# Dish Network warns 7.3 million DVR's may be shut down, costing close to $3 billion



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011826495_apusearnsdishnetwork.html



> Dish Network Corp. reported a 26 percent drop in first-quarter net income as the satellite TV company stepped up promotions to reel in customers. Its CEO also warned the company may shut down millions of digital video recorders in a dispute with TiVo Inc.
> 
> Dish CEO Charlie Ergen said Monday that he's prepared to shut down the DVRs if a court sides with TiVo in a patent-infringement case. The alternative is to pay TiVo, a pioneer in DVR technology, licensing fees.
> 
> ...


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

umm OUCH that is going to piss off a LOT of people (well whatever people have Dish )


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

You don't hear about Moxi DVRs being shut down 


take end of first sentence and begining of second sentence from article said:


> as the satellite TV company stepped up promotions to reel in customers. Its CEO also warned the company may shut down millions of digital video recorders


WTF is Ergen thinking?


----------



## MarkSFCA (Oct 18, 2004)

http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2010/05/10/tivo-did-dish-networks-ergen-just-hint-at-dvr-settlement/

TiVo: Did Dish Network's Ergen Just Hint At DVR Settlement?By Eric Savitz 
Hanging over the shares of Dish Network (DISH) are the possibility that the company could be ordered to shut off the DVR functionality in its set-top boxes as a result of the TiVo (TIVO) patent litigation against the company.

In a conference call with the Street today to discuss March quarter results, Dish CEO Charlie Ergen sounded surprisingly conciliatory; it makes you wonder if they will soon agree to pay a royalty to TiVo to settle the litigation.

"We've always said that it seems like we should be working together with TiVo," he said on the call, according to a preliminary transcript from Thomson StreetEvents. "We certainly as we got to know them we have a lot of respect for what they've done. They have done very well in the litigation process with us and this has always been a case really about an honest disagreement on how our DVRs work. There's never been anything personal about it."

Ergen asserted on the call that a settlement is in the best interest of both companies. "We are joined at the hip with TiVo in a sense that&#8230;we booked $30 million for one quarter [in potential royalties to TiVo] so that's over $100 million just for the year on average in licensing fees for TiVo which is materially more than they get with the rest of the entire industry," he said. "So we are joined at the hip in the sense that if we don't get a deal done, those fees will go away for them and obviously we'll lose customers and so it reminds me a lot of our programming negotiation, where you both need each other."

Added Ergen: "I don't think you should assume that we will get a deal done," but adding "I don't think you should assume that the courts are going to rule in our favor, but there is a logic to us working together."

Collins Stewart analyst Thomas Eagan writes today that he thinks a deal could be announced within a week. He thinks DISH will agree to pay $3.50 to $4 a month to TiVo for a license. Stay tuned.


----------



## Gregor (Feb 18, 2002)

Doing the math..7 million dvrs @ $3.50-4. 

Nice tidy amount on a monthly basis.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

Gregor said:


> Doing the math..7 million dvrs @ $3.50-4.
> 
> Nice tidy amount on a monthly basis.


Dish deserves it. Maybe they should have saved the massive legal costs they've been spending over the last few years on their appeals upon appeals, and just settled with TiVo to begin with, like men.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> WTF is Ergen thinking?


If Charlie shuts down the DVRs rather than paying, his BOD should kick him out. (But he might have voting control, so that couldn't happen). Isn't his behavior the definition of insanity?

Here's an AP article about this. Some choice snippets:


Dish CEO Charlie Ergen said Monday that he's prepared to shut down the DVRs if a court sides with TiVo in a patent-infringement case. The alternative is to pay TiVo, a pioneer in DVR technology, licensing fees.


Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett said that 7.3 million DVRs could be affected and that the cost to replace and shut down the boxes could run close to $3 billion.


Moffett doesn't believe Dish will agree to pay TiVo "modest monthly fees" of $2 to $3 per subscriber to settle the case.
Maybe this Moffett guy is talking out of his a**. But let's assume 7,300,000 * $3 * 12 = $262,800,000 per year. And I can't imagine the number would even be that high. So rather than paying $263 million per year, Dish would rather spend $3000 million to replace the boxes?

Unless it's a negotiating technique by Charlie, it's clear and indisputable evidence of insanity.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> If Charlie shuts down the DVRs rather than paying, his BOD should kick him out. (But he might have voting control, so that couldn't happen)


Yes he has control of more than 50% of the company. The only person that can fire him is himself.


----------



## pdxsam (Mar 3, 2002)

CuriousMark said:


> Yes he has control of more than 50% of the company. The only person that can fire him is himself.


I don't know that there is, but, I have to think the SEC has in place rules for insane CEO's


----------



## Millionaire2K (Jun 16, 2008)

This is great news. lol


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> Unless it's a negotiating technique by Charlie, it's clear and indisputable evidence of insanity.


It's a bluff, plain and simple. Charlie may be a little unorthodox, but he's undeniably a shrewd business person. There is no way he would shut down all of E*'s DVRs. Not only would it cost them billions, but the negative PR ramifications would be incalcuable!


----------



## usnret (Nov 25, 2003)

The customers will end up paying the $3.50 a month, at least until they can get out of the contract.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

gweempose said:


> It's a bluff, plain and simple. Charlie may be a little unorthodox, but he's undeniably a shrewd business person. There is no way he would shut down all of E*'s DVRs. Not only would it cost them billions, but the negative PR ramifications would be incalcuable!


Correct. Charlie is making such a public statement to send a message to TiVo that unless they come to terms on a deal that _Ergan_ thinks is reasonable, then he is willing to shut down the DVR's. But, please, TiVo can't possibly believe that B.S. Charlie just doesn't want TiVo to think they have a gun to Dish Network's head. But, in fact, they most likely will.

Still Ergan says, "We [TiVo and Dish] are joined at the hip." He goes on to suggest that its like the channels and the carriers: they have disagreements, but they need each other as in, ". . . If we can't reach a deal, then those fees go away from them [TiVo], and we will lose customers . . ." meaning TiVo get the award but no more money after that. " . . . a strong Dish Network is in TiVo's interest," says Ergan

Dish Network recently hiked and reorganized their fee structure resulting in HUGE fee increases for dual tuner DVR's that brings Dish much closer to what cable, FiOS and AT&T charge, but still lower by a few bucks than most of the competition. It seems that he has already raised the rates in anticipation of having to pay licensing fees, so there will be no _new_ fee increases for the DVR's even if they have to pay a very high license fee. He already has it built in to the new fee structure. Gotta love his public BS talk though .

Meanwhile DirecTV sitting pretty with it's written agreement that TiVo will not sue DirecTV is trivializing the forthcoming and often pushed back for release DirecTiVo DVR by saying at its quarterly last week that they have developed many of the same features for its forthcoming new DVR product that the TiVo product will have, especially regarding the online features and more, ". . . they really won't be that different." DirecTV still puts forth an underwhelming attitude about the coming DirecTiVo box. Yes, they are messing with TiVo's head and TiVo can't sue for patent infringement regarding DirecTV's own DVR product.


----------



## tivohaydon (Mar 24, 2001)

MarkSFCA said:


> Collins Stewart analyst Thomas Eagan writes today that he thinks a deal could be announced within a week. He thinks DISH will agree to pay $3.50 to $4 a month to TiVo for a license. Stay tuned.


That's a massive amount of money for a patent that should never have been awarded.


----------



## Mike-Mike (Mar 2, 2010)

tivohaydon said:


> That's a massive amount of money for a patent that should never have been awarded.


why do you say that?


----------



## swinca (Jun 19, 2003)

Last year the Dish offered me a lot of attractive incentives to sign up for 2 years. I'm glad I didn't. If they have to shut off the DVRs I will not be a Dish customer. But I hope it doesn't come to that. Their DVR is really a good product. And I dread the thought of dealing with DirecTV or Charter.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

swinca said:


> Last year the Dish offered me a lot of attractive incentives to sign up for 2 years. I'm glad I didn't. If they have to shut off the DVRs I will not be a Dish customer. But I hope it doesn't come to that. Their DVR is really a good product. And I dread the thought of dealing with DirecTV or Charter.


Unless something has changed, only the old DVR's are affected.

I think a DVR purchased last year would not be part of the shutoff.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Deadline has been extended to June 2nd.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> Deadline has been extended to June 2nd.


How many thousands of times have the courts been extending deadlines? I don't think they know what a deadline is. If the deadlines are extended forever, it's really the same thing as "case dismissed".


----------



## nich0003 (Apr 21, 2005)

They will get by this somehow...


----------



## swinca (Jun 19, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> Unless something has changed, only the old DVR's are affected.
> 
> I think a DVR purchased last year would not be part of the shutoff.


I have had my Dish DVR for 3 years. It isn't purchased, it's theirs.


----------



## tivohaydon (Mar 24, 2001)

Mike-Mike said:


> why do you say that?


Suggested license fee:
$4 a month is robbery considering TiVo service itself costs, the licensing cost should be relative to the value it's providing. $4 is not. 30% (being generous) of TiVo's monthly fee is justified by its patent? Keep in mind DirecTV where $5 (and then $6) got you an unlimited number of TiVos. Wasn't DirecTV rumored to provide $1/month to TiVo for each TiVo subscriber? And that was with TiVo providing complete service.

The patent itself:
a) Software and business process patents are bogus
b) The patent office is set up to approve, not carefully review patents
c) TiVo's patents are obvious regardless


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

tivohaydon said:


> Suggested license fee:
> $4 a month is robbery considering TiVo service itself costs, the licensing cost should be relative to the value it's providing.


I agree with that.

TiVo is getting peanuts from DirecTV for each TiVo DVR deployed by them. But in DirecTV's defense they licensed, they didn't steal (DISH never even returned the demo machines that TiVo lent them).

DISH is already on the hook for all sorts of back payments. Going forward, Charlie should have to pay twice as much as DirecTV. But no more than that. I think that's a lot closer to $1 per month rather than $4 per month.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Ergen doesn't have $3 billion, nor does he have 7.7 million DVRs in stock to replace the DVRs that would be shut off. It appears that Ergen is making materially false statements that he knows to be false. That's an SEC violation.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

timckelley said:


> How many thousands of times have the courts been extending deadlines? I don't think they know what a deadline is. If the deadlines are extended forever, it's really the same thing as "case dismissed".


Welcome to the legal system.



tivohaydon said:


> Suggested license fee:
> $4 a month is robbery considering TiVo service itself costs, the licensing cost should be relative to the value it's providing. $4 is not. 30% (being generous) of TiVo's monthly fee is justified by its patent? Keep in mind DirecTV where $5 (and then $6) got you an unlimited number of TiVos. Wasn't DirecTV rumored to provide $1/month to TiVo for each TiVo subscriber? And that was with TiVo providing complete service.


So what? When you steal someones technology and get caught, they don't have to license it to you AT ALL. And you sure as hell don't get to find the best deal, from a company that properly licensed it in the first place, and only have to pay that.

TiVo can charge whatever they want, they own it. If Dish doesn't want to pay, they can shut off the DVR's and move on.



shwru980r said:


> Ergen doesn't have $3 billion, nor does he have 7.7 million DVRs in stock to replace the DVRs that would be shut off. It appears that Ergen is making materially false statements that he knows to be false. That's an SEC violation.


Oh yea, it's bullcrap. No way does Dish have 7.3 million infringing DVR's out there. They only have what, 14 million subscribers??


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

tivohaydon said:


> Suggested license fee:
> $4 a month is robbery considering TiVo service itself costs,


 you mean like robbing TiVo of its IP to get ahead of competition by having a DVR you did not have to spend R&D on? You mean like robbing all those potential customers away from DiectTV and cable via benefit of said theft? Give us a break, DISH never asked for any moral ground and lost its bargaining position long ago and through its own actions - DISH can pay through the nose for its 'business tactics' that cost a lot of potential revenue to others and tax payer dollars to deal with their theft. 


> The patent itself:
> a) Software and business process patents are bogus
> b) The patent office is set up to approve, not carefully review patents
> c) TiVo's patents are obvious regardless


a) Wow, you better tell the supreme court and all the businesses out there - this is big news.
b) You do realize there was a trial right? DISH had its chance to show the patents were not correct and should not be applied or that DISH did not infringe on any seen as valid. The court found WILLFUL infringement in its original decision. These patents have had their underwear thoroughly search - let alone carefully reviewed.
c) which shows you have no idea of the specifics of the patnet that was held as valid and that DISH DVRs infringed on. It was not obvious how to make a DVR inexpensive enough yet usable enough to be able to market widely. The patent is about how that was specifically accomplished.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

shwru980r said:


> Ergen doesn't have $3 billion, nor does he have 7.7 million DVRs in stock to replace the DVRs that would be shut off. It appears that Ergen is making materially false statements that he knows to be false. That's an SEC violation.





Adam1115 said:


> Oh yea, it's bullcrap. No way does Dish have 7.3 million infringing DVR's out there. They only have what, 14 million subscribers??


good points that crossed my mind as well.

paging Sox, paging Sarbanes


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

when did ergen say he had 7 million dvr's sitting in a warehouse?


----------



## m.s (Mar 8, 2007)

CuriousMark said:


> Yes he has control of more than 50% of the company. The only person that can fire him is himself.


LOL. Numbers pulled from your behind don't count.

From Yahoo Finance:


> Dish Network Corp. (DISH)
> % of Shares Held by All Insider and 5% Owners: 10%
> Holder	Shares	Reported
> ERGEN CHARLES W	538,652	17-Nov-09
> ...


538652/446590000 = 0.12%

0.12% << 50%


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> Unless something has changed, only the old DVR's are affected.
> 
> I think a DVR purchased last year would not be part of the shutoff.


I don't believe that has been determined- hence why the analyst says it's 7+ million DVR's

IANAL but i believe neither side has asked if the newer models are in the same situation. There's been all sorts of discussion here on TC if the newer models would be different enough that the ones that tivo happened to list on the day they filed their suit umpteen years back.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

m.s said:


> LOL. Numbers pulled from your behind don't count.
> 
> From Yahoo Finance:
> 538652/446590000 = 0.12%
> ...


do those numbers take into account voting rights?

For example the dolan family owns a different class of stock than most cablevision stockholders that have more voting power. So although the Dolan's dont own more thatn 50% of the shares they have more than 50% of the control.

Dont know if ergen is the same or not.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> Oh yea, it's bullcrap. No way does Dish have 7.3 million infringing DVR's out there. They only have what, 14 million subscribers??


That depends on whether or not *all* of DISH's DVR are infringing. Surely they have at least 7.3 million DVRs out there. Many households have more than one DVR per "subscriber". I'm sure that applies to DirecTV, DISH, Comcast, FiOS, and everyone else.

Until I recently switched to FiOS I had 4 active DirecTiVos. Now I have 4 active TiVo HDs. I'm 1 "subscriber".


----------



## m.s (Mar 8, 2007)

MichaelK said:


> do those numbers take into account voting rights?


Actually, Yahoo got it wrong. According to the most recent 10K, "216,411,941 of the 238,435,208 outstanding shares of our Class B common stock were held by Charles W. Ergen." Yahoo incorrectly reports 538,652 (which may only be Class A shares, but isn't stated).

Class B shares get 10 votes per. Class A shares get 1 vote per.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

m.s said:


> LOL. Numbers pulled from your behind don't count.
> 
> From Yahoo Finance:
> 538652/446590000 = 0.12%
> ...


From the Dish 13D:



> SCHEDULE 13D/A
> http://shareholder.api.edgar-online...pGGnWfxAhv1iwCd&ID=6921934&PageBreakStyleID=2
> 
> CUSIP No. 278762109
> ...


Where did you say I pulled those numbers from again?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> I don't believe that has been determined- hence why the analyst says it's 7+ million DVR's


it has been determined in the sene the suit and thus order to shut off is ONLY for the DVR models listed in the suit umpteen years ago. If TiVo wanted other models included they would have to file whatever the legal thing is and notify the court of such.

So Ergen is simply trying worst case to get the courts to decide it is too egregious to order them turned off.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

So your behind produces numbers that are in fact worthy of being counted.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

timckelley said:


> So your behind produces numbers that are in fact worthy of being counted.


Yes, I guess it is snark worthy.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> So Ergen is simply trying worst case to get the courts to decide it is too egregious to order them turned off.


I suspect his audience for this is the CAFC judges he wants to vote in favor of an en banc hearing. If it comes down to an actual shutdown, I suspect that the number to be shut off would suddenly become much lower.

We will see, this whole thing is definitely a spectator sport.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> it has been determined in the sene the suit and thus order to shut off is ONLY for the DVR models listed in the suit umpteen years ago. If TiVo wanted other models included they would have to file whatever the legal thing is and notify the court of such.
> ....


yep- but it's still another unknown/gamble for ergen that they could possibly be impacted at some point.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> Deadline has been extended to June 2nd.


curious-

who extended?

and why?


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

> Before the Court is Defendants' Emergency Motion for Expedited Resolution of Echostar's Motion for Pre-Approval of Proposed New Design Around. Dkt. Nos. 1025 and 1024, respectively.
> 
> Also before the Court are Plaintiff's Response, Defendants' Reply, and
> Plaintiff's Sur-reply. Dkt. Nos. 1029, 1030, and 1031, respectively.
> ...


From another forum...


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> yep- but it's still another unknown/gamble for ergen that they could possibly be impacted at some point.


correct - but for analysts to hype the same 7.3 million number Ergen put out is just irresponsible sensationalism. Now if you say DISH would have to license 7.3 million DVRs to be sure they are covered going into the future - then sure that could be a reasonable move by DISH


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> From another forum...


What court has control at the moment- the full court of appeals?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> correct - but for analysts to hype the same 7.3 million number Ergen put out is just irresponsible sensationalism. Now if you say DISH would have to license 7.3 million DVRs to be sure they are covered going into the future - then sure that could be a reasonable move by DISH


oh- I see what you are saying. If he did say 7 million could be *shut down* at the current time would be foolish. Knowing the background I took the guy to mean that Dish may have to pay licensing fees on 7 million DVR's not shut down 7 million. I looked at the linked article to see exactly how he worded it and it's not a quote so who knows what the guy actually said- was he the dope or did the reporter not understand and paraphrased incorrectly?


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> What court has control at the moment- the full court of appeals?


Yes.

As long as the CAFC stay is in place, the Texas Stay until June 4 is meaningless. If the CAFC rejects Dish's En Banc request and the mandate issues before the 4th, only then will the Texas stay start to matter.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

CuriousMark said:


> Yes.
> 
> As long as the CAFC stay is in place, the Texas Stay until June 4 is meaningless. If the CAFC rejects Dish's En Banc request and the mandate issues before the 4th, only then will the Texas stay start to matter.


so basically they said they need another couple weeks to even decide if they are going to hear the case?

the wheels of justice sure do turn slowly...


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> so basically they said they need another couple weeks to even decide if they are going to hear the case?
> 
> the wheels of justice sure do turn slowly...


I think he (Folsom in Texas) will hear the case, but won't be free to look into until then and wants the stay in place to keep Dish from getting hammered if the CAFC decides before he gets the time to look into it.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> I looked at the linked article to see exactly how he worded it and it's not a quote so who knows what the guy actually said- was he the dope or did the reporter not understand and paraphrased incorrectly?


I vote YES on both


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I vote YES on both


laughing- probably correct.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> I agree with that.
> 
> TiVo is getting peanuts from DirecTV for each TiVo DVR deployed by them. But in DirecTV's defense they licensed, they didn't steal (DISH never even returned the demo machines that TiVo lent them).
> 
> DISH is already on the hook for all sorts of back payments. Going forward, Charlie should have to pay twice as much as DirecTV. But no more than that. I think that's a lot closer to $1 per month rather than $4 per month.


TiVO NEVER asked for the demo back. TiVO, the premier patent protector just casually leaves the demo at Dish and never requests for it back? Does one smell set-up? In fact that is the jury's SOLE reasoning for concluding that Dish infringed. Not a word about the code or language or specific patents itself because it is beyond them, the judge, and just about a good many professors of computer science. Even the stupid USPO had to reverse itself. Very sad state of affairs regarding our patent laws and the ninnies at the USPO.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

Hmmm, looks better for DISH now today.


----------



## dslunceford (Oct 19, 2000)

rifleman69 said:


> Hmmm, looks better for DISH now today.


Hard not to make this "stock talk" but stock getting hammered today on rumors that appeals court is finding in Dish's favor....Charlie maybe litigated his way out?

From Fox biz reporter


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/13980698924Tivo shares tumbling 35% on news court rehearing case vs Echostar and Dish, leading to a reversal in verdict that was in favor of Tivo.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

dslunceford said:


> Hard not to make this "stock talk" but stock getting hammered today on rumors that appeals court is finding in Dish's favor....Charlie maybe litigated his way out?
> 
> From Fox biz reporter


Echostar was granted a rehearing en banc at the Appellate Court. The March 4 2010 ruling has been vacated for now. Dish DVRs aren't shutting off anytime soon.

That's rare, and sort of surprising. The original ruling was 2-1 in favor of Echostar, but the one dissent was very strong. That may have triggered it. The court is worried about four issues:

1. Do you need a brand new trial to declare that new products are infringing?

2. The specific language used by Judge Fossom in his ruling was unique, and he did not use previously established language such as "more than colorable differences". Why?

3a. At a contempt hearing, who has the burden of proof? 
3b. When awarding damages, does it matter that a serious attempt was made to make a non-infringing device?

4. Can you hold someone in contempt when the injunction is ambiguous?


----------



## kevinwill1 (Apr 18, 2004)

Wow... Just when we thought this thing could possibly be close to being finished. Maybe Good Ol' Charlie (sarcastic) actually knew what he was doing this whole time??


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

It's unbelievable how long justice can be dragged out.


----------



## Mike-Mike (Mar 2, 2010)

maybe I am missing something, I read this:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g8OyIMYQ9ujPQj759ihx8bx5wh9wD9FMNR1G0

and I don't understand why this seems like a win for Dish, which is the feeling I was getting from this board...

can someone break this down for me in stupid doo doo dumb language?


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

Read the second paragraph in your link.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

rifleman69 said:


> Read the second paragraph in your link.


I would consider this a stay of execution, not a win. DISH hasn't "won" anything yet. They'll simply get the en banc appeal they asked for. Considering DISH has lost all the other appeals they made, I would think it's unlikely that they'll win this one. The fourth paragraph states as much.

The market is simply reacting to the shock of the en banc being granted.

IANAL, but if I understand en bancs correctly, no new evidence will be introduced, it's just a review of the original decision. I can't see that taking all that long in the scheme of things.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

morac said:


> I would consider this a stay of execution, not a win. DISH hasn't "won" anything yet. They'll simply get the en banc appeal they asked for. Considering DISH has lost all the other appeals they made, I would think it's unlikely that they'll win this one. The fourth paragraph states as much.
> 
> The market is simply reacting to the shock of the en banc being granted.
> 
> IANAL, but if I understand en bancs correctly, no new evidence will be introduced, it's just a review of the original decision. I can't see that taking all that long in the scheme of things.


It also gives DISH and TiVo more time to work out a settlement, that can only help DISH in comparison to what they "should" have owed TiVo as of yesterday. This is not a slam dunk case for either side.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Series3Sub said:


> TiVO NEVER asked for the demo back. TiVO, the premier patent protector just casually leaves the demo at Dish and never requests for it back? Does one smell set-up?


seriously - you want to try and make this long drawn out hassle for both companies a setup??
You also forget that DISH was saying they were going to sign a deal and pulled back at the very last moment in a very surprise move. Till then TiVo had reason to think DISH should have access to prototype - when they elected not to sign the deal then TiVo had no reason to think DISH would violate the law. Also the version I heard was that DISH said they misplaced the demo unit. Who knows which version is correct but it seems a bit much to think TiVo left its cookies on the table deliberately so they could slap hands that stole them


----------



## varucell (May 15, 2010)

Series3Sub said:


> Dish Network recently hiked and reorganized their fee structure resulting in HUGE fee increases for dual tuner DVR's that brings Dish much closer to what cable, FiOS and AT&T charge, but still lower by a few bucks than most of the competition. It seems that he has already raised the rates in anticipation of having to pay licensing fees, so there will be no _new_ fee increases for the DVR's even if they have to pay a very high license fee. He already has it built in to the new fee structure. Gotta love his public BS talk though .


Wrong. I have worked for Dish Network for years. Most people bills went down some went up 3 dollars. The pricing scheme is alot better.


----------



## rlcarr (Jan 18, 2003)

Here's the actual order granting the _en banc_ rehearing: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/09-1374o.pdf


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

varucell said:


> Wrong. I have worked for Dish Network for years. Most people bills went down some went up 3 dollars. The pricing scheme is alot better.


I would be willing to accept your statement at face value, as we all do on such forums, but since you qualified it by stating that you have "worked for Dish Network for years," please post the Dish Network spreadsheet supporting your claim. This spreadsheet should also contain solid numbers of one or two or more DVR per household as well as all the total calculated on such spredsheet. If you are a CSR, then we know how (in)accurate your info would be then. However, I am certain that you must be an officer of the corporation or at least an administrative assistant to such Dish corporate execs who would have such access, no doubt.

If you are willing to state that you are, in fact, one of the officers of Dish corporation or someone who has seen the spreadsheets, then I will take you at your word as responding to your statement of having "worked for Dish for years," and greatly appreciate the inside, expert knowledge you are sharing on this forum.

Since Dish and its execs have gone on record on past quarterly earnings conference calls as not publicly discussing nor revealing all of the particular numbers you would need for you to make such a qualified definitive statement, one would have to conclude that the spreadsheet you will soon be posting was accessed surreptitiously and/or you are in violation of NDA. I look forward to the spreadsheet.


----------

