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. Jun 3, 2009 #161 of 2012
    Sterling

    Sterling Cool Member

    15
    0
    Feb 17, 2009
    You can't have seriously typed that with a straight face.

    Did you happen to notice along the way that a Federal Judge has stated the exact opposite on more than one occasion.
     
  2. Jun 3, 2009 #162 of 2012
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    Possible, tho hard to prove at this point. Both TiVo and Replay owned patents, both sued and counter sued each other, then decided that was pointless. Rumor has it that TiVo and Replay settled to never sue each other--so perhaps DIRECTV couldn't sue TiVo and TiVo couldn't sue DIRECTV.

    I suspect that DIRECTV had a working business agreement in place and found ways to keep it going.

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
  3. Jun 3, 2009 #163 of 2012
    Ohioankev

    Ohioankev Legend

    214
    0
    Jan 19, 2006
    True but there is a difference between watching 17 minutes of commercials per hour on cable/dish/fios .. regular TV and at most three minutes on Hulu... plus NetFlix streams TV shows without commercials next day. As a consumer i'm getting frustrated with all of this ... I bought DVRs and I expect them to work until failure due to defect, not because they have to be shut down because of the court of law. From my viewpoint with everything that is going down piracy looks better and better everyday. (just wanted to make myself clear that i'm not saying that I'm going to pirate DBS service ... i'm more of a Hulu/Joost/whoever is streaming for free, no download needed ad supported person when I view online)

    Anyways if DISH makes a licensing agreement with TiVo what are we looking at , a TiVo logo instead of a DISH logo when we go to the DVR screen or a whole UI overhaul ? Honestly I never used a TiVo before but i've seen pictures of their UI from models from a couple years ago and I really didn't care for the UI much.
     
  4. Jun 3, 2009 #164 of 2012
    jpk

    jpk Mentor

    44
    0
    Nov 5, 2008
    Exactly. Dish does not get to cry that they can't afford the penalty for their infringement. They should have thought of that before they infringed.

    What will really happen, in fact is happening right now: the conversation in court or to the media is separate from a private, very intense conversation, that Dish is having with TiVo right now.
     
  5. Jun 3, 2009 #165 of 2012
    HDlover

    HDlover Godfather

    310
    0
    Jul 28, 2006
    Netflix streams TV shows without Ads? Who is paying?
     
  6. Jun 3, 2009 #166 of 2012
    James Long

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

    45,751
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The DVRPAL is not a satellite receiver, is not one of the named receivers and has not been accused by TiVo in a court of law as infringing.

    EchoStar could produce a million different DVRs ... the ones the court is dealing with are the eight named models.

    The appeals court has to look at the basis of the appeal and the harm that would come to DISH/EchoStar if their DVR service was wrongfully terminated. Judge Folsom was WRONG in 2006 when he said not staying the injunction would not cause DISH harm. The appeals court set him straight. I believe he is wrong again and will be set straight again.

    I have noticed that an appeals court judge has said he was wrong.
     
  7. Jun 3, 2009 #167 of 2012
    Sterling

    Sterling Cool Member

    15
    0
    Feb 17, 2009
    Please back that statement up with a quote.

    I don't recall ever reading that any Judge stated that Tivo has not been irreparably harmed.
     
  8. Jun 3, 2009 #168 of 2012
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,303
    34
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    The thing I really found troubling is that Judge Folson said that this also applies to any devices that are merely colorably different as well.

    So - does the VIP series count as "merely colorably different" or not ? and for that matter - the DTVPAL DVR ?
     
  9. Jun 3, 2009 #169 of 2012
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    James, the role of the appeals court is not a do over. The appeals court's role is to review for errors in the application of the law. The appeals court is not a trial court. The facts are already on the record. Witnesses don't testify, etc. In this case there could be several issues to appeal, for instance, the trial court applied the wrong law or the wrong standards, improper jury instructions, determinations by the judge to not admit (or to admit) certain evidence.

    It is my understanding that the appeals court granted a short stay for it to determine if there was any colorable argument for Dish. If the justices believe that there is they may extend the stay or terminate it.

    District Court judges are rarely experts in any part of the law. For example, they hear tax cases, crimes on federal property, torts under federal law, etc. Because of the technical parts of patents it is possible the judge just got it all wrong. But I doubt it. This is a high profile case with all sorts of expert witnesses for all sides. But we'll see.

    Dish has some big risk here. I wonder what might happen - that Dish and TIVO will come to terms that consists of an increase in Dish customer prices? Unfortunately for the consumer Dish is in a bad and risky position.

    In the event the DVR is turned off one can expect a mass exit of customers. How that plays out into a contract term remains to be seen, but one could likely argue a material breach. I think this is the latest in the Dish saga.
     
  10. Jun 3, 2009 #170 of 2012
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    What do you base this on? Your own opinion or as an expert in intellectual property law and a thorough knowledge of Dish and TIVO technology? I am curious of whether you have some real insider knowledge of all of this?
     
  11. Jun 3, 2009 #171 of 2012
    HDlover

    HDlover Godfather

    310
    0
    Jul 28, 2006
    Dish would be irreparably harmed without a stay of DVRs being turned off, not Tivo being harmed. This would be like executing a prisoner before all appeals have been exhausted. Oh, wait a minute, the accused was innocent, too late. Tivo isn't going out of business because of Dish. They'd like you and the judge to believe so, but if they made a better product, and not want a monopoly, they wouldn't be in this condition. Apple isn't the only one making MP3 players.
     
  12. Jun 3, 2009 #172 of 2012
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Judge Folsom did not stay the injunction during appeal, as he felt DISH/SATS would not win every point to negate the infringement that was found and the remedy that he issued.

    The Court of Appeals never did say Judge Folsom was "wrong" when they stayed the appeal. As a matter of fact, the Court of Appeals, upon reviewing the case never directed Judge Folsom to do anything to the injunction. It was upheld by the Court of Appeals and then in full force and effect without intervention from anyone.

    The Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Folsom's decision and injunction.

    Now the Court of Appeals will be receiving an Amended Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction. Most of that is the same material they've seen before.

    I would not be surprised if the Court of Appeals simply allows the amended injunction to stand. Flip a coin; that is my version of the odds that the Court of Appeals will stay this proceeding. Especially when, as Judge Folsom so rightly pointed out, the order to disable receivers found infringing was never followed. Contempt "on the face" was met easily.
     
  13. Jun 3, 2009 #173 of 2012
    James Long

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

    45,751
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I base it on my reading of how the appeals court handled his decision the last time he decided not to stay his injunction.

    Judge Folsom thought it would cause TiVo irreparable harm if DISH DVRs were not disabled. The appeals court ruled in DISH's favor saving DISH from being harmed during the appeals process. TiVo survived the last three years of DISH DVRs continued service. The party at risk here is DISH.

    Fortunately we have a court system to figure these issues out. TiVo and DISH don't have to worry about popular (or unpopular) opinions on the internet. :)
     
  14. Jun 3, 2009 #174 of 2012
    HDlover

    HDlover Godfather

    310
    0
    Jul 28, 2006
    Sure is unfortunate that OTA DVRS are not lucrative enough for TIVO. They can join all the VCR manufacturers in a cry fest.
     
  15. Jun 3, 2009 #175 of 2012
    James Long

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

    45,751
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Their first action was to STAY the injuction ... a near immediate reversal of Judge Folsom's decision not to stay it. They didn't have to direct Judge Folsom to stay the injunction, the appeals court could do it on their own. Perhaps the wording is not 100% to anyone's liking, but the outcome is the same ...
    Eventually (although they did find fault in Judge Folsom's direction to the jury that led to the reversal and remanding of part of the verdict). But the appeals court FIRST action was to protect DISH.
    Why would their decision be any different? The appeals court saved DISH from harm before, why not now? As long as their appeal isn't frivolous the shut off can wait for the case to finish it's path. There are no irreparable damages if DISH keeps operating their DVRs (unless DISH completely runs out of money).
     
  16. Jun 3, 2009 #176 of 2012
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    <Moderator hat one>
    Let us not make this personal. James clearly stated his opinion, he's been polite throughout, and often backs up his claims with careful reasoning or links to excellent sources.

    So please, disagree with him if you wish, and feel welcomed to state that disagreement politely--but don't abuse any member in doing so.

    Thank you,
    Tom
     
  17. Jun 3, 2009 #177 of 2012
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    James, (or anyone else of course)

    Am I right in recalling that in the earlier appeals process the "turn-off" was only during the appeal. And was the "turn-off" order was re-instated as soon as the appeal was complete (and mostly again in TiVO's overall favor)?

    So history might not be a good indicator at this point. Then again... :)

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
  18. Jun 3, 2009 #178 of 2012
    James Long

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

    45,751
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Yes ... but the point I am focusing on (for the moment) is the stay. Last time around Judge Folsom said no, the appeals court said yes --- I expect that history to be repeated. What happens after that stay is up to the parties and the courts.

    Also the amount of work that appeals courts have done on patent infringement issues should not be ignored. The wonderful cases quoted in past threads are generally not appeals courts affirming lower courts ... they are appeals courts correcting lower courts. Reversing and remanding part of this case is just part of what the appeals level has done.

    Which is what makes it fun to watch. It isn't over until everyone agrees that it is over. (The actual parties in the case, that is.)
     
  19. Jun 3, 2009 #179 of 2012
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,547
    1,088
    Nov 13, 2006
    Ah, if I am building a new product today, don't I have to make sure it's not infringing on a patent before I release it for sale? And didn't Dish now prove that they are not a reliable source for derterminaing that their software is not infringing.. since they have basically said its not twice now, and are still saying its not? This makes perfect sense to me.
     
  20. Jun 3, 2009 #180 of 2012
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,547
    1,088
    Nov 13, 2006
    Not to mention, didn't Tivo and Directv enter their most recent agreement before Directv bought Reaplytv?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page