Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by geoff, Oct 6, 2008.
Here - as in this thread.... Somebody will be watching for it, I'm sure....
I think Jim5506's definition of changing one's mind is not as you described, finding anything to further strengthen the mind you have already made up
Yes we all tend to do that no doubt, the point here though is whether you are willing to reverse your belief when facts point to that way.
A good example is when peak_reception one time said if the court found E* not in contempt, he would be much less confident at our court system, meaning he was probabaly less willing to change his mind, rather considered the law wrong.
I said if E* was found in contempt and contempt held on appeal, I was willing to admit wrong and would not lose any confidence in the court.
What about you?
Once a product is ruled infringing, all infringing product which has been sold and placed in service is either recalled, disabled or given lost profit damages to the patentee. In order to defeat the recall/disable order on installed infringing devices, the infringer MUST either remove the infringement (by recall or in the case of software, removal of software) AND prove the workaround no longer infringes by moving the court to issue another order removing the infringing product from the scope of the injunction once there is proof presented to the court that the workaround does not infringe.
I take that as a "no" to the question: if the courts agree with E*, will you admit you are wrong?
I thought the question was, "What about you?"
The answer to this question...I probably won't have to, but I'll eat crow if I am wrong.
Thank you, nice to know both you and I at least have the same attitude responding to such question.
Personally I wonder what you (jacmyoung) will want people to eat crow for, since I'm not sure you understand what people believe or are predicting in the many threads.
I think we all have our "what should happen" "what will happen" and "what will never happen" opinions on this case. Some of those opinions overlap. "What I want to happen" is another opinion that gets mixed in there from each party to the conversation.
I'm still curious about how the court is going to make a decision that is fair and just. It certainly won't make all parties happy.
I don't think I have ever asked people to eat crow, only that if one is willing to admit wrong or change his mind. I think I have a fair understanding of what Greg and you believe or are predicting. Unless you believe simply by not agreeing with people is equal to not understanding people.
I have also pointed out the fact that both Curtis52 and I had shown our willingness to change our mind when facts justified such change.
Greg said he would eat crow if he is wrong, so did peak_reception , I did not ask them to. I never said I would eat crow if I am wrong, only that I am perfectly willing to admit wrong. I don't think admitting wrong after the Judge Folsom and the appeals court ruling (one way or the other) will be that much of a deal, but if there are people who feel so strongly about it I am not going to say no they cannot feel that way.
So this is not moot court nor a debate, but more like in a real divorce court?:eek2:
Does anyone think Folsom makes a ruling this month?
I'm thinking we don't hear anything until at least December.
I read somewhere that if he did not rule by 10/1, he could push it into November, had something to do with him being very busy in October. But I don't know where they got that idea.
But one thing I begin to think is, the longer he delays the ruling, the more likely he does not think this case is special If I were him, and knowing very well that E* were in flagrant disregard of my order, I would likely have tried to hand out a ruling sooner than later, if nothing else, I think it is the judge's duty not to allow a flagrant illegal act to go on and on
Others can of course totally disagree. Some had said the judge might want to delay it so E* would end up paying TiVo more damages. To each his own.
HJF said himself if he didn't rule by 10/1 he wouldn't rule until November. I don't think he rules in November either. Everyone knows that his decision is going to be appealed either way he rules. I think he is taking his time to make sure his decision is as bulletproof as possible.
I don't believe he is delaying it for more damages, that is just silly.
Now this is one post/point I can completely agree on.
Of course. Look at the issues upon which a ruling is required...
1) Does KSM apply?
2) Does Walker apply?
3) Does TiVo deserve lost profits?
4) Does TiVo deserve an increase in the unit damages fine?
5) Are the newly modified receivers DISH/SATS sells still infringing?
6) Are the newly modified receivers DISH/SATS sells merely or more than colorably different?
7) Is TiVo entitled to damages for those receivers?
8) If only KSM does apply, what is the next phase?
9) If KSM and Walker apply, what is the next phase and penalty?
10) Once all of the above issues are rendered, what will the order be?
There's an awful lot on the plate...
That combined with his schedule. If he had nothing else to do I'd expect we would have seen a ruling by now - but he's got to get time to get his head wrapped around the case and write something for the appeals court to overturn/uphold. (Preferably uphold, in the judge's view. Anything but "remand". )
Correction, his clerks are working hard on doing research for him and telling him what to decide.
He's got to have a lot of trust in them thar clerks ... considering the spelling and punctuation problems in the injunction and amended injunction I'd hope they would get the legal stuff wrote right.
You can say that again
Except one thing, I don't think one can say his ruling will be appealed for certain. Each party will have to look at his ruling and determine how "appeal-proof" it is then make the decision. Another common reason for no appeal is a post-ruling settlement.
That is something that I think we are all hoping for.
Oh, it will be appealed by the losing party.
If TiVo's contempt motion is granted, DISH/SATS will appeal because KSM was ignored by Judge Folsom. As you've stated, like DISH/SATS counsel, they believe strongly that KSM is the standard that defines this case. If Judge Folsom declares it is not applicable to the case at hand, DISH/SATS has a stunning loss, which can only be corrected upon appeal.
If TiVo's contempt motion is denied, TiVo will appeal becase KSM was the standard used by Judge Folsom to deny contempt. Of course TiVo will appeal, because this means DISH/SATS make unlimited attempts to change code in adjudicated receivers, yet never will they be subject to the disable order of the injunction. But TiVo would most likely have the avenue to file another either motion or action on the receivers with the newer software.