# Dish Network (Echostar) enters standalone DVR market



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

_Last updated: November 18 (fixed)_

_The following information is unofficial and represents a summary of information reported on this forum._

The Dish Network DTVPal DVR is a dual-tuner HDTV DVR that will support SD and HD channels from an antenna. Cable / QAM is not supported. It will allow you watch one HD channel while you record another; it will also record two different HD or SD shows while you watch watch a third, previously recorded show. Recording capacity on the DTVPal DVR is *30 HD hours and 150 SD hours with a 250Gb hard drive*. The bundled IR remote includes buttons for 30 sec [commercial] skip, 10 second replay, and supports four speeds of fast forward and reverse, slow motion, and frame-by-frame advance.

The DTVPal DVR will feature a "watered down" version of the Dish Network 622/722 DVR interface with more primitive graphics and recording features. The shipping DTVPal software will support program search and closed captions, but it will be missing several notable features of the Dish Network satellite DVRs. Among the *features absent* include the 16x9 guide, external storage expansion, picture-in-picture, and the ability to record only new episodes and ignore repeats.

The DTVPal's guide will incorporate program information from TVGuide (TVGOS), if that service is available via CBS datacast in your area (check here). If TVGuide service is not available from your local CBS affiliate, the DTVPal will display the more limited PSIP program information offered by your local broadcasters. Ultimately, Dish Network plans to support MPEG-4 IPTV with their pay VOD service.

The DTVPal DVR will have RF, composite (RCA), component, and HDMI outputs. Output via component and HDMI will be selectable 480p/720p/1080i via a menu. Ethernet and USB ports are present for future use. Despite initial reports to the contrary, USB external drive expansion is *not* supported out of the box, but that capability may be added with a software update. Software updates to improve and expand functionality will be made available for download over the Internet using the DTVPal's ethernet connection.

The "DTVPal DVR" is now available for pre-order from *dtvpal.com*, with availability slated for mid-December. The MSRP is $299.99, but a instant $50 rebate is available for a limited time. There are *no monthly fees* and there are *no advertisements*.

Download links for [Preliminary] Product manual and datasheet

Quotes from Cnet article:


> For all intents and purposes, the TR-50 takes many of the features found on Dish Networks' excellent satellite DVRs (such as the ViP622 and 722) and brings them to antenna-based TV viewers.
> 
> The unit offers ATSC and NTSC tuners, so it can view and record over-the-air HD digital, standard digital, and analog channels _(Nov 12 update: the shipping unit will not have NTSC tuners so it will not support analog channels.)_. Dual tuner action means you can watch (and record) one live channel while simultaneously recording a second--or record two channels while playing back a previously recorded show. There's also full control over live TV, including rewind, pause, slow motion, 10-second "instant replay," and--for recordings--30-second skip. The TR-50 also sports a 7-day electronic program guide (using over-the-air metadata on the digital band), which should eliminate the pesky VCR-style manual "timer recordings" (you remember: "8:00-9:00pm / Thursdays / channel 4").
> 
> The box also has a full range of outputs, including component and HDMI (480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i resolutions supported), as well as standard-def composite and RF outputs for older TVs. Dish hasn't yet specified the internal hard drive size, but the USB 2.0 connector will ensure expandable storage. Perhaps most interestingly, the TR-50 includes an Ethernet port and the ability to decode MPEG-4 video, and EchoStar touts its ability to "access premium Internet-based TV programming via broadband Internet..


November 11 Press release


> ENGLEWOOD, Colo., Nov. 11 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- DISH Network Corporation (Nasdaq: DISH), the digital transition leader, today announced its much anticipated DTVPal(TM) DVR will be available for preorder nationwide starting Nov. 19, with sales projected to begin in mid-December. The DTVPal(TM) DVR is the only digital-to-analog converter box sold in the U.S. that offers digital video recording functionality.
> 
> Winner of CNET's 2008 "Best of CES" award in the Home Video category, the DTVPal(TM) DVR gives consumers the flexibility to watch their favorite over-the-air programming whenever they want via its advanced recording features - the same technology included in DISH Network's award-winning ViP Series DVR receivers. The DTVPal(TM) DVR also allows for viewing HD programming over-the-air in addition to standard definition digital programming, providing access to the best resolution available from local stations.
> 
> ...


Pictures









Credit for this image to Crave.

Picture of remote @ Engadget


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Wow. A nice entry in the OTA market.  Now there is an easy answer fro those that want TiVo to support digital OTA on series 2.

Forget that and  
(ETA -) Now you can use an adapter to control the digital antenna on single tuner Series 2, and stay with TiVo goodness and the most likely already expanded by you large internal hard drive or (- end ETA)
get this cool box that also allows you to hook up USB external drive for all the room you need.

what a creative way to siphon off more cable subscriptions.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

So this is sort of a "TiVo Basic" version of the TiVoHD without CableCARD support. Interesting.

I keep seeing ads for Moxi boxes - I wonder when there will be a real announcement of those.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

2008 is shaping up into an exciting year for DVRs :up:


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

I guess it's cool if you are OTA only, depending on cost. But no cable or IR blasters?

I think this might be positioned to allow content transfer between a E* DVR and this...?


----------



## cowboys2002 (Jun 15, 2001)

Cost estimates anyone?


----------



## bpurcell (Mar 16, 2005)

What is the OTA market anyway? I'm guessing it's larger in big city areas like New York and Chicago, but I know extremely few people that are OTA anymore. And most of those people watch little to no TV, so they would have no interest in a DVR for them.

I first saw this on a video from CNET-TV today, and I missed it the first time that it was OTA only. The person was bragging that it could store up to 7 days of guide data instead of the normal 12 hours, and I was confused on what the heck he was talking about. I've got 2 weeks of guide data, as well as anyone else with a TiVo, Media Center, cable DVR, etc. I then watched it again and saw this was closer to a TiVo Basic subscription for low-use users.

Still confused on who's planning on buying this.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

one of these would go nice in my garage, lake house, rv, etc. no additional monthly fee. i'll bet version 2 supports cable cards.


----------



## Luke M (Nov 5, 2002)

If it's truly over-the-air-only (not even analog cable), I wonder why they bothered to support analog. Just make it ATSC-only and save the cost.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

HiDefGator said:


> one of these would go nice in my garage, lake house, rv, etc. no additional monthly fee. i'll bet version 2 supports cable cards.


most likely they are looking more at OCAP "tru2way" if they are contemplating a cable compatible version.


----------



## Shawn95GT (Oct 7, 2005)

Wow... They re-created the Sony offering less the cable / cablecard support and added dual tuners.










Sony canceled their offering and from what I understand getting the data from the PBS station was problematic.

If this thing does what it is supposed to I'm sure there will be 'some' market for it. My mom is one of them... except that she has a lifetimed S3 doing OTA only right now.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

I think the real significance of this announcement is that TiVo is no longer the only game in town. TiVo is getting some competition, and it is a well-funded player with quality DVR software. Most consider the Dish Network DVR software as second to only TiVo in the market. They've got season passes, title and keyword search, and autorecord based on limited title or keyword search. They've got most of the core TiVo features.

Dish Network even surpasses Tivo in some areas -- namely the program guide. They've got 16:9 program guide that uses the extra screen real estate to provide more programming information on the screen. It has a picture window and identifies scheduled recordings in the guide. Even their remote is good.

TiVo does a lot of smaller things better, as I mentioned earlier this week:


> Consider how each handles a series recording to record new episodes and repeats. On the Dish DVR, the moment you delete an episode, the Dish DVR will just record it again. TiVo doesn't do that. TiVo keeps a record of everything you watch and delete in the past 28 days, so it never records the same program or episode twice in a given month.
> 
> Some annoyances with the Dish DVR: (1) less program information; (2) no one-button delete; (3) live video window is always shown on recorded list -- wonderful if you want to know the current score of the big game before you start watching it; (4) no buffering of live TV while watching a recording; (5) resume option does not work on recordings in progress; (5) default behavior is not to resume a partially watched recording, more menu navigation is required to resume; and (6) limited sorting options, i.e. no sort by name.
> 
> Other TiVo features the Dish DVR lacks; (1) deleted items folder to recover deleted shows; (2) suggestions; (3) MRV to transfer recordings between DVRs in different rooms; (4) native video passthrough; and (5) wishlists with automatic recording across multiple channels with boolean-type search.


But at "several hundred dollars" for a dual-tuner HDTV DVR with *no monthly fees*, and support for USB storage expansion with any hard drive, this looks like a pretty compelling product for OTA users.

Dish Network announced and demonstrated several new DVR features at CES, including DLNA support and MRV using RTP protocol to stream HD recordings from Dish DVRs to STBs and PCs. These features will appear first on the Dish Network DVRs, but could make their way to standalone DVRs in the future. Products combining DVR and Sling technology were said to be in the works for 2009.

At CES, Echostar representatives are telling attendees that TiVo has become complacent due to lack of competition, and they feel they can step right in and deliver [what they feel is] a superior standalone DVR at a lower price point.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

Surprised they don't leverage the Sling brand (which would be less confusing as a CE company and/or integrate a sling into the DVR)


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

It is my understanding that Echostar/Dishnetwork are splitting off the hardware business from the satellite business so one would expect to see more offerings such as this from the hardware business. This is also excellent timing on their part, as OTA analog goes dark there maybe an opportunity to tap into a market that might not normally be looking for a STB OTA solution - plus if the unit is connected to high speed internet you will be able to purchase dishnetwork pay per view/VOD offerings. Even if you have an HD TiVo this may make an excellent addition for those who would normally have multiple DVRs anyway. 

Thanks,


----------



## wickerbill (Apr 4, 2002)

Maybe this will get tivo off their ass and start improving their HD offerings. Other than the programming I actually watch, my series 3 and tivo HD are not any different than my series 2 tivos. The program guide and menus are just stretched versions of the SD. It's ridiculous.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

wickerbill said:


> my series 3 and tivo HD are not any different than my series 2 tivos. The program guide and menus are just stretched versions of the SD. It's ridiculous.


Mine certainly isn't... sounds like your TV or TiVo is misconfigured.


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

Shawn95GT said:


> Sony canceled their offering and from what I understand getting the data from the PBS station was problematic.


If it is getting guide data from the TV Guide OnScreen feature in PBS broadcasts, I wouldn't go anywhere near it. I've got a TV with that feature (now disabled) and it's nothing but trouble despite the fact that I'm getting my PBS feed over cable and the signal seems very solid.

IIRC, the guide data is sent out in three day groups -- Today, Tomorrow, one week from now. If you miss that "one week from now" feed, then you won't know what's on that day until the day before. It sucks.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

Other than the natural aversion of Echostar to cable, there is no real reason the tuner's couldn't be "cable ready" (in fact I didn't think they made tuners that aren't anymore). I would think they would sell a zillion of them with that - even without cable cards if they would do QAM.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

sinanju said:


> If it is getting guide data from the TV Guide OnScreen feature in PBS broadcasts, I wouldn't go anywhere near it. I've got a TV with that feature (now disabled) and it's nothing but trouble despite the fact that I'm getting my PBS feed over cable and the signal seems very solid.


The Echostar TR-50 isn't limited to analog guide data like most older TVGoS products.

The TR-50 appears to support the TVGuide's digital guide data service that is delivered with 8-VSB datacast by CBS O&O and other broadcasters. This is far more reliable than the guide data sent by PBS analog stations and received by older TVGoS products.

Now, the free TVGuide data obviously isn't as comprehensive as TiVo's. But it should be sufficient for season passes.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

bkdtv said:


>


Man does that look cheap. If they're serious they need to go with the sling name and style.


----------



## wickerbill (Apr 4, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> Mine certainly isn't... sounds like your TV or TiVo is misconfigured.


It's sure not HD. Look at the circles next to the programs in your now playing list. They're not even circles. You can see that they're ovals because they're just stretching the standard graphics. They could do a lot more than they currently do to take advantage of the extra screen real estate and show more info. The Series 3 menus just look goofy on my dad's 92 inch projector screen.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

wickerbill said:


> It's sure not HD. Look at the circles next to the programs in your now playing list. They're not even circles. You can see that they're ovals because they're just stretching the standard graphics. They could do a lot more than they currently do to take advantage of the extra screen real estate and show more info. The Series 3 menus just look goofy on my dad's 92 inch projector screen.


It's 'h'er d than a series2... I've compared them side by side. (S2 stretched to 16x9 vs. S3.)

Are you sure your in 720P on you s3?


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

With all of the improvements etc etc, you'd think they could come up with a better guide.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

bkdtv said:


> At CES, Echostar representatives are telling attendees that TiVo has become complacent due to lack of competition, and they feel they can step right in and deliver [what they feel is] a superior standalone DVR at a lower price point.


Exactly. The TiVo execs are much too focused on "the next big deal" and have neglected the basics.

Even if the Echostar product is a flop, it will be a *big* win for us long-suffering customers if it pushes TiVo into paying more attention to their core business.

Boy, Charlie has a vendetta against TiVo, doesn't he?! I can't wait for that appeals court decision.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bkdtv said:


> . At CES, Echostar representatives are telling attendees that TiVo has become complacent due to lack of competition, and they feel they can step right in and deliver [what they feel is] a superior standalone DVR at a lower price point.


it is never good to bash the competition as then it makes that competition seem better. Still I am looking forward to more choices which should lead to better choices from all vendors


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

bpurcell said:


> What is the OTA market anyway? I'm guessing it's larger in big city areas like New York and Chicago, but I know extremely few people that are OTA anymore.


I admittedly haven't read the whole thread.

I think you're missing the idea (I want to say fact, but I don't have numbers to back it up) that people who had pulled down antennae are actually installing antennae again since many people that got bad OTA reception can get good HD reception. (Not me, at least not with a 'rabbit ears' type antenna.. Though I have cable, and long ago got cable largely to get better overall reception of broadcast channels, I eventually want an antenna at least as "backup" for my S3 & TivoHD)


----------



## wickerbill (Apr 4, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> It's 'h'er d than a series2... I've compared them side by side. (S2 stretched to 16x9 vs. S3.)
> 
> Are you sure your in 720P on you s3?


I'm positive. I would notice if my shows weren't in HD. 

You really can't see that Tivo is stretching out the text and graphics horizontally? It's obvious on all of the ones I've seen. Like I said before, go to your now playing list and look at the yellow and green circles next to shows. It's not a perfect circle like it is on the series 2. You will also notice that font sizes are the same size with no ability to make them smaller. Check your now playing list and you'll see that eight items show up on the screen at once on both series 3 tivos in HD resolution and series 2 tivos. There is no graphical change other than stretching the screen horizontally and making the tivo guy in the upper left corner HD. Considering how many big HD TV's are out there that have huge tivo text when smaller text and more data would still be easily read on the screen. It looks outdated. There's no reason that a series 3 running on a 60 inch TV needs to have font at the same size as a ratio of screen size as a series 2 hooked up to a 13 inch TV other than Tivo doesn't want to bother to update that part of their software.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

bkdtv said:


> I think the real significance of this announcement is that TiVo is no longer the only game in town. TiVo is getting some competition...
> 
> Dish Network even surpasses Tivo in some areas -- namely the program guide. They've got 16:9 program guide that uses the extra screen real estate to provide more programming information on the screen. It has picture-in-picture and identifies scheduled recordings in the guide.
> 
> ...


I posted OT about this in the converter box coupon thread before this thread launched.
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5851583#post5851583

So what did TiVo's winning of its patent suit over Echostar's DVR accomplish exactly?

One byproduct of E*'s introduction of an OTA DVR may be a decision from TiVo to develop OTA ATSC STB IR control for S2's.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

wickerbill said:


> I'm positive. I would notice if my shows weren't in HD.
> 
> You really can't see that Tivo is stretching out the text and graphics horizontally? It's obvious on all of the ones I've seen. Like I said before, go to your now playing list and look at the yellow and green circles next to shows. It's not a perfect circle like it is on the series 2. You will also notice that font sizes are the same size with no ability to make them smaller. Check your now playing list and you'll see that eight items show up on the screen at once on both series 3 tivos in HD resolution and series 2 tivos. There is no graphical change other than stretching the screen horizontally and making the tivo guy in the upper left corner HD. Considering how many big HD TV's are out there that have huge tivo text when smaller text and more data would still be easily read on the screen. It looks outdated. There's no reason that a series 3 running on a 60 inch TV needs to have font at the same size as a ratio of screen size as a series 2 hooked up to a 13 inch TV other than Tivo doesn't want to bother to update that part of their software.


I don't agree with you. It looks fine to me, but if I go to Settings, Video and set it to 4:3 everything stretches. Maybe I'm just not as sensitive about my circles.

But I really don't follow your '60 inch tv' logic. What makes you think every S3 user uses a 60" TV? Mine is 42". I know S3 users with 32" TV's. I'm guessing the issue is more noticeably on a gigantic TV.

Also not all HDTV's are widescreen.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

bpurcell said:


> this was closer to a TiVo Basic subscription...


A lot depends on the price of the box. The service costs the same as TiVo Basic!

The OTA market is the second biggest bloc of viewers after Comcast Cable. It's bigger than Dishnetwork itself.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

fallingwater said:


> The OTA market is the second biggest bloc of viewers after Comcast Cable. It's bigger than Dishnetwork itself.


That's true, but a substantial portion of those viewers are OTA only because they don't consider TV worth the investment. How many of them are really in the market for an HD DVR?

I wonder what price TiVo could afford to put on an HD with lifetime TiVo Basic and support limited to OTA and analog cable. The owner could subscribe to the full blow TiVo service if they ever decide that they want digital cable (cable card support) or any of the advanced features that TiVo offers.

I really don't think the market justifies an OTA only box but they could always gut the TiVo HD to create an OTA only box if the market is there.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

fallingwater said:


> .....
> So what did TiVo's winning of its patent suit over Echostar's DVR accomplish exactly?
> ....


It merely outlined the parameters that competitor's engineers must find ways to design around.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

nrc said:


> That's true, but a substantial portion of those viewers are OTA only because they don't consider TV worth the investment. How many of them are really in the market for an HD DVR?
> 
> .......


In about a year old VCRs will no longer work OTA without a converter. Neither will older non-hd tv sets. So OTA viewers will be in the market for something at least. They can switch to cable or satellite, buy a new TV, buy a converter for their TV and another for their VCR, or just get one of these boxes, scrap the old VCR and upgrade their TVs later.

If they decide to buy a new TV many will want/need a new recorder too so....

It will be one of those points in time where people will have to get off their couches and do SOMETHING.


----------



## wickerbill (Apr 4, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> I don't agree with you. It looks fine to me, but if I go to Settings, Video and set it to 4:3 everything stretches. Maybe I'm just not as sensitive about my circles.
> 
> But I really don't follow your '60 inch tv' logic. What makes you think every S3 user uses a 60" TV? Mine is 42". I know S3 users with 32" TV's. I'm guessing the issue is more noticeably on a gigantic TV.
> 
> Also not all HDTV's are widescreen.


Where did I say every user has a 60 inch TV? I'm just saying they should put their menus in true HD and allow people to choose a smaller font to fit more info on the screen if they have a bigger TV. As it is now, they're doing the same for every one whether their TV is big or not.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

nrc said:


> I wonder what price TiVo could afford to put on an HD with lifetime TiVo Basic and support limited to OTA and analog cable. The owner could subscribe to the full blow TiVo service if they ever decide that they want digital cable (cable card support) or any of the advanced features that TiVo offers.


either TiVo provides guide data like it does now for TiVo basic - which costs some money or else it does the R&D to get and use the guide data like E* is using,

Also the other features like yellow star ads(I know, not really a feature ) and UNBOX and Rhapsody and so forth makes TiVo some revenue. They would not want to sell boxes with those features turned off. 
To compete with Echostar TiVo would have to allow season passes even on the basic part as well.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

nrc said:


> I really don't think the market justifies an OTA only box but they could always gut the TiVo HD to create an OTA only box if the market is there.


This box isn't OTA only. That's why it supports NTSC. Remember the old days when you tuned the cable box to the channel you wanted, or set its built-in timer to automatically tune to the channel you wanted so that the VCR could record it? This box would be capable of doing just that. It would be easier to use than a VCR -- no tapes to juggle, it can record more that six hours, better quality, can easily FF through commercials, and you can use other trick play features.

Sure, a heavy-duty user wouldn't like this, but for someone who mainly records network TV and an occasional cable show that would be just fine.

Finally, the box supports NTSC just in case the analog shutoff gets pushed back from it's Feb. 2009 date. There are also a few areas that don't have all their stations transmitting ATSC yet.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> I don't agree with you. It looks fine to me, but if I go to Settings, Video and set it to 4:3 everything stretches. Maybe I'm just not as sensitive about my circles


On menu screens, the background is HD, but the overlaid graphics is 4:3 SD scaled and stretched to match the output form.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *nrc*
> That's true, but a substantial portion of those viewers are OTA only because they don't consider TV worth the investment.


I think you have been listening to sales people to much - referring to anything to do with buying electronic equipment or paying for TV as an "investment" is somewhat comical 

I am sure some people assign a higher value to spending money on TV than others and it is likely that OTA only users do assign a lower value to TV than those that pay for it. But as others have said we are coming to a point where anyone watching OTA analog will be forced to do something. Echostar is betting they will be able to sell a lower end subscription-less STB/DVR combo unit to them. Which seems logical and actually agrees with your view that OTA only users will continue to spend less on TV than others might.

Thanks,


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

nrc said:


> That's true, but a substantial portion of those viewers are OTA only because they don't consider TV worth the investment.


A plausible sounding but unproven supposition.



> How many of them are really in the market for an HD DVR?


We'll soon find out.

My plausible sounding but unproven supposition: The market will change with the advent of digital TV now that a fair number of viewers will receive excellent cable quality pictures from simple rabbit ears and UHF bowties.



> I wonder what price TiVo could afford to put on an HD with lifetime TiVo Basic and support limited to OTA and analog cable. The owner could subscribe to the full blow TiVo service if they ever decide that they want digital cable (cable card support) or any of the advanced features that TiVo offers.


That'd be neat but I doubt it will happen. It would cut into TiVo (Plus) sales too much.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> I But as others have said we are coming to a point where anyone watching OTA analog will be forced to do something. Echostar is betting they will be able to sell a lower end subscription-less STB/DVR combo unit to them.


*subscription-less I think is the key word for this market.* It may be something TiVo is not interested in as a whole market unless they can design a box that needs no ongoing expense for guide data or infrastructure aside from revenue generating things like sell/rent movies.

Also I thnk ofr many OTA viewers, HD quality is not that big an issue that it would change their view on TV. For some TV is just not that big a deal at all. For them TV is like radio was a decade back. Something to have around to get information if need be.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

Shawn95GT said:


> Wow... They re-created the Sony offering less the cable / cablecard support and added dual tuners.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Dish style EPG looks good and IF E*'s dual tuner design allows downloading w/o having to turn off the DVR it will be a big improvement. Sony's DHG-HDD250/500 has an advanced system of TVGOS that works significantly better than other TVGOS and doesn't necessarily employ the same host channel. Apparently regular TVGOS changes hosts every so often. Each time that occurs the system hiccups and often requires resetting.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12710691#post12710691


----------



## jfstx (Aug 26, 2005)

All I have is ota, and I have 2 hdtivos. I can't justify paying my local cable company 46.00 a month for 41 channels. I live in a rural area. All my locals are now broadcasting in Digital, one is even hd now. All 5 of my local stations are broadcasting on more than one channel. They are showing different programing. So my ??/comment is...... if they are able to send out more signals over the air now that they are digital, wouldn't it seem that they will be more for me to watch.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

I guess my conclusion is that by the end of 2008 Tivo will not own nearly 100% of the standalone dvr market anymore. Their competitors will be much bigger, better financed, and have a whole lot more experience at selling consumer electronics.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

fallingwater said:


> So what did TiVo's winning of its patent suit over Echostar's DVR accomplish exactly?


It poked the tiger.


----------



## pvorlicek (Oct 18, 2007)

If this box comes out at under $400 .... I'm there. While I agree that the Tivo software is a little better than the Dish DVR software (I was with Dish for 7 years ... and now with Tivo for 1 month), it is NOT $10 per month better. Here is what I predict:

1) TR-50 will come out at $499 ... and drop to $399 at end of year.
2) TiVo will respond with a new offering for OTA customers only ... they will use their current HD box and software restrict it from supporting cable. They will continue to sell the box for $299, but subscription will start at $9.99 per month or $59.99 per year.

I have a TiVo HD box that I use for OTA only. I was about to pull the trigger on a 3 year subscription ($299), but will now just pay for 1 year ($129) and watch what happens over the next 12 months.

I pick up LA and San Diego OTA locals .... plenty of GREAT programming FREE. $60+ per month for cable or satellite HD ... forget it.

If TiVo responds as described above, I will stay with them. If not, I'm in for 2 of Charlie's boxes and my TiVo HD box will be listed on Ebay.

I also am on Netflix $4.99 program (2 HD movies per month) to get my movies.

If TiVo or E* can download me HD movies for $2.50 a pop ... I'm there. $5.00 per pop ... forget it ... I'll stay with Netflix.

If Charlie sells this box for $399, I'll be he sells 2 Million of them in 2 years. His boxes are stable and reliable and well supported. 

My 2 cents!


----------



## thespacepope72 (Jan 25, 2005)

I would consider myself a value HD DVR purchaser (I am an *OTA only* S3 user who bought a 3-year prepaid in June of 2007.) and I can see how this would appeal to the value market such as me. As a value customer, it is my opinion that TiVo has abandoned the low-end/value market and that may be the way they want to move, so be it.

However, as a value customer in the market for an OTA HD DVR in six months, I would have to look at it like this:

TiVoHD: $249 for TivoHD + Internet Connection (Wireless Adapter ~$40) + $12.95 monthly fee (forever)= ~$450 for the first year of service

or

TR-50: Anything less than ~$450 and no more fees ever??

If you were a value customer, which would you choose?


----------



## pvorlicek (Oct 18, 2007)

Seth:

I am a value customer as well. I already have the TiVo HD box (OTA use only) and am committed to 1 year of Tivo service ($129). At the end of 1 year if E* box is $400 or less and TiVo is still $129 .... I sell my Tivo box and buy the E* box.

If TiVo drops to less than $75 per year (OTA only) ... I stay with Tivo.

There are all kinds of combinations in the middle ... and my views may change over the year ... but this is where I am right now.

BTW: the "dark horse" in this picture is my desktop PC with WMC ... if Microsoft and some hardware supplier can get their act together, they may be a formidable competitor for the value customer. They have a great guide, but hardware is not ready for prime time yet.

Let the battles begin ... and the consumer win!!


----------



## pvorlicek (Oct 18, 2007)

BTW: if I am a new customer (no existing TiVo hardware), I take a 3 year view. Add up all the cost for either solution over 3 years and buy whatever is cheaper.

For example, if:

TiVo HD: $300 acquisition plus $300 subscription = $600

E* Box: $499

I choose E*.


----------



## thespacepope72 (Jan 25, 2005)

Exactly. As a value consumer I am not as concerned about the aesthetics of the box or the TiVo UI, I just want something that records HD as cheaply as possible.

I agree that if TiVo either offers way discounted/free OTA service or upgrades to lifetime for existing customers without the hoop jumping currently required then I would have a hard time walking away from TiVo but as it stands, I plan to leave TiVo as soon as my 3-year shackle is removed.


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

SullyND said:


> Surprised they don't leverage the Sling brand (which would be less confusing as a CE company and/or integrate a sling into the DVR)


I wouldn't be surprised if this thing ends up being able to work as either a slingbox or sling catcher in the future with a software update. total speculation on my part, however.


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

Question: has anyone figured out if the new product may impact the TiVo patent that is already in court?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> Question: has anyone figured out if the new product may impact the TiVo patent that is already in court?


nope- they went through boxes Dish had and were very specific about which ones violated the patents. The VIP622 and this have not had a hint of being infringing.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

To date... but it would seem that this is a new box and might still violate patents.



ZeoTiVo said:


> nope- they went through boxes Dish had and were very specific about which ones violated the patents. The VIP622 and this have not had a hint of being infringing.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

The infringing products, specifically, are:

DP-501, DP-508, DP-510, DP-522, DP-625, DP-721, DP-921 and DP-942.

The VIP622 receiver was announced in January 2007 and came to market in the second quarter of 2007, so I'm not sure anything about it was even ever evaluated during the trial, since none existed.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

pvorlicek said:


> If Charlie sells this box for $399, I'll be he sells 2 Million of them in 2 years. His boxes are stable and reliable and well supported.


E* does make decent DVR's these days and many people don't want 'more'. But IMHO, $399 is way too high a price for an OTA only DVR.

E*'s TR-50 doesn't appear to have a cooling fan. If it doesn't I'll wait for it to have a track record before considering getting one.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12777139#post12777139


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

dswallow said:


> The infringing products, specifically, are:
> 
> DP-501, DP-508, DP-510, DP-522, DP-625, DP-721, DP-921 and DP-942.
> 
> The VIP622 receiver was announced in January 2007 and came to market in the second quarter of 2007, so I'm not sure anything about it was even ever evaluated during the trial, since none existed.


So what's noticiably different about the way 622/722's operate compared to older E* models? (The number of tuners is beside the point.) Sounds as if, worst case, E* can just swap new for old.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

The patent issue is that Echostar sold infringing devices in the past, harming TiVo (it is claimed.) That they no longer produce infringing devices is not relevant. As I understand it, the newer Echostar PVRs are not claimed to infringe (a patent workaround or some such - very common in the market.)


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

OK, but what's different about the way current E* DVR's work so they don't infringe?


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

fallingwater said:


> OK, but what's different about the way current E* DVR's work so they don't infringe?


It's a matter of internal buffer mgmt. As long as they don't use the method Tivo patented they can still offer the same functionality.


----------



## pvorlicek (Oct 18, 2007)

fallingwater said:


> E* does make decent DVR's these days and many people don't want 'more'. But IMHO, $399 is way too high a price for an OTA only DVR.
> 
> E*'s TR-50 doesn't appear to have a cooling fan. If it doesn't I'll wait for it to have a track record before considering getting one.
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12777139#post12777139


I had the same Dish 942 box for 3 year with absolutely no problems ... and it's quiet. Charley knows DVR's ... and has probably manufactured, sold and supported more DVR's than any other single supplier in the world ... my guess is easily more than 5 million and counting ....

$399 with $0 monthly fee ... check out what the Sony DHG-HDD250 is selling for on Ebay. This is an unsupported, discontinued, inferior product selling USED on Ebay for $500.

Anybody have an estimate of the number of OTA only customers that TiVo has. My (completely educated) guess is 500,000 ... which would mean $5 million in lost month revenue for TiVo.

Any other opinions?


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

pvorlicek said:


> I had the same Dish 942 box for 3 year with absolutely no problems ... and it's quiet. Charley knows DVR's ... and has probably manufactured, sold and supported more DVR's than any other single supplier in the world ... my guess is easily more than 5 million and counting ....
> 
> $399 with $0 monthly fee ... check out what the Sony DHG-HDD250 is selling for on Ebay. This is an unsupported, discontinued, inferior product selling USED on Ebay for $500.
> 
> ...


I just checked my like-new 501 stashed away from Dish days and see that it doesn't have a cooling fan. But, that's a serious handicap for a HDD device. Unless proven over time not to cause problems I'd avoid a DVR w/o a fan, regardless of Charlie's acknowledged experience.

I've got a like-new Sony DHG-HDD500 and don't agree with your characterization of it. It's got unique features unsurpassed by any DVR. (I bought it on eBay 1 1/2 years ago for $610.) It's got a much improved, exceptionally stable version of TVGOS, much better than the regular version of TVGOS on 2 DVD recorders I have. I've run it both with and w/o a CableCARD and there's no way it compares with an OTA only DVR. (Although if TR-50 gets guide info ala digital TVGOS w/o having to be off that's great!)

As posted elswhere, I hope E*'s competition causes TiVo to develop IR support for coupon eligible converters just to keep existing S2 subs active.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

stevel said:


> The patent issue is that Echostar sold infringing devices in the past, harming TiVo (it is claimed.) That they no longer produce infringing devices is not relevant. As I understand it, the newer Echostar PVRs are not claimed to infringe (a patent workaround or some such - very common in the market.)


there is somethging about not having live buffer while watching a prerecorded show or something to that effect on the VIP622. No idea about the new OTA box of course.

Of course there could be a round 2 once round 1 officially finishes


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

ZeoTiVo said:


> there is something about not having live buffer while watching a prerecorded show...


Y'know that makes sense! Every other DVR but TiVo (I think) doesn't. Of course Dish's current DVR's reputedly provide a workable (but not one-touch) workaround.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

I must be crazy, but I estimate this box to be selling for $299, and quickly going to $199 after the early adopters pay their tax.

I have Dish right now, was a Comcast sub, and I would GLADLY go to OTA, provided I could get every local network in HD that I get now with Dish (CBS, NBC, FOX, and ABC).

Even at $399, I think there would be buyers, but if they can match or beat the price of the TivoHD, and push the fact that there is no monthly sub, Tivo will definitely have a major problem.

I'll bet there are at least half-a-million OTA users who _really_ want a DVR, but don't want to have to subscribe to cable ot satellite, and who are turned off by Tivo's monthly fee. There are countless more who will need a converter in 2009, have their $40 coupon and need to replace their VCR anyway.

I think some people here underestimating the size of the niche that this product will fill, just by virtue of the fact that it's software is as good or better than Tivo's (read: easy for Grandma to use), and there is no monthly fee.

Tivo has used the fact that they have had no viable competition to bolster their revenue with the monthly fee, and fanboys have "justified" the cost as the price of using the Tivo interface.

Tivo may be in trouble, and Dish knows it.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

fallingwater said:


> Y'know that makes sense! Every other DVR but TiVo (I think) doesn't. Of course Dish's current DVR's reputedly provide a workable (but not one-touch) workaround.


The one touch workaround is to record whatever it is you're watching before switching to a recorded program, AFAIK. Two button pushes.


----------



## DeathRider (Dec 30, 2006)

nrc said:


> That's true, but a substantial portion of those viewers are OTA only because they don't consider TV worth the investment. How many of them are really in the market for an HD DVR?
> 
> I wonder what price TiVo could afford to put on an HD with lifetime TiVo Basic and support limited to OTA and analog cable. The owner could subscribe to the full blow TiVo service if they ever decide that they want digital cable (cable card support) or any of the advanced features that TiVo offers.
> 
> I really don't think the market justifies an OTA only box but they could always gut the TiVo HD to create an OTA only box if the market is there.


My dad is kind of one. He still watches OTA with my old 13" Hitachi TV. He just doesn't want to pay for cable.

So, if TiVo comes out with a STB for this market, how will it get the TiVo guide data to it? Or will it just use the free guide data from PBS and incorporate it into the STB. I ask because my dad doesn't have internet and TiVo has been slowly closing out their local dialup #s...



wickerbill said:


> Where did I say every user has a 60 inch TV? I'm just saying they should put their menus in true HD and allow people to choose a smaller font to fit more info on the screen if they have a bigger TV. As it is now, they're doing the same for every one whether their TV is big or not.


As long as the text is crisp and I can read it easily without eyestrain, it really dosn't matter to me about silly circles...

I'd rather TiVo spend more time and energy on other things,like the USB dongle. After the SDV situation is taken care of, then I see no reason to back to the menu - like 1080p - I got a Sony KDL-46W3000 I watch now. I did have a Westinghouse 3213 previously. Either way, the menu is fine for me.



pvorlicek said:


> BTW: if I am a new customer (no existing TiVo hardware), I take a 3 year view. Add up all the cost for either solution over 3 years and buy whatever is cheaper.
> 
> For example, if:
> 
> ...


If the box supports OTA only and no cable and/or sat, why should it cost $500?

If it's $300 and I can use the voucher that supposed to be available for my dad, I see no reason to get one for him.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

pvorlicek said:


> Anybody have an estimate of the number of OTA only customers that TiVo has. My (completely educated) guess is 500,000 ... which would mean $5 million in lost month revenue for TiVo.
> 
> Any other opinions?


At last count they only had like 1.6 million total standalone subscribers. It seems very unlikely that more than a small handful is willing to pay Tivo a monthly fee but not pay for cable content to record. My guess would be far less than 100,000.


----------



## pvorlicek (Oct 18, 2007)

The lower the price, the bigger the market (at least that's what my econ teacher told me). Charlie does not need to come out at $299 ... he can charge a premium since there is no monthly fee (that's why I say $399 after he sucks in the early adopters at $499).

But I've got to believe that the actual cost to build one of these boxes will be close to $200.

My parents would be the perfect customer for this ... they are cheap, they still use a VCR and all their TV's are analog ... and 90% of their viewing is local channels (they pay $20 for basic cable). If it's $399 or less , this will be my XMAS gift for them next year.

I guess we'll just have to wait a year to see how this all sorts out.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

DeathRider said:


> My dad is kind of one. He still watches OTA with my old 13" Hitachi TV. He just doesn't want to pay for cable.
> 
> So, if TiVo comes out with a STB for this market, how will it get the TiVo guide data to it? Or will it just use the free guide data from PBS and incorporate it into the STB. I ask because my dad doesn't have internet and TiVo has been slowly closing out their local dialup #s...


The TiVo for the digital OTA market is the Series 3/TiVo HD, and it needs either a phone or network connection.

There is the possibility of a Series 2 Digital, but that still would have to connect to the service.



> I'd rather TiVo spend more time and energy on other things,like the USB dongle.


The Dongle, at this point anyways, is largely in the hands of the cable hardware providers.



> If the box supports OTA only and no cable and/or sat, why should it cost $500?


Because they will be selling the hardware to you outright at a profit, with no subscription to an ongoing service to possibly subsidize the hardware sale.


> If it's $300 and I can use the voucher that supposed to be available for my dad, I see no reason to get one for him.


A DVR is not eligible for the vouchers. Only really basic digital tuners are voucher eligible.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

pvorlicek said:


> But I've got to believe that the actual cost to build one of these boxes will be close to $200.


I doubt that it's that high, I think it's closer to $100, which is why a $200 price point would all but murder Tivo.

Remember, manufacturers factor in their R&D costs when they release a new product - regarding software development, the cost is way lower than if this were a startup company, and they are still selling ViP722's like hotcakes.

I'd be very surprised if the box is $499, considering the (arguably) more powerful, or perhaps more correctly, the more _capable_ ViP622 is going for around $300 on ebay, and the 722 is going for around $400-500.

$299 is a good price.

$199 is a market bomb.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

classicX said:


> The one touch workaround is to record whatever it is you're watching before switching to a recorded program, AFAIK. Two button pushes.


With a 1.5 hr. (or longer?) recording buffer to go back into (requiring several button pushes), no?


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

I updated the first post with new information.

Recording capacity is 30 HD hours and 200 SD hours with a 250Gb hard drive. As before, USB drive expansion is supported out of the box.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

Uh oh, the price is going up!


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

EchoStar Wins 'Best of CES' Award for Hottest Home Video Product At 2008 CES

Snippet:


> LAS VEGAS, Jan. 10, 2008 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- EchoStar Holding Corporation (Nasdaq:SATS) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., today announced they won a "Best of CES" award for the TR-50 DVR digital-to-analog converter box in the Home Video Category. Produced and judged by editors from CNET (www.cnet.com), the winners of the "Best of CES" Awards were announced Wednesday, January 9 at the 2008 International Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas.
> 
> Selected by CNET's unbiased, expert editors, "Best of CES" award winners are recognized as the hottest products in their respective technology categories for their unmatched innovation and creativity, and their ability to excite consumers and help them explore a world gone digital. CNET's editors received and reviewed hundreds of entries, as well as scoured the CES show floor for products to consider for the prestigious award.


----------



## George Webster (Apr 2, 2003)

How is this possible? The TIVO patents were challenged by Echostar and after months of examination the patent office said that Echostar was in their opinion infringing on TIVO patents. Previous to that a judge said Echostar had to either pay TIVO 95 million bucks or disable all of their DVR's. Did the lawsuit finally get settled and Echostar paid up for past and future use of the TIVO patents?


----------



## George Webster (Apr 2, 2003)

jfstx said:


> All I have is ota, and I have 2 hdtivos. I can't justify paying my local cable company 46.00 a month for 41 channels. I live in a rural area. All my locals are now broadcasting in Digital, one is even hd now. All 5 of my local stations are broadcasting on more than one channel. They are showing different programing. So my ??/comment is...... if they are able to send out more signals over the air now that they are digital, wouldn't it seem that they will be more for me to watch.


I had DirecTV with a DirecTivo for seven years. Had 92 seasons passes set up. A careful look at the season pass manager revealed that 90 of the 92 were on CBS, ABC NBC or FOX.

All four broadcast in HD.

In other words, all the other channels had nothing I wanted to watch. Canceled DirecTV, put up a $45 antenna and now I get pristine HD content that is not compresssed by DirecTV or the cable company.

This move saved me $863 per year. Times 30 or 40 years that is going to really add up. Especially when investing it instead of paying it to drain my bank account satellite.


----------



## George Webster (Apr 2, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> nope- they went through boxes Dish had and were very specific about which ones violated the patents. The VIP622 and this have not had a hint of being infringing.


Where do you get that information. It is my understanding that Echostar was found guilty of infringing on what is called "the time warp patent"

That patent is about recording a show to be viewed later onto a hard drive. So what good is a DVR that cannot be used for time warping?


----------



## George Webster (Apr 2, 2003)

wickerbill said:


> I'm positive. I would notice if my shows weren't in HD.
> 
> You really can't see that Tivo is stretching out the text and graphics horizontally? Considering how many big HD TV's are out there that have huge tivo text when smaller text and more data would still be easily read on the screen. It looks outdated. There's no reason that a series 3 running on a 60 inch TV needs to have font at the same size as a ratio of screen size as a series 2 hooked up to a 13 inch TV other than Tivo doesn't want to bother to update that part of their software.


Sounds to me like you are complaining about something that is no big deal. On my 65" screen I can see that the circles are more oval than they were with my S2. No big deal. The text size is fine by me, quite readable from any distance.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

classicX said:


> The one touch workaround is to record whatever it is you're watching before switching to a recorded program, AFAIK. Two button pushes.


Since this workaround exists it ostensibly violates the patent. I don't believe the theory that not having the live buffer means there is no patent violation.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

George Webster said:


> How is this possible? The TIVO patents were challenged by Echostar and after months of examination the patent office said that Echostar was in their opinion infringing on TIVO patents. Previous to that a judge said Echostar had to either pay TIVO 95 million bucks or disable all of their DVR's. Did the lawsuit finally get settled and Echostar paid up for past and future use of the TIVO patents?


The patent office never said anything about whether Echostar infringed TiVo's patent. That isn't their job.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Curtis said:


> The patent office never said anything about whether Echostar infringed TiVo's patent. That isn't their job.


Yes they did.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119637320965208461.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

bobneth said:


> Yes they did.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119637320965208461.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo


Sorry, no they didn't. The article clearly states that the US patent office upheld the validity of the patent in question. It is not the job of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to "find" others in violation of patents. They can and do rule on the validity of patents.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Any news yet on pricing or availability?


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

old7 said:


> Sorry, no they didn't. The article clearly states that the US patent office upheld the validity of the patent in question. It is not the job of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to "find" others in violation of patents. They can and do rule on the validity of patents.


There are more particulars to this story. In the proper context you would understand that Echostar questioned the validity of the patents. The patent office found that the TIVO patents are valid, therefore it stands to reason that Echostar did infringe on the patents because a judge had already said that they had infringed and ordered Echostar to pay TIVO 90 million dollars. After that judgment is when Echostar decided to challenge the validity of the patents. So the patent office was asked to determine if the patent aplied to the Echostar lawsuit. So in a way, yes, the patent office proved that Echostar was in violation of the patents.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...tivo-patent-at-issue-in-echostar-lawsuit.html


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

George Webster said:


> Where do you get that information. It is my understanding that Echostar was found guilty of infringing on what is called "the time warp patent"
> 
> That patent is about recording a show to be viewed later onto a hard drive. So what good is a DVR that cannot be used for time warping?


read the thread here on Echostar infringing lawsuit. The court in Texas, and the jury, looked at the *specifics* of how a show is recorded to the drive and playback of the show or a live buffer is done. It is not solely just the act of recording and playback.

During the trial specific models of DVRs were looked at and listed as infringing. It is not just a given that all other DVRs are infringing with this win, the specific way in which the DVR inner workings do the recording and playback would need to be looked at.

The patent office merely re-looked at the patents awarded to TiVo, at the request of Echostar. The Patent office upheld the patents as valid for TiVo but as others stated had no comment on any infringement. That is not the patent office's job.

PS - there were some main patents by TiVo that were never in question and also even if the patent office had ruled that the patents were improperly awarded to TiVo it would not have changed the Echostar infringement case as the patents were in effect at the time in question for Echostar willful infringement.

*The main point in all this* - the newest DVRs from Echostar are not involved in the infringement case, are no automatically infringing simply because echostar made them and more than likely Echostar is smart enough to make sure they do not infringe.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

bobneth said:


> There are more particulars to this story. In the proper context you would understand that Echostar questioned the validity of the patents. The patent office found that the TIVO patents are valid, therefore it stands to reason that Echostar did infringe on the patents because a judge had already said that they had infringed and ordered Echostar to pay TIVO 90 million dollars. After that judgment is when Echostar decided to challenge the validity of the patents. So the patent office was asked to determine if the patent aplied to the Echostar lawsuit. So in a way, yes, the patent office proved that Echostar was in violation of the patents.
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...tivo-patent-at-issue-in-echostar-lawsuit.html


I understand what the article and many more like it have to say about the patent. It seems that we both agree that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office found the patent to be valid. That determination of validity stands on its own and in no way "proved" that anyone violated any patent. The determination of violating a patent remains with the courts and not the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

It is not the job of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to "find" or "prove" others in violation of patents.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> read the thread here on Echostar infringing lawsuit. The court in Texas, and the jury, looked at the *specifics* of how a show is recorded to the drive and playback of the show or a live buffer is done. It is not solely just the act of recording and playback.
> 
> During the trial specific models of DVRs were looked at and listed as infringing. It is not just a given that all other DVRs are infringing with this win, the specific way in which the DVR inner workings do the recording and playback would need to be looked at.
> 
> ...


It is my understanding that the patent mostly in question has to do with the "time warp" patent.

My research indicates that this is all about watching one recorded program while recording other programs. If a Echostar (Disk network) DVR is not going to be allowed to have that feature, that means while you are watching a recorded program, all tuners are not allowed to be recording other shows while you watch the recorded one. That makes the DVR vastly inferior to TIVO.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> It is my understanding that the patent mostly in question has to do with the "time warp" patent.
> 
> My research indicates that this is all about watching one recorded program while recording other programs.


 and the patent is very specific of the components involved to do that. If someone can innovate a different specific process not using those components that is also cheap enough to be commercially viable then they can get a patent for their method as well and sell all they can.


> If a Echostar (Disk network) DVR is not going to be allowed to have that feature, that means while you are watching a recorded program, all tuners are not allowed to be recording other shows while you watch the recorded one. That makes the DVR vastly inferior to TIVO.


 well that is a judgement call that I was not including in my posts intended to just clarify the facts of the infringement case. I do by the way have 5 Tivo DVRs in use in my house


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

bobneth said:


> After that judgment is when Echostar decided to challenge the validity of the patents.


No.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> and the patent is very specific of the components involved to do that. If someone can innovate a different specific process not using those components that is also cheap enough to be commercially viable then they can get a patent for their method as well and sell all they can.
> well that is a judgement call that I was not including in my posts intended to just clarify the facts of the infringement case. I do by the way have 5 Tivo DVRs in use in my house


Actually it is my understanding that it is necessary to violate ALL of the elements of a claim (not to be confused with all of the claims of the patent) to infringe on that claim. If someone can do the job without incorporating even just one of the claim elements then he isn't infringing on that claim.

I don't believe that commercial viability is a requirement to get a patent although it certainly plays a big part in the decision to apply. What isn't commercially viable today may well be before the term of the patent expires.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

RoyK said:


> Actually it is my understanding that it is necessary to violate ALL of the elements of a claim (not to be confused with all of the claims of the patent) to infringe on that claim. If someone can do the job without incorporating even just one of the claim elements then he isn't infringing on that claim.
> 
> I don't believe that commercial viability is a requirement to get a patent although it certainly plays a big part in the decision to apply. What isn't commercially viable today may well be before the term of the patent expires.


"The doctrine of equivalents is a legal rule in most of the world's patent systems that allows a court to hold a party liable for patent infringement even though the infringing device or process does not fall within the literal scope of a patent claim, but nevertheless is equivalent to the claimed invention. U.S. judge Learned Hand has described its purpose as being "to temper unsparing logic and prevent an infringer from stealing the benefit of the invention"." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> and the patent is very specific of the components involved to do that. If someone can innovate a different specific process not using those components that is also cheap enough to be commercially viable then they can get a patent for their method as well and sell all they can.


The components are:

Tuner, CPU, RAM, motherboard, video card circuit, hard drive. Basically a computer. Nothing more. I do not believe it has aything to do with componets. What could they possibly change? It has to to with the principle of recording a show while watching another already recorded one. Seems to me when the judge makes his final ruling in the appeals case, Ehchostar will only have two choices. Pay the 90 million plus interest and all future royalties to TIVO or disable all of their DVRS. After all, that is what the courts have already said befor Echostar challenged the patents.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

bobneth said:


> After all, that is what the courts have already said befor Echostar challenged the patents.


No


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

bobneth said:


> The components are:
> 
> Tuner, CPU, RAM, motherboard, video card circuit, hard drive. Basically a computer. Nothing more. I do not believe it has aything to do with componets. What could they possibly change? It has to to with the principle of recording a show while watching another already recorded one. Seems to me when the judge makes his final ruling in the appeals case, Ehchostar will only have two choices. Pay the 90 million plus interest and all future royalties to TIVO or disable all of their DVRS. After all, that is what the courts have already said befor Echostar challenged the patents.


You are right about something, it's not about a tuner, CPU, RAM, motherboard, video card circuit, or hard drive. He was referring to the components of the patent, not the components of the device.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

RoyK said:


> Actually it is my understanding that it is necessary to violate ALL of the elements of a claim (not to be confused with all of the claims of the patent) to infringe on that claim. If someone can do the job without incorporating even just one of the claim elements then he isn't infringing on that claim.
> 
> I don't believe that commercial viability is a requirement to get a patent although it certainly plays a big part in the decision to apply. What isn't commercially viable today may well be before the term of the patent expires.


well, you way of stating it, in conjunction with Curtis' important caveat on equivalents is more what I was thinking. at the heart my comment was meant to convey that someone else can put out a DVR that records and playsback at the same time if they came up with a different way that does not infringe on TiVo specifics of the patent. Note that I highlighted the part about a media swicth that has more patents wrapped around the media switch. That media switch is at the heart of the willfil infringment froim Echostar


> A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising the steps of:
> accepting television (TV) broadcast signals, wherein said TV signals are based on a multitude of standards, including, but not limited to, National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) broadcast, PAL broadcast, satellite transmission, DSS, DBS, or ATSC;
> tuning said TV signals to a specific program;
> providing at least one Input Section, wherein said Input Section converts said specific program to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation;
> ...


and true commercial viability is not a constraint. In fact systems could record and playback at the same time before TiVo came along. They just cost a bundle and needed real high end processors to do it.

We seem to have strayed far from new Echostar DVrs though


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

old7 said:


> I understand what the article and many more like it have to say about the patent. It seems that we both agree that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office found the patent to be valid. That determination of validity stands on its own and in no way "proved" that anyone violated any patent. The determination of violating a patent remains with the courts and not the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
> 
> It is not the job of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to "find" or "prove" others in violation of patents.


As I have stated already. A judge already said that they had infringed and ordered Echostar to pay TIVO 90 million dollars or disable their DVR's.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

bobneth said:


> As I have stated already. A judge already said that they had infringed and ordered Echostar to pay TIVO 90 million dollars or disable their DVR's.


No.

Echostar got the patent office to reexamine the patent in December 2005. The verdict was several months later.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Curtis said:


> No


What do you mean no?

No the judge did not say that Echostar has to pay TIVO 90 million dollars?

No, the judge did not say that Echostar has to disable their DVR's?

You are a man of few words.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

bobneth said:


> As I have stated already. A judge already said that they had infringed and ordered Echostar to pay TIVO 90 million dollars or disable their DVR's.


You have continually said that the US patent office found that the patent was infringing. And I and others have pointed out to you that IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE TO PROVE PATENT INFRINGEMENT.



bobneth said:


> Curtis said:
> 
> 
> > The patent office never said anything about whether Echostar infringed TiVo's patent. That isn't their job.
> ...


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

old7 said:


> You are right about something, it's not about a tuner, CPU, RAM, motherboard, video card circuit, or hard drive. He was referring to the components of the patent, not the components of the device.


What is it that you do not understand about the court's ruling that Echostar has to pay 90 million dollars to TIVo or disable their DVR's.

Yes, the patent challenge slowed things a bit but now the verdict is in a TIVO patent is valid. The final ruling is going to go against Echostar. To think otherwise does not make any sense.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> As I have stated already. A judge already said that they had infringed and ordered Echostar to pay TIVO 90 million dollars or disable their DVR's.


actually a jury said that Echostar infringed. You really should go over to this thread 
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=353290
and read it some and then post questions there - the new hardware thread has been horribly hijacked now.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

bobneth said:


> Yes, the patent challenge slowed things a bit


The patent reexamination didn't slow anything. The appeal went according to schedule. The oral argument was Oct. 4. The reexamination wasn't even mentioned. It wasn't relevant.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Curtis said:


> No.
> 
> Echostar got the patent office to reexamine the patent in December 2005. The verdict was several months later.


The patent office did not issue their findings until November 2007. What does your post have to do with anything?


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

bobneth said:


> The patent office did not issue their findings until November 2007. What does your post have to do with anything?


Here is what you said: "After that judgment is when Echostar decided to challenge the validity of the patents. "

That is not factual.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

old7 said:


> You have continually said that the US patent office found that the patent was infringing. And I and others have pointed out to you that IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE TO PROVE PATENT INFRINGEMENT.


You choose to use semantics and ignore the facts.

First the judge orders Echostar to pay or disable.

Second, Echostar gets a stay while waiting for the facts of the patent to come foward from the patent office.

Third, patent office says Tivo patent is valid.

Fourth, the stage is set for the judge to enforce the original decision of pay or do not play.

What is your problem?


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

bobneth said:


> Second, Echostar gets a stay while waiting for the facts of the patent to come foward from the patent office.


No.

The stay is in effect until the appeal is over. The appeal is not related to the reexamination.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Curtis said:


> No.


Yes.

(I need to balance out the thread.)


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

bobneth said:


> What is it that you do not understand about the court's ruling that Echostar has to pay 90 million dollars to TIVo or disable their DVR's.
> 
> Yes, the patent challenge slowed things a bit but now the verdict is in a TIVO patent is valid. The final ruling is going to go against Echostar. To think otherwise does not make any sense.


No, what you don't seem to understand is that I agree with you about what the court ruled, of course that has been stayed and won't likely advance until spring. And further I agree that it seems highly unlikely that Echostar can turn this around and will undoubtedly pay TiVo close to $90 million and either make an agreement with TiVo for ongoing compensation or disable the DVR portions of many of its DRVs.

The portion that I have a disagreement with you is that IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE TO PROVE PATENT INFRINGEMENT.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> actually a jury said that Echostar infringed. You really should go over to this thread
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=353290
> and read it some and then post questions there - the new hardware thread has been horribly hijacked now.


Judge, jury, it is all semantics. It is still the courts.

Lots of misinformation on that thread from people who are afraid of losing their Dish network DVR's. In my opinion.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> What is your problem?


you are arguing from ignorance and in a thread that has little bearing on your argument.
Please go to this thread instead
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb...d.php?t=353290

that deals specifically with the Echostar infringement.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> Judge, jury, it is all semantics. It is still the courts.
> 
> Lots of misinformation on that thread from people who are afraid of losing their Dish network DVR's. In my opinion.


hehe, now you are just posting whatever in order to not admit the truth of other's posts.  have fun with that


----------



## thespacepope72 (Jan 25, 2005)

I used to like this thread but now it is just plain annoying.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> hehe, now you are just posting whatever in order to not admit the truth of other's posts.  have fun with that


Can you at least admit that the time warp patent means watching one pre-recorded show while recording others and that since TIVO owns that patent and it has been upheld that Echostar is in trouble? They have to pay to play (and record at the same time) he he


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

I thought this thread was about the Dish standalone DVR . . .


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> Can you at least admit that the time warp patent means watching one pre-recorded show while recording others and that since TIVO owns that patent and it has been upheld that Echostar is in trouble? They have to pay to play (and record at the same time) he he


I have to admit nothing. You obviously just wanted to hijack the thread to argue.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I have to admit nothing. You obviously just wanted to hijack the thread to argue.


You did not address the issues in my post. Hijacking the thread? What are you talking about? If you do not want to discuss the issues surrounding the probable demise of the Echostar DVR I cannot force you. But please to not accuse me of something so ridicules.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> You did not address the issues in my post. Hijacking the thread? What are you talking about? If you do not want to discuss the issues surrounding the probable demise of the Echostar DVR I cannot force you. But please to not accuse me of something so ridicules.


http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5872501#post5872501


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

bobneth said:


> You did not address the issues in my post. Hijacking the thread? What are you talking about? If you do not want to discuss the issues surrounding the probable demise of the Echostar DVR I cannot force you. But please to not accuse me of something so ridicules.


You have hijacked the thread, and have been the source of much misinformation in this thread. People respond to you because they do not want to leave incorrect information undisputed. Please take your claims and arguments to the proper thread.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5872501#post5872501


Yes, I did express my opinion on that thread. You mean to tell me with your almost 14,000 posts you have not expressed yours?

Why do people on forums think they can limit what people can and cannot say? After all, it is about exchange of information. Not winning an argument.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

bobneth said:


> You choose to use semantics and ignore the facts.


You should pay more attention to semantics. If you had you would realize that I agreed with most of what you said in later posts. I only have a "problem" when you confused the part that the US patent office plays in this ordeal. In fact, you corrected someone else and you were and are wrong.

It is not the job of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to "find" or "prove" others in violation of patents.



bobneth said:


> First the judge orders Echostar to pay or disable.


Agreed, sometime in August 2006 Echostar was judged against and ordered to pay $ 90 million and disable many of the functions in many of its DVRs.



bobneth said:


> Second, Echostar gets a stay while waiting for the facts of the patent to come foward from the patent office.


Close, Echostar got a stay during appeal. While the stay was in place Echostar also requested a patent reexamination. I know, semantics, but with the courts semantics count.



bobneth said:


> Third, patent office says Tivo patent is valid.


Yes, I think you are starting to understand. 



bobneth said:


> Fourth, the stage is set for the judge to enforce the original decision of pay or do not play.


Something like that, but it seems that it will likely take months for the appeal to be heard.



bobneth said:


> What is your problem?


Now that you seem to understand that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office does not decide patent infringement, I no longer have a problem.

However I would suggest that before you go about correcting others you should pay a little more attention to semantics and not go off half cocked.

By the way you might as well switch back to being George Webster you seem to have have worn out the bobneth persona.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

bobneth said:


> Hijacking the thread? What are you talking about? If you do not want to discuss the issues surrounding the probable demise of the Echostar DVR I cannot force you. But please to not accuse me of something so ridicules.


Go here to speculate:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=353290&highlight=Echostar+TiVo+lawsuit


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

CrispyCritter said:


> You have hijacked the thread, and have been the source of much misinformation in this thread. People respond to you because they do not want to leave incorrect information undisputed. Please take your claims and arguments to the proper thread.


No, I have not hijacked the thread. Just expressing my opinion, like everyone else. What important thing have I given misinformation about?

Did TIVO not win the original lawsuit? Yes they won.

Did the patent office uphold that the Tivo time warp patent was valid? Yes they did.

Will Echostar eventually have to pay up or disable their DVR's? The answer to that according to many people on different forums is expected quite soon and it looks like Echostar will lose this battle. What else is there that is of any importance? I am just trying to help people to understand that if they get this new Echostar DVR, its future is in question.

How am I doing anyone a disservice in discussing that?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> Why do people on forums think they can limit what people can and cannot say? After all, it is about exchange of information. Not winning an argument.


if you had any actual information to exchange then I am sure the posts would have gone very differenttly. since you instead elect to keep reposting the same misinformation without regard to the informed opinions of others who posted in reply then I can only assume you do not really follow the above statement of yours I quoted.

for instance you have now switched the argument away from echostar DVRs/infringement over to whether what I have called you on is true or not. This worked in a limited way as I felt compelled to provide fuller detail on why I say you are a poster come simply to argue whatever but I am aware of the switch and you can continue without me.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> if you had any actual information to exchange then I am sure the posts would have gone very differenttly. since you instead elect to keep reposting the same misinformation without regard to the informed opinions of others who posted in reply then I can only assume you do not really follow the above statement of yours I quoted.
> 
> for instance you have now switched the argument away from echostar DVRs/infringement over to whether what I have called you on is true or not. This worked in a limited way as I felt compelled to provide fuller detail on why I say you are a poster come simply to argue whatever but I am aware of the switch and you can continue without me.


What misinformation?


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

old7 said:


> Close, Echostar got a stay during appeal. While the stay was in place Echostar also requested a patent reexamination.


 No. The patent reexamination started in December 2005 after a request by Echostar. The verdict was in April 2006.



old7 said:


> Something like that, but it seems that it will likely take months for the appeal to be heard.


No. The appeal was heard Oct 4. That's the date of the oral argument. A ruling is expected any day.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

bobneth said:


> What misinformation?


How about looking at the things that I have corrected you on. Not what you think that I was disagreeing with you about, but the actual things that I corrected you on.

Here is a good place to start.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> What misinformation?


any actual information to exchange?


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

fallingwater said:


> Go here to speculate:
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=353290&highlight=Echostar+TiVo+lawsuit


Been to that thread before. Read the first 50 posts. Complete waste of time as 95 percent of them have to do with whether the thread is really needed.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> Been to that thread before. Read the first 50 posts. Complete waste of time as 95 percent of them have to do with whether the thread is really needed.


did you read the first thread that was linked at the bginging of that - the second thread? DId you read the last 50 posts in the thread when it was back on track? or would you rather once again just spread some misinformation by narrowly defining your information?


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

Curtis said:


> No. The patent reexamination started in December 2005 after a request by Echostar. The verdict was in April 2006.
> 
> No. The appeal was heard Oct 4. That's the date of the oral argument. A ruling is expected any day.


Fair enough. I was basing my information from here.



> The U.S. District Court Judge Duffey is now getting very frustrated with Echostar for not getting these documents in on time. It's rare for a court to give a company an extended time for appeal and Echostar is really dragging its heals in the mud and as a result is rubbing the courts up the wrong way.
> 
> Judge Duffey has now ordered that Echostar must now get the documents together by February 15th.


From that I wrongly assumed that oral arguments had not been concluded and now I see my error was that "February 15th" was 2007. I hate it when I follow a case for a while, but it drags on so long that you forget when/where you left off.


----------



## flatcurve (Sep 27, 2007)

So... Echostar Standalone DVR... alright!


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

flatcurve said:


> So... Echostar Standalone DVR... alright!


LOL


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

Look, I'll take the blame for getting this off track, as I believed the question whether or not this new Echostar DVR could be found infringing on the TiVo Time Warp Patent.

The reason I asked is because if this new DVR isn't that much demonstrably different, then it will also be hit with the injunction. dswallow had come up with this list:

DP-501, DP-508, DP-510, DP-721, DP-921, DP-522, DP-625, and DP-942 DVRs

However, there is a statement missing off of this list, which reads:

and all EchoStar DVRs that are not more than colorably different from any of these products.

If any of the newer DVR's, such as the 622/722, the 211 and this OTA DVR which was introduced in this thread are not "colorably different from any of" the listed products, then these newer products will also be subject to the injunction. In all reality, that would only take a motion, more than likely from the District Court to which the case will be remanded upon the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

I didn't want to rehash the entire case over again. Sorry.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

flatcurve said:


> So... Echostar Standalone DVR... alright!


Yah the surrealness of defending the fact that *the new Echostar standalone DVRs are very likely not at all effected by the infringement case *is not lost on me. 

ETA: to Greg's legitimate original question - is the original answer that the new DVRs are "colorably different" in the fact of how they buffer live TV and thus avoid the "time warp" part of the patent. I have no idea on what kind of hardware it uses to manage the media and if it thus would infringe the specific media switch


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> did you read the first thread that was linked at the bginging of that - the second thread? DId you read the last 50 posts in the thread when it was back on track? or would you rather once again just spread some misinformation by narrowly defining your information?


The answer to all four of your questions is no.

So that we can get to the bottom of your dislike for what I have said and believe to be the truth, please tell me which of the following you disagree with and why?

1) Echostar was ordered to pay approximately 90 million dollars to Tivo and disable their Echostar DVR's. Do you agree with that?

2) Because everyone is entitled to an appeal, (That is the law) the final decision is not in yet. Do you agree with that?

3) Now that the Tivo time warp dispute has been resolved in Tivo's favor, the appeal is likely to come to the same conclusion as the first trial. Do you agree with that?

4) The outcome of the overwhelming majority of cases are not affected by an appeal, it is just a legal formality. Do you agree with that?

5) The logical conclusion to come to is that Echostar will pay Tivo 90 million dollars and have to disable their Echostar DVR's. Do you agree with that?

6) If Echostar does not disable their DVR's completely, they will at least have to disable the feature that allows you to record while viewing another pre-recorded show. (The time warp patent) Do you agree with that?

7) Having a DVR that cannot record any of the shows you like while your watching a pre-recorded show is a DVR not worth having. Do you agree with that?

These are all valid questions so please answer them as completely as you possibly can.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the new DVRs are "colorably different" in the fact of how they buffer live TV and thus avoid the "time warp" part of the patent.


I believe that is a misconception. As I understand it, the time warp patent has to do with recording a show while watching another show that was already recorded, hence the name time warp.

I looked up information on the patent and that is the way I understood it.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> So that we can get to the bottom of your dislike for what I have said and believe to be the truth


My issue is the fact you kept insisting the patent office was directly involved in the infringement case when others clearly showed it was not.

Or that you read the beginning of the other thread and completely wrote off all that was said in those threads without digging in any deeper

also the fact you refused to move over to a thread that was clearly a far better place to have your "exchange of information"

in fact if you had read the other thread you would see I have posted all of your points up to 5 myself months ago and that your blanket statements on your remaining points are not correct.

so post some information on the specs of the Echostar standalone DVRs and how they do indeed infringe versus just repeatedly posting that all Echosatr DVRs are covered under the infringement case which is not the fact and total misinformation


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

As I was the culprit that opened Pandora's box, I will attempt to set these questions straight:


bobneth said:


> 1) Echostar was ordered to pay approximately 90 million dollars to Tivo and disable their Echostar DVR's. Do you agree with that?


Yes.


bobneth said:


> 2) Because everyone is entitled to an appeal, (That is the law) the final decision is not in yet. Do you agree with that?


Yes.


bobneth said:


> 3) Now that the Tivo time warp dispute has been resolved in Tivo's favor, the appeal is likely to come to the same conclusion as the first trial. Do you agree with that?


No. A patent infringement trial has nothing to do with a patent re-examination. Even if the Patent and Trademark Office threw out the patent, as long as there are appeals in the re-examination process, the patent still stands. However, if the re-examination process is over, and the patent is completely invalidated, that would force the courts to rule in favor of the defendants, as there would be no patent to violate.


bobneth said:


> 4) The outcome of the overwhelming majority of cases are not affected by an appeal, it is just a legal formality. Do you agree with that?


To a point. It has been stated that about 40 percent of the cases that come before the East Texas court have something overturned on appeal. It could also demonstrably delay the judgement.


bobneth said:


> 5) The logical conclusion to come to is that Echostar will pay Tivo 90 million dollars and have to disable their Echostar DVR's. Do you agree with that?


Not really. It is in Echostar's best interest to avoid a shut-off their DVR's. Dish Network was willing to pay $600 million to DirecTV, as per their merger agreement in 2002, once the FCC stopped the merger. Echostar was willing to pay $100 million to the networks for copyright violations for using the distant network license illegally. I would honestly suspect that if the Court of Appeals rules in favor of TiVo, Echostar would pay a boatload of money to TiVo to license the use of the patent, avoiding a shut-off of their DVR's. That would also take care of questions six and seven.

And that is why I asked my question. If Dish Network is still using TiVo-patented processes in their DVR's, would we then expect Dish Network to pony up the money for licensing? If this new DVR for OTA does use the TiVo patent, then I fully suspect TiVo will gain quite a windfall from Echostar in the form of a new licensing agreement if the Court of Appeals sides with TiVo.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

bobneth said:


> 3) Now that the Tivo time warp dispute has been resolved in Tivo's favor, the appeal is likely to come to the same conclusion as the first trial. Do you agree with that?


This is where your muddled thinking starts. You aren't clear about which dispute has been resolved in TiVo's favor. The patent office has said that TiVo's patent is valid. The appeal has nothing to do with that. The appeal is about whether there were errors in the trial. Things like instructions to jurors.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> I believe that is a misconception. As I understand it, the time warp patent has to do with recording a show while watching another show that was already recorded, hence the name time warp.
> 
> I looked up information on the patent and that is the way I understood it.


and you missed the information presented to you by multiple posters that the standalones do not do this. oh wait - you did post how that would not be good in the standalone so you do know that fact.

so it does indeed seem you are posting just to argue. I would just let that go in itself but I would rather people find the correct information in these forums versus a bunch of misinformation


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> and you missed the information presented to you by multiple posters that the standalones do not do this.


I missed it too.


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

I found that in the review, with only the specifics on my infringement question...


> Dual tuner action means you can watch (and record) one live channel while simultaneously recording a second--or record two channels while playing back a previously recorded show.


Sounds like the Time Warp function to me. And if it is built the same as the Dish Network system DVR's, it sounds like it infringes.

Remember that one of the main keys to be able to keep a DVR cheap and to record while watching is a "media switch", which is identified in the Time Warp patent. If this new product has it, it more than likely infringes on the patent.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

You wrote:

"My issue is the fact you kept insisting the patent office was directly involved in the infringement case when others clearly showed it was not "

Clearly showed? How did they clearly show that? They offered no proof. Just their opinions, which are wrong. 

I have read articles that state that the injunction was stayed because Echostar challenged the validly of the patents. Of course the patents are involved with the infringement case. It has much to do with it. Can we please drop that particular ridicules BS?

Then you wrote:

"Or that you read the beginning of the other thread and completely wrote off all that was said in those threads without digging in any deeper"

You started the thread, instead of trying to make me did waste my time, you must be very acquainted with all that it says. point me to post numbers that you want me to know about. 

Then you wrote:

also the fact you refused to move over to a thread that was clearly a far better place to have your "exchange of information

The discussion we are having is on this thread. So just because you say I should go over there that means I should go over there? Sounds kind of ridicules to me. Not the same people over there.

Then you wrote:

in fact if you had read the other thread you would see I have posted all of your points up to 5 myself months ago and that your blanket statements on your remaining points are not correct

Does that mean that you agree with me on points one through five? Sort of sounds that way but all you said was that you posted about them. You did not make it clear whether you agree with points one through five.

If I read you right then you disagree with me that infringing on the time warp patent has to do with recording programs while watching other pre-recorded programs. Do I need to go out and find the proof I already found months ago?

Then you wrote:

so post some information on the specs of the Echostar standalone DVRs and how they do indeed infringe versus just repeatedly posting that all Echosatr DVRs are covered under the infringement case which is not the fact and total misinformation

My point is that if it does not infringe on the time warp patent then it can not have the following two features. Pause live TV and recording one or two programs while watching another pre-recorded show. Take away those two features and then talking about having an Echostar DVR is a subject that is not even worth thinking twice about. Tivo all the way in that case.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> I found that in the review, with only the specifics on my infringement question...Sounds like the Time Warp function to me. And if it is built the same as the Dish Network system DVR's, it sounds like it infringes.
> 
> Remember that one of the main keys to be able to keep a DVR cheap and to record while watching is a "media switch", which is identified in the Time Warp patent. If this new product has it, it more than likely infringes on the patent.


The only significant difference I've seen in the recording behavior of Dish Network DVRs is that they do not buffer live content when you are watching a recording.

Another possibility is that this DVR product announcement was made in some attempt to sway the Appeals Court judges that will decide the Echostar vs. TiVo case.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Curtis said:


> I missed it too.


George Webster talked about it a while back in this thread in this post


George Webster said:


> Where do you get that information. It is my understanding that Echostar was found guilty of infringing on what is called "the time warp patent"
> 
> That patent is about recording a show to be viewed later onto a hard drive. So what good is a DVR that cannot be used for time warping?


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

bobneth said:


> have read articles that state that the injunction was stayed because Echostar challenged the validly of the patents. Of course the patents are involved with the infringement case. It has much to do with it.


That's the problem with articles...

Injunctions are usually stayed upon appeal. In this instance, the injunction was stayed because the Court of Appeals believed there was a distinct possibility that Echostar could win the appeal, and by letting the injunction stand, a shut-off of Echostar's DVR's would cause serious injury to Dish Network's bottom line.

The injunction was NOT issued because Dish Network needed to go to the PTO and attempt to invalidate the patent. A re-examination of the patent does not have true bearing on the case at hand.

Technically, now that the Time Warp patent has had all claims upheld by the PTO, this case is no different than any other patent infringement case. The only thing for the Appeals Court to do is to rule whether the District Court erred in any of their findings or instructions.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Greg, you wrote:

"No. A patent infringement trial has nothing to do with a patent re-examination"

I know that but it seems to me that you are forgetting that Tivo won the first trial. The appeal is more than likely going to go the same way..

I can agree with you that Echostar MIGHT pay a boatload of money to Tivo to continue the functionality of their DVR's.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Curtis, you wrote:

"This is where your muddled thinking starts. You aren't clear about which dispute has been resolved in TiVo's favor. The patent office has said that TiVo's patent is valid."

I am extremely clear on that, believe me.

Then you wrote:

"The appeal has nothing to do with that. The appeal is about whether there were errors in the trial. Things like instructions to jurors"

I still say the outcome will be the same because the court found that Echostar was infringing on the Tivo patent in the first trial and ordered payment and disabling the Echostar DVR's.

Are we clear now?


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

bkdtv said:


> The only significant difference I've seen in the recording behavior of Dish Network DVRs is that they do not buffer live content when you are watching a recording.


Live content can be buffered while watching another recording by simply pressing "record".


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTivo, you wrote:

"and you missed the information presented to you by multiple posters that the standalones do not do this"

Am I hearing you correctly? The Echostar standalones cannot record one or two shows during the time you are watching a pre-recorded show?

If it cannot do that then Tivo will wipe the floor with that product.

Posting just to argue? I do not understand why you say that.


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

bobneth said:


> Greg, you wrote:
> 
> "No. A patent infringement trial has nothing to do with a patent re-examination"
> 
> I know that but it seems to me that you are forgetting that Tivo won the first trial. The appeal is more than likely going to go the same way..


Sticky subject.

TiVo won the trial at District Court, which you've termed "the first trial". The appeals process sends that case to the Court of Appeals, which will rule if there are any errors in the case.

It is possible that the Court of Appeals will let stand the verdict and reject all claims of error by Echostar in that case. The last Echostar case that went before the Court of Appeals was the issue with the distant network copyright license. In that litigation, Dish Network was found guilty, and then won a new trial based upon errors with some rulings at the District Court level. The case was remanded back to District Court for a new trial, and once again Dish Network was found guilty, and once again, they appealed.

Dish Network filed a total of SEVENTEEN claims on which they believed the District Court erred. Only one of those claims were upheld by the Court of Appeals, then Dish Network got the snot kicked out of them because of an error claim found valid by the Court of Appeals on behalf of the plaintiffs.

So all I am saying is that it is possible Dish Network could receive a reprieve, either by granting some error claims or even reducing the amount of the judgement. It is possible the Court of Appeals could reject all error claims by Dish Network and remand the case back to the District Court for final judgement. We just don't know.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Greg, you wrote:

"Dual tuner action means you can watch (and record) one live channel while simultaneously recording a second--or record two channels while playing back a previously recorded show"

Sounds to me like that means it infringes on the Tivo patent. ZioTivo is telling us that the Echostar unit does not have that feature. Where did you get that info?.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

bobneth said:


> I still say the outcome will be the same because the court found that Echostar was infringing on the Tivo patent in the first trial and ordered payment and disabling the Echostar DVR's.


The outcome of what will be the same?

The same as what? Not the reexamination. That was a separate unrelated proceeding.

I'm also not following this legal argument: "because the court found that Echostar was infringing on the Tivo patent in the first trial and ordered payment and disabling the Echostar DVR's."

Why would an appeal have been granted in the first place if that was a sufficient argument?


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

What the french toast?

I'm still looking for news about pricing and availability of the _*subject of this thread*_.

bobneth - a thread hijack means taking control of or somehow steering the conversation away from it's original purpose, which is what you have done. Go back and read the posting rules. Please stop arguing about patents in this thread, unless it somehow affects the DVR which our topic of discussion.

And mine is bigger than yours.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Curtis, you wrote:

"The outcome of what will be the same?"

In other words, I believe that Echostar will have to pay Tivo the original finding of the first trial, that is about 90 million dollars and disable the Echostar DVR's.

Appeals are granted because the constitution guartnees every one the right to a second trial if there are unresolved matters. 

In this case, the validity of the patents needed to be settled. It was on November 30 2007 - I believe that is the correct date, give or take a few days.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

"Please stop arguing about patents in this thread, unless it somehow affects the DVR which our topic of discussion"

It does affect the topic of discussion because If I can confirm that the new Echostar product records at the same time you are watching a pre-recorded show with it, then it infringes on the Tivo time warp patent. That means the courts are not likely to allow it to be sold. What could be more germane to the topic. Please stop the lunacy of believing what you wrote is the way it is.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

bobneth said:


> Curtis, you wrote:
> 
> "The outcome of what will be the same?"
> 
> In other words, I believe that Echostar will have to pay Tivo the original finding of the first trial, that is about 90 million dollars and disable the Echostar DVR's.


You are forgetting to add the interest on the original award plus the new DVR subscribers added since the verdict.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Any Idea how much that extra interest and other royalties paid to Tivo might amount to?


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

bobneth said:


> Please stop the lunacy of believing what you wrote is the way it is.


My my, such argumentative language.

I'll seek out news about this product elsewhere.


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

bobneth said:


> Appeals are granted because the constitution guartnees every one the right to a second trial if there are unresolved matters.


Not quite, but too much to go into. A simplistic view is that a defendant has the right to make sure the District Court did not err in any rulings or procedures. Not exactly a Constitutional issue to a second trial.


bobneth said:


> In this case, the validity of the patents needed to be settled. It was on November 30 2007 - I believe that is the correct date, give or take a few days.


No, the examination by the Court of Appeals is to go over any rulings or procedures that the District Court judge may have decided erroneously.


bobneth said:


> In other words, I believe that Echostar will have to pay Tivo the original finding of the first trial, that is about 90 million dollars and disable the Echostar DVR's.





Curtis said:


> You are forgetting to add the interest on the original award plus the new DVR subscribers added since the verdict.


Just using the linear method to approximate, TiVo was awarded $73 million in April and that award was revised to $90 million in August. At this point in time, that award will be at $150 million, and I actually believe it could be much higher, because I have not added any of the newer DVR products to the totals, nor accumulated accrued interest.


classicX said:


> I'm still looking for news about *pricing and availability of the subject of this thread.*


I'll take the blame, but only because I was trying to see if this DVR could be lumped into the current TiVo litigation. It appears it might.


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

Just so I make myself clear, if this new DVR is brought to market, and it is found that it does infringe on TiVo's Time Warp patent, then this item will probably have a monthly fee. Dish Network would need to make up those license fees somewhere. Unless they pull the ultimate TiVo business model, and make it about $499 for a lifetime subscription.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

If this article has its facts straight, then the new Echostar product does record while watching pre-recorded shows, therefore, it does infringe on the Tivo time warp patent.

http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/echostar-tr-50


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Greg Bimson said:


> Just so I make myself clear, if this new DVR is brought to market, and it is found that it does infringe on TiVo's Time Warp patent, then this item will probably have a monthly fee. Dish Network would need to make up those license fees somewhere. Unless they pull the ultimate TiVo business model, and make it about $499 for a lifetime subscription.


What is the stand alone going to cost? Any thoughts?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> Any Idea how much that extra interest and other royalties paid to Tivo might amount to?


all of that is spelled out quite clearly in the two threads about the Echostar infringement case


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

Good grief! Recording while watching isn't patented. TiVo patented a SPECIFIC CONFIGURATION OF HARDWARE for doing it. It is certainly possible and legal to design a device which also records while watching but does it using some other method than the specific one(s) that TiVo patented.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

RoyK said:


> Good grief! Recording while watching isn't patented. TiVo patented a SPECIFIC CONFIGURATION OF HARDWARE for doing it. It is certainly possible and legal to design a device which also records while watching but does it using some other method than the specific one(s) that TiVo patented.


I think you are wrong. As I said before, all the Tivo does is take the ones and zeros from a digital tuner and put it through a motherboard, ram, cpu and onto a hard drive. How can anyone else configure hardware to use any thing different than what every computer uses? Tivo is after all, just a computer.

Articles I have read indicate that the Tivo time warp patent is just what I say it is, that is the function of recording one or more shows while watching an already recorded one. If you get that, then you instantly know that what you posted could not be more wrong.

Look up time warp patent if you do not believe me.


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

RoyK said:


> Good grief! Recording while watching isn't patented. TiVo patented a SPECIFIC CONFIGURATION OF HARDWARE for doing it. It is certainly possible and legal to design a device which also records while watching but does it using some other method than the specific one(s) that TiVo patented.


Yes, BUT...

Dish Network's in-house attempts have been found to be in violation of the Time Warp patent. Dish Network also has DVR's which not only record their data stream, but also that of a digital OTA signal. If this new, OTA-only device were simply ported from an existing Echostar DVR, then it is quite possible this device also infringes on the Time Warp patent.

And in case it was missed, TiVo patented a process for playing one program while recording another, using not only hardware, but software. So, while it is possible to design a device to work around a patent, it has yet to be proven that Dish Network could actually design such a workaround. They certainly haven't implemented a workaround on the existing DVR base.

And the only reason I asked is because if this device in infringing the patent, then Echostar will need to raise the price of the offering.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

bobneth said:


> I think you are wrong. As I said before, all the Tivo does is take the ones and zeros from a digital tuner and put it through a motherboard, ram, cpu and onto a hard drive. How can anyone else configure hardware to use any thing different than what every computer uses? Tivo is after all, just a computer.
> 
> Articles I have read indicate that the Tivo time warp patent is just what I say it is, that is the function of recording one or more shows while watching an already recorded one. If you get that, then you instantly know that what you posted could not be more wrong.
> 
> Look up time warp patent if you do not believe me.


Let me put it to you this way. The tuner receives the digital stream from the over the air antenna. It then flows through the mother board and into the ram and then into the CPU and is then written to the hard drive as ones and zero's, the language of all computer data.

Is someone going to abolish the need for a mother board. NO

Is someone going to abolish the need for ram (memory) NO

Is someone going to abolish the need for the brain of the device (CPU) NO

Is someone going to abolish the need for hard drives. NO

So just how can the hardware be configured differently? Lets get real here.


----------



## Luke M (Nov 5, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> And the only reason I asked is because if this device in infringing the patent, then Echostar will need to raise the price of the offering.


They can't raise the price. It doesn't have a price yet!

Sheesh.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

RoyK said:


> Good grief! Recording while watching isn't patented. TiVo patented a SPECIFIC CONFIGURATION OF HARDWARE for doing it. It is certainly possible and legal to design a device which also records while watching but does it using some other method than the specific one(s) that TiVo patented.


Here, I did your homework for you. It says:

United States Patent 6233389

"A multimedia time warping system. The invention allows the user to store selected television broadcast programs while the user is simultaneously watching or reviewing another program"

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6233389.html


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> I think you are wrong. As I said before, all the Tivo does is take the ones and zeros from a digital tuner and put it through a motherboard, ram, cpu and onto a hard drive..


that is not how a series 2 DVR that records analog signal works at all. 
Also there is the process of storing video and audio in seperate streams and keeping them in sync.
Also the patent covers a process of multiple streams for recording and playback all while receiving remote control commands that may change the flow of those mpeg streams

you really should do more than read some internet articles before making statements as if they were the whole picture

also you need to read more than just the first two lines ofthe patent you cited


> The parser and event buffer decouple the CPU from having to parse the MPEG stream and from the real time nature of the data streams which allows for slower CPU and bus speeds and translate to lower system costs. The video and audio components are stored on a storage device and when the program is requested for display, the video and audio components are extracted from the storage device and reassembled into an MPEG stream which is sent to a decoder


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

So if Echostar was ordered to shut down all of it's DVR's, how would they shut down this standalone, which gets guide data on it's own and doesn't connect to E*?


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> So if Echostar was ordered to shut down all of it's DVR's, how would they shut down this standalone, which gets guide data on it's own and doesn't connect to E*?


I'm guessing that Echostar would be assessed a penalty in line with the cost of a lifetime subscription as opposed to a penalty based on a monthly subscription model.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTivo, you wrote:

"that is not how a series 2 DVR that records analog signal works at all"

Maybe you are right, I do not care. Why? Because on February 9, 2008 all analog stations must cease operation. That is why I have a Series 3 Tivo.

Then you wrote:

"Also there is the process of storing video and audio in seperate streams and keeping them in sync"

That does not change the fact that we are talking about the time warp patent.

Then you wrote:

"Also the patent covers a process of multiple streams for recording and playback all while receiving remote control commands that may change the flow of those mpeg streams"

What is your point?

Then you wrote:

"you really should do more than read some internet articles before making statements as if they were the whole picture"

The whole picture is precisely that Tivo owns the time warp patent. Do you really want a DVR that can not record shows that are on while you watch a program you already recorded? That is a lousy product compared to Tivo.

Then you wrote:

"so you need to read more than just the first two lines of the patent you cited
Quote:
The parser and event buffer decouple the CPU from having to parse the MPEG stream and from the real time nature of the data streams which allows for slower CPU and bus speeds and translate to lower system costs. The video and audio components are stored on a storage device and when the program is requested for display, the video and audio components are extracted from the storage device and reassembled into an MPEG stream which is sent to a decoder"

How does that change the fact that Tivo is the only DVR that is likely to have the time warp functions after the law suit is over? Unless licensing agreements and new products from the licensees are released. Without those licenses and new product releases all current DVR's that are not licensed through Tivo will be disabled.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> How does that change the fact that Tivo is the only DVR that is likely to have the time warp functions after the law suit is over? Unless licensing agreements and new products from the licensees are released. Without those licenses and new product releases all current DVR's that are not licensed through Tivo will be disabled.


aside from being wrong in all the statements that I did not quote as well as the quote itself - why do you care so much about this specific piece of misinformation to keep posting it so often?


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

bobneth said:


> ZeoTivo, you wrote:
> 
> "that is not how a series 2 DVR that records analog signal works at all"
> 
> Maybe you are right, I do not care. Why? Because on February 9, 2008 all analog stations must cease operation.


Analog cable is unaffected. Anyway, its 2009 not 2008.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

For some reason the quote feature is not working for me. So I have to do it this way.

"So if Echostar was ordered to shut down all of it's DVR's, how would they shut down this standalone, which gets guide data on it's own and doesn't connect to E*?"

Here is my guess. The product is slated for release in mid-summer, according to CNET.

Between now and then Echostar will see that the lawsuit is either already ended or close to ending. I have it on pretty good authority by some attorney's that a court ruling is expected within the next two weeks.

Scenerio #1 Echostar loses the battle, pays the law suit settlement but decides not to pay licensing fees to Tivo. Then product does not make it to market.

Scenario #2 Echostar does pay licensing fees and product does make it to market and is now fully legal.

Other factors: I have not heard if Tivo is even interested in selling licenses. Not a single word.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

"aside from being wrong in all the statements that I did not quote as well as the quote itself - why do you care so much about this specific piece of misinformation to keep posting it so often?"

I have no idea what you are talking about. Which is pretty sad seeing as how my IQ places me in the top 4 percent of the population. I just do not know how to make my point any clearer to you.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

"Analog cable is unaffected. Anyway, its 2009 not 2008"

Typo on 2008.

As far as I know this new stand alone box does not support cable TV and Echostar boxes that are already out do not support cable either. After all, they are a satellite company.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

bobneth said:


> Other factors: I have not heard if Tivo is even interested in selling licenses. Not a single word.


DirecTV
Comcast
Cox
Humax Panasonic
Sony
etc.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> Other factors: I have not heard if Tivo is even interested in selling licenses. Not a single word.


TiVo was fully cross licensed with Replay TV, did a deal with DirectTV which included licensing and agreements not to sue. License deals with Comcast, Cox and others. TiVo was in fact in talks with Dish way back on a deal to license TiVo hardware/software for Dish's DVRs - Dish pulled out of those talks abruptly and soon after came the infringing DVRs from Dish. But sure go ahead and spread some more misinformation as if it was something you have researched deeply


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

ReplayTV had a sort of Time Warp feature. And supposedly it differed in implementation to that of TiVo's.

Add to the fact that if TiVo wants to stop cable companies from releasing a DVR with a "Time Warp" feature, it must then sue the cable companies and the set-top box DVR manufacturers to force an end to the practice. And that is only if those DVR's can be found infringing on the patent, in a court.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> TiVo was fully cross licensed with Replay TV


No.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

I already know about:

DirecTV
Comcast
Cox
Humax Panasonic
Sony
etc.

I just question if the bad blood between Echostar and Tivo will make Tivo want to do business with Echostar.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

bobneth said:


> I already know about:
> 
> DirecTV
> Comcast
> ...


You need to be more precise in what you write. We aren't mind readers.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

"TiVo was fully cross licensed with Replay TV, did a deal with DirectTV which included licensing and agreements not to sue. License deals with Comcast, Cox and others. TiVo was in fact in talks with Dish way back on a deal to license TiVo hardware/software for Dish's DVRs - Dish pulled out of those talks abruptly and soon after came the infringing DVRs from Dish. But sure go ahead and spread some more misinformation as if it was something you have researched deeply"

See post 184 - I am an owner of a DirectTv tivo for 7+ years. I know the score.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

"You need to be more precise in what you write. We aren't mind readers "

Sorry about that. I just assumed that everybody knew I was talking about Echostar.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Curtis said:


> No.


what was the nature of the license relationship between the two then? Of course Replay was sold off to DirectTV recently and it seemed they bought it for a song to get the IP.

PS - the point of the other realtionships was to show TiVo willingness. Also it seems overlooked in this thread that TiVo was engaged and very interested in talks with Echostar back when. TiVo is not big enough to hurt Echostar by shutting off the DVRs - Echosatr could make it through that. TiVo is better served by getting a license deal in place for the remaining in service DVRs that were named in the suit and any Echosatr wanted to add to avoid further lawsuits.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Can anyone tell me why the quote feature keeps bringing up quotes from the wrong post? Is there something I can do to fix it on my end?


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> what was the nature of the license relationship between the two then? Of course Replay was sold off to DirectTV recently and it seemed they bought it for a song to get the IP.


There was no license relationship between them.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTivo,

So why do you want this Echostar product to succeed so badly?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> ZeoTivo,
> 
> So why do you want this Echostar product to succeed so badly?


I am not concerned about the Echosatr product suceeding or not. I just see a lot of misinformation that somehow the TiVo infringement case is going to directly effect it or other DVRs out in the market when there is simply no evidence to back up such blanket statements.

When I see misinformation of such a nature I am likely to reply and counterbalance it


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Curtis said:


> There was no license relationship between them.


I misspoke then, they could not use each others licenses but also would not sue each other over licenses - that is what I meant by cross license


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I misspoke then, they could not use each others licenses but also would not sue each other over licenses - that is what I meant by cross license


There was never any such agreement.


----------



## Martin Tupper (Dec 18, 2003)

bobneth said:


> For some reason the quote feature is not working for me.





bobneth said:


> my IQ places me in the top 4 percent of the population.


Too Funny!


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I am not concerned about the Echosatr product suceeding or not. I just see a lot of misinformation that somehow the TiVo infringement case is going to directly effect it or other DVRs out in the market when there is simply no evidence to back up such blanket statements.
> 
> When I see misinformation of such a nature I am likely to reply and counterbalance it


Simply no evidence? Well, seeing as how , before the appeal, the court ordered that Echostar shut down its DVR's, all I can say is that you totally baffle me. So how you can say it is misinformation, even though I gave you the patent web site.

Let me go one step further. If the final ruling is that Echostar must disable their DVR's then here is what is going to happen. The landmark case will have been made and then all the other DVR's that are not licensed through Tivo will experience the same fate in a very quick manner. Hello, are you there? Are the lights on upstairs?


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Martin Tupper said:


> Too Funny!


So your post is supposed to imply that with my high IQ I am supposed to be able to figure out the quote feature.

Well Mr. Funny man, let me tell you what happens about 80 percent of the time when I try to use it. I hit the quote button for the post but the quotes are from other posts. Message board is flaky today.

How is that funny? Never mind, I understand that it was just a cheap shot.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> Simply no evidence? Well, seeing as how , before the appeal, the court ordered that Echostar shut down its DVR's, all I can say is that you totally baffle me. So how you can say it is misinformation, even though I gave you the patent web site.


the court order was for the shutdown of the specific DVRs model numbers listed as infringing. NO other DVR models are in any way shape or form touched by the court order.

Again you are either deliberately avoiding facts or just not getting it at all.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the court order was for the shutdown of the specific DVRs model numbers listed as infringing. NO other DVR models are in any way shape or form touched by the court order.
> 
> Again you are either deliberately avoiding facts or just not getting it at all.


So are you saying that the court order was going to let Echostar continue to let some of their models operate?

If so, please provide link to such information and I will take it under advisement.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

I don't suppose we can move the infringement discussion to the dedicated infringement thread?


----------



## Martin Tupper (Dec 18, 2003)

bobneth said:


> So your post is supposed to imply that with my high IQ I am supposed to be able to figure out the quote feature.
> 
> Well Mr. Funny man, let me tell you what happens about 80 percent of the time when I try to use it. I hit the quote button for the post but the quotes are from other posts. Message board is flaky today.
> 
> How is that funny? Never mind, I understand that it was just a cheap shot.


*Tupper's Law* postulates that persons who tout their own IQ scores during an argument, invariably do or say something to make themselves look foolish (in addition to the original foolishness of believing anyone cares what they claim their IQ is).


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

bkdtv said:


> I don't suppose we can move the infringement discussion to the dedicated infringement thread?


So you think the new DVR belongs in the same bucket as the existing DVRs?


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

bkdtv said:


> I don't suppose we can move the infringement discussion to the dedicated infringement thread?


Bkdtv,

It has not gone unnoticed by me that you do a lot of good work here sharing what you know with others. Can you tell me why when a discussion is happening between various parties, people get so upset that they think the discussion should be moved to another forum, when the people involved in the discussion are not necessarily frequenting the other forum?

What is this obsession with controlling conversations on this forum?


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Curtis said:


> So you think the new DVR belongs in the same bucket as the existing DVRs?


Nothing about this product has been linked to the patent case. Echostar is aware of their own patent litigation with TiVo, so it makes complete sense this DVR is not going to have any issues.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Martin Tupper said:


> *Tupper's Law* postulates that persons who tout their own IQ scores during an argument, invariably do or say something to make themselves look foolish (in addition to the original foolishness of believing anyone cares what they claim their IQ is).


Seeing as how you refer to yourself as a "Loud-Mouthed Schnook" how many of those self-made laws actually work out for you?

You tried to be funny. I tried to be funny. Something tells me neither of us was funny.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

rainwater said:


> Nothing about this product has been linked to the patent case. Echostar is aware of their own patent litigation with TiVo, so it makes complete sense this DVR is not going to have any issues.


Well, i'm not convinced. I'm not sure they know how to get around TiVo's patent. If they knew how to do that they would have done it from the beginning.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Curtis said:


> So you think the new DVR belongs in the same bucket as the existing DVRs?


I know you are not asking me but, I just think people will be people and trying to neatly categorize their conversations into little nooks just does not work. Too many categories would be needed.

Anyway, the conversation is happening right here right now. Tomorrow I will most likely be sick of this conversation and it will be on to something different.
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/images/icons/icon10.gif
Big Grin


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

bobneth said:


> Bkdtv,
> 
> It has not gone unnoticed by me that you do a lot of good work here sharing what you know with others. Can you tell me why when a discussion is happening between various parties, people get so upset that they think the discussion should be moved to another forum, when the people involved in the discussion are not necessarily frequenting the other forum?
> 
> What is this obsession with controlling conversations on this forum?


There is a dedicated TiVo vs. Echostar infringement thread in this very forum. I linked to it above. It's not on another forum or another site.

This thread has turned into a back and forth about whether the Tivo vs. Echostar infringement case applies to this standalone DVR. To me, that discussion seems most suitable to the dedicated TiVo vs. Echostar infringement thread. I created this thread to consolidate information and news relating to this product, how it compares to TiVo, and what it means for TiVo as a company.


----------



## thespacepope72 (Jan 25, 2005)

Martin Tupper said:


> *Tupper's Law* postulates that persons who tout their own IQ scores during an argument, invariably do or say something to make themselves look foolish (in addition to the original foolishness of believing anyone cares what they claim their IQ is).


So is there a corollary that touting a low IQ results in doing or saying something intelligent? (Relatively speaking of course.)


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

rainwater said:


> Nothing about this product has been linked to the patent case. Echostar is aware of their own patent litigation with TiVo, so it makes complete sense this DVR is not going to have any issues.


Nothing has excluded it from the patent infringement case either. The description in the first post of this thread says that the new unit can record while watching another recording. That violates Tivo's time warp patent.

I am entertaining the idea that Echostar knows they have lost the battle and that new product will never make it to market. They might just be trying to scare Tivo. All a bluff? maybe.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

So much for discussing the product I guess.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

rainwater said:


> So much for discussing the product I guess.


What do you want to say about it?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Curtis said:


> There was never any such agreement.


http://enterpriseinnovator.com/index.php?articleID=14280&sectionID=269



> Students of the first round of this war, will remember that TiVo and ReplayTV covered all this ground about 5 or 6 years ago, when what might be called an honorable draw was the outcome and a cross license between the two for the early IPR


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

I think this gets to the heart of the matter.



bobneth said:


> Quote from the TiVo Patent:
> The parser and event buffer decouple the CPU from having to parse the MPEG stream and from the real time nature of the data streams which allows for slower CPU and bus speeds and translate to lower system costs. The video and audio components are stored on a storage device and when the program is requested for display, the video and audio components are extracted from the storage device and reassembled into an MPEG stream which is sent to a decoder"


At the time, processors that could do the job without needing this decoupled parser, the media switch, were too expensive for use in a DVR. That is what made TiVo revolutionary, they were able to do it cheap with a simple small processor because of the media switch. This switch is what Echostar copied.

Nowadays, processors are much more capable and can do the job without needing that trick. They are still more expensive than the processor a TiVo might need, but not so expensive they can't do the job in a consumer device.

So we don't know if this device is infringing or not. It will take a detailed analysis by experts. If it is, I expect TiVo will sue. If it is not, then they won't. Neither event is likely to happen before the current appeal is resolved. It is possible that in negotiations resulting from the outcome of the appeal that agreements will be reached negating the need for more lawsuits, or perhaps they won't. It is all speculation at this point.

Unless someone here knows the intimate detailed inner workings of the hardware or software of this device and shares that detail, it will not be possible to know if it will be infringing or not. Blanket statements in one direction or the other at this point are simply guesses or wishful thinking.

[edit: clarified quoting sources]


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

bobneth said:


> Nothing has excluded it from the patent infringement case either. The description in the first post of this thread says that the new unit can record while watching another recording. That violates Tivo's time warp patent.
> 
> I am entertaining the idea that Echostar knows they have lost the battle and that new product will never make it to market. They might just be trying to scare Tivo. All a bluff? maybe.


What I do know for sure is that any company who infringes on intellectual patents are just plain thieves and patent cases catch the thieves.

See Ampex. They own the patent for digital storage and retrieval of still images. They sued a bunch of digital camera makers and they all had to pay a fee set by the courts on every digital camera they have sold to date. All the biggies. Revenues for Ampex went through the ceiling.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ampex+pentax&btnG=Search


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

rainwater said:


> So much for discussing the product I guess.


Nobody is stopping anybody from discussing the product. Go right ahead. Feel free.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> misinformation snipped out
> I am entertaining the idea that Echostar knows they have lost the battle and that new product will never make it to market. They might just be trying to scare Tivo. All a bluff? maybe.


now I am ROFLMAO - Echostar started a complete standalone business unit and presented as such in CES just as a bluff? 

NOPE - Echostar actually came very close to making the first DVR and have been in the business a long time. It is exciting to see them enter the standalone market and I expect they will shake things up considerably, infringemnet suits and payoffs not withstanding.
As pointed out, with todays procesors - the heart of TiVo's patent, the media switch, can be worked around and as you almost understood - digital broadcasting makes it even easier as the 1 and 0 can just be copied straight to disk without the need for conversion from analog, making it easier yet again to not infringe the full specifics of the older TiVo patent.
in short just playing a show while recording another in itself does not infringe on TiVo patent. the media switch type technology needs to be involved as well. If the media switch technology is in the device then you can get around the patent, perhaps, by simply managing the buffers in a way that prevents time warp use.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> now I am ROFLMAO - Echostar started a complete standalone business unit and presented as such in CES just as a bluff?


ROFLMAO all you want. Here is what we do know. The court already found Echostar to be infringing on TIVo patents once.

That means Echostar is a thief and does not play by the rules. Nothing says they created a separate business unit except your claim. Having a huge electronics manufacturer whip up a prototype is not a big deal. They already have chassis parts, power supplies, tuners, motherboards, ram, cpu's, hard drives sitting around by the hundreds of thousands. The prototype can easily be assembled from off the shelf parts and they only needed one for CES.

Never underestimate the business practices of thieves.


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

I felt that this product may be part of the infringement case, so I brought it up. 

My point was that pricing for the TR-50 has yet to be released, but there has been a touting of no monthly fee attached to the product. A separate OTA digital decoder, technically a "brother" to this unit without the analog nor the DVR functions has an announced MSRP of $39.99. So there is pricing for the lower-end converter, but none for the DVR.

To me, it appears it is possible this "receiver" may also infringe on the TiVo Time Warp patent, and that definitely involves a discussion of the possible pricing of the unit. It is the only reason why I brought it up.

Maybe Echostar is waiting on the pricing upon resolution of the TiVo patent litigation. That was part of my point, and a valid point.


----------



## Luke M (Nov 5, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> To me, it appears it is possible this "receiver" may also infringe on the TiVo Time Warp patent, and that definitely involves a discussion of the possible pricing of the unit. It is the only reason why I brought it up.
> 
> Maybe Echostar is waiting on the pricing upon resolution of the TiVo patent litigation. That was part of my point, and a valid point.


No, it's not.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> "Students of the first round of this war, will remember that TiVo and ReplayTV covered all this ground about 5 or 6 years ago, when what might be called an honorable draw was the outcome and a cross license between the two for the early IPR"


There was no cross license. There was no agreement not to sue. The author of that article/posting was mistaken as are you.

"Lawsuit filed against SONICblue Inc. On January 23, 2002, we filed a separate lawsuit against SONICblue Incorporated and its wholly owned subsidiary, ReplayTV, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that we are the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389, entitled "Multimedia Time Warping System," and alleging further that SONICblue
and ReplayTV have willfully and deliberately infringed the patent by making, using, offering to sell and/or selling within the United States digital video recording devices, software and/or personal television services falling within the scope of the patent. We had requested that the court enjoin SONICblue and ReplayTV from further infringement of the patent and award us compensatory
damages, treble damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On November 8, 2002, we and SONICblue announced a settlement in which we agreed to dismiss without prejudice this complaint against SONICblue."


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

Curtis said:


> There was no cross license. There was no agreement not to sue. The author of that article/posting was mistaken as are you.


There was a lawsuit that was settled out of court are you saying that from that they have no agreement. I find it hard to believe that two parties to a lawsuit settle without some kind of agreement.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

bobneth said:


> What I do know for sure is that any company who infringes on intellectual patents are just plain thieves and patent cases catch the thieves.


Or they just didn't do their homework. In this case, though, your analogy is more fitting.

The only part of the patent that matters is the claims section. Part of the reason some people (those who frequently deal with IPR) are upset is because you and others are making general statements like "Tivo owns all time-warping IPR", which they do not. Besides, you can only patent the implementation of the idea, not the idea itself. So it is usually easy to work around a patent. Tivo's patent is specific. If, for example, a device recorded the streams to the hard disk in a non-MPEG format, that would bypass many of Tivo's claims.

This all goes back to the price of Echostar's new DVR. If it infringes, so what? The price will just go up $5/unit at some point, and/or Echostar pays Tivo more money, and/or they trade IPR. Big deal. It's a nice low-end DVR.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

old7 said:


> There was a lawsuit that was settled out of court are you saying that from that they have no agreement. I find it hard to believe that two parties to a lawsuit settle without some kind of agreement.


The lawsuits were withdrawn without prejudice.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

Curtis said:


> The lawsuits were withdrawn without prejudice.


And without any kind of agreement? That just seems very odd.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Curtis said:


> There was no cross license. There was no agreement not to sue. The author of that article/posting was mistaken as are you.
> 
> "Lawsuit filed against SONICblue Inc. On January 23, 2002, we filed a separate lawsuit against SONICblue Incorporated and its wholly owned subsidiary, ReplayTV, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that we are the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389, entitled "Multimedia Time Warping System," and alleging further that SONICblue
> and ReplayTV have willfully and deliberately infringed the patent by making, using, offering to sell and/or selling within the United States digital video recording devices, software and/or personal television services falling within the scope of the patent. We had requested that the court enjoin SONICblue and ReplayTV from further infringement of the patent and award us compensatory
> damages, treble damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On November 8, 2002, we and SONICblue announced a settlement in which we agreed to dismiss without prejudice this complaint against SONICblue."


yes that would be the honorable draw that led to the cross licensing as mentioned in the article I linked to

"Students of the first round of this war, will remember that TiVo and ReplayTV covered all this ground about 5 or 6 years ago, when what might be called an honorable draw was the outcome and a cross license between the two for the early IPR"


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> no you are wrong. I realize it is hard to prove a negative with some reference source. No long article on a web site on how something did *not*happen long ago  but you really need a lot more flesh to your argument other than a flat denial.
> 
> Plus the article I linked to had a lot of detail on the licenses involved in the DVR market. i would take that detail over your simple denial any day.


Look. You made the assertion. The burden of proof is on you.

Meanwhile, I can provide PR and SEC filings from TiVo et al that say the lawsuits were withdrawn without prejudice. That means neither side admitted diddly and retained the right to sue again the next day or the next week or whatever.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

BobCamp1 said:


> Part of the reason some people are upset is because you and others are making general statements like "Tivo owns all time-warping IPR", which they do not.


Then why did the court find in favor of Tivo? More importantly, why would you even say that when they obviously own the patent?


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

BobCamp1 said:


> So it is usually easy to work around a patent. Tivo's patent is specific. If, for example, a device recorded the streams to the hard disk in a non-MPEG format, that would bypass many of Tivo's claims.


Yeah, good luck with that one. DirecTv launching 150 HD channels using MPEG. Echostar doing the same with new satellites, not 150 channels though. MPEG is it for the foreseeable future of at least 10 years. Past that the issues we are discussing here do not matter. But we are talking about right here and an right now, NOT pie in the sky fantasy.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

BobCamp1 said:


> This all goes back to the price of Echostar's new DVR. If it infringes, so what? The price will just go up $5/unit at some point


Companies that continue to offer products that infringe on the patents of other companies get hit with very stiff fines per day for each and every day they continue to infringe. We are talking about breaking federal laws here, not stealing a gallon of milk.


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> To me, it appears it is possible this "receiver" may also infringe on the TiVo Time Warp patent, and that definitely involves a discussion of the possible pricing of the unit. It is the only reason why I brought it up.
> 
> Maybe Echostar is waiting on the pricing upon resolution of the TiVo patent litigation. That was part of my point, and a valid point.





Luke M said:


> No, it's not.


How about a little explanation behind a three word sentence? This is a discussion forum!


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Greg Bimson said:


> How about a little explanation behind a three word sentence? This is a discussion forum!


I have been extensively using message boards for nearly 10 years. Rarely have I seen so many short answers. I can tell you what I think explains it. The thieves (Echostar and other not Tivo licenced DVR vendors) have hired hit men on these boards. They are trying to sway people into thinking that Echostar stands a chance in hell of not getting their butts kicked for their thieving ways. Their arguments are weak at best.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> I have been extensively using message boards for nearly 10 years. Rarely have I seen so many short answers. I can tell you what I think explains it. The thieves (Echostar and other not Tivo licenced DVR vendors) have hired hit men on these boards. They are trying to sway people into thinking that Echostar stands a chance in hell of not getting their butts kicked for their thieving ways. Their arguments are weak at best.


hhmm, we most of the people answering your misinformation have been on this board for a long time and have posted in many various areas on many topics. You just recently registered and after a brief foray into a home invasion thread, in which many complained of how you took things off tpoic you come to this thread next and do much the same but with a lot more perisistence. *I would say all the facts point to you having the agenda here.*


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

Curtis said:


> The lawsuits were withdrawn without prejudice.


Very interesting. From the SEC, Tivo Inc, 10-K for 1/31/03:


> Lawsuit filed by SONICblue Inc. On December 12, 2001, SONICblue Incorporated and its wholly owned subsidiary, ReplayTV, Inc., filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,338 entitled Video Data Recorder with Integrated Channel Guides. SONICblue alleges that it is the owner of this patent, and further alleges that we have willfully and deliberately infringed this patent by making, selling, offering to sell, and using within the United States the TiVo digital video recorder. SONICblue was seeking unspecified monetary damages as well as an injunction against our operations. Our answer was filed on January 23, 2002. On November 8, 2002, we and SONICblue announced a settlement in which SONICblue agreed to dismiss without prejudice this complaint against us.
> 
> Lawsuit filed against SONICblue Inc. On January 23, 2002, we filed a separate lawsuit against SONICblue Incorporated and its wholly owned subsidiary, ReplayTV, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that we are the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389, entitled Multimedia Time Warping System, and alleging further that SONICblue and ReplayTV have willfully and deliberately infringed the patent by making, using, offering to sell and/or selling within the United States digital video recording devices, software and/or personal television services falling within the scope of the patent. We had requested that the court enjoin SONICblue and ReplayTV from further infringement of the patent and award us compensatory damages, treble damages and attorneys fees and costs. On November 8, 2002, we and SONICblue announced a settlement in which we agreed to dismiss without prejudice this complaint against SONICblue.


----------



## Luke M (Nov 5, 2002)

bobneth said:


> I have been extensively using message boards for nearly 10 years. Rarely have I seen so many short answers. I can tell you what I think explains it. The thieves (Echostar and other not Tivo licenced DVR vendors) have hired hit men on these boards. They are trying to sway people into thinking that Echostar stands a chance in hell of not getting their butts kicked for their thieving ways. Their arguments are weak at best.


Are you 12?


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

bobneth said:


> What I do know for sure is that any company who infringes on intellectual patents are just plain thieves and patent cases catch the thieves.
> 
> See Ampex. They own the patent for digital storage and retrieval of still images. They sued a bunch of digital camera makers and they all had to pay a fee set by the courts on every digital camera they have sold to date. All the biggies. Revenues for Ampex went through the ceiling.
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ampex+pentax&btnG=Search


I know we are not supposed to discuss stocks but I will just mention this in passing.

When Ampex won their lawsuit, investors liked the revenues that began to pour in, so much, that they went on a buying frenzy buying the stock. They out bid each other so furiously that the stock went from $4.05 to $56.73 in a few days short of two months. Smart people would have turned $35,000 into $500,000 in a very short time.

I tell this story to illustrate that this is not small stuff we are talking about here. Tivo could become huge very quickly once this lawsuit is done. In the case of Ampex, this happened in the later half of 2004. In April 2004, they reported a loss of $2.99 per share. In the same quarter, April, of 2005, they reported a profit of $14.89 per share. Look out Echostar and every other DVR thief. You are about to be crushed.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> hhmm, we most of the people answering your misinformation have been on this board for a long time and have posted in many various areas on many topics. You just recently registered and after a brief foray into a home invasion thread, in which many complained of how you took things off tpoic you come to this thread next and do much the same but with a lot more perisistence. *I would say all the facts point to you having the agenda here.*


My agenda is the following. All thieves need to be punished. Too bad we cannot throw some Echostar execs in jail for their thieving ways. But hitting them with the loss of money is some sweet revenge too.

My persistance comes from wanting to see Tivo survive. Been using their product for 7+ years in the form a a DirecTivo, now OTA with an S3.

Now I know they will survive as this Echostar lawsuit makes the land mark case and nobody can question Tivo's patents ever again.


----------



## Luke M (Nov 5, 2002)

bobneth said:


> I know we are not supposed to discuss stocks but I will just mention this in passing.
> 
> When Ampex won their lawsuit, investors liked the revenues that began to pour in, so much, that they went on a buying frenzy buying the stock. They out bid each other so furiously that the stock went from $4.05 to $56.73 in a few days short of two months. Smart people would have turned $35,000 into $500,000 in a very short time.


Ah, so the truth is finally revealed. You're a stock speculator/tout and you own Tivo, and that's why you're vomiting over this thread.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Luke M said:


> Are you 12?


No, my IQ is 139


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Curtis said:


> Look. You made the assertion. The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> Meanwhile, I can provide PR and SEC filings from TiVo et al that say the lawsuits were withdrawn without prejudice. That means neither side admitted diddly and retained the right to sue again the next day or the next week or whatever.


so you think they never penned an agreement and both sides just backed off under the threat of mutual destruction? That could be. I guess DirecTV could use the same threat of reopening that suit now that it owns ReplayTV IP and keep TiVo from suing them. So I pulled the idea of cross liscenseing from what I read and you say they just kept the ICBM's pointed at each other.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Luke M said:


> Ah, so the truth is finally revealed. You're a stock speculator/tout and you own Tivo, and that's why you're vomiting over this thread.


Nope, do not own Tivo securities yet, but, the story is shaping up oh so nicely. Blast off is fairly imminent. If I wanted to tout the stock then I would be on Yahoo where I have spent almost 10 years making astounding stock picks. Great message boards at yahoo. They have one for every stock.

Love the product and with this land mark law suit about to go Tivo's way, Tivo will crush all the competition.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so you think they never penned an agreement


It isn't a matter of opinion. It's history. Please don't post misinformation next time,


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Luke M said:


> Ah, so the truth is finally revealed. You're a stock speculator/tout and you own Tivo, and that's why you're vomiting over this thread.


good catch - I a gree with that connection. Ok I am done playing with this one to see what he is up too.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Curtis said:


> It isn't a matter of opinion. It's history. Please don't post misinformation next time,


well when I can find references to a cross license from articles with considerable analysis of license and patents in the DVR industry and you want to play that game of just continuing to say there is no thing based on one SEC filing then I can stop being nice and say PROVE there is no such thing


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> good catch - I missed that connection. Ok I am done playing with this one to see what he is up too.


For someone who claims to have so many Tivo's you sure seem hell bent on making sure you tout the competition, even if they are thieves. Now what was that comandment? Thou shal not steal?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> For someone who claims to have so many Tivo's you sure seem hell bent on making sure you tout the competition, even if they are thieves. Now what was that comandment? Thou shal not steal?


you have as much as admitted you are posting solely trying to boost TiVo stock price without first stating your true agenda. That would make you a fraud and a liar full of misinformation that was picked up on rather quickly.

BTW - my IQ is higher 

PS - I always tyr and find/post the truth as I know it. If that truth is that Echostar has put out a good DVR in the 622 and a very intertesting OTA DVR then that is what I will say in my posts.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> you have as much as admitted you are posting solely trying to boost TiVo stock price
> 
> BTW - my IQ is higher


Never admitted any such thing, do not even own the stock. As for the IQ, if yours was anywhere near mine, I would be the first to know it.

Goodnight everyone. Its been, ahhhhhhh, different.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> Never admitted any such thing, do not even own the stock. As for the IQ, if yours was anywhere near mine, I would be the first to know it.
> 
> Goodnight everyone. Its been, ahhhhhhh, different.


yah - gee why are you leaving now?


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> well when I can find references to a cross license from articles with considerable analysis of license and patents in the DVR industry and you want to play that game of just continuing to say there is no thing based on one SEC filing then I can stop being nice and say PROVE there is no such thing


Well, I've proven that legal SEC filings say that the lawsuit was withdrawn without prejudice. If you can provide authoritative evidence that says otherwise I'd like to see it. The ball is in your court. I thought the subject was pretty well done but I guess you want to keep going.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Curtis said:


> Well, I've proven that legal SEC filings say that the lawsuit was withdrawn without prejudice. If you can provide authoritative evidence that says otherwise I'd like to see it. The ball is in your court. I thought the subject was pretty well done but I guess you want to keep going.


so would it say "withdrawn with cross license agreement" instead


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so would it say "withdrawn with cross license agreement" instead


Where does it say that?


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

About this "dismissed without prejudice" thing. Remember the NTP v. RIM patent infringement lawsuit regarding the Blackberry from just under two years ago?


> Under the terms of the settlement, RIM will make a one-time payment to NTP of $612.5 million. In return, NTP has granted RIM a license that will let RIM continue its BlackBerry-related wireless business, according to officials at both companies.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...


So there is a signed settlement document, but the suit was dismissed without prejudice.

So there _may in fact_ be a settlement (cross-licensing) agreement between TiVo and ReplayTV.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

I give it another day or two before the thread is locked. Personally, I can't wait.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> So there _may in fact_ be a settlement (cross-licensing) agreement between TiVo and ReplayTV.


There may be a tooth fairy. What's your point? Why would they risk prison keeping such an agreement secret? Wouldn't they want the world to know?


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Greg Bimson said:


> So there _may in fact_ be a settlement (cross-licensing) agreement between TiVo and ReplayTV.


It's very unlikely that TiVo would reach a cross-licensing agreement with a (then) major competitor and not disclose it specifically in an SEC report.


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

Well, this is one area that is not in my expertise, and I flat out admit it.

Would the terms of a cross-licensing agreement be forced onto an SEC report? I mean, think about this for one second. They did reach some sort of settlement. If the entire settlement was one page long stating they wouldn't sue each other, isn't that basically cross-licensing?

I just don't know, since the terms of the settlement were never released publicly.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> If the entire settlement was one page long stating they wouldn't sue each other, isn't that basically cross-licensing?


There was never any such agreement. Sheesh.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

nrc said:


> It's very unlikely that TiVo would reach a cross-licensing agreement with a (then) major competitor and not disclose it specifically in an SEC report.


I have to agree. I thought that I had read somewhere, years ago, that SonicBlue and TiVo had reached a cross-license agreement, but after digging through the SEC reports for both companies it doesn't look there was one.

TiVo lists in the SEC reports other cross-license and license agreements. I would think it unlikely that TiVo entered into a cross-license agreement with SonicBlue (ReplayTV) and did not disclose it.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

old7 said:


> I have to agree. I thought that I had read somewhere, years ago, that SonicBlue and TiVo had reached a cross-license agreement, but after digging through the SEC reports for both companies it doesn't look there was one.


Yep. I'm sure Zeotivo will be here shortly to acquiesce. "It takes a big man" and all that.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> Well, this is one area that is not in my expertise, and I flat out admit it.
> 
> Would the terms of a cross-licensing agreement be forced onto an SEC report? I mean, think about this for one second. They did reach some sort of settlement. If the entire settlement was one page long stating they wouldn't sue each other, isn't that basically cross-licensing?
> 
> I just don't know, since the terms of the settlement were never released publicly.


The terms are seldom released in an SEC report/filing.

The lawsuits were likely dismissed without prejudice because both parties saw the future: mutual-assured destruction by protracted legal action.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Let us not forget that the courts know the score:

http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2006-08/tivo-wins-permanent-injunction-against-echostar-and-cash/


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Wow. A nice entry in the OTA market. Now there is an easy answer fro those that want TiVo to support digital OTA on series 2.


The answer is called a Tivo HD and can be had for as little as $199 in a number of places online. Series 2 will become a relic of the past. HD for $199, and it is a Tivo, you know, those guys that have the patents.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

stevel said:


> So this is sort of a "TiVo Basic" version of the TiVoHD without CableCARD support


Why would anyone go strictly after the OTA market? So many people live in areas where it is difficult to get all their local channels that it does not seem to make sense to me. I am a thousand feet above sea level on a huge hill that climbs for more than a mile. But even I had to install two antennas pointing in two different directions to get all my stations.

Unless I am mistaken, this unit does not even tune the cable channels that do not require cable cards.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Luke M said:


> Are you 12?





bobneth said:


> No, my IQ is 139


I would think that even with your IQ, you could see the sheer lack of logic in that response.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Speaking of which, my IQ has been dropping steadily from reading this thread.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Victory is oh so sweet. Catch the thieves. (Echostar)

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...tivo-patent-at-issue-in-echostar-lawsuit.html


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

Uh, that's old news. That just refers to the Patent Office's review that has already been discussed over and over and over.

I'm in full agreement that E* is a bunch of lying scumbag thieves and should be crushed.

Somehow, that doesn't prevent me from being able to discuss it in the proper thread and leave me with the fundamental misunderstanding of what is actually patented that you seem to be plagued with.

It also doesn't take away from my ability to engage in civil discourse without having to belittle others and tout my OMG HUGE!!!11!!1!! IQ (usually).


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

old7 said:


> The lawsuits were likely dismissed without prejudice because both parties saw the future: mutual-assured destruction by protracted legal action.


You can't get blood out of a turnip. Sonicblue filed for bankruptcy four months after the lawsuits were dropped.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

Curtis said:


> You can't get blood out of a turnip. Sonicblue filed for bankruptcy four months after the lawsuits were dropped.


True, but wouldn't a turnip be interested in getting blood out of TiVo?


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

old7 said:


> True, but wouldn't a turnip be interested in getting blood out of TiVo?


The turnip's attorneys were busy circling the wagons.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

That old news is going to become the actual news when the court makes it decision. If you have bothered to read the Tivo patents, its a done deal, beleive me.

The original injunction called for Echostar to shut down their DVR's within 30 days. The stay of the injunction bought them some time but now that the patent office ruled that the the Tivo patent is valid and ENFORCEABLE the ruse is over. Just waiting on the court to announce it.

Maybe it has been discussed over and over to someone like you with over 2000 posts but I am still a newbie.

Fresh blood on message boards = fresh discussion and just because I have not read certain messages on this board it does NOT mean that I do not know what I am talking about. 

"and leave me with the fundamental misunderstanding of what is actually patented that you seem to be plagued with"

Since you make no mention of specifics I can only assume that you do not know what you are talking about and are afraid to go toe to toe with me.

"It also doesn't take away from my ability to engage in civil discourse without having to belittle others and tout my OMG HUGE!!!11!!1!! IQ"

Well, there are some here touting what a great new product this is, when in reality they are refusing to see that Echostar is a cooked goosed when it comes to DVR's. Those people belittle me for telling the truth without even taking a minute to see the truth. It gets frustrating when people cannot see the truth no matter how many times I explain it to them. Lost my patience a few times on a few posts.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

bobneth said:


> Companies that continue to offer products that infringe on the patents of other companies get hit with very stiff fines per day for each and every day they continue to infringe. We are talking about breaking federal laws here, not stealing a gallon of milk.


It doesn't matter what kind of law it is. Actually, stealing the gallon of milk is worse, as that's crimimal law. Most IPR is usually civil law, which means someone has to complain and file suit against you. Nobody in federal government is monitoring every single invention out there to see if it infringes on an existing patent. A cop isn't going to pull you over and say, "did you know you were driving a car that infringes on 25 patents? License and registration, please."

In the real world (in our universe anyway -- your universe may vary), any product that is newly created will invariably infringe on a patent simply because there are so many of them. If you catch it in time, you can usually work around it or work out an agreement. *This agreement does not have to be made public*, and it doesn't have to be forever or super-binding, and sometimes money secretly changes hands, and usually there is a cross-licensing agreement.

If you are a gigantic company, sometimes you don't sue clear infringers in order to promote and grow a technology. For example, AOL owns most of the IM patents. Phillips owns the patent for CDs. IBM owns tons of patents. Other companies violate these patents all the time. These gigantic companies usually take a big brother approach to IPR. (Or at least they wait for the company to be profitable before they sue.) For example, when DRM was going to be added to audio CDs, Phillips balked and said that they weren't audio CDs, and therefore could not claim they were a CD.

The final point is, patent law is not clear cut or black and white. It's a big gray area that involves deals and work-arounds and knowing the field.

The final final point, before this thread was hopelessly hijacked, is that this box may or may not infringe on Tivo's patents. You would think E* would have found a work-aorund by now. If it didn't, and an agreement hasn't been reached, Tivo can take E* to court again. If not, there will be something like a $5 surcharge added to the price. Maybe $10. Not enough to slow sales down.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

bobneth said:


> It gets frustrating when people cannot see the truth no matter how many times I explain it to them.


Funny, some of us feel the same way.

If you're not a patent lawyer, or do not frequently deal with patents as some of us here do, then how do you know Tivos' patents are cut and dry? Maybe ReplayTV had prior art that would invalidate most of Tivo's claims? Maybe that's why Tivo backed off. We'll never know, especially if D* comes to another secret agreement with Tivo (since D* now owns ReplayTV).

This Tivo victory in court looks nice, except they've spent a lot of money and haven't collected a dime from E* yet. The one thing it does do is tell everyone else that the patents are currently valid, and since Tivo can't make money making the products they have patents on, you need to come to an agreement with them or they'll sue.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Curtis said:


> The turnip's attorneys were busy circling the wagons.


I find this discussion interesting because I almost bought one of those Sonic Blue products. I think they called it a Digital Media Server. It was very expensive as I remember, somewhere around $2,200 at the time. Seemed like a rip off to me but I wanted it badly.

We have seen the way Sonic Blue went into oblivion, the only thing that will prevent Echostar from the same fate is that they have their satellite business.

Tivo comes out and everybody thinks they can rip off the idea. Comcast did it for a while and there have been others, I forget all their names but soon the world will know that if yo want to offer a DVR you have to sit down with Tivo first and sign agreements to fork over the cash.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> You would think E* would have found a work-aorund by now. If it didn't, and an agreement hasn't been reached, Tivo can take E* to court again. If not, there will be something like a $5 surcharge added to the price. Maybe $10. Not enough to slow sales down.


A lifetime TiVo subscription costs around $400.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

BobCamp wrote:

"Actually, stealing the gallon of milk is worse"

Absolutely utter nonsense - Gallon of milk = 3 bucks

Echostar thieves 90 million bucks so far and I am in agreement with those who say that the new ruling, based on continued infringement will actually be more like 150 million. Please stop talking nonsense. I asked nicely.

I had to read all your other mumbo jumbo to get to the only part that means anything. That is:

"The final final point, before this thread was hopelessly hijacked, is that this box may or may not infringe on Tivo's patents"

What world are you living in? The time warp patent involves recording while watching another recorded program. The new product can do that, it does infringe. Let's please stop the lunacy of thoughts like "this box may or may not infringe on Tivo's patents"

"Tivo can take E* to court again. If not, there will be something like a $5 surcharge added to the price. Maybe $10. Not enough to slow sales down"

You just do not get it. There will be no need to take Echostar to court again. The patent has been upheld by the patent office and they have advised the court that it is ENFORCABLE. So here is what is going to happen. Shortly, the court rules that the original injuction must now go into effect. From that moment on Echostar does not even try to market this new product. Why? Becuse the will be slapped with stiff fines for each and every day that they offer the unit for sale or have infringing units operational in the field. 

Wake up and smell the coffee.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

Curtis said:


> A lifetime TiVo subscription costs around $400.


The price of a lifetime Tivo subscription is in no way related to what Tivo will charge for a lifetime license fee for one of its patents. A one time fee of less than $10 per box is not an unreasonable payment for the patent license.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

bobneth said:


> The time warp patent involves recording while watching another recorded program. The new product can do that, it does infringe. Let's please stop the lunacy of thoughts like "this box may or may not infringe on Tivo's patents"


You clearly don't understand patent law very well.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

BobCamp writes nonsense:

See this news flash - the court already ruled that the Echostar has to shut down their DVR's. Only the stay granted by the court while waiting for the patent office and the appeal process saved Echostar from actually having to shut down their DVR's.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

bobneth said:


> Only the stay granted by the court while waiting for the patent office


You are confused beyond all recognition. The appeals court didn't wait for the patent office. The appeal and the reexamination were completely separate. The judges may not even know there was a reexamination.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

HiDefGator said:


> You clearly don't understand patent law very well.


A one sentence statement does not help prove your point, or for that matter, even tell us what is your point. Speak up, I think that nothing is really clear to you.

Can you elaborate? What are you thinking? Are you thinking? Are you real? Are you real sure you are real? Are you real sure you are clear? Where are your words to prove what you are thinking?


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Curtis said:


> You are confused beyond all recognition. The appeals court didn't wait for the patent office. The appeal and the reexamination were completely separate. The judges may not even know there was a reexamination.


WOW, My head almost blew up from laughing so hard. I laughed so hard I woke people up. Of course the judge knows there is a reexamination. Echo star challenged the patent. Hello, anybody home?


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

bobneth said:


> WOW, My head almost blew up from laughing so hard. I laughed so hard I woke people up. Of course the judge knows there is a reexamination. Echo star challenged the patent. Hello, anybody home?


Bob, or is it George, you have been told repeatedly that the patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate. Can you understand that? Or do I have to type more slowly?

I have come to the conclusion that you have to be told things 6 - 8 time before they sink in fully. So here:

The patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate.

The patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate.

The patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate.

The patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate.

The patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate.

The patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate.

The patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate.

The patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate.

The patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate.

The patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate.

Is 10 times enough?

So much for that high IQ.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

bobneth said:


> WOW, My head almost blew up from laughing so hard. I laughed so hard I woke people up. Of course the judge knows there is a reexamination. Echo star challenged the patent. Hello, anybody home?


How would the judges find out about the reexamination? It was never mentioned in the appeal briefs filed by either side. It was never mentioned during the oral arguments.


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

bobneth, it is this last couple of statements which are giving everyone grief:


> Of course the judge knows there is a reexamination. Echo star challenged the patent.


The re-examination is a completely separate issue from the infringement trial.

So, pretend there wasn't a re-examination of the patent. We'd still be exactly where we are today. The only issue before the courts is that the Court of Appeals is looking over the procedings of the trial in the District Court. The re-examination has nothing to do with the case being reviewed at the Court of Appeals right now.

The judge wouldn't care if there was a re-examination of the patent. Once the trial starts, all that matters is that TiVo has a patent and any party that may infringe upon that patent can be taken to court.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

old7 said:


> Bob, or is it George, you have been told repeatedly that the patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate. Can you understand that?
> 
> Has no bearing on anything. Patent office said patent is valid and ENFORCEABLE. Appeal process merely a formality at this point. Can you understand that?
> 
> ...


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

bobneth said:


> Has no bearing on anything. Patent office said patent is valid and ENFORCEABLE. Appeal process merely a formality at this point. Can you understand that?
> 
> Let me spell it out for you.
> 
> ...


Did I say that the patent is not valid?

Did I say that they might not have to disable their DVRs?

Did I say that the appeal is likely to be reversed?

Can you you read what I type?

I said:

The patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate.

The patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate.

The patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate.

The patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate.

The patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate.

The patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate.

The patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate.

The patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate.

The patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate.

The patent reexamination and the appeal process are separate.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

bkdtv said:


> I don't suppose we can move the infringement discussion to the dedicated infringement thread?


Apparently not. This has gotta' be one of the most successful thread hijackings; everyone is buying it! 

(And now back to the substituted program...)


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

Curtis said:


> So you think the new DVR belongs in the same bucket as the existing DVRs?


E* and Charlie ain't stupid! Anybody want to wager $1000 that E*'s OTA DVR doesn't make it to market because of TiVo's patent lawsuit?


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

"The re-examination is a completely separate issue from the infringement trial"

Never said it was one issue. That was just people putting words in my mouth.

"So, pretend there wasn't a re-examination of the patent. We'd still be exactly where we are today. The only issue before the courts is that the Court of Appeals is looking over the procedings of the trial in the District Court. The re-examination has nothing to do with the case being reviewed at the Court of Appeals right now"

I would not say nothing to do with it. If the patent had been found invalid in this case the case would have already been dismissed. Judges do not like wasting valuable court time.

"The judge wouldn't care if there was a re-examination of the patent. Once the trial starts, all that matters is that TiVo has a patent and any party that may infringe upon that patent can be taken to court"

And I am saying that the patent being upheld by the patent office, in favor of Tivo, is a huge victory for Tivo.

I said "Of course the judge knows there is a reexamination. Echo star challenged the patent."

I said that because the judge would have to be living at a retreat for monks to not have seen the press coverage. Whether or not the processes are separate, believe me, in the real world, the judge knows about the patent issue.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

fallingwater said:


> E* and Charlie ain't stupid! Anybody want to wager $1000 that E*'s OTA DVR doesn't make it to market because of TiVo's patent lawsuit?


I will take that wager. What is it about the following which you do not understand?

1) The time warp patent involves recording and playback at the same time.

2) The new unit, (notice I am talking about the new unit and NOT hikjacking the thread) has those capabilities.

3) Obviously and I do mean VERY obviously, E* and Charlie are no where near, NOT EVEN CLOSE, as smart as you think they are.

Please explain anything in 1,2, and 3 that you did not understand.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

bobneth said:


> "The re-examination is a completely separate issue from the infringement trial"
> 
> Never said it was one issue. That was just people putting words in my mouth.





bobneth said:


> See this news flash - the court already ruled that the Echostar has to shut down their DVR's. Only the stay granted by the court while waiting for the patent office and the appeal process saved Echostar from actually having to shut down their DVR's.


That is a quote from you Bob. Not words put in your mouth. Not a misunderstanding of what you said.



> Only the stay granted by the court while waiting for the patent office


The court is not, has not and never was waiting for the patent office, because....the re-examination is a completely separate issue from the infringement trial.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

bobneth said:


> I have been extensively using message boards for nearly 10 years. Rarely have I seen so many short answers. I can tell you what I think explains it. The thieves (Echostar and other not Tivo licenced DVR vendors) have hired hit men on these boards. They are trying to sway people into thinking that Echostar stands a chance in hell of not getting their butts kicked for their thieving ways. Their arguments are weak at best.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

bobneth said:


> I would not say nothing to do with it. If the patent had been found invalid in this case the case would have already been dismissed. Judges do not like wasting valuable court time.


Nope. It would have taken years to determine the patent was invalid. TiVo had 3 more levels of appeals within the patent office system and the courts. They could have taken it to the Supreme Court. Simply put, nothing the patent office said either way would have had any impact on the infringement appeal. That's why neither side brought it up during the appeal. The infringement appeal is deciding whether there were procedural errors in the trial not whether the patent is valid.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

How about this argument...:

Echostar has WAY more money than TiVo.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

old7 said:


> That is a quote from you Bob. Not words put in your mouth. Not a misunderstanding of what you said


Notice that when I said the following, I said patent office AND appeal process, meaning two things not one. There are some master word twisters around here.

"Only the stay granted by the court while waiting for the patent office and the appeal process saved Echostar from actually having to shut down their DVR's."

Twist away


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

"The court is not, has not and never was waiting for the patent office, because....the re-examination is a completely separate issue from the infringement trial"

So lets assume that you might be right. 

Why are you arguing about that when clearly the patent being validated is a huge win for Tivo and the appeal process is very likely to come to the same conclusion as the first ruling.

The time warp patent is the key. Can't you see the writting on the wall?


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Curtis said:


> Nope. It would have taken years to determine the patent was invalid. TiVo had 3 more levels of appeals within the patent office system and the courts. They could have taken it to the Supreme Court. Simply put, nothing the patent office said either way would have had any impact on the infringement appeal. That's why neither side brought it up during the appeal. The infringement appeal is deciding whether there were procedural errors in the trial not whether the patent is valid.


Did not think of that. You are right of course.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

bobneth said:


> The answer is called a Tivo HD and can be had for as little as $199 in a number of places online. Series 2 will become a relic of the past. HD for $199, and it is a Tivo, you know, those guys that have the patents.


Where?

(Not here: )
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=434721


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

bobneth said:


> Notice that when I said the following, I said patent office AND appeal process, meaning two things not one. There are some master word twisters around here.
> 
> "Only the stay granted by the court while waiting for the patent office and the appeal process saved Echostar from actually having to shut down their DVR's."
> 
> Twist away


The court has only been waiting on the appeal and has never waited on the patent office re-examination. The fact that the re-examination happened at all is irrelevant to the court. Your words are clearly stating that the court is waiting on the patent office. In this case the court has never waited on the patent office.


----------



## Budget_HT (Jan 2, 2001)

bobneth said:


> I will take that wager. What is it about the following which you do not understand?
> 
> 1) The time warp patent involves recording and playback at the same time.
> 
> ...


"The time warp patent involves recording and playback at the same time" is a broad statement that does not go into the methods used to achieve this. AIUI, it is the methods, not the concept, that appear to be covered by the patent. In other words, as previously stated in this thread, the implementation has been patented, not the idea.

You appear to be overlooking the technical details that are the real substance of the patent.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

bobneth said:


> ...
> The time warp patent is the key. Can't you see the writting on the wall?


I'll no longer feed this troll. You guys do what you want.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

bobneth said:


> "The court is not, has not and never was waiting for the patent office, because....the re-examination is a completely separate issue from the infringement trial"
> 
> So lets assume that you might be right.
> 
> ...


Obviously Bob you can not read the writing on the wall or on the computer. I have not been arguing with most of your conclusions, as you seem to think, I am only pointing out when you present incorrect facts.

Oh, and I AM right, the re-examination is a completely separate issue from the appeal.


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

bobneth said:


> Notice that when I said the following, I said patent office AND appeal process, meaning two things not one. There are some master word twisters around here.
> 
> "Only the stay granted by the court while waiting for the patent office and the appeal process saved Echostar from actually having to shut down their DVR's."


That is the problem, bobneth.

The stay was only granted to review the court case only, not the validity of the patents. Because of the use of the word "AND", your statement ends up being false.

I followed the trial some, and I don't believe there were glaring errors. However, no one knows what obscure case law can possibly force something like a retrial.

Remember, if there is a retrial, we will be years away from any conclusion.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

Budget_HT said:


> "The time warp patent involves recording and playback at the same time" is a broad statement that does not go into the methods used to achieve this. AIUI, it is the methods, not the concept, that appear to be covered by the patent. In other words, as previously stated in this thread, the implementation has been patented, not the idea.
> 
> You appear to be overlooking the technical details that are the real substance of the patent.


That would be because Bob really doesn't understand how patents work and what patents really cover. But don't tell Bob that, it might offend his high IQ.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

bobneth said:


> I will take that wager.


Will a Forum Moderator agree to hold $2000 in escrow until E*'s TR-50 is either released or withdrawn, and, if withdrawn, evaluate whether the circumstances relate to TiVo's lawsuit?? If an oldtimer Forum Moderator whom I know agrees, I can PayPal $1000 within the hour! Can and will you?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

RoyK said:


> I'll no longer feed this troll. You guys do what you want.


My God people,
Bobneth is repeating the exact same tripe as yesterday in the same it is Gospel way and your are falling for it all over again.

*He is obviously either a troll just wanting to see who will keep handing him posts to chew on or else a stock speculator wanting to sell TiVo stock and short echostar stock.*

Why do you keep playing his stupid game


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

Hey Zeo

Have you found that cross licensing agreement yet?


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

fallingwater said:


> Where?
> 
> (Not here: )
> http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=434721


I have seen it a number of places for $199, not sure if that included shipping. Already have an Series 3 so I did not look too closely.

A quick check and I found it at $260 with FREE shipping.
Finding a better price should be quite possible using shopping bots and search engines.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/s...-1_blended_39756058_2&results-process=default


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

Your post which stated $199 was nonsense. Your other statements of 'fact' may well be in the same zone. I've seen it for $260.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5877175#post5877175 
So? Can and will you?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Curtis said:


> Hey Zeo
> 
> Have you found that cross licensing agreement yet?


What we have is analysis of patents from that time that speaks of a cross license - We have SEC reports from TiVo that do not mention such an agreement and suits dismissed without prejudice.

It is odd that TiVo would not mention such an agreement but there may have been some deal that had no disclosure as an item. I have not founmd anything that would compel Tivo to specifically disclose.

so I see no definitive answer one way or the other. Of course this compels me to preface any future discussion on Tivo replayTV with this huge caveat. Since it happened long ago and ReplayTV is out of the picture I doubt it will come up again in anything but other troll threads anyway 

nowadays it seems easier to just say that DirecTV owns patents that makes TiVo think twice before suing them


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> My God people,
> Bobneth is repeating the exact same tripe as yesterday in the same it is Gospel way and your are falling for it all over again.
> 
> *He is obviously either a troll just wanting to see who will keep handing him posts to chew on or else a stock speculator wanting to sell TiVo stock and short echostar stock.*
> ...


but really this is all I have left to say in this thread


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Budget_HT said:


> "The time warp patent involves recording and playback at the same time" is a broad statement that does not go into the methods used to achieve this. AIUI, it is the methods, not the concept, that appear to be covered by the patent. In other words, as previously stated in this thread, the implementation has been patented, not the idea.
> 
> You appear to be overlooking the technical details that are the real substance of the patent.


Well Dave, I will repeat my post on this for you. The process goes like this. Your local TV station sends out a digital stream of ones and zeros. The digital tuner captures the stream. No other way to do it, so E* product is the same as Tivo.

The tuner sends the ones and zeros to the motherboard where they travel through any or all of the following, ram memory, CPU to get deposited as ones and zeros on the hard drive. No other way to do it, so E* product is the same as Tivo.

Above process repeats while I watch a show that I already recorded. E* product does the same but not legally.

Get it now? There is no other way for E* or anyone else to implement this any other way. Yeah, there are RAM drives that replace your hard drive and are way faster than hard drives BUT, a 250 GB RAM drive currently costs about 6,000 bucks so we can rule that out. Plus if the enternal battery gets drained down in about 10 minutes you loose your operating system for the DVR, plus every single recording.

Can E* possibly change anything else to make themselves different from the Tivo implementation?

I say if so, the tech has not been invented yet and probably will not be in our lifetimes. Therefore, E* can only pay Tivo or back out of the DVR business.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

old7 said:


> Oh, and I AM right, the re-examination is a completely separate issue from the appeal.


I really do not care about that. All I care about is that E* DVR's will be toast unless they pay Tivo.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Greg Bimson said:


> That is the problem, bobneth.
> 
> The stay was only granted to review the court case only, not the validity of the patents. Because of the use of the word "AND", your statement ends up being false.
> 
> ...


ok, so you are saying there is the possibility that we night have to have another trial. I get it. But I think the time warp patent is a slam dunk.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

fallingwater said:


> Your post which stated $199 was nonsense. Your other statements of 'fact' may well be in the same zone. I've seen it for $260.
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5877175#post5877175
> So? Can and will you?


No, in the last month I have definitely seen the Tivo HD for $199 quite a few places but I tend to be all over the internet so right now I cannot remember where. Your nonsense is my perfect sense.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> Nope, do not own Tivo securities yet, but, the story is shaping up oh so nicely. Blast off is fairly imminent. If I wanted to tout the stock then I would be on Yahoo where I have spent almost 10 years making astounding stock picks. Great message boards at yahoo. They have one for every stock..


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

bobneth said:


> Can E* possibly change anything else to make themselves different from the Tivo implementation?
> 
> I say if so, the tech has not been invented yet and probably will not be in our lifetimes.


Famous last words often stated by someone who clearly is not an engineer.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

bobneth said:


> Well Dave, I will repeat my post on this for you. The process goes like this. Your local TV station sends out a digital stream of ones and zeros. The digital tuner captures the stream. No other way to do it, so E* product is the same as Tivo.


I'm not seeing the term 'ones and zeros' in the patent.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

HiDefGator said:


> Famous last words often stated by someone who clearly is not an engineer.


Not an engineer, but I play one in real life.

Ha ha

Anyway, tell me how any engineer is going to make a DVR implementation any different then the guys who own the patents.

Seriously, digital stream, tuner, motherboard, memory, cpu, hard drive.

Are you going to tell me that some engineer is going to figure out how to store your shows by hooking a cord to your brain or what? Computers have been the same for a long time, at least 50 years, they all have what is listed above and that is all you need to have a DVR.

So whats up pussycat?


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Adam1115 said:


> I'm not seeing the term 'ones and zeros' in the patent.


Just pulling my leg or do you actually have a point?


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

bobneth said:


> "The re-examination is a completely separate issue from the infringement trial"
> 
> Never said it was one issue. That was just people putting words in my mouth.


Bob, first you were confused about the job of the patent office:



bobneth said:


> Curtis said:
> 
> 
> > The patent office never said anything about whether Echostar infringed TiVo's patent. That isn't their job.
> ...





bobneth said:


> So the patent office was asked to determine if the patent aplied to the Echostar lawsuit. So in a way, yes, the patent office proved that Echostar was in violation of the patents.


We finally made it clear to you that is was not the patent offices job to find anyone in violation of a patent and that the patent office re-examined the patent in question and found it valid. It took you a while to understand, but I beleive that now you really do understand that it is not the job of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to "find" or "prove" others in violation of patents.

Now, you seem to have a problem with the concept that the court is not and has never waited for the patent office to find the patent valid or invalid. The patent re-examination and the appeal are two separate processes.



bobneth said:


> Second, Echostar gets a stay while waiting for the facts of the patent to come foward from the patent office.


Bob, you make it painfully clear that you either do not understand or that you choose to pretend to not understand.

There is a quote that comes to mind:


> It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. - Groucho Marx


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so I see no definitive answer one way or the other. Of course this compels me to preface any future discussion on Tivo replayTV with this huge caveat. Since it happened long ago and ReplayTV is out of the picture I doubt it will come up again in anything but other troll threads anyway


 You are the one that brought it up. I have no idea why. Please don't do it again.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Curtis said:


> You are the one that brought it up. I have no idea why. Please don't do it again.


it was a listing of licenses that TiVo had to show they were amenable to making license deals. It was one of a list - frankly I may just keep saying apple ReplayTV cross license from now on just becasue you are being so rude about it


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> frankly I may just keep saying apple ReplayTV cross license from now on just becasue you are being so rude about it


Please be sure to add a footnote telling the story of your hissy fit.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

bobneth said:


> Well Dave, I will repeat my post on this for you. The process goes like this. Your local TV station sends out a digital stream of ones and zeros. The digital tuner captures the stream. No other way to do it, so E* product is the same as Tivo.
> 
> The tuner sends the ones and zeros to the motherboard where they travel through any or all of the following, ram memory, CPU to get deposited as ones and zeros on the hard drive. No other way to do it, so E* product is the same as Tivo.
> 
> ...


This is the part where you are fundamentally wrong. It isn't as simple as "ones and zeros" -> "any or all of the following, ram memory, CPU" -> "hard drive.

You see, that particular configuration of "ram, memory, CPU" is what the patent covers, not the physical act of simultaneous recording and playback. If you had actually read the patent and understood what it covered, the words "Barton Media Switch" may mean something to you.

To answer your question, yes - E* can change the arraingement and composition of "any or all of the following, ram memory, CPU". It appears that they have done so in their latest round of hardware, including this TR-50 device (bonus points for being back on topic!).


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Curtis said:


> Please be sure to add a footnote telling the story of your hissy fit.


no hissy fit just a notice of your curt, rude posting style.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

bobneth said:


> Just pulling my leg or do you actually have a point?


No, I was just trying to figure out what ones and zeros had to do with the patent.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> no hissy fit just a notice of your curt, rude posting style.


Well then maybe you could say something like: "I am posting this lie because of another poster's curt, rude posting style".


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Curtis said:


> Well then maybe you could say something like: "I am posting this lie because of another poster's curt, rude posting style".


you never _definitively_ proved it did not exist


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> you never _definitively_ proved it did not exist


Again, it was your assertion. You had the burden of proof. We are done here.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

bobneth said:


> Just pulling my leg or do you actually have a point?


I couldn't have said it better.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

FYI, here is SonicBlue's (now DirecTV's) patent: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6324338-claims.html

It covers quite a bit. It's more broad than Tivo's. Has anyone bothered to read this? Or the 30 other relevant DVR patents? Most of which are not owned by Tivo?

FYI #2, the detailed agreement between SonicBlue and Tivo was never disclosed. So that arguement is a draw. A cross-licensing agreement is almost always established in these cases, but we have no insight as to whether this did or did not occur. With SonicBlue's subsequent folding, Tivo probably didn't feel the need to pursue one anymore. Now that D* owns the same IPR, that may change once their current agreement with Tivo runs out.

FYI #3 -- we are waaaaaaaay off topic.

Here's a relevant post: the HR-50 seems like a nice entry-level DVR. I think I'll tell my parents about it. They don't like the Tivo HD as it's too expensive. They think it's silly to pay a monthly fee for the amount of TV they record. They just want something to record a few shows with, and their DVD recorder is a pain to use. If the guide data is any good, I think this will solve their problem.

I also don't think it competes with the HD. That's a mid to high-end DVR while this DVR is a low-end DVR.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> Here's a relevant post: the HR-50 seems like a nice entry-level DVR. I think I'll tell my parents about it. They don't like the Tivo HD as it's too expensive. They think it's silly to pay a monthly fee for the amount of TV they record. They just want something to record a few shows with, and their DVD recorder is a pain to use. If the guide data is any good, I think this will solve their problem.
> 
> I also don't think it competes with the HD. That's a mid to high-end DVR while this DVR is a low-end DVR.


I currently run a TiVo HD with OTA and analog cable. Come Feb. I will put cable cards in it so I am not looking for just OTA... but if the HR-50 is cheap enough it could make a good backup for cable out or take on vacation to the beach house DVR, since all I would have to do is find out the antenna setting for where I would go. Wonder if it can deal with redoing guided setup while keeping scheduled recordings and adjusting to the new channel lineup?


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

GoHokies said:


> To answer your question, yes - E* can change the arraingement and composition of "any or all of the following, ram memory, CPU". It appears that they have done so in their latest round of hardware, including this TR-50 device (bonus points for being back on topic!).


Ahh, but therein lies the rub...

Are you sure they changed the arrangement? That was my question all along before this topic was beaten to shreds.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Wonder if it can deal with redoing guided setup while keeping scheduled recordings and adjusting to the new channel lineup?


I can tell you that there is no guided setup on the Dish DVRs currently, so we don't know if there will be one on this box.

As it is only ATSC and NTSC, I'm assuming it will just do a channel scan, like most TVs currently do, as there isn't much more to set up. It gets the guide data OTA.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

classicX said:


> I can tell you that there is no guided setup on the Dish DVRs currently, so we don't know if there will be one on this box.
> 
> As it is only ATSC and NTSC, I'm assuming it will just do a channel scan, like most TVs currently do, as there isn't much more to set up. It gets the guide data OTA.


Right. A DISH DVR for the DISH network would not really need a guided setup by the end user like a TiVo would.
This OTA box could use some, like the channel scan - and i am wondering out loud if I took it to the beach for a week or two would the change in channels casue hassles with scheduled recordings/whatever season passes equivalent is on this box - which uses a variation of the VIP622 code


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> Ahh, but therein lies the rub...
> 
> Are you sure they changed the arrangement? That was my question all along before this topic was beaten to shreds.


to answer your legitimately raised question - You need to consider the fact that the TiVo patent is actually fairly detailed and fairly specific. I quote it at the end of this post. Also this patent was made in the day of analog signals and the series 2. With digital signal and better processors you can do something different that would negate the need for the parser(which is the heart of the media switch and thus the heart of this patent)

It would in fact be fairly straightforward to avoid infringing if starting from scratch like Echostar did with the VIP622 and thus also the HR-50. In fact given all the bugs and problems they had with the VIP622 when it first came out I would say they did make some significant changes. It might not be non-trivial for the engineers but it would still be a straightforward task.
The engineers at Dish have a lot of experience in the DVR market, I would bet my money on not infringing along with fallingwater.



> A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising the steps of:
> accepting television (TV) broadcast signals, wherein said TV signals are based on a multitude of standards, including, but not limited to, National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) broadcast, PAL broadcast, satellite transmission, DSS, DBS, or ATSC;
> tuning said TV signals to a specific program;
> providing at least one Input Section, wherein said Input Section converts said specific program to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation;
> ...


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Also this patent was made in the day of analog signals and the series 2. With digital signal and better processors you can do something different that would negate the need for the parser(which is the heart of the media switch and thus the heart of this patent)


Well, that is why I am asking the question. Because the transmission is still analog (it is travelling over radio waves, a question raised during the trial), just because there is a digital signal does not mean an Echostar DVR avoids the patent. So if this product decodes/decouples an MPEG stream for storage and playback, I recall that it violates a claim in the patent.

Also, realize the 622 was released a mere months before the TiVo trial. It is one of those products that have yet to be determined whether or not it violates the Time Warp patent.

The last witness on the stand for Echostar at the TiVo trial was an executive from Broadcom, the supplier of the chips that make up both TiVo's Media Switch and Echostar's DVR's. It turns out the 622 also contains Broadcom's chips. So it is entirely possible that the 622 is built off of prior Dish Network products, which would put that product squarely in the infringing category.

Hence the reason I asked the question.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

GoHokies! said:


> You see, that particular configuration of "ram, memory, CPU" is what the patent covers, not the physical act of simultaneous recording and playback.


I think you are wrong. After all, every computer is configured the same way, input source for data flows to the motherboard, ram, cpu, hard drive.

As for your reference to the Barton media switch, I already know about that but the thing is that James Barton is one of the six guys who invented the Tivo and the patent assignee is listed as none other than Tivo. So once again, E is stealing.

You wrote:

"To answer your question, yes - E* can change the arraingement and composition of "any or all of the following, ram memory, CPU"."

SO SO SO WRONG.

Then you wrote:

"It appears that they have done so in their latest round of hardware, including this TR-50 device"

Yet you post no proof of such and nobody here has confirmed what you say. You are just making up what you think sounds good.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Adam1115 said:


> No, I was just trying to figure out what ones and zeros had to do with the patent.


They have nothing to do with the patent. I was just trying to illustrate to some slow thinkers why it is impossible to configure a tuner, motherboard, ram, cpu and hard drive in any other configuration to slip around the Tivo patent.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

BobCamp1 said:


> FYI #3 -- we are waaaaaaaay off topic.


Yeah, it really cracks me up. Some of the most vocal people accusing me of hijacking the thread are talking at great length here about the defunct Sonic Blue. What does that have to do with the topic? Sheeshh

Anyway, take a peak at the trial thread. I swear that about 85 percent of that thread has nothing to do with the trial. Proving my point that conversations cannot be neatly folded into one category. People and issues are just way too complex for that.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

bobneth said:


> They have nothing to do with the patent. I was just trying to illustrate to some slow thinkers why it is impossible to configure a tuner, motherboard, ram, cpu and hard drive in any other configuration to slip around the Tivo patent.


That's what I asked, I don't see motherboard, ram, cpu, hard drive, ones, zero's in TiVo's patent.

Maybe I'm a 'slow thinker' but did TiVo invent the personal computer? You lost me...


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Greg Bimson said:


> Ahh, but therein lies the rub...
> 
> Are you sure they changed the arrangement? That was my question all along before this topic was beaten to shreds.


I agree with you. People here just do not seem to understand what I am trying to tell them. That is that the motherboard houses the ram and CPU. Data comes into the motherboard, flows to the ram, CPU and then to the hard drive

Yes, I know that under certain conditions that data can bypass the ram and go directly to CPU and the hard drive but that has no bearing on anything here.

These people that think the hardware can be rearranged to skirt the Tivo patent must think that the data can get to the hard drive by hooking things up in some different order. They need to engage what God gave them, upstairs that is, before putting fingers to keyboard.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Right. A DISH DVR for the DISH network would not really need a guided setup by the end user like a TiVo would.
> This OTA box could use some, like the channel scan - and i am wondering out loud if I took it to the beach for a week or two would the change in channels casue hassles with scheduled recordings/whatever season passes equivalent is on this box - which uses a variation of the VIP622 code


Why worry about that when the product is not even slated to be on the market for six more months AND will probably never make it to the market unless E ponies up the cash to Tivo?

AND a Tivo will work for what you are planing?


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Greg Bimson said:


> Also, realize the 622 was released a mere months before the TiVo trial. It is one of those products that have yet to be determined whether or not it violates the Time Warp patent.
> 
> The last witness on the stand for Echostar at the TiVo trial was an executive from Broadcom, the supplier of the chips that make up both TiVo's Media Switch and Echostar's DVR's. It turns out the 622 also contains Broadcom's chips. So it is entirely possible that the 622 is built off of prior Dish Network products, which would put that product squarely in the infringing category.
> 
> Hence the reason I asked the question.


He tends to conveniently leave important details like that out. Believe me, I would bet every dollar I have that the 622 infringes. He thinks that just because he says something it is fact.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> Hence the reason I asked the question.


since none of us are engineers that have either unit to take apart then there is no definitive answer on what is inside -
my point is that the infringement can be avoided while still recording and playing back, the engineers had the "roadmap" on what is in the patent and what is not and the whole thing would have to be another suit by TiVo to determine infringement anyway. Why do you all insist on asking a question that has been answered as well as it can be.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> He tends to conveniently leave important details like that out. Believe me, I would bet every dollar I have that the 622 infringes. He thinks that just because he says something it is fact.


good- take up fallingwater on his offer then - or else we all know you are just bluster and FUD


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Adam1115 said:


> That's what I asked, I don't see motherboard, ram, cpu, hard drive, ones, zero's in TiVo's patent.
> 
> Maybe I'm a 'slow thinker' but did TiVo invent the personal computer? You lost me...


Ok, maybe I am doing a bad job of explaining. Let me try something else. By talking about the hardware configuration I was trying to show the people that think E can reconfigure and therefore avoid the Tivo patent, that they are wrong.

Those same people claim it is the configuration that matters. I maintain that the patent is more about recording while viewing a previously recorded program. These others think it is about physical configuration of the hardware. I think it is more about patenting the concept and implementing it. Not just one or the other.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=IeoIAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=6,233,389#PPP1,M1


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

[QUOTE=ZeoTiVo

You wrote:

"since none of us are engineers that have either unit to take apart then there is no definitive answer on what is inside"

Lets try tuner to provide the signal, motherboard to provide pathways to the ram and then pathways to the CPU then pathways to the hard drive.

Oh yeah, also the Barton Media switch patened by Tivo. 

Ok, so now we know what is inside. Believe you me, if it were anything else E would be screaming it to every news outlet in the land that they had found a way to circumvent the Tivo patents.

Then you wrote:

'my point is that the infringement can be avoided while still recording and playing back"

OH SO WRONG

Read all of the above five times.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> good- take up fallingwater on his offer then - or else we all know you are just bluster and FUD


I can afford to take him up on his offer 850,000 times over. I do not need his $1,000 - I will let him keep it.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> I can afford to take him up on his offer 850,000 times over. I do not need his $1,000 - I will let him keep it.


so you are all bluster then. not surprising


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so you are all bluster then. not surprising


Did you read that other post five times? Starting to sink in yet?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> Those same people claim it is the configuration that matters. I maintain that the patent is more about recording while viewing a previously recorded program. These others think it is about physical configuration of the hardware.


the court took a long time and many technical experts going over exactly how the Ehcostar DVRs work i ndetail. The court knew patent law and that the configuration very much mattered. all your FUD is meaningless next to the actions the court took in determing true infringement


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so you are all bluster then. not surprising


Plus I forgot to add that there is nobody here that is going to escrow our monies for that bet. You know it and i know it. Also, why would I send money to some guy who volunteers to escrow the money? Some guy I never met? Are you an six year old?


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> my point is that the infringement can be avoided while still recording and playing back, the engineers had the "roadmap" on what is in the patent and what is not and the whole thing would have to be another suit by TiVo to determine infringement anyway. Why do you all insist on asking a question that has been answered as well as it can be.


Because there are plenty of people that say the 622 and its successors do not infringe. We simply do not know that, and the judge which has issued the injunction allowed forward-infringing devices to be subject to the injunction.


bobneth said:


> These people that think the hardware can be rearranged to skirt the Tivo patent must think that the data can get to the hard drive by hooking things up in some different order. They need to engage what God gave them, upstairs that is, before putting fingers to keyboard.


Slow down.

There is a way to circumvent the patent, but it must be circumvented on both the hardware and software claims of the Time Warp patent. In other words, if Dish Network were to avoid the media switch altogether, and find a slightly different way of recording the shows, they'd more than likely be out of the infringement zone.

That is why I asked the question. No more, no less. Every other Dish Network receiver has been given an MSRP upon the announcement of the product. Not this TR-50.

Too many of us are working with preconcieved notions.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the court took a long time and many technical experts going over exactly how the Ehcostar DVRs work i ndetail. The court knew patent law and that the configuration very much mattered. all your FUD is meaningless next to the actions the court took in determing true infringement


The technical experts are there to provide answers so the jury and the lawyers and the judge can understand what the hell is at issue. They found that E had to shut down their DVR's. WHAT IS YOUR POINT?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> That is why I asked the question. No more, no less. Every other Dish Network receiver has been given an MSRP upon the announcement of the product. Not this TR-50.


it was shown as CES which typically is for products that are in development but not quite ready for release. given it is 6 months out, it would be wise to not quote a price for it yet. I would not read much more into it than that


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> The technical experts are there to provide answers so the jury and the lawyers and the judge can understand what the hell is at issue. They found that E had to shut down their DVR's. WHAT IS YOUR POINT?


you say it is as simple as recording and playing something back. They needed technical experts to explain only that 
Your FUD is pretty lame


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Greg Bimson said:


> In other words, if Dish Network were to avoid the media switch altogether, and find a slightly different way of recording the shows, they'd more than likely be out of the infringement zone.


Then let me inject this:

As far as I know the media switch separates the audio and video streams to send them off to their needed destinations, decoders.

So with Tivo owning the patent to the media switch, the idea has already been patented and therefore E infringes with it in their product and they cannot produce a DVR without it. So how can E eliminate the media switch? Makes no sense to me. Sorry, not trying to be rude, just the way I see it.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> you say it is as simple as recording and playing something back. They needed technical experts to explain only that
> Your FUD is pretty lame


You forget that I am a very tech savvy person but that jury needs things explained to them and conniving lawyers try to confuse the jury. It takes time for each lawyer to overcome the BS of the other lawyer. Thats why they bring in the experts. It has nothing to do with me or you, just that courts have to be very meticulous. Also, I have the benifit of seeing that the court already found in favor of Tivo. The jury did not have that advantage until the trial was over. They had to be careful to understand what was up.

But then, I should not need to explain that to you unless I really am talking to a 6-25 year old.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Got to go watch some TV.

Later


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> Nope, do not own Tivo securities yet, but, the story is shaping up oh so nicely. Blast off is fairly imminent. If I wanted to tout the stock then I would be on Yahoo where I have spent almost 10 years making astounding stock picks. Great message boards at yahoo. They have one for every stock..





ZeoTiVo said:


>


just to bring anyone up to speed here


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

bobneth said:


> As far as I know the media switch separates the audio and video streams to send them off to their needed destinations, decoders.


The claims say that it separates the audio and video streams so that they can be separately time tagged and stored. They are re-assembled and sent to the MPEG-2 decoders as a single stream. The separate streams storage allows for a variety of things to be done in a way that requires less computer power than handling the full up stream.



> So how can E eliminate the media switch?


By directly processing the composite stream. With Todays chips and processors being about 50 times faster or more powerful than what was available in 1998, thanks to Moore's Law, it is doable with cheap modern hardware.

So the box may not infringe the primary claims of this patent. However, there are details in the claims, that the box still may infringe, even if it doesn't have a Barton Media Switch implementation. TiVo also has other patents it my infringe on.

It makes sense, but is very detailed. It is simply just not a slam dunk. We pretty much all wish it were a slam dunk, but wishful thinking gets us nowhere.

This device may very well be a very viable product and competitor to TiVo. But TiVo is not asleep at the switch and is already pretty far ahead of them in so many different ways. So even if this device doesn't infringe, TiVo is not at imminent risk of demise. Echostar will still owe for the devices they did infringe and the landscape will still change for the better once the judges have spoken.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

CuriousMark said:


> So the box may not infringe the primary claims of this patent. However, there are details in the claims, that the box still may infringe, even if it doesn't have a Barton Media Switch implementation. TiVo also has other patents it my infringe on.
> 
> It makes sense, but is very detailed. It is simply just not a slam dunk. We pretty much all wish it were a slam dunk, but wishful thinking gets us nowhere.


yes, I do agree with the above as well. The swirl has been around one aspect but there are other patents Echostar has to deal with as well


> This device may very well be a very viable product and competitor to TiVo. But TiVo is not asleep at the switch and is already pretty far ahead of them in so many different ways. So even if this device doesn't infringe, TiVo is not at imminent risk of demise. Echostar will still owe for the devices they did infringe and the landscape will still change for the better once the judges have spoken.


 yah, a logical company would have negotiated either before the trial or just after while also pushing the appeal through. The negotiation would have taken care of all devices and cleared up any doubt. Echostar has not followed any logical course of action so far though so lots of guesses as to how it all turns out.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> yah, a logical company would have negotiated either before the trial or just after while also pushing the appeal through. The negotiation would have taken care of all devices and cleared up any doubt. Echostar has not followed any logical course of action so far though so lots of guesses as to how it all turns out.


I don't know. For the last two years Echostar has sold millions of dvr's, signed up lots of new subscribers, and mgmt has cashed lots of bonus checks. So far the strategy seems to be working perfectly for them. heck they even have the highest cnet rated dvr. until that reality actually changes it is hard to call them illogical.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

CuriousMark said:


> The claims say that it separates the audio and video streams so that they can be separately time tagged and stored. They are re-assembled and sent to the MPEG-2 decoders as a single stream. The separate streams storage allows for a variety of things to be done in a way that requires less computer power than handling the full up stream.
> 
> By directly processing the composite stream. With Todays chips and processors being about 50 times faster or more powerful than what was available in 1998, thanks to Moore's Law, it is doable with cheap modern hardware.
> 
> ...


Great post. I see there is intelligent life on this board.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

HiDefGator said:


> I don't know. For the last two years Echostar has sold millions of dvr's, signed up lots of new subscribers, and mgmt has cashed lots of bonus checks. So far the strategy seems to be working perfectly for them. heck they even have the highest cnet rated dvr. until that reality actually changes it is hard to call them illogical.


Very simple really, if you are looking for the proper word to describe E then it would have to be thieves and thieves are NEVER logical. Thieves are just plain scum. To praise thievery is highly suspect and shows tendencies of unclear thought. Have a nice night.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

ZeoTiVo said:


> just to bring anyone up to speed here


Hey Zeo, thanks for the summary. Wish you posted it little earlier so I could skip most of a garbage of this Yahoo stock board troll. At some point about 100 posts ago I was thinking that guy is just confused beyond recovery.
Back to the subject. This new DVR form Dish is a very stong entry into uncharted waters. If it takes off, we may see new entries in a market from companies like SONY, Microsoft or perhaps even DirecTV that may decide to use recent purchase of Replay. Even TiVo may decide to use their name recognition and come up with high end OTA unit. But I have some problems believing that this unit will be accepted by public. By the time this DVR hits the market we will have hundreds of cable and satellite channels availble from almost all providers. It will be the same situation as years ago when cable was introduced. Do you want to pay extra for the choice of programming or get limited programming OTA? I think that public has been spoiled by the choices and with cost of gas and everything else being sky high another $100 a month to get extra 100 channels will look like peanuts to an average consumer.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Right. A DISH DVR for the DISH network would not really need a guided setup by the end user like a TiVo would.
> This OTA box could use some, like the channel scan - and i am wondering out loud if I took it to the beach for a week or two would the change in channels casue hassles with scheduled recordings/whatever season passes equivalent is on this box - which uses a variation of the VIP622 code


Well it might, unless they accounted for it.

There really isn't a way to tell the ViP622 to record all episodes of a certain show, no matter what channel it's on - if you move the DVR, the 'Timers' (as they call all scheduled events) may not move with the channels, although it's not difficult to edit them.

The ViP622 also saves your searches, so if you searched for, say, The Sarah Connor Chronicles before it was in the guide, and then waited a week, you can just return to that search without having to type it in again. This is very helpful.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

bobneth said:


> Great post. I see there is intelligent life on this board.


You're just now seeing that?

This is what we've been trying and failing miserably to tell you over and over and over again. *It is now technically possible to build a DVR without infringing on Tivo's patents.*

Why the thieving scumbags at E* didn't just do that the first time around is the million dollar question - although recent advances in technology may have opened up options that weren't available when the infringing DVRs were produced, but of course I don't have your tech savvy or 850,000 dollar IQ so I don't understand what those fancy technical details are (but maybe if I just spew enough vitriol about E* you'll agree with me, since you obviously don't understand the technical details either).


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> Ahh, but therein lies the rub...
> 
> Are you sure they changed the arrangement? That was my question all along before this topic was beaten to shreds.


And a great question it is!

One would think that a rationally thinking company would be concerned enough about the outcome of the trial to hold off on the development of further infringing products until this process shakes itself out. There are really 3 main possibilities here:

1. E* is clueless/deluded/doesn't care and the TR-50 infringes.
2. E* changed the design, but not enough and it will be found to be infringing.
3. E* changed the design and the TR-50 does not infringe.

Until we get further details on this unit we'll not know how the internals are configured (I wouldn't guess that this is going to happen until the device is publicly available for sale and people smarter than me crack it open and see what's inside).

(I also just noticed that you're my neighbor, I like just up the road in Odenton - howdy, neighbor!)


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

bobneth said:


> Very simple really, if you are looking for the proper word to describe E then it would have to be thieves and thieves are NEVER logical. Thieves are just plain scum. To praise thievery is highly suspect and shows tendencies of unclear thought. Have a nice night.


To categorize one as a thief, one must first define intent.

A man walking down the street, sees a $20 bill laying on the ground and picks it up. Is he a thief? Not based on that fact.

That same man sees an old lady drop $20 on the sidewalk. He picks it up and keeps it. Now is he a thief? It's a gray area.

That same man did something to cause the old lady to drop the $20. Now is he a thief? By all definitions, yes.

The old woman is the man's grandmother. She borrowed from him $100, and came to repay him. He feels guilty about having his grandmother repay him, so he secretly stuffs $20 in her pocket. He looks up and sees the $20 fall from her pocket, and picks it up. Now is he a thief? Of course not.

It all goes back to intent - by the definition of thief, we would need to know that E* had knowledge of the specific patents in question and decided to infringe anyway, with no intent to remunerate Tivo.

Can we say that with any certainty?

If they released their DVRs, then found out that they were infringing, of course the right thing to do would be to work out a deal with Tivo for some sort of compensation. But this is business - it's cheaper to drag it out for years in court while a) working around the patent and releasing a product that does not infringe and b) building revenue, and c) possibly working out a deal on the side.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

samo said:


> I think that public has been spoiled by the choices and with cost of gas and everything else being sky high another $100 a month to get extra 100 channels will look like peanuts to an average consumer.


I completely disagree with that statement. With the price of everything on the rise, I'd be looking harder than ever for ways to save money.

I love HD, I want to record HD. Most channels that I watch are available OTA. I decide I don't want the added cost of cable. Do I pay $299 for a TivoHD and have to pay as much as $20 per month, or do I get the Dish offering at $499*, but not have to pay anything per month?

I personally would opt for the latter, unless Tivo was planning on introducing a similar product with no monthly fee.

*For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that the HR-50 is significant more expensive than the TivoHD. If the argument holds true for a higher price, any lower price point would only sweeten the deal.

**It's no secret that I prefer the Dish interface to Tivo, so given equal hardware pricing and no monthly fee, I'd still choose Dish. Please rebut my argument as you see fit.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

GoHokies! said:


> You're just now seeing that?
> 
> This is what we've been trying and failing miserably to tell you over and over and over again. *It is now technically possible to build a DVR without infringing on Tivo's patents.*
> 
> Why the thieving scumbags at E* didn't just do that the first time around is the million dollar question - although recent advances in technology may have opened up options that weren't available when the infringing DVRs were produced, but of course I don't have your tech savvy or 850,000 dollar IQ so I don't understand what those fancy technical details are (but maybe if I just spew enough vitriol about E* you'll agree with me, since you obviously don't understand the technical details either).


Actually I read his stupid post as 850,000 times the $1000 wager which makes him almost a billionaire.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

GoHokies! said:


> You're just now seeing that?
> 
> This is what we've been trying and failing miserably to tell you over and over and over again. *It is now technically possible to build a DVR without infringing on Tivo's patents.*


*

Whoops, I see my post gave you the wrong impression. Below are the points of his post that I thought were great.

"So the box MAY not infringe the primary claims of this patent. However, there are details in the claims, that the box still may infringe, even if it doesn't have a Barton Media Switch implementation. TiVo also has other patents it my infringe on"

A great part he also said:

"This device may very well be a very viable product and competitor to TiVo. But TiVo is not asleep at the switch and is already pretty far ahead of them in so many different ways. So even if this device doesn't infringe, TiVo is not at imminent risk of demise. Echostar will still owe for the devices they did infringe and the landscape will still change for the better once the judges have spoken"

As for what he said that I do not agree with:

His claim that processors are 50 times faster now is way off base. In 1998 as he mentioned, my computer had a 400 megehertz CPU. Today, the fastest is 4 GHZ. That is only 10 times faster and I have read that the Tivo products have a 200 MHZ CPU that costs Tivo about 18 bucks. A 4 GHZ CPU runs about $180 bucks. Just checked prices. A processor that expensive is not at all likely to make it into a $299 box. (Tivo HD)

And when you say:

"It is now technically possible to build a DVR without infringing on Tivo's patents"

I seriously doubt that you know what you are talking about. You certainly do not post any links that prove anything. Just your opinion.*


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

bobneth said:


> I have read that the Tivo products have a 200 MHZ CPU that costs Tivo about 18 bucks.





bobneth said:


> You certainly do not post any links that prove anything. Just your opinion.


This just in: bobneth is writing your posts for you!


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

samo said:


> Back to the subject. This new DVR form Dish is a very stong entry into uncharted waters. If it takes off, we may see new entries in a market from companies like SONY, Microsoft or perhaps even DirecTV that may decide to use recent purchase of Replay. Even TiVo may decide to use their name recognition and come up with high end OTA unit. But I have some problems believing that this unit will be accepted by public.


Well for the typical HD market I would agree that getting sat or cable service, along with a DVR for same is how they would go.
there is a unique market condition coming up though. Lots of "rabbit ear" or just plain old analog cable folks, who may not even be considering a DVR at all right now will in the next few years be forced to take some action in order to deal with receiving programming digitally instead of analog. If they hear of a box wth a one time cost and they do not have to have *any* monthly cost even for the programs themselves - that would seem a reasonable course to take since they have to do something.

TiVo has had the problem of never being able to explain the benefits of a DVR in general within 30 seconds. It makes moot going on to explain all the other benefits of TiVo specifically or introducing other product lines if it will just face the uphill "why get a DVR in the first place" battle. With other competitors coming into the market DVRs will finally get by this definition of the 2nd market stage
from http://techbuddha.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/four-stages-of-a-market/
"Stage 2. Conscious incompetence. The market starts to realize that there is a problem that needs to be solved, but is generally unaware of how to solve it or what solutions are available."

and into the 3rd stage
"Stage 3. Conscious competence. The market is addressing the problem, solutions are becoming more mature, but they are not fully operationalized or commoditized."

I am excited about this emergence of DVR options for the DVR market. TiVo has actually suffered by not having competent direct competition in the stand alone market.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

GoHokies! said:


> There are really 3 main possibilities here:
> 
> 1. E* is clueless/deluded/doesn't care and the TR-50 infringes.
> 2. E* changed the design, but not enough and it will be found to be infringing.
> 3. E* changed the design and the TR-50 does not infringe


I will go with number one. Why? Well let's see.

1) E has been stealing intellectual property rights from Tivo for many years. (blatant thieves)

2) A trial verified number 1

3) E continues to thieve on Tivo despite number 2

4) If E recent product contained a work around and does not infringe, they would have put the word out to at least 10 news wires and we would be hearing about it BIG time.

5) The thieves are still showing their colors, mark my words.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Oh, and by the way - measure straight Mhz to Mhz is not a valid comparison of speed. While processors may or may not be "50 times" more powerful than before, they certainly are more efficient.

A 400 Mhz processor designed and created from scratch today would almost certainly be "faster" than the 400 Mhz processors of old.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> TiVo has actually suffered by not having competent direct competition in the stand alone market.


Do you mean that Tivo has had a lack of innovation lately because no one else is out there forcing them to?

Just like the athlete or chess champion that is so much better than the competition that he or she is literally _unable_ to improve, because there is no measure by which they can test their skills?

I just wanted to clarify.

And basketball games are so much more interesting when both teams are good.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

bobneth said:


> I will go with number one. Why? Well let's see.
> 
> 1) E has been stealing intellectual property rights from Tivo for many years. (blatant thieves)
> 
> ...





bobneth said:


> You certainly do not post any links that prove anything. Just your opinion.


How do you know that they *knowingly* infringed in the first place?

As I stated in my previous post, there is a big difference between knowingly infringing and unknowingly infringing.

As for number 4, advertising that their newest product does not infringe is an indirect admission that ALL previous products do infringe. I wouldn't expect them to make a big deal out of it not infringing, seeing as how most consumers assume that by virtue of the fact that a product remains on the market, that the manufacturer has the right to sell it. Neither would they see it as a major selling point.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

bobneth said:


> I will go with number one. Why? Well let's see.
> 
> 4) If E recent product contained a work around and does not infringe, they would have put the word out to at least 10 news wires and we would be hearing about it BIG time.


Actually, that would be pretty stupid, as saying "hey our new DVR doesn't infringe on Tivo's patent" would pretty much be an admission that the rest of their DVRs do.

That would probably be pretty bad news for them in the current legal proceedings.

So basically your argument is "I think that it's #1 because I think that E* is scum. Trust me!"

I'm sorry, but I just don't trust you. I'm going with 2 or 3.

It isn't that we're a bunch of Tivo haters and E* cheerleaders like you're trying to make us out to be. It's just that we don't let our dislike of E* blind us to the reality of the situation.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

classicX said:


> It all goes back to intent - by the definition of thief, we would need to know that E* had knowledge of the specific patents in question and decided to infringe anyway, with no intent to remunerate Tivo. Can we say that with any certainty?


Yes we can, a jury told E that they were infringing. (Knowledge)

The honorable thing to do would be to comply with the judge's order to shut down their DVR's and pay Tivo the 90 million dollars or work out a deal with Tivo. Instead, they are still stealing from Tivo right up to this very moment we are speaking.

Judge will make them pay dearly for that. I think we will be looking at 150 to 225 million in the end. AND then they will still be forced to shut down their DVR's. It is going to be so sweet when E gets it's butt handed to Tivo.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

classicX said:


> Do you mean that Tivo has had a lack of innovation lately because no one else is out there forcing them to?
> 
> Just like the athlete or chess champion that is so much better than the competition that he or she is literally _unable_ to improve, because there is no measure by which they can test their skills?.


good question as that is not what I specifically meant. TiVo did indeed hit a lull and has just in the last two years started to move forward again.

to extend your analogy
I meant it more as it is hard to promote a chess or sport event where only one side shows up. Fairly boring and the press does not cover it as an event but as more of a curiosity.
Also if you are facing a competent chess opponent then your game play will get better. For example - TiVo never had to deal with the features a ReplayTV had since the referees took replay out of the game instead of the competition itself (customers) deciding who was better.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

classicX said:


> Please rebut my argument as you see fit.


My Tivo three-year prepaid was $300 for 36 months = $8.33 per month. Far cry from the $20 you mention. Lets play fair.

$8.33 is less than two rentals per month from the video store = VERY insignificant. Lets get real baby. Instead of making mountains out of nothing.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

classicX said:


> If they released their DVRs, then found out that they were infringing, of course the right thing to do would be to work out a deal with Tivo for some sort of compensation. But this is business - it's cheaper to drag it out for years in court while a) working around the patent and releasing a product that does not infringe and b) building revenue, and c) possibly working out a deal on the side.





bobneth said:


> Yes we can, a jury told E that they were infringing. (Knowledge)
> 
> The honorable thing to do would be to comply with the judge's order to shut down their DVR's and pay Tivo the 90 million dollars or work out a deal with Tivo. Instead, they are still stealing from Tivo right up to this very moment we are speaking.
> 
> Judge will make them pay dearly for that. I think we will be looking at 150 to 225 million in the end. AND then they will still be forced to shut down their DVR's.


No one said business was honorable, and no one expects an adversary to roll over quietly, especially in this case.

If Echostar turned off their DVRs after the first battle, I can all but guarantee that most if not all of their DVR customers would have jumped ship.

Not good for stock holders. Not good for employees of E*.



bobneth said:


> It is going to be so sweet when E gets it's butt handed to Tivo.


Why will it be so sweet? Please answer this, because I'd like to understand why you argue as if you were personally invested in the success of Tivo / demise of E*, when you say that you aren't.


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

bobneth said:


> The honorable thing to do would be to comply with the judge's order to shut down their DVR's and pay Tivo the 90 million dollars or work out a deal with Tivo. Instead, they are still stealing from Tivo right up to this very moment we are speaking.


bob, they don't have to "comply" right now. There is a stay on the injunction, which means business as usual at Dish Network and Echostar. Until the stay is lifted, the possible judgement to TiVo will continue to increase based upon the amount of infringing DVR's, interest on those fees, and any other mitigating factors (such as newer DVR's that could also be considered infringing).

And as an aside, TiVo's stock took quite a jump when the verdict was rendered. It would be less likely that the stock would even double once any possible payments are received, since those payments are already priced into the stock now.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

classicX said:


> Why will it be so sweet? Please answer this, because I'd like to understand why you argue as if you were personally invested in the success of Tivo / demise of E*, when you say that you aren't.





bobneth said:


> Nope, do not own Tivo securities yet, but, the story is shaping up oh so nicely. Blast off is fairly imminent. If I wanted to tout the stock then I would be on Yahoo where I have spent almost 10 years making astounding stock picks. Great message boards at yahoo. They have one for every stock..





ZeoTiVo said:


>


just to bring anyone up to speed here


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

RoyK said:


> Actually I read his stupid post as 850,000 times the $1000 wager which makes him almost a billionaire.


I am not going to go back to find my post but I am pretty sure I said something like I could take his wager 850 times over.

Times a thousand that is $850,000

I am not almost a billionaire.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

classicX said:


> This just in: bobneth is writing your posts for you!


Bob Neth scratches head and says:

What is that guy talking about?


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

bobneth said:


> My Tivo three-year prepaid was $300 for 36 months = $8.33 per month. Far cry from the $20 you mention. Lets play fair.
> 
> $8.33 is less than two rentals per month from the video store = VERY insignificant. Lets get real baby. Instead of making mountains out of nothing.


You should read posts more carfully. I said, and I quote, "pay as much as $20 per month."

Suffice it to say, even at $8.33 per month, it is not insignificant. Additionally, an extra $300 up front, on top of the $300 for the TivoHD, with only three years of service (after which you have to pay again), still represents a lot of money for a single TivoHD. Couple that with the fact that you must pay for each Tivo in your house, it for a lot of people, it's cost prohibitive, and they would rather pay nothing up front and $10 per month than pay _anything_ up front and at least $8.33 per month, regardless of how much better the interface is.

Let's wildly assume the Dish box is $499 - would I rather pay $499 once with no further commitment, or $599 for a Tivo and have to pay again after three years? It's a simple choice.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

bobneth said:


> I am not going to go back to find my post but I am pretty sure I said something like I could take his wager 850 times over.
> 
> Times a thousand that is $850,000
> 
> I am not almost a billionaire.





> I can afford to take him up on his offer 850,000 times over. I do not need his $1,000 - I will let him keep it.


Because I'm bored and had an extra 3 seconds.

RoyK: 1
Bobneth: -850 million


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

bobneth said:


> Bob Neth scratches head and says:
> 
> What is that guy talking about?


You deride people for making arguments without posting links, and in the same post you make an argument without posting a link.

I thought that much was obvious, but with that IQ, I guess I have to explain a little bit.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

GoHokies! said:


> Because I'm bored and had an extra 3 seconds.
> 
> RoyK: *1000*
> Bobneth: -850 million


FYP


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

classicX said:


> Oh, and by the way - measure straight Mhz to Mhz is not a valid comparison of speed. While processors may or may not be "50 times" more powerful than before, they certainly are more efficient.
> 
> A 400 Mhz processor designed and created from scratch today would almost certainly be "faster" than the 400 Mhz processors of old.


As I have stated before. I am a very tech savvy guy so you are not telling me anything I do not already know. Computers have been my main focus for 12 years. Better designed chips are about 4-8 percent faster than their previous, same mhz counterparts.

Compared to his 50 times faster and my 10 times faster, 4 to 8 percent is not even worth mentioning and that is why I did not mention it.

In other words, it was the solving of heat problems that would destroy the chips that allowed a rise to the 4 Ghz processors of today that provided the main increase in muscle power.

Your statement of:

"While processors may or may not be "50 times" more powerful than before, they certainly are more efficient"

needs to have the may or may not taken out. Reading something more like:

While processors are not "50 times" more powerful than before and not even eleven times more, they certainly are more efficient


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

classicX said:


> Let's wildly assume the Dish box is $499 - would I rather pay $499 once with no further commitment, or $599 for a Tivo and have to pay again after three years? It's a simple choice.


well to be fully rounded in my posts in this thread
I would rather spend the Money for a TiVo or indeed 3 of them as I like having extended basic cable and OTA together, along with the option to get HD from cable. This box is not going to consume the bulk of TiVo sales by any stretch but simply play strongly in the OTA only market. That may well be what ClassicX was meaning but I just wanted to clarify my position some.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Bottom line so far

1) new Dish standalone DVR with ATSC and NTSC to be released sometime in 2008, no pricing announced yet

2) the product may or may not infringe on Tivo's Time Warp patents

3) bobneth would like E* to die, even though there would be no benefit to him personally (so he says)

4) classicX likes Dish's DVR interface better than Tivo



Did I miss anything?


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> well to be fully rounded in my posts in this thread
> I would rather spend the Money for a TiVo or indeed 3 of them as I like having extended basic cable and OTA together, along with the option to get HD from cable. This box is not going to consume the bulk of TiVo sales by any stretch but simply play strongly in the OTA only market. That may well be what ClassicX was meaning but I just wanted to clarify my position some.


That's exactly what I meant - all other variables being equal, especially the "OTA only" part.

Also, depending on the cable system, HD locals are generally transmitted in the clear. My brother has only basic cable, but he bought a new HDTV with a digital tuner and found that several HD channels were available.

We need a lot more technical information about the HR-50 in order to gauge it's abilities (e.g. can it recognize OTA signals that have been diplexed with your basic cable, does it have two seperate inputs, allowing one to be OTA and the other NTSC, etc.). Once we know, we can make a further judgement about how much competition it will be for Tivo.

Hopefully they won't be like Apple and announce the product in January and then say nothing until the end of June.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

classicX said:


> How do you know that they *knowingly* infringed in the first place?
> 
> As for number 4, advertising that their newest product does not infringe is an indirect admission that ALL previous products do infringe.


Nobody can say for sure. My intuition just tells me that when a new product category is invented, DVR's in this case, companies thinking of entering into that business have their lawyers file patent searches with the patent office. To do otherwise is just irresponsible and does not excuse E from blame. (If you run a red light, but you tell the cop you did not know it was illegal to run red lights, the cop still gives you a ticket because you are responsible for knowing the law. They do not care if you plead ignorance) That is how laws work.

As for your next paragraph. Perhaps I am old school but I believe in conducting ones self in a way that honors God. When you say: "advertising that their newest product does not infringe is an indirect admission that ALL previous products do infringe" what you are really saying is that they are such scum bags that they are still will not admit it even though the court found them guilty.

Sorry, but in my view that trys to adhere to God's rules, that is nothing more than continuing to steal even though you were already caught once.

Have you kept up on the emerging "three strikes" laws that are gaining lots of attention in many states?

Severe punishment for three time offenders. Lets hope the judge knocks the wind out of their sorry @$#%#.

I vote for a 250 million penalty and having to disable their DVR's. Teach the thieves a serious lesson and then go full force after any other thieves.

Some of the past thieves, like C*, have already made deals with Tivo.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

GoHokies! said:


> Actually, that would be pretty stupid, as saying "hey our new DVR doesn't infringe on Tivo's patent" would pretty much be an admission that the rest of their DVRs do


To get an idea of my views on that read post number 400.

Being stupid is ok as long as E plays by God's rules.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

classicX said:


> Bottom line so far
> 
> 1) new Dish standalone DVR with ATSC and NTSC to be released sometime in 2008, no pricing announced yet
> 
> ...


5) You forget bobneth has 114 posts with 109 in just this thread on an account that is only a few days old.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

bobneth said:


> His claim that processors are 50 times faster now is way off base. In 1998 as he mentioned, my computer had a 400 megehertz CPU. Today, the fastest is 4 GHZ. That is only 10 times faster and I have read that the Tivo products have a 200 MHZ CPU that costs Tivo about 18 bucks. A 4 GHZ CPU runs about $180 bucks. Just checked prices. A processor that expensive is not at all likely to make it into a $299 box. (Tivo HD)


Perhaps you would accept 50 times more powerful, rather than faster. New processors clock speeds are not that much faster, but speed and throughput are also a function of transistor count. Moore's Law says that integration doubles about every 18 months. Higher integration produces greater throughput or speed at the same clock rate. In other words the system at a given price point can perform a particular function around 50 times faster now than then. It will also do this while consuming equivalent or less power.



> And when [GoHokies] says:
> 
> "It is now technically possible to build a DVR without infringing on Tivo's patents"
> 
> I seriously doubt that you know what you are talking about. You certainly do not post any links that prove anything. Just your opinion.


I would have to agree with GoHokies. I believe that you are ignorant on this and just posting confrontationally, which is wasting your and our time.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

At my local pc store an AMD Athlon 64 AM2 3800 lists for $69.00 and an AMD Athlon 64 AM2 *Dual Core 4000* goes for $89.00.\

*That's retail quantity one pricing*.

Large quantity negotiated pricing would without a doubt be only a fraction of that.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

classicX said:


> No one said business was honorable, and no one expects an adversary to roll over quietly, especially in this case.
> 
> If Echostar turned off their DVRs after the first battle, I can all but guarantee that most if not all of their DVR customers would have jumped ship.
> 
> ...


Business should be honorable. That is my point. When not, punishment is sure to follow. Go by God's principles and everything is much better. EVERYTHING in life is better.

Others have rolled over, including Comcast. Someone posted a fairly long list.

If they had turned off the DVR's the customers would have had no choice but to jump ship. The fact that it is not good for employees or stock holders simply means that E should have not have infringed in the first place. Their mistake, not mine. Sorry, but bad things happen to companies when infringing on intellectual property and getting caught. Time to pay the piper for their indiscretions

This has nothing to do with the demise of E. Their balance sheet shows that they can easily afford whatever fine gets thrown at them. For me, it is more about teaching thieves a lesson and wanting to see the inventor of the product I love get their due rewards.

Posting here gives me something to do while I await price movement on my other stocks. I said I do not own shares of Tivo and that is the truth. Though I do suspect that is going to change fairly soon. The day the court releases its final ruling, Tivo's stock price will go up at least 200 percent in my opinion, because it will be viewed a huge win for Tivo that will put an end to all other infringements, no matter who is the infringing party.


----------



## Martin Tupper (Dec 18, 2003)

classicX said:


> Bottom line so far
> 
> 1) new Dish standalone DVR with ATSC and NTSC to be released sometime in 2008, no pricing announced yet
> 
> ...


3a) bobneth's nine-figure net worth is surpassed only by his (not so) staggeringly-high IQ.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

bobneth said:


> Believe me, I would bet every dollar I have that the 622 infringes.


Hmmm...: 
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5877175#post5877175



> He thinks that just because he says something it is fact.


You made a specific claim but when asked to back it up couldn't come up with even a single example!! 
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5877228#post5877228


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

bobneth said:


> I can afford to take him up on his offer 850,000 times over. I do not need his $1,000 - I will let him keep it.


Mooshman's got $850 million??


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Greg Bimson said:


> And as an aside, TiVo's stock took quite a jump when the verdict was rendered. It would be less likely that the stock would even double once any possible payments are received, since those payments are already priced into the stock now.


I think I read somewhere that we are not supposed to talk about stocks on this board. However, I will make a brief comment. I believe that the fact that the injunction was stayed has hurt the stock price more than you think. NOT priced in currently.

Also, it is not so much about the payments as it is that this suit settled in Tivo's favor means Tivo will survive. Without it they will go bankrupt. The stock is very depressed because of those issues. It has been as high as $78.56 but it is currently below $7.00

In the last 34 quarters (8.5 years) there have only been 2 quarters were they showed a profit. Eventually they will have to close their doors if people do not stop stealing from them.

Good final ruling for Tivo = strong rebound on price of the stock, in my opinion.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

fallingwater said:


> Mooshman's got $850 million??


I have a feeling that his math is only slightly better than his grasp of patents and patent law.


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

bobneth said:


> If they had turned off the DVR's the customers would have had no choice but to jump ship. The fact that it is not good for employees or stock holders simply means that E should have not have infringed in the first place. Their mistake, not mine. Sorry, but bad things happen to companies when infringing on intellectual property and getting caught. Time to pay the piper for their indiscretions


Welcome to the world of the courts!

They are sorting out this mess and there will be some resolution. Until we get to the point that the issues are hammered out by the Court of Appeals, then more than likely back at the District Court, it will be business as usual. Dish Network will not be forced to stop all DVR functions until all issues are resolved. Although one can look at Dish Network's bottom line, the removal of DVR features from their customers will cause serious setbacks to Dish Network's business, including an exodus of current DVR customers as well as an inability to sign up new DVR customers. An injunction will irreparably harm their position in the market.

But the looming threat of an injunction will force Dish Network to do the right thing if TiVo wins upon appeal.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Martin Tupper said:


> 3a) bobneth's nine-figure net worth is surpassed only by his staggeringly-high IQ.


139 is high?


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

bobneth said:


> Plus I forgot to add that there is nobody here that is going to escrow our monies for that bet. You know it and i know it. Also, why would I send money to some guy who volunteers to escrow the money? Some guy I never met? Are you an six year old?


In truth, maybe not. But you don't actually know until you ask.

There are some Forum oldtimers whom I'd trust with $1000. Much more so than someone whom I don't otherwise know with 100+- posts, like you or me!!!


----------



## Martin Tupper (Dec 18, 2003)

classicX said:


> 139 is high?


I guess I missed his earlier quantification. I'll have to edit my post.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

bobneth said:


> In the last 34 quarters (8.5 years) there have only been 2 quarters were they showed a profit. Eventually they will have to close their doors if people do not stop stealing from them.


I read once that the profit from the first reporting went away in a follow up correction to their financial statement. So I think that should be 1 profitable quarter in the last 34.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> Business should be honorable. That is my point. .


posting should be honorable. That is *our* point.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

bobneth said:


> (If you run a red light, but you tell the cop you did not know it was illegal to run red lights, the cop still gives you a ticket because you are responsible for knowing the law. They do not care if you plead ignorance) That is how laws work.


True. Allow me to extend this analogy to be more in line with this case.

You run the red light, the cop gives you a ticket. Your choices are:

a) immediately pay the ticket, and completely stop driving unless you can prove that you're car is no longer capable of running red lights.

b) Fight the ticket. The longer the fight, the more the ticket will cost you, but the judge allows you to keep driving. Assuming you're driving to work, this means the judge is allowing you to keep getting paid until the battle is over. There is a chance that you will be able to make more money in the interim than the ticket will cost.

I choose b, since it's the only option that allows me to keep driving.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Greg Bimson said:


> And as an aside, TiVo's stock took quite a jump when the verdict was rendered. It would be less likely that the stock would even double once any possible payments are received, since those payments are already priced into the stock now.


Wall Street is very smart. They knew E would appeal. The stock jump on the first day was a muted response for that reason.

I should also mention that one day after the injunction, E won a stay against the injunction until the appeal process was over. That severely hurt the buying spree that normally would have occurred, with investors stepping all over each other and bidding the stock price up in a buying frenzy.

I have seen many stocks fly hours after a good news story but the really serious buying happens not on the day of the news, but in the coming days and weeks. The big funds have to invest gradually because they have so much money to invest that the are like elephants stepping into the bath tub. If they are not careful they can cause the price of the stock to rise too rapidly and inflate the price they have to pay on some of their shares.

The stay of the injunction foiled that huge rally so we will never know how high it would have gone back then.

Now the stakes are even higher, Tivo's survival as a company is dependent on whether they can stop the thieves. In my opinion, Tivo stock will go ballistic upon a final ruling in favor of Tivo.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

fallingwater said:


> There are some Forum oldtimers whom I'd trust with $1000. Much more so than someone whom I don't otherwise know with 100+- posts, like you or me!!!


I will do it, for a fee.


----------



## thespacepope72 (Jan 25, 2005)

Are you Commander Coco Bananas?



bobneth said:


> Wall Street is very smart. They knew E would appeal. The stock jump on the first day was a muted response for that reason.
> 
> I should also mention that one day after the injunction, E won a stay against the injunction until the appeal process was over. That severely hurt the buying spree that normally would have occurred, with investors stepping all over each other and bidding the stock price up in a buying frenzy.
> 
> ...


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

classicX said:


> Suffice it to say, even at $8.33 per month, it is not insignificant.


Not so sufficing to me. That is the cost of 2.16 gallons of milk per month. Anyone who cannot afford 2.16 gallons per month is not going to be buying a DVR anyway. Trust me.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

samo said:


> Hey Zeo, thanks for the summary. Wish you posted it little earlier so I could skip most of a garbage of this Yahoo stock board troll. At some point about 100 posts ago I was thinking that guy is just confused beyond recovery.
> Back to the subject. This new DVR form Dish is a very stong entry into uncharted waters. If it takes off, we may see new entries in a market from companies like SONY, Microsoft or perhaps even DirecTV that may decide to use recent purchase of Replay. Even TiVo may decide to use their name recognition and come up with high end OTA unit. But I have some problems believing that this unit will be accepted by public. By the time this DVR hits the market we will have hundreds of cable and satellite channels availble from almost all providers. It will be the same situation as years ago when cable was introduced. Do you want to pay extra for the choice of programming or get limited programming OTA? I think that public has been spoiled by the choices and with cost of gas and everything else being sky high another $100 a month to get extra 100 channels will look like peanuts to an average consumer.


A lot depends on the price. If under $300 with no service fee it's a great product for millions of viewers.

There are so many channels and so much endless repetition. I have little need for more than 10-15 channels. (Remember DishPix!)

I get 9-10 channels OTA, but only 3 are digital. Only 2 analog channels come in with a signal worth recording although they're good enough to watch.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

classicX said:


> Why will it be so sweet? Please answer this, because I'd like to understand why you argue as if you were personally invested in the success of Tivo / demise of E*, when you say that you aren't.





bobneth said:


> Nope, do not own Tivo securities yet, but, the story is shaping up oh so nicely. Blast off is fairly imminent. If I wanted to tout the stock then I would be on Yahoo where I have spent almost 10 years making astounding stock picks. Great message boards at yahoo. They have one for every stock..





ZeoTiVo said:


>


just to bring anyone up to speed here


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

classicX said:


> Most channels that I watch are available OTA. I decide I don't want the added cost of cable. Do I pay $299 for a TivoHD and have to pay as much as $20 per month, or do I get the Dish offering at $499*, but not have to pay anything per month?


TiVo's current Lifetime promo offers HDTiVo w/no service fees for under $675.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

GoHokies! said:


> Because I'm bored and had an extra 3 seconds.
> 
> RoyK: 1
> Bobneth: -850 million


Wow, I really did say that. I guess thinking about my $850,000 got me too exited. LOL


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

classicX said:


> You deride people for making arguments without posting links, and in the same post you make an argument without posting a link.
> 
> I thought that much was obvious, but with that IQ, I guess I have to explain a little bit.


Kind of busy right now. Just tell me what you want a link to and I will do my best to provide it.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

bobneth said:


> I am not going to go back to find my post but I am pretty sure I said something like I could take his wager 850 times over.
> 
> Times a thousand that is $850,000
> 
> I am not almost a billionaire.


You're 'pretty sure'? You actually said; "I can afford to take him up on his offer 850,000 times over. I do not need his $1,000 - I will let him keep it."
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5879393#post5879393

You really don't check things out at all.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

classicX said:


> Bottom line so far
> 
> 1) new Dish standalone DVR with ATSC and NTSC to be released sometime in 2008, no pricing announced yet
> 
> ...


You forgot to mention that the new product records and plays back at the same time therefore it infringes. The little facts are sweet. But in this case that is a big fact so it is almost too sweet to imagine.

Die? Not hardly. Their balance sheet is much too healthy for that to happen.


----------



## 1003 (Jul 14, 2000)

fallingwater said:


> TiVo's current Lifetime promo offers HDTiVo w/no service fees for under $675.


*Assuming*
that you aleady have a TiVo box with a current subscription...


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

classicX said:


> You should read posts more carfully. I said, and I quote, "pay as much as $20 per month."


But why the $20 number? The most TiVo Service costs is $12.95 monthly. Even Comcast's TiVo is under $20.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

bobneth said:


> To get an idea of my views on that read post number 400.
> 
> Being stupid is ok as long as E plays by God's rules.


What do your "God's rules" have to do with anything?

I suggest that you check out the forum guidelines, particularly #4:


> Threads/Posts on controversial topics such as religion, race, and sex are not encouraged


I'm still not sure what you were trying to say in post 400 - E* has your permission to be stupid as long as they do what you think is morally right? Why would they want to be so foolish as to destroy their case they have in court?


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

bobneth said:


> You forgot to mention that the new product records and plays back at the same time therefore it infringes. The little facts are sweet. But in this case that is a big fact so it is almost too sweet to imagine.


Too bad you're the only person that thinks that's a "fact".


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

fallingwater said:


> But why the $20 number? The most TiVo Service costs is $12.95 monthly. Even Comcast's TiVo is under $20.


You're right - I hadn't checked the pricing in a while. I stand corrected.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

JJ said:


> *Assuming*
> that you aleady have a TiVo box with a current subscription...


True enough, but there are eBay deals for everyone which are based on the current promo. I'll do a quick search and post a bottom-line number.

[Edit] There's one closing in less than 10 mins at $610. Let's see where the snipers take it!

@ 5- mins: $691


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

bobneth said:


> Not so sufficing to me. That is the cost of 2.16 gallons of milk per month. Anyone who cannot afford 2.16 gallons per month is not going to be buying a DVR anyway. Trust me.


What if someone has a dear old grandmother on a fixed income and would like to give her the gift of a DVR.

Do you give her the box for which she'll have to pay monthly or the one that she won't?

And when you're talking about multiple boxes, the cost adds up quickly.

Besides, we weren't really talking about the amount, we were talking about the principle - pay monthly (or prepay) or pay nothing. There are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people that can afford to pay monthly, but as soon as they hear "service fee" they hit the door.

by the way - I thought you had DirecTivo? How is it that you paid $299 for three years?


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

fallingwater said:


> True enough, but there are eBay deals for everyone which are based on the current promo. I'll do a quick search and post a bottom-line number.
> 
> [Edit] There's one closing in less than 10 mins at $610. Let's see where the snipers take it!
> 
> @ 5- mins: $691


Closed @ $691!
http://cgi.ebay.com/New-TiVo-HD-DVR...ryZ79867QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

fallingwater said:


> Closed @ $691!
> http://cgi.ebay.com/New-TiVo-HD-DVR...ryZ79867QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


Assuming these results are typical, we can reasonably say that the thought of 1) using a Tivo and 2) having no monthly cost is worth nearly $400.

I'd like to see some results over time and the average price being paid for these items. Seems like it would be interesting.

And for those of you with Tivos who qualify for the lifetime, maybe a worthy investment.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

fallingwater
"You made a specific claim but when asked to back it up couldn't come up with even a single example!! :p
[URL said:


> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5877228#post5877228[/URL]


I do not control who is running specials for $199 or when they run them and I will NOT do your shopping for you. Thats your gig.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

Martin Tupper said:


> 3a) bobneth's nine-figure net worth is surpassed only by his (not so) staggeringly-high IQ.


I see you are good at hurling insults. How about chiming in on the law suit? Nothing to say?


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

classicX said:


> 139 is high?


Just a wee bit short of genius level. 139 is in the top 4 percent of the population.

http://wilderdom.com/intelligence/IQWhatScoresMean.html


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

fallingwater said:


> In truth, maybe not. But you don't actually know until you ask


But you forgot this:

Why would I send money to some guy who volunteers to escrow the money? Some guy I never met? Are you an six year old?


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

HiDefGator said:


> I read once that the profit from the first reporting went away in a follow up correction to their financial statement. So I think that should be 1 profitable quarter in the last 34.


You are correct. I forgot about that.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

classicX said:


> True. Allow me to extend this analogy to be more in line with this case.
> 
> You run the red light, the cop gives you a ticket. Your choices are:
> 
> ...


The difference of course being that when I ran the red light I did not steal 90 million dollars from another company. Soon to be 150 million or more. Running the red light was not an act of dishonesty. I was just in a hurry. LOL


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

classicX said:


> I will do it, for a fee.


But can I trust you? He he


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

bobneth said:


> You forgot to mention that the new product records and plays back at the same time therefore it infringes. The little facts are sweet. But in this case that is a big fact so it is almost too sweet to imagine.


Again you show just how little you truly understand about patents.



> It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. - Groucho Marx


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

fallingwater said:


> You're 'pretty sure'? You actually said; "I can afford to take him up on his offer 850,000 times over. I do not need his $1,000 - I will let him keep it."
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5879393#post5879393
> 
> You really don't check things out at all.


When I said I was pretty sure I was referring to my original post, not the one you quoted. Do not have time for checking back because I am busy.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

bobneth said:


> Yes we can, a jury told E that they were infringing. (Knowledge)
> 
> The honorable thing to do would be to comply with the judge's order to shut down their DVR's and pay Tivo the 90 million dollars or work out a deal with Tivo. Instead, they are still stealing from Tivo right up to this very moment we are speaking.
> 
> Judge will make them pay dearly for that. I think we will be looking at 150 to 225 million in the end. AND then they will still be forced to shut down their DVR's. It is going to be so sweet when E gets it's butt handed to Tivo.


Well, the honorable thing to do would be to sue E* in California, where Tivo is located, not in a place where over 80% of patent jury trials (most in the country) are found in favor of the plantiff. It's a rubber-stamp jury, nothing more. My patent lawyers tell me it's actually mentioned in negotiations as a scare tactic -- "I'm going to sue you in an obscure small town in Texas unless you agree to a settlement".

And E* won't turn off their DVRs. They'll either offer a free switch to one of their newer non-infringing DVRs or just come to a separate agreement with Tivo. Patent judgements are almost never enforced. I'm surprised it has taken this long to come to an agreement.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

GoHokies! said:


> What do your "God's rules" have to do with anything?
> 
> I'm still not sure what you were trying to say in post 400 - E* has your permission to be stupid as long as they do what you think is morally right? Why would they want to be so foolish as to destroy their case they have in court?


Because God fearing men write the laws that E is breaking and law breakers when caught, always pay for their crime. My point is that E is stupid. They lost once, and they will lose the appeal. I am a believer that the truth always gets revealed eventually. They cannot destroy their case in court because they have no case. They already lost and the appeal will go the same way.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

GoHokies! said:


> Too bad you're the only person that thinks that's a "fact".


I do my homework. Thats what leads me to the correct conclusion before other people can see it. That is why I do so well with stocks.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

bobneth said:


> Just a wee bit short of genius level. 139 is in the top 4 percent of the population.
> 
> http://wilderdom.com/intelligence/IQWhatScoresMean.html


Wow, this thread is taking 'off-topic' to a whole new level!


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> When I said I was pretty sure I was referring to my original post, not the one you quoted. Do not have time for checking back because I am busy.


YAh, it must get confusing posting FUD on multiple forums at the same time


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

bobneth said:


> I do my homework. Thats what leads me to the correct conclusion before other people can see it. That is why I do so well with stocks.


Best laugh of the day.

If that was the case you would have bought the stock before TiVo filed suit, because you saw it coming.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

classicX said:


> What if someone has a dear old grandmother on a fixed income and would like to give her the gift of a DVR.
> 
> Do you give her the box for which she'll have to pay monthly or the one that she won't?
> 
> ...


I just gave my very dear aunt and uncle a Tivo with the three year prepaid gift subscription. That should answer your question. At 82 and 85 years old I might not have to buy them another subscription but I will if they live that long.

Service fee = hit the door? Not for the price of 2.16 gallons of milk per month. Can we get real please?

I used to have DirecTivo for almost eight years, upgraded to 210 hours. One day I noticed that 90 out of my 92 seasons passes were on the four major networks, ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX.

Could not see any reason to not put up an antenna and buy a Series 3 High definition Tivo.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> YAh, it must get confusing posting FUD on multiple forums at the same time


It's the multiple usernames. Bob is also George Webster, also on this forum.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

old7 said:


> Again you show just how little you truly understand about patents.


Sorry, but one line sentences do not prove your point. Speak up boy.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

old7 said:


> It's the multiple usernames. Bob is also George Webster, also on this forum.


oh yah, good clarification. Since every other forum rule has been broken, no reason he would worry about multiple IDs


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

If I need to prove the bobneth and George Webster are the same, take a look at this:



bobneth said:


> I used to have DirecTivo for almost eight years, upgraded to 210 hours. One day I noticed that 90 out of my 92 seasons passes were on the four major networks, ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX.





George Webster said:


> I had DirecTV with a DirecTivo for seven years. Had 92 seasons passes set up. A careful look at the season pass manager revealed that 90 of the 92 were on CBS, ABC NBC or FOX.


Did you know it is against the policy of the forum to post under different usernames?

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=217934



> 11. Use of Multiple UserIDs is not Permitted  You have signed up with a user id, and that is the only one that should be registered. Posting under multiple userids will result in all userids being banned.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

bobneth said:


> Sorry, but one line sentences do not prove your point. Speak up boy.


There are over 400 posts in this thread, go back and read a few and you will know exactly what I mean.

I'm in my 40's and have 5 grandchildren, I'm a little old to be called "boy."


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

BobCamp1 said:


> Well, the honorable thing to do would be to sue E* in California, where Tivo is located, not in a place where over 80% of patent jury trials (most in the country) are found in favor of the plantiff. It's a rubber-stamp jury, nothing more. My patent lawyers tell me it's actually mentioned in negotiations as a scare tactic -- "I'm going to sue you in an obscure small town in Texas unless you agree to a settlement".
> 
> And E* won't turn off their DVRs. They'll either offer a free switch to one of their newer non-infringing DVRs or just come to a separate agreement with Tivo. Patent judgements are almost never enforced. I'm surprised it has taken this long to come to an agreement.


Well, when someone is infringing on your patent I say put their feet in the blast furnace and turn it up all the way. If you get my drift. Make sure you pour plenty of gasoline first.

There is no proof that E has any non-infringing units. If they did they would have simply stopped offering the infringing ones, disabled the infringing ones and replace all of them already. Then there would be no grounds for the law suit. So please, lets stop the insanity of saying that they have ones that do not infringe.


----------



## bobneth (Jan 14, 2008)

bobneth said:


> Well, when someone is infringing on your patent I say put their feet in the blast furnace and turn it up all the way. If you get my drift. Make sure you pour plenty of gasoline first.
> 
> There is no proof that E has any non-infringing units. If they did they would have simply stopped offering the infringing ones, disabled the infringing ones and replace all of them already. Then there would be no grounds for the law suit. So please, lets stop the insanity of saying that they have ones that do not infringe.


Why are so many here rushing to the defense of a company that was already found guilty?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bobneth said:


> There is no proof that E has any non-infringing units.


you should read the court ruling


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

bobneth said:


> Why are so many here rushing to the defense of a company that was already found guilty?


I'm not defending Echostar in way, shape or form. They infringed on a patent, they have been found liable by a court, and pending an appeal, they will likely have to pay at the very least $90 million and likely much more. What they did was wrong and they will pay for it. As you have pointed out, they have the funds.

The problem is the garbage that you are spewing. You really don't have a good understanding of patents or patent law, but you are very quick to jump to conclusions and very resistant to listen to others. You continue to spout off about things that are not facts, claiming that they are when it has been shown time and time again to you that they are not indeed facts.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

bobneth said:


> Just a wee bit short of genius level. 139 is in the top 4 percent of the population.
> 
> http://wilderdom.com/intelligence/IQWhatScoresMean.html


Most people I know have an IQ around that.

And it seems to me that none of them are that concerned about it. I certainly am not, and mine is quite a bit higher. I don't see what the big deal is.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

bobneth said:


> Service fee = hit the door? Not for the price of 2.16 gallons of milk per month. Can we get real please?


I was speaking from personal experience. The service fee is one of the reasons I don't have TiVo now.

I have no problem "affording" it, it's the principle of the matter.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

bobneth said:


> Why are so many here rushing to the defense of a company that was already found guilty?


We're not. We have our feet firmly grounded in reality and don't like false statements.



old7 said:


> If I need to prove the bobneth and George Webster are the same, take a look at this:
> 
> Did you know it is against the policy of the forum to post under different usernames?
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=217934


Thanks for pointing that out. It's clear that we're not going to be able to have a civil discussion with someone that has absolutely no respect for the rules and guidelines of this forum.

I'm done here, and quite frankly I'm amazed that Bob and George haven't been banned by IP address and this thread returned to on course.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

so is anyone else OTA only? Patent suits aside, would you consider this product as a viable alternative to TiVo, at any price?


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

Not here - I can't think of a TV in my house (3) that I'm not constantly wanting to watch something on a cable channel (particularly Food Network, ESPN and Discovery for me, TLC and HGTV for the woman, and Boomerang for the little kid).

Honestly the monthly fees are so small relative to my budget - I'm not saying I'm rich and slinging around money like there's no tomorrow - 1 box has lifetime, so we're looking at ~$25 a month. Given the choice between one dinner out @ an Applebee's-type place and having Tivo on all 3 TV's, I'll take Tivo every day of the week.

I suspect that the OTA only market is going to be pretty small.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

classicX said:


> so is anyone else OTA only? Patent suits aside, would you consider this product as a viable alternative to TiVo, at any price?


At the right price it would be a perfect fit for my mother-in-law who is perfectly content right now with OTA and living on a limited income.

My son has also expressed an intense interest in the product. He gets basic cable but can pick up the HD channels he spends most of his time watching OTA just fine.

Edit: My son, by the way, lives close by and is quite familiar with my TiVos. He thinks they are nice but has often told me that in no way is he willing to buy the equipment and then pay monthly/yearly to use it.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

GoHokies! said:


> I suspect that the OTA only market is going to be pretty small.


as analog cable goes digital though I suspect the market will increase some as people are forced to shed their old equipment/ways and look at what options they have.

Same with the OTA subset that is using analog right now.

also at the right price I would consider an OTA DVR off to the side as a good backup should the cable have some issue. If it has an easy enough setup to be able to move around without hassles then it could also be a take it to the beach vacation place as well DVR


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

Good point.

I still don't think that it will be all that huge*. Think back about a year to the early(ish) days of the S3, when the hot topic of discussion was how viable analog cable + OTA was for new S3 owners to avoid the "hassle" of cablecards. From what I remember there were a handful of people that this was a workable solution, but most people wanted the stations in HD with the cablecards.

Now, that's not a direct comparison, I know. And I certainly agree that there are going to be some people that jump on the OTA bandwagon as shown by the massive interest in this thread (outside of the massive derailment) - I just don't think that it will be all that big. Too bad that E*'s massive legal problems may have an affect on this particular implementation.

*I reserve the right to redefine the meaning of "huge" to suit my needs and make me correct.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

I think it will become bigger just based on the fact that moving to digital cable is going to be such a big price increase for most analog cable users. Since all new TVs support digital OTA now, everyone will be able to get free tv without any boxes to rent.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

GoHokies! said:


> Good point.
> 
> I still don't think that it will be all that huge*. Think back about a year to the early(ish) days of the S3, when the hot topic of discussion was how viable analog cable + OTA was for new S3 owners to avoid the "hassle" of cablecards. From what I remember there were a handful of people that this was a workable solution, but most people wanted the stations in HD with the cablecards.


hehe - you described me to a tee except I waited for the TiVo HD instead of springing th bucks for an S3. I hooked up a 30$ antenna and had enough digital for now plus the analog cable looks better on the TiVo HD as well. I had a start at cable cards but TWC was so screwed up about it that I decided to just wait until after the holidays. But then I am not all hopped about HD yet so I am willing to take my time on it. I do have a set top box hooked up to a DT and left all my low channels on analog except SciFi so I can record all those shows in digital with no real conflicts

I am more exited about the idea of putting an OTA antenna in my attic than over cable cards - course I also see TiVo DVR as well worth the money for all the other features that come with it.


----------



## netsurfer (Jan 16, 2008)

rainwater said:


> I think it will become bigger just based on the fact that moving to digital cable is going to be such a big price increase for most analog cable users.


I believe I am correct when I say that the vast majority of cable systems will remain analog. They do not have to move to digital. Just OTA.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jan 18, 2005)

Wow, the thread on the satellite forums regarding this product are only two pages since there were almost no details released.

With the release of this product, new lower priced HD packs, standalone HD only packs I think Dish and Echostar are anticipating a reduction in TV spending.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

kb7oeb said:


> Wow, the thread on the satellite forums regarding this product are only two pages since there were almost no details released.


Don't confuse quantity with quality - most of those pages were a massive derail. 



netsurfer said:


> I believe I am correct when I say that the vast majority of cable systems will remain analog. They do not have to move to digital. Just OTA.


You're right, for now. Some operators have announced plans to go all digital, but the cable transition is far murkier than the clean cutoff for OTA.

KB7OEB, you make a good point about reductions in TV spending - with the news talking every night about the housing crisis and such, it would make sense that the cable/sat providers would make products available to people that are trying to get rid of expenses.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

kb7oeb said:


> With the release of this product, new lower priced HD packs, standalone HD only packs I think Dish and Echostar are anticipating a reduction in TV spending.


If that's true, given the current economic situation in this country, I'd say that's a safe bet.

I love watching all of the cable channels (especially Food, SciFi, etc.) but if this product is a viable alternative to Sat / Cable, even if I just get basic cable, I think it would be worth it, to save ~$100 per month.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

netsurfer said:


> I believe I am correct when I say that the vast majority of cable systems will remain analog. They do not have to move to digital. Just OTA.


yes - I should emphasize the next couple of years in my post and it may stretch even longer than that. Also even if a cable company does move to all digital I do not forsee them making people pay more for a digital tier - just that the extended basic package would be digital and require digital equipment, The cable companies already throw in one free cable box but my theory is just that people and the press will start paying more attention to what choices are available simply because of the transition for OTA. Many people right now are simply unaware of the fact they can get a really good picture via OTA and still think of rabbit ears and 3 fuzzy channels.


----------



## Greg Bimson (Jun 19, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Also even if a cable company does move to all digital I do not forsee them making people pay more for a digital tier - just that the extended basic package would be digital and require digital equipment, The cable companies already throw in one free cable box but my theory is just that people and the press will start paying more attention to what choices are available simply because of the transition for OTA.


I think you're onto something.

As Dish Network and DirecTV are charging extra dollars for each box after the first, you can see that cable companies may follow that model. Some of the cable company paradigms will change once they go all digital.

It isn't that they have to go all digital, and they aren't lumped in with the broadcasters who must do the cut-off just 13 months from now. However, in order to free up bandwidth, they will have to move to an almost all-digital signal.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> However, in order to free up bandwidth, they will have to move to an almost all-digital signal.


while not loosing the current analog customers to some desrieable OTA solution  but yes, cables main weapon against sat broadcasters is the bandwidth in their cable and the fact they can more easily hook up extra services on that bandwidth


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> while not loosing the current analog customers to some desrieable OTA solution  but yes, cables main weapon against sat broadcasters is the bandwidth in their cable and the fact they can more easily hook up extra services on that bandwidth


My cable company has already started moving a few channels off analog each time they add HD. It is clear that in another year or two, I will have a much smaller analog lineup. Cable companies are required to keep the locals on analog until 2012 but in the meantime they will be moving all of the other analog channels off.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

bobneth said:


> I do not control who is running specials for $199 or when they run them and I will NOT do your shopping for you. Thats your gig.


Shopping isn't the issue. The issue is whether you post the truth or wildly exaggerate.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5876531#post5876531
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5877228#post5877228


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

bobneth said:


> When I said I was pretty sure I was referring to my original post, not the one you quoted. Do not have time for checking back because I am busy.


Original?
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5879393#post5879393

'Er, are you busy in the bathroom because you're so full of...?


----------



## jdlyall (Feb 12, 2007)

bpurcell said:


> What is the OTA market anyway? I'm guessing it's larger in big city areas like New York and Chicago, but I know extremely few people that are OTA anymore. And most of those people watch little to no TV, so they would have no interest in a DVR for them.


I have an over the air antenna and no cable. In New Orleans, reasonably large metro area and no tall buildings so I get reasonably good service. I do not want to pay close to $50 to the cable company and I got DSL from ma bell. I do miss CNN and CNBC and live CNBC is not available on broadband. The digital picture from the major networks is great. My PBS stations are weird tho, the digital is not HD on one and breaks up very badly. The other PBS station has completely different programming on their digital channel. There are about a dozen digital channels with nothing on them yet. Two channels have four sub channels.

I did spend 90 bux on an outdoor antenna that bolts to the side of the house, like a satellite dish.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Still no news on when this device will be available?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

classicX said:


> Still no news on when this device will be available?


much later this year. The display at CES was a prototype, not a ready for market model.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

As per the first post, Echostar said July.


----------



## jrj90620 (Mar 28, 2008)

Picture quality is better for HDTV reception OTA due to cable/satellite companies compressing signals.You have to figure that each station is broadcasting only the one signal while cable/satellite companies are carrying all signals and compression/quality loss is likely.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

I got my two coupons from the government for OTA digital tuners, which I anticipate setting up, even if as nothing more than a backup.

The TR-40 (no DVR) was included in the list of boxes the coupons are good for.

Does anyone know how soon these will be available, and WHO you can buy them from?


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

gastrof said:


> I got my two coupons from the government for OTA digital tuners, which I anticipate setting up, even if as nothing more than a backup.
> 
> The TR-40 (no DVR) was included in the list of boxes the coupons are good for.
> 
> Does anyone know how soon these will be available, and WHO you can buy them from?


Here is some more info on the TR-40:

http://www.slingcommunity.com/blog/entry/28036/Sling-Media-EchoStar-TR-40-DTV-Converter-Update/

It appears it is still on schedule for a June delivery.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

Echostar recently changed the projected release of the TR-50 to September.


----------



## ILIKECEREAL (Jan 7, 2008)

I'm really excited about the TR50. I have Directv and get my locals OTA(directv doesn't offer my locals). I currently have a Tivo series 2(not the DT) and was worried about what I was going to do when the switchover happens but hopefully this will solve it. I'll still have Tivo for my satellite and this for my OTA. I just hope it doesn't cost an arm and a leg.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

Made by anyone else, I'd be excited to at least try this thing out.

Made by Dish? Never gonna see a dollar of my heard earned money.


----------



## larrs (May 2, 2005)

GoHokies! said:


> Made by anyone else, I'd be excited to at least try this thing out.
> 
> Made by Dish? Never gonna see a dollar of my heard earned money.


+1

In fact, I once wanted a slingbox. But, now, they'll never get any of my $$.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

I updated the first post to reflect the latest available information.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

I wondered who'd resurrected this thread. 

As for updating the first post, is the TR-50 still being released under the "Sling" name?

I'd heard it'd been renamed the "DTVPal DVR" or something like that, which suggests it won't be a Sling product, since the DTVPal wasn't.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Sweet!


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> Sweet!


Don't get too excited.

The DTVPal has been a nightmare, with countless machines having to be sent back to be replaced, and countless Dish CSRs telling people who wanted to exchange them "We can't help you because you don't subscribe to Dish Network".

The initial problem has been that the DTVPal has no manual set on the clock. It depends totally on time settings being broadcast by the digital TV channels. If a station is off, so's your clock. (And far too many pay little attention to what time they're sending. Some can be an hour or more off.)

Then there's the event timer, like the one on an old VCR. Allows the box to turn on and change channels so's to keep an analog recorder working. Set the timers on both machines, BINGO! Your old recorder still works, even tho' there's nothing for its analog tuner to record after February.

Problem?

Turn the DTVPal on, and it downloads guide data from the local stations....

And this guide data immediately corrupts the event timer. Your programmed start and stop times change, the channel you wanted tuned gets changed...

That's been fixed in more recent models, but the older ones are still being sold.

Even the current ones still have a slight glitch where if you set a timer recording for a week down the road (same day of the week), the box immedately alters the start time to about 3 hours early.

There's no way to correct it. It won't let you.

You end up having delete the event from the timer list, and re-input the program the next day.

It doesn't like the number "7" or something? 

These boxes were obviously early versions of the TR-50, simply lacking the actual recorder.

I shudder to think what the first TR-50 owners are going to have to deal with. The thing will likely begin eating family pets...


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

gastrof said:


> Don't get too excited. ..........
> 
> I shudder to think what the first TR-50 owners are going to have to deal with. The thing will likely begin eating family pets...


If design will be based on VIP 622/722 (and will work similar to VIP), then this will be excellent OTA DVR that will give HD TiVo run for the money. At $250 (after rebate) and no sub fees I can't think of any better solution for people who are getting HD OTA only.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

samo said:


> If design will be based on VIP 622/722 (and will work similar to VIP), then this will be excellent OTA DVR that will give HD TiVo run for the money. At $250 (after rebate) and no sub fees I can't think of any better solution for people who are getting HD OTA only.


As noted in the first post:


> The DTVPal DVR will feature a "watered down" version of the Dish Network 622/722 DVR interface with more primitive graphics and recording features. The shipping DTVPal software will support program search and closed captions, but it will be missing several notable features of the Dish Network's satellite DVRs. Among the features absent include the 16x9 guide, picture-in-picture, and the ability to record only new episodes and ignore repeats.
> 
> The DTVPal's guide will incorporate program information from TVGuide (TVGOS), if that service is available via CBS datacast in your area. If TVGuide service is not available from your local CBS affiliate, the DTVPal will display the more limited PSIP program information offered by your local broadcasters.


My understanding is that you will be able to set the time manually, which will override the time reported by your local broadcast affiliates.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

Below is a list of current TVGoS digital broadcasters. If you live in one of those markets with a green check mark, the DTVPal DVR should have access to reliable guide information [although probably not as reliable as TiVo].

http://www.rabbitears.info/market.php?request=tvgos

If you don't live in one of these markets with a green checkmark, then you're stuck with whatever limited information your local affiliates provide.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jan 18, 2005)

Dish is known for buggy software on first release but they do usually resolve most bugs. Unlike the DTVPal converter this box can upgrade over the internet or by downloading a firmware file to a usb stick.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

kb7oeb said:


> Dish is known for buggy software on first release but they do usually resolve most bugs. Unlike the DTVPal converter this box can upgrade over the internet or by downloading a firmware file to a usb stick.


All DVR makers I used (including TiVo) take about a year to get rid of the bugs on new units. All are usable from the let go, but to get to the rock solid point it takes a while. Examples: All Dish models, DirecTV models HR10 (TiVo) and R-15/ HR20 line, S2,S3 and HD TiVo. I never use cable boxes but from what I read it takes them even longer to get to the stable point. My understanding is that Comcast TiVo still sucks big time.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

bkdtv said:


> Below is a list of current TVGoS digital broadcasters. If you live in one of those markets with a green check mark, the DTVPal DVR should have access to reliable guide information [although probably not as reliable as TiVo].
> 
> http://www.rabbitears.info/market.php?request=tvgos
> 
> If you don't live in one of these markets with a green checkmark, then you're stuck with whatever limited information your local affiliates provide.


This list is not accurate as to market numbers. I know for a fact that Atlanta is the #8 market in the country. This is apparently an old list as far as the indicated market number.

Here is the accurate list of markets for those interested. (does not show tvgos)

http://www.nielsen.com/pdf/2008_09_DMA_Ranks.pdf


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

gastrof said:


> Don't get too excited.
> 
> The DTVPal has been a nightmare, with countless machines having to be sent back to be replaced, and countless Dish CSRs telling people who wanted to exchange them "We can't help you because you don't subscribe to Dish Network".


Thanks for the detailed update.

So it sounds like the box is exactly the same as the typical DVR offering from General Instruments (nee Motorola) or Scientific Atlanta (nee Cisco). I.e. pre-alpha quality by any objective measure.

It would be nice to have a viable alternative to TiVo that didn't have monthly fees. But I guess this one isn't ready for prime time yet.

What's the best web site or forum to read to keep up with products like these?


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> Thanks for the detailed update.
> 
> So it sounds like the box is exactly the same as the typical DVR offering from General Instruments (nee Motorola) or Scientific Atlanta (nee Cisco). I.e. pre-alpha quality by any objective measure.
> 
> ...


The DTVPal is different from the DTVPal DVR. The DTVPal is a STB that was released earlier this year. The DTVPal DVR is a completely different product and still in beta, with release scheduled for mid December.

Early versions of the DTVPal (STB) had a lot of problems. Many of those problems have been resolved in software updates on the latest units, although some issues still remain. One of the key differences between the DTVPal (STB) and DTVPal DVR is that the latter allows software updates to be downloaded over the Internet. The DTVPal (STB) had no mechanism for updates.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

bkdtv said:


> Early versions of the DTVPal (STB) had a lot of problems. Many of those problems have been resolved in software updates on the latest units, although some issues still remain.


Except now they have 3 versions of the DTVPal and all of them are basically the same box with different software (although they claim the newest one has a better tuner). So between all of the software problems and confusing naming schemes, they have pretty much failed at releasing the DTVPal. From what I have read, there are a lot of unhappy customers and there are still lots of software bugs being reported.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *samo*
> At $250 (after rebate) and no sub fees I can't think of any better solution for people who are getting HD OTA only.


 Really?? Lets see I paid $500 total for my TiVo HD with lifetime service back in May and use it for OTA only, I am constantly using 2 tuners so to do the same thing (record 2 shows at once) I would need 2 Dish DTVPal DVRs and guess what that would cost -- $500 and we don't even know how well the unit is going to work yet. I am glad the unit is being produced and might even consider one for a third tuner at some point but it has a long way to go before I consider it a better solution than a TiVo HD for OTA.

Thanks,


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> Really?? Lets see I paid $500 total for my TiVo HD with lifetime service back in May and use it for OTA only, I am constantly using 2 tuners so to do the same thing (record 2 shows at once) I would need 2 Dish DTVPal DVRs and guess what that would cost -- $500 and we don't even know how well the unit is going to work yet. I am glad the unit is being produced and might even consider one for a third tuner at some point but it has a long way to go before I consider it a better solution than a TiVo HD for OTA.


The DTVPal DVR includes dual tuners.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> The DTVPal DVR includes dual tuners.


Are you shure? I listen to one of dish's channels promoting all of it's DVRs the other day and they spent quite a bit of time talking about it and I thought the whole time they never mentioned it was a dual tuner which lead me to believe it must be a single tuner unit. Also the article I read about it on CNet didn't say it was a dual tuner either.

I hope it is, if so then TiVo does have some real competition for OTA users.

Thanks,


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Are you shure [about dual tuners]?


Yes, see the first post in this thread for the latest information available from beta testers of this product. [No, I am not a beta tester for this product.]


----------

