# Bear Sterns "positive" on DTV/Tivo relationship



## Cutty (Sep 8, 2007)

http://seekingalpha.com/article/658...-and-tivo-renewed-relationship?source=i_email


----------



## ducker (Feb 21, 2006)

well that's interesting... I'd like to go HD.. but I can't see myself doing it with DTV's cludgy DVR.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

As noted in the other thread...

That analysis is wrong in two major areas:

1) The HD-DVR platform has no ties to the NDS systems. NDS is not involved with the HR2* series, with the exception of the Access Card technology.

NDS is only involved with the R15/R16 platform.

2) Where is the TiVo-HD cheaper then the HD-DVR's from DirecTV... the price for the HR2* units is $199 before any rebates or discounts.... TiVo.com lists the TiVoHD at $299. You then have the analysis on service fees to use the DVR features, ect... that factor in.


The analysis did put the information about the ReplayTV technology purchase... and if you don't think that will play big into any factors... think again.

As for the opinion of the Analysis, that the user interface is better on TiVo... that is his opinion... and it is shared by a fair number of people.
But it is just "one" persons opinion on it, it is not universally shared... and you will find people that feel the DVR+ interface is better...

Has there been a scientific study on which interface is better? Until there is... it is a matter of personal opinion and discussion points for consumers when they are shopping.


----------



## ebockelman (Jul 12, 2001)

We can debate the merits of one platform vs. the other (ease of use, feature set, etc.) all we want, but there is one factor that must be considered - mindshare. Tivo still has the image as the "premium" DVR option. 

Comcast has jumped on this as a value-added option to their DVRs.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

ebockelman said:


> We can debate the merits of one platform vs. the other (ease of use, feature set, etc.) all we want, but there is one factor that must be considered - mindshare. Tivo still has the image as the "premium" DVR option.
> 
> Comcast has jumped on this as a value-added option to their DVRs.


In the minds of whom? 
The consumers that have already owned a TiVo unit?
The consumers that don't have a DVR yet?

What I will agree... is that the name TiVo, is the generic term used to reference DVR technology by the general consumer. That doesn't necessarily mean it is considered the "premium" DVR option.

I would bet there would be no conclusive pattern if you blindly tested non-dvr users, on which is a TiVo. (if you remove all branding from the DVRs)

COMCAST hasn't jumped on it... it is has been a long 3 year process... that still isn't near completion... as I noted in another thread... let's see how things go, when that option is available to their ENTIRE customer base, not just one market.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Earl, I disagree with your "not a conclusive pattern." There are those that know TIVO is a premium DVR and there are those that have never tried TIVO. And of those that know TIVO is premium, how much are we willing to pay for TIVO?

Direct had TIVO. Direct got greedy. We all lost. You like Directs DVRs now, great for you. I have not tried them, they would probably be great for me too. Others want TIVO only, thats great for them. You are absolutely right, any change takes 3 years to implement. Would I pay an extra $5 for ATT to replace their sad DVR with TIVO? In a second. Would I pay $10, not sure. More? Nope.

Everyone lost, users, Direct and TIVO when they split.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

DouglasPHill said:


> Earl, I disagree with your "not a conclusive pattern." There are those that know TIVO is a premium DVR and there are those that have never tried TIVO. And of those that know TIVO is premium, how much are we willing to pay for TIVO?
> 
> Direct had TIVO. Direct got greedy. We all lost. You like Directs DVRs now, great for you. I have not tried them, they would probably be great for me too. Others want TIVO only, thats great for them. You are absolutely right, any change takes 3 years to implement. Would I pay an extra $5 for ATT to replace their sad DVR with TIVO? In a second. Would I pay $10, not sure. More? Nope.
> 
> Everyone lost, users, Direct and TIVO when they split.


This is still user opinion.

Has a complete study been done of all users?

I still like the TiVo platform... but after using the DVR+ platform for over 2 years now... and the TiVo platform for nearly 7....

There is no way, I could classify either one as a "premium" dominattly better then the other.

They both have features the other doesn't.

I will disagree that "everyone" lost when DirecTV split....


----------



## ebockelman (Jul 12, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> In the minds of whom?
> The consumers that have already owned a TiVo unit?
> The consumers that don't have a DVR yet?
> 
> ...


Again, this isn't a Tivo vs. other technology battle.

I agree, if you did blind tests, then most consumers probably would not identify Tivo.

Among those who have had a Tivo (and those who have been influenced by these people), the company/brand enjoys a exceptionally high loyalty rate. Comcast and other cable companies will use this to their advantage to lure people away from Directv. Many have already jumped ship with the S3 and TivoHD.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

ebockelman said:


> Again, this isn't a Tivo vs. other technology battle.
> 
> I agree, if you did blind tests, then most consumers probably would not identify Tivo.
> 
> Among those who have had a Tivo (and those who have been influenced by these people), the company/brand enjoys a exceptionally high loyalty rate. Comcast and other cable companies will use this to their advantage to lure people away from Directv. Many have already jumped ship with the S3 and TivoHD.


There will always be those that stick to what they know, and preffer.
And there most certainly is brand loyalty. And there most certainly is people trying to use the TiVo name to attract customers.

But now that just about every major carrier has a DVR of some type... this wasn't the case 5 years ago. It will be intresting to see the results and numbers of the average consumer on which way they go...

The direction of the DVR technology, the Content that a carrier offers, or pricing. I know with my in-laws, it is completely 100% about the bottom $ amount they spend per month. They could care less if the DVR was a TiVo, or a little guy that sits in the house and swaps tapes.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> As noted in the other thread... That analysis is wrong in two major areas


Did you read the whole report?


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

DouglasPHill said:


> Everyone lost, users, Direct and TIVO when they split.


The Directv shareholders made out ok. They were the ones Directv was suppose to be looking out.

While 100% of those that have had a Tivo may view it as a premium DVR, there are only (wild guess here) roughly 5 million people in the United States that have ever owned a real Tivo. And more than half of those 5 million were DirecTivo users that never had all the Tivo features.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

davezatz said:


> Did you read the whole report?


Only read what was linked above...

Do you have a link to the full report, as would love to see the rest of it.

I am making an assumption that:


> We believe the new DTV management may be more amenable to renewing a relationship with TiVo. The TiVo HD-DVR offers several advantages over the NDS DVRs, including better user interface, wireless access can provide quasi-VOD service, ad revs would be incremental, and TiVos HD-DVR is already cheaper than NDS HD-DVR.


Is a direct quote from the full report.

Which contains both of the issues I noted above.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HiDefGator said:


> The Directv shareholders made out ok. They were the ones Directv was suppose to be looking out.
> 
> While 100% of those that have had a Tivo may view it as a premium DVR, there are only (wild guess here) roughly 5 million people in the United States that have ever owned a real Tivo. And more than half of those 5 million were DirecTivo users that never had all the Tivo features.


How many different "flavors" of TiVo are out there now?
Does the Comcast TiVo exactly match the TiVo-HD or Series 3 from a feature set point of view.... (I have tried to keep up on the Comcast TiVo feature set, but haven't checked lately).

Then you have the DVR/DVD combo units...
The DTiVos..

Are any details available yet for the COX version of TiVo?

What features actually make a TiVo.... a TiVo?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

What everybody lost was choice. Competition is good. I want Tivo, NDS, and the rest to all compete on all the various vendors and give us a choice. How many people would be happy if you ran into Verizon and they said you only get this one brand period.

DTV use to allow Sony, JVC, and the rest. We all lost and DTV lost because innovation is much slower now.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

zalusky said:


> What everybody lost was choice. Competition is good. I want Tivo, NDS, and the rest to all compete on all the various vendors and give us a choice. How many people would be happy if you ran into Verizon and they said you only get this one brand period.
> 
> DTV use to allow Sony, JVC, and the rest. We all lost and DTV lost because innovation is much slower now.


Really?

I recall a few inovations on all those multiple brands, that lead to features that just died off (anyone remember wInk, or the RED LIGHT on the Sony LNB).

Othere then some tweeks to UI and some features that were flashy... what inovating things where provided, when we had multiple vendors independently creating their own DBS systems?

And your Verizon example...
It is not as "open" as you make it seem.
I had a Motorola Razr from TMobile, that I could do a bunch of different things with... that when I went with the Motorola Razr at Verizon, I could no longer do because they decided to not allow it.


----------



## BlackBetty (Nov 6, 2004)

ebonovic said:


> How many different "flavors" of TiVo are out there now?
> Does the Comcast TiVo exactly match the TiVo-HD or Series 3 from a feature set point of view.... (I have tried to keep up on the Comcast TiVo feature set, but haven't checked lately).
> 
> Then you have the DVR/DVD combo units...
> ...


You must enjoy eating crow.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

BlackBetty said:


> You must enjoy eating crow.


What crow am I eating?

as I haven't seen any served yet.


----------



## BlackBetty (Nov 6, 2004)

davezatz said:


> Did you read the whole report?


:up::up:


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

BlackBetty said:


> :up::up:


Can someone post a link to the "entire" report.
As I said before... didn't read the entire thing, as I just read the article linked to above.

If you all read the entire thing... then please share with all..
As I would like to see the "hidden" gem that you all are snidely referring to, in an attempt to counter my points above.


----------



## Cudahy (Mar 21, 2001)

I'm sure there's been some inside research on how many Directv Tivo users(both SD & HD)would be willing to pay a couple of dollars a month more to have the Tivo option. If it's at least a couple hundred thousand Malone and Tivo may want to keep those customers. The only rational reason for Murdoch to reject that option is that he believed they wouldn't lose a significant number of subscribers because of it.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> Really?
> 
> I recall a few inovations on all those multiple brands, that lead to features that just died off (anyone remember wInk, or the RED LIGHT on the Sony LNB).
> 
> ...


OK AT&T then you got blackberry, Iphones, and Treos galore.
Competition has allowed Apple into the mix and they have created a beautiful experience that many people are finally jumping on.

Verizon wouldnt allow bluetooth until competition forced the issue.

Smart devices really change the game and back when DTV was open there were only the beginnings of smart devices. Now we are starting to get a useable internet that can really make a difference when it comes to smart devices.

I can see different companies hosting all sort of partnerships creating a really interesting landscape using broadband. We the consumer lost and DTV using the old tired vendor lock to keep their customers rather than let features flourish with open architectures.

I am not saying Comcast is better they had to be forced into it and it is limited. The bottom line is open competition is better for the consumer and that what its all about.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

Cudahy said:


> I'm sure there's been some inside research on how many Directv Tivo users(both SD & HD)would be willing to pay a couple of dollars a month more to have the Tivo option. If it's at least a couple hundred thousand Malone and Tivo may want to keep those customers. The only rational reason for Murdoch to reject that option is that he believed they wouldn't lose a significant number of subscribers because of it.


So let's say they would lose 200K customers. Right now they are signing up more then 200K per quarter. They could just chalk up the entire 200K lost to a lost quarter and then be done with it and move on and sign up 1 million new subs in the year following. You guys just don't get that 200K just doesn't matter.

And by the way, Murdoch was right if that were his belief. New subs are up and churn is at decade record lows and they haven't offered a Tivo option for 2 years now in HD and over 3 years in SD. So please point out where DirecTV cares one lick about having to bring Tivo back...

So Malone takes over and looks over the situation.
Sub growth up. Churn down and at record lows. Average sub spending is waaaaay up. Company very profitable. And this trend has been going on for a couple years now.
Yea, looks like things are broken, let's spend a few million to bring Tivo back in for a few tens of thousands of customers. Makes perfect sense.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Considering that 200,000 people just don't matter, you guys sure spend a lot of time around here trying to convince a much smaller number of people that they should stick with DirecTV.

Sorry for you folks without a good cable option, but I'm very happy to be one of those who just doesn't matter to DirecTV.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

SDV push and DOCSIS3 are just around the corner. Lets see DTV compete with 100MB internet service and all the bundling. They are going to need partners fast.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

when will the HDtivo be ready? I want one with a red eye to compliment my blue one


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

nrc said:


> Considering that 200,000 people just don't matter, you guys sure spend a lot of time around here trying to convince a much smaller number of people that they should stick with DirecTV.


LOL. I could care less what people do for their TV provider. I just find these threads hilarious. "Oh my god, the Tivo CEO sneezed today and Malone said bless you, Tivo must be coming back to DirecTV!!!" LOL


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

zalusky said:


> SDV push and DOCSIS3 are just around the corner. Lets see DTV compete with 100MB internet service and all the bundling. They are going to need partners fast.


Why do they have to compete?

I give COMCAST their $60 a month for the cable-internet... as it is my best option for internet in this area...

Doesn't mean I have to go with their TV service.

Are these companies with 100MB internet service, not going to sell customers "just" their internet service... or are they going to be required to take the TV service with it... and beforced to use it ?

(As technically I am a COMCAST customer too, because if you get BASIC + INTERNET... it is $2 less then INTERNET alone)


----------



## cramer (Aug 14, 2000)

shibby191 said:


> Sub growth up. Churn down and at record lows. Average sub spending is waaaaay up. Company very profitable.


Growth is the result of HD. And, for the record, the line started turning upward years ago with the introduction of the DTivo, but nobody cares how many millions Tivo, Inc. brought to the front door.

Churn is down due to the ass-raping you will receive for breaking your 2 year commitment.

Sub spending is up, again, due to HD. Anyone with "advanced hardware" is automatically billed for HD Access. Anyone with MP4 hardware has to pay extra to get the remaining 5(?) HD channels -- MP2 only "legacy" customers have to call in every 3 months and ***** to have 2 channels re-enabled. HD PPV movies are more expensive. And HD access for sports packages is insanely more expensive -- as it they're recording in HD _just_ for DTV.


----------



## cramer (Aug 14, 2000)

ebonovic said:


> It will be intresting to see the results and numbers of the average consumer on which way they go...


No, it will not be _interesting_ at all. The average consumer (aka "sheep") is relatively uneducated when it comes to options. As such, they will fall in whatever direction they are nudged. Cable subscribers will take whatever crap the cable company sits in front of them -- as a general rule, because they are 100% unaware of any choice; and this is exactly how cable operators want it... they never mention "cable card" and make damn sure it's a pain to use them if you mention them. DISH subscribers will have a DISH DVR, because they have no choice. Directv subscribers will have a DTV DVR, again, because that's their only choice. The only choice the "average consumer" will be aware of is DISH vs. DTV vs. cable. The later is the only one with any choice of hardware, but they won't know that.

I know it's only _my personal experience_, but I've never met anyone who's used a tivo and then been happy with any other DVR. There are plenty who are tivoless because they have little (or no) choice, but they "really wish [they] had a tivo." Right now my sister has my TivoHD because she simply could not stand the PoS "navigator+" Time Warner threw at her. (rented, obviously) (she called me on the phone, not email mind you, out-of-the-blue one afternoon begging me to "bring home one of [my] tivos". She was refering to one of the series 1's -- that haven't even been powered on for 3+ years.)



zalusky said:


> What everybody lost was choice.
> ...
> DTV use to allow Sony, JVC, and the rest. We all lost and DTV lost because innovation is much slower now.


INDEED! Those were the good times. Take away the consumer choice and competition, and the result is an erosion of quality and consumer satisifaction. There's a huge difference between people loving something (tivo) and tolerating something (R15, HR20, Windows Vista, etc.)



zalusky said:


> Lets see DTV compete with 100MB internet service and all the bundling.


Who are you kidding? Cable companies cannot support the 5Mb service they're offering right now. What makes you think they'll be able to support 100Mb? You'll cross the 2GB (byte) usage quota line-in-the-sand real fast with a 100Mb connection. The way TW plans on "metering" service, you won't know you've crossed that line until you get a 1000$ cable bill -- learn from the cell phone users.


----------



## Cudahy (Mar 21, 2001)

So Directv doesn't mind losing a couple hundred thousand customers even though they could save them by simply letting Tivo offer them a DVR box with a Tivo interface? It wouldn't cost them a dime - it would be paid for by the extra fee. Makes absolutely no sense to me.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

cramer said:


> I know it's only _my personal experience_, but I've never met anyone who's used a tivo and then been happy with any other DVR.


/shrug, I like my HR20 and HR21 as much as I liked my TiVos. In some ways I like TiVo better and in other ways I like the HR2x better. I certainly have a choice to buy a TiVo HD and get cable but I have no interest in doing so.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

Cudahy said:


> So Directv doesn't mind losing a couple hundred thousand customers even though they could save them by simply letting Tivo offer them a DVR box with a Tivo interface? It wouldn't cost them a dime - it would be paid for by the extra fee. Makes absolutely no sense to me.


Tivo fans said, "we want tivo, or we might leave." DTV said, "no tivo". The bluff has been called. The only options left are to fold, or throw down the cards. Either way, we lose.

Customers are just a commodity to DTV. They probably would rather be rid of us, and just keep the other 96% of their user base that are not picky about their receiving equipment


----------



## john-duncan-yoyo (Oct 13, 2004)

ebonovic said:


> Can someone post a link to the "entire" report.
> As I said before... didn't read the entire thing, as I just read the article linked to above.
> 
> If you all read the entire thing... then please share with all..
> As I would like to see the "hidden" gem that you all are snidely referring to, in an attempt to counter my points above.


The problem is I could give Verizon FIOS another 30 a month and TiVo it's 15 or so and save 25 a month. I don't use any of DTV's other features so I would switch in a heart beat if I got a TiVO on FIOS-TV. The only thing keeping me on DTV is my three DTiVOs.

FIOS is rolling out fairly quickly in urban areas.

Perhaps we need a poll to see how many people have a better option than Satellite and stay because of TiVO.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

cramer said:


> Growth is the result of HD. And, for the record, the line started turning upward years ago with the introduction of the DTivo, but nobody cares how many millions Tivo, Inc. brought to the front door.
> 
> Churn is down due to the ass-raping you will receive for breaking your 2 year commitment.
> 
> Sub spending is up, again, due to HD. Anyone with "advanced hardware" is automatically billed for HD Access. Anyone with MP4 hardware has to pay extra to get the remaining 5(?) HD channels -- MP2 only "legacy" customers have to call in every 3 months and ***** to have 2 channels re-enabled. HD PPV movies are more expensive. And HD access for sports packages is insanely more expensive -- as it they're recording in HD _just_ for DTV.


So what you are saying is that whatever strategies DirecTV has employed over the past 14 years has worked?  Doesn't matter if you like it or not and if you don't then don't give DirecTV your money. Pretty simple.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

Cudahy said:


> So Directv doesn't mind losing a couple hundred thousand customers


Havent' paid much attention to the financial calls the past couple years have you?  That's ok. No, DirecTV doesn't mind losing a couple hundred thousand customers at all. They have been more selective in bringing on customers in the first place by increasing credit requirements and so forth. Quality customers vs. quantity. They have even mentioned that sub growth while real good is actually lower then it could be because they are refusing to sign up "marginal" customers. So yes, they don't mind having less customers then they could have.

And by the way, over 140K Tivo subs leave every *quarter* (no numbers on how many stay with DirecTV, just that Tivo is shedding DirecTivo subs that fast) and yet DirecTV *adds* over 250K new subs every quarter. Doesn't seem to be hurting DirecTV at all. You just can't see it because you feel DirecTV has wronged you in some way by not offering Tivo.



> even though they could save them by simply letting Tivo offer them a DVR box with a Tivo interface? It wouldn't cost them a dime - it would be paid for by the extra fee. Makes absolutely no sense to me.


It's pretty obvious that you don't understand how business works. You think Tivo is just going to develop a DVR for free? You think DirecTV is going to license their technolgy to Tivo to develop said DVR for free? Please step into reality here. It would cost millions in R&D, testing and of course will cost millions in ongiong support of a separate platform (which is one of the top reasons why DirecTV went their own way, support costs go way down when you have the same UI across all receivers).

But I guess you believe that Tivo will just eat the millions that they don't have (remember, they are in the tank financialy and lose money every quarter at a faster rate) to R&D a DirecTV box all for a buck or two a month? And then you believe that Joe Sixpack will pay probably double the up front cost for said Tivo box vs. DirecTV's offering? Remember, according to you DirecTV doesn't have to do anything, doesn't have to spend a dime here so no subsidy.

Hey, I'm all for competition and if DirecTV wants to offer Tivo products again then bring it. But it's pretty obvious that they don't need to do so to compete nor does it make any financial sense. If you can't see that they are you are simply blinded by the dancing Tivo guy. Maybe Malone tosses all that out the window anyway, you never know.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebockelman said:


> Comcast has jumped on this as a value-added option to their DVRs.


Comcast began offering Tivo because they saw the results of the Tivo versus Dish lawsuit. In April 2006 Dish was ordered to shut down their DVRs and Comcast saw the writing on the wall and moved quickly. Others will have to follow suit now that Dish lost the appeal because the other DVR's will also be infringing on Tivo's patents. Once the Dish verdict is implemented many other DVR's will suffer the same fate as Dish.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

shibby191 said:


> You think Tivo is just going to develop a DVR for free?


This is a faulty question. Therefore, much of what you said after that is also faulty.

There is no need to develop anything. Tivo software already exists. They just need to load it on DirecTv branded machines. Just like the days of the four million DirecTivo's.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

HPD said:


> This is a faulty question. Therefore, much of what you said after that is also faulty.
> 
> There is no need to develop anything. Tivo software already exists. They just need to load it on DirecTv branded machines. Just like the days of the four million DirecTivo's.


That's kind of a ridiculous post. To assume that existing Tivo software is compatible with DTV DVR equipment is non-sensical. And, even if it could be adpated to work with the existing hardware, to think that it isn't going to cost millions to do that adaptation is again, at the very least, untrue.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> Comcast began offering Tivo because they saw the results of the Tivo versus Dish lawsuit. In April 2006 Dish was ordered to shut down their DVRs and Comcast saw the writing on the wall and moved quickly. Others will have to follow suit now that Dish lost the appeal because the other DVR's will also be infringing on Tivo's patents. Once the Dish verdict is implemented many other DVR's will suffer the same fate as Dish.


So COMCAST was able to predict the future?

The COMCAST/TiVo partnership was announced in earlly 2005, a full year before the issues with DishNetwork

(A link to some of the early analaysis: http://democracyinmedia.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/03/why_comcast_tiv.html)
The press release from COMCAST: http://www.comcast.com/About/PressRelease/PressReleaseDetail.ashx?PRID=166

If anything... at that point in time, COMCAST saw the value that having a GOOD DVR platform (given that in 2005 COMCAST barely had a DVR platform, and the one they had was absolutely horrid)... and with DirecTV announcing that it was going to go it's own way...

They tried to stay on those coat tails and ride that wave....

But here we are 3 years later... and that COMCAST TiVo is still basically not available. It is only available to one market area (IIRC).


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

I wonder what is so hard about porting the TIVO software to different platforms. I would assume ( lol ) its written in C++ with some type of hardware abstraction layer and if they had planned ahead, some type of guide info abstraction layer. One plan for supporting more devices was their working with cable cards. But the slow adoption of cable cards hurts. ATTs choice of technology for Uverse is really cool, but not compatible with anyone. It would have been nice if they had communicated with TIVO a few times while they were developing it.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> Why do they have to compete?
> 
> I give COMCAST their $60 a month for the cable-internet... as it is my best option for internet in this area...
> 
> ...


For you but most people prefer to go with one service and the bundling prices are what its about.

It doesnt matter the bottom line is the more competition and choices the better. I am not saying throw one away. I want them all.

Do you remember the days of Acoustic modems and 300baud max. That was because the phone company ATT could control it all. Once the government opened it up and we could have direct connect and modem cards things really started taking off and innovation was rampant with many companies in the mix.

I personally think its in DTV bests interest to open up and value add.

Once higher speed options are start to deploy. That will be very strong and direct competition to what DTV offers.

I can easily see people downloading many shows and bypassing DTV and Comcast video entirely. It will only be value add and generated here content that will give them an edge to keep people.

I can easily see content providers not wanting to pay the Comcast/DTV tax when they can sell it direct. I watch a number of ABC shows now the next day. My stepdaughter didnt have cable for a while and caught up on Lost by just watching the ABC website. Music works this way today. How many people go to a record store anymore. We still go to middle men in many cases but we have a choice and in many cases we can go direct.

The 100 MB pipe will be a real tipping point.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> So COMCAST was able to predict the future?
> 
> The COMCAST/TiVo partnership was announced in earlly 2005, a full year before the issues with DishNetwork


1) Yes, comcast could see the writing on the wall. All they had to do was research the Tivo patent and they could predict the outcome.

2) The Tivo/Dish lawsuit started in January 2004 as per this article.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-04-13-tivo-echostar_x.htm


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

bengalfreak said:


> That's kind of a ridiculous post. To assume that existing Tivo software is compatible with DTV DVR equipment is non-sensical. And, even if it could be adpated to work with the existing hardware, to think that it isn't going to cost millions to do that adaptation is again, at the very least, untrue.


The hardware is just a computer. The software is the brain.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

HPD said:


> 1)
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-04-13-tivo-echostar_x.htm


My favorite part of that link:

"Barton and fellow co-founder Michael Ramsay testified that TiVo couldn't win licensing deals, other than one with Dish rival DirecTV, because cable operators didn't respect TiVo's willingness to enforce its patents"

After the Dish shutdown, every cable operator offering a DVR that is not Tivo, will quake in their boots.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

HPD said:


> This is a faulty question. Therefore, much of what you said after that is also faulty.
> 
> There is no need to develop anything. Tivo software already exists. They just need to load it on DirecTv branded machines. Just like the days of the four million DirecTivo's.


If it is so easy to do why has it taken 3 years to develop the Comcast TiVo? I remember when it was supposed to be out in August, 2006. My parents are still waiting.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

HPD said:


> This is a faulty question. Therefore, much of what you said after that is also faulty.
> 
> There is no need to develop anything. Tivo software already exists. They just need to load it on DirecTv branded machines. Just like the days of the four million DirecTivo's.


Hmmmm, so it took them 3 years to shoehorn the Tivo software onto existing Comcast DVR hardware. I guess Tivo engineers must be dumb for not being able to do it in a month then according to you.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

HPD said:


> Comcast began offering Tivo because they saw the results of the Tivo versus Dish lawsuit. In April 2006 Dish was ordered to shut down their DVRs and Comcast saw the writing on the wall and moved quickly. Others will have to follow suit now that Dish lost the appeal because the other DVR's will also be infringing on Tivo's patents. Once the Dish verdict is implemented many other DVR's will suffer the same fate as Dish.


Thus why DirecTV bought Replay TV's patents.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

shibby191 said:


> Thus why DirecTV bought Replay TV's patents.


That will not do DirecTV any good if their DVR's infringe on Tivo's patents. After reading the Tivo patents, I say they do infringe.

Also, I should mention that if Replay TV was worth anything then they would still be in business.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

shibby191 said:


> Hmmmm, so it took them 3 years to shoehorn the Tivo software onto existing Comcast DVR hardware. I guess Tivo engineers must be dumb for not being able to do it in a month then according to you.


Because we were not privy to what went on, we have no idea how much Comcast could have been dragging their feet with beta testing.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

HPD said:


> Because we were not privy to what went on, we have no idea how much Comcast could have been dragging their feet with beta testing.


So if Comcast didn't drag it's feet we would have seen the product 2 years 11 months ago.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> That will not do DirecTV any good if their DVR's infringe on Tivo's patents. After reading the Tivo patents, I say they do infringe.
> 
> Also, I should mention that if Replay TV was worth anything then they would still be in business.


Actually you should do a little more research on the topic...

DirecTV has an agreement in place with TiVo... that TiVo will not sue them for infringement of their patents... we don't know the EXACT details of what that covers... but it seems to be that if DirecTV does tred into area that TiVo thinks it is there... they are covered.

The purchase of the ReplayTV IP....

Since Replay and TiVo where basically submitting patent requests at the same time... they both have overlapping patents... that cover a lot of areas.

There could be areas where TiVo infringes on Replay (now DirecTV) patents... and it would be a punching match...

And right now... DirecTV has a lot more "stamina" in their punches (aka they have a much bigger bank role), if there was such a battle.... TiVo could go after DirecTV for something... DirecTV could in turn, say they own the patent for the same thing... or for something else.

Replay was worthing something... a lot of a cash for the IP...
Just because it made a few mistakes in it's past, that cost them... big time.. (like have the advertising people go after them for the automatic commercial skip).


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> Because we were not privy to what went on, we have no idea how much Comcast could have been dragging their feet with beta testing.


So TiVo had no involvement in the length of time it took?
It's a two way street... both entities play a part in it.

As a side note...

Where is the COX TiVo... if it is so easy to do...
Is that comming up on 2 years since it's announcement?


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> DirecTV has an agreement in place with TiVo... that TiVo will not sue them for infringement of their patents


I am fully aware of that pact. It expires in April of 2009. By then, Tivo will have its win against Dish fully known and will be in a much better bargaining position with DirecTV



ebonovic said:


> Since Replay and TiVo where basically submitting patent requests at the same time


Tivo owns the time warp patent. That is really all that matters.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=6233389.PN.&OS=PN/6233389&RS=PN/6233389


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> Where is the COX TiVo... if it is so easy to do...
> Is that comming up on 2 years since it's announcement?


The announcement was on August 24, 2006 so that is 18 months ago, not 24 months and I have no idea if Cox has completed their beta testing or how many customers are currently using a Cox Tivo.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> I am fully aware of that pact. It expires in April of 2009. By then, Tivo will have its win against Dish fully known and will be in a much better bargaining position with DirecTV
> 
> Tivo owns the time warp patent. That is really all that matters.
> 
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=6233389.PN.&OS=PN/6233389&RS=PN/6233389


There is an extension, was 3 years to the end of the original contract (ending in 2007)... so that is late 2010/2011 depending on the exact details.
http://www.news.com/TiVo-and-DirecTV-extend-contract/2100-1038_3-6060475.html

In that agreement... do you thik DirecTV would have agreed to something... 
That basically will allow them to keep digging a whole, and then on the next day after the end of the contract TiVo could throw dirty and water on top of that hole?

Also for the Patent piece... so TiVo may hold the patent to that item.
How many do you think Replay holds? Any chance that TiVo is infringing on them?


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> The announcement was on August 24, 2006 so that is 18 months ago, not 24 months and I have no idea if Cox has completed their beta testing or how many customers are currently using a Cox Tivo.


Wouldn't 18 months be "upcomming to 2 years" ?
I didn't say it was 2 years ago... I said it was comming up to 2 years.

There hasn't been a peep about the COX TiVo unit, since that original announcement.

But still 18 months (as of today), must be a little more difficult to put the "brains" into the hardware.


----------



## jmoak (Jun 20, 2000)

just answering a few questions, I dare not speculate.


> _ebonovic said:_
> Can someone post a link to the "entire" report.


I can't get to it. It's a "premium" report. (big bucks) The only thing I've seen of it is the quote from Dave Zats.

"We believe the new DTV management may be more amenable to renewing a relationship with TiVo. The TiVo HD-DVR offers several advantages over the NDS DVRs, including better user interface, wireless access can provide quasi-VOD service, ad revs would be incremental, and TiVo's HD-DVR is already cheaper than NDS' HD-DVR."


> _ebonovic said:_
> What features actually make a TiVo.... a TiVo?


In a nutshell, Dependability.


> _ebonovic said:_
> TiVo's HD-DVR is already cheaper than NDS' HD-DVR.


Bear Stearns' references the manufacturing cost, not retail. (I know not where they get their figures)


> _shibby191 said:_
> New subs are up and churn is at decade record lows


The churn rate of DirecTV subscribers who were signed up for the TiVo DVR service was 0.5 percent, or less than one-half of directv's current record lows.
Historic DTivo churn rate:http://www.news.com/DirecTV-exec-quits-TiVo-board/2100-1041_3-5226730.html (6/4/2004)
Directv's current record churn rate, 1.42 percent: http://blogs.barrons.com/techtrader...n-8-years-sees-revs-up-double-digits-in-2008/


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

HPD said:


> That will not do DirecTV any good if their DVR's infringe on Tivo's patents. After reading the Tivo patents, I say they do infringe.
> 
> Also, I should mention that if Replay TV was worth anything then they would still be in business.


wow, you are as completely wrong as Bobneth and netsurfer 

As to the article, since the report costs money to get then I would assume it to be long term analyzed speculation on how how good it would/would not be for the two companies to work together again. We know the new owner is far more amenable to TiVo and would be kind of stupid to rely on NDS for DVRs, so how likely is that to bear fruit? Well since the new owners do NOT have to rely on NDS and DO have replayTV patents to strengthen themselves against lawsuits it really does indeed become a business/economic decision. Churn does not seem to play a big part in any need to get back with TiVo so we would need to see the costs structures in play.... which is exactly why Bear Sterns can charge for the report toget to the only analysis that matters.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

jmoak said:


> Bear Stearns' references the manufacturing cost, not retail. (I know not where they get their figures)


If someone has those numbers, I would like to see them.

As of the last QTR update from DirecTV... the HD-DVR line was ~$400-450 to manufacture... with the goals of the first part of this year, to get it even lower.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> There is an extension, was 3 years to the end of the original contract (ending in 2007)... so that is late 2010/2011 depending on the exact details


This article says the original contract was set to expire in February 2007 so the three year extension would mean February 2010, just two years from now.

http://www.businessweek.com/technol...nology+index+page_more+of+today's+top+stories


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> In that agreement... do you thik DirecTV would have agreed to something...
> That basically will allow them to keep digging a whole, and then on the next day after the end of the contract TiVo could throw dirty and water on top of that hole?


When an agreement ends it ends, simple as that. If Tivo wants to sue after the agreement ends then I am sure they will. Once they have zapped Dish then why not go after the other big Satellite provider. Only makes sense.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> so TiVo may hold the patent to that item. How many do you think Replay holds? Any chance that TiVo is infringing on them?


Tivo has 70 patents and 106 are pending approval. As for replay, Tivo won that game. I hear nobody talking about Replay sueing Tivo.

http://www.news.com/TiVo-records-new-DVR-patents/2100-1041_3-5593721.html


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> There hasn't been a peep about the COX TiVo unit, since that original announcement.


For all we know, the DVR that Cox currently offers may be run by Tivo software.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> wow, you are as completely wrong as Bobneth and netsurfer


To which posts of theirs are you referring to? When I said "that will not do DirecTV any good if their DVR's infringe on Tivo's patents" how could that be wrong? When I said "if Replay TV was worth anything then they would still be in business" that makes perfect sense as Tivo is still in business and Replay Tv is not.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

The DirecTV plan for making money: Get people to pay for DirecTV DVR equipment and then put them on a two year commitment (some knowing some not knowing). Keep revenue steady by reminding customers of the commitment, not by keeping the customer happy or providing a value/product that the customer wants to keep.

The TIVO plan for making money: Build the best DVR, charge subscription fee for each DVR , and collect royalties or sue every other DVR maker.

 I could not resist.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

HPD said:


> When I said "if Replay TV was worth anything then they would still be in business" that makes perfect sense as Tivo is still in business and Replay Tv is not.


Just because the owners of Replay TV failed in their business of selling DVRs doesn't mean that their patents are worthless. Also doesn't mean that they didn't have the money to pay the lawyers to fight infringements. History is litered with companies that failed to sell a product but still had strong patents. But now DirecTV has the money and the muscle to actually fight for the Replay patents.

You can bet that this will happen in 2-3 years if Tivo is free to sue DirecTV: They will come to an agreement to not sue *each other* for patent infringement and will license their patents to each other in a wash. Perhaps DirecTV violates the time warp patent or maybe a couple others, but Tivo then might violate some of the ones DirecTV now owns. With it's own patents behind it DirecTV has the money to just keep Tivo in court forever and sue it to death. If Tivo wants to play that game.

But hey, you are the obvious expert in all things business.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> wow, you are as completely wrong as Bobneth and netsurfer





HPD said:


> To which posts of theirs are you referring to? .


that would be your posts you made under those ids


----------



## Cudahy (Mar 21, 2001)

So in addition to not losing a couple hundred thousand subscribers(at no cost to Directv) there is also the advantage of avoiding any future lawsuits.
The only real obstacle to this might be Tivos' opposition to the extra DVR fee that would give Directv's DVR the general advantage; But the alternative for Tivo is no Directv customers at all in a couple of years.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Cudahy said:


> So in addition to not losing a couple hundred thousand subscribers(at no cost to Directv) there is also the advantage of avoiding any future lawsuits.


I doubt lawsuits are much of an issue to DirectTV. With the replayTV patents DirectTV now owns they can legitimately countersue TiVo and make the DISH trial seem like a low cost walk in the park.

since the new owners do NOT have to rely on NDS and DO have replayTV patents to strengthen themselves against lawsuits it really does indeed become a business/economic decision. Churn does not seem to play a big part in any need to get back with TiVo so we would need to see the costs structures in play.... which is exactly why Bear Sterns can charge for the report toget to the only analysis that matters.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> When an agreement ends it ends, simple as that. If Tivo wants to sue after the agreement ends then I am sure they will. Once they have zapped Dish then why not go after the other big Satellite provider. Only makes sense.


Since none of us seen the actuall wording of the agreement...

It is very probable... that the "support" piece ends in 2010...
And the wording of the "we won't sue, ever" for any work done prior to the 2010 date...


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> Tivo has 70 patents and 106 are pending approval. As for replay, Tivo won that game. I hear nobody talking about Replay sueing Tivo.
> 
> http://www.news.com/TiVo-records-new-DVR-patents/2100-1041_3-5593721.html


Umm... since Replay doesn't exist anymore... and hasn't really for a while.

Where has "TiVo" won that game....
Issuance of patents are one thing, defending their merit an dtheir issuance is something completely another.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> For all we know, the DVR that Cox currently offers may be run by Tivo software.


Yah serious about that one?

The software on COX DVRs is definently not TiVo.

TiVo would be touting it on the top of the mountain, that they have completed that project... to attract more partners...

As would COX.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

DouglasPHill said:


> The DirecTV plan for making money: Get people to pay for DirecTV DVR equipment and then put them on a two year commitment (some knowing some not knowing). Keep revenue steady by reminding customers of the commitment, not by keeping the customer happy or providing a value/product that the customer wants to keep.
> 
> The TIVO plan for making money: Build the best DVR, charge subscription fee for each DVR , and collect royalties or sue every other DVR maker.
> 
> I could not resist.


As to the first part... the commitments started before there where any DVR+ systems... So I guess that is how they needed to keep people with TiVo as well.

I couldn't resist either.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> It is very probable... that the "support" piece ends in 2010. And the wording of the "we won't sue, ever" for any work done prior to the 2010 date...


You think that Tivo, the inventors of one of the best products to ever come down the pike is really that stupid? Think again. They would never sign an agreement to not sue forever with only a three year extension.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> Umm... since Replay doesn't exist anymore... and hasn't really for a while. Where has "TiVo" won that game. Issuance of patents are one thing, defending their merit an dtheir issuance is something completely another.


Still in business = winner. Out of business = loser.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> since Replay doesn't exist anymore and hasn't really for a while. Where has "TiVo" won that game.


Replay out of business = loser. 
Tivo in business = winner.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> You think that Tivo, the inventors of one of the best products to ever come down the pike is really that stupid? Think again. They would never sign an agreement to not sue forever with only a three year extension.


If they wanted to continue with a DirecTV contract... yes, they would agree to something like that.
$2+ million a month in revenue is nothing to sneeze at, especially when it is one of your largest and consistant sources of revenue.

Do you think DirecTV a long time company, who has a dedicated floor for their lawyers.. would sign a contract, that is just a sitting duck lawsuit... come on now.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> Replay out of business = loser.
> Tivo in business = winner.


Replay being "out of business" has nothing to do with the value of their IP and patent portfolio.. In fact, at the end of the day... the biggest thing of value to TiVo, Inc... is their IP as well... (IMHO).


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

HPD said:


> The hardware is just a computer. The software is the brain.


Are you a software engineer? While that is true at a very high conceptual level, getting existing software working on new hardware, even if you control the 'OS' the software is running on, is not simple.


----------



## Bonanzaair (Aug 26, 2006)

I think it's important to remember that Tivo has moved beyond it's agreement with DirecTV. Contracts signed with companies around the world to offer unique Tivo features like TivoCAST, Amazon Downloads, KidsZone, Universal Swivel Search, Wish List, etc. 

I'm still waiting for the day when someone in the media says - I've got that recorded on my HD DVR+ from DirecTV. I probably will have to wait just as long as for someone to say "Geez, I'll have a Puffs Tissue". Tivo is the Brand. If DirecTV customers are happy with a Puff DVR so be it. Two years isn't really all that long. Wonder how many DirecTV Tivo customers will stay after their commitment is over?

Now somebody - pass me a Kleenex.


Bonanza


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Bonanzaair said:


> I'm still waiting for the day when someone in the media says - I've got that recorded on my HD DVR+ from DirecTV. I probably will have to wait just as long as for someone to say "Geez, I'll have a Puffs Tissue". Tivo is the Brand. If DirecTV customers are happy with a Puff DVR so be it. Two years isn't really all that long. Wonder how many DirecTV Tivo customers will stay after their commitment is over?
> 
> Now somebody - pass me a Kleenex.
> 
> Bonanza


How many people then refuse to accept a PUFFS tissue, when you specifically asked for Kleenex.

There is no argument that the "TiVo" name is synomous with the DVR.. and is frequently used to refer the act of using a DVR to record something. And that is a tremendous credit to the marketting/branding teams of TiVo, Inc.

Heck... I have even started polls here at TCF... what do you call it? Record / Tape / or TiVoed it...

I will say... it is getting less common than it was say two years ago... when TiVo was very often used as a verb instead of a noun....

But more so, when I hear references on the radio and TV... it is "set your recorder" or "I recorded it"...


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> If they wanted to continue with a DirecTV contract, yes they would agree to something like that.
> $2+ million a month in revenue is nothing to sneeze at, especially when it is one of your largest and consistant sources of revenue.
> 
> Do you think DirecTV a long time company, who has a dedicated floor for their lawyers.. would sign a contract, that is just a sitting duck lawsuit... come on now.


Tivo knows they have the patents that can win and they know that 2 million a month is almost nothing compared to what they will be getting from DirecTv after they win the Dish lawsuit and the agreement runs out. The people at Tivo are extremely smart people and they are in this for the humongous payoff. Five years from now Tivo is going to be a huge corporation with deals with every Satellite and cable company. The Dish lawsuit will see to that.

It is not about how many lawyers you have, it is about whether you have the patent that makes having a DVR worthwhile and without the time warp patent DirecTV does not have what they need to make a device that records while it plays back, but Tivo does own that patent.

DirecTV, get ready to pay big time in the future. Your period of infringement time is far longer that Dish.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> Replay being "out of business" has nothing to do with the value of their IP and patent portfolio.. In fact, at the end of the day... the biggest thing of value to TiVo, Inc... is their IP as well... (IMHO).


It ain't so just because you type it. It has everything to do with it. If replay TV was worth a damn then they would still be in business or even bought out. And I sure a XXXX do not mean the lousy 36 million that DirecTV payed for it.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> How many people then refuse to accept a PUFFS tissue, when you specifically asked for Kleenex. But more so, when I hear references on the radio and TV... it is "set your recorder" or "I recorded it"...


People who accept DVR's other than Tivo, currently do it because right now they have no choice. But after Dish is ordered to shut down their DVR's the dam is going to burst open like somebody but 50,000 tons of TNT at the base. After Dish falls, then Tivo is going to be shooting fish in a barrel with all the other DVR people who have stolen the technology from Tivo.

Just the other day I heard Oprah Winfrey say that she Tivod a show. When Oprah speaks about a product, sales for that month usually go up about 1,500 percent. Then those people show their friends and then the ball really starts rolling. Face it, Tivo is here to stay and soon many pirated DVR's will become Tivo DVR's.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

ebonovic said:


> How many people then refuse to accept a PUFFS tissue, when you specifically asked for Kleenex.


For some of us, it's a case by case basis.

Generic Kleenex=ok
Generic Tylenol=ok
Generic Advil=ok
Generic NyQuil=not ok
Generic hot dogs=not ok
Generic Cheetos=ok
Generic Doritios=not ok
Generic Coke(aka Pepsi)=OK. Preferred, in fact.
Generic Tivo=NOT OK.

Ya gotta let everyone choose for themselves (speaking in general, not as a directed response). Different folks will have different preferences. Mine have even changed with time. When the time comes that someone produces a generic dvr that tastes better than Tivo, I'll change my preference.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

i pretty much stopped reading when the pissing war started but does anyone have the answer as to when the new hdtivo will be in existence or not?


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

Not when, if, and the answer is no.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

HPD said:


> The hardware is just a computer. The software is the brain.


And that means what?


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

HPD said:


> For all we know, the DVR that Cox currently offers may be run by Tivo software.


What an absolutely ridiculous supposition. If it were run by Tivo software, Cox would be shouting it from the mountain tops. Sheesh.

EDIT: Wow, I guess I should read the whole thread before replying since Earl said, almost word for word, the same thing.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

CrashHD said:


> Not when, if, and the answer is no.


oh so question was asked and answered...why are they still talking then ?


----------



## Cudahy (Mar 21, 2001)

When the government officially recognizes the transfer(next week?) we should know within a few months if Malone recognizes that Directv would make more money and have more subscribers if they reached an agreement with Tivo. The reason I'm still hopeful is that Malone really seems to be interested in making money.


----------



## josetann (Oct 2, 2001)

Ever since I've been "forced" to get the HR20s, I stopped being loyal to DirecTV. The loyalty actually wasn't to DirecTV, it was to TiVo. When I first bought my HD-TiVo, I was more than willing to pay many hundreds more than the Dish Network HD DVR. I was willing to pay a higher programming fee (to watch the programming I'm interested in, it'd be a bit cheaper to go with Dish, I don't care about sports channels and some of the other channels). I loved being able to leave for vacation, whether it was a few days or a few weeks, and know that the TiVo would still be chugging away happily. The only problem I had to worry about was all the reruns that might show up since I could only go through the ToDo list for two weeks maximum (so if I was gone longer, I couldn't weed out stuff I didn't want). Yes I know I could set it to only record first-runs, but I watch a lot of shows that I haven't kept up with since the beginning, so I need to watch the re-runs.

Anyways, now that TiVo is basically gone, I'm free to shop around. Instead of calling DTV and saying "I'd like that new HD-TiVo, I know you can't match Dish's price, that's ok I'm willing to pay more for it" I'm saying "this is what Dish is offering me, what can you do?" Now I'm not calling every few months, more like once a year or two. I sit down, compare what I have vs what it'd cost to switch over. I'd switch in a heartbeat if the price is right. Heck, Dish's hardware does some things that DTV's can't (like running two TVs off of one receiver). I'm happy where I'm at, the HR20s work well enough, but still not as good as TiVo. I still have TiVos where I can (anywhere I don't have an HD TV, plus one to serve as a backup in case the HR20s crap out). I personally would be willing to pay a premium, both for the receiver and the monthly fee, to have TiVo back. I don't know exact numbers, but if you could get me a new mpeg4 HD-TiVo for $600 I'd buy it today. Monthly fee increased to $10 for TiVo (call it an advanced DVR fee), sure thing. Heck, charge an extra $5 for every new TiVo per month, that'd be fine with me, it wouldn't really be that much more (no need to have a backup TiVo if your main receiver is a TiVo).

That's just me though. I'm sure many don't really care. And I do agree that each receiver has its pros and cons. The HR20 does some things better (hit record twice and you have a Series link, virtual padding where it only uses one tuner to record two padded programs on the same channel), TiVo does some things better (basically, everything else). In my experience, TiVo is just plain better. They seem to concentrate on making it "just work" before adding new features, while others like to throw a lot of stuff together and nothing seems to quite work right.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

If there is any hope of a new Tivo for DirecTV in the next 1-2 years then it will be talked about in today's 4 and a half hour investment call (starts at 8am EST) where they will plot out the course of the company for the next 1-2 years.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

Sorry guys, Tivo just isn't in the plans.

In fact, far from it. The entire technology plan going forward is all based on the HR20/21. They are actually going to eliminate all SD receivers and have HD capable boxes only by mid-end of 08. And eventually in 09 there will just be one receiver, the HD DVR for everyone.

It's pretty obvious that Tivo is not in the plans. I hope everyone finally gets it but probably not.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

shibby191 said:


> Sorry guys, Tivo just isn't in the plans.
> 
> In fact, far from it. The entire technology plan going forward is all based on the HR20/21. They are actually going to eliminate all SD receivers and have HD capable boxes only by mid-end of 08. And eventually in 09 there will just be one receiver, the HD DVR for everyone.
> 
> It's pretty obvious that Tivo is not in the plans. I hope everyone finally gets it but probably not.


Note the comments that Shibby posted...

Are directly from today's DirecTV Investor Meeting.

For the slide segment of the Meeting.
http://library.corporate-ir.net/library/12/127/127160/items/281632/001_DirecTV_Master_v1.pdf

Page 37 is where they start to talk about the home hardware.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

Does this mean they are completely abandoning the idea of a Home Media Center and will the HR2x be able to share programs similar to a HMC solution?

ETA: Reading through the slides it mentions a whole home HD DVR so I assume that is the same idea as the HMC.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

Yes, the HR20/21 *is* the HMC in a way it seems. You will be able to watch programs from the DVR on your PC over the network (talked about in Q2 '08) and even to non DVR receivers (H21 has an ethernet connection). So I think the HR20/21 is becoming the center of the DirecTV universe.


----------



## MamaKAS (Jul 28, 2004)

cramer said:


> I know it's only _my personal experience_, but I've never met anyone who's used a tivo and then been happy with any other DVR.


I've met many.

Including me. We had D*Tivo's for 8 years (several of them). We have tivo dolls, tivo window clings and tivo antenna guys. We got our first Directv HD DVR (HR20) 9 months ago. We de-activated our last D*Tivo 3 weeks ago and now have 3 Directv HD DVR's (HR20-700, HR21-700, HR21-100). Couldn't be happier. In our opinion (and the opinion of several of our friends who have gone the same route), the Tivos have nothing over the current Directv DVR platform. Was the tivo better 2 years ago? Yes. Was the tivo better 1 year ago? Yes. Is it better now? I don't think so. We love our DVR's. If we didn't, we wouldn't have gotten rid of all our tivos over the last 9 months.


----------



## MamaKAS (Jul 28, 2004)

john-duncan-yoyo said:


> Perhaps we need a poll to see how many people have a better option than Satellite and stay because of TiVO.


Or the opposite poll. We have FIOS available and have had it available for a long time. In fact, we have FIOS internet. We still choose D* over FIOS (with or without tivo).


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

Cudahy said:


> When the government officially recognizes the transfer(next week?) we should know within a few months if Malone recognizes that Directv would make more money and have more subscribers if they reached an agreement with Tivo. The reason I'm still hopeful is that Malone really seems to be interested in making money.


Plus the planets are aligning. Tivo won the original lawsuit and the appeal trial against Dish Network. Dish has until March 17 to ask that the case go to the Supreme court. The Supreme court however, being only one court, can only hear about 1 percent of all cases. It looks like it is just a matter of time before Dish has to diable the hard drives in their DVR's. Once that happens, then DirecTV is the next lawsuit. With 17 million subscribers. DirecTv is a sweet target.


----------



## seedcar (Aug 8, 2005)

HPD said:


> Plus the planets are aligning. Tivo won the original lawsuit and the appeal trial against Dish Network. Dish has until March 17 to ask that the case go to the Supreme court. The Supreme court however, being only one court, can only hear about 1 percent of all cases. It looks like it is just a matter of time before Dish has to diable the hard drives in their DVR's. Once that happens, then DirecTV is the next lawsuit. With 17 million subscribers. DirecTv is a sweet target.


That would be interesting, since DirecTV now owns Replay TV, which has been around longer than Tivo.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> Plus the planets are aligning. Tivo won the original lawsuit and the appeal trial against Dish Network. Dish has until March 17 to ask that the case go to the Supreme court. The Supreme court however, being only one court, can only hear about 1 percent of all cases. It looks like it is just a matter of time before Dish has to diable the hard drives in their DVR's. Once that happens, then DirecTV is the next lawsuit. With 17 million subscribers. DirecTv is a sweet target.


You still don't have a clue on what you are talking about (with regards to the DirecTV aspect)

DirecTV is no target of TiVo's.... they have a contract in place...
A contract/agreement that covers them, on any work done prior to the end of the contract.

DirecTV also hold a lot of patents now... that I bet they have reviewed, and feel TiVo has violated.... Or they can implement in their systems, that don't infringe on TiVo's patents.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

seedcar said:


> That would be interesting, since DirecTV now owns Replay TV, which has been around longer than Tivo.


Ding Ding.....

Just because Replay (and their previous owners), may or many not have had the resourced to go after TiVo, Inc... for any infringement....

Don't think DirecTV wouldn't, if they had no choice.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

seedcar said:


> That would be interesting, since DirecTV now owns Replay TV, which has been around longer than Tivo.


While Replay TV may have been first to market, what is really important is who has which patent. Since Tivo owns the time warp patent then it is impossible for DirecTv to own the patent. That is the patent in question regarding the Dish Network infringement. Therefore, I believe DirecTv would lose the lawsuit.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> DirecTV is no target of TiVo's. They have a contract in place. A contract/agreement that covers them, on any work done prior to the end of the contract. DirecTV also hold a lot of patents now that I bet they have reviewed, and feel TiVo has violated. Or they can implement in their systems, that don't infringe on TiVo's patents.


Contracts can be broken. Once Tivo has vindication in the Dish Network matter, then breaking that contract and sueing DirecTv makes the most sense. Strike while the iron is hot.

If DirecTv had patents that they thought Tivo was infringing upon, they would break their contract and go after Tivo. DirecTv knows that would be the nail in the coffin that would bury Tivo and make them disappear from the landscape. The fact that they have not filed a suit against Tivo for patent infringement tells me that DirecTv knows that Tivo owns the patents worth owning.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> Contracts can be broken. Once Tivo has vindication in the Dish Network matter, then breaking that contract and sueing DirecTv makes the most sense. Strike while the iron is hot.
> 
> If DirecTv had patents that they thought Tivo was infringing upon, they would break their contract and go after Tivo. DirecTv knows that would be the nail in the coffin that would bury Tivo and make them disappear from the landscape. The fact that they have not filed a suit against Tivo for patent infringement tells me that DirecTv knows that Tivo owns the patents worth owning.


Not a chance... There are some contracts and clauses that can't be broken.
And this would be one of those cases. Unless there is an absolute gross violation of the intent/purpose of those contracts

It would also be business suicide for TiVo to do that.
"We agreed to a contract, just to suck you in... so we could sue you..." How many companies do you think would be lining up to partner with such a company after that? Especially when it is the company that pretty much helped put TiVo on the map. at one point... more then 80% of TiVo's subscriber count, where via DirecTV. Would TiVo be anywhere near the company it is today, without DirecTV partnering with them?

And on the flip... DirecTV would maybe not be at 17 million subscribers, without having the TiVo technology for the first part of the 2000's where DVR technology was new and premium (now it is almost a standard)... but they certainly would not have been impacted in the same magnitude as the reverse.

To DirecTV... TiVo is not a concern, that has to be "gotten rid of".
TiVo is not a competitor of a DirecTV... they are a third party vendor of a technology...

Their competitors are Dish Network, and the Cable Co's.
Not TiVo.

And honestly... if DirecTV Group (or Liberty who has a significant stake in DirecTV operations now), was really worried about a lawsuit of that nature.... or of something TiVo, Inc. could do... They would just buy TiVo, Inc.... (aka one of the options that EchoStar has, with regards to their lawsuit).


----------



## 20TIL6 (Sep 7, 2006)

HPD said:


> Contracts can be broken. Once Tivo has vindication in the Dish Network matter, then breaking that contract and sueing DirecTv makes the most sense. Strike while the iron is hot.
> 
> If DirecTv had patents that they thought Tivo was infringing upon, they would break their contract and go after Tivo. DirecTv knows that would be the nail in the coffin that would bury Tivo and make them disappear from the landscape. The fact that they have not filed a suit against Tivo for patent infringement tells me that DirecTv knows that Tivo owns the patents worth owning.


DirecTV does not own '389. That's the only one that matters.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

HPD said:


> Replay TV Tivo DirecTv Dish Network infringement. lawsuit.


this is just another userid of a yahoo stock troll that started as bobneth userid and will beat the same wrong facts into the ground over and over for his own stock agenda.

HPd feel free to report me to the mods since your spamming of all the multiple forums with your incorrect statements has mucked up the TiVo community forum anyway.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> Not a chance. There are some contracts and clauses that can't be broken. And this would be one of those cases. Unless there is an absolute gross violation of the intent/purpose of those contracts


Let me spell it out for you. Tivo decides to file suit against DirecTV for patent infringement. Now Tivo has broken their contract agreement. It has nothing to do with getting permission to break the agreement from anyone at all. The simple act of filing the suit breaks the contract. Done. Broken.

Now, if DirecTV decides to sue Tivo because Tivo broke the contract, they may win some insignificant award, but it will pale in comparison to the amount DirecTV would have to pay Tivo for patent infringement. That is why Tivo will break the contract, once the Dish trial is a done deal.



ebonovic said:


> It would also be business suicide for TiVo to do that. "We agreed to a contract, just to suck you in so we could sue you." How many companies do you think would be lining up to partner with such a company after that?


It has nothing to do with sucking anyone in. The trouble is you are viewing things from today's standpoint and not attempting to see the future. Today's standpoint is that every Satellite and cable TV provider is stealing Tivo's intellectual property. After the dust settles on the Dish lawsuit, it is a brave new world where Tivo has been proven to own the licensing rights to a product category. Much like the inventor of the VCR owned those rights. That means that other companies have to pay ongoing royalties if they want to manufacture that product category.



ebonovic said:


> Especially when it is the company that pretty much helped put TiVo on the map


Yes, DirecTV did play by the rules in the beginning. By licensing Tivo technology. Then they got greedy and decided to steal the technology. After Dish Network is made to pay for their stealing, then DirecTV will be made to pay for their own stealing.



ebonovic said:


> And on the flip. DirecTV would maybe not be at 17 million subscribers, without having the TiVo technology for the first part of the 2000's where DVR technology was new and premium (now it is almost a standard) but they certainly would not have been impacted in the same magnitude as the reverse.


You say it is almost a standard because you fail to see that there has been rampant stealing of Tivo's intellectual property. Tivo set the standard legally, everyone else illegally, as evidenced by the outcome of two trials against Dish.



ebonovic said:


> To DirecTV... TiVo is not a concern, that has to be "gotten rid of". TiVo is not a competitor of a DirecTV. They are a third party vendor of a technology.


But that will all change after the Dish Network is forced to pay up or shut down. Then Tivo can bargain from a position of strength and can demand that DirecTV pay them the full $5.95 per month that DirecTV is currently charging DVR customers, instead of the measly $1.13 they are currently paying Tivo. Hell, Tivo could even demand $12.00 per month once the world understands that the world got too good of a bargain on DVR's because satellite and cable TV providers were stealing technology they did not develop.



ebonovic said:


> Their competitors are Dish Network, and the Cable Co's. Not TiVo.


The point is that after the Dish Network trial is history, then the world will be put on notice that they cannot continue to steal Tivo intellectual property. Pay Tivo or do not manufacture DVR's.



ebonovic said:


> If DirecTV Group (or Liberty who has a significant stake in DirecTV operations now), was really worried about a lawsuit of that nature or of something TiVo, Inc. could do, they would just buy TiVo, Inc. (aka one of the options that EchoStar has, with regards to their lawsuit).


One cannot buy that which is not for sale. Tivo knows they have the world by the tail and their big pay day is in the future. They know they would be crazy to sell this early in the game. They put in a lot of hard work inventing the DVR. They will wait for their huge pay day.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

20TIL6 said:


> DirecTV does not own '389. That's the only one that matters.


You got that right.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> HPd feel free to report me to the mods since your spamming of all the multiple forums with your incorrect statements has mucked up the TiVo community forum anyway.


Please tell me were you think I am wrong.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Oh where to begin...



HPD said:


> Let me spell it out for you. Tivo decides to file suit against DirecTV for patent infringement. Now Tivo has broken their contract agreement. It has nothing to do with getting permission to break the agreement from anyone at all. The simple act of filing the suit breaks the contract. Done. Broken.


You can try to continue to spell it out, but you need to take a step and look back at reality here.

You can break the contract... but then you go to court.
Judge sees... oh.. you had an agreement for 5 years, but now that you feel you want some money... you void it... and then are now suing for something you said they could do (and wouldn't sue for), for the last 5 years.

That doesn't fly...



HPD said:


> Now, if DirecTV decides to sue Tivo because Tivo broke the contract, they may win some insignificant award, but it will pale in comparison to the amount DirecTV would have to pay Tivo for patent infringement. That is why Tivo will break the contract, once the Dish trial is a done deal.


Last time I checked.. the courts decide the penalties... so unless you can site some court precedence to that to back that up... The TiVo/Dish suit, has no bearing on DirecTV... and TiVo and DirecTV HAVE AN ACTIVE AGREEMENT/CONTRACT... big big big big big big difference.



HPD said:


> It has nothing to do with sucking anyone in. The trouble is you are viewing things from today's standpoint and not attempting to see the future. Today's standpoint is that every Satellite and cable TV provider is stealing Tivo's intellectual property. After the dust settles on the Dish lawsuit, it is a brave new world where Tivo has been proven to own the licensing rights to a product category. Much like the inventor of the VCR owned those rights. That means that other companies have to pay ongoing royalties if they want to manufacture that product category.


I very much can see the future... and the future, is that TiVo can only go after DirecTV for violations AFTER The agreement, not stuff that happened during the agreement period.

TiVo is NOT a competitor to DirecTV... they are a third party vendor, that sells a technology. A Technology they license and will protect...
They have an agreement with DirecTV, you can't just "cancel/renig" on tha contract.

That would be like my company having a license agreement with Microsoft for all the software we use... then Microsoft canceling that license/contract, and then suing us for the last 20 years of usage of their products... just doesn't happen that way.



HPD said:


> Yes, DirecTV did play by the rules in the beginning. By licensing Tivo technology. Then they got greedy and decided to steal the technology. After Dish Network is made to pay for their stealing, then DirecTV will be made to pay for their own stealing.


Where are they stealing their technology? 
Do you have proof, that they are violating their current agreements?
Do you think TiVo is the only one that has the DVR idea?



HPD said:


> You say it is almost a standard because you fail to see that there has been rampant stealing of Tivo's intellectual property. Tivo set the standard legally, everyone else illegally, as evidenced by the outcome of two trials against Dish.


Again... TiVo has to prove each and every case.. That their patent technology, which is very well spelled out.... There is more then one way to skin a cat... and at the end of the day... certain patents, can be ruled by the courts to be invalid. (Like the entire concept of recording content to a hard drive).



HPD said:


> But that will all change after the Dish Network is forced to pay up or shut down. Then Tivo can bargain from a position of strength and can demand that DirecTV pay them the full $5.95 per month that DirecTV is currently charging DVR customers, instead of the measly $1.13 they are currently paying Tivo. Hell, Tivo could even demand $12.00 per month once the world understands that the world got too good of a bargain on DVR's because satellite and cable TV providers were stealing technology they did not develop.


TiVo can't do squat about their active agreement with DirecTV... 
There is a set dollar amount in that contract... and you can't cry about it, after you agree to it.

They can demand what ever they want... doesn't mean they are legally obligated to receive it. TiVo agreed to a contract with DirecTV... plain and simple.



HPD said:


> The point is that after the Dish Network trial is history, then the world will be put on notice that they cannot continue to steal Tivo intellectual property. Pay Tivo or do not manufacture DVR's.


Again... the TiVo/Dish suit, has no direct baring on DirecTV.
They have an active contract in place, that covers a lot of areas.
You can't just cancel it, because now you want more money.



HPD said:


> One cannot buy that which is not for sale. Tivo knows they have the world by the tail and their big pay day is in the future. They know they would be crazy to sell this early in the game. They put in a lot of hard work inventing the DVR. They will wait for their huge pay day.


Last time I checked... TiVo was still a publicly traded company. Not a private company. Ever hear of a "hostile take over". So while they are a publicly traded company, there are always options to buy them.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> Please tell me were you think I am wrong.


Were to begin... Post #2 under your current user name:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=6019989#post6019989


----------



## Cudahy (Mar 21, 2001)

L.A. Times story this morning says Directv subscriber growth was running behind projections. Instead of 18 million by the end of this year they project to have "between 17 & 18 million". 
Dear Mr. Malone, here's an idea on how to increase growth.........


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Cudahy said:


> L.A. Times story this morning says Directv subscriber growth was running behind projections. Instead of 18 million by the end of this year they project to have "between 17 & 18 million".
> Dear Mr. Malone, here's an idea on how to increase growth.........


Wouldn't make a significant difference.... and the investors (that are worried about subscriber rates), would then question why the money was spent to do such a thing... and when they would start to see the ROI on that investiment...

And was it worth the investiment, if it would not drastically change subscriber counts.

"Between 17 and 18 mil"... so that means they may still reach 18 mil...

There are also a ton of other factors that go into a slowing subscriber rate...
The economy...
Low home sales rates...
More expenses elsewhere (like auto-fuel, gas, ect)
Competition for other vendors (like Tripple Play options)
Waiting to see what the "next" thing is...


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> Judge sees... oh.. you had an agreement for 5 years, but now that you feel you want some money... you void it... and then are now suing for something you said they could do (and wouldn't sue for), for the last 5 years. That doesn't fly


It would fly. The end result would be that Tivo would be awarded money for the DirecTV DVR's that infringe on Tivos patent (the private branded units, not the authorized DirecTivo's) and DirecTV would be awarded money for Tivo breaking the contract. Tivo would make out much better in that situation because they are seeing far more harm from the DirecTV private brand DVR than the harm caused by Tivo breaking a contract not to sue. Tivos very survival hangs in the balance because the DVR is their core product. Tivo is not selling Satellite and hurting DirecTV.



ebonovic said:


> TiVo can only go after DirecTV for violations AFTER The agreement, not stuff that happened during the agreement period. TiVo is NOT a competitor to DirecTV... they are a third party vendor, that sells a technology. A Technology they license and will protect. They have an agreement with DirecTV, you can't just "cancel/renig" on tha contract.


The agreement is to continue supporting DirecTivos that are still in the field, NOT the private branded DirecTV DVRs. DirecTV is NOT paying to license their private branded DVRs but Tivo agreed not to sue them for it. But Tivo will change their minds after the Dish lawsuit has concluded and yes, they certainly can cancel, it is called breach of contract and it happens thousands of times per year.



ebonovic said:


> TiVo is NOT a competitor to DirecTV... they are a third party vendor, that sells a technology. A Technology they license and will protect. They have an agreement with DirecTV, you can't just "cancel/renig" on tha contract. .


Wrong. By offering their private branded DVR, DirecTV is a competitor, although an illegal competitor by way of offering customers a DVR on which they do not pay Tivo any royalties. They only pay royalties on the DirecTivos that are still left in the field.



ebonovic said:


> That would be like my company having a license agreement with Microsoft for all the software we use... then Microsoft canceling that license/contract, and then suing us for the last 20 years of usage of their products... just doesn't happen that way. .


Wrong again, see my paragraph above.

Where are they stealing their technology?

Answer, Tivo has the patent on simultaneous recording and playback. Any DVR that can do that and is not licensed through Tivo, steals from Tivo.

Do you have proof, that they are violating their current agreements?

Answer, I already answered that above.

Do you think TiVo is the only one that has the DVR idea?

Answer. Tivo owns the patent for time warp which means that any DVR that can record while playing back or can rewind live TV is an infringing DVR if they are not paying licensing fees to Tivo.



ebonovic said:


> TiVo has to prove each and every case. and at the end of the day... certain patents, can be ruled by the courts to be invalid. (Like the entire concept of recording content to a hard drive). .


The Tivo patent was upheld during the trial. They own it, there is no getting around it.



ebonovic said:


> TiVo can't do squat about their active agreement with DirecTV. There is a set dollar amount in that contract... and you can't cry about it, after you agree to it.


You are talking about the DirecTivos. I am talking about the private branded units that are stealing Tivo technology and new agreement demands that Tivo could make after the Dish case proves there DVR ownership rights. Bargain from strength of patents = Tivo wins big time.



ebonovic said:


> Last time I checked... TiVo was still a publicly traded company. Not a private company. Ever hear of a "hostile take over". So while they are a publicly traded company, there are always options to buy them.


Hostile takeovers fail more often than they succeed when it comes to companies that have as bright a future as Tivo. The reason being is 86 percent of Tivo stock is owned by Tivo insiders and investment institutions, which are both keeping their eyes on the landmark Dish case. These savvy people know that their stock is going to be worth much more in the future. Therefore, to get them to sell their stock any takeover attempt would have to offer a much higher price than the current price. Secondly, for a company like DirecTV to get approval to spend their money on a hostile takeover they would have to get approval for it from a shareholder vote. It is not very easy to accomplish a hostile takeover. That makes it unlikely, to say the least.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> It would fly. The end result would be that Tivo would be awarded money for the DirecTV DVR's that infringe on Tivo's patent (the private branded units, not the authorized DirecTivo's) and DirecTV would be awarded money for Tivo breaking the contract. Tivo would make out much better in that situation because they are seeing far more harm from the DirecTV private brand DVR than the harm caused by Tivo breaking a contract not to sue. Tivo's very survival hangs in the balance because the DVR is their core product. Tivo is not selling Satellite and hurting DirecTV.


You obviously have absolutely no idea what contracts, and agreements are about. You can't sue someone, because you agreed to a contract, that turned out bad for you in the long run.... doesn't work that way.



HPD said:


> The agreement is to continue supporting DirecTivo's that are still in the field, NOT the private branded DirecTV DVR's. DirecTV is NOT paying to license their private branded DVR's but Tivo agreed not to sue them for it. But Tivo will change their minds after the Dish lawsuit has concluded and yes, they certainly can cancel, it is called breach of contract and it happens thousands of times per year.


So fine... on the day the license expires, all TiVo based products are terminated... the actual license based systems. As since none of us has seen the wording of the "we won't sue" contract/agreement, it is pure speculation on what impact would take place on the non-TiVo DVRs.



HPD said:


> Wrong. By offering their private branded DVR, DirecTV is a competitor, although an illegal competitor by way of offering customers a DVR on which they do not pay Tivo any royalties. They only pay royalties on the DirecTivo's that are still left in the field.


So? DirecTV has the rights to their video/data stream... There is no law in place, that forced DirecTV to allow any other technolgoy access to their data stream... In fact, there is law that specifically prohibits it.

Thus... TiVo is not a competitor... they are a 3rd party vendor, that owns a technology/license for a particular product. Tivo can not build a DirecTV system, without the permission of DirecTV.



HPD said:


> Wrong again, see my paragraph above.


Sorry... I am not.



HPD said:


> Answer, Tivo has the patent on simultaneous recording and playback. Any DVR that can do that and is not licensed through Tivo, steals from Tivo.
> 
> Answer, I already answered that above.
> 
> ...


They may own the patent for "TimeWarp" doesn't mean they own a patent for recording content to a DVR... even then, that victory was just that TiVo owns a patent, that Dish violated... You can still have a patent hearing, that finds that Replay (which DirecTV owns), may in fact have a patent that is violated by TiVo... They are not 1 to 1 relations.

And again... DirecTV is paying their license fee today, for the licensed technology... and has a contract/in place to cover them, for any other "infringements" that occur before the end of the contract.

If you truely feel that DirecTV would agree to a sitting timebomb/lawsuit... think again. They work with worldwide vendors and partners, and are not "stupid" to agree to something like that....



HPD said:


> You are talking about the DirecTivo's. I am talking about the private branded units that are stealing Tivo technology and new agreement demands that Tivo could make after the Dish case proves there DVR ownership rights. Bargain from strength of patents = Tivo wins big time.


I am talking about all of them.
DirecTV still has an agreement/contract in place, today... that covers any work they do ... today...that dose not become null and void, at the end of the contract... it just means they are no longer covered for any additional work/development after that point.



HPD said:


> Hostile takeovers fail more often than they succeed when it comes to companies that have as bright a future as Tivo. The reason being is 86 percent of Tivo stock is owned by Tivo insiders and investment institutions, which are both keeping their eyes on the landmark Dish case. These savvy people know that their stock is going to be worth much more in the future. Therefore, to get them to sell their stock any takeover attempt would have to offer a much higher price than the current price. Secondly, for a company like DirecTV to get approval to spend their money on a hostile takeover they would have to get approval for it from a shareholder vote. It is not very easy to accomplish a hostile takeover. That makes it unlikely, to say the least.


Still doesn't mean it couldn't be done.

But it is pretty obvious.. that you are probably part of that 86%

Those save "savy" people also should know when to get out... and if there was an offer on the table.... who says they wouldn't?


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> You can't sue someone, because you agreed to a contract, that turned out bad for you in the long run.... doesn't work that way.


Worst case scenario, when the contract expires in February 2010, just two years away. Tivo sues then.



ebonovic said:


> As since none of us has seen the wording of the "we won't sue" contract/agreement, it is pure speculation on what impact would take place on the non-TiVo DVRs.


Of course it is speculation. However, logic dictates that a company who plans to fight in court is not going to sign a contract that says, if you agree to pay us for the current DirecTivos in the field for a few more years, we will agree not to sue you for eternity. Of course the agreement expires two years from now. That is only logical given Tivos smarts and willingness to fight in court.



ebonovic said:


> So? DirecTV has the rights to their video/data stream. There is no law in place, that forced DirecTV to allow any other technolgoy access to their data stream. In fact, there is law that specifically prohibits it.


But after the Dish results are finalized and the DirecTV contract expires, then DirecTV will have two choices. Shut down their DVRs or let Tivo have access to their data stream. Nobody wants a DVR that does not have the features that the time warp patent makes possible.



ebonovic said:


> Thus... TiVo is not a competitor... they are a 3rd party vendor, that owns a technology/license for a particular product. Tivo can not build a DirecTV system, without the permission of DirecTV.


Here again you are only talking about the current day situation. I am talking about the future that is about to change very rapidly, once the Dish Network verdict is finalized. When Tivo is crowned King, the subjects will line up very quickly to offer Tivo their royalties or risk being sued and having their DVRs shut down and paying penalties.



ebonovic said:


> They may own the patent for "TimeWarp" doesn't mean they own a patent for recording content to a DVR... even then, that victory was just that TiVo owns a patent, that Dish violated... You can still have a patent hearing, that finds that Replay (which DirecTV owns), may in fact have a patent that is violated by TiVo... They are not 1 to 1 relations.


The correct way to say it is that Tivo does own the time warp patent, not that they may. Second, the time warp patent makes it so that a DVR can record and playback at the same time. Who would want a DVR that could not do that? First, you would have to watch your recorded programs only when no other programs were scheduled to record. Second, you could not pause or rewind live TV. What is the point of owning that kind of DVR? You can have it, not me.



ebonovic said:


> If you truely feel that DirecTV would agree to a sitting timebomb/lawsuit... think again. They work with worldwide vendors and partners, and are not "stupid" to agree to something like that....


Tivo would have to be crazy to sign a no sue agreement that never expires.



ebonovic said:


> Those save "savy" people also should know when to get out... and if there was an offer on the table.... who says they wouldn't?


Why would they get out when the party is just starting? Once everybody knows that Dish was forced to shut down their DVRs and pay Tivo a200 million dollar penalty, the party will just be beginning. After that, Tivo will soon become profitable. Then the stock will be a 10-bagger in three years time. So would a person be wise to sell their shares now while at $9.00 or wait for $90.00 on a company with such a promising future?

A hostile takeover bid would not be likely to be more than a 30 percent premium to the current price. People that own Tivo stock know what they are waiting for and are in no hurry to sell. Turn 1 million into 10 million in three years. Sure beats bank interest.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

Earl I wouldn't bother responding to HPD he obviously has no idea what he is talking about. I don't think you are going to convince him.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Well...

We will find out in time.... when TiVo does this magical brake of contract, that gives them the ability to sue for something they agreed to not sue for.

So time will tell...

If that is your analysis of the situation... then your right to it.
I happen to think you are wrong on every point of it though.... 

Your dollar, your opinion.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

bigpuma said:


> Earl I wouldn't bother responding to HPD he obviously has no idea what he is talking about. I don't think you are going to convince him.


I have an uncanny knack for seeing the future. That makes people think I am nuts, only because they cannot see what is most likely to happen and I see it before they do. Sometimes hours before, sometime days before, sometime weeks before, sometimes years before. It makes me different and hard to agree with, I know.


----------



## bearymore (Jan 20, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> But now that just about every major carrier has a DVR of some type... this wasn't the case 5 years ago. It will be intresting to see the results and numbers of the average consumer on which way they go...


This is why it might be in DTV's interest to consider Tivo again. To people who never used a DVR before, any functionality is so much better than what they had before, they'll love what they get regardless of its faults. Differences between brands only become salient after people come to expect the basic features - time shifting, pausing live TV, etc - that any DVR offers and look beyond them to other usability issues. The loyalty of Tivo users, even after trying the DTV DVR as I have, isn't because the R15's interface is hard to learn (it isn't) or even its software's quality (it's getting better), but because the Tivo has added features, like wishlists and suggestions (among many others), that make it a better option for me. Looking at the R15 board on DBSTalk, it seems I'm not alone. In fact, my impression is that it is the DVR newbies who love the R15, while most old hands do not.

I'd love to see a product test or conjoint survey among experienced DVR users to see whether or not the Tivo features cause it to be perceived as a better option among these people. Since DVRs are finally rolling out to a larger audience, any DVR provider who doesn't look at this is woefully shortsighted.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

HPD said:


> Please tell me were you think I am wrong.


I think you are wrong in using multiple userids and spamming these boards merely to float your own stock agenda


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

HPD said:


> I have an uncanny knack for seeing the future. That makes people think I am nuts, only because they cannot see what is most likely to happen and I see it before they do. Sometimes hours before, sometime days before, sometime weeks before, sometimes years before. It makes me different and hard to agree with, I know.


Now we know your real name, it is Allison DuBoise!


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

ebonovic said:


> Well...
> 
> We will find out in time.... when TiVo does this magical brake of contract, that gives them the ability to sue for something they agreed to not sue for.


not sure about the agreement but I think the no-sue is only for the agreement period.

however I agree with you that it would be a bad idea for Tivo to sue a previous partner with whom you shared IP in a mutually beneficial way and an even worse idea to sue when DirectTV has the replay patents they can countersue on and make any legal battle far too costly for TiVo to consider as a good business investment.

Dish had all the exact opposite attributes, did indeed steal from TiVo and was very sue-worthy. Night and Day scenarios.

I also have not seem much that seems to change the landscape on a new agreement between TiVo and DirectTV and indeed the latest public communications from DirectTV seem to point to consolidating on only one receiver with DVR for every place a receiver goes and that is the HR something or other.

bummer for DirecTV users


----------



## wedgecon (Dec 28, 2002)

Well I am from the future and I can tell you what will happen. 

Dish and TiVo will eventually reach an agreement and no DVR's will be ever be shut down. 

TiVo will not sue DirecTV or even consider it. 

Another company will acquire TiVo's technology, I would tell you how but I cant risk altering the time line too much, the federation temporal police are a real PIA.


----------



## Cudahy (Mar 21, 2001)

Avoiding the possible ramifications of Tivo suing Directv in 2 years is just one more reason to allow Tivo to at least get a portion of Directv DVRs. A 3 or 4 dollar extra DVR fee would pay for simply putting a Tivo interface over the existing DirectvDVR. Directv would gain more subscribers and lose absolutely nothing. Tivo may have been opposed to the extra fee(which they didn't have before) because it would sharply reduce the percentage of new HD subscribers that would choose the Tivo option. But getting 20&#37; of the HDdvr upgrades would be much better than the alternative getting nothing unless they come out ahead in future court suits.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

There is absolutely no guarantee, or reasoning to believe...

That they will gain enough new customers, willing to pay a $3-$5 premium, just to have the TiVo interface... that will cover the cost of the R&D on it.

Then of course, you have the other costs of trying to support two distinctly different OS/Interface, imcompatibility of features, security features, and dealing with a third party vendor to get software updates.

There is a LOT to lose, and IMHO... not enough to gain, to do it.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

So, If I read this correctly... Directv is going to drop ship new boxes to all users that currently have SD boxes? Is that what I am reading?

So, by 2010 all Directv boxes will be HD and none of them running Tivo software??? I'm not sure that some people are going to be able to handle that.... I know my sister was absolutely livid about the poor quality R-15 she got for a replacement.

If this is true.... that they will replace all SD boxes.... that is going to cost a lot. Where is all that money for equipment going to come from?? Are they going to automatically give these users a 2 year commitment.... even though they did not ask for the upgrade?? Or is it that they expect by 2010 that there will be no SD boxes by way of attrition??



ebonovic said:


> Note the comments that Shibby posted...
> 
> Are directly from today's DirecTV Investor Meeting.
> 
> ...


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Or they could use an OPEN standard... like cablecard.... so that end users could have a real Tivo box and Directv if they wanted.



ebonovic said:


> There is absolutely no guarantee, or reasoning to believe...
> 
> That they will gain enough new customers, willing to pay a $3-$5 premium, just to have the TiVo interface... that will cover the cost of the R&D on it.
> 
> ...


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

magnus said:


> So, If I read this correctly... Directv is going to drop ship new boxes to all users that currently have SD boxes? Is that what I am reading?
> 
> So, by 2010 all Directv boxes will be HD and none of them running Tivo software??? I'm not sure that some people are going to be able to handle that.... I know my sister was absolutely livid about the poor quality R-15 she got for a replacement.
> 
> If this is true.... that they will replace all SD boxes.... that is going to cost a lot. Where is all that money for equipment going to come from?? Are they going to automatically give these users a 2 year commitment.... even though they did not ask for the upgrade?? Or is it that they expect by 2010 that there will be no SD boxes by way of attrition??


I doubt by 2010 there will be many directivo's still running. and I doubt by them anyone will care.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

HPD said:


> I have an uncanny knack for seeing the future.


Me too. I knew that the day after yesterday was going to be today already two days before the day after tomorrow.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

So, in other words... you have no clue.



HiDefGator said:


> I doubt by 2010 there will be many directivo's still running. and I doubt by them anyone will care.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> There is absolutely no guarantee, or reasoning to believe that they will gain enough new customers, willing to pay a $3-$5 premium, just to have the TiVo interface... that will cover the cost of the R&D on it.


The R+D is was already done 10 years ago, it is called a DirecTivo and people payed $4.95 a month, as I did for eight years. Now it is $5.95 a month.



ebonovic said:


> Then of course, you have the other costs of trying to support two distinctly different OS/Interface, imcompatibility of features, security features, and dealing with a third party vendor to get software updates.


All the more reason to switch all of them to Tivo, which will be required anyway once Tivo wins their lawsuit against DirecTV.


----------



## josetann (Oct 2, 2001)

HiDefGator said:


> I doubt by 2010 there will be many directivo's still running. and I doubt by them anyone will care.


I still have one of the original Series1 DirecTiVos, still running strong, with the original hard drive even! I also have three Series2 DirecTiVos and an HDDirecTiVo, at least two have different drives though. That's just counting the currently activated ones, I have plenty of backups should something other than the hard drive go out.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

magnus said:


> So, If I read this correctly... Directv is going to drop ship new boxes to all users that currently have SD boxes? Is that what I am reading?
> 
> So, by 2010 all Directv boxes will be HD and none of them running Tivo software??? I'm not sure that some people are going to be able to handle that.... I know my sister was absolutely livid about the poor quality R-15 she got for a replacement.
> 
> If this is true.... that they will replace all SD boxes.... that is going to cost a lot. Where is all that money for equipment going to come from?? Are they going to automatically give these users a 2 year commitment.... even though they did not ask for the upgrade?? Or is it that they expect by 2010 that there will be no SD boxes by way of attrition??


No. What they are planning to do is by 2010 any *new* receiver given out to a customer will be just the HD DVR. Over time the older receivers will break and get replaced by the "one receiver that rules them all." They certainly aren't replacing 40 million SD receivers that are active.

BUT, say by 2012-15 more then half their customers might be on the one united unit and it would make it a lot easier to do a major swap out in the last half of the decade of what's left. It's true long term planning.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

DirecTV has 17.3 million not 40 million subscribers.


----------



## cramer (Aug 14, 2000)

HPD said:


> DirecTV has 17.3 million not 40 million subscribers.


He didn't say 40mil subscribers; he said 40mil _receivers_. That's actually a little _low_ based on the numbers from a few days ago (~16.8mil subscribers with an avg of ~2.53 boxes per home.)


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Ok, so attrition it is. However, if that were the case.... why even bother with the updates to these boxes (Tivo software updates)?? Why not just let them die the slow death that D* wants??



shibby191 said:


> No. What they are planning to do is by 2010 any *new* receiver given out to a customer will be just the HD DVR. Over time the older receivers will break and get replaced by the "one receiver that rules them all." They certainly aren't replacing 40 million SD receivers that are active.
> 
> BUT, say by 2012-15 more then half their customers might be on the one united unit and it would make it a lot easier to do a major swap out in the last half of the decade of what's left. It's true long term planning.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

CuriousMark said:


> Now we know your real name, it is Allison DuBoise!


How did you figure me out? Here I am talking to the camera.


----------



## tividiot (Apr 25, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> You still don't have a clue on what you are talking about (with regards to the DirecTV aspect)
> 
> DirecTV is no target of TiVo's.... they have a contract in place...
> A contract/agreement that covers them, on any work done prior to the end of the contract.
> ...


I love how the person who "thinks like an engineer" continues to pretend he thinks like an attorney specializing in contract law.

You are the one who has no clue.

TiVo can sue DirecTV for violation of its time warp patent, and DirecTV then can sue TiVo for violating terms of the agreement not to sue.

Are you really telling us that you are so versed in contract law that, after carefully scrutinizing all clauses in DirecTV's agreement with TiVo, there is no legal basis for TiVo to pursue any facet, any at all, against DirecTV, after it delivers its knockout punch against Dish?

Please tell us which law school you've attended, Earl.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

tividiot said:


> I love how the person who "thinks like an engineer" continues to pretend he thinks like an attorney specializing in contract law.
> 
> You are the one who has no clue.
> 
> ...


Which law school did you attend?

I don't have a law degree, nor have I attended law school, however I know enough about the equitable doctrine of laches to know that this would never fly in a court.

Perhaps you were absent the week they covered, equitable doctrine of laches?



> "(T)he doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material.
> 
> "But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable.
> 
> "Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy."


Pay close attention to the last paragraph, "the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done" signing a contract and then failing to follow the contract through would be pretty disastrous to a legal case.

Also suing partners that have contracts with you is very likely to limit the number of future partners, especially if you try to void their contact just to extort more money. Not a very smart business practice.


----------



## tividiot (Apr 25, 2002)

I also never attended law school, nor am I a lawyer. Never said I was. I also never said TiVo would win in court if they sued. What I did say was people who know nothing about contract law should not speak in such absolutes. Also, that I believe anyone can sue, even if they have an agreement not to, as the agreement may prevent suits only on specific aspects and not provide absolute coverage.

Since there are so many self appointed experts on this board, does anyone have a link to the agreement between DirecTV and TiVo? Was it ever publicly released?

If not, you can't possibly know for certainty precisely what the agreement covers, nor can I.

If it was released, and someone has a link, I'd like to read the agreement.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

tividiot said:


> Since there are so many self appointed experts on this board, does anyone have a link to the agreement between DirecTV and TiVo? Was it ever publicly released?


So you cannot produce the agreement either, what does no one having the agreement add to the thread?

All reasonable arguments lead to the fact that TiVo would be stupid to sue DirecTV. This means any future agreement between TiVo and DirecTV would be based purely on economic and strategic business reasons, without regard to license or patent issues. What else really matters?


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

tividiot said:


> I also never attended law school, nor am I a lawyer. Never said I was. I also never said TiVo would win in court if they sued. What I did say was people who know nothing about contract law should not speak in such absolutes. Also, that I believe anyone can sue, even if they have an agreement not to, as the agreement may prevent suits only on specific aspects and not provide absolute coverage.
> 
> Since there are so many self appointed experts on this board, does anyone have a link to the agreement between DirecTV and TiVo? Was it ever publicly released?
> 
> ...


I don't need to know what the contract says to know that the equitable doctrine of laches applies. This is basic contract law.

I don't believe that the contract between DirecTV and TiVo was ever made public and would be surprised if it ever was made public.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

tividiot said:


> I also never attended law school, nor am I a lawyer. Never said I was. I also never said TiVo would win in court if they sued. What I did say was people who know nothing about contract law should not speak in such absolutes. Also, that I believe anyone can sue, even if they have an agreement not to, as the agreement may prevent suits only on specific aspects and not provide absolute coverage.
> 
> Since there are so many self appointed experts on this board, does anyone have a link to the agreement between DirecTV and TiVo? Was it ever publicly released?
> 
> ...


Sure, anyone can sue anyone else for anything, but that isn't what you were talking about. You were talking about the likely hood of TiVo suing DirecTV during their mutual contract period and suggesting that it was at least a possibility. With the "equitable doctrine of laches" in mind it is obvious that any such lawsuit would be tossed out by the court for lack of merit.

It is strange how you say that "people who know nothing about contract law should not speak in such absolutes." When earlier you told ebonovic, "You are the one who has no clue. TiVo can sue DirecTV for violation of its time warp patent, and DirecTV then can sue TiVo for violating terms of the agreement not to sue."

I just find this a little ironic. You certainly speak in absolutes and yet you don't appear to have a great understanding of contract law, the "equitable doctrine of laches" is fairly basic contract law.

How about if we try to limit the scope of the thread to things with merit. TiVo suing DirecTV during the contract period is so far out of the realm of reality that you might as well discuss little green Martians invading Earth and how that would change the relationship between DirecTV and TiVo.

However, the possibility that TiVo and DirecTV have difficulty renegotiating a new contract and file lawsuits against each other is a possibility. The likely hood would depend on the details in the contract, which at this point would be pure speculation.


----------



## Billy Bob Boy (Jul 25, 2004)

magnus said:


> So, in other words... you have no clue.


bravo:up::up:Its the Hard drives that for the most part that Fail on dvrs. Easily replaced. I guarantee you somewhere there are folks hording BRAND NEW Directivos for the enevitible demise and bingo bango Up goes D* Costs If they have to replace them all. I Have 3 R10s not being used and the second I hear they will be replaced( If that is what happens I will activate them all Thanx D* For the 5 new Hd DVRS. I also have DVR Lifetime tied to my account) Who knows dirctivos will be around for at least 10-15 years as hard drives are easy to replace as well as other tivo parts.

I know several people that have sat60 or what ever the # is with the origional drives in them running.:up: Directivo forgotten by 2010 No way jose as I can see the future at least mine. 5 brand new hr21's or 5 like new directivos or No Directv I will follow Tivo if D* refuses to 1. keep supporting my SD Tivos or not replace them all with something else:down: for free (If they kill sd and all is hd. I doubt that is in the future total elimination of sd The cost would be staggering. We will see! Heck I hope HDP Is right!! Again we will see.

As I said in other threads I am totaly happy with my sd and there is no way in hell I will except any r15's. I am not such a fan of hd anyway and i will wait till its all Hd than they cant charge the HD package price. Of course the standard D* fee will rise to match the cost of changing all channels to Mpeg 4. And The hd 19.99 fee will get incorporated into the regular D* Fee.

Again thats way down the line.

Heck just because tivo was not discussed now at D* Does not mean It wont be discussed in 2 years or even in 6 months.


----------



## Billy Bob Boy (Jul 25, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> So you cannot produce the agreement either, what does no one having the agreement add to the thread?
> 
> All reasonable arguments lead to the fact that TiVo would be stupid to sue DirecTV. This means any future agreement between TiVo and DirecTV would be based purely on economic and strategic business reasons, without regard to license or patent issues. What else really matters?


I think the point of all the talk about Tivo suing d* is that the threat of suit would make them work together and sign a new contract with new developement plans IE Series 3 directivos. Again I doubt Earl or Hpd or anyone else here works in Tom Malones office and truly Knows what the wind will blow in 2 years. IF you did work in D* in any high level position It would be job suicide to be discussing it here. We will see we will see we will see.

Someone earlier made a statement that made me think also. If the Real plan is the death of directivo and sd why upgrade the boxes. They dont upgrade the ultimate tv(Btw are these still out there) Perhaps the upgrades are in the contract exstension agreement. What ever I am happy to get them One day I may be forced to GULP go with cable and wherever Tivo is but that may not happen for a long time yet


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

It would not surprise me that when the time would come around for that... that D* would not let you add the R10s to your account.



Billy Bob Boy said:


> I Have 3 R10s not being used and the second I hear they will be replaced( If that is what happens I will activate them all Thanx D* For the 5 new Hd DVRS.


I think that is part of the agreement. However, my point is if you really ultimately want one box and all the DTivos gone... then don't have Tivo upgrade the software. You would leave the product stagnant and dying (which it seems D* wants). So, then when someone calls in and complains that the DTivo lacks this or that feature.... D* can push their box. Of course they can give them the 2 year commitment right then as well. 



> Someone earlier made a statement that made me think also. If the Real plan is the death of directivo and sd why upgrade the boxes. They dont upgrade the ultimate tv(Btw are these still out there) Perhaps the upgrades are in the contract exstension agreement.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

Look, the SD DirecTivo's will continue to function forever until a day comes when they move all SD to MPEG4 as well (just as Dish is doing and cable will probably be doing as well). But that day may be 5-10 years off yet unless they want to plunk down billions for a receiver swapout which they certainly don't want to do. They have no pressing need to go MPEG4 with SD so I don't think you guys have anything to worry about until at least the middle of the next decade. 

Besides, there are only 3+ million or so DirecTivo's left in service. But 35 million or so "other" SD recievers. I'd think DirecTV would be a bit more worried about swapping 35 million then swapping 3 million which is going down 140K in number every quarter as it is. 8 years from now there won't be many left just from attrition.


----------



## snickerrrrs (Mar 31, 2006)

Wow, when did Ebonovic become a Tivo hater? I know he said he wasn't going to participate in Tivo community anymore since switching to Directv's in-house dvr. But does that mean you have to bash Tivo? 

What could have happened? Did a UPS truck delivering Tivo's run over his dog? Did an old girlfriend cheat on him with a Tivo programmer? Maybe he can't stand the little Tivo guy? Or is dating someone from Directv now? We may never know...

PS:I hear the Chicago Bears players prefer the Tivo over other dvrs 2 to 1.


----------



## fasTLane (Nov 25, 2005)

snickerrrrs said:


> Wow, when did Ebonovic become a Tivo hater? I know he said he wasn't going to participate in Tivo community anymore since switching to Directv's in-house dvr. But does that mean you have to bash Tivo?
> 
> What could have happened? Did a UPS truck delivering Tivo's run over his dog? Did an old girlfriend cheat on him with a Tivo programmer? Maybe he can't stand the little Tivo guy? Or is dating someone from Directv now? We may never know...
> 
> PS:I hear the Chicago Bears players prefer the Tivo over other dvrs 2 to 1.


 LOL


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

He will come back and say he is not a Tivo hater and was an early supporter.
Clearly though DTV has always gotten the positive spin in all his posts.
It really does hurt this ability to persuade when the arguments fall to one side as much as his do.

Its unfortunate that Tivo was never allowed an even playing field to compete.

Right now DTV has a slight HD advantage and they have some exclusive sports programming. That wont last

There is a lot of competition coming and its not just Cable. Lets have this conversation in about two years.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

snickerrrrs said:


> Wow, when did Ebonovic become a Tivo hater? I know he said he wasn't going to participate in Tivo community anymore since switching to Directv's in-house dvr. But does that mean you have to bash Tivo?
> 
> What could have happened? Did a UPS truck delivering Tivo's run over his dog? Did an old girlfriend cheat on him with a Tivo programmer? Maybe he can't stand the little Tivo guy? Or is dating someone from Directv now? We may never know...
> 
> PS:I hear the Chicago Bears players prefer the Tivo over other dvrs 2 to 1.


Where am I bashing TiVo? Show me a single bash?
(Link one post in this thread, or really any thread... where I am BASHING TiVo, or TiVo, Inc)

Just because, it is the reality of the situation... doesn't make it bashing.

If I hated TiVo... would I have spent 6 hours this weekend, repairing my neighbors DirecTivo?
Or drove to my mom's house, to correct her network connection on her SA-TiVo.

I have no angst against TiVo, Inc... The TiVo product is a very good one... but "it ain't all that"
I do have my opinions on where I think TiVo, Inc (and the product) may have been better, or different things that could occur in the future.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

zalusky said:


> He will come back and say he is not a Tivo hater and was an early supporter.
> Clearly though DTV has always gotten the positive spin in all his posts.
> It really does hurt this ability to persuade when the arguments fall to one side as much as his do.
> 
> ...


And just because you all attack me... instead of the facts of the situation...

Again... where am I bashing TiVo?

And your last statement...
Was made about two years ago, from people that thought DirecTV would be hurting big time, because they decided not to continue with TiVo, Inc.

Hmm... doesn't seem to have happened... guess we can wait two more years to see what happens.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> And just because you all attack me... instead of the facts of the situation...
> 
> Again... where am I bashing TiVo?
> 
> ...


 I am not attacking you. I am not saying that you wouldn't be a good friend. You have helped a lot of people and provided good inside information. I am simply saying that I feel that no matter what the discussion that it will feel like DTV will come down as the better option. This is just the feeling I get by reading all your posts over the years.

Yes the last lines are my opinion and they nothing to do with Tivo.
People are getting there media from more and more sources.

For a consumer that lives in an upgraded Comcast area and compare the best of Comcast against the best of DTV, I think all that DTV has is the exclusive sports contracts and a temporary leverage on HD.

a year ago you could not get content from the providers or Netflix or Amazon via the net. A year ago you did not have the high speeds available today.

in two years when Docsis3 is available to a large market. You will be able to download a significant amount of material and not have to anywhere near Comcast Video or DTV. Youtube is now huge and it was nothing a year ago.

If somebody could get all their movies straight from NetFlix in a short amount of time why would they pay the DTV or Comcast Tax and be forced into their packages and get channels they don't want.

If you had a settop box that could go out over the internet at 100MB and the providers had their stuff online.

I have had them all Dish, and DTV, and Comcast. I am loyal to none of them. I enjoy Tivo but I would jump on any new product if it was better.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

zalusky said:


> I am not attacking you. I am not saying that you wouldn't be a good friend. You have helped a lot of people and provided good inside information. I am simply saying that I feel that no matter what the discussion that it will feel like DTV will come down as the better option. This is just the feeling I get by reading all your posts over the years.
> 
> Yes the last lines are my opinion and they nothing to do with Tivo.
> People are getting there media from more and more sources.
> ...


But Snickerrs said he was a TiVo hater and you said he would come back saying he is not implying that you also believe Earl is a TiVo hater. I can understand why Earl thought that was an attack on him. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way. Earl has never bashed TiVo. Since when is saying the HD DVR from DirecTV equals bashing of Tivo.

As far as I know Earl has also never suggested that DirecTV was the only choice for television content. It may be his opinion that it is the best at the moment but I am not aware of him even saying that. The only thing he has said in this thread is that based on the evidence there is little chance of a DirecTV and TiVo relationship in the future. Given the evidence I would have to agree and question how people come to a different conclusion regarding the D* TiVo relationship.

As to which content provider is the best that really depends on personal interests and what is available in that area. For me at this time it is DirecTV both because I find the HR20/21 to be a very good HD DVR and because of their content. That very well may change in the future as I, like you, am not loyal to any particular content provider.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

snickerrrrs said:


> Wow, when did Ebonovic become a Tivo hater? I know he said he wasn't going to participate in Tivo community anymore since switching to Directv's in-house dvr. But does that mean you have to bash Tivo?
> 
> What could have happened? Did a UPS truck delivering Tivo's run over his dog? Did an old girlfriend cheat on him with a Tivo programmer? Maybe he can't stand the little Tivo guy? Or is dating someone from Directv now? We may never know...
> 
> PS:I hear the Chicago Bears players prefer the Tivo over other dvrs 2 to 1.


Do you mind quoting a post of Earl's where he bashes TiVo. I haven't read one yet.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

You have a point. I apologize for my response appearing to be jumping on to the Tivo-Hater phrase. From a HR10-250 point of view I would agree its way past its prime. My response was really more a collective summary of Earls posts regarding DTV business strategy over the last few years in contrast to the competition. Its possible Earl has posted comments where he thinks DTV is missing the boat on things. I just seemed to miss those threads.

If I need info about DTV and their products Earl your the guy I would go to. From your helpful early reviews on the HR20 platform to the early days when you kept us informed about the HR10 shipment delays from the factory.

I have also never seen you proactively go out and name call.

However I have never seen a thread where you told somebody that Comcast or FIOS was a better option. Maybe it's happened I have just missed it.

Anyways I am going to leave it here and not risk going the banned route or inciting flames that are not warranted.



bigpuma said:


> But Snickerrs said he was a TiVo hater and you said he would come back saying he is not implying that you also believe Earl is a TiVo hater. I can understand why Earl thought that was an attack on him. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way. Earl has never bashed TiVo. Since when is saying the HD DVR from DirecTV equals bashing of Tivo.
> 
> As far as I know Earl has also never suggested that DirecTV was the only choice for television content. It may be his opinion that it is the best at the moment but I am not aware of him even saying that. The only thing he has said in this thread is that based on the evidence there is little chance of a DirecTV and TiVo relationship in the future. Given the evidence I would have to agree and question how people come to a different conclusion regarding the D* TiVo relationship.
> 
> As to which content provider is the best that really depends on personal interests and what is available in that area. For me at this time it is DirecTV both because I find the HR20/21 to be a very good HD DVR and because of their content. That very well may change in the future as I, like you, am not loyal to any particular content provider.


----------



## fasTLane (Nov 25, 2005)

> TiVo president and CEO Tom Rogers, on a conference call Wednesday discussing the company's quarterly results, said Cox is currently in technical trials and will be launching soon in the region. Cox's New England division provides service in Rhode Island and parts of Connecticut.
> 
> "With both Comcast a reality and Cox in trial, our mass distribution strategy is making significant in-roads, effectively unleashing the power of TiVo beyond the confines of a dedicated hardware consumer electronic business," Rogers said.


More to hate soon?

Bear Stearns likes Tivo's prospects with Direct. Could eventually be a moot point.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Interesting, I'm not a real forward thinker. Is the future of DVR limited to when I get a really, really fast Internet connection? Do you think I'll contact say the SciFI channel and tell them I want to subscribe and then their content will come down to my buffer box (fictional box to stage the content I want)? Will I simply subscribe directly to the channels I want? getting content directly from the Internet? No more need for Direct, Charter, or any of the providers. Are companies like Direct trying to get their cash now because they see this could happen?


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> from people that thought DirecTV would be hurting big time, because they decided not to continue with TiVo, Inc.
> 
> Hmm... doesn't seem to have happened... guess we can wait two more years to see what happens.


You base your statements on revenues for DirecTV having grown, but we will never know how much faster they would have grown if they had stayed with Tivo. I for one, canceled my DirecTV because they would not let me get a new DirecTivo. I am sure they have lost other customers also, plus those customers recommending to their friends to stick with Cable TV


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

zalusky said:


> in two years when Docsis3 is available to a large market. You will be able to download a significant amount of material and not have to anywhere near Comcast Video or DTV.


I am pretty sure I am on Docsis2 right now. I get 15 mbps down and 2 mbps up. Cablevision also offers 30 mbps for $10 more per month.

Would you be so kind as to tell me what speeds Docsis3 will make available? Are we talking 100 percent faster, 10 times faster, 100 times faster? I have not heard anything about it yet.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

bigpuma said:


> The only thing he has said in this thread is that based on the evidence there is little chance of a DirecTV and TiVo relationship in the future. Given the evidence I would have to agree and question how people come to a different conclusion regarding the D* TiVo relationship.


Because the DirecTV/ Tivo aggreement expires in February of 2010 that means that Tivo will likely sue DirecTV after that point, if not before. Within about two months, we will see one of these two scenarios.

1) Dish pays Tivo 210+ million dollars, refuses to make a deal with Tivo and is court ordered to shut down their DVR's.

2) Dish pays Tivo 210+ million dollars, strikes a deal with Tivo to continue offer DVR's

Once that is in the history books, and the agreement expires, DirecTV will be sued because Tivo will have world recognition of their patent.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

fasTLane said:


> Bear Stearns likes Tivo's prospects with Direct.


And of course, being that Bear Stearns is a huge investment firm that employs top grade analysts, they have studied the particulars far more than any poster on this or any other message board. DirecTivo, here we come.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

HPD said:


> You base your statements on revenues for DirecTV having grown, but we will never know how much faster they would have grown if they had stayed with Tivo. I for one, canceled my DirecTV because they would not let me get a new DirecTivo. I am sure they have lost other customers also, plus those customers recommending to their friends to stick with Cable TV


Well, in what universe does what *could* have happened even matter? DirecTV is making more money then they ever have, has more subscribers then they ever have, have lower churn then they have had in the past 8 years and keep signing up subs like crazy. Meanwhile the number of DirecTivo's in service goes down by 140K+ every quarter.

Methinks Tivo just doesn't matter to DirecTV to survive.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

HPD said:


> And of course, being that Bear Stearns is a huge investment firm that employs top grade analysts, they have studied the particulars far more than any poster on this or any other message board. DirecTivo, here we come.


Riiiiight. Despite the fact that it's totally against everything DirecTV has said in recent financial calls and in fact totally opposite everything they talked about in their 3-5 year plan at their 5 hour investor call just a week or two ago.

But perhaps Bear Stearns will actually get it since DirecTV will be presenting to them next week: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=127160&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1116102&highlight=

Perhaps the guy behind this article will directly ask the Tivo question, eh?


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

DouglasPHill said:


> Interesting, I'm not a real forward thinker. Is the future of DVR limited to when I get a really, really fast Internet connection? Do you think I'll contact say the SciFI channel and tell them I want to subscribe and then their content will come down to my buffer box (fictional box to stage the content I want)? Will I simply subscribe directly to the channels I want? getting content directly from the Internet? No more need for Direct, Charter, or any of the providers. Are companies like Direct trying to get their cash now because they see this could happen?


The future is coming faster than many people realize. Even at current internet speeds, this box works pretty well. No subscription fees. 5,000 movies on demand, their plans call for that to be 15,000 by the end of 2008. Cost of box, $295

http://www.vudu.com/


----------



## fasTLane (Nov 25, 2005)

HPD said:


> DirecTivo, here we come.


From your fingers to Gods laptop.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

HPD said:


> I am pretty sure I am on Docsis2 right now. I get 15 mbps down and 2 mbps up. Cablevision also offers 30 mbps for $10 more per month.
> 
> Would you be so kind as to tell me what speeds Docsis3 will make available? Are we talking 100 percent faster, 10 times faster, 100 times faster? I have not heard anything about it yet.


You never know until its here but I have seen various places where they say 100MB and availability mid to late next 2009.

I know Comcast currently micromanages bandwidth users but with that kind of offering they will have to rethink it all.

There are a lot of choices even now:
1) Amazon Unbox
2) Vudu
3) Apple TV
4) Youtube
5) Streaming from ABC and the rest.

Give it another two years of evolution and the traditional models will be blown up.

How many people like being forced into buying megachannel packages when they watch only a few?

If you could get all the movies you wanted with a $20 netflix subscription and all the tv shows by going to their website or say an AppleTV season Pass.

What would keep you with DTV:
1) Lack of High Speed option
2) Their two year contracts.
3) Their sports contracts

I can't think of anything else unless they come up with some exclusive partnership deal with content providers.

If ATT buys them and merges their internet lines with the video distribution its possible but what a mess. ATT hamstrung themselves by not doing fiber to the house and as a result a 25MB limitation. Technology might change that but they are behind. However it would provide the bundling options that you cannot get with DTV standalone.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

HPD said:


> Because the DirecTV/ Tivo aggreement expires in February of 2010 that means that Tivo will likely sue DirecTV after that point, if not before. Within about two months, we will see one of these two scenarios.
> 
> 1) Dish pays Tivo 210+ million dollars, refuses to make a deal with Tivo and is court ordered to shut down their DVR's.
> 
> ...


you forgot the more likely scenario

3. Dish is ordered to pay TiVo x million and loses the money in account) 70+million?) and argues about the rest in court
no deal with TiVo
refuses to turn off DVRs despite court order and starts more court processes on arguing DVRs no longer infringe, which also is why they refute the total amount of money due.

DirecTV politely laughs at everyone scrambling around on patent issues and continues to pat its pile of patents and contiunues work on its own singular receiver/DVR for every account. Getting a DVR where ever there is a receiver and that DVR doing mpeg4 HD will revolutionize selling of DirectTV since the DVR fees are the past.

TiVo goes about making deals with cable companies like they have been and Rogers works the steady growth in alternate revenue like he has been. Roger knows another lawsuit, especially against a former partner, by TiVo would instantly burn all the bridges he has been meticulously building since he got to TiVo.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

zalusky said:


> You never know until its here but I have seen various places where they say 100MB and availability mid to late next 2009.


Man, they are learning how to send that data down that fiber optic cable faster and faster.

My 15 megabit per second connection = 1.875 Megabytes per second. So you are talking 53 times faster. I had no idea that was in the works, Thanks.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

*Cool * http://www.vudu.com/


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

zalusky said:


> For a consumer that lives in an upgraded Comcast area and compare the best of Comcast against the best of DTV, I think all that DTV has is the exclusive sports contracts and a temporary leverage on HD.
> ...
> in two years when Docsis3 is available to a large market. You will be able to download a significant amount of material and not have to anywhere near Comcast Video or DTV. Youtube is now huge and it was nothing a year ago.


I live in an upgraded COMCAST area as well, Chicago... and have seen their offereings... but too me.. .just doesn't compete well enough to switch.

There are markets that it does make sense... but in other places and situations it doesn't. Each consumer has to look at all their factors and pick the correct one.

As for DOCISIS3... two years is a very long time... and honestly... IMHO content is king. Just like FIOS.. if that is an option to you... then maybe it is a great option.... but it just isn't available to a large enough market base yet... and maybe when it is... all the "nice" things about it, may not be so nice anymore....



zalusky said:


> However I have never seen a thread where you told somebody that Comcast or FIOS was a better option. Maybe it's happened I have just missed it.


I have... There was a user that was here in the last few weeks, that threw his numbers up there on why he used OTA and a T3... and it made a ton of sense for his situation....

I am a fan, of DirecTV... and yes... I agree with most of the direction they have done.... And I do think it is a good option for most people.... but it most certainly is not an option for everyone... and it most certainly isn't the best option for everyone.

My grandparents.... it is an option....
My mother... it is an option to a degree, but not enough to switch her over.

And even here.... those that absolutely love the extra TiVo features (like Amazon, and others)... then it isn't an option for them.

I have told countless people... if DLB is the end-all-b-all feature that you can't live with out... then DirecTV is not the choice for them.

That is what is great about the market place... you have options for your entertainment choices.

There is no rule that every entertainment source, has to have every piece of hardware available to it... and that just goes as a factor into a consumers decision making.

TiVo is a fantastic product.... and has a place.
However... I firmly believe... that TiVo, Inc.. has made some critical mistakes in their history... .that will hurt them more then any of their partners...

I loved my TiVos while I had them (all 8 at one point).... but then as time went on... it became, to me... nothing more then a DVR... CONTENT and service has always been #1 and #2 to me... the hardware and the tools to get it, always has been #3 or further down.

COMCAST is not an option for me as TV provider... as they have done me wrong (or other close to me), way too many times... and they haven't done anything to make me choose them as my personal provider.

Still doesn't mean that a T3/TiVoHD solution isn't the best option for someone... but just because it has the little TiVo guy... possibly dating one of my ex-girlfriends, on the box... isn't just a selling point for me anymore.

TiVo is a DVR... DVR is the selling technology, TiVo is just one of many DVR options out there.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> you forgot the more likely scenario
> 
> 3. Dish is ordered to pay TiVo x million and loses the money in account) 70+million?) and argues about the rest in court.


The penalty before their recent claim of non-infringement is up over $200 million already.



ZeoTiVo said:


> refuses to turn off DVRs despite court order and starts more court processes on arguing DVRs no longer infringe, which also is why they refute the total amount of money due.


Wrong, see above. Also, the courts will slap them with a very heavy daily fine for each day they refuse to shut off their DVR's. The fine will be such a big one that they will shut them off. Remember, they are in the Satellite business, NOT the DVR's business. DVR's are just a perk to lure customers.



ZeoTiVo said:


> DirecTV politely laughs at everyone scrambling around on patent issues and continues to pat its pile of patents


But Tivo owns the "time warp patent" the secret weapon of DVR's patents.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Roger knows another lawsuit, especially against a former partner, by TiVo would instantly burn all the bridges he has been meticulously building since he got to TiVo.


With the Dish victory firmly in hand, burning the DirecTV bridge will be oh so sweet.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> Once that is in the history books, and the agreement expires, DirecTV will be sued because Tivo will have world recognition of their patent.


You still believe that don't you?

You really need to take a course in Contracts 101...
Unless you have seen the contract, that you have seen the specific wording that DirecTV agreed to a ticking time-bomb lawsuit....

It absolutely makes no sense that any party would agree to a contract like that.

TiVo has a LONG way to go, for "world recogninition" of all their patents.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> And of course, being that Bear Stearns is a huge investment firm that employs top grade analysts, they have studied the particulars far more than any poster on this or any other message board. DirecTivo, here we come.


Considering that analysist got some very KEY and common point in that analysis very wrong... That very basic GOOGLE searches would have corrected..

Looks like they haven't studied a fraction of the particulars in this issue.

Or maybe this was his first analysis...

That person is an analysist, make a statement to allow their customers (and others) to make stock purchase decisions....

Last time I checked... there are dozens of other firms that do this as well... and if it was easy to see the future, and get it right every time... .then all of them would be beyond wealthy.

It is one persons interpretation of the facts (and some wrong ones too) of what could happen... doesn't make it guaranteed...


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

HPD said:


> Man, they are learning how to send that data down that fiber optic cable faster and faster.
> 
> My 15 megabit per second connection = 1.875 Megabytes per second. So you are talking 53 times faster. I had no idea that was in the works, Thanks.


You can google for more but here is a recent post. I need to correct my case when I said 100MB, it probably should be 100Mb. The CEO is now saying 160Mb which is still 10+ times faster than your 15Mb.

http://www.gadg-et.com/tag/docsis30/

Granted there is a lot of highway between you and the content providers. 
The idea is the good providers will build the best connections.

As somebody mentioned in another post "Content is king" and when you can go anywhere on the internet for your content it really will be.

If you look back at how different things were two years ago for video on the net, the next two years will just blow it away.

How many people even buy CDs anymore. The old models are falling by the roadside.


----------



## Cudahy (Mar 21, 2001)

I was struck by this quote by Directv exec Carey a few days ago: "a more wide ranging set of options is in the future under Liberty". Makes sense to me. IF Tivo is willing to settle for just a piece of the pie. 
Ebonovic & others have talked about the "huge" extra cost of R&D that would cancel out any profit if an agreement is reached that will lead to a few hundred thousand future Directv HD subscribers choose the Tivo option - But what extra cost?
Tivo already has a fully functioning interface with Directv. Putting that over the current DirectvHD hard drive wouldn't be difficult.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

ebonovic said:


> Still doesn't mean that a T3/TiVoHD solution isn't the best option for someone...


What's a T3? It's about content, but the problem is Comcast has wronged you in the past?

I live practically next door to you and given all the issues I've had with DirecTV I cannot wait to shove their nearly useless R15s back at them when my commitment is up. (The only thing keeping me from doing so now is the wife)


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> Because the DirecTV/ Tivo aggreement expires in February of 2010 that means that Tivo will likely sue DirecTV after that point, if not before.
> 
> Once that is in the history books, and the agreement expires, DirecTV will be sued because Tivo will have world recognition of their patent.


Have you ever read a patent use contract? There are always, ALWAYS, terms to extend the contract. There are ALWAYS terms for use on existing products after the contract has expired. Why would anyone agree to a contract the way that you propose?

I negotiate business-to-business contracts on a regular basis, several every month. If it is anything other than the standard boilerplate then the lawyers look it over. I would never agree to terms like you propose and I would never imagine that anyone that I do business with would agree if I included such terms in my proposal. These are small to mid-sided companies.

Do you really think that large companies like DirecTV and TiVo don't think about what happens after the contract term expires. Come on you don't really expect anyone to believe that BS you are shoveling.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

SullyND said:


> What's a T3? It's about content, but the problem is Comcast has wronged you in the past?
> 
> I live practically next door to you and given all the issues I've had with DirecTV I cannot wait to shove their nearly useless R15s back at them when my commitment is up. (The only thing keeping me from doing so now is the wife)


T3 - TiVo Series 3

COMCAST has over the past 10ish years... has more then once, disabled service to my home or others... with cut lines. That take more then a few days to repair.... when it was someone else's fault.

Days off of work, just for them to send a tech out... to cofirm what I already told them, that it was something outside of the home.

In my new home... for the internet service.

They ran a line... it took 17 phone calls, and about 6 months to get them to come back out and bury the line.

With my mother... in the last 5 years... 1 out of every 6 bills (At least twice a year), something is wrong... and she doesn't change her package.

And the think with COMCAST you can be 15 miles from me... but on a completely different "hub" or what ever they call it... with different pricing, different lineup, different performance, ect...

My mother's COMCAST channel lineup, is different then my in-laws... (which has some pretty bad PQ on some of the channels, that my mother doesn't)

Good friend of mine... we purchased a cable-card ready TV...
But he is in a condo with no line of sight for SAT.
So... COMCAST... 7 cable cards later, and 3 tech visits... he ultimately settled for a cable card that was working for about 75% of the system...
He didn't use anything in the other area, so it wasn't a big deal...

So yah... in my cases.... they have bit me, and some of the other people I have dealt with.... but just as I have had bad experiences... others, that I know... have had no issues at all... their COMCAST DVR doesn't reboot... they get good PQ... no billing issues... so it is not like that the entire company overall is bad...

Just enough has happened to me, and others... that have done nothing yet to give me a compelling reason to switch back to them... in fact, I would probably go to DishNetwork or AT&T before even considering COMCAST again as the entertainment provider for my home... even if it was significantly cheaper...


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Cudahy said:


> I was struck by this quote by Directv exec Carey a few days ago: "a more wide ranging set of options is in the future under Liberty". Makes sense to me. IF Tivo is willing to settle for just a piece of the pie.
> Ebonovic & others have talked about the "huge" extra cost of R&D that would cancel out any profit if an agreement is reached that will lead to a few hundred thousand future Directv HD subscribers choose the Tivo option - But what extra cost?
> Tivo already has a fully functioning interface with Directv. Putting that over the current DirectvHD hard drive wouldn't be difficult.


You think they would take the exact same platform that has already been used... and continue on that one?

They would take pieces... but there is a lot that would have to be R&D...
Communication with new tuners that support the new SATS.

The MPEG-4 compatible chipset.
Ethernet communcation, and getting segments into the TiVo software that is compatible with:

DirecTV OnDemand
DirecTV Remote Scheduleing
DirecTV's Media Share
SWM
Their Interactive applications 
The multiple channel's of audio (14 now for NASCAR HotPass)

Then analysis to get the manufacturing cost down to a point that is on par with the HR2* platform, so that you are not charging $1,000 for that piece of hardware.

Then you have to re-introduce a support mechanism to support the newer systems... which has a cost associated with it. The overhead of the inventory and installation platforms, for having two distinctly different HD-DVRs...

Then continuing with working with the 3rd party, for any updates/patches... or changes to be compatible with DirecTV plans for their service.

So yes... there is plenty of R&D that would have to occur.
It is not pickup the HR10... drop in an MPEG-4 decoder, and swap out the tuners.


----------



## Cudahy (Mar 21, 2001)

You make it sound like they're starting from scratch. There are 2 1/2 million Directv customers that get Directv through the Tivo format now. The only technical difficulty is connecting to the mpeg4 channels. Directv has that down now, Tivo just needs to get their cooperation(at a price).


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

ebonovic said:


> You think they would take the exact same platform that has already been used... and continue on that one?


Why are you assuming it's a hardware issue?

ComcasTiVo runs on existing boxes. There is no reason a new TiVo solution for DirecTV could not be a software overlay on the HR20/21.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Cudahy said:


> You make it sound like they're starting from scratch. There are 2 1/2 million Directv customers that get Directv through the Tivo format now. The only technical difficulty is connecting to the mpeg4 channels. Directv has that down now, Tivo just needs to get their cooperation(at a price).


In a way they are...
The hardware that was used in the previous systems is older generations.

Newer chipsets, different designes.

It is a lot more then just dropping in new tuners, and an mpeg-4 decoder.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

SullyND said:


> Why are you assuming it's a hardware issue?
> 
> ComcasTiVo runs on existing boxes. There is no reason a new TiVo solution for DirecTV could not be a software overlay on the HR20/21.


You are correct... there is no technical reason on why it couldn't be done...
But there are certainly other "reasons" on why DirecTV wouldn't overlay the TiVo software onto the HR20/21 platform.

How long do you think it would take for them to port over to the HR2* platform? It has taken almost 3 years for COMCAST just to get it into one TEST market... how long until every COMCAST customer has the ability to get the TiVo software on their existing units?

There are of lot of things that could occur... like is the memory space that the OS lives in on the HR2* big enough to hold the TiVo stuff?
Or would they have to do a split, part on the chip... part on the drive.

Tuners, decoders, ect... all would have to be put together (the drives and the code to work together)... It isn't a "routine" or trivial thing to do.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

ebonovic said:


> You still believe that don't you?
> 
> You really need to take a course in Contracts 101...
> Unless you have seen the contract, that you have seen the specific wording that DirecTV agreed to a ticking time-bomb lawsuit....
> ...


"On April 7, 2006, we entered into the Seventh Amendment of our Development Agreement, dated February 15, 2002, with DIRECTV, Inc. Under this amendment, which amends the expiration date of the Development Agreement from February 15, 2007, to February 15, 2010, we will continue to provide maintenance and support for DIRECTV receivers with TiVo service through the expiration date of the Development Agreement. In addition, DIRECTV will continue to have the right to distribute DIRECTV receivers with TiVo service through February 15, 2007, and a related grace period as set forth in the Development Agreement. *Further, we agreed that neither party would assert its patents against the other party with respect to each company's products and services deployed prior to the expiration of the agreement, subject to limited exceptions.*"


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> Considering that analysist got some very KEY and common point in that analysis very wrong... That very basic GOOGLE searches would have corrected..


You infer that Bear Stearns is wrong but you offer no proof.



ebonovic said:


> Looks like they haven't studied a fraction of the particulars in this issue.


A firm that makes their living by analysis, is much more likely to be correct than you.



ebonovic said:


> Or maybe this was his first analysis.


Or maybe he got the job at a prestigious investment firm because he is good at what he does.



ebonovic said:


> That person is an analysist, make a statement to allow their customers (and others) to make stock purchase decisions.


.

Which is more reason why Bear stearns research would make your research look like kindergarten research.



ebonovic said:


> Last time I checked... there are dozens of other firms that do this as well... and if it was easy to see the future, and get it right every time... .then all of them would be beyond wealthy.


That ridicules statement does not mean Bear Stearns is wrong.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

zalusky said:


> You can google for more but here is a recent post. I need to correct my case when I said 100MB, it probably should be 100Mb. The CEO is now saying 160Mb which is still 10+ times faster than your 15Mb.


Ok, I read the link. Their 160 megabits per second versus my 15 megabits per second. Correct, 10.66 times faster. That is wicked fast.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

Cudahy said:


> Tivo already has a fully functioning interface with Directv. Putting that over the current DirectvHD hard drive wouldn't be difficult.


Exactly, the DirecTivo designs are already a done deal from years past. But I will go one step further. I do not see DirecTV making their own DVR's after Tivo sues them. What would be the point? They will just buy them from Tivo, like they used to do.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> There are always, ALWAYS, terms to extend the contract. There are ALWAYS terms for use on existing products after the contract has expired.


The contract is DirecTV agreeing to pay Tivo so that existing DirecTivo's do not become paperweights. DirecTV had to agree to Tivo's terms or risk making DirecTivo owners very mad. By the time that contract expires in February 2010 Tivo will have the Dish victory under their belts with very powerful vindication by the courts. Then it is a whole new ball game where the thieves will be punished one after the other.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> You infer that Bear Stearns is wrong but you offer no proof.


I don't infer... I specifically stated they were wrong in their analysis in post #3 of this very thread...
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=6017691#post6017691

The HR2* is not an NDS product... mistake number one
The HR2* is not more expensive to purchase/obtain then a TiVoHD
You can have wireless conectivity with an HR2* unit..

So what other proof do you want, that there are mistakes in their analysis?

And that is just from the clip that was quoted in the article.



HPD said:


> A firm that makes their living by analysis, is much more likely to be correct than you.
> 
> Or maybe he got the job at a prestigious investment firm because he is good at what he does.
> 
> Which is more reason why Bear stearns research would make your research look like kindergarten research.


To bad they got some very basic information wrong... just in the little snippet that was quoted in the article... who knows what is in the rest of the analysis... and I am not spending a couple hundred to find out.



HPD said:


> That ridicules statement does not mean Bear Stearns is wrong.


No... but them actually having wrong facts in their statment does make them wrong.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Curtis said:


> "On April 7, 2006, we entered into the Seventh Amendment of our Development Agreement, dated February 15, 2002, with DIRECTV, Inc. Under this amendment, which amends the expiration date of the Development Agreement from February 15, 2007, to February 15, 2010, we will continue to provide maintenance and support for DIRECTV receivers with TiVo service through the expiration date of the Development Agreement. In addition, DIRECTV will continue to have the right to distribute DIRECTV receivers with TiVo service through February 15, 2007, and a related grace period as set forth in the Development Agreement. *Further, we agreed that neither party would assert its patents against the other party with respect to each company's products and services deployed prior to the expiration of the agreement, subject to limited exceptions.*"


And your point is...

The highlighted segment, exactly makes the point I have been stating in most of this thread.

"neither party would asser its patents against the other party with respect to each company's products and services deployed prior to the exipration of the agreement, subject to limited exceptions."

So... unless someone has a list of those limited exceptions...
that clearly states, neither party can assert the patents (aka SUE), for anything that is deployed prior to the end of the agreement.

So HPD... please show me, where TiVo will have the ability to sue DirecTV for anything they have done up to the end of the contract (or when/if TiVo or DirecTV terminates the contract early)


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> Exactly, the DirecTivo designs are already a done deal from years past. But I will go one step further. I do not see DirecTV making their own DVR's after Tivo sues them. What would be the point? They will just buy them from Tivo, like they used to do.


And pretty much that design would be mostly scrapped and started over..
To over come some of the issues the hardware had..
To account for newer technology available today..
To include components that DirecTV would require for their future plans.

So while they will be able to use some of their past experience, to build something new (if that time came)... it isn't like they will just pick up an HR10-250... swap out the tuners and the main decoder and call it a day..

I see DirecTV making their own DVR's for a very long time to come.

DirecTV now owns a very large portfolio of patents now... some of which I would bet analysis would show, TiVo infringes on... so if either party starts to sue... could be the end of ALL DVRs.... and if that happen..

Guess which company would still be standing?


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

Curtis said:


> "On April 7, 2006, we entered into the Seventh Amendment of our Development Agreement, dated February 15, 2002, with DIRECTV, Inc. Under this amendment, which amends the expiration date of the Development Agreement from February 15, 2007, to February 15, 2010, we will continue to provide maintenance and support for DIRECTV receivers with TiVo service through the expiration date of the Development Agreement. In addition, DIRECTV will continue to have the right to distribute DIRECTV receivers with TiVo service through February 15, 2007, and a related grace period as set forth in the Development Agreement. *Further, we agreed that neither party would assert its patents against the other party with respect to each company's products and services deployed prior to the expiration of the agreement, subject to limited exceptions.*"


Subject to limited exceptions. I wonder what that means.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> The HR2* is not an NDS product... mistake number one
> 
> The HR2* is not more expensive to purchase/obtain then a TiVoHD


Neither of those have any bearing on whether Bear Stearns is correct in their assessment that the Dish lawsuit along with DirecTV changing hands will make it more likely that Tivo and DirecTV will be doing business in the future. You nitpick at little things and do not provide much substance.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> So HPD... please show me, where TiVo will have the ability to sue DirecTV for anything they have done up to the end of the contract (or when/if TiVo or DirecTV terminates the contract early)


I already stated, breach of contract is the answer. Then DirecTV can sue Tivo for breach of contract but with the DISH suit under their belt, the Tivo lawsuit against DirecTV will gain much more than the DirecTV lawsuit against Tivo.

That = more money for Tivo.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> Neither of those have any bearing on whether Bear Stearns is correct in their assessment that the Dish lawsuit along with DirecTV changing hands will make it more likely that Tivo and DirecTV will be doing business in the future. You nitpick at little things and do not provide much substance.


Where they wrong or not?

Or are you now, trying to say that is not important to the analysis?
Who is nitpicking?

Those are major pieces of the clipped segment that are incorrect.

If they are so good at analysis... can't they get the basic facts... correct?

And you are correct, has 100% nothing to do with the Dish lawsuit... and I haven't mentioned anything about it... other then it is a completely different case then what you are proposing would be against DirecTV.

And again... it doesn't have anything to do with the because of the change of ownership... that something may happen... (those pieces that are wrong).

I still don't see that happening... as there are so many other facts (listed through out this thread), that it doesn't make much sense to happen.

I am pretty sure that I have provided plenty of substance.....
But hey... if you think I am wrong... come see us on Feb 16, 2010... and let me know the docket number of the lawsuit that is going to be filed against DirecTV.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> I already stated, breach of contract is the answer. Then DirecTV can sue Tivo for breach of contract but with the DISH suit under their belt, the Tivo lawsuit against DirecTV will gain much more than the DirecTV lawsuit against Tivo.
> 
> That = more money for Tivo.


What "breach" of contract.

You even re-quoted the segment, that they HAVE a contract.

So unless you have some additional information about the "limited exceptions" where is the breach of contract going to come into play.

And honestly... if they breached it... they breached it two years ago.

What do you think a judge would say... if they try to file a suit, 4 years after the fact... what answer would they have to the question.. "why did you wait so long, if they breached if 4 years ago... while you had an agreement with them, and were accepting their payments"....


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

HPD said:


> I already stated, breach of contract is the answer. Then DirecTV can sue Tivo for breach of contract but with the DISH suit under their belt, the Tivo lawsuit against DirecTV will gain much more than the DirecTV lawsuit against Tivo.


TiVo can only sue DirecTV if DirecTV is in breach of the contract.

" _(a) Covenant. During the Term (and thereafter as set forth in Section 7.4(b) ), TiVo covenants that neither TiVo nor any of its Subsidiaries shall assert against The DIRECTV Group, Inc. ( "Group" ), the Subsidiaries of Group (including DIRECTV, the "DIRECTV Subsidiaries" ), or [*] any claim of infringement of any patent or patent application (including any patent(s) which may issue therefrom) owned or controlled by TiVo or TiVo's Subsidiaries during the Term (collectively, "TiVo Patents" ) by any DIRECTV Covered System utilized, deployed or otherwise exploited in the Territory by or on behalf of the DIRECTV Subsidiaries, provided DIRECTV is not in material breach of any term of this Agreement (and the Group and the other DIRECTV Subsidiaries have not taken any action that, if taken by DIRECTV, would be a breach hereof) which remains uncorrected after the proper notice of such material breach and within the cure period specified in this Agreement._ "


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> The contract is DirecTV agreeing to pay Tivo so that existing DirecTivo's do not become paperweights. DirecTV had to agree to Tivo's terms or risk making DirecTivo owners very mad. By the time that contract expires in February 2010 Tivo will have the Dish victory under their belts with very powerful vindication by the courts. Then it is a whole new ball game where the thieves will be punished one after the other.


I haven't read the contract, but it sure sounds like you have read the contract. There is no way to know what you claim without having read the contract.

Dish will pay tons of money in court and will have to pay tons more to keep their DVRs working, but it is quite a stretch to lump DirecTV into the same group.

What has DirecTV stolen from TiVo. THEY HAVE A CONTRACT.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> And pretty much that design would be mostly scrapped and started over.


Tuners, MPEG decoders, all those things are readily available off the shelf. Tivo is probably already readying that product for DirecTV, getting ready for the day they sue DirecTV.



ebonovic said:


> I see DirecTV making their own DVR's for a very long time to come.


But then again I saw you refer to two years as a long time when in reality, Tivo is going to be the gold standard until their time warp patent and their other 90+ patents run out.



ebonovic said:


> DirecTV now owns a very large portfolio of patents now... some of which I would bet analysis would show, TiVo infringes on... so if either party starts to sue... could be the end of ALL .... and if that happen..
> 
> Guess which company would still be standing?


What do you call very large and why did nobody who owned them sue Dish? Could it be because the TIvo patents are really solid?

Tivo will be around for a very long time because once the Dish lawsuit is finalized, Tivo will go after all the cable companies and win.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> And again... it doesn't have anything to do with the because of the change of ownership... that something may happen... (those pieces that are wrong)


It most certainly does. The new owner does not own a stake in NDS.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> What "breach" of contract.


The intentional breach of contract that Tivo could initiate once the Dish network lawsuit is a totally done deal. Breach the contract because you can now bargain from strength.

The rest of your post makes no sense because you are very confused.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

Curtis said:


> TiVo can only sue DirecTV if DirecTV is in breach of the contract.
> 
> " _(a) Covenant. During the Term (and thereafter as set forth in Section 7.4(b) ), TiVo covenants that neither TiVo nor any of its Subsidiaries shall assert against The DIRECTV Group, Inc. ( Group ), the Subsidiaries of Group (including DIRECTV, the DIRECTV Subsidiaries ), or [*] any claim of infringement of any patent or patent application (including any patent(s) which may issue therefrom) owned or controlled by TiVo or TiVos Subsidiaries during the Term (collectively, TiVo Patents ) by any DIRECTV Covered System utilized, deployed or otherwise exploited in the Territory by or on behalf of the DIRECTV Subsidiaries, provided DIRECTV is not in material breach of any term of this Agreement (and the Group and the other DIRECTV Subsidiaries have not taken any action that, if taken by DIRECTV, would be a breach hereof) which remains uncorrected after the proper notice of such material breach and within the cure period specified in this Agreement._ "


Any party in any contract can breach a contract. The very term breach means not playing by the rules.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

HPD said:


> Any party in any contract can breach a contract. The very term breach means not playing by the rules.


Any court would throw out a lawsuit in violation of an agreement not to sue.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> It most certainly does. The new owner does not own a stake in NDS.


So.......

Still what does that have to do with the facts that the HR2* isn't built by NDS? Never has been...

That fact is still wrong in their Analysis... isn't it?

And if that is a basis fo why it is now more important that they may work with TiVo again... what has changed.

HR2* is still built and developed by DirecTV... always has been.
So the change in ownership... doesn't change that?

Seems like a pretty critical piece to the analysis.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> What has DirecTV stolen from TiVo. THEY HAVE A CONTRACT.


I will say it again. The contract is so that DirecTV can collect money on DirecTivo's and foward a portion of it to Tivo.

What DirecTV has stolen from Tivo is the Tivo time warp patent for DirecTV's DVR's that are not DirecTivo's.

Tivo went easy on DirecTV because right now they need cash. But when Dish pays up they will be flush with cash and will get even more by going after all the cable companies that are offering DVR's that infringe on the time warp patent. DirecTV will pay the piper.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> The rest of your post makes no sense because you are very confused.


You mean the part, when I am referring to your post... which clearly makes my point?

Or the part, where I asked you to tell me what a Judge would say in this hypothetical court case that you are claiming is going to happen...

Which part is confusing?

As they are pretty straight comments... not much grey area or confusion in there... or is it you just don't want to answer them?


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

Curtis said:


> Any court would throw out a lawsuit in violation of an agreement not to sue.


That is not the way it works. If that were true then there could never be breach of contract lawsuits and we know they do exist.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> I will say it again. The contract is so that DirecTV can collect money on DirecTivo's and foward a portion of it to Tivo.
> 
> What DirecTV has stolen from Tivo is the Tivo time warp patent for DirecTV's DVR's that are not DirecTivo's.
> 
> Tivo went easy on DirecTV because right now they need cash. But when Dish pays up they will be flush with cash and will get even more by going after all the cable companies that are offering DVR's that infringe on the time warp patent. DirecTV will pay the piper.


Honestly... if the piper is paid... then the piper will have to close up shop after that... as no other company will want to business with them.

Agree to a contract, which you are paid... and in that contract you agree not to sue... then you do sue.

That just gives the next guy that great warm fuzzy fealing... that it is going to be a great relationship.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> So.......
> 
> Still what does that have to do with the facts that the HR2* isn't built by NDS? Never has been.
> 
> ...


Anyone who cares to know the DVR story knows that the previous owner of DirecTV also owned NDS or a large portion of it. This same person decided to steal Tivo's IP when he canceled DirecTivo's and began making his own. It has nothing to do with the HR2 - it has do do with the thieves being lined up for slaughter and Dish Network was only the first one. Now all the thieves will have their day in court.

As far as HR2 being built by DirecTV, as far as I know DirecTV does not manufacture it, they leave that to big electronics makers. If you know differently, please post proof.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> Any party in any contract can breach a contract. The very term breach means not playing by the rules.


Perhaps you missed the lesson about the equitable doctrine of laches?

Here refresh your memory, here.

If TiVo broke their contract to sue DirecTV the Judge would toss the suit out so fast heads would spin.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

HPD said:


> That is not the way it works. If that were true then there could never be breach of contract lawsuits and we know they do exist.


You proposed a patent infringement lawsuit not a breach of contract lawsuit. Any court would throw out a patent infringement lawsuit in violation of an agreement not to file a patent infringement lawsuit.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> You mean the part, when I am referring to your post


The rest of your post did not make sense because I was talking about an intentional breach of contract in THE FUTURE and you were talking about the past. Therefore, you were confused.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> if the piper is paid, then the piper will have to close up shop after that, as no other company will want to business with them. Agree to a contract, which you are paid and in that contract you agree not to sue, then you do sue. That just gives the next guy that great warm fuzzy fealing... that it is going to be a great relationship.


Close up shop? Too much drugs? Soon, everyone will have to line up to do business with Tivo. Why? Because they are infringing on the time warp patent. Tivo is going to be a huge company compared to what it is now.

The future it is going to go like this. Want to offer a DVR? You got to go pay Tivo for use of their time warp patent or have Tivo supply your boxes. The Dish lawsuit set the precedent. Just because you stole from Tivo in the past, do not expect to get away with it in the future. Tivo will sue you and win. The precedent is set.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> Perhaps you missed the lesson about the equitable doctrine of laches?
> 
> Here refresh your memory, here.
> 
> If TiVo broke their contract to sue DirecTV the Judge would toss the suit out so fast heads would spin.


There are extenuating circumstances. Tivo singed the contract before it was proven that people are stealing Tivo's patents. I think the jury could find leanency in their hearts for Tivo.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

HPD said:


> There are extenuating circumstances. Tivo singed the contract before it was proven that people are stealing Tivo's patents. I think the jury could find leanency in their hearts for Tivo.


It would never get to a jury. A judge would not allow the filing of a patent infringement lawsuit in violation of an agreement not to file a patent infringement lawsuit.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> As far as HR2 being built by DirecTV, as far as I know DirecTV does not manufacture it, they leave that to big electronics makers. If you know differently, please post proof.


Assembly of the hardware is done by 3 manufactures. The software (and basically what makes the unit) is done by DirecTV. Thompson, Samsung, PACE physically put together the hardware that makes up the HR2* line..

Does TiVo own their own manufacturing company? or do they actualy build their units themself.

And what does that have to do with the TiVo patents? Are they going to go after the manufacturers that assemble the equipment to DirecTV specs.... too?

And NDS/News Corp... didn't "own" DirecTV... they owned the largest segment of the companies stock... no one entity "owned" DirecTV Group.

They had prodominant seats on the board of DirecTV Group... but they did not "own" DirecTV Group.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> There are extenuating circumstances. Tivo singed the contract before it was proven that people are stealing Tivo's patents. I think the jury could find leanency in their hearts for Tivo.


It still hasn't been proven that DirecTV is stealing TiVo's patents. A judge would have to allow it long before it ever got to a jury. This is a point of law not something that a jury would ever decide much less hear about.

You really should learn more about contracts, contract law, patents and Patent law before you go around trying to "school" others. You don't have much of a clue and you continue to prove it every time you post.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> The rest of your post did not make sense because I was talking about an intentional breach of contract in THE FUTURE and you were talking about the past. Therefore, you were confused.


I am far from confused... You are speaking in terms that they are going to be in breach at the end of the contract... yet that date hasn't come...

And I am asking you to answer the question of the future judge... that is going to preside over the case...

What are they going to do on Feb 16, 2010... that is going to be in breach?
2 years is a VERY VERY long time in this business and industry.
They may come to another agreement... DirecTV/DishNetwork/Liberty may purchase TiVo... or controlling intrest in their stock... a LOT can happen in 2 years.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> There are extenuating circumstances. Tivo singed the contract before it was proven that people are stealing Tivo's patents. I think the jury could find leanency in their hearts for Tivo.


But the extension of the agreement, that included the "we will not sue" clauses... was agree to.. AFTER TiVo filed suit against Dish..

Don't think that will play into the court case?


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> It still hasn't been proven that DirecTV is stealing TiVo's patents


Any judge can review the Dish/Tivo case and easily conclude that the time warp patent is being infringed upon by virtually every DVR maker.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> But the extension of the agreement, that included the "we will not sue" clauses... was agree to.. AFTER TiVo filed suit against Dish..
> 
> Don't think that will play into the court case?


Yes, it would.



> Estoppel by laches precludes a party from bringing an action when the party knowingly failed to claim or enforce a legal right at the proper time. This doctrine is closely related to the concept of statutes of limitations, except that statutes of limitations set specific time limits for legal actions, whereas under laches, generally there is no prescribed time that courts consider "proper." A defendant seeking the protection of laches must demonstrate that the plaintiff's inaction, misrepresentation, or silence prejudiced the defendant or induced the defendant to change positions for the worse.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

old7 said:


> Yes, it would.


We agree... (my question was a satirical one... doesn't translate well in typed texted)


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> Any judge can review the Dish/Tivo case and easily conclude that the time warp patent is being infringed upon by virtually every DVR maker.


There would have to be an entire trial, from discovery to verdict in order to reach that decision. You need to realize the the "time warp" patent cover a method to enable specific "time warp" features and not every method to enable all "time warp" features.

Back to the books, start with patents and patent law. I'll see you in two years. Maybe by then you'll begin to understand.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> Assembly of the hardware is done by 3 manufactures. The software (and basically what makes the unit) is done by DirecTV. Thompson, Samsung, PACE physically put together the hardware that makes up the HR2* line..
> 
> Does TiVo own their own manufacturing company? or do they actualy build their units themself.
> 
> ...


So your first statement that DirecTV builds the units was incorrect, just as I thought. It does not matter if Tivo makes the machines, the Dish network trial concluded that it was not a hardware issue, but a software infringement issue. IE - time warping. If it time warps, it infringes, so yes, tivo will go after them.

It matters not if they owned it all, all that matters is that they owned the controlling interest.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> We agree... (my question was a satirical one... doesn't translate well in typed texted)


I understand. I was just trying to help HPD, he doesn't seem to get it yet.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

old7 said:


> Yes, it would.


Estoppel doesn't enter into it. The license expires in 2010. TiVo can sue after that for any infringement on deliveries after that date. It may not be prudent to do that for previously discussed reasons though.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

HPD said:


> Anyone who cares to know the DVR story knows that the previous owner of DirecTV also owned NDS or a large portion of it. This same person decided to steal Tivo's IP when he canceled DirecTivo's and began making his own. It has nothing to do with the HR2 - it has do do with the thieves being lined up for slaughter and Dish Network was only the first one. Now all the thieves will have their day in court.


Methinks you must not know the *whole* story then. NDS has made DVRs for Sky TV in the UK for many, many years. Long before DirecTV was even a twinkle in the eye of News Corp. 

Ahhh, feeding the troll. It does feel good sometimes.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> So your first statement that DirecTV builds the units was incorrect, just as I thought. It does not matter if Tivo makes the machines, the Dish network trial concluded that it was not a hardware issue, but a software infringement issue. IE - time warping. If it time warps, it infringes, so yes, tivo will go after them.
> 
> It matters not if they owned it all, all that matters is that they owned the controlling interest.


Fine... who is nitpicking now...
It is DirecTV's design.. that they contract with a manufacturer to physically built.

And if the hardware has no bearing... then why bring up... other then to nitpick...

The piece in question (the software), is built by DirecTV.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> It does not matter if Tivo makes the machines, the Dish network trial concluded that it was not a hardware issue, but a software infringement issue. IE - time warping. If it time warps, it infringes, so yes, tivo will go after them.


One more time, the "time warp" patent covers a method to enable specific "time warp" features and not every method to enable all "time warp" features.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> I am far from confused... You are speaking in terms that they are going to be in breach at the end of the contract... yet that date hasn't come...
> 
> And I am asking you to answer the question of the future judge... that is going to preside over the case...
> 
> ...


You are very confused. I am saying that Tivo could breach the contract at any time, after they have the Dish money in their pocket.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

shibby191 said:


> Ahhh, feeding the troll. It does feel good sometimes.


It is fun... isn't it?


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

Curtis said:


> Estoppel doesn't enter into it. The license expires in 2010. TiVo can sue after that for any infringement on deliveries after that date. It may not be prudent to do that for previously discussed reasons though.


Except that HPD is proposing the TiVo void/break the contract with DirecTV before the end and sue. In that case Estoppel would apply.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> You are very confused. I am saying that Tivo could breach the contract at any time, after they have the Dish money in their pocket.


So...wait... TiVo could BREACH the contract, but then they can sue?

If TIVO was in Breach, doesn't it mean... DirecTV can sue them?

And again... as noted many times... I am far from confused.

What does the "money" have to do with it.
They can file the suit now... I am sure they have the appropriate funds to file the initial documents... and get it roaling.

Or they shoudl be able to secure the loans or funds, if they are that strapped for cash.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

old7 said:


> Except that HPD is proposing the TiVo void/break the contract with DirecTV before the end and sue. In that case Estoppel would apply.


Well, not really. The judge would throw it out immediately.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> But the extension of the agreement, that included the "we will not sue" clauses... was agree to.. AFTER TiVo filed suit against Dish..
> 
> Don't think that will play into the court case?


I am saying that filing and winning are two different things. Soon the world will know that every DVR maker is stealing Tivo's time warp patent. People hate thieves. Everyone hates thieves except other thieves. Jury's and Judge's are generally NOT thieves. Do the math.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> I am saying that filing and winning are two different things. Soon the world will know that every DVR maker is stealing Tivo's time warp patent. People hate thieves. Everyone hates thieves except other thieves. Jury's and Judge's are generally NOT thieves. Do the math.


Again, the "time warp" patent covers a method to enable specific "time warp" features and not every method to enable all "time warp" features.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

Curtis said:


> Well, not really. The judge would throw it out immediately.


I know the judge would toss it out immediately.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

"Estoppel by laches precludes a party from bringing an action when the party knowingly failed to claim or enforce a legal right at the proper time'

Seems to me that gets off on the wrong foot right away. Tivo could not have knowingly failed to claim or enforce a legal right until the Dish network trial is completely done and the patent infringement is well documented. The trial is not over yet and Tivo signed the do not sue contract before the trial ended.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> "Estoppel by laches precludes a party from bringing an action when the party knowingly failed to claim or enforce a legal right at the proper time'
> 
> Seems to me that gets off on the wrong foot right away. Tivo could not have knowingly failed to claim or enforce a legal right until the Dish network trial is completely done and the patent infringement is well documented. The trial is not over yet and Tivo signed the do not sue contract before the trial ended.


Wrong, they had the patents and knew what they covered before the contract was signed that is enough.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

HPD said:


> Tivo could not have knowingly failed to claim or enforce a legal right until the Dish network trial is completely done and the patent infringement is well documented. ended.


TiVo didn't know their patent was valid? Didn't TiVo know that all patents are valid until it is proven otherwise?


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> There would have to be an entire trial, from discovery to verdict in order to reach that decision. You need to realize the the "time warp" patent cover a method to enable specific "time warp" features and not every method to enable all "time warp" features


So you say, but not true. Before deciding whether to let a case go to court, a judge has to look at many factors and decide if it would be unfair not to let Tivo fight DirecTV in court. It light of the Dish case, the judge could be influenced (he is human) and likely to find in favor of Tivo. Here is a hint. If it time warps, then it time warps and if it time warps then it infringes.

There is only one method. Software instructs hardware to record while playing back. The court ruled it was not hardware infringement so it is all about the software doing the idea. Before DVR's VCR's could only record or play back, not both at the same time. Tivo patented the idea, They own it. Court said so.

DVD's could not do what Tivo invented either.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> I understand. I was just trying to help HPD, he doesn't seem to get it yet.


I get it just fine.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

shibby191 said:


> Methinks you must not know the *whole* story then. NDS has made DVRs for Sky TV in the UK for many, many years. Long before DirecTV was even a twinkle in the eye of News Corp.
> 
> Ahhh, feeding the troll. It does feel good sometimes.


But US patent law does not apply to the UK. What is your point?


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> So you say, but not true. Before deciding whether to let a case go to court, a judge has to look at many factors and decide if it would be unfair not to let Tivo fight DirecTV in court.


So you say and even when you say it it doesn't make sense. Not allowing DirecTV to defend itself is wrong on so many levels that I have a hard time believing that you even believe it.



HPD said:


> It light of the Dish case, the judge could be influenced (he is human) and likely to find in favor of Tivo.


The Appellate court would slap this back so fast the judge would spin in his chair. Appellate courts don't take kindly to judges that don't follow the law.



HPD said:


> Here is a hint. If it time warps, then it time warps and if it time warps then it infringes.


Read a little about patent law and you will understand why the "time warp" patent covers a method to enable specific "time warp" features and not every method to enable all "time warp" features.



HPD said:


> There is only one method. Software instructs hardware to record while playing back. The court ruled it was not hardware infringement so it is all about the software doing the idea. Before DVR's VCR's could only record or play back, not both at the same time. Tivo patented the idea, They own it. Court said so.
> 
> DVD's could not do what Tivo invented either.


Again you really need to brush up on patent law.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> Fine... who is nitpicking now...
> It is DirecTV's design.. that they contract with a manufacturer to physically built.
> 
> And if the hardware has no bearing... then why bring up... other then to nitpick...
> ...


I did not bring it up. You said DirecTv builds their own machines. Minutes later, when questioned, you admitted they do not build their machines. So how can anyone trust what you say? Should I believe that software is built by DirecTV? Things that make you go Hmmmmmm


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> I get it just fine.


LOL


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> One more time, the "time warp" patent covers a method to enable specific "time warp" features and not every method to enable all "time warp" features.


There can be only one method for time warping. The software code tells the recorder to begin recording and low and behold the user happens to be watching another previously recorded program at the same time, wala, that guy is doing the time warp dance.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> There can be only one method for time warping. The software code tells the recorder to begin recording and low and behold the user happens to be watching another previously recorded program at the same time, wala, that guy is doing the time warp dance.


If you actually believe this, then:

A. You haven't read the "time warp" patent.
B. You don't understand patent law at even a basic level.
C. You don't care about the patent or patent law and have your own agenda.
D. All of the above.

I'm going with D.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> So...wait... TiVo could BREACH the contract, but then they can sue?
> 
> If TIVO was in Breach, doesn't it mean... DirecTV can sue them?
> 
> ...


I have been saying all along that if Tivo breached the contract that DirecTV could sue for breach of contract. Trouble reading?

Noted many times? What good does that do? It is just a statement. Not necessarily a fact.

Why would Tivo file suit now before the world clearly knows that a court has said that the time warp patent has been stolen from Tivo by Dish? Why not wait a few more weeks or months until the verdict is final and Dish is forced to strike a deal with Tivo or shut down their DVR's? That is what I would do. Wait until the world sees that your patent has muscle in the courts and you are shooting straight and gunning for blood.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> Wrong, they had the patents and knew what they covered before the contract was signed that is enough.


Now you are just twisting words. Tivo could not have known for sure if the would win. "that is enough" Link to proof please.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

Curtis said:


> TiVo didn't know their patent was valid? Didn't TiVo know that all patents are valid until it is proven otherwise?


You are being impractical. It is not about valid patents, of course Tivo knew they own the patent. But they could not be entirely sure that the court would agree that they were being infringed upon. So how could they enforce a claim that had yet to be proven at the time of the contract?


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

HPD said:


> Why would Tivo file suit now before the world clearly knows that a court has said that the time warp patent has been stolen from Tivo by Dish?


An infringement by one company has no bearing on whether another company infringes just as a crime committed by an 18 year old does not mean that all 18 year olds have or will commit that same crime.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> Why would Tivo file suit now before the world clearly knows that a court has said that the time warp patent has been stolen from Tivo by Dish?


The world knows that Dish lost. The appellate court upheld the verdict.



HPD said:


> Why not wait a few more weeks or months until the verdict is final and Dish is forced to strike a deal with Tivo or shut down their DVR's?


 The only thing that remains is how much will Dish have to pay and how long before the court orders Dish to turn the DVRs off or Dish and TiVo reach an agreement. In all likely hood an agreement will be reached that allows the DVRs to continue to function, but it will be at the last minute.



HPD said:


> That is what I would do. Wait until the world sees that your patent has muscle in the courts and you are shooting straight and gunning for blood.


Why wait any longer. The verdict is in.

Oh, it is bad form to sue customers that you already have active contracts with. That should cover DirecTV. Not only that judges don't take breach of contract lightly.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> You are being impractical. It is not about valid patents, of course Tivo knew they own the patent. But they could not be entirely sure that the court would agree that they were being infringed upon. So how could they enforce a claim that had yet to be proven at the time of the contract?


If that logic was true how did they bring Dish to court?


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> Not allowing DirecTV to defend itself is wrong on so many levels that I have a hard time believing that you even believe it.


In court, DirecTV would have ample opportunity to defend themselves, both in a breach of contract lawsuit that DirecTV filed or in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Tivo. Your comment has me scratching my head. I have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about.


I've noticed that. Maybe reading a little on patents and patent law would help.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

HPD said:


> In court, DirecTV would have ample opportunity to defend themselves, both in a breach of contract lawsuit that DirecTV filed or in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Tivo.


A judge would not be a party to allowing a contract violation by allowing the filing of a patent infringement lawsuit in violation of an agreement not to file such a suit just like a judge would not strike a match just because an arsonist asked him to.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

Curtis said:


> An infringement by one company has no bearing on whether another company infringes just as a crime committed by an 18 year old does not mean that all 18 year olds have or will commit that same crime.


You make a statement and then you think you prove your point by talking about a 18 year old, BUT you did not complete the sentance. That is, all 18 year olds doing the "time warp" dance are guilty.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

Curtis said:


> A judge would not be a party to allowing a contract violation by allowing the filing of a patent infringement lawsuit in violation of an agreement not to file such a suit just like a judge would not strike a match just because an arsonist asked him to.


Thank you. I was getting ready to answer this part, but your reply is much better than mine.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> You make a statement and then you think you prove your point by talking about a 18 year old, BUT you did not complete the sentance. That is, all 18 year olds doing the "time warp" dance are guilty.


And you think that you have proven anything? You have offered very little in the way of proof. But then you have never been concerned with little things like proof, facts or the law.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> The world knows that Dish lost. The appellate court upheld the verdict. Why wait any longer. The verdict is in.


You know it is not official yet. But once Dish has to shut down their DVR's plus pay Tivo $215+ million, it goes up about $6 million per week, then the world will quake in their boots. Tivo will then sense that the time is right to go after many deals or sue. These things take time. They do not go by YOUR schedule.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> I've noticed that. Maybe reading a little on patents and patent law would help.


You took my quote out of context. How does that help the discussion?


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> You know it is not official yet.


What is not offical about it. The verdict is in. The appellate court upheld the verdict. The only thing left is how much. (Which I mentioned in the next paragraph.)



HPD said:


> But once Dish has to shut down their DVR's plus pay Tivo $215+ million, it goes up about $6 million per week, then the world will quake in their boots.


Why, where is your proof. Your imagination is not proof. If a company is violating TiVo's patents they already know it and have been concerned for a while. But you don't seem to realize that you can have a functioning DVR that does not violate TiVo's patents. I love TiVo as much as the next guy, but you are spouting BS and further you know it.



HPD said:


> Tivo will then sense that the time is right to go after many deals or sue. These things take time. They do not go by YOUR schedule.


But they go by your schedule? I think TiVo knows exactly what they are doing. They have attorneys that understand patents, patent law, contracts and contract law, you seem to have a large gap in your understanding.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> You took my quote out of context. How does that help the discussion?


Yes, I did. It made me feel better.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

Here is the worse case scenario. Tivo makes themselves busy racking in deals with many cable companies during the next two years. Then by that time the contract with DirecTV expires and now they get the icing on the cake by suing the same company that screwed Tivo in the first place. DirecTV was not satisfied with having 14 million subscribers, they had to steal Tivo's technology and prove to the world that they are just common thieves.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> There can be only one method for time warping. The software code tells the recorder to begin recording and low and behold the user happens to be watching another previously recorded program at the same time, wala, that guy is doing the time warp dance.


Where is your proof for this? I'd like to see it.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> What is not offical about it. The verdict is in. The appellate court upheld the verdict. The only thing left is how much. (Which I mentioned in the next paragraph.)
> 
> Why, where is your proof. Your imagination is not proof. If a company is violating TiVo's patents they already know it and have been concerned for a while. But you don't seem to realize that you can have a functioning DVR that does not violate TiVo's patents. I love TiVo as much as the next guy, but you are spouting BS and further you know it.
> 
> But they go by your schedule? I think TiVo knows exactly what they are doing. They have attorneys that understand patents, patent law, contracts and contract law, you seem to have a large gap in your understanding.


Some have said it might go to the supreme court.

Where is your proof that it is possible to have a DVR that time warps without violating Tivo's patent. We both know you cannot produce proof.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> Yes, I did. It made me feel better.


Ok, that made me laugh, not at you, but with you. Almost time for sleep. Keep up the ........


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> Here is the worse case scenario. Tivo makes themselves busy racking in deals with many cable companies during the next two years. Then by that time the contract with DirecTV expires and now they get the icing on the cake by suing the same company that screwed Tivo in the first place. DirecTV was not satisfied with having 14 million subscribers, they had to steal Tivo's technology and prove to the world that they are just common thieves.


Where is your proof of this. Please provide a statement from an authorized TiVo representative: 1) that TiVo is dissatisfied with their contract with DirecTV and 2) that TiVo is convinced that DirecTV has stolen their patents.

By the way I think you meant "raking" in deals. Racking means something else entirely.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> Some have said it might go to the supreme court.
> 
> Where is your proof that it is possible to have a DVR that time warps without violating Tivo's patent. We both know you cannot produce proof.


Where is your proof to the contrary? You have no proof what so ever.

My proof is that patents protect methods and that TiVo is very specific with the method that they patented in the "time warp" patent.

If you read the patent it would be obvious to you. Not the abstract, the actual complete patent.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> Ok, that made me laugh, not at you, but with you. Almost time for sleep. Keep up the ........


Don't go way there is a lot that you haven't answered. You seem to cherry pick what you answer and what you ignore. I'd like to see some of your proof.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> Where is your proof for this? I'd like to see it.


Let me try to explain. Software tells hardware what to do and when. So the hardware is capable of recording to a hard drive by way of MPEG. The software is nothing more than a timer that knows what channel to tune to and when and for how long. Tivo was the first entity to decide to make their software lay down a recording stream while playing back a previously recorded stream. That made it different from every other video device out there. That is, until the world saw Tivo and decided to copy it. I know, Replay TV, Replay TV blah blah blah. But Tivo owns the time warp patent and that is that. If another DVR time warps, but they do not pay licensing fees to Tivo, they are breaking the law.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> Let me try to explain. Software tells hardware what to do and when. So the hardware is capable of recording to a hard drive by way of MPEG. The software is nothing more than a timer that knows what channel to tune to and when and for how long. Tivo was the first entity to decide to make their software lay down a recording stream while playing back a previously recorded stream. That made it different from every other video device out there. That is, until the world saw Tivo and decided to copy it. I know, Replay TV, Replay TV blah blah blah. But Tivo owns the time warp patent and that is that. If another DVR time warps, but they do not pay licensing fees to Tivo, they are breaking the law.


If it was as simple as you seem to think then the judge would have taken the remote and used it to pause, rewind and fast-forward live tv and could have determined that Dish was in violation of the "time warp" patent. No need for months of discovery, patent attorneys or expert witnesses.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> Where is your proof of this. Please provide a statement from an authorized TiVo representative: 1) that TiVo is dissatisfied with their contract with DirecTV and 2) that TiVo is convinced that DirecTV has stolen their patents.
> 
> By the way I think you meant "raking" in deals. Racking means something else entirely.


All one needs to know is that Tivo must be dissatisfied because every DirecTV DVR used to be a Tivo unit until the thieves entered the picture.

DirecTV DVR does time warping, Tivo sued Dish over same thing. Need I say any more? NO

Racking means I need sleep.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> Let me try to explain. Software tells hardware what to do and when. So the hardware is capable of recording to a hard drive by way of MPEG. The software is nothing more than a timer that knows what channel to tune to and when and for how long. Tivo was the first entity to decide to make their software lay down a recording stream while playing back a previously recorded stream. That made it different from every other video device out there. That is, until the world saw Tivo and decided to copy it. I know, Replay TV, Replay TV blah blah blah. But Tivo owns the time warp patent and that is that. If another DVR time warps, but they do not pay licensing fees to Tivo, they are breaking the law.


You forgot something. I don't see one statement from a TiVo representative: 1) that TiVo is dissatisfied with their contract with DirecTV and 2) that TiVo is convinced that DirecTV has stolen their patents.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> Where is your proof to the contrary? You have no proof what so ever.
> 
> My proof is that patents protect methods and that TiVo is very specific with the method that they patented in the "time warp" patent.
> 
> If you read the patent it would be obvious to you. Not the abstract, the actual complete patent.


I asked you first. BIG GRIN - getting very tired. Pillow is starting to look good.

What other method is there to write software code that says:

At 9:00 pm tune to channel 30 and record for one hour. While at the same time I am watching a previously recorded show. REMEMBER, the Dish software infringes, NOT the hardware.

I read the entire actual patent.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> All one needs to know is that Tivo must be dissatisfied because every DirecTV DVR used to be a Tivo unit until the thieves entered the picture.
> 
> DirecTV DVR does time warping, Tivo sued Dish over same thing. Need I say any more? NO
> 
> Racking means I need sleep.


In addition to sleep you need proof. I have seen nothing close to proof.

TiVo sued Dish because Dish designed a DVR that use methods to perform functions almost identically to the ones in TiVo's patents.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> I asked you first. BIG GRIN - getting very tired. Pillow is starting to look good.


And I gave you proof.



HPD said:


> What other method is there to write software code that says:
> 
> At 9:00 pm tune to channel 30 and record for one hour. While at the same time I am watching a previously recorded show. REMEMBER, the Dish software infringes, NOT the hardware.


Yes, Dish infringes, you have offered no proof that DirecTV or anyone else does.



HPD said:


> I read the entire actual patent.


Considering what you are saying here it is obvious that you didn't understand it.

Right back to:

A. You haven't read the "time warp" patent.
B. You don't understand patent law at even a basic level.
C. You don't care about the patent or patent law and have your own agenda.
D. All of the above.

I'm still going with D.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> If it was as simple as you seem to think then the judge would have taken the remote and used it to pause, rewind and fast-forward live tv and could have determined that Dish was in violation of the "time warp" patent. No need for months of discovery, patent attorneys or expert witnesses.


Well, trials do not go the way they do on TV. The wheels of justice turn very slowly in real life. In this case, much time was wasted by Dish trying to challenge the validity of the patent. But we all know that Tivo prevailed. You know, the lawyers drag it out even when cases should not be in court. We all know there are lawyers who defend scumbags, that is just the way it is and there is no way to change it.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

The pillow is calling my name. Goodnight.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> Well, trials do not go the way they do on TV.


And think you are starting to understand.



HPD said:


> The wheels of justice turn very slowly in real life. In this case, much time was wasted by Dish trying to challenge the validity of the patent. But we all know that Tivo prevailed. You know, the lawyers drag it out even when cases should not be in court. We all know there are lawyers who defend scumbags, that is just the way it is and there is no way to change it.


Yes, maybe you do understand.

Now do you understand why the "time warp" patent didn't cover every method to provide "time warp" functions.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> The pillow is calling my name. Goodnight.


Still no proof.

Still no statements from an authorized TiVo representative: 1) that TiVo is dissatisfied with their contract with DirecTV and 2) that TiVo is under the belief or assumption that DirecTV has stolen their patents.

And still no answer on where you stand:

A. You haven't read the "time warp" patent.
B. You don't understand patent law at even a basic level.
C. You don't care about the patent or patent law and have your own agenda.
D. All of the above.

Through it all, I'm still going with D.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

old7 you have some serious troll stamina.


----------



## Cudahy (Mar 21, 2001)

If there is any serious possibility of HPD being right wouldn't it guarantee that Directv & Tivo reach a new agreement this year? Especially since it's in their mutual self interest to do so even if there is no possibility of a suit.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

bigpuma said:


> old7 you have some serious troll stamina.


Thank you.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

Cudahy said:


> If there is any serious possibility of HPD being right wouldn't it guarantee that Directv & Tivo reach a new agreement this year? Especially since it's in their mutual self interest to do so even if there is no possibility of a suit.


Right about what?

Right that TiVo would even consider voiding a contract to sue DirecTV?

No, not even a slim chance.

Right that TiVo's "time warp" patent covers every possible method to implement DRV functions?

No, not even a slim chance.

Right that TiVo would consider suing DirecTV after the contract is over?

That would depend on the details in the existing contract.

Personally, I believe that DirecTV and TiVo will renegotiate a contract months before this contract expires. It would be in the interest of both to renew. DirecTV will most likely still have some active DirecTiVos.

I would love to see DirecTV with a new mpeg4 HD DirecTiVo, but I doubt that it will happen.

HPD is right about one thing, Dish is going to pay a lot of money to keep their DVRs operating, a lot of money. Dish did it the wrong way and deserves to pay and pay through the nose. It may take a few more months for the details to all be worked out, but in the end it is not looking good for Dish.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HPD said:


> All one needs to know is that Tivo must be dissatisfied because every DirecTV DVR used to be a Tivo unit until the thieves entered the picture.
> 
> DirecTV DVR does time warping, Tivo sued Dish over same thing. Need I say any more? NO
> 
> Racking means I need sleep.


You need to continue your research..
Last time I checked... there was this nice little unit called the UltimateTV... available at the same time as TiVo...

So no... not every DirecTV DVR used to be a TiVo.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Cudahy said:


> If there is any serious possibility of HPD being right wouldn't it guarantee that Directv & Tivo reach a new agreement this year? Especially since it's in their mutual self interest to do so even if there is no possibility of a suit.


Since the contract ends in 2010... there is no guarantee that in 2008, anything would be agreed to...

And most likely wouldn't be reached until sometime late 2009, if there is a true need to continue the extension of the agreement.


----------



## seedcar (Aug 8, 2005)

HPD said:


> Let me try to explain. Software tells hardware what to do and when. So the hardware is capable of recording to a hard drive by way of MPEG. The software is nothing more than a timer that knows what channel to tune to and when and for how long. Tivo was the first entity to decide to make their software lay down a recording stream while playing back a previously recorded stream. That made it different from every other video device out there. That is, until the world saw Tivo and decided to copy it. I know, Replay TV, Replay TV blah blah blah. But Tivo owns the time warp patent and that is that. If another DVR time warps, but they do not pay licensing fees to Tivo, they are breaking the law.


Well, if Tivo sues for this, DirecTV can in turn sue Tivo for infringement on ReplayTVs patent 6,324,338: "The broad patent covers the fundamental concept of using a program guide or other user specified criteria to select TV shows for recording on a digital video recorder. USPTO patent number 6,324,338 also covers methodology that creates, names, prioritizes, and manages recorded programs on the hard drive for DVRs. "

Tivo and Sonic Blue went through all of this in 2002 and their many lawsuits ended after both companies agreed to cross licensing their patents.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

ebonovic said:


> You need to continue your research. Last time I checked... there was this nice little unit called the UltimateTV... available at the same time as TiVo...
> 
> So no... not every DirecTV DVR used to be a TiVo.


I know a lot more about DVR's than you think I do. In your Tivo bashing, you forgot to check the facts. Tivo got their timewarp patent in 1998 but UltimateTV hit the shelves in March 2001. Bill Gates, the richest man on planet earth, threw in the towel on UltimateTV after he learned of Tivo's patent. The company is out of business. Now, if the richest man on the planet threw in the towel, what do you think the also rans like DirecTV are going to do when the Dish DVR's get shut down? They will fold their cards and strike deals with Tivo if they want to continue to offer DVR's.

http://www.news.com/Microsofts-ulti...eractive-TV/2100-1040_3-254788.html?tag=st.rn


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> I know a lot more about DVR's than you think I do. In your Tivo bashing, you forgot to check the facts. Tivo got their timewarp patent in 1998 but UltimateTV hit the shelves in March 2001.


So?

Does Microsoft have any DVR patents?



HPD said:


> Bill Gates, the richest man on planet earth, threw in the towel on UltimateTV after he learned of Tivo's patent.


Do you honestly think that Microsoft didn't know about TiVo's patents before UltimateTV hit the shelves? Do you have any proof to back up your claims or are you making stuff up again?



HPD said:


> The company is out of business.


Really, Microsoft is out of business? I missed that. When did it happen?



HPD said:


> Now, if the richest man on the planet threw in the towel, what do you think the also rans like DirecTV are going to do when the Dish DVR's get shut down? They will fold their cards and strike deals with Tivo if they want to continue to offer DVR's.
> 
> http://www.news.com/Microsofts-ulti...eractive-TV/2100-1040_3-254788.html?tag=st.rn


Do you think you can just make stuff up and people will believe you? The only thing here that is true is that Microsoft produced UltimateTV starting about 2001 and no longer produces a DirecTV DVR. The rest is lies and BS.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

HPD said:


> Bill Gates, the richest man on planet earth


Bill Gates is not even #2.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> ...every DirecTV DVR used to be a Tivo unit...





HPD said:


> I know a lot more about DVR's than you think I do.


What about the "every DirecTV DVR used to be a Tivo unit" claim? Did you forget about UltimateTV? Perhaps you don't know as much as you think.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

seedcar said:


> Well, if Tivo sues for this, DirecTV can in turn sue Tivo for infringement on ReplayTVs patent 6,324,338: "The broad patent covers the fundamental concept of using a program guide or other user specified criteria to select TV shows for recording on a digital video recorder. USPTO patent number 6,324,338 also covers methodology that creates, names, prioritizes, and manages recorded programs on the hard drive for DVRs. "
> 
> Tivo and Sonic Blue went through all of this in 2002 and their many lawsuits ended after both companies agreed to cross licensing their patents.


I am not sure if it is that cut and dried. Tivo licensed from Gemstar. Perhaps Gemstar has the patent that counts.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/06/09/180857.php


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> I am not sure if it is that cut and dried. Tivo licensed from Gemstar. Perhaps Gemstar has the patent that counts.
> 
> http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/06/09/180857.php


Perhaps both Gemstar and Replay/Sonic have patents that cover different methods to accomplish similar functions.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> So?
> 
> Does Microsoft have any DVR patents?
> 
> ...


If Microsoft had adequate DVR patents they would still be in the business. I read an article where Bill Gates was quoted as saying that he wanted out of the UltimateTV business because of Tivo's patent. Apparently he did a patent check too late in the game. You know I meant UltimateTV is out of business.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> If Microsoft had adequate DVR patents they would still be in the business. I read an article where Bill Gates was quoted as saying that he wanted out of the UltimateTV business because of Tivo's patent. Apparently he did a patent check too late in the game. You know I meant UltimateTV is out of business.


Please find the Bill Gates' quote. I'll be here when you find it.

Perhaps you should make it more clear. UltimateTV was a product and not a company.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

SullyND said:


> Bill Gates is not even #2.


Perhaps Forbes magazine would be interested in your opinion. Notice number six on the list. Microsoft co founder Paul Allen. These are two very wealthy men. Bill Gates is number one on the list.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/Rank_1.html


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> What about the "every DirecTV DVR used to be a Tivo unit" claim? Did you forget about UltimateTV? Perhaps you don't know as much as you think.


I bought two DirecTivo's from DirecTV, they were both Tivo units and I am not sure if any customers got stuck with an UltimateTV DVR. Not even sure you have proven that Ultimate TV ever shipped any DVR's to DirecTV. The burden of proof is on you, since you brought it up.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> Perhaps Forbes magazine would be interested in your opinion. Notice number six on the list. Microsoft co founder Paul Allen. These are two very wealthy men. Bill Gates is number one on the list.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/Rank_1.html


Perhaps you should look at an article that isn't almost 2 years old.

After 13 years on top, Bill Gates is no longer the richest man in the world.

1. Warren Buffett
2. Carlos Slim Helu
3. William Gates III


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> I bought two DirecTivo's from DirecTV, they were both Tivo units and I am not sure if any customers got stuck with an UltimateTV DVR. Not even sure you have proven that Ultimate TV ever shipped any DVR's to DirecTV. The burden of proof is on you, since you brought it up.


Here is a message from UltimateTV to its users in 2007 about a software update.



> Summer 2007 Update
> 
> Congratulations UltimateTV® service subscribers! On September 5, 2007, Microsoft® released a new service update, available to UltimateTV subscribers via an automatic Satellite download. The Summer 2007 update was developed to maintain compatibility with the DirecTV® service. Installation of this update is required so your recording features continue to record programs as expected.


Not only did they ship products it appears that there are still active UltimateTV DVRs.

Proof enough?


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> Please find the Bill Gates' quote. I'll be here when you find it.
> 
> Perhaps you should make it more clear. UltimateTV was a product and not a company.


I read the Bill Gates quote a long time ago and I read a lot so I do not remember what magazine it was in.

I really do not care whether Ultimate TV was a separate company from Microsoft. The only reason it came into the conversation was because some guy thought UltimateTV came out before Tivo' s patent in 1998.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> I read the Bill Gates quote a long time ago and I read a lot so I do not remember what magazine it was in.
> 
> I really do not care whether Ultimate TV was a separate company from Microsoft. The only reason it came into the conversation was because some guy thought UltimateTV came out before Tivo' s patent in 1998.


Perhaps your memory about the Bill Gates' quote is as faulty as your memory on other things, like "every DirecTV DVR used to be a Tivo unit."

Think about it. Microsoft still has active UltimateTV users do you think a CEO of a company would come out and admit that they are pulling a product because of patent concerns and then continue to support that product for years after they stopped manufacturing it? A statement like that would suggest that not only do they infringe on TiVo's patents but that they know they infringe.

I will file your memory of a Bill Gate's quote in the BS file until you can provide proof.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> you forgot the more likely scenario
> 
> 3. Dish is ordered to pay TiVo x million and loses the money in account) 70+million?) and argues about the rest in court
> no deal with TiVo
> ...





ebonovic said:


> You still believe that don't you?
> 
> You really need to take a course in Contracts 101...


The point is not whether he believes any of his spam or not. *HPD is a multi-userid stock troll just looking to pump up TiVo stock* so he can take his profit as early as he can and move his money on.
The thread is now totally beyond ruin but yu all have fun with it


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> I read the Bill Gates quote a long time ago and I read a lot so I do not remember what magazine it was in.
> 
> I really do not care whether Ultimate TV was a separate company from Microsoft. The only reason it came into the conversation was because some guy thought UltimateTV came out before Tivo' s patent in 1998.


The reason UltimateTV came up is because you claimed that "every DirecTV DVR used to be a Tivo unit." No one claimed that UltimateTV came out before Tivo' s patent in 1998.

There's that faulty memory of yours. Again.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> Perhaps you should look at an article that isn't almost 2 years old.
> 
> After 13 years on top, Bill Gates is no longer the richest man in the world.
> 
> ...


Ok, I stand corrected.

Gates 58 billion

Buffet 62 billion


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

Ummm, Microsoft still does a DVR, it's called Windows Media Center. They shelved the Ultimate TV as a stand alone hardware product and rolled the software into their new at the time Xbox/Media division. The Ultimate TV software evolved into the Windows Media Center which is used by millions of users. So are you saying that Microsoft also infringes and Tivo should sue Microsoft?

HPD, what you don't seem to want to understand is that there is more then one way to do the same thing. Tivo sued Replay back in the day and did not win. They both decided that they couldn't win against each other cross licensed each others patents *which DirecTV now owns and has that cross licensing as well*.

Wow.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

seedcar said:


> Tivo and Sonic Blue went through all of this in 2002 and their many lawsuits ended after both companies agreed to cross licensing their patents.


Can you provide a cite for this agreement from either company? My information is that there is no evidence of such an agreement.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

shibby191 said:


> They both decided that they couldn't win against each other cross licensed each others patents *which DirecTV now owns and has that cross licensing as well*.


Please don't misinterpret this, but I used to believe that TiVo and Replay/Sonic had signed a cross license agreement. I have searched and searched, including spending several hours searching SEC filings and I have found no indication from either company that a cross license agreement exists. The only thing I have found is a few articles that assume since both companies dropped the lawsuit that there was an agreement. I assumed that too for a long time.

If you can find a reference from either TiVo or Replay/Sonic to an agreement I would love to see it, it would confirm my original assumption.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

shibby191 said:


> Ummm, Microsoft still does a DVR, it's called Windows Media Center. They shelved the Ultimate TV as a stand alone hardware product and rolled the software into their new at the time Xbox/Media division. The Ultimate TV software evolved into the Windows Media Center which is used by millions of users. So are you saying that Microsoft also infringes and Tivo should sue Microsoft?
> 
> HPD, what you don't seem to want to understand is that there is more then one way to do the same thing. Tivo sued Replay back in the day and did not win. They both decided that they couldn't win against each other cross licensed each others patents *which DirecTV now owns and has that cross licensing as well*.
> 
> Wow.


Windows Media Center would require two tuner cards and a bit of computer knowledge to get set up and running right. I doubt millions of people are using that solution when Tivo and other DVR's make it so simple. I will say that we have no proof that Microsoft is not infringing on Tivo's time warp patent. If you want to post some proof, go right ahead.

More than one way to do the same thing? Yet nobody has demonstrated that it can be done.

As far as I know, nobody on this or any other forum has found evidence that there was a cross licensing agreement. I think all both parties did was agree to drop the lawsuits


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> I used to believe that TiVo and Replay/Sonic had signed a cross license agreement. I have searched and searched, including spending several hours searching SEC filings and I have found no indication from either company that a cross license agreement exists.


I have also spent hours searching. Google searches such as "sonic blue tivo agreement" only make mention of them agreeing to drop their lawsuits. No licensing agreement.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> Windows Media Center would require two tuner cards and a bit of computer knowledge to get set up and running right. I doubt millions of people are using that solution when Tivo and other DVR's make it so simple. I will say that we have no proof that Microsoft is not infringing on Tivo's time warp patent. If you want to post some proof, go right ahead.


I believe the burden of proof is on your side. You need to offer proof that Microsoft is infringing.



HPD said:


> More than one way to do the same thing? Yet nobody has demonstrated that it can be done.


Like I have said before, read and understand the complete patent.

Where do you stand:

A. You haven't read the "time warp" patent.
B. You don't understand patent law at even a basic level.
C. You don't care about the patent or patent law and have your own agenda.
D. All of the above.

I'm standing firm with D.



HPD said:


> As far as I know, nobody on this or any other forum has found evidence that there was a cross licensing agreement. I think all both parties did was agree to drop the lawsuits


I concur, I have not seen evidence of such an agreement.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

old7 said:


> I believe the burden of proof is on your side. You need to offer proof that Microsoft is infringing.


It would be more accurate to say that Microsoft will have to prove in court that they are not infringing on Tivo's time warp patent.


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

HPD said:


> It would be more accurate to say that Microsoft will have to prove in court that they are not infringing on Tivo's time warp patent.


Wrong Again. In court it works the other way around, the burden of proof is on the claimant.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

HPD said:


> Windows Media Center would require two tuner cards and a bit of computer knowledge to get set up and running right. I doubt millions of people are using that solution when Tivo and other DVR's make it so simple.


Ummmm, I can go down to Best Buy right now and buy a Media Center PC, take it home and hook it up to my cable or OTA or Sat box and I'm on my way. I don't need to have any computer knowledge. I know several non "techie" people that have done that over the past few years it's been available.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

old7 said:


> Wrong Again. In court it works the other way around, the burden of proof is on the claimant.


yes, but first TiVo would have to be STUPID enough to sue Microsoft over patent infringement. I think only HPD is thinking that would happen


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> The point is not whether he believes any of his spam or not. *HPD is a multi-userid stock troll just looking to pump up TiVo stock* so he can take his profit as early as he can and move his money on.


He doesn't seem to be having much success.


----------



## fasTLane (Nov 25, 2005)

Like this boards banter would have any influence on a stocks action. 
GMAB


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

HiDefGator said:


> He doesn't seem to be having much success.


LOL. Yea, they don't need any help. When losing $6.34 *million* just in the 4th quarter (31.5 million for the fiscal year) and losing half a million customers is viewed as a *good thing* you are in pretty sad shape.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

and who did they lose them to? Directv? With their proprietary boxes? Yes, I think they are losing a lot of customers to the fact that the cable co. and the satellite co. have a (perceived) cheaper DVR. And both are infringing on Tivo patents to do it. Will these companies be able to continue to do this... only time will tell.



shibby191 said:


> LOL. Yea, they don't need any help. When losing $6.34 *million* just in the 4th quarter (31.5 million for the fiscal year) and losing half a million customers is viewed as a *good thing* you are in pretty sad shape.


----------



## Billy Bob Boy (Jul 25, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> yes, but first TiVo would have to be STUPID enough to sue Microsoft over patent infringement. I think only HPD is thinking that would happen


Sue Schmoo!!! I don't care who sues who. Just tell me where Tivo is going next. I don't care about Liberty mutual bear stearns Or any of the other BS back and Forth on this forum. TIVO If you come here. Which I am sure someone from Tivo does. Get off your collective butts and build a S3 Hd tivo that can work with any sat company(And Give you dual tuner dual live buffer and superior picture). PLEASE Dear god do something. I can only get satellite and I don't want to commit to Either Dish or D* with their dvrs for 2 FREEEEEEKIN Years. HELP ME TIVO LORD HELP ME

How about I get my rich boss to invest like 100 million. Would that be enough to launch a Tivo sat. Ok the most i can get is 500 dollars What can I get for that


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

You would still need to get D* and E* to agree to an OPEN standard like cablecard. So, that Tivo could create a SA Tivo that would work with satellite. Either that or Tivo would have to create software that would work on the current D* and E* dvrs. And so far... it looks like they are not going to do that. If you want it you better start complaining to congress and FCC.



Billy Bob Boy said:


> Sue Schmoo!!! I don't care who sues who. Just tell me where Tivo is going next. I don't care about Liberty mutual bear stearns Or any of the other BS back and Forth on this forum. TIVO If you come here. Which I am sure someone from Tivo does. Get off your collective butts and build a S3 Hd tivo that can work with any sat company(And Give you dual tuner dual live buffer and superior picture). PLEASE Dear god do something. I can only get satellite and I don't want to commit to Either Dish or D* with their dvrs for 2 FREEEEEEKIN Years. HELP ME TIVO LORD HELP ME
> 
> How about I get my rich boss to invest like 100 million. Would that be enough to launch a Tivo sat. Ok the most i can get is 500 dollars What can I get for that


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

Now this should be intresting (I am leary of poking this sleeping thread) but... it is on the topic...
Let's see if they talk about their own analysis...

(Cut and Paste from BonScott's post at DBSTalk.Com)

Just a reminder of the Bear Stearns conference tomorrow at which DirecTV is presenting. No idea if it's just a DirecTV thing or if they will just be one of many presenters.

Press Release: http://dtv.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=297985

Webcast: http://dtv.client.shareholder.com/eventdetail.cfm?EventID=52131

Sounds like it will probably be a lot of rehash of what we heard at their investor day but there might be some interesting questions (especially since a Bear Stearns analyst thinks that Liberty will bring back Tivo and Tivo isn't mentioned at all in the DirecTV long term plans, so we'll see).


----------



## Billy Bob Boy (Jul 25, 2004)

ebonovic said:


> Now this should be intresting (I am leary of poking this sleeping thread) but... it is on the topic...
> Let's see if they talk about their own analysis...
> 
> (Cut and Paste from BonScott's post at DBSTalk.Com)
> ...


Well than I am glad I made the decision to go on a month to month basis with Dish HD and Not having to purchase the 722 is also good. If Tivo comes back to D* So will I!! That Is the Only way I will commit to 2 more years! Later Earl and Keep us up to date on the latest Poop:up:


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

Billy Bob Boy said:


> Well than I am glad I made the decision to go on a month to month basis with Dish HD and Not having to purchase the 722 is also good. If Tivo comes back to D* So will I!! That Is the Only way I will commit to 2 more years! Later Earl and Keep us up to date on the latest Poop:up:


Well, I wouldn't get your hopes up since DirecTV has already laid out their plan for the next 4-5 years and Tivo isn't a part of it. This is only interesting because perhaps the very analyst that wrote this article will directly ask the "Tivo question". Although I would expect a very diplomatic answer such as "we still have a partnership with Tivo and will be updating the DirecTivo receivers and we continue to look for opportunities with Tivo" which is pretty much what they say about any company they partner with and pretty much means nothing.  But we'll see. The conference call should get a "live blog" treatment at DBSTalk like the investor meeting did.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

Nothing groundbreaking on the conference call.

No mention of Tivo at all. From the live blog on DBSTalk (via bonscott87):



> No mention of Tivo at all, even from the audience questions. Tivo just isn't in their future plans, period. The analyst who talked about it before was obviously not clued in to what is really happening and just wanted to grab some headlines and make some quick money via selling his report or manipulating the stock.


I would think if Tivo was in any type of plan for the next few years it would be mentioned by now and since someone at Bear Sterns seemed to think it was possible you'd think it would be on the agenda for this interview or would get asked from the audience.

But hey, you never know I guess. But for those holding out hope I think hope left the building and the door is being closed.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

Does Bear Sterns hope to do business with Tivo? Constantly mentioning that Directv might be going back to Tivo is just their way of sucking up.


----------



## HPD (Feb 25, 2008)

magnus said:


> and who did they lose them to? Directv? With their proprietary boxes? Yes, I think they are losing a lot of customers to the fact that the cable co. and the satellite co. have a (perceived) cheaper DVR. And both are infringing on Tivo patents to do it. Will these companies be able to continue to do this... only time will tell.


Ahh, somebody who gets it. What a concept. I thought I was the only one.


----------



## Cudahy (Mar 21, 2001)

Still waiting for someone to simply ask Directv execs the simple question: Is there any prospect of an upgraded HDtivo that can get the new channels? Are there any negotiations about this?


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

Cudahy said:


> Still waiting for someone to simply ask Directv execs the simple question: Is there any prospect of an upgraded HDtivo that can get the new channels? Are there any negotiations about this?


do they really need to hit you with a stick?

Tivo's CEO just today said he hoped Directv would rethink and talk to them again someday. There is no talking currently going on. Zero. Zip. Nada.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Zactly, D* sux and that's just the way it is.



HiDefGator said:


> do they really need to hit you with a stick?
> 
> Tivo's CEO just today said he hoped Directv would rethink and talk to them again someday. There is no talking currently going on. Zero. Zip. Nada.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HiDefGator said:


> do they really need to hit you with a stick?
> 
> Tivo's CEO just today said he hoped Directv would rethink and talk to them again someday. There is no talking currently going on. Zero. Zip. Nada.


Do you have a link to that...
As that would be a nice link to have each time this "concept" comes up.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

It was at the bear sterns media conference yesterday. Look under events under investor relations on the Tivo web site. Rogers talks for about 35 minutes taking questions.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

HiDefGator said:


> It was at the bear sterns media conference yesterday. Look under events under investor relations on the Tivo web site. Rogers talks for about 35 minutes taking questions.


Gotcha


----------



## grecorj (Feb 6, 2002)

Quotes from Tom Rogers at BS Media Conference:

On DIRECTV/TiVo relationship:

"I think DIRECTV five or six months ago, when they entered into a new deal with us to upgrade some features on TiVo to their existing base, made a statement that turned some heads that maybe we would like to do more with TiVo in the future. And Liberty ownership, I think gives DIRECTV a clearer, cleaner path to be able to do that. We'll see what happens and certainly I can see why it would be in their interest to have a different outlook toward TiVo than was the case under News Corp., and we'll see how well that plays out."

On future with DirecTV under Liberty:

"...I think there are those at Liberty that are some real fans of TiVo there..."

On challenge to port TiVo for MPEG-4 someday:

"...there is not much that anybody could throw at us relative to integrating with other people's hardware or software protocols that is beyond our ability to deal with."


----------



## john-duncan-yoyo (Oct 13, 2004)

grecorj said:


> Quotes from Tom Rogers at BS Media Conference:
> 
> On challenge to port TiVo for MPEG-4 someday:
> 
> "...there is not much that anybody could throw at us relative to integrating with other people's hardware or software protocols that is beyond our ability to deal with."


So are they claiming that they can make the HB20 platform run real TiVO software? That may make the Hell Boxes worth something someday.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

grecorj said:


> Quotes from Tom Rogers at BS Media Conference:
> 
> On DIRECTV/TiVo relationship:
> 
> ...


IIRC - It was the TiVo CEO that said there are possiblities of a future work together, not DirecTV... when the announcement about the software upgrades came out.

Also... I don't think it was a "new" agreement, just part of the existing agreement... unless there is a press release out there that I am missing, that the contract was enhanced or extended.

The rest of it.... What else are you expecting him to say to the investor community...

As we said... there is no doubt that with enough time and work, you could get some version of TiVo to run on the HR2* hardware... but big question is... how much time and money... would it take, and what is the ROI on trying to do that.


----------



## robpickles (May 19, 2005)

ebonovic said:


> but big question is... how much time and money... would it take, and what is the ROI on trying to do that.


Ummm...making their customers happy?

I know the concept is foriegn but what the hell!

Rob


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

robpickles said:


> Ummm...making their customers happy?
> 
> I know the concept is foriegn but what the hell!
> 
> Rob


Get caught up.  There aren't that many DirecTivo users compared to the 17 million overall DirecTV customers. About 100K HD DirecTivo's left and just over 2 million SD DirecTivo's left (which function just fine, no need to upgrade those).


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Yep, to heck with those DirecTivo users. 



shibby191 said:


> Get caught up.  There aren't that many DirecTivo users compared to the 17 million overall DirecTV customers. About 100K HD DirecTivo's left and just over 2 million SD DirecTivo's left (which function just fine, no need to upgrade those).


----------



## robpickles (May 19, 2005)

shibby191 said:


> Get caught up.  There aren't that many DirecTivo users compared to the 17 million overall DirecTV customers. About 100K HD DirecTivo's left and just over 2 million SD DirecTivo's left (which function just fine, no need to upgrade those).


Well, that's what happens when they sucker their customers into switching to that crappy DVR they make - totally taking advantage of the 6.3e rebooting problems.

Rob


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

robpickles said:


> Well, that's what happens when they sucker their customers into switching to that crappy DVR they make - totally taking advantage of the 6.3e rebooting problems.
> 
> Rob


As I pointed out in your other thread... (and similar post)... TiVo, Inc... wrote the software... so I guess they are in on the "consipiracy" as well.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

And while we're going with conspiracy theories..... maybe D* paid Tivo to release bug in the software so that the boxes could be removed from service earlier. 



ebonovic said:


> As I pointed out in your other thread... (and similar post)... TiVo, Inc... wrote the software... so I guess they are in on the "consipiracy" as well.


----------



## IminMs (Sep 10, 2006)

I don't think that a company (Tivo) would purposely write software, even if paid to, to cause their equipment to fail, just because another company, (DTV), wants to sell more of their branded DVRs.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Yep, I was just having some fun. 



IminMs said:


> I don't think that a company (Tivo) would purposely write software, even if paid to, to cause their equipment to fail, just because another company, (DTV), wants to sell more of their branded DVRs.


----------



## IminMs (Sep 10, 2006)

magnus said:


> Yep, I was just having some fun.


The comment wasn't aimed at you or Earl, but toward the ones that actually believe that there is a conspiracy.


----------



## grecorj (Feb 6, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> Also... I don't think it was a "new" agreement, just part of the existing agreement... unless there is a press release out there that I am missing, that the contract was enhanced or extended.


Doesn't really matter what you (or I) think ...the CEO of TiVo is clearly stating there was a new agreement. But maybe that's just semantics.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

grecorj said:


> Doesn't really matter what you (or I) think ...the CEO of TiVo is clearly stating there was a new agreement. But maybe that's just semantics.


Since both of the companies involved... are publicly traded company.
If there was an agreement, it has to be made publicly known... and the proper documents available.

You would also think that at least TiVo, Inc... would make it pretty well known that they hae reached a new agrement, with their largest subscriber base.

So while he may hae made a statement, that there is a new agreement... it is probably in symantecs in reference to the software update (aka, they agree to a project under the terms of the existing agreement)


----------



## Rowsdower (Dec 11, 2002)

Wow, just look at what can happen to a company when it publishes an unfounded report about TiVo and DirecTV.


----------

