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. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    And yet as I pointed out earlier, Judge Folsom now says Charlie's belief that the new design no longer infringed would be taken at its face value, as a result, the judge ruled the violation was not willful, no double or treble, and the licensing rate is still at $1.25.

    What had caused such change of heart? The only thing happened between the contempt ruling and the sanction ruling is the E*'s letter, asking him to take a look at the PTO's Office action on the TiVo's software claims.
     
  2. dfd

    dfd Legend

    168
    0
    Aug 29, 2008
    How could a good idea that is easily reverse engineered be protected in these cases? Private thugs perhaps?

    The PTO may not be perfect but it is the law of the land.

    Communism and anarchy do not seem like better solutions.
     
  3. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    All I am saying is, before you attack scooper for being communist, at least first figure out who is more close to communism, his advocating a pure market force approach, or your advocating of government protection?
     
  4. dfd

    dfd Legend

    168
    0
    Aug 29, 2008
    Do you ever pause before making these giant leaps? You've been nothing but wrong when predicting what Folsom must do and then bad mouthed him when he didn't do what you stated he must. Now you think you know what made him make his ruling even though he stated his reasons in the ruling.
     
  5. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Your above rant contains nothing of substance.

    Show me where Judge Folsom stated his reasons when he said he decided to take Charlie's belief at its face value?

    He never believed in Charlie, else he would never have said how badly Charlie had violated his order and how severely TiVo had been wronged by Charlie.

    Show me one single reason stated by Judge Folsom in his sanction ruling why suddenly, now, he decided to take Charlie's belief at its face value.
     
  6. scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,303
    34
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    I think the private thugs idea would be better than we have now...

    And yes - I think the Patent system is THAT BROKEN right now.
     
  7. dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    Uhm, trade secrets are protected by the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and by common law. Some would argue that the government gives trade secrets more protection because of the theoretical unlimited time for protection.
     
  8. dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    True, they are analysts, though often wrong. Let's not confuse Goldman Sachs with the trash website that promoted the wonderful foolish four investment strategy.
     
  9. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    What do you expect? That give trade secrets only 20 years, after that people must go to "the church" and come clean of their secrets?:)

    And BTW, reverse engineering is actually allowed, otherwise why is there need to allow TiVo (or E*) to keep their software codes as trade secret? The patent law is not to prevent reverse engineering, only to prohibit infringement. If E* (or ATT, or Verizon) manages to read TiVo's patent descriptions, come up with their own software codes to perform all the steps of the TiVo's invention, except one step, it is perfectly legal, as long as they do not do so by spying on the TiVo's secret software codes.

    So you see, dfd's so called reason (prevent reverse engineering) for having the patent law is not even a valid one.
     
  10. Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    Would it be possible to move the off topic "general disagreement with the patent system" posts to a more general forum?
     
  11. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    If a "general disagreement" leads to some "specific disagreements" then I think they can still be on topic.

    As I stated earlier, the patent law does not prohibit "reverse engineering", to the contrary it encourages it. The purpose of the patent law, foremost, is not to give limited monopoly to the patent owners, this is only the secondary means to encourage the inventors to fully disclose their inventions.

    The #1 reason for having a patent system is that the inventors are encouraged to fully disclose their inventions, in a way that when a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention reads the fully disclosed invention, he/she may duplicate the invention without undue experimentation. Why? So ordinary skilled persons can use the innovative ideas and apply them in the commerce, as long as they do not infringe each and every step of the invention.
     
  12. dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    My understanding of your point, the government doesn't protect trade secrets; my point, yes they do.
     
  13. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Not what I said. For starter, I never said the government should not protect patent rights, nor shall the government not protect trade secrets.

    I was only pointing out dfd's incorrect assertion that when scooper said he liked to abandon the current patent law, it was a communist idea. I have pointed out why dfd was wrong for making such accusation on many levels.

    On the other hand, I am all for the patent system, even though I believe we need to reform it. I am also for protecting trade secrets. I do not consider either idea communist:)
     
  14. dfd

    dfd Legend

    168
    0
    Aug 29, 2008
    My point about reverse engineering was supposed to be that an object that is easily reverse engineered, like a valve, cannot be protected by 'trade secret'. Once the product hits the market there is no putting that genie back in the bottle.

    And the inventor deserves the rewards and the only way to protect the inventor is via the patent.
     
  15. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    What about objects that are not easily reverse engineered, like the "source object", "transform object" or "sink object"?:) Do people even understand what the #^*@ these "objects" are?
     
  16. deaincaelo

    deaincaelo AllStar

    70
    0
    Feb 5, 2009
    which is different from tuning to digital subchannels how?

    This is about the Software Claims, which do not have such requirement. [/QUOTE]

    All true. This does not mean that the broadcom chip did not perform the infringing processes at the time.

    I agree. In fact, I think they are infringements. now look up prior art. Echostar didn't psyciacally steal tivo's patent from th future before it existed.

    Sorry, I don't see where claim 31 says time warp. Also, I'm not certain that's completely true.
    Sorry, no. You can do so on a device made by the Go-Video company almost a decade before Tivo existed. here's a patent

    Also, I don't see where claim 31 says anything about recording and watching simultaneously.

    And no one else is harmed by Tivo being granted exclusivity over technology that previously was available to everyone? :nono:

    Dish had access to the patented process before Tivo. They used it. They had the right to use it. So did I. Now, they don't. That means I don't. And when I have something and it's taken away from me without consent or compensation, theres a word for that, even if it's done legally.


    No, it does not. I don't believe I said once in that post that anyone did not infringe.

    I think it's possible. However, those claims have been reversed and remanded and engineered out in good faith. The only thing Dish has a standing conviction for right now is a claim interpretation that flies in the face of common sense.
     
  17. deaincaelo

    deaincaelo AllStar

    70
    0
    Feb 5, 2009
    google and you know as much as I. I don't have access to Echostar, or Tivo's, patent portfolios.

    E* and Tivo are both going into this thing tooth and nail. They both rolled in the mud. I can't blame them for trying to slow Tivo down when they're past appeals and don't even have a trial date yet after 4 years. Let's say for a moment that this is like replay- where neither can make a functional DVR without cross-patents. E* could lose all it's rights to enforce it's IP against Tivo, not to mention equal footing as an equal inventor, just because the difference in time gave Tivo enough leverage.

    It's not the money that's stopping a licensing arrangement. In fact, one of Tivo's objections is that they are basically forced into a mandatory licensing arrangement right now.
     
  18. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    I'd go into the other points, but this one seems more interesting:
    Time difference? Just go back and look at the fights regarding the telephone patent.

    And although there only appears to be one infringement suit against TiVo regarding DVR functionality, it is currently stayed. So it appears that TiVo is looking like the Alexander Graham Bell, while DISH/SATS is Elisha Gray.
     
  19. scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,303
    34
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC

    IF Echostar/Dish is infringing - it is NOT because of the PID filter - the infringement has to be elsewhere. If you're insisting that the using the PID filter is what makes them infringing - I'll put you into the same category as the "Expert Witlesses".

    Because if you're insisting that PID filter is what makes them infringe - there will never be any other device that allows anybody to record OTA TV anymore until the '389 patent expires.
     
  20. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    There are numerous aggregated elements which make the receiver, and therefore DISH/SATS, infringe upon the patent. One such piece is the PID filter, as it fulfills the "parse" element claim limitation. It isn't just the fact there is a PID filter that infringement can be found. It is the rest of the steps as well.

    So I'll be just as happy as other so-called experts to be in the "Expert Witlesses" program.

    Except so far, I've been right.
    Like I said, it is only one piece of the puzzle.

    If DISH/SATS downloaded software today that could not record while playing back a recorded show, technically DISH/SATS would be off the hook for infringement. And there would be DVR functionality, just more limited than is currently installed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page