I don't know but I smell a rat in all these recent developments with E*. Hostile take over by D*? or just pure coincidence that all these ruling are affecting E*?
Presuming Dish doesn't get the decision overturned, Tivo is already entitled to nearly $90m after interest. I don't see Tivo settling for less then that. As I think was mentioned earlier in this thread, Tivo wants a sustained income, not just a one time infusion (although that can be nice for a startup company). At $1/receiver, and presuming Dish has 2-3m DVRs which isn't out of the rhelm of a possibility, that's 24-36m EVERY YEAR. Why settle for $40m when you can make that in 2 years or less.hall said:Dish could tell TiVo "here's $40 million dollars ... we'd like to buy a one-time license fee that's open-ended". Play with that number, of course, and who thinks TiVo won't bite ??
Interesting.shanewalker said:Tivo is to DVRs, as Creative is to MP3 players (their suits against Apple were/are a joke)...they're becoming bitter wallflowers, resentful of the marketplace leaving them in the lurch, and are pathetically relying on lawsuits as a source of income.
Hey, here's an idea Tivo--build some HD DVRs that people want to buy and back off the subscription price gouging, then maybe you wouldn't see your competitors leaving you in the dust!
Uh...hall said:Dish could tell TiVo "here's $40 million dollars ... we'd like to buy a one-time license fee that's open-ended". Play with that number, of course, and who thinks TiVo won't bite ??
IMPORTANT ALERT - ECHOSTAR ANNOUNCES FEDERAL CIRCUIT BLOCKS TIVO INJUNCTION
EchoStar Communications Corporation issued the following statement regarding recent developments in the Tivo Inc. v. EchoStar Communications Corp. lawsuit:
“We are pleased that this morning, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. temporarily blocked an injunction issued by a Texas Court, while it considers a longer-term stay of that injunction.
As a result of the stay EchoStar can continue to sell, and provide to consumers, all of its digital video recorder models. We continue to believe the Texas decision was wrong, and should be reversed on appeal. We also continue to work on modifications to our new DVRs, and to our DVRs in the field, intended to avoid future alleged infringement.”
Scott Greczkowski said:From the retailer website...
Common Law. A consumer has a reasonable expectation their warranted devices will work for the intended purpose through the stated warranty period. As long as the company hasn't filed for bankruptcy protection, they are under a legal obligation to honor their warranty. In the case of my ViP622 receivers, I purchased them to be used with Dish Network's DVR services. Additionally, since they cannot be used with other providers offering DVR services (i.e. DirecTV, Comcast), then E* would be violating the warranty by disabling DVR functionality. Why would someone purchase a DVR that can't perform basic DVR functions? That's why VOOM refunded the purchase price to all owners who were still active subscribers at the time VOOM DBS operations were terminated. VOOM DBS (aka Cablevision) did not do this because they were being nice, they did it under the advise of their staff attorneys. E* would be required to honor the warranty of all affected DVRs or open themselves up for litigation (Class Action lawsuit) - besides the bad press, they would get their asses handed to them by the court.Geronimo said:What is your basis for that?