Board   Quote  

TIVO   /  Message Board  /  Thread View

 
BOARD

GROUPS

BLOGS

CHART

NEWS

FILINGS
 








Seanfinance
x


 
 
 




Show Reply List Highlight Thread

My TIVO Ignore List


Open Search


Keyword
Subject
Between
and
Rec'd By
Authored By
Minimum Recs
  
TOPIC: Notices sent out by Dish - started by realtor4u

 
 
Msg # 23778 Posted 4/19/2008  11:34:51 AM by realtor4u
Recs: 13

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Notices sent out by Dish

Link 1

Link 2



Replies to this message Recs Date Posted
# 23779 by Barbs 1 4/19/2008 12:03:05 PM
# 23780 by tivoto50 1 4/19/2008 12:09:04 PM
# 23782 by isthatajoke23 3 4/19/2008 12:12:31 PM
# 23828 by Ques 16 4/19/2008 7:01:07 PM




 
Msg # 23779 Posted 4/19/2008  12:03:05 PM by Barbs
Recs: 1

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

WTF.   Am I reading those links correctly?  Sounds like Dish is stating that the injunction is currently in place but yet they are stating that they have not and will not be shutting down their DVR's because of a "redesign" of software.

Can you say triple damages?



 
Msg # 23780 Posted 4/19/2008  12:09:04 PM by tivoto50
Recs: 1

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

I'm actually surprised that Dish even put out a warning so soon. I thought they'd still be in denial and try and drag it out. Uhh... our PR dept was busy. .. Uhh. We're taking it to the Supreme Court.

Still, to take the "initiative" and warn vendors is prob a sign that they are finally capitulating.


Replies to this message Recs Date Posted
# 23781 by realtor4u 1 4/19/2008 12:11:12 PM




 
Msg # 23781 Posted 4/19/2008  12:11:12 PM by realtor4u
Recs: 1

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

"Still, to take the "initiative" and warn vendors is prob a sign that they are finally capitulating."

It's funny that they left out these word:

"and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice hereof, are hereby
restrained and enjoined"



 
Msg # 23782 Posted 4/19/2008  12:12:31 PM by isthatajoke23
Recs: 3

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

I love how Charlie thinks he is a federal judge.  The letter might as well read, "We've been ordered to stop selling and shut down our DVRs, but we don't want to, so we're not going to."

So now they are knowingly, willfully in contempt of a court order.  It'll be interesting to see how the court reacts.




Replies to this message Recs Date Posted
# 23785 by chembrane 2 4/19/2008 12:25:56 PM




 
Msg # 23785 Posted 4/19/2008  12:25:56 PM by chembrane
Recs: 2

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

Unless I'm reading it wrong, in the second notice Ergen is esssentially saying they are not allowed to sell the the 721, 921, 942 and Homezone 1022 models because they did not get the redesigned software, but any boxes already deployed in the field are non-infringing?????

Wow. That is stunning. I don't think that's going to go over well at all.


Replies to this message Recs Date Posted
# 23786 by realtor4u 0 4/19/2008 12:28:10 PM
# 23787 by isthatajoke23 0 4/19/2008 12:31:43 PM




 
Msg # 23786 Posted 4/19/2008  12:28:10 PM by realtor4u
Recs: 0

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

"Unless I'm reading it wrong, in the second notice Ergen is esssentially saying they are not allowed to sell the the 721, 921, 942 and Homezone 1022 models because they did not get the redesigned software, but any boxes already deployed in the field are non-infringing????? "

If there are less than 193K fielded they are off the hook. Surely there iare more than that.



Replies to this message Recs Date Posted
# 23788 by chembrane 0 4/19/2008 12:33:30 PM




 
Msg # 23787 Posted 4/19/2008  12:31:43 PM by isthatajoke23
Recs: 0

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

<<Unless I'm reading it wrong, in the second notice Ergen is esssentially saying they are not allowed to sell the the 721, 921, 942 and Homezone 1022 models because they did not get the redesigned software, but any boxes already deployed in the field are non-infringing?????>>

I wondered about that, too.  But I don't know the breakdown of E*'s installed DVRs by model, so it may be that there are only a few instances of those models out there, and E* has crammed them all into the 192,000 that they don't have to shut off.  Otherwise, yeah, they're playing with fire.



Replies to this message Recs Date Posted
# 23789 by chembrane 0 4/19/2008 12:38:15 PM
# 23795 by chembrane 5 4/19/2008 1:14:17 PM




 
Msg # 23788 Posted 4/19/2008  12:33:30 PM by chembrane
Recs: 0

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

<If there are less than 193K fielded they are off the hook. Surely there iare more than that.>

So those models are the ones that existed years ago but left out of the original injunction? Why were they considered non-fringing, but now are considered infringing if sold?


 
Msg # 23789 Posted 4/19/2008  12:38:15 PM by chembrane
Recs: 0

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

<I wondered about that, too. But I don't know the breakdown of E*'s installed DVRs by model, so it may be that there are only a few instances of those models out there, and E* has crammed them all into the 192,000 that they don't have to shut off. Otherwise, yeah, they're playing with fire.>

Oh yea..brain fart about the 192k. Those are the ones before the patent application was filed or whatever that date was. I guess that's a possibility, but it's weird that there would still be inventory if they are that old.


Replies to this message Recs Date Posted
# 23790 by llmorse 0 4/19/2008 12:46:19 PM
# 23791 by realtor4u 0 4/19/2008 12:55:25 PM
# 23792 by isthatajoke23 0 4/19/2008 12:59:37 PM




 
Msg # 23790 Posted 4/19/2008  12:46:19 PM by llmorse
Recs: 0

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

Charlie sounds pretty confident that their workaround will be fine with Folsom.


Replies to this message Recs Date Posted
# 23793 by Seanfinance 0 4/19/2008 1:00:49 PM




 
Msg # 23791 Posted 4/19/2008  12:55:25 PM by realtor4u
Recs: 0

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

"Oh yea..brain fart about the 192k. Those are the ones before the patent application was filed or whatever that date was. I guess that's a possibility, but it's weird that there would still be inventory if they are that old."

No. The 193K was the number TiVo was awarded lost profits for and treated as if they were lifetime subs. No future royalties. No future infringement.



Replies to this message Recs Date Posted
# 23794 by chembrane 0 4/19/2008 1:01:17 PM




 
Msg # 23792 Posted 4/19/2008  12:59:37 PM by isthatajoke23
Recs: 0

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

<<Oh yea..brain fart about the 192k. Those are the ones before the patent application was filed or whatever that date was.>>

They're the ones TiVo was given "lost profits" on, and are therefore considered fully compensated.  The lost profits damages were much higher (like $200 per box) than the damages on the bulk of the E* DVRs.  The rest of the damages were for reasonable royalties, which are ongoing.



Replies to this message Recs Date Posted
# 23797 by CaptainAmerica 1 4/19/2008 1:33:11 PM




 
Msg # 23793 Posted 4/19/2008  1:00:49 PM by Seanfinance
Recs: 0

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

Charlie sounds pretty confident that their workaround will be fine with Folsom.
 
 
Someone should send him a link to this board. He obviously doesn't understand that he needs to settle or his 14 billion dollar company will go out of business.
 
I think there are only about 2,652 posts saying that on this board.



 
Msg # 23794 Posted 4/19/2008  1:01:17 PM by chembrane
Recs: 0

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

<No. The 193K was the number TiVo was awarded lost profits for and treated as if they were lifetime subs. No future royalties. No future infringement.>

Oh right.....my bad again. I always just think of them as "that group that doesn't count", and forget why. I need a TIVO for my brain to keep everything straight...especially with a 7 month old in the house.


 
Msg # 23795 Posted 4/19/2008  1:14:17 PM by chembrane
Recs: 5

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

<Otherwise, yeah, they're playing with fire.>

No doubt. Ergen's not going to try to stay the injunction, otherwise he would have appealed to the SC. It looks like he's just going to let the 30 days go by and argue that he doesn't have to do anything...risking contempt and far more damages. He'll also probably challenge the historical damage award that Folsom comes up with because of the software changes.

Then he'll go to the SC then if he doesn't get his way.

Dangerous move if he keeps going down that road. I assume at some point jail time is a possibility.


 
Msg # 23797 Posted 4/19/2008  1:33:11 PM by CaptainAmerica
Recs: 1

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

May I suggest that someone please email these notices to Morgan Chu in case he does not have them?


Replies to this message Recs Date Posted
# 23808 by CKaplan 1 4/19/2008 2:36:53 PM




 
Msg # 23808 Posted 4/19/2008  2:36:53 PM by CKaplan
Recs: 1

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

His email is mchu@irell.com

I wonder if he reads emails sent to this address.  I bet he gets a lot of junk email. Probably some of them hate letters from Charlie :P




 
Msg # 23828 Posted 4/19/2008  7:01:07 PM by Ques
Recs: 16

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

Wow! This is very disrespectful to the court simply based on the wording of the injunction, which requires Echostar to disable all recording to and reading from the hard-drive of the named DVRs. The order does not say anything about the particular process in which the data is recorded---which leads me to believe that, at least at the time, Folsom doubted whether or not such a downloadable work-around was possible. At best, they need (or needed) to ask the judge to modify the order. So based on the plain language of the injunction, Echostar is in contempt. Period!

I think if Folsom wanted to, he could simply say that it is not credible that Echostar has downloaded a work-around of this magnitude given the lack of any glitches that would be involved in such a massive undertaking, and then send Walker “Texas Ranger” out to corporate head quarters (as others have suggested).





Replies to this message Recs Date Posted
# 23830 by randreader 0 4/19/2008 8:15:35 PM
# 23837 by isthatajoke23 10 4/19/2008 11:07:04 PM
# 23852 by r15hz8 4 4/20/2008 11:12:52 AM
# 23881 by realtor4u 0 4/20/2008 8:08:30 PM
# 24625 by mblacko1 1 4/24/2008 9:08:58 AM




 
Msg # 23830 Posted 4/19/2008  8:15:35 PM by randreader
Recs: 0

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

Thanks!
So what can Walker do? Is there really chance to enforce it? Any similar cases? Or is Ergen more arogant than all others?
(My guess is settlement on Monday, though.)
Cate


 
Msg # 23837 Posted 4/19/2008  11:07:04 PM by isthatajoke23
Recs: 10

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

<<I think if Folsom wanted to, he could simply say that it is not credible that Echostar has downloaded a work-around of this magnitude given the lack of any glitches that would be involved in such a massive undertaking...>>

I don't think he even has to say that.  He ordered E* to disable recording to the hard drives of those devices.  The injunction doesn't say disable "unless you assert a workaround."  It is not conditioned upon anything but the jury's verdict, and that has now been affirmed by the appeals court.  All he has to say is, "shut them down or you are in contempt."  There is no new decision there.  The appeals court won't hear the case again, and the Supreme Court won't look at the injunction because E* didn't contest it on appeal.  If Folsom says "shut them down" (and he's already said that), then nobody can stop the enforcement.  He only has to consider E*'s workaround if he chooses to, and after the slap in the face they've just given him, I can't imagine him being inclined toward generosity.  Plus, they've been screwing TiVo for years now, and he seems to recognize that, so he's not going to vacate his own injunction just because it's going to hurt E*.





Replies to this message Recs Date Posted
# 23842 by Ques 9 4/19/2008 11:57:41 PM
# 23851 by Seanfinance 0 4/20/2008 9:25:12 AM




 
Msg # 23842 Posted 4/19/2008  11:57:41 PM by Ques
Recs: 9

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

"I don't think he even has to say that."

I agree with you 0. I just think TiVo’s interest would be best served if Folsom addresses Echostar's claim to some extent (if only in a summary fashion) when he is asked to enforce the injunction. Most of us know where this is headed, if their delay tactics won’t work with Folsom (and they probably won’t), they’ll be requesting an emergency stay from the CAFC. The way Folsom handles the work-around issue can further reduce the chances of any intervention by a higher court.

From what I’ve seen so far, Folsom is a pretty good judge. When he screwed up with the privilege issue at trial by excluding some evidence, I think he did a good job of crafting his opinion denying enhanced damages, in order to decrease the likelihood that his decision would be reversed on appeal.




 
Msg # 23851 Posted 4/20/2008  9:25:12 AM by Seanfinance
Recs: 0

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

It is not conditioned upon anything but the jury's verdict, and that has now been affirmed by the appeals court. 
 
Wrong. The Hardware portion of the verdict was not.
 
All you armchair lawyers think you know more about this case than E* high priced team of lawyers who are getting paid to defend this case. You all can't see beyond your fantasies of Tivo to 50 and E* goes out of business. Good luck with that.
 
I bet E* lawyers have some arguments to make. They'll pay their damages and they've notified their dealers about which DVR's to no longer sell but they've also got a patent pending on a new "process" they claim is not in violation of Tivo's patents. It's a "process" executed by software that they have downloaded to the previously infringing DVR'S.
 
Is Judge Folsom going to look at the code and the patent application? Sounds to me like we have lots more billable hours for the lawyers to go before any ongoing license fees are paid. Hopefully Matt Zinn can take some time away from selling his Tivo shares to continue work on this case.



 
Msg # 23852 Posted 4/20/2008  11:12:52 AM by r15hz8
Recs: 4

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

Two sides to that notice:

1. An injunction is in place... but we have downloaded a work-around... blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada.

2. DEAR CUSTOMERS AND DEALERS, NO ACTION IS NECESSARY ON YOUR PART.

It's the latter point that is the main message that E* wanted to get out. Keep the machine greased and oiled, and keep it running. Point 2 is possible because of point 1, but it does not matter what point 1 is. Point 1 could have been really anything, anything BUT 'because we are in setttlement talks with TiVo and in reach of a licensing agreement'. Part of the machine is Wall Street too.

But in reality, point 1 is exactly that (settlement). We've known it, they know it, and anyone betting against TiVo this late in the game deserves their losses. Because of point 2, I am more confident than ever (and I've always been confident) that E* is preparing for a settlement.


Replies to this message Recs Date Posted
# 23853 by isthatajoke23 1 4/20/2008 11:22:36 AM
# 23864 by riff_raff_ruff 2 4/20/2008 3:59:15 PM




 
Msg # 23853 Posted 4/20/2008  11:22:36 AM by isthatajoke23
Recs: 1

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

<<Because of point 2, I am more confident than ever (and I've always been confident) that E* is preparing for a settlement.>>

I had similar thoughts.  And if settlement talks are happening, then the whole workaround ploy is probably to give them some negotiating leverage where they otherwise have none whatsoever.  TiVo has to have some incentive to accept an E* offer.

But I'll caution you that this is just one possible interpretation and it may have nothing to do with reality.  There may be no talks and E* may push the workaround angle to the bitter end.



Replies to this message Recs Date Posted
# 23854 by r15hz8 0 4/20/2008 11:35:58 AM
# 23885 by kmiller14 0 4/20/2008 11:17:37 PM




 
Msg # 23854 Posted 4/20/2008  11:35:58 AM by r15hz8
Recs: 0

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

agreed.


 
Msg # 23864 Posted 4/20/2008  3:59:15 PM by riff_raff_ruff
Recs: 2

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

<<DEAR CUSTOMERS AND DEALERS, NO ACTION IS NECESSARY ON YOUR PART.>>

Interesting wording; it should save time when they send out the revision after Folsom's order:

"Dear Customers and Dealers, by court order, all Echostar DVRs have been disabled, so no action is POSSIBLE on your part."



 
Msg # 23881 Posted 4/20/2008  8:08:30 PM by realtor4u
Recs: 0

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

"The order does not say anything about the particular process in which the data is recorded---which leads me to believe that, at least at the time, Folsom doubted whether or not such a downloadable work-around was possible."

Maybe Folsom didn't think a download would fix the hardware infringement.



Replies to this message Recs Date Posted
# 23883 by kmiller14 1 4/20/2008 11:12:47 PM




 
Msg # 23883 Posted 4/20/2008  11:12:47 PM by kmiller14
Recs: 1

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

Well, Dish did not infringe on the hardware claims.  So they feel they have fixed their software processes to not infringe on the software claims either. 

This is the same damn argument that has been going on since Dish said they had a "fix". 

So will the Judge order a review of the new software and put a hold on the injunction again?

People assume there will be a positive movement in the stock price, but i expect it to drop based on these Dish notices.  There is no pending settlement....so we need to see what the Judge is actually going to do.

Nobody on here has been completely accurate in their assumptions yet, so we will just see what happens.        




Replies to this message Recs Date Posted
# 23888 by wil3 2 4/20/2008 11:50:08 PM




 
Msg # 23885 Posted 4/20/2008  11:17:37 PM by kmiller14
Recs: 0

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

"But I'll caution you that this is just one possible interpretation and it may have nothing to do with reality.  There may be no talks and E* may push the workaround angle to the bitter end."


This is exactly what I think is happening.



 
Msg # 23888 Posted 4/20/2008  11:50:08 PM by wil3
Recs: 2

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish

<but i expect it to drop based on these Dish notices.>

I'm betting we see a blast upward, because recognition that closure is near. A contempt of court charge is serious and that's where it's heading and quickly without a settlement. We shall see. I've been here a long time and wrong more than once. I'm due to get one right. :)


 
Msg # 24625 Posted 4/24/2008  9:08:58 AM by mblacko1
Recs: 1

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish....best of Ques

Msg: 23828 of 24624     4/19/2008 7:01:07 PM    
Author:  Ques   
  send pm  ·  add member to favs  ·  ignore  ·  recommend


  In response to msg 23778 by realtor4u
Re: Notices sent out by Dish
Wow! This is very disrespectful to the court simply based on the wording of the injunction, which requires Echostar to disable all recording to and reading from the hard-drive of the named DVRs. The order does not say anything about the particular process in which the data is recorded---which leads me to believe that, at least at the time, Folsom doubted whether or not such a downloadable work-around was possible. At best, they need (or needed) to ask the judge to modify the order. So based on the plain language of the injunction, Echostar is in contempt. Period!

I think if Folsom wanted to, he could simply say that it is not credible that Echostar has downloaded a work-around of this magnitude given the lack of any glitches that would be involved in such a massive undertaking, and then send Walker “Texas Ranger” out to corporate head quarters (as others have suggested).





Replies to this message Recs Date Posted
# 24627 by kcskcj 1 4/24/2008 9:31:52 AM
# 24667 by mblacko1 0 4/24/2008 11:46:15 AM




 
Msg # 24627 Posted 4/24/2008  9:31:52 AM by kcskcj
Recs: 1

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish....best of Ques

Thanks blacko for taking the time to post best of Ques! Thanks Ques. You are right on target with everything!


Replies to this message Recs Date Posted
# 24628 by mblacko1 0 4/24/2008 9:45:33 AM




 
Msg # 24628 Posted 4/24/2008  9:45:33 AM by mblacko1
Recs: 0

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish....best of Ques

You are welcome, and yes, we are lucky to have Ques as a trustworthy sounding board.

His comments strongly suggest Dish is in now in contempt, and a preliminary injunction is a strong possibility if Dish stirs up the pot regarding the WA




Replies to this message Recs Date Posted
# 24630 by Barbs 0 4/24/2008 9:51:40 AM




 
Msg # 24630 Posted 4/24/2008  9:51:40 AM by Barbs
Recs: 0

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish....best of Ques

I am having a brain fart.  What is "WA"?


Replies to this message Recs Date Posted
# 24632 by mblacko1 0 4/24/2008 9:55:00 AM




 
Msg # 24632 Posted 4/24/2008  9:55:00 AM by mblacko1
Recs: 0

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish....best of Ques

sorry .....WA = work around



 
Msg # 24667 Posted 4/24/2008  11:46:15 AM by mblacko1
Recs: 0

Add to Favorites
Send PM
Ignore


Re: Notices sent out by Dish....best of Ques

Repost again


Re: Notices sent out by Dish....best of QuesMsg: 23828 of 24624     4/19/2008 7:01:07 PM    
Author:  Ques   
  send pm  ·  add member to favs  ·  ignore  ·  recommend


  In response to msg 23778 by realtor4u
Re: Notices sent out by Dish
Wow! This is very disrespectful to the court simply based on the wording of the injunction, which requires Echostar to disable all recording to and reading from the hard-drive of the named DVRs. The order does not say anything about the particular process in which the data is recorded---which leads me to believe that, at least at the time, Folsom doubted whether or not such a downloadable work-around was possible. At best, they need (or needed) to ask the judge to modify the order. So based on the plain language of the injunction, Echostar is in contempt. Period!

I think if Folsom wanted to, he could simply say that it is not credible that Echostar has downloaded a work-around of this magnitude given the lack of any glitches that would be involved in such a massive undertaking, and then send Walker “Texas Ranger” out to corporate head quarters (as others have suggested).







Return To Message    Return to Message List
About Us  •  Members Directory  •  Help  •  Contact Us
Not a member yet? What are you waiting for? Join Now
Want to contribute? Support InvestorVillage by donating
© 2003-2009 Investorvillage.com. All rights reserved. User Agreement
Financial Market Data provided by Xignite.


Loading...