Vizio SLAPPED with multiple lawsuits

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Pixie, you betta take your take your vizio and run fer the hills, Sony, Samsung, Mitsubishi are coming fer ya.

Seems that Vizio can rake in the money, but they do not like to pay liscensing fee's. Apex, and Cyberhome are not around for these very reasons


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...Ec&refer=japan

[GMichael]

Uht oh. I predict that this will not end well.

[bobsticks]

Jim Noyd best hope not to land in jail...in China.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Jim Noyd best hope not to land in jail...in China.

Yeah, he'll never get past the first dinner. They have these neat little chemical additives they like to season their food with. It a real killer!

[Rich-n-Texas]

Wow! That's a drag!

[techjunkie]

Pixie, you betta take your take your vizio and run fer the hills, Sony, Samsung, Mitsubishi are coming fer ya.

Seems that Vizio can rake in the money, but they do not like to pay liscensing fee's. Apex, and Electrohome are not around for these very reason.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...Ec&refer=japan

This is not as black & white as the Bloomberg article would have you believe.
Of course, Bloomberg is big business anyway.

The fine print : http://www.digitimes.com/displays/a20080605PD210.html

The company said Vizio's suppliers have licenses for the MPEG-2 patents, and Vizio believes that these licenses extend to Vizio's products.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This is not as black & white as the Bloomberg article would have you believe.
Of course, Bloomberg is big business anyway.

The fine print : http://www.digitimes.com/displays/a20080605PD210.html

The company said Vizio's suppliers have licenses for the MPEG-2 patents, and Vizio believes that these licenses extend to Vizio's products.

The suppliers may have the liscenses, but those liscenses do not cover Vizio products in particular. This is an attempt to create a loophole that exempts Vizio from paying fees owed. If the liscenses cover manufacture of a particular piece(in this case a MPEG-2 decoder), it may not cover its implementation within the television itself. Since we do not know the particulars of the suit, its hard to say what covers what. But I know one thing, those big guys are not going to sue if they do not have a cause. And the fact that so many of them are joining in, means they have some cause, and a belief they will win.

Besides all of that, my corps is better than your corps! LOL

[rroobbcc]

But I know one thing, those big guys are not going to sue if they do not have a cause.

Sure they would. By suing they are creating FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) in the minds of potential Vizio buyers. These companies claims may be baseless, and they may in fact just be gambling that the FUD will cause potential Vizio customers to buy their products instead. These additional sales could likely pay for the lawsuit, and in the meantime they will have gained marketshare, and potentially even put a competitor out of business.

I am not saying that Vizio is blameless here, there is no way I could know. However, the decision to sue can have other motivations beyond simple justice.

Rob

[GMichael]

Sure they would. By suing they are creating FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) in the minds of potential Vizio buyers. These companies claims may be baseless, and they may in fact just be gambling that the FUD will cause potential Vizio customers to buy their products instead. These additional sales could likely pay for the lawsuit, and in the meantime they will have gained marketshare, and potentially even put a competitor out of business.

I am not saying that Vizio is blameless here, there is no way I could know. However, the decision to sue can have other motivations beyond simple justice.

Rob

Welcome to AR,

So you think that all of these manufatureres decided to call each other and put this plan into action together?

[bobsticks]

Welcome to AR,

So you think that all of these manufatureres decided to call each other and put this plan into action together?

...or possibly just a conversation on the putting green.

[pixelthis]

Sure they would. By suing they are creating FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) in the minds of potential Vizio buyers. These companies claims may be baseless, and they may in fact just be gambling that the FUD will cause potential Vizio customers to buy their products instead. These additional sales could likely pay for the lawsuit, and in the meantime they will have gained marketshare, and potentially even put a competitor out of business.

I am not saying that Vizio is blameless here, there is no way I could know. However, the decision to sue can have other motivations beyond simple justice.

Rob

I agree with you, and not sir talky, who as usual doesnt have a clue.
SUING is a matter of doing business, and vizio has caused some ill will.
ITS KINDA HARD to sell a 42in lcd set for two grand plus when a vizio can be had for a grand, sometimes with a better picture.
Whenever a manufacturer offers a decent product at a decent price, those who would want to trade on their "name", who think their product should cost two prices because
of the name on it rush to the attack.
NOT that I care, I have a nice set with DVDO scaling and a zero bright pixel guarentee,
and I love it, it looks great.
This sort of thing has been going on forever, using govt force to quell a competetor
when you cant compete.
PRETTY MUCH LIKE WHAT HAPPENED with Tucker motor,
or the way RCA tried to get FM radio outlawed when it first came out

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I agree with you, and not sir talky, who as usual doesnt have a clue.
SUING is a matter of doing business, and vizio has caused some ill will.
ITS KINDA HARD to sell a 42in lcd set for two grand plus when a vizio can be had for a grand, sometimes with a better picture.
Whenever a manufacturer offers a decent product at a decent price, those who would want to trade on their "name", who think their product should cost two prices because
of the name on it rush to the attack.
NOT that I care, I have a nice set with DVDO scaling and a zero bright pixel guarentee,
and I love it, it looks great.
This sort of thing has been going on forever, using govt force to quell a competetor
when you cant compete.
PRETTY MUCH LIKE WHAT HAPPENED with Tucker motor,
or the way RCA tried to get FM radio outlawed when it first came out

If this was nothing more than big brother picking on little brother, then Apex and Cyberhome would still be here. This is a case of a company selling cheap underperforming televisions without the necessary liscenses, which by the way allow them to undercut the majors who pay their liscensing fees.

When it comes to PQ, Vizio is always at the bottom of the pile. Why, because vizio televsions lose 75% of their resolution when objects move. That is more loss than any CRT based televsion, and more than other brand of flat panels as well. They are at the top of list with flat panels with high light leakage(hence the low contrast ratio), and they cannot fully resolve 720p even with a DVDO(because the panel is the issue, not the processing). That is neither here nor there though, because the bottom line here is that it is clear they have not paid their liscensing fees, and using the same argument that Apex and Cyberhome used is not going to help them at all.

[bobsticks]

Sure they would. By suing they are creating FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) in the minds of potential Vizio buyers. These companies claims may be baseless, and they may in fact just be gambling that the FUD will cause potential Vizio customers to buy their products instead. These additional sales could likely pay for the lawsuit, and in the meantime they will have gained marketshare, and potentially even put a competitor out of business.
I am not saying that Vizio is blameless here, there is no way I could know. However, the decision to sue can have other motivations beyond simple justice.

This post actually makes alot of sense, though I see your point and suspect that it may be the catalyst or the proverbial foot in the door. In any case, the big boys don't have much to lose other than the time for some lawdogs who are probably house clowns anyway.

What interests me is that this story is being reported out of Japan. "Based in California" is not really too informative...is Vizio a Japanese entity?

[Woochifer]

This post actually makes alot of sense, though I see your point and suspect that it may be the catalyst or the proverbial foot in the door. In any case, the big boys don't have much to lose other than the time for some lawdogs who are probably house clowns anyway.

What interests me is that this story is being reported out of Japan. "Based in California" is not really too informative...is Vizio a Japanese entity?

Technically, Vizio's an American company, but none of their product is actually made in the U.S. Like Terrence said, they operate as a virtual company with no independent R&D, manufacturing, or customer service capacity -- it's all outsourced. They're a billion dollar company and for a while last year they were the #1 LCD TV brand, yet they have less than 100 employees. What does that tell you?

A lot of these fly-by-night companies came and went when the DVD format was in its growth phase, and the Chinese outsource manufacturers supplying them with DVD players were known for bypassing or shortchanging the license and patent holders. With flat panel TVs, it should be no surprise that this same kind of cheating could be going on with the off-brand models.

The "big boys" actually have a lot to lose by doing nothing, given that they developed and hold most of the rights to the MPEG-2 technologies that underpin HDTV broadcasting. If they're getting shortchanged, and someone's gaining market share by undercutting their costs through illegal practices, then it's almost their obligation to enforce these patents in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpeg_2#Patent_holders

[mbbuchanan]

well all is not lost,maybe they can borrow back some of the endorsement money from LT to foot the legal bill.....: )

[Rich-n-Texas]

And four tits!

[GMichael]

And four tits!

Four? One for each hand, one for the mouth, and one in the back for dancing?

[pixelthis]

And four tits!

WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH YOU?

[markw]

Roughly, what type of licensing fees could we be talking about on a per set basis?

Pennies, dollars, tens of dollars, more?

[thekid]

Well if Apex and Cyberhome lost on the same premise that explains the law suit in the first place. A widespread practice among large law firms is to bring what are called "cookie-cutter" lawsuits.

A law firm wins a large settlement in a complicated case. Other law firms take note and then look around for practical applications to sue another business using the winning argument/precedent set in the earlier case. It is cheaper for the law firm because much of the research has been done and their chance of winning is pretty high. The practice has become so common that some law firms have attempted to patent their winning arguements/cases so that they could continue to generate income.

My guess is that an outside law firm approached the plaintiffs and told them they could put together an relatively inexpensive lawsuit that could eliminate one of their competitors.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Yeah but it would seem fragmented compared to yours. Your remark had a nice, even flow to it.

[Duds]

Yeah I've been told i should write for an AV magazine or website...

Yeah but it would seem fragmented compared to yours. Your remark had a nice, even flow to it.

[pixelthis]

Yeah I've been told i should write for an AV magazine or website...

If you can find one that hires JR high school students.
I can see why rich admires you, you're even more clueless than HE is

[kexodusc]

I think Sir T meant to say they are "known" as the most reliable name in consumer electronics, actual reliability notwithstanding - to the average joe. I'd believe that statement - I know a ton of people who aren't a/v enthusiasts like the people here, and for them it's Sony and Bose. Brand name power.

As for Vizio - if they're breaking the rules they will pay dearly. If they're not they probably won't. I don't care either way. Every Vizio I've seen has looked horrible, even for the money, but a zillion people buy them and don't care about PQ. Personally, I'd like to a see a few low-ball companies keep the other companies' prices in check a bit.

In the computer/software industry a lot of frivolous lawsuits are tossed around to paralyze competitors, you don't see it as much in the consumer electronics industry, and when you do it's usually patents or copyright/trademark disputes. This is a licensing issue so it's probably pretty black and white, and likely to be a quick case unless there's more to it than we're reading.

Dunno why Pixie is taking it so personally and responding with negative attacks on the people here instead of sticking to the topic?

[bobsticks]

As for Vizio - if they're breaking the rules they will pay dearly. If they're not they probably won't. I don't care either way. Every Vizio I've seen has looked horrible, even for the money, but a zillion people buy them and don't care about PQ. Personally, I'd like to a see a few low-ball companies keep the other companies' prices in check a bit.

I too like to see a few companies lowballin' it out there, provided they observe the applicable laws. The idea of trickledown technology clearly works and, I would gather, is what funds the level of innovation that keeps the tide rollin'...and it doesn't negatively impact me if Joe6P is happy, so why not?