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

TiVo vs EchoStar: Echostar found to be in Contempt

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by Curtis52, Jun 2, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jul 14, 2009 #641 of 2012
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Reading the judge's order above:

    The appeals court stayed Judge Folsom’s order, the order that according to the appeals court “(1) holding EchoStar in contempt of its previous injunction, (2) enjoining EchoStar, and (3) requiring that EchoStar take certain steps in light of its contempt holdings.” (Quoted from the appeals court stay order)

    Compare what the appeals court said to what Judge Folsom said below with differences noted:

    “Having considered the Circuit’s stay order, the Court finds that the order does not preclude this Court from resolving the sanctions issue at this time. Instead, the Circuit merely [(1) which was omitted by Judge Folsom,] [(2)] stayed the injunction in this case and [(3)] stayed this Court’s order that EchoStar take certain steps (i.e. disable DVR functionality) in light of the injunction [rather “in light of its contempt holdings”].”

    The steps related to the additional sanctions are not “in light of the injunction” rather “in light of the contempt holdings.” By playing word game, the judge tried to justify his sanction proceedings. Had he stuck to the appeals court “in light of the contempt holdings” he could not have justified the sanction proceedings, because the contempt holdings (item (1)) were stayed by the appeals court. So he changed it to “in light of the injunction.”

    Just like how Judge Folsom freely interpreted his own injunction and the appeals court KSM case law, he is now freely interpreting the appeals court’s stay order again.

    Or put it differently, the order which was stayed by the appeals court also said:

    Judge Folsom even quoted his own provisions in this order, but failed to recognize that his such order was stayed, meaning his above claimed jurisdictions are also stayed because they are a part of the order that was stayed.
     
  2. Jul 14, 2009 #642 of 2012
    peak_reception

    peak_reception Icon

    961
    0
    Feb 10, 2008
    If Judge Folsom is just making it up as he goes along, clumsily stepping on the CAFC's toes and misinterpreting controlling legal precedent at every turn (i.e. KSM in this case), then why was he just promoted to Chief Justice of his Texas District this past January?
     
  3. Jul 14, 2009 #643 of 2012
    dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    Dont you get it?? A Judge who literally helped to determine how damages are awarded in patent cases and is considered one of the smartest judges on patent law doesn't understand the law.
     
  4. Jul 14, 2009 #644 of 2012
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    And when you think you are the smartest guy in the room is when you begin to do stupid things:)

    What I have demonstrated above is how a simple order can be read by different court differently, even with words substituted to actually change the meaning of the order. If even the simple letters can be changed to fit the court's own will, then why can't the appeals court interpret Judge Folsom's own injunction differently, by interpreting the term "Infringing Products" differently,:) if by doing so only to simply preserve the appeals court's own standards?
     
  5. Jul 14, 2009 #645 of 2012
    Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    28,939
    72
    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    Funny you should mention that ..
     
  6. Jul 14, 2009 #646 of 2012
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Funny you are interested in reading what I say:)

    Likewise just because I believe the judge did so many careless things, does not stop me from reading his things and trying to point out why some of them are careless.

    Because of his carelessness, TiVo might end up being the ultimate victim, after being dragged through this contempt proceeding for over a year, costing them millions of legal expenses, the 2/09 hearing alone was reported to cost them $20M, only to get nothing after the appeals court overturns the judge's ruling due to his carelessness.

    As I said before, he could have just found E* in contempt a year ago, because both him and TiVo believed design around or not did not matter anyway. Playing a little too smart perhaps?:)

    At the very minimum, at this point, E* continues to use the DVRs without the fear of disabling, and today, the judge had to concede that he would not enforce any sanctions against E* even after assessing such sanctions.

    All these after his injunction was issued 3 years ago? Smart, very smart!
     
  7. Jul 15, 2009 #647 of 2012
    dfd

    dfd Legend

    168
    0
    Aug 29, 2008
    Let me see if I've got this right...

    1. Another request by E* was DENIED.
    2. This is another victory for E*

    Again I am reminded of the Black Knight, "just a flesh wound".
     
  8. Jul 15, 2009 #648 of 2012
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Check out Mainer's site, docket 930. It is the order granting TiVo's motion for contempt, which also includes the scheduled sanction hearings. I don't believe that order was stayed.

    Of course, the Court of Appeals is reviewing those decisons granting contempt, but that certainly doesn't mean anything has been done to the order granting contempt. Usually the only order that is stayed the injunction and damages. A bond must be posted for the awarded damages during the stay, because if the ruling is upheld, that money then goes directly to the plaintiff.
     
  9. Jul 15, 2009 #649 of 2012
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    As I said earlier, "the order" claimed "jurisdictions" over the assessment of any additional sanctions, and since "the order" was stayed, everything in it was stayed, including such "jurisdictions" claimed in the order.

    I am no lawyer, correct me if I am wrong. I only used common sense, not strict legal interpretation.
     
  10. Jul 15, 2009 #650 of 2012
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the finding of guilty via literal infringement because of the terms "separates audio and video", based off of the word "and". Something about how DISH/SATS used the hardware did not include the "and". It was a very literal interpretation of the claim.

    If the "order" was stayed, it was only one order, and it would be the one enjoining DISH/SATS from continuing infringement and to disable, as well as the payment for damages . That would allow the other order, finding contempt and ordering sanctions briefings, to be kept alive and well.
     
  11. Jul 15, 2009 #651 of 2012
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    You did not answer my question, by staying the order which claims jurisdiction over the assessment of additional sanctions, does it also stay the jurisdiction as well?

    The judge did not even mention the other order, so let's stick to what parties are arguing about, it is "the order" that is in question. As I pointed out already the judge freely omitted one item mentioned by the appeals court, then changed the wording of another item mentioned by the appeals court.

    Now I am saying there is another piece of evidence that the judge simply has no jurisdiction over the sanction hearing during the appeal process.

    However the judge also whispered to E*, hey I would not enforce my sanctions, so let's drop it OK?

    What is any good of an order if it will not be enforced? Just for show I guess. The judge couldn't even get Charlie to blink when he wasn't for show, what do you expect now he tells Charlie it is just for show?
     
  12. Jul 15, 2009 #652 of 2012
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    There is an order from Judge Folsom granting the motion for contempt and ordering briefing regarding sanctions. That order was not stayed. Therefore, that order still stands and is in effect. The issues regarding the sanctions for contempt are still allowed to continue.
    Oh, if Judge Folsom's judgment and findings are upheld, then the order regarding sanctions will also be enforced.
     
  13. Jul 15, 2009 #653 of 2012
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Again that was not the argument by the judge, TiVo nor E*. Their arguments all centered on "the order," not the other order. The judge's decision is not based on the other order, only his interpretation of "the order." And I have already pointed out his tendency to either ignore what the appeals court said, or blatantly alter what the appeals court said.

    Maybe he believes he could do that because as some posters stated that he was the smartest guy, the chief judge, but IMHO, the highest ranking district judge is still one pecking order below the lowest ranking circuit judge:)

    That is a given, the whole thing hinges on whether E* can win on appeal or not. The point however is, after arguing so passionately against any delay and any stay, supposedly in the interest of serving the justice, why now tell a gross offender that I am going to stay my order, before even issuing the order? What kind of message does it send to that SOB?:)

    Unless he understood he might be on shaky ground.
     
  14. Jul 15, 2009 #654 of 2012
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    It appears to me that DISH/SATS' argument was that the stay applied to docket 930, the order granting the motion for contempt and the scheduling of sanctions. It also appears to me that TiVo's argument was the stay issued by the Court of Appeals did not apply to the order containing sanctions, and that Judge Folsom agreed.

    So it was most definitely the argument by TiVo and accepted by the judge.

    The Court of Appeals did not stay the order contained in docket 930. Therefore, the motion granting contempt and the ordered scheduling of sanctions stands.
     
  15. Jul 15, 2009 #655 of 2012
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    No party ever argued if 930 was stayed or not, so your argument that 930 is not stayed has no bearing on what the parties' were arguing, that was my point.

    All arguments (by E*, TiVo and the judge) centered on whether by staying "the order" the appeals court also stayed the "finding of contempt" and if so, does staying of the finding of contempt preclude 930 from proceeding. Again the arguments had nothing to do with whether the appeals court stayed 930 or not.

    On that particular point, the judge simply omitted the fact the appeals court specifically said their order would stay (1) finding of contempt...

    Additionally, in justifying his decision, he also changed the appeals court's third item from "in light of the contempt holdings" to "in light of the injunction."

    Different words mean different things. An action "in light of the contempt holdings" must first rely on the notion that the "finding of contempt" is not stayed. Yet an action "in light of the injunction" only relies on the fact from 4/08 to 6/09 the injunction was in effect.

    The reason the judge was forced to put the words in the appeals court's mouth is precisely because he could not face the reality that the "finding of contempt" was also stayed. So he first ignored that item (1), then changed the wording of item (3) to try to avoid the issue again.

    Let me say this one more time, the judge did not say he could proceed with 930 because 930 was not stayed by the appeals court, nor did E*, nor did TiVo make such argument, only you did.
     
  16. Jul 15, 2009 #656 of 2012
    manderson

    manderson New Member

    4
    0
    Jun 2, 2009
    As you have already pointed out, you are not a lawyer and it's good that you are not. You have on many occasions bordered on (or outright) questioned the integrity of Judge Folsom. If you were a lawyer, you'd be flirting with violations of legal ethics.

    The fact that you are not a lawyer, however, does not grant you carte blanche to question the motives or integrity of the honorable judge. We can all agree that this case has presented some interesting and complex issues about which reasonable minds can differ. I'm sure we can all debate the merits those issues without dragging the honorable judge through the mud.
     
  17. Jul 15, 2009 #657 of 2012
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    The problem is just like that with the disable order.

    There was one order which says that DISH/SATS was found in contempt, where remedies were provided, ordering DISH/SATS to pay additional money, enjoining DISH/SATS from infringement, and compelling DISH/SATS to disable certain equipment.

    Just because the Court of Appeals used the wording about the finding of contempt in an order does not negate the actual order granting the motion for contempt:
    The only order that was stayed was the Amended Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction. TiVo argued the stay only related to that document, and not to the sanctions proceedings, which were on another order which also granted a finding of contempt.

    That is the jist of TiVo's argument. It was the Amended Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction which was stayed, not the order granting the motion for contempt. It certainly wasn't that the finding of contempt was stayed.
     
  18. Jul 15, 2009 #658 of 2012
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    If you want to dispute what I said about how he managed to manipulate the appeals court's words (or not) be my guest, but using his authority to try to scare me? It is a fallacy called, well "appeal to the authority.":)

    Minds can certainly differ, but facts do not, either you dispute them or accept them. Avoiding them do not help your argument.
     
  19. Jul 15, 2009 #659 of 2012
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    You still did not get my point. It may be true that the appeals court wording in one order does not impact another order, but to prove it, you must stick to the wording, not ignore them and then change them, in order to prove your point.

    If you are forced to first ignore some of the wording, then compelled to change some of the other wording, in order to prove your point, what dose that say about the merit of your point?

    And this is not even the real point I am making, what I am saying is the judge's latest decision demonstrated his ability to ignore the appeals court wording if he can, and when he cannot, he has the ability to change the wording, in order to fit his argument.

    If he can do so now, he could have done so before, when he applied the appeals court's wording in KSM and other case law.
     
  20. Jul 15, 2009 #660 of 2012
    manderson

    manderson New Member

    4
    0
    Jun 2, 2009
    You missed the entire point of my request. I was not arguing the merits of either position. Instead, I pointed out that reasonable minds could find merit with both sides in this case.

    Nor was I trying to "scare" you. As you are not a lawyer, you have nothing to fear.

    I was merely asking you to leave the good judge's integrity out of this debate. It's not a "fallacy", it's called respect.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page