AOL Tech

Davis Freeberg

Member since: Jul 20th, 2006

Davis Freeberg's Latest Comments

Blog Activity
Blog# of Comments
TUAW.com3 Comments
Engadget5 Comments
AdJab3 Comments
AOL TV4 Comments
Cinematical1 Comment
Engadget HD6 Comments
PVR Wire14 Comments
BloggingStocks5 Comments
Blog Maverick2 Comments
Switched1 Comment
WalletPop1 Comment

Recent Comments:

TiVo's $200m damages award in EchoStar case affirmed, EchoStar to appeal (again) (Engadget)

Mar 4th 2010 3:43PM @Nilay Patel The judgement isn't eligible to be heard because when Dish originally appealed to the Supreme Court, they didn't include the argument that the judges order was too broad. That was why the panel said had you argued that we could have adjudicated it, but the time for appeals has passed. It wasn't until the Supreme Court denied to hear the case that Dish added the argument that the judge's instructions weren't clear. If people were allowed to reapply to have the Supreme Court hear a case over and over again there would be no resolution. Once the supreme court denied the hearing, TiVo effectively won their case and this appeal was only about what the damages would be for Dish refusing to comply with the verdict.

TiVo's $200m damages award in EchoStar case affirmed, EchoStar to appeal (again) (Engadget)

Mar 4th 2010 2:05PM Since Dish already appeal the judgement to the Supreme Court and they declined to hear the case, it's not eligible to be heard again. The issue that was being litigated wasn't whether or not Dish infringed, it was whether or not the court abused their discretion in issuing their injunction and contempt. At best Dish can seek a full hearing in front of the entire appeals court, but this is very very rare. Not only do they hear less cases than the Supreme Court (around 80 each year vs. 150 at the supreme court level) but only 1 out 1,000 of those cases actually ends up getting reversed. Typically, a case has to have political implications to receive a full panel hearing.

Walmart's VUDU video on demand purchase a big win for consumers (WalletPop)

Feb 23rd 2010 3:17PM I'm not sure how this is a win for consumers. Is Walmart going to allow competing services on the Vudu TVs? Somehow I doubt it. This means even more fragmentation and will make it harder for consumers to get access to a broad range of services like Netflix, Blockbuster and Amazon all on the same box. Once Vudu/Walmart has that exclusive on the consumer do you really expect them to keep prices reasonable? Even at $4 a pop, you're talking about a pretty expensive entertainment proposition compared to value companies like Redbox. Furthermore, if history is any guide, then it's likely that companies like Best Buy, Costco and Target will all resist selling Vudu TVs because they're not going to want to give Walmart a footprint into their own stores. In many ways, this is similar to when Circuit City tried to create their own DIVX format and how well did that work out for consumers? All the of positive features that you cite in your article, were already part of Vudu's service before they were purchased. Now that Walmart has a vested interest in them, I don't see how it adds anything except monopolistic tendancies and more confusion for consumers?

'DVR-Proof' Commercial Kind of a Failure (Switched)

Jan 21st 2010 10:56AM I don't know that I would call it a failure. Just a little bit of misdirection on the part of the company. While the ad may not be TiVo proof, they did trick you into writing about by claiming that it was.

Ask Engadget HD: Is it (still) a good time to buy a TiVo? (Engadget HD)

Oct 29th 2009 5:56PM I think that another thing to consider is whether or not a cable TV subscription is even necessary. Before DVRs, only having five or six channels was pretty lousy, but now that you can time shift shows, that's still 10 - 20 good programs each week. Even if you throw in a $9.99 Netflix subscription and 5 - 10 Amazon VOD's each month, you're still paying half of what cable costs and still have the internet for anything you missed.

Ask Engadget HD: Is it (still) a good time to buy a TiVo? (Engadget HD)

Oct 29th 2009 3:40PM My advice is to buy a used TiVo HD or series 3 with a lifetime subscription still attached. Once you own it for more than two years, it ends up being cheaper than any cable DVRs or media center PC, plus you can always resell it in the future.

Paramount, Lionsgate, Warner Bros. & Sony Pictures movies finally available (legitimately) in DivX (Engadget)

Aug 26th 2009 1:18PM We can bicker over which format is better or whose looks the best, but that doesn't matter as much as what this means to the regular consumer. Basically you can now back up your digital movies to DVD or other hard drives and consumers can play them on equipment that is found in a lot of homes.

For someone who isn't willing to engage in civil disobedience to get digital movies, they've really had very limited options when it comes to being able to burn them and play them on a DVD player. Not everybody has a PS3, but a lot of people have cheap DivX supported players to watch movies on. In the past, you had to have special (expensive) drives and discs or some kind of a direct connection at your television, but now people who want to pay, are able to buy movies off the net and transfer them to their TV without having to have the latest studio supported equipment.

It's hard to say how big this market is, but Apple's done a good job of creating demand and more and more less tech savvy people are continuing to discover online video. Apple may still be treating their TV Dongle as a hobby, but DivX is already in 40% of the players sold in the US. That's a lot more potential eyeballs to go after. Film Fresh scored a coup by being the 1st and no doubt the extra publicity should help them now. The longer that other movie rental services hold out, the better their head start.

Is Dish considering swallowing TiVo's $7.5 billion poison pill? (Engadget HD)

Jun 10th 2009 8:13PM Check out the press release that summarizes the pill at the very bottom of the document.

"If a person becomes an Acquiring Person, each Right will entitle its holder to purchase, at the Right's then-current exercise price, a number of common shares of TiVo having a market value at that time of twice the Right's exercise price. Rights held by the Acquiring Person will become void and will not be exercisable to purchase shares at the bargain purchase price. With limited exceptions, an Acquiring Person is defined as a person who acquires 15% or more of the outstanding common stock of TiVo. If TiVo is acquired in a merger or other business combination transaction which has not been approved by the Board of Directors, each Right will entitle its holder to purchase, at the Right's then- current exercise price, a number of the acquiring company's common shares having a market value at that time of twice the Right's exercise price."

Is Dish considering swallowing TiVo's $7.5 billion poison pill? (Engadget HD)

Jun 10th 2009 7:52PM Squiggles, you should go back and read the poison pill. If Dish tries to "shut TiVo down" by acquiring more than 15%, TiVo shareholders would have the right to assume 65% control over EchoStar based on their current market cap. In other words, triggering the pill would get Dish management fired not TiVo.

You are right about finding five other parties who are willing sellers though which is why I mention the possibility of killing the pill in the post. The problem with this is though, that you have to have been a shareholder prior to the judgement in order to vote. While there were a lot of people who sold their shares post judgement, anyone who held prior to judgement is likely a long time TiVo owner and one that probably isn't so fond of Dish. If you didn't like Dish and had already sold your shares would you vote to make it easier for them to strip out the poison pill? I doubt it. Dish could try again in a year or wait 2 years for it to expire, but that's assuming that they can litigate that long.

Redbox puts the kibosh on community-developed iPhone app (TUAW.com)

Mar 27th 2009 10:46AM @Spin This - You are trying to change the subject. Charging for the app or using the Redbox name isn't a copyright issue, it's a trademark issue. It's important to be clear on this point b/c the artwork that you referenced (and my point RE: browsers) addressed your copyright concerns, not the trademark issues.

As far as your trademark arguments go, it seems to be a little weak. First off, Inside Redbox (and many other "Redbox" domains) have been earning ad revenue for years, even though they use the Redbox name and yet we haven't seen Redbox object once until they were recently sold to Coinstar. If they were OK with Inside Redbox website five years ago, why would a mobile app now be a problem? Using someone's name isn't automatically a trademark violation otherwise TUAW would have been shut down long ago (TUAW does charge for content via ads BTW) It comes down to whether or not there is damage being done or confusion in the marketplace. On both counts, I'd argue that this isn't the case, but you're welcome to disagree with me.

If the trademark issue is related to IR "charging" for Redbox content, then why was the free version also yanked? Furthermore, how does charging for content create a violation? Whether the app is free or paid doesn't impact someone's copyright or trademark rights.

Does Amazon owe me royalties because the charge their readers $2 to read my blog on a Kindle? It'd be nice if they did, but I don't feel entitled to that money. They're not violating any copyrights, they're using my publicly available RSS feed and/or website to deliver content on a consumer's preferred browser (the Kindle). If I don't like it, I could take down my website just like Redbox can.