Just type 6233389 into Google - Multimedia Timewarping system.
The holder of the patent is one of the co-inventors of the Tivo DVR, so it does relate.
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 179K
- Status
Just type 6233389 into Google - Multimedia Timewarping system.
The holder of the patent is one of the co-inventors of the Tivo DVR, so it does relate.
It is not that TiVo does not like the software. It is that TiVo came up with that approach and wants anyone using it to compensate them for having come up with it first.
Those claims have a series of steps that must be followed to implement a DVR the TiVo way. If you don't follow those steps, your DVR will not infringe that patent claim. Dish followed those steps exactly in their original DVR software. In their workaround they eliminated some functions in their software to try to get around one or two steps, but that didn't help because other parts of their software still implemented those steps, albeit slightly differently, but not enough differently to be colorable.
If Dish had changed the software much more dramatically, they would have been fine. They did what they thought was the minimum necessary and it didn't prove to be quite enough. If they had gotten someone to check their work, they might have had a chance to change it further and be safe, but they did not do so. their laxness will now cost them, and their customers more than it would have if they had simply agreed to use the features and paid a royalty from the very beginning.
For more specifics, please visit Mainer's Law Library page where the judge's decision is posted at the bottom (you want document 929) and read the specifics of what was changed and why it was not different enough to pass muster.
Since you don't have a DVR, you can claim you don't know what you're talking about in terms of your contract.... FWIW, no one's "contract" with Dish mentions anything related to DVRs that would make or break the terms. If Dish had to shut them off, they'd simply not charge the add'l fee, and all would be fine (legally).
If E shut off DVRs for folks under contract and tried to hold them to it the furor would make headlines.
E CANT have that happen
That isn't going to happen, in any way, shape, or form. They'd swap out mpeg-4 receivers before they shut people off. Come on. The Tivo folks would like that, but its not in the cards.
Please don't use the terms such as "confused" or "moron" when you yourselv makes mistakes in interpretation of law all the time. On or around 8/06 Judge Folsom entered his final judgment and the permenant injunction. E* was able to appeal the decision only because it was the final judgment by the court. Whether the appeals court unheld or overturned the final judgment would not have changed the fact it was the final judgment.
Enhanced damages were to only over the stay period, which was post-judgment period. TiVo said so themselves, did you read their 9/4/08 arguments? TiVo never argued for anything "during the previous time" on 9/4/08, that was done and final, could not be changed. But TiVo argued to raise the post-judgment rate for the stay period. Judge Folsom ruled that no, he ruled it should be the same as the pre-judgment jury's rate.
The final judgment was final back in 06, it could not be changed unless if the appeals court asked it to be changed which they did not. The final judgment covers the period prior to 08/06. The post-judgment stay period is now covered in this most recent ruling by the judge.
Judge Folsom asked for another proceeding to determine additional sanctions post-the-stay-period later this month, but as I said if E* can get a stay of the order from the appeals court, things will stop until the appeals court rule whether to uphold the judge's ruling and order, or overturn them, either in part or in whole.
E* already has the temporory stay, after TiVo's response, the appeals court will make a further decision on this issue.
If the appeals court refuses to stay the order after reviewing TiVo's response, E* will have to shut off some of the DVRs unless they settle. I do not believe E* can replace all the DVRs in time.
They can decide which of those DVRs will continue to be used as part of the 190K units, and replace as fast as they could for the remaining DVRs, and for those that they cannot replace in time within the 30 days, they will have to notify the users of the impact, and maybe offer some discount until they get around to replace for them. But that is just one of the possible scenarios.
Which is why a stay is so important, even if it is "temporary." The 30-day clock stops ticking as long as there is a stay.
For the record, I never said moron, so don't put words in my mouth and try to get me banned. I'm doing my best to educate here, not bash you.
As for the rest, I give up. I think the rest of the community understands what a stay is and why a judgment isn't actually final until a stay is lifted. That was my only goal. There is clearly no convincing you of anything, despite having the facts beat you over the head repeatedly.
I have never "tried" to get anyone banned. Just because some folks got banned and some new folks popped right back up was not my fault
Isn't it the software that is the problem? If so, it doesn't matter if DISH swaps out the hardware if the new hardware is using software that still infringes on TiVo's patent (which from what I understand it does). MPEG2 versus MPEG4 doesn't matter at all -- those are just video encoding techniques. Lastly, does DISH even make a MPEG4-only DVR? I am under the impression that my 722 receives both MPEG2 (SD) and MPEG4 (HD) signals.
Again, the "contracts" don't include DVR service as a specific term of the agreement.
Second, "headlines" ? The ruling from a few days ago got no mention on mainstream news that I saw.... This site, engadget, gizmodo, and so on do NOT count as "mainstream".
In this case, why shouldn't they? TiVo's own patented technology is being used against them by E*. Everyone who signs up for E* and their DVR service is effectively a customer TiVo can't reach. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my own property to be used illegally against my own interests.
The rulings and facts seem quite clear here: Charlie has been giving TiVo and the courts the middle finger for years, and the courts have made it clear that (a) E* has infringed on TiVo's IP and (b) the courts are tired of E*'s stonewalling and contempt.
Not a TiVo fanboy here and I have no horse in this race, but that's what I see. I understand that some E* users are probably concerned that TiVo will pull the plug on their Dish DVRs in the next 30 days or that their bill will go up because of the need to compensate TiVo, but hopefully that can be mostly averted with an appropriate settlement and licensing agreement.
This seems overly broad and unsubstantiated. Tivo has stated exactly the opposite - that it would prefer to partner and license, rather than litigate - and its' action seem to bear it out.
I think ziggy29 sums it up rather well in his response to you.
If any DVRs get shut off, it's bad for everyone - Dish and Tivo. Most who haven't followed this case will see Tivo as "the bad guy" and those who have their DVR shut off will be pissed at Dish.
If Dish does what most observers thought they should've done long ago and come to a licensing agreement within the next 28 days (extended a couple weeks now because of the stay), it's done.
I don't expect Tivo will sue anyone else - anyone left will come to the table willingly if this latest Dish appeal (and the almost certain appeal to the SCOTUS) fails.
(playing devils advocate)
However, this hasn't truly gotten the attention of the "mainstream" e* sub yet, either. Joe Sixpack (or for that matter my parents who have 2 e* dvr's in their house) have no clue what is going on in court right now. If (when) they start seeing screen crawls that their dvr is going to be shut down; there WILL be more noise and more likely to draw national media attention.
Trying to get out of their contracts, next will come the class action lawsuits. The logic will go something like this: they were baited with a "Best DVR on the Market" sales pitch, locked into a 2 year contract, then loose the functionality of said selling point because their equipment is (according to the court) pirated Tivo equipment. With e*'s track record in court, that rather weak action would probably be heard.
Personally, it would be mutual Armageddon for both companies, I have little doubt SOMETHING will be worked out before anything is shut off.
Well that "contact" (and I use that term lightly) also says they can change the channel lineup in any way and at any time, so supposedly DISH could decide to drop half the channels in all packages -- but just like taking away DVR service -- that wouldn't be acceptable to the majority of customers. If a customers felt wronged and broke their contract because of such a drastic change in service, I seriously doubt DISH would win in a court of law -- much less the court of public opinion.
If you honestly think millions of people loosing DVR service wouldn't make the mainstream headlines (and the national prime time news) then you are truly naive.
I completely agree, particularly if E*'s appeal for a stay is denied and they continue to refuse to make good on the legal rulings. If it comes to the "nuclear option," it's lose-lose-lose: lose for Dish, lose for TiVo, lose for customers.
Lose for Dish is obvious, as is the lose for Dish customers. But even TiVo, despite being the winners in court, could lose in the court of public perception and goodwill if they look like the "bad guys" who turned everyone's DVRs into doorstops (even if it's E*'s fault for ripping off TiVo's intellectual property). These may be customers who remain mad at TiVo for life, creating a large potential customer base they won't be able to reach. Many will be upset with Dish, but many will also give TiVo a lot of the blame.
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
