Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by Curtis52, Nov 20, 2008.
You say ta-ma-tow, I say two-may-toe, Charlie wanted to call the whole thing off....
Very rarely does one court overturn the decision of another court. Not unless new evidence comes into light, or there is a major breakthrough. Just going to a another court for a 'second opinion' isn't going to yield very much...
Apologies, I appreciate the background here, but I fail to see the difference between Tivo strong-arming Dish into makeing a decision, or my claim that Tivo had forced the decision. I'm sorry but it still sounds like extortion to me...
No, I do not 'like' frivilous lawsuits, and nor would I ever disrespect this forum in an attempt to rally support here. I was only commenting on what an amusing turn of events that would be, but certainly not with any intentions beyond that.
And that is where it could get sticky ...
Under the most TiVo friendly reading of their patent claims 31 & 61 even a 301 or other non-DVR receiver could be found infringing because it fulfills all of the steps.
The injunction applying to the eight named receiver models demands the DVR functionality be disabled and defines said functionality as writing TV data to and reading it from a hard drive. A step not specified in TiVo's patent claims (the storage device isn't specified in claim 31 or 61). A hard drive is the storage device that TiVo uses and DISH also uses in their DVRs but the court cherry picked that particular step as being the one that needed removal instead of ordering DISH to remove software that infringed on TiVo's claims.
The injunction allowed all other steps to remain in place - including those in the hardware claims that were later reversed and remanded.
So now we have a problem ... the one thing DISH was ordered to do was to disable writing television data to the hard drive. Last I checked there is still television data being written to the hard drive on the named receivers. That would place DISH in contempt.
Unless of course there is something that has been over looked ... perhaps common sense? The same common sense that says that if DISH is no longer infringing then their 'contempt' isn't a big problem? The same common sense that will hopefully define the difference between TiVo's process and DISH's new process.
Asking you to back up your statement that Tivo has been "unethical" seems to have touched a nerve. You can shoot the messenger all you want, but you are 100% wrong. You can whine to the moderators all you want, but when you make over the top statements like "consumer terrorists", expect to be called out.
I now know that your comments come from having a horse in this race and will drop the subject.
In no particular order:
DISH/SATS agrees that PID analysis meets the limitation for the "parsing" component of the step of the claims.
DISH/SATS new software did not eliminate that analysis.
TiVo has not pushed that any DVR infringes. TiVo has only gone after eight models of DISH/SATS DVR's, which were found infringing. TiVo still believes the modifications made to those eight models still continue to infringe in a manner not much different than what was found.
So what if the PID filters are allowed to remain if DVR functionality is supposed to be disabled? A standard RECEIVER does not infringe as it has no DVR functionality. A DVR RECEIVER infringes if it has the same functionality as patented by TiVo, as TiVo builds DVR RECEIVERS.
Good lord, pay attention: a standard receiver does not have a transform object. Therefore, there is no way for a standard receiver to EVER INFRINGE upon the TiVo Time Warp patent.
Again, DISH/SATS has admitted that PID analysis meets the parsing limitation in the component of the step of the primary claims. If some were objective, people would stop arguing about that evidence which has been placed on record, instead of trying to re-create the wheel.
The courts are narrowing this down to what does and doesn't infringe ... which is good.
Most people here are either unqualified or too focused on their side to look at the situation fairly. Which is why we have courts, lawyers and expert witnesses who know a hell of a lot more about the specifics than anyone here to handle it all.
Of course it's OK for a satellite receiver to use PID filtering, but we're talking about a "satellite recorder" a "DVR" a "TIVO" if you will.
Tivo doesn't have a patent on PID filtering, they have a patent on PID filtering (parsing, analyzing) to a "recorder" "DVR".
Why do you think that Chuckles and his hired guns have gone out of their way not to mention PID filtering in their patent/defense?
Bottom line is the boxes still "parse" parsing = analyzing and analyzing = continued infringement.
DING! We have a winner!!!
Back to reality ... court filings made late yesterday by DISH. (Sealed)
872 Filed & Entered: 12/12/2008 Sealed Motion
Emergency SEALED MOTION of Defendants to Compel Plaintiff to Comply with Disclosure Order by Echostar Satellite LLC, Echostar Communications Corporation, Echostar DBS Corporation, Dish Network Corporation, Echosphere Limited Liability Company. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Text of Proposed Order) (Krevans, Rachel)
It looks like TiVo didn't make their disclosure on time and DISH needs to compel the response.
Anyone remember what it was that Tivo asked for in discovery after Chuckles had his lawyers announce that he deployed a super top secret "design around" that E* refused to supply?
It wasn't code because Charlie forked that over... I think it was something to do with "real world" testing or something...
One of you guys should be able to read my mind and help me out here...
no nerve...just my interpretation of the facts that are just as relevant as anyone elses interpretation of the facts. I know I am right. You like to believe you are right. And you have no basis by which to prove me wrong other than your emotive reasoning and a belief in an authority that I regard as questionable all the way around. Period. You drop the subject for no other reason than because its the smart thing for you to do.
I consider Tivo's conduct in this trial unethical and do not like they way they run their business. So much that I, once being one of thier biggest supporters, turned my back on them. You may just want to consider my position and try to understand it first. It might make more sense to you if you did, and didn't just jump on it and hide behind your purely emotive stance like its some kind of joke....
If this is true all I can say is LOL!!!
Seriously, I don't care whose side your on, this is getting freaking ridiculous!! :lol:
If I were Folsom I would tell Rogers and Charlie that they are going to fight to the finish in a steel cage match. Winner takes all....
What a joke...
...and in the real world, parsing and analyzing are NOT the same thing.
...which is one of my major point as to why I consider the courts incompetent.
JUDGE'S RULING PUTS DEFENDANT OUT OF BUSINESS IN ADDITION TO 100 MILLION IN DAMAGES!!
Could this be the scorched earth aftermath of a TiVo win over EchoStar/Dish incurring massive damages and millions of DVRs shut down?
Nope. Rather, this was the outcome of Mattel v. MGA Entertainment in a copyright infringement lawsuit finally decided by a jury last July and followed up by Judge Stephan Larson of Riverside California this December 3rd, 2008. Here's the link from Time Magazine online:
Mattel v. MGA Entertainment is better known as Barbie v. Bratz Barbie just cleaned the floor with Bratz in a sweeping judgment and, according to the article, MGA is to stop making and selling the Bratz dolls shortly after this holiday shopping season. MGA's Chief Executive Issac Larian calls the ruling "shocking and unfair" and plans to appeal.
The article says that the ruling effectively hands control of the popular Bratz brand over to Mattel for them to do what they please with it including the option of shutting the line down, i.e. no more Bratz a distinct possibility.
To understand just how Draconian this ruling is you need to know that Bratz provides HALF the income of family-owned MGA according to the article.
This coming February there will be an additional hearing (sound familiar?) to determine the complete resolution details.
What's not discussed is how this ruling could also devastate millions of little girls who could be shortly and suddenly deprived of the sexy Bratz they've come to love and treasure over the past 8 years!
Is this not tantamount to terrorism and child abuse?! Why would Mattel torture little girls in this way? Why would a jury concur and sanction such abuse? How could a Federal Judge allow such abuse to go forward, even to the point where he makes it possible for Mattel to destroy Bratz forever if they so please (and probably will, such is their hatred for children so evident in this whole shameful affair).
WHO WILL DEFEND THE LITTLE GIRLS? THE INNOCENTS CAUGHT IN MATTEL'S CROSSHAIR'S. SHAME! SHAME!! SHAME!!!
There is a recall? Is there some elven magic that will cause the Bratz already in homes to cease to function? Not quite the same thing.
The court could just order the end of Bratz ... at least there is a hope that they will live on.
Back to topic ... and our own reality.
I think it was the test bench.
You know, DISH/SATS supplied the code, but not the compiler nor the other tools that would probably help understand what the hardware was doing in conjunction with the software.
parse (pärs) Pronunciation Key
v. parsed, pars·ing, pars·es
1. To break (a sentence) down into its component parts of speech with an explanation of the form, function, and syntactical relationship of each part.
2.To describe (a word) by stating its part of speech, form, and syntactical relationships in a sentence.
3. To examine closely or subject to detailed analysis, especially by breaking up into components: "What are we missing by parsing the behavior of chimpanzees into the conventional categories recognized largely from our own behavior?" (Stephen Jay Gould).
To make sense of; comprehend: I simply couldn't parse what you just said.
4. Computer Science To analyze or separate (input, for example) into more easily processed components.
The court has it's definition. No other is needed.
That was it. Thanks Greg.
Any idea why Charlie wouldn't supply that? It's not like he's hid anything during this whole fiasco. Maybe he was afraid Tivo was going to steal his "herculean" effort? :lol:
You know, the one that took a gazzillion man years at a cost of $750,000? !rolling !rolling
"...and in the real world, parsing and analyzing are NOT the same thing. "