1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Tivo vs Echostar (mostly speculation) Thread

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by Rob Glasser, Apr 11, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. HobbyTalk

    HobbyTalk Hall Of Fame

    1,682
    0
    Jul 14, 2007
    I'm still waiting for those fireworks that was claimed was going to happen. :)
     
  2. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,736
    984
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    May 30th ... or May 16th and 23rd via filings. :)
     
  3. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    And if so they should have asked for it before the injunction was in full force. The fact Tivo did not do so underscores the difficulties a mover (one asks for it) of a summary judgment faces. The mover is taking a great risk in such action because the law requires that the non-mover must be given all considerations in defeating such action, and for a good reason, because the jury did not provide such verdict.
     
  4. peak_reception

    peak_reception Icon

    961
    0
    Feb 10, 2008
    There was -- as still is -- some confusion about whether the 30 day post injunction period for compliance had timed out or not. Given Judge Folsom's new timeline, apparently not. Either way, Fireworks will certainly come by the 4th of July ;)
     
  5. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    They couldn't. The case just got back to the District Court this week, and the hearings are now scheduled. The earliest the hardware issue can be brought up to the judge is 16 May. So that will have to be when the fireworks start.
     
  6. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    If so the judge could have gathered the kids around have a little chat before letting the injunction go in full force. Who knows maybe Tivo wanted to modify the injunction to make it more bullet proof.

    Regardless the excitement we tried to generate in the past few days, the bottom line is DISH needs to prove their new software no longer infringes, not only on the software part, but any hardware issues in question that were related to the old software. My guess is they likely will be successful because they already had a road map as what needed done to get around the issues that got them in trouble during the trial.

    I would even concede that even DISH can get around most of the patent issues, there maybe some that are very difficult to do and as a result the future DISH DVR may not be as robust, at least for some time before they come up with solutions. But most certainly they will do anything to make the new software non-infringing, even if they have to live with a half-assed DVR for awhile.
     
  7. peak_reception

    peak_reception Icon

    961
    0
    Feb 10, 2008
    But hardware issues would still be in play even if new workaround software passes muster (found to be non-infringing), yes? Aren't they two separate issues? And wouldn't a summary judgment against hardware be even harder to beat and more devastating if upheld on appeal? My understanding is that a summary judgment on hardware -- if it was found to be infringing by Judge Folsom -- could be appealed. Correct me if that is mistaken.
     
  8. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    No the hardware claim at issue has to do with how the specific hardware components are utilized by the software, not the DVR box itself, that is why DISH can design new software to get around such components to avoid hardware infringement.
     
  9. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Impossible. The injunction went live before the case ever made it back to District Court.
    Without seeing the claims on the pending patent by SATS, we don't know if they designed the new software to work around the hardware claims. Heck, for all we know, the patent applied for by SATS technically could still depend on use of the hardware claims in the Time Warp patent. I know what the abstract in the pending patent says, but who knows?
     
  10. Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    deja vu
     
  11. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    And then people wonder why there are pages and pages of the same argument! :)
     
  12. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Not impossible at all, the judge does not have to let the injunction automatically go in force, he could delay it. In fact we all remembered what happened in the distants case, when the judge was mandated by the appeals court to slam the door on DISH he gave both parties a chance to have the last wishes known.

    In fact Tivo should be able to ask the judge to stay the injunction or even lift it any time it wishes, or even call off the whole thing, I could be wrong but that is what I think.
     
  13. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Sure, but this judge did not delay the injunction back on 8 September, 2006. The Court of Appeals had to stay the injunction the very next day. When the Court of Appeals removed the stay so that the injunction took hold seven days after the appeals process had ended, the case was not back at the District Court. Unless there was an emergency proceeding, no one was going to delay anything.
    True, to a point. And as long as TiVo proves that DISH/SATS is in contempt, fighting the injunction becomes darn near impossible.
     
  14. Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    The ball wasn't in his court. The appeals court reinstated the injunction. This has been explained a dozen times.
     
  15. Presence

    Presence Godfather

    361
    0
    Mar 14, 2004
    Stay tuned to see who will get the last word.

    In the meantime: endless circular arguments.
     
  16. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Because of errors in understanding procedure.
     
  17. Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,498
    97
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the injunction IS in force. One of the provisions gave DISH and additional 30 days to shut off the DVR's in the field, but they had to stop selling them immediately.

    So if the judge does anything it would be to modify or stay an injunction already in force.
     
  18. Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    Well, I agree with you but Dish doesn't. They seem to be happy with the injunction.
     
  19. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    So it is not impossible then, and whose fault is it that no one was going to delay anything to clear out some important issue, such as half of the verdict was overturned? What could be more important than having half of the basis your case was based on taking away from you?
     
  20. Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    The appeals court liked the injunction. Dish likes it. TiVo likes it. You seem to be the only one that doesn't like it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page