Federal Court grants stay on EchoStar's TiVo injunction

Things are looking up for EchoStar. After getting slammed hard yesterday with $90 million in initial damages and a permanent injunction that requires them to disable all DVR functionality for users in 30 days, EchoStar has managed to get a stay on TiVo's injunction while the court battle rages on. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals did the honors today, halting the Thursday injunction by a Texas Court, and while the current stay is temporary (they don't say for how long), EchoStar is hoping for a longer-term stay, and are fighting for an eventual overturn of the Texas decision. Doesn't seem like we're close to the finish line here yet, so we suppose DISH Network users can go on with their regularly scheduled time-shifted lives for the time being.

[Via HD Beat]

[Darth Tony @ Aug 18th 2006 2:22PM]

Hooray. I was dangerously close to getting my undies in a twist, but now I have put a temporary stay on that.

[ima9rd @ Aug 18th 2006 2:25PM]

Great news, atleast for the time being. Shutting down 4 million customers' DVRs was a terrible decision. At most, EchoStar should have to pay TiVo a certain amount for every DVR sold.

[Darth Tony @ Aug 18th 2006 2:29PM]

"Shutting down 4 million customers' DVRs was a terrible decision."
Yes, well that's because we have no shortage of terrible decision makers coming out of Texas. Yeehaw!

[Timothy Tripp @ Aug 18th 2006 2:45PM]

The whole idea that Tivo got their patent in the first place is rediculous. All that they did was make a digital VCR, clearly "prior works" - it's another example of why the U.S. Patent Office should be held responsible for monetary damages (to EchoStar in this case) if they erroneously grant a patent. I think I'll go patent recording media on molecular/crystal storage so someday I can sue Tivo...

[Jeff @ Aug 18th 2006 2:49PM]

"At most, EchoStar should have to pay TiVo a certain amount for every DVR sold."

So anyone should be able to steal anyone else's idea as long as they've got the money to pay a fine?

You still need permission from the patent holder. Say what you want about our patent system, but this is exactly what it was designed *for*. TiVo was a pioneer in this field and if anyone was allowed to just steal their ideas, they'd be out of business tomorrow. And that wouldn't exactly encourage small upstarts to come up with their own new ideas, would it? All it would encourage would be for companies like Microsoft to just rip off any smaller companies' patents, knowing that at worst, all they'd get hit with would be a small royalty - and even then, maybe not for 5 or 10 years.

The court this time said no, you need permission, and without that permission, shut it down. That's the way it should be.

[ima9rd @ Aug 18th 2006 3:01PM]

All they did was revamp an old idea, and slap a blanket patent on it. And now, they're trying to punish consumers for the actions of a company.

[William @ Aug 18th 2006 3:58PM]

Jeff,

As someone who deals in patents everyday, I can safely say that the "big company feeling free to rip off a small company's idea because they'll only have to pay a small fine" is a regular occurance.

It's called a lawsuit. Owning a patent doesn't make it criminal for others to steal it. Most small companies don't have the resources to fight to protect their patent in court. So the little guys get screwed.

[frank @ Aug 18th 2006 4:07PM]

I can't believe that an injunction is even an option in a case like this. It's the same thing as the recent Blackberry battle: why penalize the consumer when they didn't do anything wrong? Any judge stupid enough to even consider such a thing should be disbarred.

[Mark @ Aug 18th 2006 4:15PM]

Couldn't they just disable the so called 'time warp' feature? I could live with not being able to record live TV while watching a recording. As long as I can record and watch later, that works for me.

[Patrick @ Aug 18th 2006 4:16PM]

Dear engadget readers: 99.9% of technological development is "revamping" an old idea. ALL patents are improvements on existing ideas. Please tell me one thing someone has come up with in the last 100 years that was completely devoid of derivation.

As for "they should just have to pay TiVo some money" this is a hotly debated issue in the legal field that was SUPPOSED to be decided by eBay v. MercExchange (but wasn't). A patent is a right to exclude others from making, using, or selling your invention. Let me repeat: A right to exclude, i.e., an injunction. But where a person isn't making a competing prodcut, it seems silly to keep something off the market and thus many courts determine a reasonable royalty and be done with it. But as the patent holder, and as the holder of a right to exclude others, isn't forcing someone to get bought out effectively determining that their "right" isn't a "right" at all?

Sorry, but "blah blah Patent Office out of control" is bunk. There have been some questionable patents here and there, but by and large the patents granted are legit. Everyone just looks at patents with 20/20 hindsight and claims everything is obvious without looking at what is claimed and what was infringed. At a 10,000 foot level a TiVo is a digital VCR but the actual product is much much more than that.

-p-

[smartboi415 @ Aug 18th 2006 6:18PM]

too bad i bought my DVR yesterday.

...the story of my life i guess....

[MegaZone @ Aug 18th 2006 6:47PM]

The consumers are just caught in the mix. The judge is right it issue the injunction - EchoStar is benefitting from violating TiVo's patents by selling their DVRs. The only options are for EchoStar to license the patents or not benefit from the violation - ie, have the violating products disabled. TiVo tried for *years* to get EchoStar to license their tech - EchoStar refused. After the trial verdict EchoStar again had the option of settling with TiVo by licensing - they again refused and instead are appealing the verdict.

This is not on the head of TiVo nor the courts, but EchoStar. If millions of people lose their DVR functionality, that's EchoStar's fault for willfully (according to the jury) violating TiVo's patents in the first place, and then refusing to settle with a license deal in the second place. Too bad for the consumers, they've received stolen goods, in effect. Their beef would be with EchoStar for selling them something they had no right to sell.

Anyone who blames the judge or TiVo just doesn't get it.

Besides, if the injunction *is* issued, I bet EchoStar settles a licensing deal with TiVo REAL fast, before they have to disable anything.

[Jon Martin @ Aug 18th 2006 8:36PM]

Let me tell you one story - many years ago my grand-uncle came up with an "electronic carburator". He patented the idea, and one day got a letter from GM stating "WE ARE USING YOUR PATENT. YOU CAN SIGN A DEAL WITH US OR YOU CAN GO TO COURT FOR YEARS". He, being a frugal New Hampshire man, realized that his lawyer couldn't go against the GM army. So he signed a deal that gave him any replacement GM parts at cost. So what do you do when you have a deal like that? Open up a repair shop and undercut everyone since you get your parts cheaply. GM started to go after him but when the newspapers started stories in how they went after the little guy GM backed down and let the contract stand.
Now as to my father - the origional membrane keyboard was invented by him. The company he was working for was sued by someone who patented the idea after he say that there was no patent for it. Like many fu**ing lawyers do today. The judge looked at the dates, technical papers, press releases, and tossed it out of court stating that he hoped Dad's company buried the guy and also as part of this te patent was revoked after review.

[Tony Cesnik @ Aug 26th 2006 1:38AM]

As a DISH customer, I am outraged that TIVO can force Echostar to shut down the DVR!! I am the customer. I pay a monthly fee and am entitled to use. That Texas judge is as dumb and corrupt as the President. TIVO must have made a huge campaign contribution. I think there is a limit to how far a patent can go. Timed programming already existed on VCR's, so how can TIVO claim the patent. iF other companies can develop their own method of doing this, why is TIVO entitled to anything? The principle of reverse engineering says that if I can develop this without using someone's coder or documentation, I am entitled to do so without paying a license fee. I believe the ruling will be reversed, and that Echostar's lawyers are correct. If DISH can develop a superior DVR, why I should be stuck with TIVO. In fact why should anyone have ever had to pay fee to TIVO, for using a DVR to
do what VCR's have done for years? I would be willing to give up the live recording, and view the content later. That's what I usually do. There is a reason TIVO is going out of busines. They have been sitting on
their gluteous maximum, while their competitors developed superior technology. If TIVO can't sell the technology without a court order, then their technology sucks, and they should be allowed to go bankrupt and liquidate.

[Eddie @ Dec 24th 2007 3:35AM]

If dish does loose (they already lost the patent ruling), then there will be a rather large class action suite against them by those of us that bought DVRs