So let's try to get this ball rolling...How so?So, three points...
1) The 622 was released less than two months prior to the start of the TiVo v. Echostar trial. Therefore, it is conceivable that there wasn't enough information for TiVo to ask that the receiver be included in the lawsuit.
2) From
Scott Greczkowski's initial preview of this receiver, it is stated, "[The VIP622] will be like the 942 with Single and Dual Modes. Most of the other specs match the 942 almost exactly." So what technology is there in the 622 that is so different?
3)The current injunction, stayed upon appeal, would, "prevent EchoStar Communications Corp. (NASDAQ
ISH, "ECC") from making, using, offering for sale or selling in the United States their DVR products at issue in the case (DP-501, DP-508, DP-510, DP-721, DP-921, DP-522, DP-625, DP-942, and all EchoStar DVRs that are not more than colorably different from any of these products." If the 622 isn't so different from the 942, as Scott pointed out, then it is entirely possible the 622 and 722 are also infringing on the patent.Software? The Time Warp patent is for a software
and hardware implementation. And it is not known if the 622 software does not infringe.
Which leads me to ask, since the TR-50 looks to be a stripped-down version of a 622/722, could it possibly be infringing as well?
What I am figuring is that if TiVo has a favorable outcome at the Court of Appeals, all Echostar DVR products will be game for TiVo Time Warp licensing. The alternative is to shut off only the infringing DVR's (customer loss) or modify all the software to work around the hardware as well (could cause massive malfunctions), and that would cause a lot of churn.