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

TiVo vs. Dish: Judge orders Feb. 2009 hearing on infringement

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by Curtis52, Nov 20, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. the judge

    the judge Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    93
    0
    Jan 12, 2009
    So are saying that you do not believe that Tivo cured any alleged deficiency because Echostar has not gone back to Folsom and whined about that since December? If so, then you are part of "we". If not, state your case.
     
  2. scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,272
    30
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    I got a better idea - why don't YOU explain to US how Tivo cured their alleged deficiency ?
     
  3. dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    I think this is a simple argument to make; there never were any deficiencies to cure because Folsom never ruled that there were any deficiencies.
     
  4. the judge

    the judge Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    93
    0
    Jan 12, 2009
    First, there is no evidence that Tivo even had a deficiency except Echostar's whining that it existed. Second, Folsom told Echostar to shut up, and that if there is any deficiency it would likely be cured in the expert disclosure due two days later. Third, since Tivo served that expert disclosure last December Echostar has not whined about deficiencies again. Ipso facto, whatever Echostar wanted they now have or you would have likely heard a fourth emergency motion.
     
  5. James Long

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

    45,320
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The point is that when you pretend to speak for the "we" on this website you are ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY WRONG. Speak for yourself only. You know only as much if not less than anyone else here.

    And now you're speaking for Judge Folsom? If you cannot speak for yourself please don't bother.

    The court filings are included in these threads for a reason ... for people to read the truth ... the words Judge Folsom actually spoke in his orders as well as TiVo's and DISH's pleadings on the matter (when not sealed). I don't believe anyone here is incapable of reading ... please don't insult people by pretending that you can read any better than anyone else.

    Thanks for your opinions ... just make sure you keep them YOUR opinions. You don't speak for "we".
     
  6. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Of course E* never violated the injunction because Folsom never said they did;

    E* never was in contempt because Folsom never ruled that E* was in contempt;

    E*'s design around effort was never in bad faith because Folsom never said it was;

    E* never had the burden of proof their new design no longer infringe because Folsom never said E* carries the burden of proof;

    E* never lied because Folsom had never said E* lied before...

    BTW, TiVo's disclosures are deficient because TiVo had failed to prove the new design is still an infringement by clear and convincing evidence. All TiVo is saying is the new design still parses. That is deficient from the legal standpoint of proving an infringement.

    There is no need to continue to insist that TiVo cure the deficience, it is up to E* to decide what kind of motions they want to file and when.

    The initial motion to compel was to try to point out TiVo had all the time to review E*'s full disclosures, and E* did not get the same opportunity, because E* did not know what TiVo was going to say in their expert disclosures, so the protest was to lay the gournd work for a future appeal, if necessary, that E*'s due process right to defend itself was violated.

    The second motion was different because after receiving the supposedly "cured" TiVo disclosures, E* still saw the same argument from TiVo, this time E* knew TiVo still had nothing and would not have another chance to add anything new. Why point out TiVo's deficiency this time when they knew TiVo could not even cure it, the chance for disclosures were done already? Let TiVo be deficient, the more the better. Therefore this second motion was to lay two traps for TiVo to fall into, one to have TiVo to say on the record they only needed one sentence, the other was to have TiVo say on the record bad faith/good faith, did not matter.

    Now E* knows TiVo not only is defficient, but more so than the last time, and the TiVo's good faith/bad faith crap is also refuted by TiVo themself.

    E* had just done the best I can think of to lay the best conditions for their own future debate, not just for the next hearing, but after that, if Judge Folsom turns out really has no respect for the standards established by the Appeals Court.
     
  7. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006

    I just realized I have given you a little too much credit.
     
  8. dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    Exactly. These are all true. Unless/until a judge rules on something, it didn't happen.

    I didn't realize that Folsom had made that ruling yet. Silly me, I thought thats what the evidenciary hearing was going to resolve.
     
  9. the judge

    the judge Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    93
    0
    Jan 12, 2009
    Excuse me, I'll requalify my response. When I said "we", I meant myself and the other people in this forum I spoke with who agreed with my point regarding Tivo no longer being deficient. I didn't get your answer before, but are you one of those who believes Tivo remains (allegedly) deficient?

    How do you have any idea what I know, or who I work for, or what my profession is that might contribute to me being the most knowledgeable person in the Forum. Perhaps you should read my posts a little more carefully before making such a judgment. If you want to moderate, you ought to examine jacy's inane logic with the same enthusiasm as you do mine.

    Well, I have no idea where this accusation comes from, unless it's the colorful rhetoric that's implied in citing Judge Folsom's Orders. You and many others have cited Tivo, Echostar and Folsom's filings without being accused of "speaking for them", and we (again, myself the other people in this forum I spoke with) expect the same courtesy.
     
  10. James Long

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

    45,320
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    See the quote in my post. Then point to where Judge Folsom said "shut up". Otherwise, colorful or not, you are misrepresenting Judge Folsom.

    If you have any further problems with the directions I give please send a PM. This thread is for discussing TiVo vs Echostar. Stay focused on the case.
     
  11. the judge

    the judge Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    93
    0
    Jan 12, 2009
    I presume the quote in your post is the bolded word actually. My euphemistic reference to Judge Folsom telling Echostar to "shut up" is a combination of his two statements:

    1. "Because TiVo’s expert disclosures are due on December 24 and will likely cure any prior deficiency", and

    2. "This Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE EchoStar’s Motion to Compel."

    Those are direct quotes from Judge Folsom. I referred to the sum of the two as a judicial "shut up" to Echostar's "emergency motion to compel". In my experience, Judges do not like to be bothered with emergency motions unless they are actual emergencies. This one obviously wasn't.
     
  12. scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,272
    30
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    There's been plenty of comments on jac's posts. As James said, this thread is about Tivo vs Echostar, and not anything else. Personally, sometimes he's a bit out there, other times he's been pretty spot on.
     
  13. the judge

    the judge Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    93
    0
    Jan 12, 2009
    Start by answering the essential question: Do you believe that Tivo cured any alleged deficiency based on the fact that Echostar has not gone back to Folsom and whined about it since December?

    If you answer "yes", you are part of "we". If not, which I respect, please explain your case.
     
  14. scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,272
    30
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    I asked you first. Show where they DID.

    But I am NOT part of your "we".
     
  15. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Basically correct, then...
    Hmm. The above sentences regarding what DISH/SATS legal status is correct, yet somehow "TiVo's disclosures are deficient", yet Judge Folsom never said they were.

    By inference, this means that if TiVo were able to prove in their disclosures that the new designs are infringements there would be no reason to have this hearing.
     
  16. the judge

    the judge Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    93
    0
    Jan 12, 2009
    The only "evidence" is that Echostar complained that Tivo did not meet Judge Folsom's original order, yet Echostar has not complained since Tivo filed their expert disclosures. So what does the "preponderance of evidence" tell you?

    You can refute being part of "we", but the bigger question is do you agree with the essential point that Tivo is no longer deficient? Or not? Please state your case!
     
  17. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Too much inference, the above statement should be considered just that, it is my view TiVo is deficient. I did not list that statement as one of the bullets did I?
     
  18. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Your argument is begging the question, just because E* in the second motion did not accused TiVo of deficient does not mean TiVo is now sufficient.

    As I said above, during the first motion to compel, E* did not know if anything more TiVo would say in the expert disclosures. When later they saw the TiVo's expert disclosures, They no longer had to insist TiVo to cure any deficiency, because TiVo had run out of any chance to cure any deficiency, in fact at that point, E* should be glad TiVo's deficiency continued and actaully got worse, from 4 sentences down to one.

    When E* goes to the courtroom, they want TiVo be as deficient as they possibly can be. In fact as I said, E* after the second motion had managed to make TiVo even more deficient by getting TiVo to refute one of its own arguments that E* was in bad faith, because as TiVo finally said, good faith, bad faith, does not matter.
     
  19. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    A quote from a patent litigation strategies session:

    (BTW I was told the author of the session permitted free quote of limited sections such as this one.)

    The above section talked about expert disclosure deficiency, a little different than the disclosures E* sought to compel. But it explains how motion to compel may or may not be used in the litigation.

    During the first round of disclosures, E* motioned to compel arguing that TiVo’s initial disclosures (not the expert disclosures) were deficient. If one reads the above, E* wanted to make sure:

    1) There was no surprises from TiVo, because TiVo was still preparing their additional disclosures, and

    2) E* wanted the judge to know E* believed TiVo was deficient. Because likely E* believed had they not done so, the judge might say later that E* did not object, so it must not matter that much.

    During the second motion, E* did not try to compel TiVo to cure deficiency, that did not mean E* believed TiVo had cured its deficiency. E* raised the issue once already, the motion to compel had served its purpose, that is the judge later cannot ignore such deficiency, if any.

    Once that goal was reached, further motion to compel might actually harm E*, E* may not want to further alert TiVo of any deficiency to get TiVo to better prepare themselves.
     
  20. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    But let's just remember that simply because DISH/SATS claims there is a deficiency doesn't mean there actually is one.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page