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

Tivo vs. Dish: Petition for rehearing en banc granted

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by dfd, May 14, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nov 23, 2010 #841 of 1139
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    Greg,

    Please understand that your argument makes no sense with most of this group because it doesn't agree with E*'s desparate pleas to the court (a.k.a. briefs). :)
     
  2. Nov 23, 2010 #842 of 1139
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Hmm. Can't rule on the PTO disclaimers as they weren't brought before Judge Folsom. And the phrase "parses audio and video data from said broadcast data" was defined, and even EchoStar agreed that PID filtering met this step limitation.
    Sure TiVo disputes it.
    The judges were not asked to evaluate against this loosely-defined "new PTO definition".
    Try the court's definition. That is what is being used to evaluate the issues at hand.
     
  3. Nov 23, 2010 #843 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Exactly, when E* now disputes TiVo' position, as well as it's own position in a way from back then, the court must determine whether such dispute has merit. If you listened to the oral argument, one judge even pointed out E* now disputes such position. The question is whether E*s such dispute has merit. If so the PID issue must be tried in a new trial because the PID itself was never adjudicated to be the infringing item last time. It was the media switch.

    And let me say this again, if there is a new trial, the term "audio and video data" will be construed based on the new PTO disclaimer which TiVo does not dispute.

    You can of course believe what you want, I can do the same, but at the end of the day, it is fair to say one also must be willing to actually face the facts, including facing those facts that you do not think are relevant, and ask self, who is actually right on this argument as far as the start codes are concerned AT THIS VERY MOMENT? Step out of the box and asnwer a simple question, the answer to this question is of your own, not some experts'. I am sure we are all capable of answering this question.

    After that, if you say, so who cares, they all admitted that even though we know now they might be all wrong based on the new facts in front of us, if that is your position, I have no argument with you.
     
  4. Nov 23, 2010 #844 of 1139
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Really? Where's the checkbox on the jury form that asked the jury to define each part of infringement, specifically that the "media switch" was the "infringement"?
     
  5. Nov 23, 2010 #845 of 1139
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,544
    1,088
    Nov 13, 2006
    You know, at what point will the costs of this whole trial make it obvious that Echostar should have just licensed the darn thing from tivo in the first place, because it would have cost them less than the costs of this trial?
     
  6. Nov 23, 2010 #846 of 1139
    MCSuckaDJ

    MCSuckaDJ Cool Member

    19
    0
    May 25, 2005
    Assuming $2 per month per sub and a linear proliferation of DVRs from the start of the lawsuit to today, E* would have paid TiVo roughly a billion dollars in licensing fees by now. The point you speak of is an indeterminate point in the future, but it is definitely not now.
     
  7. Nov 23, 2010 #847 of 1139
    James Long

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

    45,750
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    There is a filter that does that ... but said filter existed in every receiver DISH has ever used, including non-DVRs and receivers that existed before Tivo.

    What differentiates Tivo's patented PID filter from the filter that predates Tivo?
     
  8. Nov 23, 2010 #848 of 1139
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,300
    33
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    You have to remember that IF E* starts paying any licensing fees - they will be paying them until this '389 patent expires. Something like 2017 ? (I'm probably wrong on that, but you get the idea...)

    either that or they will have to stop selling DVRs.

    At this point - E* will keep fighting.
     
  9. Nov 23, 2010 #849 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Because during the last trial, E* said hey PID it was, TiVo said no, the media switch was my technology, even though PID also parsed, but the media switch was the real thing our patented technology really was.

    And TiVo won, E* lost.
     
  10. Nov 23, 2010 #850 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Had E* licensed TiVo's patent in the first place, it would have been something similar to the DTV deal, and like DTV E* could have easily ditched TiVo later on.

    Even so DTV has paid much more in licensing fees than E* had paid TiVo in damages, so far.
     
  11. Nov 23, 2010 #851 of 1139
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Patents do not require everything within their claims to be free from "prior art". For example, TiVo's patent requires any format of moving picture broadcast. Therefore, it can use the patented MPEG process.
    Great piece of fiction!
     
  12. Nov 23, 2010 #852 of 1139
    spear61

    spear61 Godfather

    357
    0
    Sep 19, 2004
    Yes

    One of the Appeals judges pointed out that many many electronic devices have PID filters. I took her discourse to mean there is nothing uniique about PID filters and it would be like saying " I have a patent on wheels, therefore all motor car makers must pay me royalties 120 years after cars (with wheels) were in existance.
     
  13. Nov 23, 2010 #853 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    I did not say it, E* said it and TiVo did not dispute it, even Judge Folsom agreed during the hearing that both parties' positions with regard to the PID parsing had "flip flopped." Just because you failed to read, does not make it a fiction.
     
  14. Nov 23, 2010 #854 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Of course TiVo did not say PID was the only thing that proved infrignement, there are many other things, combined to prove infringement.

    The problem is E* during the contempt proceeding was overly confident, they only raised the single issue (other than the automatic flow control) of the PID did not parse "as described by the TiVo patent."

    TiVo was very good at pointing out what the E* expert admitted back then. Only after Judge Folsom's ruling, did E* begin to touch on other terms, such as the PID does not parse "audio and vidoe data,", does not "temporarily store said audio and vidoe data," there is no longer a "source object" to "extract" said "audio and video data..." But it was a little too late.

    Now I said from back then it was difficult to imaging how the highly paid E* attorneys could have missed so many things. But then again it is possible that they had determined they were going to lose in front of Judge Folsom no matter what, so they saved some cards for the CAFC, that is the only explanation I can come up with in order to justify their pay grade:)

    It was a very risky move if true, as evident the CAFC majority on the merits panel also ruled in TiVo's favor, if not for Judge Rader, things could have been very different. I think this speculation can be true only if we take into the consideration of Charlie's personality. Anyone else would not have risked so much, to hold his cards at Judge Folsom, to only show them at the CAFC.
     
  15. Nov 24, 2010 #855 of 1139
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    11-23-10 F3Q2011 conference call transcript:

    "Tony Wible - Janney

    And there's been a lot of people opining about their views on litigation (inaudible). Can you guys put in your view as to how long you think the various scenarios could play out? In other words, if on one extreme there's a remand and a new trial, how long that would go? And middle ground scenario in the case if there's a remand and a quick summary judgment. And then obviously the timeline should you win, how long for the injunction or a timing on Supreme Court appeal by Dish.

    Tom Rogers

    Well Tony, I've seen a lot of scenarios commented on out there. I think the first point is that we have a high degree of confidence in the Court of Appeals and this (inaudible) proceeding, bringing this to a conclusion. The decision from the Court of Appeals should be the final word on a patent case and I think that’s where our head is and that's where our anticipation lies.

    Obviously people have commented on the possibility of other scenarios, you point to summary judgment on a remand, and summary judgment is a quick proceeding. If there was a new trial, look we're not starting from scratch, discovery, and other things have largely taken place. It would be much accelerated from something that was a start from scratch proceeding.

    If we win in enforcement of an injunction, I think this District Court Judge here has seen this case hang around long enough. And we would anticipate that he would move with great dispatch. But all of those are scenarios with the exception and the last thing that I mentioned, our view is that the Court of Appeals is going to give us a victory here. And we are going to be able to implement that victory with speed."

    transcript
     
  16. Nov 24, 2010 #856 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Good info Curtis and thanks. Reading the analyst's Q for Rogers, it was almost as if he was reading the exact scenarios laid out by me:) Of course Rogers was correct, there is no certainty at this point. TiVo can say what TiVo believes, E* can say what E* believes, at the end of the day an investor must exercise his own judgment. Analyst's views are important because they are the experts in the stock market. Unfortunately they can be wrong very often. But at least this analyst is considering the different scenarios, I think this is a responsible way to go about it.

    BTW I want to comment on what Rogers said below:

    The definition of a "stronger patent" is that it more "narrowly" defines the innovation in order to differenciate it from all the prior art. A stronger (narrower) patent is more difficult to be infringed on. Therefore by definition it will make it more difficult for TiVo to prove infringement against ATT/MSFT/Verizon, period. Yes it will make it more difficult for ATT/MSFT/Verizon to invalidate the patent, but also make the job easier for them to prove non-infringement. For one thing, the disclaimers in the new PTO prosecution history will certainly be used by ATT/MSFT/Verizon in their own claim constructions, if it gets that far.
     
  17. Nov 24, 2010 #857 of 1139
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    "Shares of Echostar (SATS) are down 33 cents, or 1.6%, at $20.34, having briefly plunged from a high of $21, as Bloomberg reports a judge has found the company destroyed evidence in the suit brought by TiVo (TIVO).

    TiVo shares are down 15 cents, or 1.6%, at $8.66, after having spiked briefly at the open.

    More on this as it develops."

    Barrons
     
  18. Nov 24, 2010 #858 of 1139
    dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    Update: Although TiVo shares popped on first word of this item, it now appears the destruction of evidence has to do with a more prosaic matter, Echostar’s $2.5 billion contract dispute with Voom HD Holdings LLC, a unit of Cablevision (CVC), according to Bloomberg’s Bob Van Voris.
     
  19. Nov 24, 2010 #859 of 1139
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    Thanks dgordo. Interesting case.

    "Voom argued that the TiVo case shows EchoStar’s “general disregard for the judicial process.”

    Bloomberg
     
  20. Nov 24, 2010 #860 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Or you can say Charlie's risk taking behavior.

    Interesting though, Voom is using the TiVo case to argue on their own case, if that is really what they are saying to the judge in the Voom case, it can backfire. Hopefully the Voom attorneys know not to do that and it is just a Voom PR department doing this.

    BTW I thought Voom is history. Still recall the good old Voom days when I was with DISH:)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page