# TiVo & D* Extend Agreement for 3 More Years



## gquiring (Dec 13, 2002)

Heres big news for a DirecTV/TiVo users, where it appears that reports of TiVos death on that DirecTV satellite service were greatly exaggerated. The two companies announced a three-year extension to the agreement that let DirecTV subscribers receive the TiVo service. The companies also agreed not to shoot each other in the foot over patent rights. This means youll not only be able to use that first-rate TiVo software inside DirecTV receivers for three more years, but DirecTV will also continue servicing existing DirecTV receivers with TiVo. Said DirecTV s chief technology officer:

By extending our agreement with TiVo, we are ensuring quality support for DirecTV customers who already own a DirecTV TiVo unit. We are pleased to cooperate with TiVo in a way that will best serve DirecTV and our DirecTV TiVo customers.

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/home...end-agreement-for-three-more-years-166759.php


----------



## elbodude (Feb 15, 2005)

But, no Series 3?


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

Sounds like nothing more than a support agreement.

Nothing leads me to believe we will see any platform improvements.


----------



## PRMan (Jul 26, 2000)

I wonder if this is just until they convince everybody to move to their DVR.


----------



## ozone (May 17, 2004)

Hopefully it's not just a support agreement and extends to updating the software...but i'm not holding my breath.

In my experience, once-severed business relations are often repaired with deals like this when a company learns from the marketplace that their alternate/substitute product is [A] not up to speed and/or * is not well accepted by the consumers...then the backtracking begins.

I think this is a sign that D* finally acknowledges that the consumers who already have TiVo want TiVo, and that new consumers who desire "TiVo" will go elsewhere (Comcast, etc) to get it.

To many, TiVo = DVR*


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

If I had to speculate,
DirecTV realized it's going to take a wee bit longer than they thought to get everyone switched over to their MPEG4 recievers,
their replacement for the HR10-250 isn't going to see the light of day anytime soon, mainly due to customer response to the R15 and its interface,
R&D is going to need more time to play around with that interface, get it working to customer expectations, push it to the existing R15's, guage it's success, then they can release the HD version.

That leaves a lot of TiVo based R10's an HR10-250's out there
and new customers still wanting DVR's for SD and HD.

We can always hope this means new software for the existing R10's and HR10-250's.


phox


----------



## Paperboy2003 (Mar 30, 2004)

Well until the HR10 starts understanding MPG-4 (never), I don't think this means anything. It really is just a support agreement it seems.


----------



## JoeSchueller (Jun 16, 2004)

IMHO: No way will we see any *improvement* (read: 6.2) of the existing HR10 software. This is strictly a maint. & mkt'ing deal. What does remain to be seen is if D* does use the HR10 and TiVo as a stopgap to get them thru to a (possibly) delayed HR20. I think this is a shame, but I also understand it.


----------



## bonscott87 (Oct 3, 2000)

It's just a "we'll keep support Tivo units for another 3 years". No new untis, DirecTV already made the decision a long time ago unless Tivo is secrectly working on an MPEG4 HD DVR for DirecTV (very, very doubtful).


----------



## Bananfish (May 16, 2002)

Below is the text of the actual press release. It does mention that TiVo will provide "ongoing maintenance and support." I usually interpret the word maintenance in the software context as "updates." Wouldn't it be nice if D* was refusing to provide the upgrade to 6.2 for the HDTiVo while they were negotiating this extension, and now that it has been inked they'll do it? I'm not holding my breath though.


TiVo and DIRECTV Agree to Extend Relationship for Three Years
Agreement Guarantees Quality Service for Existing DIRECTV TiVo Subscribers; Also Addresses Intellectual Property

ALVISO, Calif., April 12, 2006 / TiVo Inc., the creator of and a leader in television services for digital video recorders (DVR), and DIRECTV, Inc., the nation's leading digital television service provider, today announced a three-year extension to the TiVo-DIRECTV commercial agreement.

Existing DIRECTV TiVo subscribers will be able to continue to receive the award-winning TiVo(R) service, with TiVo providing ongoing maintenance and support. In addition, TiVo and DIRECTV agree not to assert patent rights against the other. The agreement also extends the advertising relationship between the two companies. DIRECTV will continue to service existing DIRECTV receivers with TiVo service. While specific financial terms of the agreement were not disclosed, the recurring monthly economics of the agreement are similar to the economics for DIRECTV receivers with TiVo service activated since 2003.

"We are pleased to have reached an agreement with DIRECTV that will allow us to continue to provide our service to the more than 2 million DIRECTV TiVo households," said TiVo CEO Tom Rogers. "As the pioneer in the DVR market, we have created a service that is highly valued by consumers because of our technology, the wide range of our unique features and the unparalleled ease of our user experience. This agreement reflects TiVo's popularity among DIRECTV subscribers and importantly respects the value of our intellectual property as well."

"By extending our agreement with TiVo, we are ensuring quality support for DIRECTV customers who already own a DIRECTV TiVo unit," said Romulo Pontual, DIRECTV's chief technology officer. "We are pleased to cooperate with TiVo in a way that will best serve DIRECTV and our DIRECTV TiVo customers."


----------



## FlugPoP (Jan 7, 2004)

Either way its good that they are still going to support my 2 tivos. We wont see any new Tivo products for D*


----------



## wmschultz (May 26, 2004)

Here is the SEC Filing:

ITEM 1.01. Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On April 7, 2006, we entered into the Seventh Amendment of our Development Agreement, dated February 15, 2002, with DIRECTV, Inc. Under this amendment, which amends the expiration date of the Development Agreement from February 15, 2007, to February 15, 2010, we will continue to provide maintenance and support for DIRECTV receivers with TiVo service through the expiration date of the Development Agreement. In addition, DIRECTV will continue to have the right to distribute DIRECTV receivers with TiVo service through February 15, 2007, and a related grace period as set forth in the Development Agreement. Further, we agreed that neither party would assert its patents against the other party with respect to each companys products and services deployed prior to the expiration of the agreement, subject to limited exceptions. DIRECTV will continue to pay a monthly fee for all households using DIRECTV receivers with TiVo service similar to the amount paid by DIRECTV for households with DIRECTV receivers with TiVo service currently being deployed, subject to a monthly minimum payment by DIRECTV. On an annual basis, we will reserve a portion of these fees as a non-refundable credit to fund mutually agreed development, maintenance, and support services.

The foregoing description of the Seventh Amendment of our Development Agreement with DIRECTV is qualified in its entirety by reference to the provisions of the agreement that will be filed as an exhibit with the Companys Form 10-Q for the quarter ending April 30, 2006.

On April 7, 2006, we also entered into the First Amendment of our Amended and Restated Services Agreement, dated March 31, 2005, with DIRECTV. This amendment extends the term of the Services Agreement until February 15, 2010, and provides DIRECTV with the ability to obtain additional technical support and training for its use of advertising-related software tools with DIRECTV receivers with TiVo service.

The foregoing description of the First Amendment of our Amended and Restated Services Agreement, dated March 31, 2005, with DIRECTV is qualified in its entirety by reference to the provisions of


----------



## gquiring (Dec 13, 2002)

More comments from Engadget:

A new agreement between TiVo and DirecTV has the two companies on quasi-friendly terms, with TiVo promising three more years of service to DirecTV TiVos, and both companies promising not to mess each other over with patent rights. This comes on the tail of TiVo's suite against Echostar for patent infringement, so we can't help but thinking DirecTV decided to keep their TiVo enabled customers hooked up to monthly TiVo service, which was set to expire in about a year, in exchange for a bit of patent-related grace when it comes to their own DVRs. Can't you just feel the love?


I truley believe that D* may have some patent issues with their DVR's and they need to see where EchoStar ends up in their mess with Tivo.


----------



## turls (Feb 6, 2000)

Ok, so does this mean that DirecTV isn't going to have any patent excuse for not offering basic functionality that Tivo patents cover in the MPEG4 units? That's the only possible tangible benefit I see from this for DirecTV PVR users. In fact, since the new HD content will be MPEG4 it probably helps the SD users that want to stick with TiVo a lot more.


----------



## Bananfish (May 16, 2002)

turls said:


> Ok, so does this mean that DirecTV isn't going to have any patent excuse for not offering basic functionality that Tivo patents cover in the MPEG4 units? That's the only possible tangible benefit I see from this for DirecTV PVR users. In fact, since the new HD content will be MPEG4 it probably helps the SD users that want to stick with TiVo a lot more.


I doubt it. TiVo merely agreed not to sue for infringement during the extension period (i.e., until Feb. 15, 2010). That doesn't necessarily mean that damages for infringement won't be accruing during the extension period that TiVo could sue D* to recover once the extension period has expired.

On the other hand, D* may be willing to risk having to pay those damages later in order to get their MPEG4 DVR established in the market during that time - TiVo would not be able to get an injunction to stop them from selling an infringing DirecTV PVR until the extension period expired.


----------



## hongcho (Nov 26, 2003)

From the wording, the no-legal-action-on-patents seems to be limited to the duration of the agreement. After that, I am sure the legal office can do whatever it wants.

Hong.


----------



## BBREAL (May 27, 2004)

This is a step in the right direction, maybe D* can't work around some of the patent issues and will relent somewhere down the line and keep TIVO around. I still don't understand why they cannot offer both and give customer's a choice. I will pay a few bucks extra for TIVO if necessary.


----------



## pjdoogie (Jun 14, 2005)

The Reuters story on Yahoo said:

"DirecTV said it will sell new TiVos that can record high-definition video if a customer requests it, but it has no plans to promote it. It will no longer sell boxes that record standard definition video."

That tells me that the HR10-250 still has a place in their marketing basket... and that the new HD box is not going to be out anytime soon....


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

pjdoogie said:


> The Reuters story on Yahoo said:
> 
> "DirecTV said it will sell new TiVos that can record high-definition video if a customer requests it, but it has no plans to promote it. It will no longer sell boxes that record standard definition video."


Considering they have no other HD DVR, this seems like a no brainer.

Wonder if this quote will hold true once their in-house HD DVR comes out.

I simply can't see any logical business reason to actively sell two HD DVR platforms.


----------



## BBREAL (May 27, 2004)

Why must it be two platforms, why can TIVO be looked upon as an operating system which is not far from the truth. They don't tell you which brand of TV to use. If they gave TIVO the incentive ( their suppliers ), they would produce a compatible platform with MPEG 4 if they thought they had a long term customer.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

Because DirecTV doesn't want them to. They'd rather do it in-house, which in theory is more profitable.

--chris


----------



## BBREAL (May 27, 2004)

There must be a $ # that would make sense. We still don't know the reason for the 3 yr extension. Is it patent issues ( probably based on the agreement not fight about it during the term ) customer disapproval? probably based on the how vocal our group is. Inability to make their system work? I don't know, could be any or all of the above


----------



## Syzygy (Aug 17, 2000)

> _*wmschultz's posting of the SEC Filing* said:_
> Further, we agreed that neither party would assert its patents against the other party with respect to each companys products and services _deployed prior _to the expiration of the agreement, subject to limited exceptions.


This evidently means that any infringing features in D*'s PVR are safe from having to pay license fees *forever *as long as they were "deployed prior to the expiration of the agreement."

However, if TiVo was smart, the "limited exceptions" include the beloved autocorrection (snapback) after FF2, FF3, and Reverse. For my own selfish reasons, I hope that D* is allowed to, and does, copy TiVo's snapback slavishly. Not to mention all the other unique TiVo features like Wishlists and very smart Season Passes.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I agree with the opinion that this simply means that D* bought themselves some time (and legal grace) to get their new units up and running and widely used... 

this means that visions of an mpeg4 box to replace the HR10 in 2007 are but a memory!


----------



## fitsman (Nov 30, 1999)

I tihnk DirecTV needs to come out with the MPEG4 version to stay competitive with Cable companies. It does them no good to have seperate DVR's and HD devices for the 90% of america that cannot get HD locals from them without MPEG4. That does not mean they wlll be coming out with it soon, but I think this agreement will not slow them down from developing as fas as they can. Its in their best interest to get it out there.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

Anubys said:


> I agree with the opinion that this simply means that D* bought themselves some time (and legal grace) to get their new units up and running and widely used...
> 
> this means that visions of an mpeg4 box to replace the HR10 in 2007 are but a memory!


Ugh I hope you are wrong about that. I was hoping DirecTV would have an MPEG-4 HD DVR by October when I am moving. I won't be able to get OTA HD channels at that point. I guess I may have to "move" to LA at that time.


----------



## gquiring (Dec 13, 2002)

I am amazed, the ruling already came in on EchoStar vs Tivo and Tivo won on their patent complaint. From Engadget:

We're still find the timeliness of the case a little dubious all things considered, but it certainly didn't take very long for a winner to be determined in TiVo's patent suit against EchoStar, and the jury apparently voted for the plaintiff. What this means in terms of hard numbers we don't yet know, but it sounds like TiVo's going to have a windfall of technology licensing fees due their way sometime soon, though no hard figures have yet been announced.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/13/tivo-vs-echostar-tivo-wins/


----------



## jsirota (May 26, 2003)

But they did win $73M in damages. Agreed, they are likely to have an ongoing revenue of from patent licensing.

Are they back from the brink?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060413/ap_on_bi_ge/tivo_patent_2


----------



## BBREAL (May 27, 2004)

I am thrilled for them, but I just sold ( a few weeks back ) a considerable amount of stock I was holding for years. Missed it by two weeks after holding out 6 yrs.

I read that the case was done in a small town in Texas that somehow has a reputation for quickly handling patent cases. It sounded strange to me, but it sure was fast. Maybe it was Tyler TX.

I hope D* takes strong notice and realizes what they may be up against. The sleeping giant ( figuratively speaking ) has been awakened.

Brian


----------



## teasip (Aug 24, 2002)

Marshall, Texas (SE of Dallas)


----------



## wje (Jan 8, 2005)

jsirota said:


> But they did win $73M in damages. Agreed, they are likely to have an ongoing revenue of from patent licensing.
> 
> Are they back from the brink?


Echo will appeal, file postrial motions, etc. They have also file a countersuit, to be heard early next year.

Texas juries have a reputation for finding for the plaintiff, regardless of the merits. Remember the judgement against McDonald's some years ago, where some woman spilled hot coffee _on herself, in her car_? She was awarded millions by a Texas jury because the 'coffee was hot'. Duh!

So, while the judgement might stand, it might not. We'll have to wait and see.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

pjdoogie said:


> The Reuters story on Yahoo said:
> 
> "DirecTV said it will sell new TiVos that can record high-definition video if a customer requests it, but it has no plans to promote it. It will no longer sell boxes that record standard definition video."


my eyes must need adjusting. Did that say that directv will no longer sell any recorders that record SD? That can't be right. please correct me


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

newsposter said:


> my eyes must need adjusting. Did that say that directv will no longer sell any recorders that record SD? That can't be right. please correct me


I would guess that that article meant to say that DirecTV will no longer sell SD *TiVo* units, but will still sell HD TiVo units only if the customer requests it.


----------



## IndyLions (Apr 15, 2006)

wje said:


> Echo will appeal, file postrial motions, etc. They have also file a countersuit, to be heard early next year.
> 
> Texas juries have a reputation for finding for the plaintiff, regardless of the merits. Remember the judgement against McDonald's some years ago, where some woman spilled hot coffee _on herself, in her car_? She was awarded millions by a Texas jury because the 'coffee was hot'. Duh!
> 
> So, while the judgement might stand, it might not. We'll have to wait and see.


The McDonald's lawsuit is an example of a lawsuit that looks frivilous on the surface, but had significant merit. McDonald's lost the lawsuit because it was proven that they intentionally raised the temperature of their coffee to extremely hot levels to save money on coffee refills for dine-in customers.

Therefore they lost the lawsuit because they knowingly served their coffee at very hot levels without regard for customer safety.

Don't judge a book by its cover. There are plenty of frivilous lawsuits out there, this is not one of them....


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

i had no idea as i didnt follow the lawsuit. How does hi temp reduce what people want? they too tired to wait for it to cool?


----------



## jcricket (Sep 11, 2002)

IndyLions said:


> The McDonald's lawsuit is an example of a lawsuit that looks frivilous on the surface, but had significant merit. McDonald's lost the lawsuit because it was proven that they intentionally raised the temperature of their coffee to extremely hot levels to save money on coffee refills for dine-in customers.
> 
> Therefore they lost the lawsuit because they knowingly served their coffee at very hot levels without regard for customer safety.
> 
> Don't judge a book by its cover. There are plenty of frivilous lawsuits out there, this is not one of them....


I'm glad there are others out there who have chosen to look beyond the headlines. McDonald's did indeed keep its coffee at a temperature that was unsafe to drink when first poured, which factored into the jury's verdict. The other important factor to remember in lawsuits against large corporations is that punitive damages have to be large enough to actually punitive. If a corporation like McDonald's is only fined based on what would be a large amount to a individual or small business (say, $1 or $5 million), it will almost certainly conclude that the price of up-front compliance with the law is lower than the price of non-compliance.

This factor is one reason Microsoft has barely changed its monopolistic behavior over the years. Even with several large fines (in the 100s of millions) Microsoft still comes out "fiscally ahead" because it generates $10 billion/year in profit and has decided there's little practical reason (other than PR value) to stop acting illegally.

All that said, I'm glad Tivo and DirecTV are at least maintaining some semblance of a relationship. I purchased my HR10-250 last July and would love to see some basic performance improvements to justify the fairly expensive initial outlay. I have a R10 which runs 6.1 (?) and it certainly is "snappier" and more like what I'd expect from a DVR.


----------



## jcricket (Sep 11, 2002)

Here are some facts about the McDonald's Coffee lawsuit: http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

And from WikiPedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

newsposter said:


> How does hi temp reduce what people want? they too tired to wait for it to cool?


Think about it. If your coffee is too hot, you'll wait for it to cool before drinking it. By the time you are done waiting for it to cool you have already eaten your meal and are ready to leave. Since you haven't drank much of your coffee (if any), you leave the restaurant without requesting a refill.

I love the friviolous lawsuit folks. These people who question the veracity of the outcome of civil cases in our country are always the same people who NEVER question the outcome of criminal cases in our country.


----------



## solomita (Oct 12, 2002)

SpankyInChicago said:


> Think about it. If your coffee is too hot, you'll wait for it to cool before drinking it. By the time you are done waiting for it to cool you have already eaten your meal and are ready to leave. Since you haven't drank much of your coffee (if any), you leave the restaurant without requesting a refill.


As well, that McDonalds store had been cited several times by local inspectors for having the coffee temperature too hot. Yes, if you spill hot coffee on yourself that will be unpleasant. But it shouldn't require medical treatment, and it did in her case.


----------



## jcricket (Sep 11, 2002)

SpankyInChicago said:


> I love the friviolous lawsuit folks. These people who question the veracity of the outcome of civil cases in our country are always the same people who NEVER question the outcome of criminal cases in our country.


This is one of the most interesting (and accurate) quotes I've ever read about "tort reform" advocates. Good call Spanky.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

SpankyInChicago said:


> I love the friviolous lawsuit folks.


I love the broad generalization folks.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

and here i thought liquid costs "zip" and it's the cups that cost $$$....


----------



## darrenmv (Apr 17, 2006)

According to the facts as listed at the link above:

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade 

AND

McFact No. 6: McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

So of 10 billion cups of coffee they have served there have been more than 700 incidents of scalding.

Ouch

Darren


----------



## dwynne (Mar 11, 2002)

gquiring said:


> I truley believe that D* may have some patent issues with their DVR's and they need to see where EchoStar ends up in their mess with Tivo.


Those were my thoughts when I heard about the extended D*/Tivo agreement - and the Yahoo news story even mentioned that closing arguments in the Echostar case were heard at about the same time.

I figure D* saw the writing on the wall and figured they would be next in the lawsuit courts after Echostar and would probably also lose. So by giving Tivo money now in this agreement they get around future lawsuits for any product they release during the contract period. "In theory" D* can keep their current Tivo customers happy until they perfect and release their own DVRs - and beyond.

Tivo gets the money now, without having to give a huge chunk of it to lawyers and court expensives - and no lengthy delays for appeals, etc.

As a D* Tivo owner, this should mean I can keep my boxes subbed to D* for quite a while longer - even after new boxes are out - they (hopefully) will not FORCE me to give up my Tivos for an inferior design D* box. If things are REALLY nice maybe the Tivo folks can make us some upgrades for our current boxes - but even if they don't I will be happy if I can just keep on using what I have until it blows up 

As far as the Mickey D's coffee case, I think they DID crank up the temp too much on the coffee - but not to keep folks in the store from drinking too much of it. That seems just silly - and in most stores they have self serve for dine-in, so anyone could just go drop and ice cube or two in the coffee cup if it is too hot to drink. They did it for the drive-through customers - they stop for a cup on the way to work and it would be cold before they get to the office. So they really cranked up the temp to too hot to drink now, but still warm/hot for longer. The problem is if you tried to take big gulp of it or spilled it right after they handed it too you - yowsa!

Dennis


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

I heard that there were also some 50 lawsuits about the 700-or-so scalding issues, all of which were settled out of court, before this person had the guts to stick it out and stick it to them. IOW, McD's paid people off in serial fashion to allow them to continue doing business in a reckless manner. They had no disregard for the fact that harm could come to a customer just because they thought 185 degrees fit their business model, and decided it was worth risking paying out every so often for the serial pain and suffering they knew they were inflicting on a regular basis. That's just evil, and they knew it.

I have always agreed that their coffee was way too hot back then. But all it took was for me to lose temporary use of the tastebuds in my tongue for a couple of days to just decide to never buy their coffee again, and I was also careful the first time to take a tentative sip. That's common sense, and getting a cup at the drive-thru and immediately removing the lid to add cream and sugar yourself while it sits between your legs as you drive off (as was reportedly what happened here) is just tempting fate, and probably is not using good sense.

But, we are our brothers' keepers, and McD's should be responsible enough to provide for the safety even of those who may not always execute the best judgment. There is some measure of personal responsibility, but there is corporate responsibility as well.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

newsposter said:


> my eyes must need adjusting. Did that say that directv will no longer sell any recorders that record SD? That can't be right. please correct me


I interpret this to mean that they will no longer sell _Tivo_ SD PVRs, as they have ramped up their home-grown non-Tivo units for anyone who wants a SD PVR, but they will still allow Tivo HD PVRs, at least for the time being, because they have no HD PVR of their own yet.

I think they are quite a few years away from ending the sale of SD PVRs or SD service, but they will also likely cut Tivo out of their sales of HD PVRs also as soon as it makes sense. Bottom line? If you want a HR10, don't wait forever.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

TyroneShoes said:


> I interpret this to mean that they will no longer sell _Tivo_ SD PVRs, as they have ramped up their home-grown non-Tivo units for anyone who wants a SD PVR, but they will still allow Tivo HD PVRs, at least for the time being, because they have no HD PVR of their own yet.
> 
> I think they are quite a few years away from ending the sale of SD PVRs or SD service, but they will also likely cut Tivo out of their sales of HD PVRs also as soon as it makes sense. Bottom line? If you want a HR10, don't wait forever.


Cool - someone agree with me!  


drew2k said:


> I would guess that that article meant to say that DirecTV will no longer sell SD *TiVo* units, but will still sell HD TiVo units only if the customer requests it.


----------



## IOTP (Aug 7, 2001)

Perhaps maybe a next generation DVR. I played with the newer DirecTV DVR, what a steaming hot pile of crap.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

darrenmv said:


> So of 10 billion cups of coffee they have served there have been more than 700 incidents of scalding.


couldn't resist

.00000007 doesn't sound so bad...wouldnt the statisticians be able to prove acceptable risk?


----------



## STL (Feb 10, 2005)

wje said:


> Echo will appeal, file postrial motions, etc. They have also file a countersuit, to be heard early next year.
> ...
> So, while the judgement might stand, it might not. We'll have to wait and see.


True. I can't help but wonder what would happen if a considerable number of the DirecTiVo owners emailed DISH Network to make it clear that they would switch to them if they partnered with TiVo. That's what I did (via this link ). I'm not holding my breath or anything though...


----------



## miss_my_utv (Sep 29, 2005)

jcricket said:


> Here are some facts about the McDonald's Coffee lawsuit: http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
> 
> And from WikiPedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case


How all of you "this wasn't frivolous" folks come to that conclusion after reading the following from the wikipedia link above is beyond me! Properly brewed coffee is hot; hot things can burn; be careful when handling hot things!! DUH!!

Well, I guess I'm not surprised there are folks who feel it isn't frivolous, but that they would give out a reference with this info to support their argument is baffling...

from the wikipedia link above (emphasis added):

During the case it was discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit (82-88 degrees Celsius). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 degrees Celsius), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. _Despite this claim, home coffee makers often reach comparable temperatures. For example, Bunn [1] mentions "the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200°", and [2] mentions "water at 200° Fahrenheit (the ideal temperature)". Cuisinart mentions for at least one of their coffeemakers [3] that "After brewing, the heater plate will keep the coffee at about 180°-185°F". Moreover, several other restaurants serve coffee capable of causing third-degree burns. However, the National Coffee Association of USA recommends that coffee be brewed at 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit and maintained at a temperature of 180-185 degrees for optimal flavor and drunk immediately._ [4] Starbucks, for example, serves its coffee at this temperature, and, indeed, has been subjected to similar lawsuits for coffee spills.[5] Most courts have dismissed these cases against Starbucks. Burger King was recently sued for an identical case of a woman spilling coffee in her lap.[6] So has Dunkin' Donuts.[7]


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

newsposter said:


> couldn't resist
> 
> .00000007 doesn't sound so bad...wouldnt the statisticians be able to prove acceptable risk?


I'm sure that's their position. But there are two things wrong with that.

It is a statistic reflecting only the _reported_ incidents of "scalding", and maybe their definition of "scalding" is third-degree burns, while mine is anything that is hot enough to make me scream "Ouch!". Anyone who ever sipped their first cup of McDonald's coffee got the same nasty surprise, but maybe only .0000007 % of us are litigious enough to bother picking a fight with a raft of corporate shark lawyers. I certainly don't have the time or the money, but I was still not happy to have no tastebuds for three days.

The other thing is that it makes perfect sense to assume that if they actually served it at a temperature that humans could drink without scalding or without waiting for it to cool, that there would be virtually ZERO incidents of scalding. If you are among those scalded, it would be hard to convince you that a risk percentage higher than that was statistically acceptable, or acceptable at all.

IOW, McD's position is apparently that they think burning the sh!t out of a sweet little old lady every so often is perfectly acceptable.


----------



## codespy (Jan 7, 2006)

Shouldn't discussions about McDonald's coffee continue in the Tivo Coffee House discussion forum?


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

TyroneShoes said:


> maybe only .0000007 % of us are litigious enough to bother picking a fight with a raft of corporate shark lawyers. I certainly don't have the time or the money,.


i'm sure glad i dont drink coffee...sounds like a dangerous thing

and i thought lawyers were on a contingent basis so it would cost you nada to sue


----------



## miss_my_utv (Sep 29, 2005)

SpankyInChicago said:


> I love the friviolous lawsuit folks. These people who question the veracity of the outcome of civil cases in our country are always the same people who NEVER question the outcome of criminal cases in our country.


OJ, OJ, OJ!!!


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

TyroneShoes said:


> I'm sure that's their position. But there are two things wrong with that.
> 
> It is a statistic reflecting only the _reported_ incidents of "scalding", and maybe their definition of "scalding" is third-degree burns, while mine is anything that is hot enough to make me scream "Ouch!". Anyone who ever sipped their first cup of McDonald's coffee got the same nasty surprise, but maybe only .0000007 % of us are litigious enough to bother picking a fight with a raft of corporate shark lawyers. I certainly don't have the time or the money, but I was still not happy to have no tastebuds for three days.
> 
> ...


Since we are wondering off topic.

Ive been reading this McDonalds thing and I must say Ive learned quite a bit. Ive kind of bounced back and forth a few times in my opinion over the past couple days. Heres my latest thought-

Lets be realistic. McDonalds isnt some big evil company that decided they wanted to burn people so thats why they kept the coffee hot. Even the suggestions that it was done to dissuade free refills is kind of far fetched IMHO.

I would suggest that perhaps they thought it was what their customers (As a whole) wanted. I happened to work their as a teenager and they were obsessed with their coffee (and if you pay attention they still are with their new super coffee or whatever it is) and so is pretty much every fast food joint. How big a deal did Burger king make about their Joe coffee. Anyway, I specifically recall them always trying to equal Dunkin Donuts coffee which around these parts is basically universally agreed to be the best. The might have thought the temperature was part of the equation- since Bunn, starbucks, et al seem to think its part of the equation maybe it really is?

Anyone ever buy coffee at a quickcheck or wawa or 7/11 store. Its been a while for me but around that period in the later 80s early 90s I worked as a carpenters helper and frequently went to the nearest quickcheck/wawa/7-11 for coffee Break. You could get burnt spilling coffee on your fingers pouring the cups. Even though I still had to drive it backl to the work site so it would have cooled a bit from when I bought it, many of the guys would have me put ice in their cup at the time. So the concept of Mcdonalds being some evil renegade is plain silly. People apparently like frigging hot coffee. Myself I like it hot or at least warm- try to get coffee in the middle of winter in the northern half of the country for 10 guys, get in your pickup, drive 5-10 miles, and sit down outside to enjoy coffee break and the temperature has dropped quite a bit from when you first poured it. On the weekends in my family its a treat to get Dunkin Donuts for breakfast. I like a large coffee. There coffee doesnt seem all that hot to me anymore (might be the lawyers scared them to turn down the hot plate temps?)- I frequently have to nuke the cup one or 2 times in the microwave once Ive drank a bit of it as its cooled. Perhaps this is the sort of thing the 200 degree McDonalds coffee was supposed to avoid.

How many of you buy expensive cars that go over the speed limit, or opposite dont handle so well in poor weather because you dont want to spend the money? Is it the manufacturers fault when you get in an accident that they sold you the car you wanted? What if many of us want our cars to go 80 MPH but some people buying the fancy car just want it to go 50? Is it the manufactures fault if those folks go over 50?

(analogies suck I know- but point is maybe its what the public wants is that darn hot coffee and they were just trying to play to the masses)

So the fact that the coffee was hot isnt the evil part but they should have put proper warnings on the cups and lids and made sure people wanting cooler coffee were aware so they could ask for ice or would know not to try and open it in their laps.

(btw just reminded myself- although I think Dunkin Donuts coffee isnt so hot these days I was getting one for the drive home from the inlaws on easter Sunday and the guy in front of me specifically asked for extra cream to cool it down. Not sure what bearing that has at all except if they make their coffee any cooler I wont buy it but still some people feel its too hot- not the same as scalding but goes to show you you cant please everyone I guess)


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> Since we are wondering off topic.


I really wish we would stop * wandering  * off topic...I hate to be a jerk, but I wish this thread would go back to the original topic...


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

miss_my_utv said:


> OJ, OJ, OJ!!!


Right into my trap.

... unless the verdict is not guilty ...

Conservative logic:

- Lawsuits are out of control and windfall juror judgements in favor of the plantiff are awarded far too often and tort reform needs to be put in place to control these out of control legal lotteries (translation: a finding *against* the defendant is almost always wrong)

- There are hardly any innocent people in jail. If you are found guilty for a crime by a jury of your peers than you are likely guilty. Heck, you are likely guilty if you were charged with the crime. Appeals by defendants are out of control and defendants should not be allowed so many appeals. And so many guilty people get off on technicalities. The criminal system needs to be reformed so that these guilt folks stop getting off (translation: a finding *for* the defendant is almost always wrong)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

[biting tongue so as not to wander or wonder off topic anymore...]


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

what happens if tivo gets sold...can this agreement just go bye bye?

trying to get on topic


----------



## Cudahy (Mar 21, 2001)

If Directv had simply contracted Tivo to be their DVR would it have cost them any more than they've spent trying(unsuccesfully) to duplicate it? I guess longterm greed trumps all rationality.


----------



## miss_my_utv (Sep 29, 2005)

SpankyInChicago said:


> Right into my trap.
> 
> ... unless the verdict is not guilty ...
> 
> ...


Ooh! You're sooooo clever! 

(Sorry folks, unlike MichaelK, I'm unable to just "bite my tongue". However, I'll keep it short, and it'll be my last post on the (off)topic.)

However, you'd be even more clever if you'd "bait your trap" with cases other than the ones mentioned here. Even the "liberals" I work with (including two "Massachusetts liberals"!) are on my side on the McDs & OJ cases.

And, yes, I also recognize you've set another trap, the one used on many popular "causes":

I'm for GOOD! 
My way is the ONLY way to achieve GOOD. There are NO alternatives. 
If you don't agree with me, you are for EVIL! ​
OK, I'm for evil in your eyes. I can live with that.

But, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that you're a proponent of public declarations of simplistic solutions to, or characterizations of, complex problems - I just noticed your "Sig"...


----------



## miss_my_utv (Sep 29, 2005)

My feeble attempt to get things back on to more pertinent topics:

So, does this agreement mean we'll get v6.2 (whatever that is) on the HDTivos? Oh wait, that might be covered somewhere else!


OK, how about this: Does this agreement open the door for AbMag... to start his new job as VP of PR at DirecTV?


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

miss_my_utv said:


> Ooh! You're sooooo clever!
> 
> (Sorry folks, unlike MichaelK, I'm unable to just "bite my tongue". However, I'll keep it short, and it'll be my last post on the (off)topic.)
> 
> ...


I've noted your response, but have no desire to further derail this thread.

Happy Tivoing.


----------



## miss_my_utv (Sep 29, 2005)

SpankyInChicago said:


> Happy Tivoing.


ditto...


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

newsposter said:


> what happens if tivo gets sold...can this agreement just go bye bye?
> 
> trying to get on topic


Anyone who buys a company assumes all its assets, liabilities, and contractual obligations...the new owner may try to re-negotiate a contract, sell and asset, or pay off a liability, of course, but so would the old owner!

I'm very optimistic that we will get 6.2 because of this agreement...


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

Anubys said:


> Anyone who buys a company assumes all its assets, liabilities, and contractual obligations...the new owner may try to re-negotiate a contract, sell and asset, or pay off a liability, of course, but so would the old owner!


Yes...but it's not uncommon for contracts to have "change-in-control" provisions that can be invoked to terminate the obligation.

--chris


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

I think Steve Jobs is getting bored enough at Pixar and Apple to buy Tivo and incorporate it into the next-gen Mac.

At least I hope so.


----------



## fjwagner (Jan 22, 2006)

Unfortunately, America has turned into a country with too many individuals that do not want to take personal responsbility for their actions. It is always someone else's fault. Coffee is hot. duh. Spill it in your lap it will burn. duh.  

I think I will sue for the time the plastic lid came off my Coke and it spilled on my lap and my car seat. I had to pay to get my pants dry cleaned. Maybe I should have sued instead. I am sure the plastic lid must have been defective.


----------



## fjwagner (Jan 22, 2006)

SpankyInChicago said:


> Right into my trap.
> 
> Conservative logic:
> 
> - Lawsuits are out of control and windfall juror judgements in favor of the plantiff are awarded far too often and tort reform needs to be put in place to control these out of control legal lotteries (translation: a finding *against* the defendant is almost always wrong)


My view on tort reform is that damages quite often far exceed any conceivable realistic damages. The finding may be appropriate, but the damages are out of control. The BMW case in Alabama a few years ago is a prime example. Fortunately, the Supreme Court brought this one in line but not without huge taxpayer expense. The finding may have been correct, but the judgement was out of control.

 Gore v BMW, an Alabama case, in which a jury issued a
$4 million punitive verdict on top of $4,000 in compensatories. In that
case, the total verdict was cut to $50,000 after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
that excessive punitive damages violated the Fourth Amendment.

If I remember right, this was about the paint job.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Trying to stay on topic.
Never mind a 6.2 upgrade, does this agreement mean that there may be TiVo software in some MPEG4 DVR's when they become available?


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

jamesbobo said:


> Trying to stay on topic.
> Never mind a 6.2 upgrade, does this agreement mean that there may be TiVo software in some MPEG4 DVR's when they become available?


If you mean DirecTV MPEG4 receivers...no. No new DirecTivo units.

--chris


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

is there a legal reason why they cant make tivo mpeg4? Or just that they dont wanna?


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but even though there is a non-Tivo Directv DVR for standard definition, if you requested one with TiVo wouldn't they supply it? It is my understanding that they will. When they announced an HD MPEG4 DVR without TiVo it was before the extended TiVo agreement. Now that that agreement is in place, even though no MPEG4 TiVo has been mentioned, isn't it possible that they will offer one in the future? Or is the decision not to offer one etched in stone?


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

jamesbobo said:


> ...does this agreement mean that there may be TiVo software in some MPEG4 DVR's when they become available?


 In series 3 or later, probably, in a DTivo, very unlikely. It takes understanding what drove DTV to boot Tivo in the first place, which is that for every Tivo/DTV sub they pay a license fee of about $1.35 a month back to Tivo, and they are no longer willing to do that.

While those of us who understand the unique value of Tivo might think this is a reasonable amount, and simply the cost of doing business, DTV looks at it another way, which is they don't like the idea of leaving any money on the table. IOW, if they can launch their own PVR to supplant or replace Tivo, they can keep that $1.35. So DTV is motivated to getting rid of Tivo, and would likely not license a MPEG-4 DTivo that would be technically compatible with DTV services. DTV is rightly so the gatekeeper of their own services, and would have to ink an agreement before a MPEG-4 DTivo would be allowed to work with their content. As it looks, that would be the opposite of the business plan they are attempting.

But at least they are not totally bat-sh!t crazy, and understand that they need to provide legacy service to existing DTivos. Not doing that would only piss off their base and drive them to cable, and in some cases, back into the arms of Tivo. It will take another 4 years for existing Tivos to become obsoleted, and then they get all the money, cutting Tivo out of the picture.

Bottom line, they made a realy smart deal with Tivo, later thought better of it and totally reversed position, then later thought the reversal was a bit harsh, and extended the contract for existing STBs. They seem about as predictable as North Korea at this point.


----------



## Gator5000e (Apr 23, 2006)

fjwagner said:


> Unfortunately, America has turned into a country with too many individuals that do not want to take personal responsbility for their actions. It is always someone else's fault. Coffee is hot. duh. Spill it in your lap it will burn. duh.
> 
> I think I will sue for the time the plastic lid came off my Coke and it spilled on my lap and my car seat. I had to pay to get my pants dry cleaned. Maybe I should have sued instead. I am sure the plastic lid must have been defective.


Sorry but I have to post this in response to this statement. there is such things as corporate responsibility as well as personal responsibility:

The Actual Facts About The McDonalds' Coffee Case

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was 
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle.

Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (people who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas.

She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees farenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing 
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault for contributing to causig the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees farenheit. 
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case. The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public.

When McDondald's listed 700 other burn case, it was proved to the jury that McDonald's was not being forthcoming because the list was incomplete. How did the plaintiff attorney know this - because his prior coffee burns case with McDonalds was not listed.

McDonald's witnesses also admitted that if the coffee was consumed when 
served, that it would give 3rd degree burns to the consumer. After hearing the legal definition of "unreasonably dangerous" - the witness admitted that the coffee was unreasonably dangerous when served. AFter the admission that the coffee was unreasonalby dangerous as served, all McDonald representatives stated that they had no plans to change their behavior, and would continue serving the coffee unreasonably dangerous.

It was also revealed in the trial that McDonald's had the standard Bunn 
coffee warmers modified to keep coffee at the 3rd degree burning stage, 
instead of the standard 150 degree range. So McDonald's warning that coffee is hot is actually misleading. Because everyone knows coffee is hot (assuming it is about 150 degrees like coffee everywhere else) and not the scalding 180+ degrees as served at McDonalds.

McDonald's was punished for being incredibly misleading and arrogant in 
business and in trial.

Anyway, hopefully 6.2 will come soon.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

jamesbobo said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but even though there is a non-Tivo Directv DVR for standard definition, if you requested one with TiVo wouldn't they supply it? It is my understanding that they will. When they announced an HD MPEG4 DVR without TiVo it was before the extended TiVo agreement. Now that that agreement is in place, even though no MPEG4 TiVo has been mentioned, isn't it possible that they will offer one in the future? Or is the decision not to offer one etched in stone?


james, i'm not being a smartaleck...but didn't i just ask that  Or do i need my prescription lenses adjusted?



newsposter said:


> is there a legal reason why they cant make tivo mpeg4? Or just that they dont wanna?


----------



## miss_my_utv (Sep 29, 2005)

Gator5000e said:


> Sorry but I have to post this in response to this statement. there is such things as corporate responsibility as well as personal responsibility:
> 
> The Actual Facts About The McDonalds' Coffee Case
> 
> ...


I know I said I wouldn't post any more on this topic, but, well, sorry!

****
I recognize folks are going to have different opinions on what's appropriate litigation, whether a case like this, or a patent case like Tivo vs. EchoStar (see, somewhat on topic!). But what baffles me in this case is folks who keep insisting that McDs coffee was "too hot".

Go back to the "fact sheets" referenced in earlier posts (I highlighted info from one in one of my responses) and you'll see plenty of references to the "normal" range of temperatures for properly brewed coffee - by coffee experts (not trial lawyers!). You'll see that the McDs temp was within that range.

I just measured the temperature of the coffee in my home brewer (a Presto model). The coffee was 190 deg F right after completion of brewing, and 180 deg F after being on the warmer plate for 15-20min. And, yes, my fingertips can attest to the fact that those temps are hot!!!

Of course, maybe someone from McDs snuck into my house and modified it? 

To me, it's clear the following are the "facts" of this case:

1. The McDs coffee was at what coffee experts consider a "normal" temp.

2. The plaintiff's legal team was able to convince people otherwise.

Again, I understand folks having different philosophies and opinions on the issue, but if you're going to argue "for" this particular case being legitimate, you aren't going to have much luck relying on the "too hot" argument.

I think what started this "subthread" was an observation, from the Tivo patent case, that juries can be swayed and locales for initial trials are often picked based upon this, resulting in appeals, so stay tuned, etc., etc., etc. In my opinion, this case is a good example of that (juries can be swayed).

So, it wasn't completely "off topic"!

Done for sure this time (I hope)...


----------



## sdchrgrboy (Mar 9, 2004)

Gator5000e said:


> Sorry but I have to post this in response to this statement. there is such things as corporate responsibility as well as personal responsibility:
> 
> The Actual Facts About The McDonalds' Coffee Case
> 
> ...


still frivilous


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

sdchrgrboy said:


> still frivilous


Your assertion is, in essence, that people must take personal responsibility for their actions but corporations should not take have to take responsibility for their actions. Are you really suggesting that suffering 3rd degree burns on 6% of your body is worth less than ~$600k? What is a fair price? Let me ask you this. How much would I have to pay you to let me inflict 3rd degree burns on 6% of your body? Remember, the woman offered to settle for $20,000. McDonald's refused. You still consider the case frivious. Logic then suggests that you belive that getting 3rd degree burns on 6% of your body does not warrant even $20,000. So, how much? $10,000? I'll tell you what. If you'll accept $10,000, I will go down to my bank today and draw a cashier's check in the amount of $10,000 payable to you. We will sign a simple contract freeing me of all responsibility for your injuries and stating that I will pay you $10,000 in exchange for you letting me burn 6% of your body with scalding hot coffee.

C'mon. Coffee burns on 6% of your body for $10,000 cash. Fair trade, right? PM me if you want to participate. I am serious as serious can be. $10,000 would be well worth it to me. But, I am thinking I won't be getting a PM.

  

"What? The corporation dumped toxic waste into the river? And a person went swimming in the river and got sick? And the person sued? My God! What a frivilous case! That person needs to take personal responsibility for their actions. Was that person forced to swim in the river? No! They swam in that river entirely of their own accord. When will liberals stop making excuses and blaming all their problems on big corporations? These people need to take responsibility for their own actions! If you don't want to risk getting sick from toxic waste dumped in a river, then the solution is pretty obvious. DON'T GO SWIMMING IN RIVER IF YOU AREN'T SURE IT IS SAFE! DUH! I'm so sick of living in a nanny state."


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

TyroneShoes said:


> ...
> 
> Bottom line, they made a realy smart deal with Tivo, later thought better of it and totally reversed position, then later thought the reversal was a bit harsh, and extended the contract for existing STBs. They seem about as predictable as North Korea at this point.


For those asking about MPEG4- tivos from Directv.-

The SEC filing clearly states still no new activations after the original agreement expires in feb 2007. So no new MPEG4 boxes with Tivo., (they did add in a grace period now- either to clear existing inventory or maybe to get some more time for HD Directivos because NDS cant deliver by feb 2007)

About their logic-
I think there action is pretty logical. Essentially the original agreement was a pre-nup and this extension is the divorce agreement. The relationship is still broken and irretrievable broken (no new boxes activated after original date) but this makes the break up less bloody. Directv agreed to pay alimony for 3 years (continued monthly payments which were not required under the pre-nup) and Tivo agrees not to take the house (sue Directv for patent infringement). Additionally for the sake of the children (eg us) they agree to be civil and include funding for braces if needed at a later date- Directv is including some child support along with the the alimony payment (tivo agreed to set aside some of the monthly payments in a fund to cover the costs of any work they need to perform for maintenance upgrades if they are required in the future).

Tivo is still looking for a new husband (they were Directvs *****). And Directv is still enamored by their new trophy wife (NDS)- but like all trophy wives, NDS has flash but lacks intelligence and real world experience.


----------



## miss_my_utv (Sep 29, 2005)

SpankyInChicago said:


> Your assertion is, in essence, that people must take personal responsibility for their actions but corporations should not take have to take responsibility for their actions. Are you really suggesting that suffering 3rd degree burns on 6% of your body is worth less than ~$600k? What is a fair price? Let me ask you this. How much would I have to pay you to let me inflict 3rd degree burns on 6% of your body? Remember, the woman offered to settle for $20,000. McDonald's refused. You still consider the case frivious. Logic then suggests that you belive that getting 3rd degree burns on 6% of your body does not warrant even $20,000. So, how much? $10,000? I'll tell you what. If you'll accept $10,000, I will go down to my bank today and draw a cashier's check in the amount of $10,000 payable to you. We will sign a simple contract freeing me of all responsibility for your injuries and stating that I will pay you $10,000 in exchange for you letting me burn 6% of your body with scalding hot coffee.
> 
> C'mon. Coffee burns on 6% of your body for $10,000 cash. Fair trade, right? PM me if you want to participate. I am serious as serious can be. $10,000 would be well worth it to me. But, I am thinking I won't be getting a PM.
> 
> ...


Here we go again...

For someone obviously so passionate about defending your view (and mocking those who disagree with you), I'm still baffled at why you pick the McDs case as one of your "poster cases". I know it's hard, since we obviously use different forms of logic, but try to follow me here:

1. Was the McDs coffee kept at an "inappropriately hot" temperature?

NO! It's basically the same as your home coffee brewer will make/keep it (see previous post) and within the recommendations of coffee experts. Many people seem to be confusing what the trial lawyers were able to make people believe is "appropriate" with how hot coffee normally is.

2. Was the coffee hot enough to cause injury?

Clearly, YES (but see #1).

3. Who dumped the coffee on the injured?

THEY DID!​
Had a McDs employee spilled the coffee on the person, I doubt any reasonable person would question they would be liable (nor, I doubt, would McDs!).

Had McDs truly served the coffee at a significantly higher temp than "normal" (which they didn't), you'd start to get into that gray area where reasonable people might differ on who had what responsibility. And, yes, many of us would still say "Coffee is hot, be careful with it!" ought to be common knowledge.

But these nuances don't lend themselves easily to the simplistic generalizations you seem to favor.

You aren't doing your 'crusade' any good with the absurd leaps of logic you made above, both when discussing the McDs case, and your inferring a correlation between viewing that particular case as 'frivolous' meaning one never views a corporation as at fault.

But, what do I know? After all, you are for GOOD...


----------



## sdchrgrboy (Mar 9, 2004)

SpankyInChicago said:


> Your assertion is, in essence, that people must take personal responsibility for their actions but corporations should not take have to take responsibility for their actions. Are you really suggesting that suffering 3rd degree burns on 6% of your body is worth less than ~$600k? What is a fair price? Let me ask you this. How much would I have to pay you to let me inflict 3rd degree burns on 6% of your body? Remember, the woman offered to settle for $20,000. McDonald's refused. You still consider the case frivious. Logic then suggests that you belive that getting 3rd degree burns on 6% of your body does not warrant even $20,000. So, how much? $10,000? I'll tell you what. If you'll accept $10,000, I will go down to my bank today and draw a cashier's check in the amount of $10,000 payable to you. We will sign a simple contract freeing me of all responsibility for your injuries and stating that I will pay you $10,000 in exchange for you letting me burn 6% of your body with scalding hot coffee.
> 
> C'mon. Coffee burns on 6% of your body for $10,000 cash. Fair trade, right? PM me if you want to participate. I am serious as serious can be. $10,000 would be well worth it to me. But, I am thinking I won't be getting a PM.
> 
> ...


Whatever. Most intelligent people know that coffee is hot. If your stupid enough to have it between your legs then you should get burned. rollseyes :rollseyes
Most lawsuits like this are because people don't take responsibility for their own actions and want to make a quick buck.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

SpankyInChicago said:


> Your assertion is, in essence, that people must take personal responsibility for their actions but corporations should not take have to take responsibility for their actions. Are you really suggesting that suffering 3rd degree burns on 6% of your body is worth less than ~$600k? What is a fair price? Let me ask you this. How much would I have to pay you to let me inflict 3rd degree burns on 6% of your body? Remember, the woman offered to settle for $20,000. McDonald's refused. You still consider the case frivious. Logic then suggests that you belive that getting 3rd degree burns on 6% of your body does not warrant even $20,000. So, how much? $10,000? I'll tell you what. If you'll accept $10,000, I will go down to my bank today and draw a cashier's check in the amount of $10,000 payable to you. We will sign a simple contract freeing me of all responsibility for your injuries and stating that I will pay you $10,000 in exchange for you letting me burn 6% of your body with scalding hot coffee.
> 
> C'mon. Coffee burns on 6% of your body for $10,000 cash. Fair trade, right? PM me if you want to participate. I am serious as serious can be. $10,000 would be well worth it to me. But, I am thinking I won't be getting a PM.
> 
> ...


Spanky-

I find it hard to believe you think coffee being too hot is the same as creating a superfund site and poisoning a river potentially giving hundreds of thousands of unknowing people cancer or something.

For any rational person, there is no doubt that at times corporations are evil and at times people are lacking in personal responsibility and sue frivolously.

I think the disagreement for all but the extremes on either side is where the line gets drawn. To say that all corporations are evil and deserved to be sued no matter what is extremist, just as to say that everything is the victems fault is nutz on the other end of the spectrum.

I Honestly dont understand what the money has to do with the issue- either the suit has merit or it doesn't. Lets leave punitive damages off the table since you're talking about what an injury is "worth" to settle- If the suit has merit than the amount means little. They didn't want to settle becasue they either didn't feel it was their fault or more likley they didn't want to admit it was their fault- the amount has little to do with them sitting in a back room trying to decide the dollar amount of the pain and suffering the woman had.

Say I chop my arms off while juggling a chainsaw does it matter how much the amount of the settlemtnt offer my lawyer makes? Isn't my fault for juggling the chain saws? Or do you think Stihl should install anti- juggling sensors so they should pay me for my arms no matter what i ask?


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

Enough! 

Stop thread-crapping about frivolous lawsuits and personal versus corporate responsibility. A couple of people were good enough to tie it into the TiVo situation, but if you can't, then stop posting here!

This is degenerating into the same debate seen in another recent thread about "stealing". Everyone has their own take on it, so leave it at that, or if you need to disagree, take it to PMs between the three or four posters above or go start your own thread in Happy Hour and have at it.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

drew2k said:


> Enough!
> 
> Stop thread-crapping about frivolous lawsuits and personal versus corporate responsibility. A couple of people were good enough to tie it into the TiVo situation, but if you can't, then stop posting here!
> 
> This is degenerating into the same debate seen in another recent thread about "stealing". Everyone has their own take on it, so leave it at that, or if you need to disagree, take it to PMs between the three or four posters above or go start your own thread in Happy Hour and have at it.


I guess those guys forgot that they had to check with you before posting. The nerve of them!


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

Howie said:


> I guess those guys forgot that they had to check with you before posting. The nerve of them!


Thank you for seeing my point!


----------



## gregftlaud (Jun 16, 2004)

if directv exteneded their contract 3 more years with tivo ...of course that will be until 2009. by then, wont their mpeg4 upgrade be complete? and wont they HAVE to offer a tivo dvr that is mpeg4 capable otherwise what is the point of extending their contract with tivo after the mpeg4 upgrade is complete????

personally, i think those of us who have the hr 10 250 are gonna get some kind of software upgrade that allows the hr10 250 to utilize mpeg4. think of it. dtv said that the whole upgrade for existing hd customers would be free including hardware swapouts. imagine them having to swapout new free hd dvr's for those of us who have the hr10 250. i would think they wuld lose alot more money on that rather than just upgrading our dvr's to receive mpeg4 and go from there.

greg


----------



## rminsk (Jun 4, 2002)

gregftlaud said:


> if directv exteneded their contract 3 more years with tivo ...of course that will be until 2009. by then, wont their mpeg4 upgrade be complete? and wont they HAVE to offer a tivo dvr that is mpeg4 capable otherwise what is the point of extending their contract with tivo after the mpeg4 upgrade is complete????


To avoid a lawsuit like the one between TiVo and Dish. TiVo just won that lawsuit.



> personally, i think those of us who have the hr 10 250 are gonna get some kind of software upgrade that allows the hr10 250 to utilize mpeg4.


mpeg4 can not be decoded in software on a HR10-250, it does not have a powerful CPU. All video decoding is done in hardware. The only way for the HR10-250 would be a hardware upgrade.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

rminsk said:


> To avoid a lawsuit like the one between TiVo and Dish. TiVo just won that lawsuit.
> 
> mpeg4 can not be decoded in software on a HR10-250, it does not have a powerful CPU. All video decoding is done in hardware. The only way for the HR10-250 would be a hardware upgrade.


but couldn't they send out their highly trained technicians and a soldering gun to do the work?


----------



## rminsk (Jun 4, 2002)

newsposter said:


> but couldn't they send out their highly trained technicians and a soldering gun to do the work?


Yes, I think that is the plan. They send out two technicians. The first one corners you and holds you at bay with the soldering gun and the second takes the HR10-250 throws it in the back of the truck and replaces the unit with something that is "just as good."


----------



## miss_my_utv (Sep 29, 2005)

drew2k said:


> Enough!
> 
> Stop thread-crapping about frivolous lawsuits and personal versus corporate responsibility. A couple of people were good enough to tie it into the TiVo situation, but if you can't, then stop posting here!
> 
> This is degenerating into the same debate seen in another recent thread about "stealing". Everyone has their own take on it, so leave it at that, or if you need to disagree, take it to PMs between the three or four posters above or go start your own thread in Happy Hour and have at it.


Scroll wheel on your mouse broken? 

Let me try to make some amends...

As I stated in a previous post: _"I think what started this "subthread" was an observation, from the Tivo patent case, that juries can be swayed and locales for initial trials are often picked based upon this, resulting in appeals, so stay tuned, etc., etc., etc. In my opinion, this case is a good example of that (juries can be swayed). "_

In the McDs case, obviously a number of factors were at play (e.g., poor old lady vs. giant corporation), but it is clear (to me, at least) that the jury had no clear context (of their own) of how hot coffee normally is, and some skillful lawyers worked that in their favor.

Not that unusual - it's how the system works, sometimes. But, if you can't find people who know how hot coffee is, how likely are you to find folks who can make sense of testimony over the hardware, software and algorithmic considerations related to _"a "multimedia time warping system" to pause, rewind or fast-forward live TV programs by recording them"_ (from an article on the Tivo patent case)?

And, do you think it's just coincidence the Tivo case was held in the sticks of Texas, rather than a "high tech" area, like say Austin, or the Silicon Valley?

Thus the link.

BTW, I'm not making any judgement on the merits of the Tivo patent case. I really don't know that much about the details.

To me, the best thing about the new DTV & Tivo agreement is they've found a way to avoid getting into a legal battle over patents. Those consume a lot of a company's resources, and I'd much rather see those resources, at both Tivo & DTV, go to R&D that might benefit us, rather than fill the wallets of a bunch of lawyers!


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

someone else may have already posted but here's their canned reply

Thanks for writing about the DIRECTV DVR (TiVo) 6.2 Software Upgrade. Please be advised that the HD-DVR (DIRECTV HR10-250) will get the software upgrade but the date has yet to be determined.

Thanks again for writing and stay tuned to DIRECTV.com for the latest news and information about our services.

Sincerely,


----------



## BBREAL (May 27, 2004)

Was this sent out recently?


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

That (or something worded slightly different but saying the same thing) gets sent to anyone asking about 6.2 on teh HR10-250. They have been sending some version of that for maybe a year.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

BBREAL said:


> Was this sent out recently?


does it matter? it's a stock answer...

so we'll have 6.2 between now and never...gee, I already knew that!

(I'm not making fun of you, Newsposter, I'm making fun of D*)...


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

are you saying they would send out the same answer for a year and it not be true? That can't be. No reputable company would ever do that...horrors. I think we need to take that rep and hook her up to a lie detector and let jack bauer interrogate her as to exactly when this is coming out. 

i wonder what else they have been lying to me about?


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

newsposter said:


> i wonder what else they have been lying to me about?


Chuckles the Clown is dead.

--Ted Baxter


----------



## Fireaxe (Apr 26, 2002)

gquiring said:


> The two companies announced a three-year extension to the agreement that let DirecTV subscribers receive the TiVo service.


I don't question your information, however the two DirecTV MPEG4 boxes I've seen at recent trade shows do not have TiVo as their GUI. The engineer I spoke with listed the differences between existing service and the new requirements for the expanded HD service.

First, you will need to replace your triple LNB dish with a 5 LNB dish. The smaller box has RF remote, and that's about it. The larger box has RF remote, SATA connector for external SATA drives (of course it is a proprietary format that is only compatible with DirecTV external SATA drives). It has an RJ45 ethernet connector, two USB connectors, and a promise of home networking, copy to any PC that supports their copy protection algorithm (currently the only PC I know of that supports this is HP).

I mentioned that I bought the DSS box with high speed serial port "for future use" when DSS first went online. It was never used.
The two USB ports on the Series 2 boxes is also unused (unless you do a few special things to the os). They assured me that the advanced features will be available sometime in the near future. I doubt it.

I went by the Winegard booth. DirecTV hasn't cooperated with them on the new 5 LNB dish nor a multiswitch. None of the other brand names you'd recognize have received any technical info from DirecTV.

The GUI on the new boxes is not TiVO. Its a real mess. The remote control is your average mess of buttons on a rectangular bit of plastic. The engineer said, "It's not TiVo, but we've spent a couple of years working on this interface and we're proud of it."

The GUI I saw had the same channel list style as the current "DIRECTV Grid"
Since the programming was recorded, and the line of folks wanting to play with the new box was getting longer, that was all I had a chance to see.

I hope I haven't repeated any info that has already been posted,

-Rob
SBE, CBNT... and a few more letters nobody cares about.


----------



## ayrton911 (Sep 4, 2000)

Thanks for the review. I must say I hate that in the future I may no longer get to used TiVo. It is such a great solution. What a shame it couldn't be a part of DirecTV forever.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

it's a fact the agreement was extended for another 3 years. But it just allows status quo for CURRENT directivo subs- as stated above there will be no new tivo boxes manufactured.


----------

