That puzzled me so I had to research it. Here's what I found and what I think:
Rovi was originally Macrovision and has been gobbling portfolios ever since. The litigious little bastards recently purchased TiVo and even renamed themselves after their new acquisition. Rovi is now TiVo.
As any longtimer knows, there has been trouble and friction between Dish and TiVo going many years back. To my absolute shock, TiVo kept winning judgements in the lawsuit TiVo was able to judge-shop down to Texas. Charlie finally said "screw it" and paid them $500,000,000 to settle the suit and to "purchase" licensing rights to TiVo's DVR technology (I don't know if they ever implemented any of that purchased tech)
Reading the press releases on their 10 year agreement signed last year, it seems clear that Charlie is just paying the extortion fee to TiVo to keep them off their back as they move forward.
I'm pretty sure we will see only Amazon's voice recognition in Echostar products.
Actually, it was Tom Rogers of TiVo who said, "screw it," using your phrase (I'm much too modest to use such a phrase
). You are correct on some matters, but here is what may surprise you:
1. Back before TiVo sued, Dish, along with DirecTV, nearly all the cable companies and anyone else who was making DVR's and walking the earth, was sued by then Gemstar/TV Guide for patent infringement regarding EPG grid guides. Some just paid, others fought it. Dish PREVAILED in its defense of Gemstar/TV Guides claims, but on appeal, the Appellate Court ruled the because of some legal mess-up I can't recall, the verdict of the original trial was thrown out and a new trial ordered. Just two weeks later, Dish and Gemstar/TV Guide announce a settlement where Gemstar/TV Guide would get between $200 million to $300 million and Dish would get LIFETIME rights/licenses for ALL Gemstar/TV Guide patents. Both parties seemed pleased with the settlement. Remember terms of this settlement, because it repeats a few years later with TiVo.
2. Dish's long term strategy FINALLY worked after ruling after ruling NOT in Dish's favor by the esteemed Marshall TX judge whose motivation is simply to enrich his local community (look up how companies BUY their rulings in Marshall TX with the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia referring to it as
" . . . a rogue court in Texas) and who chided Dish a few times and even commented that somehow, "They [Dish] must really believe they are not infringing." One "chide" in particular was when Dish altered or developed and implemented a "work-around" for trick play and "time warp" functions that would not violate TiVo's claims of how those TiVo patents worked without notifing the judge, but that was the stroke of LEGAL GENIUS.
The result of the trial was a loss for Dish (by a jury who never examined nor considered the code). Of course Dish appealed the ruling, and the Appellate Court chided the esteemed judge of Marshall TX for his own mistakes and in particular his rulings regarding the Dish "work around" and ruled (and I'm over-simplifying this for brevity in this already too long post) that because of Dish's "work around" that was implemented during the trial, there would have to be a NEW trial regarding this "work around" and it could NOT be taken into consideration with the original trial. The new question is "does this work around still infringe?" And since that is a separate question or a NEW method, it, logically, requires a separate, new trial (the trial judge was wrong to arbitrarily presume that it was infringing and denying a new trial just because the judge was upset that Dish did not tell him about the work around, but did so anyway as what looked like a form of punishment for Dish just because the judge was upset--really PO'd-- at the action).
In essence, TiVo's awards from the original trial would be drastically reduced that probably could barely pay the strapped company's legal fees as it teetered near death and would die if it didn't get some real money real soon. TiVo, would have to appeal the Appellate Court's ruling to the Supreme Court if it wanted the original ruling of the Marshall TX trial to stand. Now, TiVo had "a gun to its head" at this legal juncture. Did it want to spend another 7 years to get the vast majority of its supposed awards, a time that would stretch to when those patents would become or nearly become public domain?
A few weeks later, (after this set back for TiVo), Echostar and TiVo announced a settlement: Dish would pay about $300 million in total in payments spread over a few years to TiVo; in return Dish got LIFETIME rights/licenses to not only the disputed TiVo patents, but nearly ALL TiVo patents (there were a few left out), and in exchange, Dish would drop its suit against TiVo for infringement of Echostar patents (filed as a counter-suit) by granting TiVo lifetime licenses to
a few of un-named Echostar patents. Do those terms sound familiar? IMHO, Charlie had that offer on the table for Tom to take for YEARS, but Tom wanted the big pot of money or the "gun to the head" position a ruling in favor of TiVo in Marshall TX would have given him. Interesting to note that when Tom Rogers was asked why he settled instead of going the distance and getting far more money, some in the form of payments for several DVR models still in Dish homes well after the trial, Mr. Rogers said,
"I didn't want to wait for the Supreme Court." That quote qualifies as Tom Rogers of TiVo having said
"screw it," not Charlie and Echostar. $300 million over time was NOT any where what the prize was supposed to be after prevailing in Marshall TX.
TiVo was on its own LIFE SUPPORT at that time and was DESPERATE for any loose change, but wisely took Charlie's (I believe LONG STANDING) offer also because TiVo could crow about a victory and intimidate the others (and I mean everybody but Comcast and DirecTV; TiVo sued other makers of cable co. DVR's, as well) who had also been served papers (Mr. Rogers said publicly that anyone who would consider talk to them about using TiVo patents or products would not be sued, but those who would
"not talk to us [TiVo]" would certainly be sued. Tom Rogers could have saved TiVo from those punishing legal fees that, for years, cut into the very small company's earnings by just taking the chump change for Dish offer that IMHO Charlie had on the table years before, and Tom could have crowed about it, still.
3. Although many people like to say that TiVo and Dish/Echostar have "bad blood" or "hate each other," don't realize that Tom Rogers and Charlie Ergen were and still are friends--and friends all through the ugly trial. In one quarterly conference call, one of the questioners asked a question that included a presumption that Ergen and Rogers were angry or upset with each other over the lawsuit; I believe the term "bad blood" was used by the questioner. Charlie Ergen went out of his way to deny that and clear things up saying that it's not personal, it's business,
"It's just a disagreement, an honest disagreement. Tom believes we are infringing, and I believe we are not infringing. He's got his engineers telling him we are and I've talked with my engineers [and contractors] [at great length], and I believe we are not infringing. It's just an honest disagreement." (The preceding was somewhat paraphrased, but it is ACCURATE to my memory). I believe he even went on to say that they do NOT "hate" each other and that there is no "bad blood".
In fact, on the very day of the first wire transfer from Echostar to TiVo as per the settlement, Charlie Egren was quoted as saying, "[after this payment] now, I expect Tom to pay for lunch the next time we meet." It was Charlie's humor and quite funny, but it demonstrates there was never any bad blood or anger between the two (Ergen was often funny and humorous on the Charlie Chats). In fact, one could suggest that Ergen may have even admired his good friend Tom Rogers' strategy to keep afloat a company that surely would have died years earlier had Rogers not sued every being on earth. TiVo got LOTS of payments from settlements, and it kept it alive just long enough for Rovi to buy it, and Rovi is keeping the TiVo name alive. Of course, Rovi is a patent troll of a sort itself. How fitting.
Companies sue each other every day, and even the ugly trial of Apple vs. Samsung in NO WAY prevented Apple from continuing to work with Samsung and have Samsung produce chips and other parts (like screens and more, I think) for its Apple products ALL DURING THE TRIAL. Why? Because it's business. Apple was not going to diminish its quality of products just because they brought suit against Samsung, and Samsung was not going to refuse the mountains of $$$ Apple was willing to pay Samsung for its expertise and quality parts. With neighbors it is personal; in business, it is rarely personal. Even Les Moonves, despite his foaming at the mouth and public conniptions and bullying actors and ORDERING CNET NOT to award Dish the coveted "Best of Show" award even AFTER CNET had already voted to do so, later quietly signed a reasonable re-transmission deal with Dish so long as it observed the C7 metric before enabling Auto-hop. At least one journalist at CNET quit because of Moonves' over-reaction.
4. What was not included in the many TiVo patents Dish negotiated lifetime patents, were those that were part of Rovi before that company bought TiVo and changed its name to TiVo. So, I think the reason Echostar re-signed a deal to use what was Rovi's voice command or activation patents was that Dish for quite some time was planning to implement its own voice controlled remote for the H3 and although one has to believe Echostar was working on a Amazon "Alexa" solution, it would be wise to have the Rovi patents if the Amazon solution didn't work out. Well, only VERY recently have we seen products implement devices that interface with Amazon's Echo because it has proven to be a pretty good solution and probably cheaper and easier than developing it's own tech or even licensing such tech when people already have Echo in their homes and they can immediately use the tech to control its DVR's and Amazon WANTS as many devices to use Echo so it enhances the value of Echo to the consumer and that's how Amazon will get in more homes than ever.
5. I would like to add that Ergen is probably the last person to ever say, "screw it" when it involves lawsuits. Dish/Echostar can be quite litigious itself, and Charlie Ergen has always stated that if he believes Dish/Echostar is "right" about something, then he will fight before settling. Ergen admitted to be being just "stubborn" on that point. Sometimes it is best to just settle early on, but sometimes he just takes it to heart that his company is not doing what a lawsuit says it is and he just becomes "stubborn" on the moral or meritorious issue. However, in time, Charlie has seen the light of a settlement such as avoiding a whole new trial with Gemstar/TV Guide and saving legal fees and paying, for Dish, a relatively small amount of money to put it to bed and move on. And Tom Rogers was wise NOT to wait for the Supreme Court (who likely would have rejected hearing the case), and take what I think Ergen had on the table for TiVo years earlier, but TiVo was looking at an award far greater than $300 million and a "gun to the head" position against Dish that TiVo could dictate terms of a licensing deal for years to come relating to the offending DVR models (although it looked like Dish was planning to change out all the "offending" DVR's for non-offending ones; it would have been COSTLY for Dish to do this, but it would be far cheaper than TiVo's terms for licensing).
This was a long post. So, sorry, but that whole TiVo vs. Echostar has a lot more to it, including the MORANIC jury who simply believed that because a TiVo got "lost" at Echostar, and the DP7000 was a disaster, Dish must have stolen the TiVo tech. Hardly an examination of the code nor consideration of testimony from 3rd parties who worked on Dish DVR's such as Broadcomm who supported Dish's claims, not TiVo's, and I'm sure they were ordered NOT to take into account any statements Tom Rogers made about
"suing anyone who won't talk to us," when considering a verdict. Lots more, but I will go to bed now. Good night.
