling more than anyone else including TIVO. That was the reason TIVO targeted them.
Last edited:
And another thing. Why must all DVR functionality be disabled, rather than the trick play that is supposedly Tivo's IP? Tivo didn't invent the DVR. Seems to me that Judge Folsom is not being even slightly fair or impartial.
E has no choice but to settle, or watch their sub numbers and stock price tank badly......
Settle might be buy company, license, or get another stay.
next month will be interesting
Settle might be buy company, license, or get another stay.
next month will be interesting
That does not matter, if E* objected to such arrangement, they should have appealed on that point but they did not. But I do not think it matters because if there is no trickplays, it is not much of a DVR.
At this point, we should know very soon if E* should appeal, and whether the appeals court will stay the order. This has to be done within 30 days so the news will come soon.
If E* appeals, it will be interesting to see on what ground E* will argue for a stay. Last time they argued on the ground of hardship and got the stay, and the appeals court eventually reversed the hardware verdicts, but that was not enough.
This time it should be more straight forward, whether there is the doubt the software claims are still infringed on. If E* argues on such ground and gets a stay, then there will be much hope the appeals court may do it again for E* on the software claims verdict.
I will pay all the attention on the appeals court decision on the motion to stay the order.
Of course if they should settle, we will never find out, and Judge Folsom's ruling would be final.
The shut down is to make up for having used unfair business practices, in the form of infringing DVRS, to block TiVo's access to market share. Those customers are considered sticky and taken from TiVo permanently. This "fix" is a remedy for that. You still may not consider that fair or even handed, but that is the justification the judge used when crafting the original injunction.
Sure they could shutdown the DVR, and they would have to because that was what the Judge ordered, and perhaps get the Judge to quickly approve a dvr function that acted more like an old VCR. But that would probably never fly with the customer. The people want to be able to "Pause Live TV" (TIVO TM).
OMG, are you kidding me? I don't know why I am so surprised about your continuing to spout nonsense like this. I shouldn't be, because you have been wrong about every legal reference you have made in this case so far. I just thought since the ruling just yesterday so clearly pointed out how wrong you have continued to be, you might feel some shame and stop with the inaccuracies. Judge Folsom has so far made the same decisions here as he made in Paice. $1.25/box/month was the jury rate and covers the time period during the stay. It does not cover the enhanced damages that will be in place from 4/08 until now, which is what was being discussed. The enhanced damages, for continued post-judgement infringement, will likely be as in Paice as well, which was 4 times the jury rate. Now please, please, please, check your facts twice before posting. We'd all appreciate it.
Nice article, Scott but I disagree with you on one point you made. I don't see the need for TIVO to be incorporated into the VIP line of DVR's. I've owned TIVO and frankly don't see what all the fascination is with them. Yes it was more stable than the equivalent 921 at the time I had it but that was fixed in the feature rich VIP line we have today. Frankly, I can live without TIVO technology or UI in my VIP DVR. BUT, I do agree that it is time for Charlie to bite the bullet and buy out TIVO. He should buy majority share as quick as he can and shut them down. ( as far as I'm concerned. Then after he owns TIVO, shut DirecTV's DVRs down. ha ha ! just kidding folks.
But seriously as to my last joke statement, I really don't understand why so many of you get your jollies over seeing fellow satelliteguy brothers lose DVR services. Maybe you're more interested in the business than enjoying the programming. That I can understand but for me, I'll use TIVO, have used it as well as Dish VIP DVR's. Frankly, I don't worship either but do like the DVR's I now have from Dish. I'm happy to let Charlie do whatever he thinks is best for his business. Just keep the good programming and DVR's technology coming. If that means paying off TIVO then do it and be done with it. If you can keep playing around in court without affecting my programming and rates, have at it, that is your decision.
Some of you may wonder what happens to my mentioned and owned 921 DVR? Last summer I was still using a 921 as a second receiver which is mentioned in the infringing ruling. I paid $1000 back when they first came out. It was mine and I had it working pretty stable. But last summer I got a call from Dish offering to swap out my 921 with a new 722 at no charge and no lease fee. I already had a leased 622 so this was a second DVR added at no cost. Technically, I don't own the 722 but I don't pay any lease fee on it either. Can't complain! no money out of pocket and they didn't even take the 921. I have it sitting on shelf in storage.
But seriously as to my last joke statement, I really don't understand why so many of you get your jollies over seeing fellow satelliteguy brothers lose DVR services. Maybe you're more interested in the business than enjoying the programming. That I can understand but for me, I'll use TIVO, have used it as well as Dish VIP DVR's. Frankly, I don't worship either but do like the DVR's I now have from Dish. I'm happy to let Charlie do whatever he thinks is best for his business. Just keep the good programming and DVR's technology coming. If that means paying off TIVO then do it and be done with it. If you can keep playing around in court without affecting my programming and rates, have at it, that is your decision.
Some of you may wonder what happens to my mentioned and owned 921 DVR? Last summer I was still using a 921 as a second receiver which is mentioned in the infringing ruling. I paid $1000 back when they first came out. It was mine and I had it working pretty stable. But last summer I got a call from Dish offering to swap out my 921 with a new 722 at no charge and no lease fee. I already had a leased 622 so this was a second DVR added at no cost. Technically, I don't own the 722 but I don't pay any lease fee on it either. Can't complain! no money out of pocket and they didn't even take the 921. I have it sitting on shelf in storage.
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
