Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by dfd, May 14, 2010.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
No I didn't.
I should restate my position as:
ignoring casino rules = gutsy
ignoring "the way things usually are done" and starting a successful satellite business = smart
ignoring indisputable case law governing injunctions = contemptious and stupid = "a bad thing" = going "all in" on black
The law firm of Foley & Lardner LLP commented on the case in an article on Lexology a few days ago. http://www.lexology.com/library/det...=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2010-11-15&utm_term=
The article's conclusion was that "several" judges thought this would have been better handled in a new infringement suit rather than holding EchoStar in contempt. It also said that the court "appears likely to also address" E*'s failure to complain about the ambiguity of the initial court order in a more timely fashion.
Here are a few more articles - unfortunately I cannot post the analyst reports:
I agree ... and that is why I stated was the only crime was being smarter than the house. Not against the law just annoying to those who run the place.
Wouldn't Tivo love that? Sounds pretty arrogant of a desire to me.
Tivo can only prevent DISH/Echostar from using Tivo's patent in a DVR. They cannot kick DISH out of the DVR market nor can the Federal Courts forbid DISH/Echostar or any other company from developing a DVR product.
The case is only about DISH/Echostar use of Tivo's patents - not their existence in the marketplace.
All of the analysts are predicting that Dish will be forced to license TiVo if they lose this en banc. The alternative for Dish would be to not offer DVR's to customers or to invent. But invention is easier said than done.
We don't care what the analysts are saying. All I care about is what the ruling from this latest hearing is.
But that being said - I wouldn't mind if Tivo gets told they can't change their interpretations midstream like they did 2006 vs 2008.
Or that DISH can't ignore an injunction.
Which version? The one told by TiVo in 2006, or the one told by TiVo in 2008?
This has yet to be determined
The one that said to Disable your DVRs. The one that DISH did not dispute. The one that DISH ignored.
The one currently in front of the court, that if they rule for DISH will totally destroy the current patent system.
The one that if the do rule this way, the Supreme Court will beat them down.
That is your opinion. It has yet to be determined.
The current patent system could use a bit of destroying.
A little alarmist aren't we? If they order a new trial on the workaround I'm pretty sure the world won't end.
At least I sure hope not because I'm pretty sure that is what is going to happen 4 months from now.
Despite that fact you repeated it several times, it is still only ONE of the interpretations, the one TiVo used in 2008
There are two other interpretations, one by E*, one by TiVo in 2006 when they proposed the injunction. The latter two (a majority) agreed with each other, against the first one.
My understanding is the majority rules
It will kill innovation, as any blatant infinger like DISH will just ask for a re-trial for every trivial modification they make.
It's requiring the patent holder to have to go through a full trial for any "MORE THAN COLORABLE" differences if they think they are infringing. It would be enforcing that a CONTEMPT hearing is NOT the appropriate place for this determination. Basically this is the status quo.
It was well argued by the early adopters ReplyTV was a better DVR, but they lost to TiVo not because TiVo's DVR technology was more innovative, rather TiVo won in the marketplace through PR, litigation and alliance with DirecTV, they were much better than ReplayTV in that department.
What killed ReplayTV was not innovation, nor will this case kill any innovation. A business' success however is largely based on PR, innovation is important, but don't make the TiVo innovation more than it really is. TiVo was good in making a housesold name for itself not because it had a better DVR technology, ReplayTV was better but they still lost, so was Xerox, OS2...many better innovations lost to less innovative ones, but that never stopped innovation.