Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by Dajad, Mar 30, 2006.
I see. That makes a heck of a lot more sense than what was reported earlier.
well since TiVo wants to put software on those boxes they would protect any software patents. So yes go after them to change anything infringing.
then it becomes a wierd - do they make deals with cable cos or do they get royalties from the hardware makers or both.
I just went over and read the dish network forum thread on this topic.
It is pretty funny to see what the people on the other side of the fence are saying. They are pretty well convinced that TiVo will loose on appeal and have the patent thrown out by the patent office. Except for the people that think TiVo will be out of business before either of those things happen.
Ok I may be exaggerating a little but not much.
In that capacity, they are acting as agents for Echostar. But the cable companies are not agents of Motorola or SA. In the case of cable, the cable companies are the ones who are inflicting damages on TiVo by offering competing DVRs and service, and the box makers and software makers are inflicting damages by making and selling unlicensed, infringing products. If TiVo recovered damages from an MSO, the MSO would either be indemnified by or would sue the manufacturer to recover the money (unless the product was manufactured under contract, in which case the indemnification would go the other way around).
MOXI is OK, but I wouldn't say it's "good". And it's far from the quality of a TiVo. Although I don't really care if Charter gets TiVo because I have every intention of getting a couple of S3 units anyway.
No, you are not exaggerating.
Sheesh, and people call us "kool-aid drinkers".
here are my favorites
"looks to be a bit more of an uphill battle now"
"Furthermore, it is likely that given what the E* legal team knows now of the TiVo case, they will likely roll over them in appeal and clean TiVo's clock in the countersuit."
Good, that means you have money to spend when I find a good speaker sale for you.
Oy. I think Echostar needs to consider getting a new legal team considering that this one just got utterly crushed. Or better yet, just settle.
"Roll over them" and "clean TiVo's clock?" These people are delusional. Here's who they're up against: http://www.irell.com/attorneys/ShowLawyer.asp?AID=55
looks like an update to that page is in order now.
But man, the guy won a patent infringement against Sony.
this was just a medium size case to him.
Wow - that dude is a bad ass! Now I know why TiVo had to drop Lifetime to save a few pennies - he can't come cheap. They better hope the judge does indeed triple that award.
I don't know why these E* fans are worried anyway. Charlie has plenty of money to pay his bills. This isn't a huge burden for the company. What they should really worry about is Charlie standing in the way of getting this thing settled and having their DVRs turned off.
Looks like most of the people who are worried are investors with stock interest in E*. They're worried that $74M award could hurt their bottom line.
I've got the money, but not really the space. Right now I live in a town house, with neighbors on both sides, so I can barely crank up the speakers I have. Maybe some day, when I buy a real house and have a real home theater, I'll let you give me advice on recievers and speakers.
How much are TiVo's legal costs?
I'm sure that will need to be disclosed to share holders some time soon. Perhaps after the quarter ends at the end of the month?
Your receiver is fine for now. Space we can work with. There are lots of very good bookshelf speakers these days that will get you all the way through the midrange. I'm guessing you're mainly a TV/movie guy (being a TCF mod and all), so supplementing those with a sub is just fine. If you were primarily a music guy (and really, really discerning) you might want to hold out for floorstanding speakers to get farther into the bass.
Damn neighbors. I have the same situation. Fortunately my building is well built and my neighbor is also into home theater. Still, there is a fair bit of bass leakage, and I have to keep things lower than I'd like, especially at night. But it isn't all about volume (though that is fun) -- clarity, accuracy, frequency response, and a bunch of other pretentious stuff are the real issues (they all add up to how the speakers sound, so you really just have to listen to them, the rest is BS).
Remember, when you are watching a movie, sound is half the experience.
They haven't been breaking it out. It is just lumped into General & Administrative Expense. This case, I'd guess is in the ballpark of $20 million so far.
TiVo will ask the judge for legal fees, and we'll see what it is then.
Don't know if these were posted -- two stories from NY Times:
Patent Case Win Key to TiVo Survival
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: April 13, 2006
Filed at 9:04 p.m. ET
SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- TiVo Inc. just got a new lease on life. A jury's $73.9 million damage award Thursday to the digital video recording pioneer in its patent lawsuit against EchoStar Communications Corp., gives the struggling company not only a welcome cash infusion but also new leverage to seek additional licensing revenue from the growing number of other DVR providers.
''If they lost the lawsuit, it would have been the death knell for TiVo,'' said Vamsi Sistla, an industry analyst with market research firm ABI Research. ''Now this gives them some breathing room to chug away and try to enter new markets.''
TiVo-based DVRs currently account for less than one-third of the more than 15 million American homes that have some kind of digital video recorder box, but Forrester Research predicts that DVRs -- with or without TiVo's own branded service -- will be found in nearly half of U.S. households by 2009 as cable operators and other electronics makers add DVR features to their equipment.
The TiVo patent at the heart of the Echostar case involved a ''multimedia time warping system'' to pause, rewind or fast-forward live TV programs by recording them on a hard drive -- which are precisely the basic functions that define any DVR.
''TiVo can now go out in the world with the authority and the weight of this case to get additional licensees who can pay them royalties on their boxes,'' said Brad Lyerla, a senior partner at Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP in Chicago, an intellectual property law firm.
Legally now, TiVo is standing on high ground.
Even as Echostar appeals the case, Lyerla said the odds remain in TiVo's favor.
The rate of an appellate court reversal in all patent cases is less than 50 percent, Lyerla said, and reversals after a jury trial are even rarer.
Alviso, Calif.-based TiVo has lost nearly $650 million and gone through several rounds of layoffs since its inception in 1997. Aside from one quarter last year when it broke even on a per-share basis, the company has been unprofitable as it struggled to gain new customers amid a growing number of rival offerings.
For its fiscal year that ended Jan. 31, TiVo lost $34.4 million, or 41 cents a share.
''This is one headache behind their backs now, and they can go back to the drawing board to focus on their business and creating value for their shareholders,'' Sistla said.
News of the verdict sent TiVo shares soaring nearly 20 percent, or $1.60, to $9.65 in late-session electronic trading Thursday.
Jury Verdict Is More Good News for TiVo
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: April 14, 2006
Filed at 6:46 a.m. ET
MARSHALL, Texas (AP) -- In a case cast as crucial to TiVo's survival, a federal jury decided that EchoStar Communication Corp. copied key technologies from the digital video recording pioneer and awarded nearly $74 million.
The 10-member jury spent just about two hours, including a cigarette break, to decide that the parent of the Dish satellite network had infringed nine sections of TiVo's patent on technology for digital video recorders that let viewers pause, rewind and fast-forward live TV shows.
''There was no one thing,'' said jury forewoman Cathy Lindsey, a school secretary. ''We just felt like there was infringement on all the charges. It wasn't unanimous to start with, but we were close.''
TiVo won most of the $87 million in damages it sought.
The case in federal district court was closely watched on Wall Street, with some analysts even dropping in during the two-week trial. They said a victory would help TiVo win other royalty deals involving digital video recorders, or DVRs.
News of the verdict sent TiVo shares soaring 21.7 percent, or $1.75, to $9.80 in after-hours electronic trading Thursday night. If that price holds in regular trading when the Nasdaq Stock Market reopens on Monday, it would mark a 52-week high for the stock. EchoStar shares dropped 22 cents to $29.75 in after-hours trading.
The judge could triple the $73.9 million award -- which is subject to appeal -- since the jury found that EchoStar had willfully infringed TiVo's patent.
In a statement, EchoStar called the verdict ''the first step in a very long process'' and said it considered TiVo's patent overly broad.
''We believe the decision will be reversed either through post-trial motions or on appeal,'' EchoStar said in a statement. The Englewood, Colo., company also said it is looking forward to trying its countersuit against TiVo, which is scheduled for early next year, also in East Texas.
TiVo attorney Matthew Zinn said the verdict gives his company a boost in its attempt to negotiate licensing deals with cable operators that use TiVo-like boxes from other manufacturers. He said as a last resort, TiVo might file patent-infringement lawsuits against cable companies.
Comcast Corp. recently signed a deal with Alviso, Calif.-based TiVo, but other cable providers have resisted. They -- along with Dish -- have taken sales from TiVo by offering boxes and service at lower prices. (Separately, TiVo said Wednesday it extended an agreement with its largest partner, satellite TV provider DirecTV Group Inc., for three more years.)
Jurors hewed to the recommendation of a TiVo consultant in finding that EchoStar's use of TiVo's patent for a ''multimedia time warping system'' cost TiVo $73.99 million.
That broke down to $32.66 million in lost profits from sales of set-top boxes -- $169.50 per box -- and another $41.33 million that EchoStar should have paid in royalties on its sales of more than 4 million TiVo-like boxes.
The jury declined to award TiVo the full $87 million it sought because the company hadn't stamped all of its boxes with a patent trademark, so damages only covered the period after TiVo filed the lawsuit in January 2004.
Like many of the jurors, Brenda Dotson, a third-grade teacher, took copious notes to understand a case that hinged on technical details about DVRs.
''We just looked at the evidence and tried to maintain the big picture,'' she said.
Both Dotson and Lindsey, the forewoman, said they made up their minds before Thursday's closing arguments. They were impressed by TiVo co-founder James M. Barton -- the first name on TiVo's patent -- who described how his box worked and calmly sidestepped efforts by an EchoStar lawyer to trip him up during cross-examination.
None of the jurors own a TiVo, although Judge David Folsom said he does.
In closing arguments Thursday, EchoStar attorney Harold McElhinny said TiVo was using EchoStar as a scapegoat for its own failure to compete against other makers of set-top boxes. He said TiVo's box was overpriced at a time when Dish and cable companies were giving away recorders to new subscribers.
McElhinny highlighted TiVo's financial problems -- it has lost nearly $650 million since its founding in 1997 -- which he blamed on erratic decision-making.
After two weeks of a hard-fought trial, lawyers for both sides tried to lighten the mood on Thursday with self-effacing humor.
TiVo's hometown Marshall attorney, Sam Baxter, began by apologetically telling jurors, ''If this (trial) were like TiVo, you could just fast-forward through this and go to lunch.'' Then he made a joke about trying in vain to get TiVo's lead lawyer, Morgan Chu, to get rid of his trademark bow tie.
A couple of hours later, the winning team of lawyers held a boisterous celebration in a pub across the square from the courthouse. By then, Chu had ditched the bow tie.
Hey! I'm a patent dude! Man, losing television access has really restricted my awareness of current events.
Anyway, quickly browsing all this info in fifteen minutes, my quickies:
You can use the description to interpret claims when they aren't clear...I guess I missed the argument against a computer with a tuner card being prior art, but I guess that's the power of the Media Switch, assuming that it has to be hardware...the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the next step up) can ignore the lower court's claim construction.