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

TiVo vs. Dish: TiVo won appeal

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by Curtis52, Mar 4, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mar 15, 2010 #401 of 1017
    MarcusInMD

    MarcusInMD Legend

    202
    0
    Jan 6, 2005
    It will be best for everyone when these lawsuits are resolved. Tivo only survives on their ability to sue. Once that well dries up, tivo will more than likely dissolve for lack of innovation and reasonable pricing structure. Than the market segment can truly innovate without this leach attached to them.
     
  2. Mar 15, 2010 #402 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    "...of the Infringing Products." Back then no one ever thought about external hard drive that would not be "of the Infringing Products", they were only concerned about the hard drives in the DVRs, wanted to ensure no storage and playback of media from that hard drive in the DVR. Again as I said technology ten years later cannot be easily visualized these days.

    An external hard drive will not be a hard disk drive of the Infringing Product. At a minimum the difference is more than colorable since the physical condition of the hardware has changed. Again, I am not saying it will happen, just to show that if you insist on the exact letter, the same interpretation of the letter can be used against you.

    As far as the investors, please don't treat them as three-year-old, they know the risk, E* has been reporting in their 10Ks for years of the maximum risk, the stock is at its peak, the investors just received a $2 dividend late last year, and Charlie can do it again, he has the money to do it.

    The repeated warning from you folks may puzzle others, but it is a sign the suspense is killing you guys:)
     
  3. Mar 15, 2010 #403 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    BTW, since E* motioned for one or more expedited pre-approvals of the new designs on 3/9/10, TiVo responded on 3/12/10, and today E* filed their response. Still all docs are sealed, but no indication that TiVo is opposing the actual motion itself, my guess is if there is any objection from TiVo, they are objecting to the specifics of the new design.
     
  4. Mar 15, 2010 #404 of 1017
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    Where did you find that E* filed a response today? PACER has been down since Saturday.
     
  5. Mar 15, 2010 #405 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    I was on it this morning.
     
  6. Mar 15, 2010 #406 of 1017
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    Thanks.
     
  7. Mar 16, 2010 #407 of 1017
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    It will take months (years?) to determine whether the latest workaround is more than colorably different given the inevitable appeals. If it is determined that there is more than a colorable difference then a trial would be required to determine whether there is infringement which would take even more time. The injunction prohibits infringement not just a merely colorable difference. Judge Folsom isn't going to bless an alleged workaround that may infringe.
     
  8. Mar 16, 2010 #408 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    There is no case law governing how Judge Folsom may conduct his pre-approval review, no requirement he must hold a hearing or do colorable difference review. The pre-approval process is not a contempt proceeding nor a bench trial, nor a new trial. I don't think anyone knows what it is because it has never been done before.
     
  9. Mar 17, 2010 #409 of 1017
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    Stop being ridiculous. Of course there is case law. And Folsom has clear discretion. Once the CAFC reinstates the injunction, you can be sure Folsom won't allow any workaround to be implemented until it is fully examined. As Folsom has already ruled by refusing to stay the injunction is that the balance of harms favors TiVo. Therefore, E* will not get a stay of the injunction during workaround proceedings. We are talking until 2011 at a minimum before anything happens along that front. AND we all know that workaround #2 is logically weaker than #1 because it won't be applicable to any DVR's in the field and most believe that the first workaround was the best effort E had.
     
  10. Mar 17, 2010 #410 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    There is no case law on pre-approval. The only possible case TiVo ever cited to support their pre-approval demand is one district case in which the infringer tried to design around and actually implemented them four times, each time after the court review was determined still infringing, only then the district court issued a pre-approval order, and the infringer gave up after that, no pre-approval was ever requested in that case.

    If you look at the current expedited pre-approval request, it is indeed expedited because both E* and TiVo have already filed their motion and responses twice on each side in less than one week. TiVo clearly recognizes this being a fast track proceeding. Since the docs are sealed, we don't know the exact arguments, but we know both parties are moving in a lighting fast speed on this one, because they know Judge Folsom can rule on it any time, there is no waiting for the appeals court. The question is how Judge Folsom will rule, on that I agree with you, it is his discretion to exercise, the appeals court panel majority will not likely intervene.

    If he agrees, with his years of experience that the new design no longer infringes, he needs to approve it, that is what this inform and approve is all about. If he disapproves it due to doubts about the new design, clear or not, E* will likely file an expedited review request to the appeals court, possibly combine it with their en banc review request.

    This pre-approval proceeding will conlude itself way before any appeals panel rehearing and/or en banc rehearing decisions are made, i.e. before any possible lift of the stay is to take place, unless if TiVo succeeds in its own motion to lift the stay immediately, which at the earliest will take a few weeks to decide after reply and sur-replies.
     
  11. Mar 17, 2010 #411 of 1017
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    There is ample case law on complying with injunctions and the discretion that judge Folsom will have.

    You are dreaming. Folsom is allowed to take as much time is required to evaluate the workaround. Folsom will take his time, E* will not get a stay, and E* can be compensated retrocatively if their workaround somehow does not infringe. If it still infringes and is not colorably different, E* will be paying sanctions ontop of an increased base amount per box (~$5/mo) unless they agree to a conditional license with TiVo first... assuming TiVo wants to give them a license.
     
  12. Mar 17, 2010 #412 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Yet none for pre-approval. Can you not understand what we are talking about at this time?

    Then why did TiVo waste no time at all responding to each of E*'s filings? Obviously TiVo recognizes Judge Folsom can rule at any time.

    There is no issue of stay with respect to the pre-approval, I think you are still talking about some other subject.


    First thing first, again please keep your eyes on the ball, the issue here is the pre-approval, and TiVo knows it, unless you see it differently then you need to tell TiVo to relax.
     
  13. Mar 17, 2010 #413 of 1017
    coldsteel

    coldsteel Hall Of Fame

    1,984
    0
    Mar 29, 2007
    Can we then close this thread? Only thing I see is petty bickering...
     
  14. Mar 17, 2010 #414 of 1017
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    Aren't you cool... taking charge like that.

    Maybe you should just not read the thread?
     
  15. Mar 17, 2010 #415 of 1017
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    Ultimately pre-approval is nothing different than a preliminary injunction determination. So, yes, there is plenty of precedent on this. TiVo wins on all of the factors for the injunction. The only variable we don't know is what the workaround contains and how Hurculean of an effort it took.

    Given that there is no patent application so far, that means E* is licensing someone elses technology or that their new workaround is just a delay tactic.

    TiVo's speedy reply means nothing to me. One can read whatever they want into it. It could mean that there is a settlement being worked out and Tivo is eager to get this over with because they are confident that they have won.
     
  16. Mar 17, 2010 #416 of 1017
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,010
    307
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    NO, no. Don't close this thread! It hasn't even hit 500 posts yet and I have a bet with myself on at least 800 before something significant happens with the case to start a new one.:D
     
  17. Mar 17, 2010 #417 of 1017
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    Almost all of your posts have some complaint factor about the number of posts. If you can't contribute then please don't complain.
     
  18. Mar 17, 2010 #418 of 1017
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,010
    307
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    I'm not complaining. I am keeping a spreadsheet on these threads because it's fun. I enjoy the moot court you guys are running here.

    And on occasion, I actually do post thoughts on the legal situation.
     
  19. Mar 17, 2010 #419 of 1017
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    I'm pretty sure the board software keeps count of the posts and the best part is that it doesn't nag.
     
  20. Mar 17, 2010 #420 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Sure, even though I don't see the connection but at least you are sticking to the main purpose of these threads, to speculate based on the facts we know so far.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page