# Claiming against TiVo Inc for terminating the UK lifetime service



## rwtomkins

This is a new thread about my continuing efforts to bring a claim against TiVo Inc for terminating the guaranteed lifetime TiVo service purchased by UK lifetime subscribers. It picks up from where this thread left off:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=469325

There's now been another development. I've at last been able to serve the claim upon TiVo Inc at its US headquarters in Alviso, California. I'm now awaiting TiVo Inc's response to the serving of the claim. The court in London has given TiVo Inc until 23 February 2012 to acknowledge service and until 8 March 2012 to file a defence.

The story so far:

1. When TiVo terminated the UK TiVo Service last summer, I filed a small claim against TiVo Inc's dormant UK subsidiary, TiVo (UK) Ltd. That claim came to court last October. The court ruled that the claim should be struck out because I'd been unable to provide convincing evidence that my contract was with TiVo (UK) Ltd and not TiVo Inc.

2. Immediately after leaving the courtroom I brought a small claim against TiVo Inc using the same UK address as that of its UK subsidiary, TiVo (UK) Ltd. After objections from TiVo Inc on the grounds that the claim had not been properly served, on 6 December 2011 a different London court ruled (without a hearing) that the claim would have to be served on TiVo Inc's US address.

3. Immediately after this ruling I wrote to the court asking whether this meant I had permission to serve the defendant outside the jurisdiction.

4. After a wait of several weeks, the court ruled on 16 January that I had permission to amend the claim form to show the defendant's US address but that I would have to apply to the court for permission to serve the defendant out of the jurisdiction.

5. I immediately applied to the court for permission to serve the defendant out of the jurisdiction.

6. On 3 February I received an order from the court giving me leave to serve the defendant out of the jurisdiction. On the same day I dispatched the necessary papers to a firm of process servers in California in order to have the claim served upon TiVo Inc.

7. The process servers successfully served the claim on 10 February.


----------



## unitron

Make 'em squeal.


----------



## TCM2007

Sounds like you're becoming an expert on this stuff!


----------



## dmeldrum

Sounds like this has already got quite expensive.


----------



## rwtomkins

unitron said:


> Make 'em squeal.


Well, groan, at least.



TCM2007 said:


> Sounds like you're becoming an expert on this stuff!


It's quite interesting when you get into it. Maybe I'll become a lawyer.



dmeldrum said:


> Sounds like this has already got quite expensive.


No, not at all. The court made no charge for any of the recent steps described above, although it could have done. The California process server cost $55 which is only £35 and I would expect to recoup that in costs anyway. Even if not, it's a very modest outlay.


----------



## Steve_K

:up:

TiVo USA might just be starting to regret the idiot specifics of the course of action they took. Probably would have cost them a fraction of their current legal expenses to make a pay off offer to those that still had valid lifetime subscriptions.

So all power to you RW and the offer remains to contribute to your pursuit


----------



## unitron

Steve_K said:


> :up:
> 
> TiVo USA might just be starting to regret the idiot specifics of the course of action they took. Probably would have cost them a fraction of their current legal expenses to make a pay off offer to those that still had valid lifetime subscriptions.
> 
> So all power to you RW and the offer remains to contribute to your pursuit


One wonders if just continuing the service wouldn't have been the least expensive option.


----------



## rwtomkins

Steve_K said:


> TiVo USA might just be starting to regret the idiot specifics of the course of action they took. Probably would have cost them a fraction of their current legal expenses to make a pay off offer to those that still had valid lifetime subscriptions.
> 
> So all power to you RW and the offer remains to contribute to your pursuit


:up:



unitron said:


> One wonders if just continuing the service wouldn't have been the least expensive option.


Yes indeed, although I think probably TiVo's exclusive agreement with Virgin would have ruled that out (and may have been the reason it ended).


----------



## unitron

rwtomkins said:


> :up:
> 
> Yes indeed, although I think probably TiVo's exclusive agreement with Virgin would have ruled that out (and may have been the reason it ended).


I very strongly suspect that Virgin whispered in TiVo's ear "We want Virgin cable and TiVo to be synonymous in the public's mind, so dump all that old stuff or no deal".

Since there are ads running over here now that say "TiVo now works with satellite" with a DirecTV logo right underneath, I guess the public does forget quickly, or at least the people selling this stuff think so.


----------



## rwtomkins

Update: TiVo Inc acknowledged service of the claim last Thursday but needless to say, having insisted over and over again all through these proceedings that the claim should correctly be served on TiVo Inc at its US headquarters, it has now declared its intention to dispute the court's jurisdiction! It's what I always expected, which is why I tried so hard to serve them in the UK; but really, they have some nerve.

By an astonishing coincidence their lawyers this time are exactly the same lawyers who defended TiVo (UK) Ltd, even though they insisted the two companies were entirely separate and independent entities. Although I didn't name the lawyers before I can't see any reason not to, so, it's Simmons & Simmons. They monitor this forum carefully so you can say hello if you like.

Although I've always gone out my way to be courteous to them, Simmons & Simmons wrote me an extremely unpleasant and intimidating letter last week saying it would cost TiVo Inc £6,500 to £8,500 plus other unspecified costs to dispute the court's jurisdiction and threatening to seek recovery of the whole of these costs from me unless I abandoned my claim. They enclosed a Notice of Discontinuance for me to fill in and gave me until close of business on the Friday of last week to complete and return it. Well, what with one thing and another I never did get around to it and now the deadline's passed so, oh well, it looks like I'll just have to sell the house.

Anyway, the next deadline isn't far off - they have until 8 March to challenge the court's jurisdiction, which is Wednesday of next week. So do check back if you're interested.


----------



## steveroe

Hello Simmons and Simmons!









rwtomkins - If you need to start a Spartacus fund then the other Spartacuses (Spartaci?) on here will no doubt chip in :up:


----------



## Gavin

rwtomkins said:


> Although I've always gone out my way to be courteous to them, Simmons & Simmons wrote me an extremely unpleasant and intimidating letter last week saying it would cost TiVo Inc £6,500 to £8,500 plus other unspecified costs to dispute the court's jurisdiction and threatening to seek recovery of the whole of these costs from me unless I abandoned my claim.


My understanding if it's in a small claim track the solicitors costs are normally not permitted to be charged as cost, but not sure how this works as you've made a pretty unusual path.


----------



## TCM2007

I think the problem Gavin, is that it has not yet been allocated a track.

Since it's been established that you have to serve claim in the US which would put off 99% of possible claimants, and small claims actions don't set legal precedent anyway, I'd have thought in cash terms they's have been better off settling.


----------



## rwtomkins

That's right, the costs are only limited after it's been allocated to the small claims track and what TiVo Inc and its lawyers do is try to keep it out of the small claims track by forcing preliminary hearings where they threaten to build up astronomical costs and seek recovery from you unless you drop the claim. It's a dirty job but somebody has to do it.

And yes, it would have been far cheaper for TiVo to settle. But the people fighting this aren't spending their own money, they are spending the shareholders' and the shareholders don't know anything about it so there's really no limit to how much they can spend. Also, TiVo spends its whole life these days in litigation and I think it's probably true to say that litigation is now a much bigger part of its business than the TV stuff so I think they are just in a mindset where they fight everything to the death regardless of cost, still less the rights and wrongs.


----------



## unitron

rwtomkins said:


> That's right, the costs are only limited after it's been allocated to the small claims track and what TiVo Inc and its lawyers do is try to keep it out of the small claims track by forcing preliminary hearings where they threaten to build up astronomical costs and seek recovery from you unless you drop the claim. It's a dirty job but somebody has to do it.
> 
> And yes, it would have been far cheaper for TiVo to settle. But the people fighting this aren't spending their own money, they are spending the shareholders' and the shareholders don't know anything about it so there's really no limit to how much they can spend. Also, TiVo spends its whole life these days in litigation and I think it's probably true to say that litigation is now a much bigger part of its business than the TV stuff so I think they are just in a mindset where they fight everything to the death regardless of cost, still less the rights and wrongs.


I suspect they don't want to settle with you or let any precedent be set in the matter because they don't want to get dragged into court by everybody else over there with lifetime subs.


----------



## martink0646

unitron said:


> I suspect they don't want to settle with you or let any precedent be set in the matter because they don't want to get dragged into court by everybody else over there with lifetime subs.


Anything settled in small claims court doesn't set a legal precedent. It's out of the usual system. I'm inclined to the 'defend to the death' hypothesis offered above. It hasn't served them too badly over the last few years.

It amazes me how frightened people are (in general not necessarily on this board) of going to court or being taken to court. We are in dispute with our landlord on our retail premises over various things & he has threatened us with court action. He boasts that he always wins because people always back out at the last minute. He was very taken aback when I said "great, take us to court" because the facts are on our side & we would win hands down.

It's just frustrating that you can only claim actual losses in small claims court & not damages because I would have taken him straight there months ago. As it is, we can't afford a civil action. The law is only for the rich!??

Martin


----------



## unitron

martink0646 said:


> Anything settled in small claims court doesn't set a legal precedent. It's out of the usual system. I'm inclined to the 'defend to the death' hypothesis offered above. It hasn't served them too badly over the last few years.
> 
> It amazes me how frightened people are (in general not necessarily on this board) of going to court or being taken to court. We are in dispute with our landlord on our retail premises over various things & he has threatened us with court action. He boasts that he always wins because people always back out at the last minute. He was very taken aback when I said "great, take us to court" because the facts are on our side & we would win hands down.
> 
> It's just frustrating that you can only claim actual losses in small claims court & not damages because I would have taken him straight there months ago. As it is, we can't afford a civil action. The law is only for the rich!??
> 
> Martin


I didn't say legal precedent, just precedent, as in "hey, that other guy sued them and won, I'm going to sue them too.", as opposed to "that other guy tried to sue and got nowhere after wasting a bunch of time and money, I'm sure not going to bother trying it.".


----------



## martink0646

unitron said:


> I didn't say legal precedent, just precedent, as in "hey, that other guy sued them and won, I'm going to sue them too.", as opposed to "that other guy tried to sue and got nowhere after wasting a bunch of time and money, I'm sure not going to bother trying it.".


Fair enough, good point. I'd discounted that as how would 'Joe Bloggs' know about the ruling but I'd forgottten that 'Joe Bloggs' would be on here reading about it!

Martin


----------



## tormat

This really does stink; I'd be more than happy to chip in to whatever a Spartacus fund is (off to Google it now!)


----------



## rwtomkins

unitron said:


> I suspect they don't want to settle with you or let any precedent be set in the matter because they don't want to get dragged into court by everybody else over there with lifetime subs.


I think you could have said this a year ago but really, if I won, how many UK subscribers do you think would go through what I've been through over such a relatively small amount of money? I think it's more about sending the broader message that, right or wrong, nobody sues TiVo Inc and lives, though it could also be a rehearsal for when they switch off the lifetime service in the US.

By the way I've written to the court asking them to take control of this case and stop it turning into a runaway train in terms of cost and time, and there's been correspondence between me and the lawyers too - there's a lot that goes on that I don't report here because I don't want to conduct the trial on the forum. TiVo is due to file it's challenge to the jurisdiction this week so that's the next development.


----------



## unitron

rwtomkins said:


> I think you could have said this a year ago but really, if I won, how many UK subscribers do you think would go through what I've been through over such a relatively small amount of money? I think it's more about sending the broader message that, right or wrong, nobody sues TiVo Inc and lives, though it could also be a rehearsal for when they switch off the lifetime service in the US.
> 
> By the way I've written to the court asking them to take control of this case and stop it turning into a runaway train in terms of cost and time, and there's been correspondence between me and the lawyers too - there's a lot that goes on that I don't report here because I don't want to conduct the trial on the forum. TiVo is due to file it's challenge to the jurisdiction this week so that's the next development.


I figure if you win, that's at least one other person who will try.

If they win, I suspect a couple more people will try.

If they win, more will be encouraged.

Eventually it could wind up talked about in the mainstream press.

As the late Senator (and recording artist) Everett Dirksen is supposed to have said in a different context, "...sooner or later you're talking real money."


----------



## rwtomkins

Well, they filed their challenge to the court's jurisdiction on time. It's gigantic, weighing a couple of kilos at least, and they're now seeking further exchanges of evidence and legal submissions in the run-up to a trial some months off in which they would be represented by a barrister etc etc.... all this just to resolve the preliminary issue of whether the court has jurisdiction.
For the first time this is becoming a headache because I actually have to wade through all this guff and respond to it and put my own case as to why their jurisdiction challenge should be turned down. I'll be pointing out to the court that this a small claim and it's getting completely out of control and please will they restore some sanity to the proceedings but I have no idea how they'll respond. I doubt whether the lawyers have, either - I can't imagine they've ever fought a small claim before.


----------



## ScoobyDooZ

Small claim but it will set a precedent which I imagine there need to defend to the hills. If they win and claim their cost it could go into 10's of thousands :/

I was forced to take a low settlement 16 years ago on a property purchase. We may have won a lot more, but if we lost the cost would have been 30-40k and we couldn't afford to take the hit.


----------



## steveroe

ScoobyDooZ said:


> Small claim but it will set a precedent [...]


IANAL - UK Small Claim does not set a legal "precedent" (case law), however if it gets promoted to County Court then it can.


----------



## Steve_K

If it gets to County Court then there is the risk that costs could get awarded against RW

There are times in life when you realise you may have a full house but what if the other guy has a straight flush hidden up his sleeve


----------



## AMc

I would be seriously worried about ending up with a massive bill on a technicality. I know that's clearly their plan. 

I'm genuinely horrified that Tivo would sooner go at you like you were a multinational than have a fair and equitable exchange in front of a small claims court for a limited amount of damages that doesn't set any legal precedent.

I was never likely to give Tivo my money in the future, but this totally disproportionate response has sealed my opinion of them forever - bullies.

Good luck if you choose to continue but I wouldn't blame you if you didn't now.


----------



## rwtomkins

AMc said:


> I would be seriously worried about ending up with a massive bill on a technicality. I know that's clearly their plan.
> 
> I'm genuinely horrified that Tivo would sooner go at you like you were a multinational than have a fair and equitable exchange in front of a small claims court for a limited amount of damages that doesn't set any legal precedent.
> 
> I was never likely to give Tivo my money in the future, but this totally disproportionate response has sealed my opinion of them forever - bullies.
> 
> Good luck if you choose to continue but I wouldn't blame you if you didn't now.


Thanks, AMc. I just have to take each step as it comes and I still have a touching faith that the justice system will protect the little person against the, as you say, bullies. What really sticks in my craw is that this jurisdiction challenge I'm up to my neck in right now, and the financial worry that goes with it, should never have been. When my claim against TiVo (UK) Ltd went to a preliminary hearing at the other court last year, the lawyers argued that I'd brought my claim against the wrong party and I would have to claim against TiVo Inc in California. Well obviously this looked like a ploy to dodge jurisdiction so I said something to that effect in my written submission to the court but the lawyers went out of their way to assure the court that there was "no bar whatsoever" to bringing my claim against TiVo Inc, as long as the claim was properly served with the court's permission. They actually stated that in their written submission to the court. So after the claim against TiVo (UK) Ltd was struck out, I thought, well, at least I have that guarantee, so if I can just find out how to serve a claim in the US, and if it's not too expensive, and as long as I can get the court's permission - at last, I'll have my small claim. And instead, guess what, after months of going through all the hoops to get permission and serve the claim, the very same lawyers who said there was "no bar whatsoever" to a claim are now throwing an enormous jurisdiction challenge in my way. I really am sick about this. It just doesn't seem right and now this whole thing is taking over my life, along with all the financial worries. As you say, bullies.


----------



## AdamInKent

rwtomkins said:


> I am sick about this. It just doesn't seem right and now this whole thing is taking over my life, along with all the financial worries. As you say, bullies.


Hi.

I've been following your story since the beginning - it's my only reason to remain subscribed to this forum. If, as you say, the whole thing is taking over your life, then you should seriously be asking yourself whether it is worth it. If you decide to continue, then I wish you the best of luck. If you decide not, I think you can safely say that you have given it a good go and made a strong point to the company.


----------



## ssilvo

Congratulations on serving papers to tivo inc,perhaps consider putting a little website up with requests for donations ,we can help it go viral and hopefully at least help you with your costs or even the risk of your costs .

There are a lot of online groups totally against corporate bullying who would pick this issue up ,Tivo inc whoever is handling your PR are they asleep ?
you need to get a grip ,these are kiddy mistakes your making here .

IMHO your response should be simple and succinct ,just as you outlined it on here .its quite duplicitous for Tivo to claim immunity for both companies.

good luck and best wishes to you ,if i can help in anyway contact me .


----------



## Gavin

introspective123 said:


> TiVo Series1 DVRs were manufactured for sale in the UK from 2000 to 2002 and were available exclusively to customers of BSkyB.


Series 1 were made by Thomson, Tivo themselves dont make the hardware, but they were sold in comet, curry dixons and so on (I think mine came from Tempo).

They were never just for sale to Sky customers only althougth Sky did run the call centre on behalf of Tivo.


----------



## ssilvo

spitfires said:


> @Gavin - don't sweat it, I suspect introsepctive123 is a troll/phisher - its (first & only) post is pure cut & paste from TiVo Inc's press release, and exactly the same sentence has been posted to several blogs/fora over the last few weeks.


lol i totally agree ...nothing like a bit of a spoiler to divert from the main subject of the thread.....:up:


----------



## ssilvo

To get back to the thread ,tbh i think it does need to be a binding decision from the courts and it is an important one ,I am no lawyer but i always thought that a contract was formed on two factors consideration and kind .

Now Tivo inc entered a contract with us to provide a "lifetime" subscription 
the "consideration" for which we paid money "kind" .So it appears to me the core arguament is around the definition of "lifetime" .Is it the lifetime of the product ,person or contract .if its the product we all still have working series 1 s

if its the person ,well we are all still alive and wanting the service according to the original contract aims ,if its the contract well where is that deviation within the contract to state the definition of lifetime.

I cant see you losing this one imho. just wish we could all help 
you in some way .


----------



## steveroe

There are plenty of previous threads debating the "rights and wrongs" of Tivo's action - please can we keep this one to updates from rwtomkins on his case.


----------



## dmeldrum

rwtomkins said:


> Thanks, AMc. I just have to take each step as it comes and I still have a touching faith that the justice system will protect the little person against the, as you say, bullies.


Bullies?

TiVo terminated their contract with you, as they are perfectly entitled to do. They gave you more notice than they needed to, and then continued a little past their deadline to ensure that you were not inconvenienced. Through the actions of the community, there is now an alternative service available that means your 9 year old hardware can still be used. Hardware that you have admitted previously has been modified without authority in breach of your contract.

You have chosen to pursue this legal action knowing full well that the cost will exceed the amount you paid for your lifetime TiVo service and therefore more than you could possibly hope to reclaim. You've completely ignored the value you got from the many years service that TiVo gave you for your initial modest outlay.

You appear to be continuing with this legal action effectively to prove a point, rather than to genuinely claim recompense for something lost. Using the legal system to punish TiVo because you disagreed with their actions would be deemed vexatious litigation.

I hardly think that submitting a defence and using all available means to get your claim thrown out is bullying. What did you really expect?


----------



## unitron

dmeldrum said:


> Bullies?
> 
> TiVo terminated their contract with you, as they are perfectly entitled to do. They gave you more notice than they needed to, and then continued a little past their deadline to ensure that you were not inconvenienced. Through the actions of the community, there is now an alternative service available that means your 9 year old hardware can still be used. Hardware that you have admitted previously has been modified without authority in breach of your contract.
> 
> You have chosen to pursue this legal action knowing full well that the cost will exceed the amount you paid for your lifetime TiVo service and therefore more than you could possibly hope to reclaim. You've completely ignored the value you got from the many years service that TiVo gave you for your initial modest outlay.
> 
> You appear to be continuing with this legal action effectively to prove a point, rather than to genuinely claim recompense for something lost. Using the legal system to punish TiVo because you disagreed with their actions would be deemed vexatious litigation.
> 
> I hardly think that submitting a defence and using all available means to get your claim thrown out is bullying. What did you really expect?


Would they have been perfectly entitled to terminate the contract the day after he paid for Product Lifetime Service?

One year and a day after?

3 years?

5?

Is 10 the magic number?

Where's the dividing line between "he got screwed" and "he got out of it all to which he was entitled"?


----------



## mikerr

Well the contract said 30 days notice...

£200 was 20 months break even, so getting 8 years since the last TiVo retail sale is good going IMO,
especially as most had extended life via HDD replacement and cachecard to bypass failing modems...


----------



## Trinitron

unitron said:


> Is 10 the magic number?


It could be to TiVo, as that's the calculation they use in their accounts to write down the revenue contribution of lifetime subs.

As for the rest of the action, defending legal actions is something TiVo specialise in. As for the amount of compensation anyone should expect, well that has been done to death in previous threads so I'm with those that think this one should be kept clear for RW to continue reporting the latest developments in the saga... :up:


----------



## unitron

Trinitron said:


> ...so I'm with those that think this one should be kept clear for RW to continue reporting the latest developments in the saga... :up:


Then perhaps it is with dmeldrum's post you should be taking exception.


----------



## dmeldrum

unitron said:


> Then perhaps it is with dmeldrum's post you should be taking exception.


I was challenging the assertion that TiVo were bullies by defending a legal action.


----------



## unitron

dmeldrum said:


> I was challenging the assertion that TiVo were bullies by defending a legal action.


And therein lies the rub.

They are not actually "defending", as in going into court and saying "The plantiff is not in the right, and here are the reasons why...", they are using their superior resources to prevent the case ever actually being heard.

Considering that their defense is "We have a contract that says 'lifetime', but since it was entered into we've redefined 'lifetime' twice, and the second time changes the meaning in a way that lets us break the contract...", I can understand why they don't want this to ever actually come before a judge or jury who might well burn them a new one*, not to mention the encouragement to others with lifetimed units to go after them as well.

*where one=vulgar term for anal opening


----------



## AMc

unitron said:


> And therein lies the rub.
> 
> They are not actually "defending", as in going into court and saying "The plantiff is not in the right, and here are the reasons why...", they are using their superior resources to prevent the case ever actually being heard.


My point entirely. By defending the original small claim they could have settled this quickly one way or the other and set no legal precedent.


----------



## rwtomkins

Trinitron said:


> It could be to TiVo, as that's the calculation they use in their accounts to write down the revenue contribution of lifetime subs.


Yes, that's an interesting point. Actually from memory they use 60 months. But that's not really a true estimate of the lifetime of the machine, it's more a way of boosting short-term profits. (You're way ahead of me here and and I know you know all this but others may not.) If they said the recorder was going to last, say, 20 years, then in each of those 20 years they could only include in their revenues one-twentieth of the amount they took for the lifetime subscription. However, if they give an estimated lifespan of just five years, then they immediately quadruple their revenues from sales of lifetime subscriptions in the short term because, in each of the next five years, they can count one-fifth of the sum they collected in sales of life subscriptions. For a start-up company desperately trying to move into profit, it's an important consideration and puts a lot of pressure on the company to give the shortest possible estimate of the machines' lifespan.



Trinitron said:


> As for the rest of the action, defending legal actions is something TiVo specialise in. As for the amount of compensation anyone should expect, well that has been done to death in previous threads so I'm with those that think this one should be kept clear for RW to continue reporting the latest developments in the saga... :up:


Agreed!

Thanks very much for the supportive messages, those that posted them. Unitron, I think you've put your finger on it - what I think is wrong is their using their financial strength to prevent this claim ever being heard. If they think they have a strong defence, why not just come to a short, informal small claims hearing, state it and be done with it? They don't even have to attend - they can easily send a lawyer. It just seems to me that they're trying to bully me into dropping the case.

Anyway I'll carry on for now and I just hope the court gets a grip on the thing and puts a stop to all the malarkey.


----------



## rwtomkins

Final update: it's all over. I've given in. I had another letter from the lawyers, a bit more civil this time, suggesting I should discontinue the action and if I did, they wouldn't pursue costs, and I agreed. No money has changed hands - I haven't paid them a penny and they haven't paid me a penny. We have both walked away and we are each covering our own costs and that's it. I've agreed not to make any more claims against TiVo Inc and they have also said this doesn't set any precedent for any other claims that might be brought by other people.

The reason I've done this is that it was getting out of control and starting to take a toll on my offline life. When all this began, I thought I had nothing to lose by making the claim because it was only a small claim so my costs were strictly limited and it would only take up a bit of spare time. However, what I hadn't appreciated was that it wouldn't matter to TiVo how much money it spent on defending the claim because it wasn't spending it's own money, it was spending the shareholders'; and it wouldn't matter how much time it took because it was paying outside lawyers to do all the work. So if they could just engineer a situation where the claim started to take a lot of time and a lot of money, and where I didn't enjoy the protection of the small claims process, they would be at a big advantage. And that's what they did. As long as they kept fighting the jurisdiction, and spun it out as long as possible with demands for hearings and threats of appeals, I would have to spend very large amounts of time fighting the challenge without any protection from the small claims process and would also be risking an award against me of many thousands of pounds if things went wrong. It just wasn't worth it any more.

One problem I had was being identifiable as a forum member here because what they did was go through every post I'd ever made and select everything they could possibly find that could be made to sound in some way disadvantageous to me and then presented all these posts as part of their jurisdiction challenge. I could easily have shown how these posts had been taken out of context or were countered by other posts etc etc but the point is, it was just taking so much time. Their jurisdiction challenge amounted to well in excess of 100 pages of submissions and background documents so you can imagine how long it would have taken to respond in kind.

It's a pity because I'm confident I would have won if I'd carried on, unless the court was biased in favour of the side with the big law firm. (That's a big "unless".) The jurisdiction challenge was just a ploy and had no solid foundation at all and I would have overcome it in the end. The claim itself was also an easy win - the get-out clauses in the contract would obviously have fallen foul of unfair contract terms legislation. The one thing TiVo probably thought they had me on was having had my machine modified which wasn't allowed under the contract terms, and I don't think this would have been seen as an unfair contract term. However, as they were about to discover, I had an ace up my sleeve, which was that the machine was modified by an authorised TiVo repairer (Pacelink), which was allowed under the revised T&Cs, so I wasn't worried about that at all.

I think it's extremely unlikely that anyone else will want to have a go but if they do, I would just say two things. One is, don't say so here! It's essential you aren't identifiable as a forum member here, otherwise they will drag up your entire posting history and use it against you when you make your claim. The other thing is that you either need an unmodified machine or one modified by an authorised repair shop. If you can get past those two things, it probably wouldn't be too hard and I'd be happy to offer advice. But as I say I think it's extremely improbable that anyone would think it's worth the bother, especially now so much time has passed. 

I'm very sorry to have let down all those who supported the claim. At least we made them listen to us for a minute, even if it came to nothing in the end.


----------



## AMc

It sounds like the pragmatic decision under the circumstances. All the best.

On a related note I read that Tivo and Microsoft have also decided to stop litigating 
http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/22/microsoft-tivo-drop-patent-lawsuit/


----------



## unitron

Sounds like they spent a lot more money than did you.

I hope others put them through the same thing, one at a time, now that we know how far they can take it and then bail out reasonably intact.

Thank you for trying to hold them to account.

I respect your decision to discontinue your effort, and in no way feel that you have let anyone down.


----------



## Steve_K

rwtomkins said:


> Final update: it's all over. . . .


IMHO you've made the right call and been a hero. A hero that's probably cost TiVo far more than if they'd just made an honest offer to those still qualifying for lifetime.

Ultimately you've run foul ol the old maxim that civil law is only there to help the rich

I'm going take some time and work out the best legal way for me to make the reneging bastards at TiVo further regret their illegal action. Details are unlikely to appear here given what happened to you. When I say "legal" that means methods not against the law rather than methods using the services of the law.

In retrospect this forum was never going to provide sufficient critical mass to take TiVo Inc to court. Very few here had accounts that still qualified for lifetime service when it was terminated.


----------



## TCM2007

If your object was primarily to make TiVo squirm a bit, I'd say job done.

I disagreed with your views on whether TiVo did anything wrong in cancelling the service, but the bullying way they have behaved has brought me round to your side!

I'd have liked to see an actual judge resolve the debates on this forum over the past year, but fully understand your decision.


----------



## Philnic

Well done, rwtomkins, for taking it this far. I was a lifetime subber and TiVo supporter, but gave up when they turned off the service. My only reason to come back to this forum periodically has been to check on the progress of your case.

Like some others, I didn't really think you could ever win, but I'm pleased that they had to pay lawyers and you didn't.

I can't imagine I will ever post here again. Gave up the Tivo after the service was shut done (and when I found a Freesat HD recorder whose picture quality and recording capability far exceeds what the series 1 Tivo was capable of). Fittingly, when I sold my Tivo on eBay and sent it on its merry way, it was lost by Royal Mail, never to be found.

Goodbye all!

- Phil


----------



## unitron

Philnic said:


> Well done, rwtomkins, for taking it this far. I was a lifetime subber and TiVo supporter, but gave up when they turned off the service. My only reason to come back to this forum periodically has been to check on the progress of your case.
> 
> Like some others, I didn't really think you could ever win, but I'm pleased that they had to pay lawyers and you didn't.
> 
> I can't imagine I will ever post here again. Gave up the Tivo after the service was shut done (and when I found a Freesat HD recorder whose picture quality and recording capability far exceeds what the series 1 Tivo was capable of). Fittingly, when I sold my Tivo on eBay and sent it on its merry way, it was lost by Royal Mail, never to be found.
> 
> Goodbye all!
> 
> - Phil


It was so heartbroken at being sent away to a foster family that it decided to run away and live on the streets somewhere.


----------



## AMc

Philnic said:


> Fittingly, when I sold my Tivo on eBay and sent it on its merry way, it was lost by Royal Mail, never to be found.


Gone to Silicon Heaven


----------



## bobnick

Philnic said:


> Well done, rwtomkins, for taking it this far. I was a lifetime subber and TiVo supporter, but gave up when they turned off the service. My only reason to come back to this forum periodically has been to check on the progress of your case.
> 
> Like some others, I didn't really think you could ever win, but I'm pleased that they had to pay lawyers and you didn't.
> 
> I can't imagine I will ever post here again.
> 
> Goodbye all!


+1!


----------



## afrokiwi

bobnick said:


> +1!


Everything bobnick said +2


----------



## rwtomkins

Thanks very much for the kind words, everyone, which I really appreciate. I think what you said, TCM2007, was magnanimous, remembering how you were against the claim in the early days.

I wish I could have seen it through - I would have loved to see how it ended - but it was definitely entering "Get a life!" territory and it was time to give it up.

Now I just have to decide what to do with the poor old TiVo.


----------



## mrtickle

rwtomkins said:


> Thanks very much for the kind words, everyone, which I really appreciate. I think what you said, TCM2007, was magnanimous, remembering how you were against the claim in the early days.
> 
> I wish I could have seen it through - I would have loved to see how it ended - but it was definitely entering "Get a life!" territory and it was time to give it up.


I echo what everyone else has said. You've done a great service to the community, and many thanks for your detailed updates.

Reading about their 100 page submission with them trawling your posting history (just 203 posts), made me wonder what on Earth they would do if the likes of Pete77 or CWaring were to mount an action each? Surely that would keep the lawyers busy for a while 



> Now I just have to decide what to do with the poor old TiVo.


Use it with the AltEPG of course . The AltEPG is working out better than I could have dreamed. We are stymied by bad guide data just like Tribune was, but at least we can (try) and do something about it these days ;-)


----------



## alextegg

mrtickle said:


> Reading about their 100 page submission with them trawling your posting history (just 203 posts), made me wonder what on Earth they would do if the likes of Pete77 or CWaring were to mount an action each?


Now there's an idea - Pete? Carl?


----------



## Raisltin Majere

mrtickle said:


> I if the likes of Pete77 were to mount an action each? Surely that would keep the lawyers busy for a while


They'd have given up within a week to shut him up, money only has a certain value


----------



## Steve_K

mrtickle said:


> . . .Use it with the AltEPG of course . The AltEPG is working out better than I could have dreamed. . .


seconded


----------



## a_tivo_noob

apologies, I don't come here often anymore either (frequenting the poorly populated (  ) but still very knowledgable altepg forum instead) so only just seen this, but another 'good on you' from me


----------



## Pete77

rwtomkins said:


> Final update: it's all over. I've given in.
> 
> The reason I've done this is that it was getting out of control and starting to take a toll on my offline life. When all this began, I thought I had nothing to lose by making the claim because it was only a small claim so my costs were strictly limited and it would only take up a bit of spare time. However, what I hadn't appreciated was that it wouldn't matter to TiVo how much money it spent on defending the claim because it wasn't spending it's own money, it was spending the shareholders'; and it wouldn't matter how much time it took because it was paying outside lawyers to do all the work.
> 
> So if they could just engineer a situation where the claim started to take a lot of time and a lot of money, and where I didn't enjoy the protection of the small claims process, they would be at a big advantage. And that's what they did. As long as they kept fighting the jurisdiction, and spun it out as long as possible with demands for hearings and threats of appeals, I would have to spend very large amounts of time fighting the challenge without any protection from the small claims process and would also be risking an award against me of many thousands of pounds if things went wrong. It just wasn't worth it any more.


Sorry this response is so late but the forum update emails were going to an email account I'm not accessing much at the moment due to a computer death that means I'm only using webmail for that account occasionally rather than my usual Thunderbird email client that collects mail from all my email accounts at once.

Like you I once thought that on an issue where one was morally in the right that those fine and wonderful places called courts that I thought were there to distribute justice would back me. After all the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal was also specifically billed as a body not able to award costs against a losing party.

But of course nobody told me the Tribunal would wrongly claim it did not have jurisdiction on my issue causing an appeal to an Upper Tribunal where my landlord then went crazy on costs because although the initial Tribunal couldn't award them they could then bill me for them later as something called an Administration Charge due to an alleged liability in my lease. Then we get back to another hearing of the LVT and they do get their costs awarded to them even though the lower tribunal turns did have jurisdiction and should have decided the matter back there.

Basically the story of David Vs Goliath is a complete and utter myth when it comes to the civil law unless you are totally broke and the claim is in an area that qualifies for full legal aid for someone who has no assets. Anyone else will almost always be bludgeoned out of continuing their legal case by a larger outfit that can afford to pay far more legal costs. Even if you stick it out to the hearing you will almost certainly still lose because your ham efforts at representing yourself won't push the right buttons with the eminent judges to win your case. But had you (or I actually mean me) been able to afford to employ the same type of legal firepower as them I could have won on precisely the same facts.

The civil law is just sickening. It frequently has nothing to do with justice or fairness but simply who has the largest bank balance. Only in an area like motor injuries where you can get No Win No Fee representation is there any hope of the small guy ever winning against the big one in a civil court.

The main thing is it only cost you about the price of another Tivo and hasn't left you having to sell your car and stop taking holidays for the next 10 years. If I hadn't already had my own desperately bad experience of the civil legal system in the last 12 months then I might have had the greater optimism that you and some others here had at the outset that you could win your case.

We could only ever have won against Tivo with some kind of group action where any cost of legal representation on our side or payment of their legal costs was split between 1,000 UK Tivo owners or more.

Well done on getting out before it got really bad. Unlike me. The reason I didn't was because when they were running up their legal costs I received advice from a government funded legal advisory service that they couldn't charge them to me but later on they unfortunately found a back door way to do so. Regrettably the civil law so often isn't about fairness or justice its just about he who has the biggest balls and wallet winning their case by any possible means at their disposal.

P.S. However on thinking about it I really think you should have asked Tivo to pay your own legal costs as part of your agreement to discontinue your case. The costs can't have been more than £300 or so which is nothing at all for Tivo to get rid of the matter. Still its too late now as you have already agreed to withdraw your action on a no costs basis.


----------



## Pete77

Oh and to the shameless bank account leeching low lifes otherwise known as lawyers its a pity that you can't find something more useful to do with your time and your lives other than deliberately making a simple dispute between two parties as complicated, stressful and paper filled as you possibly can in order to bill your clients as many hours of your time as you possibly can and therefore make yourselves as rich as you possibly can.


----------



## TCM2007

I've been on the other side of that fence, hiring lawyers to sue someone who insisted on defending himself. He was playing the "little old me against big corporate" card.

I found that the judge was scrupulously (frustratingly scrupulously!) fair at allowing him his say, correcting him when he got he procedure wrong, allowing him long recesses and postponements to get himself sorted out, and even suggesting to him which avenues he might wish to persue.

All the time he was scrabbling around figuring stuff out, our lawyers were on the clock, costing us in the end hundreds of thousands of pounds, which we had little chance of ever recovering.


----------



## martink0646

Uh-oh..........

Tin hat on & settle in for the fireworks!

You just love pulling his chain don't you


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> All the time he was scrabbling around figuring stuff out, our lawyers were on the clock, costing us in the end hundreds of thousands of pounds, which we had little chance of ever recovering.


Sorry my computer died and update emails for tivocommunity were going to an account I don't use for my most important email. So for a while I have been using webmail and not a pop email client (which checked all my accounts) so forget about checking these emails.

TCM I note what you say about the situation in reverse but if it was costing your company so much money and you were unlikely to be able to recover it from the guy in question then why didn't you settle with him given that corporate as we know are only about money and profit and don't suffer from problems like principle, integrity or emotional involvement.


----------



## Steve_K

I'd suggest it's the if you give in to a false claim then you'll get more false claims principle


Course that does work in reverse. So TiVo Inc if you're reading then the position is unchanged. If I get the money then I will sue you hopefully exposing acts that would be criminal under USA law..


----------



## 6022tivo

I get interesting legal letters from California as they are trying to claim my domain name...

Interesting, as they have not yet made the correct financial offer for it.

P.S. I do miss the good old days...


----------



## spitfires

Those Californian lawyers crack me up. I assume they are also suing the Italian shoe company and the style of art deco furniture and the helicopter engine manufacturer - all companies which dare to use the name "tivo" in their products?

They just try and scare you with a "Cease & Desist" threat, which isn't even valid outside of USA!


----------



## TCM2007

It seems that Microsoft pulled the plug on EPG listings for Media Center on Jan 1st, without so much an announcement. Maybe TiVo weren't so bad...


----------



## ggieseke

TCM2007 said:


> It seems that Microsoft pulled the plug on EPG listings for Media Center on Jan 1st, without so much an announcement. Maybe TiVo weren't so bad...


Is this a UK thing? It's working fine for me in the US.


----------



## mikerr

TCM2007 said:


> It seems that Microsoft pulled the plug on EPG listings for Media Center on Jan 1st, without so much an announcement. Maybe TiVo weren't so bad...


It might be a touch premature to be calling it a switch off -maybe its just a temporary outage ?

I'm pretty sure this happened to UK MCE data last January, and then it being fixed after a gap of a week


----------



## SolidTechie

FWIW there is a thread here which may be of some use...


----------



## mikerr

All seems fixed now.

BTW MCE falls back to using data pulled from the DVB signal, at least for freeview SD sources. 

This outage was mainly for those on freesat.


----------



## AMc

And Freeview HD went too, as I understand it the over air guide is different and can't be ready by MC.

I have a single DVB-S2 tuner and dual DVB-T. I honestly didn't notice that all the recordings had failed over to SD for a few days. My set up just moved to the broadcast guide without any intervention or even warning. It was only after I read a thread on AVforums that I noticed my sat channels were all blank.

The Register reported on it, MS fixed it and apologised so although its annoying it's not quite in the same league as pulling the plug on Tivo.


----------



## Pete77

AMc said:


> The Register reported on it, MS fixed it and apologised so although its annoying it's not quite in the same league as pulling the plug on Tivo.


Very poor though that there should be a gap of this kind whilst the service is still in its prime due to simple administrative incompetence.

At the moment I'm having decide what to do about a PVR for a relative who is a getting a new 3DHD Panasonic tv. Clearly Tivo isn't an option for this (they don't live in a Virgin tv area even though FTTC has just arrived only a few weeks ago increasing their broadband speed from 2Mbps to 38Mbps) due to its SD only format and lack of web tv capabilities.

I'm very torn between a Humax Freesat Freetime box and constructing an MCE PVR with a couple of satellite tuners and one Freeview tuner. On the whole I expect it will be Freesat as there will be more in the way of customer support available to help talk my relative through problems if I'm not available on sit to fix things.

As I'm not running an MCR PVR myself I think it would be too risky to just run one remotely for somebody else without having my own day to day hands on experience of any problems with the service. I also find it absolutely maddening that not one Smart Tv currently in the market can yet do all of BBC Iplayer, ITV Player, 4OD and Demand Five.

Coming back to the original point the fact that the break down in EPG service happened at all clearly suggests the number of users for the UK satellite part of the service is not very large and therefore it must still remain at risk of potentially being axed one day...........

Lastly I take it nobody has had any further joy persuading Tivo Inc of the need to compensate us Lifetime Service owners or that they should consider terminating their exclusive deal with Virgin in the UK in favour of one that allows their technology to also be used in rival tv platform products, in particular on Freesat PVRs (which continue not to be able to do any kind of a Wishlist let alone a Suggestion).


----------



## mikerr

Virgin Media has the best catchup service 

But of the non-subscription boxes? youview probably does catchup service best, as you can simply step back in the EPG. or search across all catchup services - no need to know what channel it was on. 
Not cheap at £300 !

I find myself using netflix alot of the time now - stunning value for £4.99/month and runs on many devices: wii/ps3/xbox/pc/ios/android & PC
You can start watching on one device pause, and resume on any other device - works well.


Spoiler



even better if you access the US servers


----------



## TCM2007

Yes, it came back, but meanwhile I've switched to an alternative EPG source, and can't be bothered to switch back!


----------



## AMc

Pete77 said:


> I'm very torn between a Humax Freesat Freetime box and constructing an MCE PVR with a couple of satellite tuners and one Freeview tuner. On the whole I expect it will be Freesat as there will be more in the way of customer support available to help talk my relative through problems if I'm not available on sit to fix things.
> 
> As I'm not running an MCR PVR myself I think it would be too risky to just run one remotely for somebody else without having my own day to day hands on experience of any problems with the service.


If you're the unpaid tech support then get a commercial PVR. I would probably go for a YouView box too.

I run MC with a dual Freeview and single Freesat HD tuner. Two platforms means almost twice as much administration - odd changes in satellite transponders mean mainstream channels simply disappear and it's not trivial to find and rescan the new transponders. The MC sat list is ancient. 
I certainly wouldn't do it for someone else for free and without your own box you may well be lost - even with remote access there are various things that go wrong on a semi regular basis that need significant attention.

I love my system as it allows me to watch 3 different things in 3 different rooms and record 3 things all at once. AFAIK there are no commercial systems that could do that so I put up with the slightly irritating administrative burden.

FWIW if you do decide to go with MC then Freeview (DVB-T(2)) seems to be less prone to things going missing than Free to Air (DVB-S(2)).


----------



## sjp

polish spamski mmm, yum yum

ozsat, do your work


----------

