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. Mar 1, 2009 #701 of 1468
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    DISH/SATS did not provide volumes and volumes of evidence to prove that adjudged receivers have new software. DISH/SATS can only state they placed the modification in the stream, but that people could opt-out of accepting the download.

    Make separate distinctions, here.
    Neither of which has been referenced by DISH/SATS in their filings, to date, and neither of which appears to have been an enjoined product. The process was enjoined, so the infringers changed the process, which was easily allowable. Neither case appears to have ordered products disabled, just the infringing process. If that were allowable in this case, none of us would even be arguing.
     
  2. Mar 1, 2009 #702 of 1468
    20TIL6

    20TIL6 New Member

    8
    0
    Sep 3, 2008
    I'd like to know if jacmyoung works for DISH. Has he clearly said either:

    I am employed by EchoStar (DISH).

    I am not employed by EchoStar (DISH).
     
  3. Mar 1, 2009 #703 of 1468
    nobody99

    nobody99 Icon

    807
    0
    May 20, 2008
    I would also like to know. And, as I have disclosed before, I am a TiVo user (and have been since the first 14-hour TiVo) and own TiVo stock (wich I have onwed for many years).
     
  4. Mar 1, 2009 #704 of 1468
    HobbyTalk

    HobbyTalk Hall Of Fame

    1,682
    0
    Jul 14, 2007
    You do not know that for sure. If it was a forced download, end users CAN NOT opt out of that download. Please keep to the facts as you know them. Thanks
     
  5. Mar 1, 2009 #705 of 1468
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    From Investor Village TiVo board:
    Don't you think that is a problem? They provided no "data" to the courts, just internal emails regarding problems with the software download, and software release notes from both DBSTalk and SatelliteGuys.

    Please. Just take our word. We no longer infringe. Please, take our word, we downloaded new software to all the boxes. And because your words said to "disable Infringing Products", we changed the software to no longer infringe, and therefore do not have to disable anything. Just take our word.

    Proof. Evidence.

    Lacking.
     
  6. Mar 1, 2009 #706 of 1468
    Ron Barry

    Ron Barry 622 Tips & Trick Keeper

    9,881
    0
    Dec 10, 2002
    People, we have issued this more than once. Stop with the personal attacks. If someone wants to offer up disclosure feel free. If someone does not, that is their choice and people can feel free to read what they want into it but all accusations of who someone is or where they work is off topic and subject to removal and if people continue down that road further action will be taken.

    For the people that seem to be new to this thread.. Apologize for the harsh wording. I suggest if you are unclear as to the rules of this thread read Tom's first post.

    I have removed a few posts that I feel were personal and therefore is off-topic. Lets keep on topic
     
  7. Mar 1, 2009 #707 of 1468
    HobbyTalk

    HobbyTalk Hall Of Fame

    1,682
    0
    Jul 14, 2007
    You said
    This is false. There may or may not have been some problems with some getting the download. but users can not "opt out" of a forced download. You are using "forum posts" to try and prove your point, and it is forum posts the E* is using as one supporting point that you suggest should be ignored?
     
  8. Mar 1, 2009 #708 of 1468
    James Long

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

    45,749
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    "To the true believer, no proof is necessary. To the non believer, no proof is sufficient."

    Is there ANYTHING DISH can do to convince you they have ceased infringing?
     
  9. Mar 1, 2009 #709 of 1468
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    The assumption here is that there is evidence the download was forced. Got a link?
    The post I quoted is from one person which ATTENDED the hearings on 17/18 February 2009. Big difference, as he is reporting what he heard, first person.
    Not really. There has been obfuscation and confusion at every step since the Court of Appeals upheld both the guilty verdict against Claims 31 and 61 of the Time Warp patent and the injunction to disable the adjudged infringing DVR's.

    When one pulls the sheets back, there isn't much of a difference between the DVR's found infringing and the work-around, except for the removal of one index table and the substitution of a new one in the "algorithm" to analyze the stored broadcast to determine trick play functionality.
     
  10. Mar 1, 2009 #710 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    E* provided a very long list of evidence in their exhibits filing posted by James. I counted at least 10 to 15 documents as evidence of new software download, I bet some of them can go on and on for hundreds of pages because a software download log may contain hundreds evens thousands of DVR IDs.

    Can you provide a quote or a link to such statement? Besides, even if some people could opt out of the download, the question is what is a resaonable effort. For example, when the judge ordered E* to disable the DVR functionalites, I assume you agree he did not order the DVRs to be destroyed, and they may still be used as non-DVRs? Now what do you think will be a reasonable way to verify if the DVRs are all turned into non-DVRs? If a few of the DVR users learned some way to prevent the download, or even managed to hack the DVRs so they cannot be turned into non-DVRs, would the jduge hold E* in contempt for not getting the very last one disabled?

    In your mind what is a reasonable approach?

    There is no need for E* to have to cite everything if it is a known standard that an adjudicated device can be modified to avoid infringement. TiVo on the other hand must prove somehow some special kind of devices may not be modified to avoid infringement. Did you find any?

    The point is an adjudicated device (such as the Footprint 2.0 net servers) was modified in the field while still in use to avoid infringement, the circumstances behind each case aren't the issue here. If you insist each prior case must be entirely identical to this case in order to be applied here, it is impossible and therefore unreasonable. You wouldn't be able to find any ruling where there is any citing of case law at all, because no two cases can be identical.

    KSM had established a standard for all cases to follow, but KSM was established nearly 25 years ago, at the time "software patent" was still in its infancy, and KSM of course was not dealing with any software issues.

    Since then a lot had happened, the issue of whether software could even be patented was hotly debated, and the Court ruled that yes software could be patented because software could be treated equally as a manufactured device, product, process, just like hardware products.

    If you want to know more about the issue of software as real device, treated just like a conventional hardware device, you do not have to look further, just ask Curtis52, he will quote you many such references.

    There is a reason why Judge Folsom wants to know if the new software is only colorably different than the old software or not. The E*'s DVR software is considered a product, a device, treated equally as any other products, devices, processes, methods, or as the Court sometime said, "the thing" that is at issue, whether that "thing" still infringe or not, that is all that matters.
     
  11. Mar 1, 2009 #711 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    I don't remember asking that question, but since it is your belief the difference is only colorable, then that is perfectly fine. We will find out.

    Then why are you arguing the other issues such as whether all DVRs had been updated? Why should that matter to you if as you believe the update is still an infringement?
     
  12. Mar 1, 2009 #712 of 1468
    Ron Barry

    Ron Barry 622 Tips & Trick Keeper

    9,881
    0
    Dec 10, 2002
    Link to what? it being forced? I am not aware of one but even if it was not forced Dish eventually gets everyone on the same version of software. It is their process period. Opt out people eventually are pulled into the current version. Can they prove when each receiver was updated.. Opinions have been made a few pages back. My opinion is that they can't and I think the process is designed in such a way they can can state with some reasonable certainty that it did happen even with people opting out.

    Yes I have read a few of these type post and though the person is attending the event like the one here he has his objectives, his bias, is motivation, etc. My personal opinion about these type of posts it is like listing to the Lakers game in Bostan on a Bostan network vs. watching Lakers local. Be amazing how different the games are announced and what is seen and the take of each announcer. Same Game.. Yes I am sure this person was there, but given the number of linked posts of this person I have scanned due to being linked here, my opinion is that his take is definitely tilted heavily one way so to me I have my doubts on how accurate a depiction is has don't give them a lot of weight.

    Like has been said... Time will tell if which way the courts feel. Looks like there are people in both sides of this camp.
     
  13. Mar 1, 2009 #713 of 1468
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    The point being that it was not the SERVERS enjoined, but the Footprint 2.0 SERVICE which was enjoined, but only enjoined as configured. Change the configuration, and the service can no longer be enjoined.
     
  14. Mar 1, 2009 #714 of 1468
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    [Mod note: personal attack of Mr. Bimson has been removed]

    Because until there is evidence, even when according to what I linked DISH/SATS even stated they have no idea when the download was installed, that means there actually needs to be something called "proof". If it is called "process", then the process needs to be the proof. And it must be presented.

    Again...
    What is the "proof" that the modified software was a forced download?
     
  15. Mar 1, 2009 #715 of 1468
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    For those that have the need to keep score...

    There is no proof that there was a forced download of modified software. There is no proof that it is installed. There is proof that DISH/SATS did modify their software and place it in the download stream. Some people definitely received the software, but they are unidentifiable.

    Does that mean the orignally adjudged infringing receivers are still running as adjudged? Where is the "proof"?

    I'll take all links of "proof" you want to post. But you will then see how much of a daunting task this is.
     
  16. Mar 1, 2009 #716 of 1468
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    Moderator Warning

    A very simple test one can use to check their posts. Anytime I see the word "you" in a post, I immediately look for potential insults, attacks, or anything else inappropriate.

    So simply don't talk about each other. Talk about the case. Don't use the word "you".

    Thank you (that form is permitted, by the way) for participating. Please keep it to the information.

    Thanks,
    Tom
     
  17. Mar 1, 2009 #717 of 1468
    nobody99

    nobody99 Icon

    807
    0
    May 20, 2008
    This single sentence illustrates the differences between our viewpoints.

    The problem is that DISH doesn't need to convince Greg Bimson that they have ceased infringing. They need to convince a court which has a standing injunction telling them to do something that they haven't done.

    Right, wrong, or indifferent, DISH should have shown more care in documenting the upgrade if for no other reason as to impressive the court.
     
  18. Mar 1, 2009 #718 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    I want to ask this question again.

    If one believes E* was in violation for not disabling the DVR functionalities, and also believes E* still infringes.

    Then why would one try so hard to question the software update record? Why does it matter? Why would it change anything even if E* does have a record to prove the very last DVR had the new software update, as long as E* did not disable the DVRs and E*'s DVRs still infringe?
     
  19. Mar 1, 2009 #719 of 1468
    James Long

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

    45,749
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    You're right ... nothing we say here matters. The opinion of James Long and EVERY OTHER POSTER IN THIS THREAD is equal in not mattering in the grand scheme of things. It is up to DISH to convince the court that they have ceased infringing.

    But since NONE of us are speaking for the court or to it we have ended up with a discussion amongst ourselves as to the merits of the case. The outcome of TiVo vs EchoStar will not be affected by proof offered in this thread but I believe it is fair to ask of those able to answer in this forum what proof they would accept.

    At this point it seems that no proof would be accepted, falling in line with the quote that was part of the post you quoted. If no proof is acceptable then there is no reason to spend time offering any proof here.

    That is a valid opinion ... however it is not a requirement and the precedence shows that even with poor record keeping a field modified product can be found to be non-infringing. There IS the possibility that Judge Folsom will accept that DISH modified their products - and if that modification changes the product to be non-infringing that they have followed "the spirit of the injunction" ... a concept Judge Folsom himself raised.

    The evidence offered in TiVo vs EchoStar (the real case, not the Internet discussion) is mostly sealed confidential attorney eyes only documents than NONE of us have seen (and anyone who has seen them would be under a non-disclosure agreement). It is interesting to see how many people "know" the content of sealed confidential documents. :rolleyes:

    We also have some hearsay reports from a person who admittedly was not present for the entire trial in open court and would have been barred from the courtroom during certain segments of testimony (as noted in the Minutes). I personally find it odd that when a contradiction is found between official court documents and the hearsay some choose to believe the hearsay ... but I digress.

    When the court speaks, I'll listen. :)
     
  20. Mar 1, 2009 #720 of 1468
    Sterling

    Sterling Cool Member

    15
    0
    Feb 17, 2009
    You are right.

    E* still infringes.
    E* has not disabled the illegal devices.
    And no court has said otherwise.

    You are right.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page