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

TiVo vs. Echostar Court Case: Post Hearing Discussion

Discussion in 'Legislative and Regulatory Issues' started by Tom Robertson, Feb 17, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Feb 23, 2009 #421 of 1468
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    I can't pretend to know enough to understand if there are PFFCLs, FFFCLS, or JFFFCLS (Judge Folsom FFCLs...) :)

    Perhaps it's best to wait and see what filings occur in the next few weeks. :)

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
  2. Feb 23, 2009 #422 of 1468
    nobody99

    nobody99 Icon

    807
    0
    May 20, 2008
    A proposed Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law. Just like I've said all along. Just like James said it was filed on February 10.

    And some day in the near future, the Judge will issue the real Finding Of Fact and Conclusion of Law based on what each side proposed.

    Simple question - and please, just answer this simple question. Keep in mind that the stuff you quoted from the court is a shorthand transcript.

    You know that E* and TiVo can only submit a proposed FFCL, right?
     
  3. Feb 23, 2009 #423 of 1468
    dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    I cant believe this had turned into an argument over FFCL.

    This is very simple.

    Before a hearing parties submit their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. It is similar to a brief that parties would submit in an appellate court. It is what they believe is the relevant law and facts.

    The judge reviews these submissions and issue his decision as to which of the facts and laws are the correct ones to be used.
     
  4. Feb 23, 2009 #424 of 1468
    nobody99

    nobody99 Icon

    807
    0
    May 20, 2008
    Thank you dgordo.
     
  5. Feb 23, 2009 #425 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Then what was the FFCL Judge Folsom asked the parties to file below:

    ""DAY 1 - February 17th
    9:12 ct/ will ask ptys to order transcript and then set schedule for filing of FFCL (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law), these arguments can be addressed by that document;"

    I know we can wait for the full transcript to find out, but since dgordo is a lawyer maybe he can explain for us. Sounded like a precedural thing.
     
  6. Feb 23, 2009 #426 of 1468
    CuriousMark

    CuriousMark Icon

    505
    0
    May 21, 2008
    He was unhappy with the prehearing cut at those documents for some reason and wants both sides to do them over and include fixes for whatever it was that he found to be deficient. It seems pretty straightforward. Apparently whatever they were talking about before the judge at that time was missing from the PFFCLs submitted before the hearing.
     
  7. Feb 23, 2009 #427 of 1468
    nobody99

    nobody99 Icon

    807
    0
    May 20, 2008
    And the new ones were still proposed FFCL's. And TiVo filed theirs on February 17.
     
  8. Feb 23, 2009 #428 of 1468
    CuriousMark

    CuriousMark Icon

    505
    0
    May 21, 2008
    Which is very interesting. Why wouldn't TiVo want to wait for the transcript to come out as the judge suggested? They must be very confident that whatever they updated won't change based on the transcript. Maybe Dish has more to change to satisfy the judge, and they need the transcript to do so. Not that it matters much.

    I am eager to see the transcript, I want to follow the tech discussions.
     
  9. Feb 23, 2009 #429 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    After a bit of re-reading, I think I was at least partially correct in the initial speculation. Even though parties had filed their PFFCLs on 2/10, at the beginning of the hearing some new issues were raised by both parties. The judge asked them to wait for the full transcript of the hearing when available, then re-file their PFFCLs, and include any of those new issues in the documents. Only that he referred them to FFCL, without using the word “proposed”.

    When I just wrote the above I saw your post, I decided to include yours too, so we essentially agree.
     
  10. Feb 23, 2009 #430 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Got a title for that filing?

    Whatever that 2/17 TiVo's filing was unlikely the same FFCL the judge asked TiVo to do on the same day.
     
  11. Feb 23, 2009 #431 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    I would consider that a very unwise move if true.
     
  12. Feb 23, 2009 #432 of 1468
    nobody99

    nobody99 Icon

    807
    0
    May 20, 2008
    Why yes, yes I do (thanks to certain people living near lobsters)

    Questioning the legal decision of a guy who already won you $105 million is unwise. Hmm. Ok.

    I'd say calling him unwise is a very unwise move :lol:
     
  13. Feb 23, 2009 #433 of 1468
    James Long

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

    45,749
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    It should be rejected. The judge's SPECIFIC order was to order a transcript and when that transcript was available HE would set a timetable for the FFCLs.

    If TiVo considers their Feb 17th FFCL to be the one the judge ordered they are acting in ignorance and arrogance. Perhaps they were updating the pre-hearing FFCL ... but they certainly were not filing the post-hearing FFCL before the hearing was completed.
     
  14. Feb 23, 2009 #434 of 1468
    nobody99

    nobody99 Icon

    807
    0
    May 20, 2008
    You are probably right about updated the pre-hearing one, but until we see the full text transcript we won't know, and even then we still might no know.

    But in any event, I doubt whatever they did was a "very unwise move."
     
  15. Feb 23, 2009 #435 of 1468
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    Certainly seems a bit premature for us kibitzers to declare as an "unwise move" from this point of view. :)
     
  16. Feb 23, 2009 #436 of 1468
    James Long

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

    45,749
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I don't believe anyone here believes that TiVo's Feb 17th filing is the FFCL that they were asked to file after reviewing the transcript. So there is no "unwise move" to speak of. Whatever happened, it isn't what we'd consider unwise.

    Illogical? Unneeded? Confusing? Perhaps. But not "unwise". :D
     
  17. Feb 23, 2009 #437 of 1468
    HiDefGator

    HiDefGator Legend

    193
    0
    Nov 19, 2005
    So I guess now Folsom has some time to kick back and watch some TV while everyone waits on the transcript, then he keeps waiting on the new PFFCL's. Only then will he actually have to make a decision? And then Folsom has to write it all down, and justify it with a bunch of case law, and have it reviewed twice. So, what about 2 months before we hear from him again?
     
  18. Feb 23, 2009 #438 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    If what they did, as you initially suggested, was in response to the judge's 2/17 order for the post hearing filing, then not only was it unwise, but disrespect for the judge.

    But as I speculated the TiVo's 2/17 FFCL filing had nothing to do with what the judge ordered on 2/17.
     
  19. Feb 23, 2009 #439 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    It is possible about 2 months before the parties file their FFCLs, it all depends on what the judge will set that filing schedule.
     
  20. Feb 23, 2009 #440 of 1468
    James Long

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

    45,749
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Or "as I continue to speculate" ...

    Although I tend to agree that there will be more FFCLs filed after the transcripts.

    2 months? I don't expect that. Perhaps two weeks to file the FFCLs after the transcript is available. Perhaps dgordo will help, but are replies to FFCLs permitted or does each side have to make their own case independently?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page