Life or Death for Tivo 284
CUShane writes "The Washington Post is running an article on the patent case between Tivo and EchoStar regarding Tivo's DVR technology. The article states that Tivo has a better than 70% chance of winning, while a loss would basically doom the company. Is there a possibility that the patent system is working right in this case?" From the article: "TiVo attorney Morgan Chu has been arguing in court that TiVo's inability to turn a profit, despite the popularity of its product, is partially because of EchoStar's infringing on its patent. TiVo co-founder Michael Ramsay testified that he showed EchoStar executives the TiVo product and pursued a licensing deal with them, but that a deal was never struck even though EchoStar began selling its own DVRs that used technology very similar to TiVo's."
Was anyone else surprised... (Score:4, Interesting)
...to learn that TiVo hadn't turned a profit yet? I was.
Are there any other popular gadgets (besides blackberry) caught up in stuff like this?
Let them die, for many reasons (Score:3, Interesting)
I had the first Tivo of anyone I knew -- the day I first heard about it I picked one up. It was a great device for its time, but the recent Tivos I've experienced have no shown much improvement. It is my belief that patents stifle innovation, and they allow the patents holders to stick with the status quo longer than open competition would allow. There can be innovation without patents [dklevine.com] (PDF warning).
For Tivo to say that their livelihood is in a delicate position because of this patent is ridiculous. If they had protected this patent and EchoStar was never able to compete, all it would mean is that Tivo would have left their prices higher than the market would expect, and they'd still not do much to innovate and invent.
In order to bring a product to market, one must look at all sorts of requirements. Marketing, fast competition, consumer need, consumer affordability, and longevity. Not every product will succeed, and many will fail. The great part about failure is that, on a whole, consumers win out in the long run as other people innovate on top of the failure and release a product or service that is financially viable. Nowhere in the system is a patent system necessary, because there will always be people who want to make a product at a lower cost, even at no cost. Look at MythTV for proof, there, as well as any open source success story.
How many times must it be said that patents don't foster creation, they disrupt it. A monopoly is a monopoly, and the worst examples of monopoly are those that exist solely by using the force of government to back them up. In fact, I truly believe that no monopoly can exist without the myriad of government favoritistic laws and regulations that prevent the open competition that is created when restrictions are removed.
Think not of Tivo, think of the consumer that wins out in the end. This is all that matters in a market -- you should not enter a market without having an understanding of what it takes to survive, succeed and surpass your competition. If you think you can win by removing competition from the picture, you're ignoring the basic ideals of freedom that we're supposed to hold so close to our hearts.
I truly believe it is time for Tivo to close up shop. In the next 10 years, the DVR/PVR idea will be gone -- integrated into every bit of electronics we use, up to even cell phones. As bandwidth increases and costs decrease, the need to use a DVR/PVR will be reduced to those who just want to have the data in their home. Tivo (and EchoStar) will find themselves useless fast enough if they think this is a growing market.
Re:Let them die, for many reasons (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm no fan of Tivo (the company) but the Tivo device itself is great. I own both a Series 2 and a DirecTivo. I don't personally see a need for all the things that MythTV does (while tying up a fairly high-end (for me) piece of useable hardware). My DirecTivo records my shows, without much interaction, and lets me watch one while it records two more.
A good majority of the users out there (that Tivo attracts over MythTV installations) are using a Tivo because they couldn't give a two flying fucks about "additional uses" that other DVRs offer. On a side note, I'm a fairly competent computer user but I still can't justify another computer purchase just to hook it up to my TV to burn DVDs of TV shows and have a weather report while playing MAME. YMMV.
Patent Solution -- 3 year limit (Score:4, Interesting)
20 years is crazy!
What is the duration in other countries?
This page The Optimal Lifetime of a Patent [drexel.edu] is interesting. They say the lifetime should vary based on a cost/benefit analysis. I would guess that the "optimal term" is closer to 3 years than 20 years for most computer/electronics patents.
Re:I Think This Can Be Summed Up In Five Words (Score:5, Interesting)
Tivo owners are very loyal/rabid about Tivo. I worked at echostar during a bad time in my life, and got dozens of calls about our PVR. Everyone was disappointed or angry that it wasn't a tivo, they wanted tivo, why wasn't it like tivo, etc.
Echostar just needs to play a few hundred of these calls to prove that their PVR is nothing. like. tivo.
If you think the whole Mac/PC beef is religious in nature, try the Tivo/anything else one.
Re:I Think This Can Be Summed Up In Five Words (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, TiVo is suing someone else for patent infringement. So.. your tivo is fucking with others.
Tivo has yet to turn a profit and they think this will make a difference? I don't get it.
Re:Let them die, for many reasons (Score:5, Interesting)
With that, think of all the money consumers would save over the coercion-enhanced Tivo and other DVRs. The money you save not padding their pockets means more money you can spend on other things you want -- meaning more jobs created rather than profits enhanced artificially by government force.
Re:Let them die, for many reasons (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, consider "personal" video recorders that store the content upstream, at the provider's location. They choose when and which content is available. They choose whether you can fast-forward through commercials in it. They choose how many times you can view it, or how long it is available. And, of course, if you cancel your subscription, you lose it all.
No thank you.
"Similar" isn't patant theft (Score:2, Interesting)
One would have to use my technology to make the case...
Or every car namufacturer would be in violation of eachother's patents...
Why are people so stupid?
Re:Let them die, for many reasons (Score:5, Interesting)
The opposite is true. For the past 10 years or so I've positioned myself in the Chicago consulting market as the guy who gives away ideas -- many of them. I find that I'd rather have others put the ideas into action so that I can profit from the final product. Google my name (Adam Dada) and you'll find a few magazines I've been quoted in, usually promoting my old main skill: pushing corporations to try new things and regard all competition as healthy.
Some of my businesses have failed, mostly because of irresponsibility. Why should Tivo patent their ideas when I couldn't in most of my businesses? When I opened retail stores, should I have a "protection" over others from copying my store layout and products at a cheaper price? When a plumber enters a market, should his new found technique to fix a leak faster and cheaper be limited only to him? I believe in letting people use their labor as they see fit -- even if it means they're selling themselves too cheaply.
If you have ever gone to big companies with a big innovation that you need them to fund or license, then you would know that patents are vital to your protection. Secrecy only travels so far. How do you market a concept without sharing it?
Just coming up with an idea is not enough to bring it to market. Bringing an idea to market requires many people to implement all sorts of labors to finalize a product. If you can't do it cheaper and faster than the next guy, your idea is likely not ready to be brought to market. Look at all the ridiculous patents on every cell phone that comes out -- every one has a new patent pending. Yet all cell phones are basically alike, so these patents only seem to prevent new people from entering the market.
I've gone to very big companies (again, some can be found through googling me) with ideas, and many of them continue to hire my company to introduce something new to a given market, especially large but stagnant ones. You'd be amazed at how many CEOs will listen to a great idea even if it means their competition will quickly copy it. You'd also be amazed at how many MBAs hate new ideas with new competition -- I believe this is part of the problem. Business school graduates believe in the textbook, entrepreneurs believe in hard work and strong customer service. In the end, having a product means nothing if the customer can not use it to save them money or time over the price they paid.
Then, when you have your big idea, come crying to someone else about Microsoft stealing it without paying you.
Actually, I used run an idea website that has had numerous inventions "stolen" from it and I'm more than happy about it because I can profit from the creations. I must e-mail Google twice a month with a new idea for them to use (not that they have even listened necessarily), and I work hard to get my ideas out without attributing my name to them. I just want emerging markets to take advantage of, leave the coding and technology developing to those who have the desire to bring ideas to fruition. An idea is worthless without all the other parts: marketing, manufacturing, support, production, warehousing, analysis, customer sales, etc. Every piece of the puzzle is more important than the idea itself.
Re:I Think This Can Be Summed Up In Five Words (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Was anyone else surprised... (Score:3, Interesting)
Satellite radio.
Of course, they'll pry my Sirius tuner from my cold dead hands. Of course, if they're prying the tuner from my cold dead hands, then I'll have died in my car, and I don't want to think about why that would happen...
Re:Not "right" (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Software patents. In order for software patents to not grossly stiffle innovation, they need to have a maximum lifespan of 2 years. 100 years ago,
2) Inappropriate patents. Only significantly innovative products should receive patents. Alternately, a "lesser" patent should exist for minor derivative changes with a 1-2 year duration.
The USPTO is over 200 years old (first patent was in 1790). At that time, a 10 to 20 year monopoly on a novel invention was not a bad idea, since a single invention could often go a hundred years and have no derivative works. Shortly after the end of the second world war, it became common to see derivative works withing 5 years. The patent system, intended to promote innovation through guaranteed profit, now has a 70 year history of stiffling it.
Re:Let them die, for many reasons (Score:3, Interesting)
In the years I've been in business, everyone who has worked for me has had the opportunity to start their own business. This is because I push my employees to go off on their own (and have even financed many of their startups). I've had my share of success and failure, so I felt it was a good topic to write about, given that some of my bigger failures are very public knowledge, and many of my successes have been kept too close to my chest -- something I realized is counter-productive in raising my billable rate.
The more I share, the more I am worth, the more people can rely on some unique perspectives of an anarcho-capitalist entrepreneur.
Re:Let them die, for many reasons (Score:3, Interesting)
My wife used to work for a famous Taiwanese computer maker that has almost all its manufacturing in China. It's not quite that cheap to make a computer, even a low end ones (and a DVR is essentially a computer - it's got almost all the same components - and not really a low end one at that). Even if you forget about all the licensing costs, R&D, fixed overhead, distribution and marketing costs (which I am sure were not in that $39 price tag either) you won't get a DVR out the door in China for $39. Maybe some day, but not today, and certainly not yesterday.
Re:I Think This Can Be Summed Up In Five Words (Score:3, Interesting)
I have started seeing hints of unhappiness about tivo from the fanbase. I'd say Tivo's ipod-like clamp on loyalty is loosening. Your theoretical knowledge might become fashionable should customers decide Tivo's gone bad. Then it becomes necessary to continue using the hardware.
Re:Patents, Fairness and Innovation (Score:3, Interesting)
This is my chief argument against software and business method patents. In these fields, which are just incredibly dynamic, I don't think that the patents actually do provide an incentive. Inventors would tend to create the same inventions anyway. A patent doesn't increase the value of an invention, but it does concentrate what value is there. I think that the unconcentrated value of inventions in these fields is currently high enough to provide enough of an incentive for invention, publication, and bringing to market. More incentive would be superfluous, and come at a significant cost. These costs should be avoided where they don't actually yield a commensurately greater benefit for the public.
In time, perhaps, these fields will slow down and the added incentives will become useful. For the time being though, I don't think that the pace of inventiveness in either field would slow down one bit if patents were unavailable.
People have an "I created this, it's mine" mentality.
Yeah, that's an obstacle that really needs to be overcome. Patents and copyrights are utilitarian. The issue is what implementation, if any, yields the greatest public benefit. In patents, the benefit can be broken down into parts: encouraging invention, encouraging publication, encouraging coming to market, having the most minimal encumberance on the public possible. Generally you end up trading the last two in order to encourage the first three.
Consistency (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I don't think that Tivo should be allowed to restrict other people from using the same idea of recording television to a hard drive and all that entails, even if I do happen to think that Tivo has the best and coolest implementation, and even if I am worried that they might go belly up if they are not granted such special monopolistic privileges. :(
I am nothing, if not consistent.
Re:I Think This Can Be Summed Up In Five Words (Score:3, Interesting)
You know...I've wondered why someone hasn't yet figured out the format Tivo uses for their scheduling (I thought they had) and just offer their own scheduling service, and undercut Tivo in price for it.
Re:Was anyone else surprised... (Score:2, Interesting)
Nor am I. Despite what Slashdotters might think, most people don't own a TIVO. My brother is the only person I know who owns one.
I'm technologically adept. I work in IT. Friends and family ask me all the time to help them with computer problems. Why don't I own a TIVO? Simple. I refuse to pay the monthly premium. I don't care if it's 1 cent. I refuse to pay any monthly charge for what is essentially a VCR. I have a PC in my spare bedroom/office that has a Hauppauge TV card it and I use it as a TIVO. I pay nothing to use it. When TIVO comes out with a model that requires no monthly surcharge, then I might think about. A lot of people I know have told me that as long as there is a monthly charge for using TIVO, they'll never buy one. The point is not the size of the charge, it's that it exists at all. For my dad, a TIVO would be great, but he is still OK with his ancient VCR. How on earth do I convince him that it's worth his while to pay a monthly charge to use TIVO when he can use his VCR all he wants for no monthly charge? I have to admit that also more than one person has expressed fear of buying a TIVO and then being stuck with an unusable device should TIVO go bankrupt, which is a real possibility. If you have a VCR made by the Defunct Cheap Chinese Electronic Company, who is now bankrupt but the VCR still works, no problem. My understanding of TIVO is that it is unusable if you don't pay the monthly fee. As long as the device works like that, I'll never own one.
The surprise for me is not that TIVO has never turned a profit. The surprise for me is that they are still in business.
Re:Was anyone else surprised... (Score:3, Interesting)
(1) How on earth do I convince [my dad] that it's worth his while to pay a monthly charge to use TIVO when he can use his VCR all he wants for no monthly charge?
(2) My understanding of TIVO is that it is unusable if you don't pay the monthly fee.
---
Tell him it is a $200 VCR that stores 60 hours without tapes. Fast forward and rewind are incredibly fast.
If he wishes, for $10/month, he can subscribe to a very detailed and feature-rich TV guide service that allows him to program the device in very useful ways, in a manner that "VCR+Plus" could only dream of. Maybe he's interested in that, maybe not.
A TiVo works like a VCR if you don't have a subscription - you need to tell it what channel to records, and when to start and stop. But it doesn't stop working altogether and turn into a paperweight.
---
Offtopic-for sale: If you or anyone is interested, I have a TiVo Series 1 (30hr?) sitting in a closet for low price + shipping. No IR blaster or remote, but it works.
Re:I Think This Can Be Summed Up In Five Words (Score:2, Interesting)
To me TiVo is now falling victim to its own stupidity which is locking themselves up with DirecTV instead of trying to simply standardize their "invention" same as DVD and VCR before it. I like the product but I feel no sympathy for TiVo, may they die a rotten death. Which is in fact a pity because if it wasn't for TiVo's time-shifting and my now old box's ability to do a 30-sec skip, I would pretty much toss my TV out the window. But TiVo has done absolutely nothing in recent years to make itself better. Features are being removed to please content providers and software is a pathetic nagware. So instead of buying (can you still?) a new TiVo box or other Sat DVR now, my next project is making my own HTPC with DVR, the way I like it. Yes it will end up much more expensive and due to double compressions, PQ may come down a bit, but I'm tired of the current out-the-box, fuck-the-customer products. TiVo should have simply concentrated on providing a DVR solution that could be implemented by anyone from OEM to Joe Sixpack on his HTPC. License the technology and watch the money flow. Instead a crop of other such solutions pops up and TiVo is left crying like an old whore that no one finds attractive anymore.
In attempts to generate revolving door of revenue, TiVo and others like them try to come up with some locked down standards that although (initially) cool, innovative and desireable, ultimately are doomed to failure. People may buy in and stay even for a pretty long while (partly because of original invenstment and/or lack of alternatives), but when they finally leave, they leave for good. Others may well infringe on TiVo's ideas, they may even have a case against EchoStar, but I hope they lose (too bad it would mean ES win but oh well). All these morons file IP lawsuits in recent years simply to generate some revenue which is dwindling or non-existent even due to their own greed and ineptitude.
Diversification works not only for consumers, it does work for providers and manufacturers, TOO! Get with the program.
Parent is a fool (Score:1, Interesting)
It was DirecTV, not TiVo, that severed that relationship. DTV was acquired by Fox Broadcasting, who already owned Sky+ in Europe. Sky+ developed their own DVR. So DTV decided to end the TiVo relationship because they believe they can save money by using their own DVR with in-house software. Combined with the fact that DTV wanted to move to a completely lease-based equipment revenue model, they could not continue to offer a 3rd party box that competes with their own and costs them a per-subscriber fee.
Further, the DirecTiVo was originally quite superior to the standalone TiVo, but that is not the case anymore. While the standalone TiVo has acquired the ability to get service data over the network, transfer shows between rooms and to PCs, play audio, video, and photos off of networked PCs, and have web-based scheduling, the DirecTiVo has barely evolved at all in 7 years. Although it still has higher picture quality due to no digital signal recompression, and it supports dual tuners, it is severely lacking in features now compared to its standalone brethren. (The dual-tuner advantage is also largely negated by the multi-room viewing capability, IMO.)
As soon as the TiVo series 3 is released, it will be the best of both worlds and will leave the DirecTiVo (and the Sky+ derived R15/HR20) in the dust. The Series 3 could never have existed under the rule of DirecTV.