There is the broader problem with the issuance of overly broad patents though too. IMO, the TiVo patent's are too broad and as such anyone creating a DVR would be infringent, even if literally no TiVo technology was used.
It is all part of the patent game. You invent a new air freshener, so you file a patent that claims the concepts of atmosphere, breathing, perphones, and finally "a method of blocking offensive perphones by masking techniques" which is what you wanted in the first place. You file the broad claims because no matter what you file, the examiner feels compelled to reject your broadest claims. You negotiate down until both sides agree on the claims. If you start too specific, you end up losing essential claims. Been there.
Often stuff does end up too broad. That's what the courts contribute. Charlie should have immediately filed the broad claim suit as soon as the infringement suit was filed. He waited until judgement and is now a couple of years behind.
One thing we have to be careful about here is where to direct our anger. I kind of love listening to you guys talk out of both sides of your mouth in that 1. Nothing here is innovative and 2. DVRs have changed the way we watch TV. You can't have it both ways. There sure is innovation here. The claims being discussed may be too broad, but you can sure as heck be guaranteed that there are more specific claims that WILL stand underneath the ones that get the publicity.
As for simply buying TIVO, sure why not? But don't expect Charlie to get a bargain rate on the deal. You need to factor in the judgement into the net worth of TIVO. If Charlie buys TIVO it becomes a threat to D* in two ways. First they have their own TIVO IP licenses that they wouldn't want to go to Charlie. Second, if Charlie tries a lowball buyout, Rupert or someone else will put in a higher bid simply because the value of the judgement is an asset. Either way, Charlie pays.
Remember the Lotus/Visicalc lawsuit? Lotus had long since driven Visicalc into bankruptcy. The suit was not brought by Visicalc prncipals, but by the peole who bought the patents from the bankruptcy settlement. Even if TIVO gets sold or goes belly up, this suit won't go away.
Finally, lets talk about how this all affects us. Everybody seems to be mad at TIVO, and applauding Charlie for standing up to him. However, we get pretty much the same services as D* at about the same price and with essentially the same hardware features. When any of these issues comes up D* imeiately settles and gets on with their lives. Charlie ALWAYS fights. One pays royalties, the other pays lawyers. I would think that Charlies strategy is effective because he is the sixth richest American and Rupert owns the 'turd bird', but what does it matter to us? D* subscribers get their features without drama. We are always in angst about someting that is in danger of being cut off. Seems to me that our anger should be more with Charlie because he is the one that is causing this drama. Forget that BS about keeping our rates low. The market is going to determine the rates, not these lawsits. The ONLY thing being affected is E* dividends and stock price.
