Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by James Long, Jun 30, 2008.
I wasn't aware there was another option.
Perhaps rephrasing that as "I refuse to do any more idle speculation until 9/4"
Everybody has the right to sue. I just think this thing will be settled long before the Delaware case comes in to play.
Pretty good stuff, only one thing, if E* is ruled in contempt on or soon after 9/4, and the ruling is then upheld on appeal, even if the Supreme Court accepts the petition and reverse the judgment and vacate the injunction in a later time, the contempt will still stand because the contempt will be a violation of a court order, not influenced by the final judgment or its reversal.
That said however, if E* is found in contempt in the end, they will disable the DVRs on the list, period. Not doing so will have the most serious consequences. Charlie had never disobeyed a final court order before.
While I believe E* will prevail, the notion Charlie will disobey a final court order has no basis at all.
The problem is you agreed with the post prior to your last post, and by doing so Tivo's argument against E*'s suit in DE can be tossed out, therefore DE should have more reason to take E*'s case.
I think that was what Curtis was saying.
As far as any settlement, Charlie has said very clearly he will consider it after the appeals court rules, if it will ever get that far in the worst case scenario for him. Otherwise he is ready to settle after he wins on or a little after 9/4, and by that my take is he wants the damages re-assessed in exchange for some kind of licensing agreement with Tivo maybe.
jacmyoung, I for one am glad to have you back. This thread is pretty bare and boring without you. Here's to watching events unfold in the coming month :goodjob:
Really? How many final orders of a court has Mr Ergen had to consider obeying (or not)?
The injunction was a final order of the court. The question of September 4th is whether or not that order was obeyed. There seems to be a lot of people questioning whether or not that final order was obeyed. That in itself is basis to question whether DISH will obey a "final order".
Unless you're redefining final order as you have done before with other terms.
And if you are redefining refer to the first question, how many of your definition "final order" has DISH faced? Is there reasonable precedent to show which way DISH will go? One "final" case? Two?
That was not the question I asked. Show me one time he had disobeyed a final court order. Your notion that he will refuse to disable the listed DVRs even if the appeals court upholds a contempt ruling has no basis at all. Clever change of the question does not answer my question.
Everyone in his/her life must consider how to obey the law and order all the time.
This order was not disobeyed, he believes he obeyed the order, the final verdict has yet to be rendered, not even on or soon after 9/4.
If your notion that once an order is issued, and once a motion is granted to show of cause why the party subject to the order has not violated the order, somehow automatically means the party has disobeyed the order, then all I can say is, well let me just stop from going further for now.
I have been busy watching HD Olympics, free HBO/SHO/Starz/Cinemax HDs using both E* and D* HDDVRs
It is your claim. Why does everyone else have to prove your claims? Prove it yourself!
- And now Mr Post Edit has changed the post I was responding to removed the above and changed it to the following:
I did show you a time he has disobeyed a final court order. In less than 30 days we will see a court rule if that disobedience will lead to a judgement of contempt.
A not so clever change of your retort does not change how wrong you are.
BTW: If you need another example go back to the distants case where an injunction was issued requiring DISH to cease delivering distants to all customers who were not qualified. That injunction was a final order of the court. DISH refused to follow it and their refusal played a major part in the issuance of the much stronger injunction requiring DISH to cease delivering distants to ALL customers regardless of qualification.
So ... what final orders have DISH followed?
It doesn't matter what HE believes ... the court issued an order that was labeled final. It is obvious that you want to completely ignore the court's definition of "final". Without that court standard your argument is once again irrelevant.
Conceeding the argument would be a good idea.
Read a little more ... write a little less - at least figure out what you're going to say before submitting it. It makes it difficult to respond when you keep editing your posts.
If the court rules him not in contempt, he will not have disobeyed the order. So my question still stands, show me one example he disobeyed a final court order?
We don't know if he disobeyed this order or not, just because you think so has no bearing on what the court will say. Even if this court rules him in contempt, as long as the appeals court overturns the ruling, he will still have not disobeyed the court order.
The funny thing is Tivo in an attempt to prove E* not obeying the order, intentionally avoided the term "Infringing Products" explicitly used in the order, instead used its own term "Adjudicated Receivers". According to some of you, once "Infringing Products", always infringing products, if so you need to ask why Tivo was so shy about using this term? Why not proudly use the "Infringing Products" term in its responses? Why didn't Tivo insist the judge use the "Adjudicated Receiver" term in the order?
By Tivo avoiding the term "Infringing Products" you can see how the judge may teach them a lesson. Once a product no longer infringes, it is no longer an "Infringing Product".
Please don't lecture me on that, because it will make you look very bad when the judge rules in favor of E*. I have read plenty of cases, they all pointed to one conclusion.
Please read my ENTIRE post - and learn what a final order is before throwing around the term loosely.
Another example of poor reading. The court isn't ruling on your posting skills. Constantly changing your posts demonstrates your impulsiveness. It also makes people wonder what you took back via edit. As noted, it IS difficult to have a conversation with someone who keeps changing/redacting what they say.
But that is not really the topic ... you made a claim that Mr Ergen (who you called Charlie) obeys all final orders of the court and you refuse to back up that claim. Judge Folsom won't be ruling on this ... you only face the judgment of your peers and other posters who read your posts.
I said Charlie has never disobeyed a final court order, how can you insist I prove it by showing an example he did disobey? You have to give me an example to the contrary to dispute my claim.
You have yet done so. Saying anything else is changing the subject, which I usaully don't care to waste time on.
If you are bothered by my edits, have a nice night sleep and come back tomorrow to respond. There is no need to feel compelled to slam a pro E* post in an E* forum as fast as it comes up
It isn't slamming ... it is just frustrating to type a reply to something that has been redacted and then have to go back and reply to the rest of the post that some impulsive poster didn't have the patience to get right the first time. How long do you need to get it right? I gave you 12 hours to edit that one.
As for your claims:
You said Charlie has never disobeyed a final court order.
I have given you two examples of a court's "final order" that has been disobeyed. You have not proven your point. Your claim that Charlie has never disobeyed a final order is false - and easily proven false by the introduction of any "final order" not obeyed.
My secondary question was how many "final orders" has Charlie obeyed. I have asked you for examples of a "final order" Charlie has obeyed. You have not provided one. Can you provide more than one?
A scheduling conference has been set for Sept. 11 in Delaware.
The Dish response to TiVo's Delaware motion to dismiss is available. There are some redactions.
Sorry I did not read two of them, I will try to go back and try to find them if I could. You said two, I could only remmeber reading one which I disputed.
Charlie has obeyed this final order by removing all the "Infringing Products" as specified in the order, outside of the scope of the order because these same products are now no longer infringing on the patent, therefore no longer under the control of this order.
I know you disagree, but you simply can not use this one as an example to prove your notion, because the court has not ruled on it yet. I still don't know which was your second example.
Besides, I do not have to offer you any example of Charlie "obeying a final court order" because the question here is whether Charlie had ever disobeyed a final court order, as you have claimed he did. I made no claims of any kind, I only disputed your claim, so to turn around ask me to provide examples of Charlie obeying court orders is trying to chang the subject. The burden of proof is on you since you made that claim, I did not make any claim.
Again attacking my habit of editing is arguing against the man (An ad hominem argument), another fallacy in debate, when you can't debate on the question at hand. I have offered you a simple solution, wait for a day, by that time you know I will have done with all the editing, you will have plenty of time to work on it.
Well I don't know if the DE court will look into the outcome of the 9/4 hearing as a determining factor.
Now I went back and saw your second example, no in that case Charlie still did not disobey the final court order, he followed the order and turned off the distants. He then made an arrangement to have another carrier use his facility to take over the distants. Did you mean he disobeyed the order for doing so?
The court had recently found Charlie not in contempt of that order by transferring the distants delivery to another carrier, meaning he did not disobey the order.
It goes to show you one simply cannot assume he is now disobeying a final court order just because you believe so, the court must make a decision whether or not he has disobeyed the current order. If he is not in contempt after 9/4, or even if he is, but on appeal the ruling is overturned, then he will not be in violation of the order, therefore not disobeyed the order.
The distant case is a perfect example. You need to first understnad what we are arguing about, we are arguing whether he ever "disobeyed a final court order", not whether he ever violated the law.
He had clearly violated the law in the distant case, and he also had violated the patent law in this case, but that is not the same as him disobeying a final court order.