bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| TiVo gains second judgment against Echostar
That's one way to make profit. 
Good for them! I suspect that the "damages" is actually higher that what licensing would have cost, if Echostar just licensed the technology from TiVo. |
|
NeoandGeo
join:2003-05-10
Harrison, TN | .
I'm really out of the loop on this. But what exactly did E* do to infringe, and what did they do to try and get around it? |
|
Bassistguy
Alrighty Then
Premium
join:2001-07-14
Ballwin, MO
clubs:
1 edit | They apparently copied TiVo's DVR design to a T for their DVR's. Not sure what they did to get around it.... if anything. |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| Federal judge in Texas...
Well, there's your problem Dish. The case was heard in U.S. Eastern District of Texas. It's considered the rocket docket for patent claims and if you are a dependent, you essentially lose before even stepping into the courtroom and presenting your case. Things were bad enough that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a writ of mandamus for it's lack of consideration for the defendants. |
|
herdfan
Premium
join:2003-01-25
Hurricane, WV | Yes, but this case already went through the CAFC once and they upheld 90% of the previous ruling, including the injunction. Looks like the judge covered his a** on this ruling. |
|
travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM | reply to Bassistguy
Re: .
Not exactly. Tivo patented the concept of watching while recording - i.e. chasing. It's arguable whether they were the first to actually come up with the concept, or whether it was even novel, but they got the patent and that's all that matters. |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to NeoandGeo
Tivo owns the patents for just about everything you can think of regarding a (P|D)VR, including the mother of all DVR patents. The latest particular ruling is specifically for patent 6,233,389, claims 31 and 61 which basically define how you would expect a DVR to work. If the order is not stayed and/or the appeal is lost, then DVr models DP-501, DP-508, DP-510, DP-522, DP-625, DP-721, DP-921, and DP-942 will lose functionality. Other DVR models are not infringing.
One of 3 things will happen:
1. Echostar wins on appeal
2. Echostar licenses the technology from Tivo
3. Echostar buys TiVO.
Note that there is not a 4th option, the DVRs actually become paperweights. It's not going to happen. Dish would have a mass exodus of customers and TiVO would get no licensing revenues. It's in both companies best interest to do #2 (presuming that #1 doesn't work). That's what I would bet on. |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN | reply to herdfan
Re: Federal judge in Texas...
Agreed. My comment was more in general and not specifically to the merits of Dish's case. If Dish had any chance of winning, that chance disappeared when it was filed there though. |
|
Hall
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH | That's exactly why TiVo filed the case there. Odd though, isn't it ? TiVo isn't based there... Nor is Dish... |
|
MooJohn
join:2005-12-18
Milledgeville, GA
 ·Windstream
| Effin ponderous
I still find it amazing that you can own a concept rather than the method used to execute it.
Why isn't there one person who owns a patent on the idea of a word processor? The web browser? A cigarette lighter? You could go on all day with examples. How about just the idea of software as a whole -- the first written program should have given full control of future computing to that one person.
It's perfectly fine to have exclusive rights to a design -- a specific windproof lighter for example. It's entirely another matter to stake a claim to every possible way -- known now and developed in the future -- to make a lighter that isn't affected by wind.
It's also silly to be able to patent a specific feature of a product. Using existing logic, the first automaker that offered heated seats should sue any other company that added it to their model afterwards. Did Lexus' adaptive headlights violate a Tucker patent?
Where there's money, there's litigation.
--
John M - Cranky network guy |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| Not that I care that much..
But Tivo is a ripoff. Monthly fees after buying the thing just seems wrong. Sure, I rent a DVR from Cox, but I chose to do that instead of buying/building a standalone device.
If I bought/built a PVR of some kind, say, a Panasonic DVD recorder with hard drive (do they still make those?), you can be damn sure I would NOT be paying additional monthly fees to use the thing. Same goes for MythTV or MediaCenter. Looks like a "Channel Direct" subscription is $20 per year if you go with this - »www.monolithmc.com/tvdvr.php ...At least that's a fair price compared to Tivo...
This whole Tivo situation seems like a pure money grab. Dish "stole" their idea and now Tivo wants their cut.
Why didn't they sue Motorola? My Cox DVR probably "infringes" on their patents too. What's next, Tivo sues everyone who makes anything remotely resembling a DVR? Coke sues Pepsi for making cola? Fender sues Gibson for making electric guitars?
...While I'm at it, why are cable channels that are "clear" on analog encrypted on the digital side? If you subscribe to cable, ANY QAM TUNER should be able to get ALL digital channels except for "Premium" ones (HBO/Showtime/etc.) without need for a freaking cable card and the associated fees. Why on earth should Sci-fi, or TBS, or CNN need to be encrypted?
Even then, if they require a cable card, why can't people simply BUY something like that outright for a one time fee?
Total crap that one is required to rent a cable card/box for what should be "in the clear." Those "expanded basic" channels aren't scrambled on analog, so why "scramble" them on digital?
It's a huge step backwards and shouldn't be legal for the cable companies to even do... |
|
eric_n_dfw
join:2001-10-22
Euless, TX
·EarthLink
·AT&T U-Verse
| The fees are for the service - without which the Tivo would be "just another DVR". Maybe I'm just brainwashed, but every time I have tried another DVR (UVerse, Dish PVR, DirecTV, Myth) I end up wishing they worked as well as Tivo and happily have continued to pay Tivo for a service that makes life easy for us. |
|
PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD
| reply to cdru
Re: .
Additionally other companies such as Comcast, Microsoft, Hauppage, AMD, etc. would take a huge hit as based on that patent, they'd all be liable, granted they didn't pay a licensing fee to TIVO.
However, Dish would not likely have a mass exodus as Dish and EchoStar split operations becoming two separate companies a few years back. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to amungus
Re: Not that I care that much..
said by amungus  :But Tivo is a ripoff. Monthly fees after buying the thing just seems wrong. Yep I neve r got the whole whole Tivo thing then once day I though "hey this might be an ok thing to have" well first the price of the damned thing nearly scared me off. Then I found out you have to pay $15 a month in addition. I thought "fuck that". In the days of VCR didn't you have to pay a monthly fee after you bough the VCR? Nope. All this is a modernized VCR. Renting one from cable/sat is almost as stupid. Do I get to keep all that I recorded if I decide I don't want the service anymore? With a VCR I record and I keep. Besides with sites like Hulu what's the point? Many shows you can watch online anytime if you miss it. |
|
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA
 ·Mediacom
| TiVO
I hope Echostar buys TiVO and limits all future hardware to their service only. So all of the TiVO fanboys can quit cable and go to dish. It's a cable guy's dream... 
This company pisses me off. How can someone patent a concept? |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to PapaMidnight
Re: .
said by PapaMidnight :Additionally other companies such as Comcast, Microsoft, Hauppage, AMD, etc. would take a huge hit as based on that patent, they'd all be liable, granted they didn't pay a licensing fee to TIVO. Several of those have already licensed the technology so would not be affected. Microsoft probably wouldn't be affected as they themselves don't make a capture device. They only provide one half of the complete solution. I'm not sure if/how Hauppage and AMD would be affected, but TiVO hasn't sued them so there would be no immediate effect...and they could always license it as well.
However, Dish would not likely have a mass exodus as Dish and EchoStar split operations becoming two separate companies a few years back. Echostar is the satellite and hardware company, Dish is the programming. However an injunction against Echostar will most definitely hurt Dish if/when it is enforced. You can't get around patent infringement merely by spinning off a company and point the infringement finger at them...but then still continue to use the infringing device. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA | reply to cdru
quote:
Other DVR models are not infringing
What do other DVR models do differently that make them non-infringing?
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
|
|
totalaccess
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Elgin, TX | reply to Hall
Re: Federal judge in Texas...
and thats Texas 4 U...... |
|
replaytv
@comcast.net | reply to cdru
Re: .
thats odd. what about the now defunct replaytv (i think directv owns the rights to their stuff), they were one of the first people out with a dvr (including that nice commercial skip). |
|
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to travelguy
said by travelguy :Not exactly. Tivo patented a specific method the concept of watching while recording - i.e. chasing. FYP
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. |
|
