[mythtv-users] tivo patents cover mythtv?

[Brian Wood]

On Monday 08 March 2010 12:37:21 pm Simon Hobson wrote:
> Brian Wood wrote:
> >I believe the DVR offerings from the cable companies are paying royalties,
> >while DISH is claiming their DVR-Receivers do not infringe, hence the suit
> >against DISH and not the cable company offerings.
> >
> >Cable companies don't pay out money lightly, if they saw fit to pay
> > royalties they must believe the patent is valid, and their devices do
> > invade the patent space.
> 
> Not necessarily - all it means is that they don't believe it's worth
> the cost (not just in cash, but also in lost sales due to loss of
> reputation and customer uncertainty) of fighting it. Lets say (just
> picking random numbers) they estimate the cost of the licence will be
> $25k, but it would cost $100k to fight the case - they may decide,
> with no guarantee of success, that they might as well just pay up the
> protection money and be done with it.

True I guess, especially since they can just pass the cost of the royalties 
along to the customers, using the added cost as a justification to the 
franchising authority.

> 
> So when you read that one company has settled and agreed to pay
> royalties on another's patent - it doesn't actually mean the patent
> is valid or that the payer accepts that it is. Though of course, the
> patent holder would like you to believe that is the case.
> 

True again. In a perfect world this would not be so. Again the lawyers have 
created a system where they are guaranteed to come out the winners no matter 
what.

The threat of the cost of litigation is a sort of punishment without 
conviction, precisely what the legal system is supposed to prevent.