Not really, they had worked together for years. The problems were still not solved. Why would anyone think a new vendor would be better then one that has years of experience with the hardware?
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 178K
- Status
I would tend to agree with you there but would expect quite a few bugs over the first few versions of the UI. But in reading it appears that most of the HR20 series problem is hardware/low level software related and I would suspect that wouldn't change.
After switching from E* to D* for a year, the family never stopped for one day complaining about the slowness of the D* remotes compared to the 622s'.
Finally I decided to suspend my D* account, and gave ATT Uverse a try. The Motorola DVRs are no better than the D* DVRs, which is why I am waiting to see how soon the E* 922 will come out and what will the reviews be.
The discussion about various DVRs is related to this subject in that, if you read them, you will know TiVo holds no card even with its patent and this lawsuit, not a lot of people care about TiVo DVRs these days anyway. There are so many other DVRs out there that are acceptable to people, you can't even give TiVo interface away for free, just ask Comcast.
Even if TiVo can manage to coax other companies to license its interface, people still need to want it, before the companies can sign up subs to take the TiVo versions of DVRs, and only after that, can TiVo begin to collect the fees. It is not happening right now, not because TiVo can't get a contempt out of E*, rather that few people care about TiVo interface these days.
I can't believe I am agreeing with Vampz now
Finally I decided to suspend my D* account, and gave ATT Uverse a try. The Motorola DVRs are no better than the D* DVRs, which is why I am waiting to see how soon the E* 922 will come out and what will the reviews be.
The discussion about various DVRs is related to this subject in that, if you read them, you will know TiVo holds no card even with its patent and this lawsuit, not a lot of people care about TiVo DVRs these days anyway. There are so many other DVRs out there that are acceptable to people, you can't even give TiVo interface away for free, just ask Comcast.
Even if TiVo can manage to coax other companies to license its interface, people still need to want it, before the companies can sign up subs to take the TiVo versions of DVRs, and only after that, can TiVo begin to collect the fees. It is not happening right now, not because TiVo can't get a contempt out of E*, rather that few people care about TiVo interface these days.
I can't believe I am agreeing with Vampz now
Now I want to quote the article I just linked the day before regarding the 9/08 appeals court decision to make reexamination a more effective means to fight the patent owners:
The trend is here, the old statistics may not even apply one day. It has been a new ball game since 2006, when a few companies (E* included in defeating Forgent) that had the balls to fight the "patent trolls" in that TX court, turned the tide, the court and the PTO environment has been consistently tilting in favor of the accused infringers since.
The appeals court decided to fight patent owners? Did anyone tell the patent owners? Wouldn't such a decision be considered somewhat biased? Do they even have a dog in this hunt?
When did I say this? Please do not put words in my mouth.
If you can't read that case, let me summarize it for you.
The patent owner won the patent validity verdict at the district court, and the defendant appealed, but the validity verdict was upheld by the appeals court.
The defendant then went to the USPTO, got a reexamination, based on the same reference used in the trial, the PTO invalidiated the same patent.
The patent owner appealed the PTO's decision to the appeals board, the appeals board upheld the PTO's invalidity decision.
The patent owner then appealed the appeals board's decision to the appeals court, you know the same appeals court that earlier just upheld the lower court ruling to validate the same patent, under the exact same reference.
Logic says it is a no brainer, we are talking about the same appeals court which just upheld the validity of the same patent based on the same reference, the patent owner would win, right?
Not! The same appeals court decided to uphold the PTO's decision to invalidate that patent, again based on the exact same reference used by the appeals court itself before.
Hard to understand you know, how can the same appeals court first uphold a patent validity ruling based on the same reference, only later to then uphold a decision to invalidate the same patent based on the same reference?
If this is not the appeals court making a important ruling to give the defendant more leverage to defeat the patent owner, I do not know what it is.
Of course to really understand why, one must read that case or at least that article.
But one thing is for sure, this new (9/08) appeals court decision is almost as important as the KSM decision by the same appeals court back then.
As an average consumer, I would like to comment.
I looked at TIVO many years ago, and decided that paying a monthly fee, for what they offered, was not a bright move. I fault the stupid consumers for supporting this company and their business plan. Yes, direct TV and the cable companies more or less force TIVO upon you, if you want a DVR. Alternatives are, I believe, available.
BTW: why does Richard Cranium's avatar look like a penis breaking the water in a swimming pool??
I looked at TIVO many years ago, and decided that paying a monthly fee, for what they offered, was not a bright move. I fault the stupid consumers for supporting this company and their business plan. Yes, direct TV and the cable companies more or less force TIVO upon you, if you want a DVR. Alternatives are, I believe, available.
BTW: why does Richard Cranium's avatar look like a penis breaking the water in a swimming pool??
I filter out avatars, but I just took a look at it looks like a picture of a Richard Cranium (aka Di#% Head). I feel the avatar should be removed be removed ASAP.
After 10,000 posts+ on a three different forums, you REALLY think that TiVo is trying to license it's interface? Dear God, the interface has nothing to do with any of it.
Wow.
For what it's worth, your DISH DVR uses about $2 more in electricity each and every month. A HTPC would use about $10 more per month. I know it's not a lot, but it's not zero.
One of the innovations that TiVo's patent allowed was to use a low power processor to do the work.
Unfortunately a low power processor can no longer meet today's demand.
Interface or something else, the point is, most people do not see value in TiVo anymore.
Now the point about the new appeals court decision is, TiVo must stop arguing what had happened in 2006, rather face the "substantial new question" or put it simply, face the new reality. It is 2009 now, a lot have changed. The fact that they won the last infringement case, or had everyone of their patent claims validated, will have no bearing on the outcome of the next battles.
The most important reason why TiVo has had no showing for the last year, IMHO is that TiVo lived in the past, refused to face the changes in front of them.
At least in the latest effort to transfer the DE case, they made a good effort, though still lived in the past by continuing to argue on "forum shopping," and failing to respond to the request to delay the transfer decision, but still they made a serious effort, it is a good start.
The most important reason why TiVo has had no showing for the last year, IMHO is that TiVo lived in the past, refused to face the changes in front of them.
At least in the latest effort to transfer the DE case, they made a good effort, though still lived in the past by continuing to argue on "forum shopping," and failing to respond to the request to delay the transfer decision, but still they made a serious effort, it is a good start.
Kind of OT:
When the Judge in TX finds Charlie in contempt and orders him to turn off all his DVR's, what do you think is a fair price for a license, considering Tivo originally asked for $1.50 a box?
Now that Charlie decided to go the litigation route (big surprise there) and lost do you think $5.00 a box is fair?
Since DirecTV just signed a deal with Tivo for $3.00 a box without the cost of litigation/lost profits etc. I'm thinking Tivo should demand $6.00 to $7.00 a box.
What do you guys think?
When the Judge in TX finds Charlie in contempt and orders him to turn off all his DVR's, what do you think is a fair price for a license, considering Tivo originally asked for $1.50 a box?
Now that Charlie decided to go the litigation route (big surprise there) and lost do you think $5.00 a box is fair?
Since DirecTV just signed a deal with Tivo for $3.00 a box without the cost of litigation/lost profits etc. I'm thinking Tivo should demand $6.00 to $7.00 a box.
What do you guys think?
There's a Microsoft case (and I can't remember the plaintiff) where they are automatically entitled to a higher rate once they won the case. So the court is within its right to impose a $6 per month fee. I think $7 might be pushing it, but I can certainly see Folsom enforcing a $6 per month compulsory fee.
In fact, I think it's pretty much a given. They clearly will win the contempt charge after providing overwhelmingly clear and convincing evidence. What makes it even more interesting is the number of multiple-DVR households there are. That's $6 per month per DVR.
Source? Or is this just something else you made up?
Source? Or is this just something else you made up?
Interesting. So the bottom line is that Tivo doesn't have to charge the same rate to someone who negotiated in good faith as someone who cost them money by going the litigation route?
That's a lot of dough!
Absolutely correct. The Microsoft case that I referenced has become case law with respect to compulsory licenses.
This is not a compulsory license case. This is an injunction case. Compulsory licenses are only issued when injunctions aren't appropriate. TiVo passed the four factor test. That's why there was an injunction instead of a compulsory license.
Judge Folsom already addressed that stuff when he ordered the injunction.
- Status
