# Tivo wins patent dispute vs Dish



## Cutty (Sep 8, 2007)

I suspect this will get DTV's attention....

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2010-03-05-tivo05_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Cutty said:


> I suspect this will get DTV's attention....


Wow!

Exciting news.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Cutty said:


> I suspect this will get DTV's attention....
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2010-03-05-tivo05_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip


Why? Tivo and DirecTV already have an agreement in place. Dish stole Tivo technology. Completely different stories. This has NOTHING to do with DirecTV.


----------



## Cutty (Sep 8, 2007)

TonyD79 said:


> This has NOTHING to do with DirecTV.


It has *everything* to do with DTV. It's very obvious that DTV has been taking a "wait and see" attitude with TIVO....Keeping them on board whereas to avoid litigation, but not anywhere near a full alliance partner. DTV has waited out this court appeal process and now that only the supreme court can overrule the decision, it's time to fish or cut bait.

Since TIVO has more or less established that they own the entire DVR format, anyone who has a DVR will either have to pay huge royalties to TIVO, or arrange some type of business partnership. My guess is that DTV will roll out a full range of TIVO boxes....Or pay heavy fees.

Notice how TIVO has already filed against anyone who isn't some type of TIVO partner. TIVO was obviously rewarding those who had some business interest with them. However, it's now time to collect.

Congrats to TIVO for exercising it's rights in court. The entire DVR industry tried to rip them off.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

Cutty said:


> I suspect this will get DTV's attention....
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2010-03-05-tivo05_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip


Dateline on that story is 03/05. This is old news already discussed extensively in other threads here like this one.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

appleye1 said:


> This is old news already discussed extensively in other threads


+1


----------



## sjberra (May 16, 2005)

Cutty said:


> It has *everything* to do with DTV. It's very obvious that DTV has been taking a "wait and see" attitude with TIVO....Keeping them on board whereas to avoid litigation, but not anywhere near a full alliance partner. DTV has waited out this court appeal process and now that only the supreme court can overrule the decision, it's time to fish or cut bait.
> 
> Since TIVO has more or less established that they own the entire DVR format, anyone who has a DVR will either have to pay huge royalties to TIVO, or arrange some type of business partnership. My guess is that DTV will roll out a full range of TIVO boxes....Or pay heavy fees.
> 
> ...


try reading the current agreement that Directv has with TIVO, decision has nothing to do with directv, the Directvio box will still be built to Directv's specifications ans restrictions, and Directv will just have to pay the stipend agreed to in the original contract. You have a better chance of swimming to the moon they there is of getting a "full range of tivo boxes", a single one will be out sometime within the next 3 years or more. Someone needs to do a hostile takeover of tivo, current stock is only worth a little over 16 bucks a share.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 9, 2005)

How many times do they have to "win" that case before it has any effect on Dish?


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

joed32 said:


> How many times do they have to "win" that case before it has any effect on Dish?


As many times as it takes for Dish to give in and quit fighting. So far, Charlie is still fighting.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

Cutty said:


> It has *everything* to do with DTV. It's very obvious that DTV has been taking a "wait and see" attitude with TIVO....Keeping them on board whereas to avoid litigation, but not anywhere near a full alliance partner. DTV has waited out this court appeal process and now that only the supreme court can overrule the decision, it's time to fish or cut bait.
> 
> Since TIVO has more or less established that they own the entire DVR format, anyone who has a DVR will either have to pay huge royalties to TIVO, or arrange some type of business partnership. My guess is that DTV will roll out a full range of TIVO boxes....Or pay heavy fees.
> 
> ...


LOL. Obviously you don't understand that DirecTV has and continues to pay licensing fees to Tivo for their patents. And they have a no sue clause thru 2018 as it is. It even says so in the linked article:

_*TiVo has already sued Verizon and AT&T for patent infringement. The DVR pioneer has business deals with Comcast, Cox, RCN and DirecTV that preclude a lawsuit involving the technology in their recorders.*_

On top of that DirecTV owns the Replay patents which Tivo already couldn't beat in court.  Thus if Tivo were to sue DirecTV not only would they be breaking their contract with DirecTV, DirecTV can spend years counter suing them with the Replay patents and by the time the dust settles the Tivo patents will run out...most in 2018 when the current agreement with Tivo ends, imagine that timing! 

Thus, this effects DirecTV not at all. As mentioned above.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

shibby191 said:


> Thus, this effects DirecTV not at all. As mentioned above.


You are correct for the most part, except DirecTV will be indirect beneficiary should Dish will be forced to shot down DVRs.


----------



## Cutty (Sep 8, 2007)

CuriousMark said:


> As many times as it takes for Dish to give in and quit fighting. So far, Charlie is still fighting.


Exactly....Many business cases are overturned at the appellate level, thus, this most recent ruling is much more important than the previous one. It's very clear that DTV has been taking a wait and see attitude and has been rolling out their own boxes in full force. I strongly suspect things will change now.



shibby191 said:


> LOL. Obviously you don't understand that DirecTV has and continues to pay licensing fees to Tivo for their patents. And they have a no sue clause thru 2018 as it is. It even says so in the linked article:
> 
> _*TiVo has already sued Verizon and AT&T for patent infringement. The DVR pioneer has business deals with Comcast, Cox, RCN and DirecTV that preclude a lawsuit involving the technology in their recorders.*_
> 
> On top of that DirecTV owns the Replay patents which Tivo already couldn't beat in court.  Thus if Tivo were to sue DirecTV not only would they be breaking their contract with DirecTV, DirecTV can spend years counter suing them with the Replay patents and by the time the dust settles the Tivo patents will run out...most in 2018 when the current agreement with Tivo ends, imagine that timing!


Of course DTV pays fees to TIVO, but only on the small # of DTV TIVO boxes still left out there. They pay nothing to TIVO on all their own hardware. Why do you think DTV moved away from them in the first place....Because they wanted to vertically integrate and cut TIVO out of the mix. However, that will change very quickly.

The Replay patents have nothing to do with the fundamental DVR patents successfully upheld in court by TIVO. Do you really think it's any coincidence that as TIVO has been slowly winning this fight vs Dish, that they have slowly come back into graces with DTV? Go back and look at when they announced their renewed partnership....It was shortly after TIVO prevailed in the lower court. Once the first round legal battle was won by TIVO, it got DTV's attention and they agreed to move ahead with this new box.

Furthemore, TIVO's deal with Comcast was inked about the same time as well.....Comcast also realized the significance of the lower court ruling....They have very wisely decided to partner up with TIVO rather than employ their own hardware.

Conversely, AT&T and Verizon have not shown any interest in doing business with TIVO, thus, the reason why they are on the "sue" list.

I can guarantee you with about everything I own, had Tivo not won at the initial court level, or been overturned on appeal, any "real" business arrangement between DTV and TIVO would be dead in the water.

You don't seem to understand the legal significance of this most recent court affirmation......TIVO essentially owns all the DVR technology and providers will have to either employ TIVO's services, or pay a licensing fee. Prior to the appellate ruling, many things could have happened, including a settlement....And that's why some were taking a wait and see stance. Some even speculated that TIVO may not be in business by the time the issue was resolved. Many parties rolled the dice on this thing and it's now time to pay the piper.

However, now only the US Supreme Court can save Dish, which is very unlikely. Why do you think TIVO's stock shot up after the affirmation? If TIVO really wants to stick it to Dish hard, they can deny them the ability to have any DVR technology.


----------



## JimboG (May 27, 2007)

Cutty said:


> However, now only the US Supreme Court can save Dish, which is very unlikely.


Actually the entire Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit could choose to hear the case _en banc_. This is one last intermediate step before Echostar petitions the Supreme Court to have their appeal heard and the Supreme Court in turn refuses to hear the case because:


There isn't any pressing Constitutional issue in this case.
Charlie has been in willful, flagrant violation of TiVo's patents for over a decade and everyone from the District Court judge on up who has heard the case is sick of it.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

JimboG said:


> Actually the entire Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit could choose to hear the case _en banc_


Long odds, historically. And, even with review granted, long odds still for reversal.

I think Charlie followed the Microsoft strategy and in this case it didn't work. So enrage the trial judge with your lies, unethical behavior and disingenuousness that he gets rope-a-doped and makes errors/injudicious statements that poison the case. But in this case we had a judge with the patience of a saint and I don't see anything that would result in his being force-retired/removed from the case/reversed.

It's still a big win for DISH, overall. They will pay huge dollars, but they stole a whole market and used Tivo's own technology to keep Tivo from becoming a major force in that market, a market they had invented. Not saying Charlie didn't hope to get out cheaper, but it's still a bargain.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

Wil said:


> It's still a big win for DISH, overall. They will pay huge dollars, but they stole a whole market and used Tivo's own technology to keep Tivo from becoming a major force in that market, a market they had invented. Not saying Charlie didn't hope to get out cheaper, but it's still a bargain.


That seems a pretty warped version of reality. Did you just finish reading Karl Rove's book or something?

DISH just had their butts handed to them. Having a Tivo-like DVR helped them not at all, and now they will pay dearly for that privilege. This will make it very hard for them to continue to lie about how much cheaper their service is (it isn't) when they have to pass on a $4 per month stipend to 2/3rds of their 14 million subscribers to pay off Tivo. If there is a winner, its clearly Tivo, and if there is a loser, its clearly DISH. Otherwise both companies just wasted millions trying to win that battle.

DISH had nothing to do with Tivo's problems. Tivo had DirecTV, the _major _DBS player with many more subs, completely sowed up, until 2006. If they could not break through there (and even with DTV they remained a minor player), how much more would it have taken?

The only thing DISH did was not cut a deal with Tivo similar to the one Tivo had with DTV (read:serve the rest of DBS up on a silver platter). Whether their DVR was a Tivo rip-off or not mattered not one whit to the fortunes of Tivo until the verdict was read (and its still not over). And it probably never really helped DISH, either.

No one eschewed Tivo for DISH because DISH had a Tivo-like DVR. They are not even in competition with each other. Hardware manufacturers are in competition with other hardware manufacturers; content vendors are in competion with other content vendors, and regardless how their fortunes affect others secondarily, hardware manufacturers are not in competition with content vendors, so DISH could have little effect on Tivo's business fortunes. Until now, that is, and in a negative direction.

When the world was SD analog and stand-alone Tivos ruled for OTA and cable, the future looked bright for Tivo. The reason it wasn't bright is because OTA SD shrank and died, SD cable was replaced by digital cable (especially for high-income homes), alternative delivery flourished in DVDs and internet, HD and CableCard handcuffed Tivo and made the old standalone delivery model obsolete, and Tivo did not see the handwriting on the wall, refused to change, and got stomped by the vertical integration of DBS, cable, and FIOS.

The only affect will still be to come, when DISH has to pay them an estimated $200 million in license fees until they can change out to a new generation of non-Tivo DVRs.

If that is your idea of a bargain, I have a Toyota I'd like to sell you.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> Why? Tivo and DirecTV already have an agreement in place. Dish stole Tivo technology. Completely different stories. This has NOTHING to do with DirecTV.


Why do you think they have that agreement in place? Because, primarily, Tivo was mounting a strong intellectual property suit against DISH. Seeing as how its a very grey area, and seeing as how Tivo, DTV, and DISH DVRs are not functionally all that different, if Tivo has a solid case against DISH, they could also mount such a case against DTV. I expect the lawyers to not even take a vacation, and to start in on Motorola next, and sue every non-DTV DVR out there from any company that won't play ball the way DTV did.

But DTV and DISH approached this potential threat completely differently. DISH said "F you, were going to fight you in court", and DTV said "Hey, let's be reasonable, we'll play nice, give you a board seat, keep a service agreement, allow you to provide a premium DVR, etc." I think Tivos litgiousness and strong case had a great deal to do with how well DTV has treated them, not to mention the huge infusion of business they gave them during the DTivo era. As it turns out, the DTV approach has proved to be the smarter one of the two.

The only thing that puzzles me is why Apple never bought Tivo in the first place. Very few technologies rise to the level of Apple. Tivo always has, and their missing ingredient was the knowledge of how to market it, something they seemed to be completely lacking at and which Apple is better at than anyone else. Apple could have put a Tivo HTPC app in every iMac, tower, and Mac Book out there, and made it a part of their iLife productivity/entertainment software bundle. It would have been a perfect marriage of hardware and software and sold a lot of both to a lot of people in an era when there is a lot of grumbling about the DVR options available from every non-Tivo source. They're even within driving distance of each other.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

Cutty said:


> Of course DTV pays fees to TIVO, but only on the small # of DTV TIVO boxes still left out there. They pay nothing to TIVO on all their own hardware. Why do you think DTV moved away from them in the first place....Because they wanted to vertically integrate and cut TIVO out of the mix. However, that will change very quickly.
> 
> Furthemore, TIVO's deal with Comcast was inked about the same time as well.....Comcast also realized the significance of the lower court ruling....They have very wisely decided to partner up with TIVO rather than employ their own hardware.
> 
> ...


You completely misunderstand the Tivo/DirecTV relationship and what I was talking about. DirecTV already pays Tivo a licensing fee.

Sure, DirecTV pays Tivo fees for each DirecTivo still active.

The fees I was referring to were *licensing* fees. DirecTV is paying Tivo a license fee for the very thing Dish is being sued for. Thus Dish stole from Tivo but DirecTV isn't because **they are paying Tivo already** to be able to use their patented technology in their DVRs.

In addition their latest contract also extends their "no sue" clause. Thus Tivo can't sue DirecTV and DirecTV can't sue Tivo.

Thus Dish continuing to loose in court to Tivo doesn't effect DirecTV at all since their current contract and license fee agreement continue for quite a few more years, until 2018 if it goes to it's full extension and 2018 is when many of the Tivo patents run out (thus this means that Tivo can't sue for patent violations on them anymore since they no longer have the patent which means then DirecTV and others are free and clear, but that's 8 years from now).

I certainly don't doubt the current agreement between the two is influenced by the ongoing litigation but as Tyrone points out, DirecTV has covered themselves by not telling Tivo to pound sand and by licensing the very patents Dish infringed upon.



> The Replay patents have nothing to do with the fundamental DVR patents successfully upheld in court by TIVO. Do you really think it's any coincidence that as TIVO has been slowly winning this fight vs Dish, that they have slowly come back into graces with DTV? Go back and look at when they announced their renewed partnership....It was shortly after TIVO prevailed in the lower court. Once the first round legal battle was won by TIVO, it got DTV's attention and they agreed to move ahead with this new box.


Replay patents are just something in DirecTV's back pocket "just in case". You see, Tivo and Replay were suing each other to death in the early part of the last decade and neither were winning and they both finally gave up. Sure, Tivo's patents have held up in court. But that doesn't mean they would against the Replay patents that DirecTV has or that it wouldn't drag things out closer to that magic 2018 date. There is a reason why the no sue clause goes both ways.  Doesn't mean Tivo wouldn't beat down the Replay patents but DirecTV sure has a lot deeper pockets to fight a patent suit then does Tivo and Tivo knows it. Better to have a licensing deal and no sue clause then to spend tens of millions on more lawsuits that this time you may actually lose.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

shibby191 said:


> On top of that DirecTV owns the Replay patents which Tivo already couldn't beat in court.


You're making stuff up again.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

nrc said:


> You're making stuff up again.


But with such aplomb.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

shibby191 said:


> Thus Dish continuing to loose in court to Tivo doesn't effect DirecTV at all since their current contract and license fee agreement continue for quite a few more years, until 2018 if it goes to it's full extension and 2018 is when many of the Tivo patents run out (thus this means that Tivo can't sue for patent violations on them anymore since they no longer have the patent which means then DirecTV and others are free and clear, but that's 8 years from now).


The additional patents that TiVo is suing Verizon and AT&T over extend to 2022 and 2024.



> I certainly don't doubt the current agreement between the two is influenced by the ongoing litigation but as Tyrone points out, DirecTV has covered themselves by not telling Tivo to pound sand and by licensing the very patents Dish infringed upon.


DirecTV hasn't licensed patents. They're paying for software and services from TiVo. The no-sue clause is a benefit of that agreement. If they were licensing patents they'd be paying per DVR, not per TiVo DVR.



> Replay patents are just something in DirecTV's back pocket "just in case". You see, Tivo and Replay were suing each other to death in the early part of the last decade and neither were winning and they both finally gave up.


The two sides agreed to drop their suits without prejudice before there were any court proceedings. Implying that there was some kind of long battle or that there was any indication in those events of the strength of either patent portfolio is just fiction.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

nrc said:


> DirecTV hasn't licensed patents. They're paying for software and services from TiVo. The no-sue clause is a benefit of that agreement. If they were licensing patents they'd be paying per DVR, not per TiVo DVR


I don't know about new contract, but on the old one they didn't pay per TiVo DVR. They paid per account that has TiVo DVR on it regardles how many TiVos were on account.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

samo said:


> I don't know about new contract, but on the old one they didn't pay per TiVo DVR. They paid per account that has TiVo DVR on it regardles how many TiVos were on account.


Yes, that's correct. It's per household receiving TiVo service.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

samo said:


> I don't know about new contract, but on the old one they didn't pay per TiVo DVR. They paid per account that has TiVo DVR on it regardles how many TiVos were on account.


I'm not sure it matters that much. I don't know what the current stats are but a year or two back a very low percentage of homes had more than one Tivo.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

nrc said:


> You're making stuff up again.


Making what up?

Tivo and Replay sued each other, neither felt they could win before taking each other down so they stopped their lawsuits. Thus Tivo didn't beat the Replay patents in court. Doesn't mean they wouldn't today but doesn't mean they would. It's a nice ace in the hole for DirecTV.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

nrc said:


> DirecTV hasn't licensed patents. They're paying for software and services from TiVo. The no-sue clause is a benefit of that agreement. If they were licensing patents they'd be paying per DVR, not per TiVo DVR.


It's been reported many times on other sites that DirecTV indeed licenses Tivo technology in their DVRs (how many and how much I've never read). I guess those reports could be wrong. This is in addition (and totally different) from any per DVR/account fees they pay for actual Tivo equipment in use.

Yes, the no-sue clause is something that was in the original agreement and renewed in the new contract.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

shibby191 said:


> Making what up?
> 
> Tivo and Replay sued each other, neither felt they could win before taking each other down so they stopped their lawsuits. Thus Tivo didn't beat the Replay patents in court. Doesn't mean they wouldn't today but doesn't mean they would. It's a nice ace in the hole for DirecTV.


You claim that ReplayTV had patents "which Tivo already couldn't beat in court". The issue never went to trial so you're making that up.

It's clear that you recognized that because you've changed your verbage from "couldn't" to "didn't".


----------



## Cutty (Sep 8, 2007)

shibby191 said:


> It's been reported many times on other sites that DirecTV indeed licenses Tivo technology in their DVRs (how many and how much I've never read). I guess those reports could be wrong. This is in addition (and totally different) from any per DVR/account fees they pay for actual Tivo equipment in use.
> 
> Yes, the no-sue clause is something that was in the original agreement and renewed in the new contract.


Before you go around posting "LOL" and telling people they obviously don't understand the dynamics, you might want to get your own facts straight.

It's very obvious that DTV was keeping Tivo around merely as a "wait and see" type thing to avoid their own litigation. Had they thrown DTV out when they went to their own boxes, they would have been following DISH into court.

This is a HUGE win for TIVO and the competitive dynamics have done a 180. And quite frankly, I'm happy because the bigger companies tried to rip off their technology and cut them out of the equation.


----------



## Cutty (Sep 8, 2007)

TyroneShoes said:


> DISH just had their butts handed to them. Having a Tivo-like DVR helped them not at all, and now they will pay dearly for that privilege.


I would agree. They gambled and lost. As I said earlier, their fate is in TIVO's hands. TIVO could restrict them from offering any DVR technology.



TyroneShoes said:


> DISH had nothing to do with Tivo's problems. Tivo had DirecTV, the _major _DBS player with many more subs, completely sowed up, until 2006. If they could not break through there (and even with DTV they remained a minor player), how much more would it have taken?
> 
> The only thing DISH did was not cut a deal with Tivo similar to the one Tivo had with DTV (read:serve the rest of DBS up on a silver platter). Whether their DVR was a Tivo rip-off or not mattered not one whit to the fortunes of Tivo until the verdict was read (and its still not over). And it probably never really helped DISH, either.


I respectfully disagree. I think DISH had a lot to do with TIVO's problems. Had they won the legal battle, TIVO's only option would be via it's own box after the fact....Not fully integrated into DTV, DISH, Verizon & etc. That's where the real action is.

It's no coincidence that once DISH started with their own DVR, so did DTV, thereby cutting TIVO out of the lions share of the business. The only reason DTV kept TIVO on life support was to hedge their bet, and it paid off because TIVO has won. It's over. This will not be turned over in appeal...Not now.



TyroneShoes said:


> No one eschewed Tivo for DISH because DISH had a Tivo-like DVR. They are not even in competition with each other. Hardware manufacturers are in competition with other hardware manufacturers; content vendors are in competion with other content vendors, and regardless how their fortunes affect others secondarily, hardware manufacturers are not in competition with content vendors, so DISH could have little effect on Tivo's business fortunes. Until now, that is, and in a negative direction.
> 
> When the world was SD analog and stand-alone Tivos ruled for OTA and cable, the future looked bright for Tivo. The reason it wasn't bright is because OTA SD shrank and died, SD cable was replaced by digital cable (especially for high-income homes), alternative delivery flourished in DVDs and internet, HD and CableCard handcuffed Tivo and made the old standalone delivery model obsolete, and Tivo did not see the handwriting on the wall, refused to change, and got stomped by the vertical integration of DBS, cable, and FIOS.


Again, I respectfully disagree. Had no one tried to rip off TIVO's technology, TIVO would be a much different company today. The bottom line is that people like DISH and DTV didn't like the TIVO cost structure and DISH gambled, attempting to be the "low price" guy by cutting TIVO (and their fees) out of the equation. Thus, DTV responded by changing their cost structure and implementing their own box....To the masses.

But, now comes a day of reckoning, and DISH is gonna pay through the nose. I would fully expect Verizon, AT&T and the others "settle" real soon. The longer they fight, the worse it will get.



TyroneShoes said:


> The only affect will still be to come, when DISH has to pay them an estimated $200 million in license fees until they can change out to a new generation of non-Tivo DVRs.


Actually, TIVO is into DISH for over $400 million now....And climbing.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

Cutty said:


> Before you go around posting "LOL" and telling people they obviously don't understand the dynamics, you might want to get your own facts straight.
> 
> It's very obvious that DTV was keeping Tivo around merely as a "wait and see" type thing to avoid their own litigation. Had they thrown DTV out when they went to their own boxes, they would have been following DISH into court.


I don't know why you're arguing this. I agree with you. I don't doubt that it is a part of the "why". But the bottom line is that Dish losing (again) *doesn't effect DirecTV at all* from their current contract with Tivo which runs for many more years. If Tivo had lost to Dish it also wouldn't change anything. Tivo and DirecTV have a contract. Now I guess DirecTV could decide to nullify the contract had Dish won but then they would owe Tivo millions for breaking the contract and would probably be sued by Tivo for breaking the contract, patents aside.

Your original post is that this all of a sudden is big news to DirecTV. It's not and changes nothing about their current contract with Tivo. It just makes them look smart if anything that they are immune to any type of action against them from Tivo. Which frankly is the main reason why they still have a contract with Tivo in the first place, so they can't be sued.


----------



## Cutty (Sep 8, 2007)

TyroneShoes said:


> Why do you think they have that agreement in place? Because, primarily, Tivo was mounting a strong intellectual property suit against DISH. Seeing as how its a very grey area, and seeing as how Tivo, DTV, and DISH DVRs are not functionally all that different, if Tivo has a solid case against DISH, they could also mount such a case against DTV. I expect the lawyers to not even take a vacation, and to start in on Motorola next, and sue every non-DTV DVR out there from any company that won't play ball the way DTV did.
> 
> But DTV and DISH approached this potential threat completely differently. DISH said "F you, were going to fight you in court", and DTV said "Hey, let's be reasonable, we'll play nice, give you a board seat, keep a service agreement, allow you to provide a premium DVR, etc." I think Tivos litgiousness and strong case had a great deal to do with how well DTV has treated them, not to mention the huge infusion of business they gave them during the DTivo era. As it turns out, the DTV approach has proved to be the smarter one of the two.


Bingo....You've nailed it. This is what I was trying to say, but others didn't seem to "get it." It will be interesting to see how far TIVO shoves it up the %#$ of DISH. They can prevent Dish from having any DVR technology.

I strongly suspect we'll see TIVO with a very strong presence within DTV moving forward.



TyroneShoes said:


> The only thing that puzzles me is why Apple never bought Tivo in the first place. Very few technologies rise to the level of Apple. Tivo always has, and their missing ingredient was the knowledge of how to market it, something they seemed to be completely lacking at and which Apple is better at than anyone else. Apple could have put a Tivo HTPC app in every iMac, tower, and Mac Book out there, and made it a part of their iLife productivity/entertainment software bundle. It would have been a perfect marriage of hardware and software and sold a lot of both to a lot of people in an era when there is a lot of grumbling about the DVR options available from every non-Tivo source. They're even within driving distance of each other.


I would agree. Who knows, however, what broke down in negotiations & etc. Also, Apple isn't big on buying other's technologies....Even though they have in the past....They prefer to develop their own.

My best guess is that TIVO at the time, was too far from their core competency. That's obviously changed now.


----------



## Cutty (Sep 8, 2007)

shibby191 said:


> Your original post is that this all of a sudden is big news to DirecTV. It's not and changes nothing about their current contract with Tivo. It just makes them look smart if anything that they are immune to any type of action against them from Tivo. Which frankly is the main reason why they still have a contract with Tivo in the first place, so they can't be sued.


With all due respect, you obviously don't understand the market dynamics. Just sit back and see what happens....TIVO will have a HUGE presence within DTV moving forward. TIVO has won the battle and is well on their way to winning the war.

As I've said all along, DTV has kept TIVO like an ex-girlfriend in case the present one didn't work out. Well guess what, the present girlfriend left town. The "evolving" contracts and agreements have been directly tied to the successful ongoing litigation by TIVO.


----------



## SpiritualPoet (Jan 14, 2007)

It's very much like Netflix which has a patent on having a queue method of grouping one's preferred movie rentals by prioritizing them. Blockbuster mimicked it and was sued in court and lost to Netflix. If my memory serves me correctly, any/all other similar queues used by competitors must pay Netflix royalties (or some type of licensing fee(s)). As long as TiVo's patent(s) are in place with regard to DVR technology, the competition must pay licensing fees to TiVo else face lawsuits as has happened between TiVo and Echostar (the true name behind Dish Network).


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

Cutty said:


> With all due respect, you obviously don't understand the market dynamics. Just sit back and see what happens....TIVO will have a HUGE presence within DTV moving forward. TIVO has won the battle and is well on their way to winning the war.
> 
> As I've said all along, DTV has kept TIVO like an ex-girlfriend in case the present one didn't work out. Well guess what, the present girlfriend left town. The "evolving" contracts and agreements have been directly tied to the successful ongoing litigation by TIVO.


Ok, now I'll LOL you.  Again, why does this change anything with their relationship with DirecTV? Doesn't change a thing. DirecTV keeps paying their licensing fee to Tivo, DirecTV pays Tivo per Tivo DVR active and they keep from being sued. Why would Tivo need to all of a sudden take over all DirecTV DVRs? There is no need. Come 2018 if DirecTV still fears a Tivo lawsuit then they can just renew what they still have. Or not. But that is 8 years away. Heck, we might not even be using DVRs 8 years from now and on to something new.

Anyway, doesn't matter. Nothing changes for DirecTV subs and nothing will for a long while yet.


----------



## Cutty (Sep 8, 2007)

shibby191 said:


> Ok, now I'll LOL you.


That's fine.....Every time you post, people laugh at you because you either make something up to support some half brained argument, or just don't get it.



shibby191 said:


> Again, why does this change anything with their relationship with DirecTV? Doesn't change a thing. DirecTV keeps paying their licensing fee to Tivo, DirecTV pays Tivo per Tivo DVR active and they keep from being sued. Why would Tivo need to all of a sudden take over all DirecTV DVRs? There is no need.


Hmmm...Let me explain it one last time and then I'm done debating you. Choose to believe what you want. It's not worth the effort on this end.

Moving forward, DTV will have to pay TIVO a fee on ALL DVRS....Just as everyone else will.....Because TIVO successfully proved in court that they own what is essentially the DVR basics....I won't go into all the details of the patent and their legal argument, but simply put, they own the basics of DVR technology. Thus, anyone who offers a DVR will either have to pay TIVO some sort of negotiated royalty, or have some other mutually agreed business relationship, such as TIVO boxes & etc. You can keep citing this "contract" between DTV and TIVO, but I assure you it contains all sorts of verbiage should TIVO prevail in court. Most contracts have conditions out the ying yang. Why in the world would TIVO negotiate away their most powerful asset, or their technology advantage...ie their patent.

Because TIVO owns the DVR technology, they will set a royalty business structure and if a provider doesn't agree, then they can't offer a DVR...It's that simple. The exception of course would be if someone invents their own technology. So, given that DTV uses their own box for 95%+ of their subscribers and TIVO only has a very small fraction of very loyal DVR users left on the books (@ DTV), you don't think this is a major game changer for TIVO? Are you serious?

The best example I can give you re: this concept, was the recent technology war between Blue Ray and DVD HD. The "fight" wasn't necessarily about which technology was better....As each had some very compelling arguments.....But rather, who would have to pay whom, a near lifetime full of royalties. For example, every time a VCR is sold, the manufacturer must pay JVC a rather hefty royalty fee because they invented the VCR technology and own the patent. Sony backed the Betamax in that particular format war, and lost. The same strategy was involved with BR and DVD HD, but this time, Sony won.

This most recently court affirmation is HUGE and will dramatically change the DVR landscape. Why do you think TIVO stock is up over 50% in the last month.....Or the exact time frame since the court affirmation? Not a coincidence in the least.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

So do you think Directv will immediately start paying $3 a month for every DVR they have active or will it take some time? Strange they (directv) haven't issued a 10K or something like that about the huge change in their expense structure.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

Cutty said:


> That's fine.....Every time you post, people laugh at you because you either make something up to support some half brained argument, or just don't get it.


I think you might have that backwards.



> Hmmm...Let me explain it one last time and then I'm done debating you. Choose to believe what you want. It's not worth the effort on this end.
> 
> Moving forward, DTV will have to pay TIVO a fee on ALL DVRS....Just as everyone else will.....Because TIVO successfully proved in court that they own what is essentially the DVR basics....I won't go into all the details of the patent and their legal argument, but simply put, they own the basics of DVR technology.


When do you think this will start taking place?



> You can keep citing this "contract" between DTV and TIVO, but I assure you it contains all sorts of verbiage should TIVO prevail in court. Most contracts have conditions out the ying yang. Why in the world would TIVO negotiate away their most powerful asset, or their technology advantage...ie their patent.


Wait, didn't you just accuse shibby of making stuff up to support his argument. Hey kettle, yes pot, you're black.



> The best example I can give you re: this concept, was the recent technology war between Blue Ray and DVD HD. The "fight" wasn't necessarily about which technology was better....As each had some very compelling arguments.....But rather, who would have to pay whom, a near lifetime full of royalties. For example, every time a VCR is sold, the manufacturer must pay JVC a rather hefty royalty fee because they invented the VCR technology and own the patent. Sony backed the Betamax in that particular format war, and lost. The same strategy was involved with BR and DVD HD, but this time, Sony won.


Huh? What does this have to do with patents. Blu ra and VHS "won" because the enough content providers backed them. It had nothing to do with technology patents.



> This most recently court affirmation is HUGE and will dramatically change the DVR landscape. Why do you think TIVO stock is up over 50% in the last month.....Or the exact time frame since the court affirmation? Not a coincidence in the least.


No question this was a big victory for TiVo and DirecTV saw it coming and put an agreement in place with TiVo. You are the one making up stuff about a mythical clause in a contract you have not read that makes DirecTV start paying licensing fees on all of their DVRs. We will see what happens in the future but I highly doubt anything will change with DirecTV and TiVo.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

> Moving forward, DTV will have to pay TIVO a fee on ALL DVRS....Just as everyone else will.....Because TIVO successfully proved in court that they own what is essentially the DVR basics....I won't go into all the details of the patent and their legal argument, but simply put, they own the basics of DVR technology.


And reason you won't go into all the details of the patent is because you have no idea of what it is about. You probably basing your statement on a Yahoo stock board arguments. If you did read the patent and had any kind of knowledge of patent law you would realize how stupid your statement is.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

Do the Comcast and Cox agreements also have this mythical clause? If so then shortly they will be paying for every DVR monthly too. I can't believe how great this is for Tivo.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

The point is that DirecTV (and probably Comcast and Cox) is already paying a license fee for using Tivo technology. Why would they all of a sudden be paying more? They are already paying it. The lawsuit against Dish is because Dish *isn't* paying it. Same for AT&T and Verizon. They aren't paying it either. But Tivo has agreements with DirecTV, Comcast and Cox which includes them already paying a licensing fee. Could be per box of just a lump sum per year. Either doesn't really matter.

I don't understand this notion that all of a sudden DirecTV "is in big trouble" because of this. They already pay. Dish didn't, thus why they were sued. Duh.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Cutty said:


> Moving forward, DTV will have to pay TIVO a fee on ALL DVRS....Just as everyone else will.....Because TIVO successfully proved in court that they own what is essentially the DVR basics


Moxi does not infringe


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Moxi does not infringe


how do you know that?


----------



## Cutty (Sep 8, 2007)

bigpuma said:


> Huh? What does this have to do with patents. Blu ra and VHS "won" because the enough content providers backed them. It had nothing to do with technology patents.


It's a very relevant example because these are examples of "format" wars. He who wins the format war, or establishes a technology standard, collects royalties....That's the point. BR vs DVD HD had nothing to do with patents, but rather the standard that "won"....And thus, would be a huge financial win fall....Sony will get royalties on ALL units sold, not just their own.

TIVO has "won" the same type of content battle, except via the courts and not who backed who. Anyone who offers a DVR will have to pay TIVO royalties. That's the point.



bigpuma said:


> No question this was a big victory for TiVo and DirecTV saw it coming and put an agreement in place with TiVo. You are the one making up stuff about a mythical clause in a contract you have not read that makes DirecTV start paying licensing fees on all of their DVRs. We will see what happens in the future but I highly doubt anything will change with DirecTV and TiVo.


I'm not making up anything. Don't put words in my mouth. You're right on one thing though....We will see what happens.


----------



## Cutty (Sep 8, 2007)

shibby191 said:


> The point is that DirecTV (and probably Comcast and Cox) is already paying a license fee for using Tivo technology. Why would they all of a sudden be paying more? They are already paying it. The lawsuit against Dish is because Dish *isn't* paying it. Same for AT&T and Verizon. They aren't paying it either. But Tivo has agreements with DirecTV, Comcast and Cox which includes them already paying a licensing fee. Could be per box of just a lump sum per year. Either doesn't really matter.


Yes, DTV does pay TIVO a fee....But ONLY on the units tied to TIVO boxes....Not all the DTV boxes. For example, DTV pays nothing for the HR21s & etc. But, that will change. DTV will have to pay royalties on ALL DVRs, not just TIVOs....Or reach some mutually agreeable business solution....Whatever that may be.



shibby191 said:


> I don't understand this notion that all of a sudden DirecTV "is in big trouble" because of this. They already pay. Dish didn't, thus why they were sued. Duh.


I never said that DTV was all of a sudden in trouble. I've said that because TIVO has won a huge battle in court, they will become a much bigger presence within the DTV world.

You said the recent affirmation has nothing to do with the DTV / TIVO business relationship, and nothing will change. We shall see.

TIVO's stock didn't shoot up 60% in one day because they will be collecting millions from DISH....But, rather because the affirmation gives them near exclusiveness to DVR technology and the many royalties that will follow.

Go back and read the article with an open mind...."The court case that could reshape the digital video recorder business" and "the case against Dish (DISH) could have a dramatic impact on the satellite TV business." Those two statements are hardly in the same context as your statement of "nothing will change."


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

Cutty said:


> Yes, DTV does pay TIVO a fee....But ONLY on the units tied to TIVO boxes....Not all the DTV boxes. For example, DTV pays nothing for the HR21s & etc. But, that will change. DTV will have to pay royalties on ALL DVRs, not just TIVOs....Or reach some mutually agreeable business solution....Whatever that may be.


You keep reading past what I and others are posting: DirecTV *DOES* already pay Tivo a licensing fee to use certain of their patents in *ALL* of their DVRs, even non-Tivo ones. In addition they also pay Tivo a per box fee for each Tivo box in service for continued development and support. That fee will be going up with the new DirecTivo box per the contract.

Understand now why we keep saying this doesn't effect DirecTV? It doesn't *because they are already paying* the licensing fee for the patents which you keep saying DirecTV will now have to pay. They already pay it.  

As for "having a dramatic impact on the sat TV business". Well, I think Dish having to shut down millions and millions of DVRs is a pretty big impact.


----------



## Cutty (Sep 8, 2007)

shibby191 said:


> You keep reading past what I and others are posting: DirecTV *DOES* already pay Tivo a licensing fee to use certain of their patents in *ALL* of their DVRs, even non-Tivo ones. In addition they also pay Tivo a per box fee for each Tivo box in service for continued development and support. That fee will be going up with the new DirecTivo box per the contract.


You need to make up your mind which position you take. Not long ago you posted:

"It's been reported many times on other sites that DirecTV indeed licenses Tivo technology in their DVRs (how many and how much I've never read). I guess those reports could be wrong. This is in addition (and totally different) from any per DVR/account fees they pay for actual Tivo equipment in use."



shibby191 said:


> Understand now why we keep saying this doesn't effect DirecTV? It doesn't *because they are already paying* the licensing fee for the patents which you keep saying DirecTV will now have to pay. They already pay it.


Doesn't effect DTV? Had the ruling been overturned a couple of weeks ago, it would only be a matter to time before DTV threw TIVO out on their a$$. Not long ago, many wrote TIVO off for dead, and about the only thing that has kept them in the game has been their litigation vs DISH, which has far reaching ramifications beyond DISH. To say it doesn't change anything with DTV is incredibly naive. Here's just one of a gazzillion opinions on the subject (Tivo for dead) just 2 yrs ago.

http://www.pvrwire.com/2007/01/22/the-yankee-group-predicts-tivo-s-death/



shibby191 said:


> As for "having a dramatic impact on the sat TV business". Well, I think Dish having to shut down millions and millions of DVRs is a pretty big impact.


Not to mention that I suspect very shortly Verizon and others will probably offer settlements in order to cut their losses and move on. IMHO, the DVR is an essential part of today's content business model and one can't take the risk of losing like DISH has. I guess there's always a "chance" that the verdict could be overturned @ the Supreme Court level, but highly unlikely. As another poster commented, the SC typically only hears those cases involving constitutional issues.

With all due respect, we're beating a dead horse and it's time to move on. Time will tell what happens.

Regards,

Cutty


----------



## comgenius1 (Feb 16, 2004)

Got an ad from dish network in my paper tonight. Offering a free DVR upgrade with "Multi-Room View." It says under that "Record in one room and watch in another." Wonder if Tivo has a patent on that?


----------



## falcon26 (Mar 17, 2010)

Dish will buy Tivo so they wouldn't have to pay them for their tech. At least that is the rumor, but from a business stand point that makes sense.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

falcon26 said:


> Dish will buy Tivo so they wouldn't have to pay them for their tech. At least that is the rumor, but from a business stand point that makes sense.


Makes sense?

Are you familiar with the term "poison pill"?

Where do you expect Charlie would come up with the billions of dollars required? Do you think anyone is going to finance an acquisition of Tivo at a price five times its market cap? And at more than Dish's entire current market cap? The man is insane, given, but he's not crazy.


----------



## falcon26 (Mar 17, 2010)

Your right he is insane  But if anyone would do it he would...


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Wouldn't the price be around 7.5 billion dollars with the "poison pill"?

Or is it even higher than that?


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

comgenius1 said:


> Got an ad from dish network in my paper tonight. Offering a free DVR upgrade with "Multi-Room View." It says under that "Record in one room and watch in another." Wonder if Tivo has a patent on that?


Unless it's a new box the "multi-room view" is simply a coax/RF out to another room that is SD only. I could do that with a VCR 20 years ago.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

aaronwt said:


> Wouldn't the price be around 7.5 billion dollars with the "poison pill"?
> 
> Or is it even higher than that?


No one actually ever pays the poison pill price. If they did then the poison pill was pretty poorly designed. On the other hand if you can get 51% of the shareholders to agree to the buyout offer the board can be replaced and the pill removed. Most of Tivo is held by institutions. Those institutions are not emotional about what happens to Tivo. Offer them enough of a bonus above the current price and they will bite. It's not like Tivo is selling DVR's.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

comgenius1 said:


> Got an ad from dish network in my paper tonight. Offering a free DVR upgrade with "Multi-Room View." It says under that "Record in one room and watch in another." Wonder if Tivo has a patent on that?


If so, I hope for their sake that they filed it long ago. DISH and DTV have been offering that for a little while now.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

shibby191 said:


> Unless it's a new box the "multi-room view" is simply a coax/RF out to another room that is SD only. I could do that with a VCR 20 years ago.


Actually, it's much more sophisticated that that. It is true IPTV streaming, or at least the equivalent of that, either over a home LAN or over something called DECA, which uses a dedicated coax network.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 9, 2005)

I have 4 of my DVRs hardwired with Cat-5 from the DVRs to a cheap switch then a jumper to my router. With DECA you won't need any cables because it uses the existing coax. It's pretty nice, I can hit "list" on any DVR and see what's recorded on all of them and watch any of those programs from where I am. If you have a non DVR HD receiver you can do the same thing and you can also set up recordings for the DVRs.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

TyroneShoes said:


> Actually, it's much more sophisticated that that. It is true IPTV streaming, or at least the equivalent of that, either over a home LAN or over something called DECA, which uses a dedicated coax network.


That's DirecTV. He was talking about Dish. Dish has no such thing. I think it's their 622 DVR that has the coax out to another room. That's their MRV, if you can call it that. It does work though for those that don't mind SD and a cruddy picture over coax. I want to say that I've read their latest DVR which is over a year late now is supposed to have some sort of new MRV solution. But it's still not out I believe.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

shibby191 said:


> That's DirecTV. He was talking about Dish. Dish has no such thing. I think it's their 622 DVR that has the coax out to another room. That's their MRV, if you can call it that. It does work though for those that don't mind SD and a cruddy picture over coax. I want to say that I've read their latest DVR which is over a year late now is supposed to have some sort of new MRV solution. But it's still not out I believe.


X22 series has two *independent* outputs. You can watch one show in HD and another in SD at the same time.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

shibby191 said:


> That's DirecTV. He was talking about Dish. Dish has no such thing. I think it's their 622 DVR that has the coax out to another room. That's their MRV, if you can call it that...


Yes, and DTV's MRV is what I was talking about. I was not responding to "him", or what "he was talking about", I was responding to you, and you are the one that mentioned MRV, which is apparently the accepted acronym for the technology that DTV is using. You never mentioned DISH, which is why I never referenced them. You DID mention MRV, which is why I did reference that.

The name of the forum has DirecTV directly in it, which is why I was discussing their technology. DISH, who never dealt with Tivo (until they were recently forced to) is not in the name of the forum, which would seem to make a discussion of DTV technology appropriate, and at least more appropriate that referencing DISH.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

comgenius1 said:


> Got an ad from dish network in my paper tonight. Offering a free DVR upgrade with "Multi-Room View." It says under that "Record in one room and watch in another." Wonder if Tivo has a patent on that?





shibby191 said:


> Unless it's a new box the "multi-room view" is simply a coax/RF out to another room that is SD only. I could do that with a VCR 20 years ago.





TyroneShoes said:


> Actually, it's much more sophisticated that that. It is true IPTV streaming, or at least the equivalent of that, either over a home LAN or over something called DECA, which uses a dedicated coax network.





shibby191 said:


> That's DirecTV. He was talking about Dish. Dish has no such thing. I think it's their 622 DVR that has the coax out to another room. That's their MRV, if you can call it that. It does work though for those that don't mind SD and a cruddy picture over coax. I want to say that I've read their latest DVR which is over a year late now is supposed to have some sort of new MRV solution. But it's still not out I believe.





TyroneShoes said:


> Yes, and DTV's MRV is what I was talking about. I was not responding to "him", or what "he was talking about", I was responding to you, and you are the one that mentioned MRV, which is apparently the accepted acronym for the technology that DTV is using. You never mentioned DISH, which is why I never referenced them. You DID mention MRV, which is why I did reference that.
> 
> The name of the forum has DirecTV directly in it, which is why I was discussing their technology. DISH, who never dealt with Tivo (until they were recently forced to) is not in the name of the forum, which would seem to make a discussion of DTV technology appropriate, and at least more appropriate that referencing DISH.


But you quoted his post which quoted someone talking about DISH. Do you understand the confusion? Shibby knows what technology DirecTV is using but comgenuis1 was talking about a DISH ad that says they have "MRV" which in that case is just a coax out from their DVR allowing SD viewing in another room.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

bigpuma said:


> But you quoted his post which quoted someone talking about DISH. Do you understand the confusion? Shibby knows what technology DirecTV is using but comgenuis1 was talking about a DISH ad that says they have "MRV" which in that case is just a coax out from their DVR allowing SD viewing in another room.


Correct. Since I quoted and answered a post that was about Dish I would think it was pretty self explanatory I was talking about Dish.


----------



## Cutty (Sep 8, 2007)

Just as an fyi, the Tivo subscriber chart is a very interesting piece....Notice the huge drop off in subscribers about the time DTV started using their own box. Also interestingly, 2004 is the beginning of the DISH / TIVO legal battle, when DISH really pushed their DVRs and low price strategy. One could argue very well the potential impact to TIVO.

Also, according to the most recent data, TIVO lost another 100K + subscribers in Q1 2010. This comes on the heels of losing 300K+ subscribers 4th qtr 09. I think this makes something like 10 or 11 qtrs in a row of 100K+ of declining subscribers.

No question that enforcing their technology patent(s) is critical to their long term viability.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/new-technology/tivo


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Gee, you are making a case for Tivo to do NOTHING for themselves and being LESS of a player. They can just collect fees for their aging patents.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

bigpuma said:


> But you quoted his post which quoted someone talking about DISH. Do you understand the confusion?...


I am not confused in the least. I understand _why _there may be confusion on the part of some; and the only reason there is confusion is that small minds are often unable to grasp more than one concept at a time, even if they are closely related, far from abstract, and are about the same topic. So if the shoe fits...

Read what I said. I quoted a post that mentioned a DTV technology in a DTV forum, and then commented on that directly; I quoted the _entire body of the post, which never once mentioned DISH_. The typical reason to quote in the first place is _to respond directly to what is in the quote_, and which is exactly the protocol I used. I couldn't give two $#!+s what someone three posts removed is posting about, especially if it doesn't have anything to do with either Tivo or DTV, which is supposed to be what this forum is about, BTW. I was only interested in moving the discussion forward in the spirit of the topics it was created for. So slap on the cuffs.

Forum threads naturally evolve beyond who posted there last week, just the way any discussion naturally evolves to encompass new and related topics. We are allowed to do that. That's the way this works. It really shouldn't take over 6000 posts to figure that out.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

TyroneShoes said:


> I am not confused in the least. I understand _why _there may be confusion on the part of some; and the only reason there is confusion is that small minds are often unable to grasp more than one concept at a time, even if they are closely related, far from abstract, and are about the same topic. So if the shoe fits...


Just admit you misread his post. Really it's not a big deal trying, to turn this on us for not understanding you is laughable.



> Read what I said. I quoted a post that mentioned a DTV technology in a DTV forum, and then commented on that directly;


You quoted someone who was discussing DISH DVRs, read the post he quoted. It was talking about dish. No where in his post did he mention DTV.



> I quoted the _entire body of the post, which never once mentioned DISH_.


It also didn't mention DirecTV, but if you bothered to read the post he was quoting you would have seen the DISH part of it.

The typical reason to quote in the first place is _to respond directly to what is in the quote_, and which is exactly the protocol I used. I couldn't give two $#!+s what someone three posts removed is posting about, especially if it doesn't have anything to do with either Tivo or DTV, which is supposed to be what this forum is about, BTW. I was only interested in moving the discussion forward in the spirit of the topics it was created for. So slap on the cuffs.[/quote]

It was three posts removed, go back and re-read. He was quoting and responding to a post about an ad from DISH Network. Again just admit the error and move on, I am confused as to why you are trying to defend yourself and claim we are wrong.


----------

