DBSTalk Forum banner

Discussions Showcase Albums Media Media Comments Tags

1-20 of 496 Results
  1. General DISH™ Discussion
    There's this thing called jurisdiction...
  2. General DISH™ Discussion
    The patent case was decided almost five years ago. This is completely about contempt.
  3. General DISH™ Discussion
    There are plenty of ways to punish contempt. This is no longer "a patent case". It is a contempt case. As currently ruled, failure to disable is punishable by contempt, and sanctions can take many forms. Or perhaps you need to show us a case where "there is no practical means to punish a...
  4. General DISH™ Discussion
    You are missing the point. It goes to both the original finding of contempt by Judge Folsom and again by the CAFC in their 2-1 decision. Both courts have stated that failure to follow the disable order is a contemptable offense. If upheld, that means there is ample law to punish if contempt...
  5. General DISH™ Discussion
    Don't you think that is a big "IF"? What you are basically saying with this sentence is that the CAFC will find the modified DVR's non-infringing (which is far from a slam dunk). More likely would be a reversal of the infringment analysis, which means even if a new action is required, the...
  6. General DISH™ Discussion
    But NOT if the disable clause stands.
  7. General DISH™ Discussion
    With the edit of the preceding post: Yes, but the problem is once the injunction under review becomes active and still has the disable clause. DISH/SATS won't be able to "interpret" and will most likely have to disable those DVR's.
  8. General DISH™ Discussion
    It depends, specifcally on what is tossed... For example, the infringement regarding the Hardware Claims were reversed and remanded, and the injunction mentions they were found infringing. However, that change did not cause the injunction to be rewritten. And I still don't believe the...
  9. General DISH™ Discussion
    A motion, which is by definition NOT a "notification". DISH/SATS would like the court to rule on something. That implies a motion would be required. If it is clear that "Infringing Products" must be redefined in order to get some kind of tortured interpretation, maybe you aren't clear. The...
  10. General DISH™ Discussion
    That's why I asked (also because I don't know) what the sealed documents are. Put it this way: if it isn't a motion, it could be considered a waste of the court's time. Because there would have been a motion for clarification of the injunction, something that Judge Folsom would most likely have...
  11. General DISH™ Discussion
    I'm not assigning blame, just pointing out the hypocritical nature of this next thought: Speed of the court is supposed to work against TiVo while DISH/SATS defends itself, yet if DISH/SATS wants the court to consider something such as a workaround, it is supposed to be fast-tracked? I recall...
  12. General DISH™ Discussion
    I am simply pointing out that you believe DISH might not have to pay anything, but my point was simply they have done so already, and it is all that TiVo has to show for seven years of litigation. That's because TiVo received an injunction that the adjudged infringing products with an end user...
  13. General DISH™ Discussion
    Uh, DISH/SATS paid just over $100 million back in 2008. There is currently no order to follow, as the order is stayed. I said in this case KSM is overbroad. That does not equate to the case law being "no good". We asked the court for a stay because if the injunction is not stayed, we'll have to...
  14. General DISH™ Discussion
    Along with the fact that the court was never informed... Funny. Other than just over $100 million, over seven years of litigation is still being tied up in the courts and blame for failure to act on a motion is being placed on the arbiter, who is supposed to remain blameless. That must sum up...
  15. General DISH™ Discussion
    Just pointing out that DISH/SATS never informed the court of the workaround. TiVo did. However, just for giggles, yes, DISH/SATS should have filed a motion for clarification, stay or not. But that would have ruined their gameplan to game the system by forcing an appeal during a contempt...
  16. General DISH™ Discussion
    New standard? The standard on any recall or destroy order has been absolute. The standard for "disable" will probably be, as well, and that is not a new standard. I simply expect existing standards to be upheld. I'd expect a decision soon, as defined by Dish Network. :)
  17. General DISH™ Discussion
    The CAFC may mandate that Judge Folsom modify his order. They may just let the order stand as-is (like they did almost three years ago). And you wonder why I say we may as well wait for the CAFC ruling. :) I don't think DISH/SATS will get off that easy. I really think the CAFC will stick it...
  18. General DISH™ Discussion
    Bolded for emphasis: I get it. No one can blame DISH/SATS for not disabling units because they don't want to disable the units, as it may impact existing customers and more importantly DISH/SATS' bottom lines. So court orders are simply "guidelines". I understand now. That's why I asked if...
  19. General DISH™ Discussion
    What requirement? Currently, there isn't any requirement, as the injunction is stayed. It depends upon the outcome of the appeal as well as DISH/SATS ability to file their motion. I know that Dish Network had a couple of different scenarios regarding workarounds. Does anyone recall if Dish...
  20. General DISH™ Discussion
    The injunction is currenly stayed, so the pre-approval requirement is also stayed. Since there is no active order, there cannot be contempt. If the en banc panel at the CAFC upholds contempt and lifts the stay: 1) Upholding contempt only applies to the failure to disable and the sales of...
1-20 of 496 Results
Top