1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

TiVo vs. Dish: Judge orders Feb. 2009 hearing on infringement

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by Curtis52, Nov 20, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,504
    98
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    Obviously there is a skill set that is required if someone wants to be a judge and supposedly mastery of that skill set to become a federal judge. There is also a unique skill set required to write a program that will run DVR's.

    How do these skill sets meet. How does the judge become learned with all the minutia regarding this case. Not only does he have to know how to apply any existing case law, but will he really know in detail how all this works? I know judges have clearks that do legal research, but will they also have outside technical experts to advise them as well?
     
  2. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    You need to tell this to the E* attorneys and the judge, not me, because it was E* who accused TiVo of deficient disclosures by arguing that TiVo has only 4 empty sentences, and the judge did not say, hey you had no clue what you are talking about, that was not a part of their disclosures.


    Then why the urge to proclaim innocence when no one was accusing you of any such guilt?

    The jury did not seem to have any problem understanding that word because the court had construed it the same as "analyze".

    This question is very much on topic because you are an attorney, claiming years of experience and having a lot of problem with me, a lay person, sometimes do not have a full understanding of your so called legal standard.

    Yet at the same time, you refuse to even display the least bit of your own understanding of the standards in proving a contempt in a patent case, all you can do is playing dumb, that you do not know what the word "analyze" mean, and you do not know how to count from 1 to 100.

    If Rogers (TiVo's CEO) today decides to hire you to add to his legal team, and he asks you this question, so far my legal team has said the modified E* DVRs still parse (analyze data), but not much else, do you think it's enough or should we try to say more? What will be your asnwer?

    A very valid and on topic question.
     
  3. James Long

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

    45,954
    1,026
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    :backtotop TiVo vs EchoStar ...
     
  4. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Here is the problem with "spinning" arguments:
    The problem is that there are three distinct classes of DVR's among the eight models found infringing:

    Those which were not modified (the 721, 921 and 942)
    Those which had one modification (the 501 and 508, the "50X DVR's")
    Those which had more than one modification (the 510, 522 and 625, the "Broadcom DVR's"

    I have seen that one of TiVo's main arguments is that the 501 and 508 still "parse", because they still analyze. That point was discussed during the trial and confirmed by DISH/SATS of fulfilling that component of the step of TiVo's patent claim.

    If that was DISH/SATS argument that is all that has changed on the 50X DVR's, then they are merely colorably different than the unmodified receivers.

    I don't understand why anyone would hang their hat on this argument.
     
  5. HobbyTalk

    HobbyTalk Hall Of Fame

    1,685
    0
    Jul 14, 2007
    That is your opinion, I don't believe the judge has ruled on that issue.
     
  6. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Of course it is my opinion. DISH/SATS claims only one modification made to the 501 and 508: the receivers no longer analyze pre-storage. Yet the parse step is still being met by the same PID filtering which was also a limitation presented and met during trial.

    However, if a modification of a product or process still meets the limitations of the components and steps of the infringed claims in the same manner as it did before, I reiterate that the product or process will be found merely colorably different. It is the definition of "colorable difference".

    Then again, if you took your keen eye to arguments by others, perhaps you'd repeat that same sentence to a single poster over a dozen times analyzing a single post.
     
  7. the judge

    the judge Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    93
    0
    Jan 12, 2009
    Nice detail, but I think the 510 was actually considered a 50X DVR in the Fish and Richardson opinion letter.
     
  8. the judge

    the judge Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    93
    0
    Jan 12, 2009
    More specifically, according to Fish & Richardson:

    The Court found that the term “parse” as it is used in claims 31 and 61 means “analyzes.” As such, the Court defined “parses video and audio data from said broadcast data” in these claims as “analyzes video and audio data from the broadcast data.” Further, “broadcast data” is broadcast programming that is received by the physical data source.

    The modified EchoStar 50X DVRs do not include any structure that is “a physical data source” that parses (i.e., analyzes) the “broadcast data.” In the modified EchoStar 50X DVRs, a video elementary stream and audio elementary stream are selected from the incoming transport stream. The modified Echostar 50X DVRs write the video ES and audio ES data to the hard drive without any analysis of either of the streams. Thus, the modified Echostar 50X DVRs do not “parse” the streams as required by this element of claims 31 and 61.
     
  9. dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    I will try one last time to explain this to you. E* claimed that Tivo did not provide a sufficient amount of information. This is not the same as passing judgment on any legal theories or factual claims. That will occur in the hearing. Get it? :confused:



    Because, as usual, your English skills are deficient and it was impossible to understand your point.



    I have a perfect understanding of the legal standard, but not of the facts. Unlike you I will nor pretend to know all. Having an understanding of the legal standards is only half the battle, the facts must also be know. Again, if you knew what you were talking about you would understand that without knowing the facts of how the software works and what the patent covers this question is impossible to answer and I could only make guesses like you.

    You want math? You have over 3000 posts. How many are on this topic? Lets say half. You say you were right six times. So you were wrong; 3000/2=1500 1500-6= 1494. You were wrong 1494 times. Not only can I count but I can do division and subtraction.

    I will assume that Tivo is correct in saying that if a dvr parses that it violates their patent, otherwise I can not answer the question. I do not know if that is correct. If that is correct, then yes, the E* dvrs would not be more than colorably different.

    On a final note to you, you are now on my ignore list. As usual you have succeeded in your strategy of driving away anyone who has any knowledge on this topic because these are the people who dare have the audacity to correct you. This kills your entire strategy. I realize this is ad hominem, but you are nothing more than the jester of this thread. You lack the ability to write in basic English, you can't spell and you have an even worse understanding of the law.
     
  10. dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004

    The book is a great exaggeration. I am convinced it was written to keep people from going to law school and lessen our competition. :lol:
     
  11. dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    Certainly to be a federal judge requires much more legal skill, but also the ability to learn other subjects quickly. In a case like this the court would have independent technical experts but also would hear from experts from both parties.
     
  12. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    E* said all their 8 named DVRs have at least the following things removed:

    Physical data source
    Parse
    Temporary store
    Source object
    Extract
    Automatic flow control

    The only thing TiVo is saying is they still found “parse”, and all others do not matter, the removal of them makes no more than colorable difference.

    The above are facts, not fiction, a person who has years and years of legal experience and understands the standard of proof in a contempt proceeding should be able to at least tell use, based on those facts and those facts alone, whether in his opinion TiVo has done enough.
     
  13. the judge

    the judge Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    93
    0
    Jan 12, 2009
    Maybe the problem is we don't understand what a "fact" is.

    In actual fact, Echostar has admitted that:
    The 721, 921 and 942 were NOT MODIFIED AT ALL
    The 501, 508 and 510 (the "50X DVR's") were modified to not “parse” the streams as required by an element of claims 31 and 61, and
    The 522 and 625 (as well as the 622 and 942) (the "Broadcom DVR's") were modified using two other implementation modifications which do not infringe the claims.

    Were those the 8 named DVRs you were referring to? So, in fact, they do not have at least those things removed, and the speculation that followed is [bleep].
     
  14. Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,504
    98
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    It worked.:) B-school was easier anyway.

    That's what I was wondering. Thanks.
     
  15. dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    I didn't think so. I have a joint JD/MBA. For me the law classes were much easier. But many of my classmates agreed with you.



    No problem.
     
  16. CuriousMark

    CuriousMark Icon

    505
    0
    May 21, 2008
    In the above quote the word select is used for the act of PID filtering. If select is PID filtering, it is therefore parsing according to TiVo, and the whole paragraph suddenly looks like an attempt to mask the existing behavior behind new words. A PID Filter can be said to "parse" or "select" a data substream from a larger input stream. In this context, the words have identical meaning to me.

    Since the PID filter is a hardware construct that is physical and is the data source for the element streams that are saved to disk, it certainly sounds like a "physical data source" to me. It is simply being portrayed as a physical data source that selects instead of parses.

    Others here believe that selection should be excluded from the definition of parsing. Their argument being that selection is a basic function outside the "scope" of a DVR. So this is likely to be the basis for Dish's argument to the court. In the end it will come down to whether the experts and the judge see "selection" as "parsing" or not.
     
  17. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Not at all. Others argue that the PID filter cannot be viewed as the "physical data source" as described in the patent, because the PID filter does not "parse" then "temporarily store" such "parsed" data in a buffer as a part of PID filter, and as such, there cannot be a "source object" to "extract" the "temporarily stored" "parsed" data from the PID filter.

    What the PID filter does is, to "parse" the incoming data, then send the parsed data out for display on TV or stored permanently on the hard drive, or both.

    Therefor E* contends that there is no "physical data source", no "temporary stored", no "source object" and no "extract" of the parsed data from any physical data source (as described in the patent).

    What TiVo had seized on was that one paragraph from very earlier on when E*'s outside patent lawyer contended the 50Xs no longer "parsed" as described in the TiVo's patent. But TiVo did not and still refuse to acknowledge what all the things E* said later, that those above things were all gone too.

    TiVo's response to what E* said later was, those removals were not important, the changes are only colorable. No different than saying nothing. TiVo cannot just brush off the differences and call them only colorable, TiVo must explain why the differences are only colorable, why the removal of them does not change whether the claim limitations are still met or not.

    Becasue as you quoted from an attorney who actually cared to share his or her knowledge, that E* has the "burden of production" and TiVo has the "burden of proof".
     
  18. HobbyTalk

    HobbyTalk Hall Of Fame

    1,685
    0
    Jul 14, 2007
    I don't need to do that, you take care of that part well enough yourself :)

    Just pointing out that if you accuse someone of doing something and then turn around and do the exact same thing thing yourself it weakens any arguement that you have. Or maybe you just want to parent someone - do as I say, not as I do ;)
     
  19. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    A DVR without a "physical data source". What's next? :)
    Not quite.

    The reality is in this case, infringement is a checklist, numbered 1 to 10. Check boxes 1 and 2 have two checkmarks while the rest only have one. If I simply remove one check mark from check box 2, I still have check marks on all ten check boxes. Those are all the claim limitations still being met.

    Somehow some believe that the PID filtering doesn't count as a limitation met by the "parse" component of the step of the claim. Yet in court, it was introduced by TiVo and accepted by DISH/SATS as meeting the limitation of the "parse" component of the claim. This is a fact of this case. Yet people are still trying to dismiss it. And I am not arguing against the facts of this case. :)
     
  20. the judge

    the judge Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    93
    0
    Jan 12, 2009
    Again someone's having a translation problem. Echostar claimed that "they do not include any structure that is “a physical data source” that parses (i.e., analyzes) the “broadcast data."

    They are not saying they do not have "a physical data source". They are not saying "they do not parse", or that they don't "analyze", nor are they saying they don't process “broadcast data".

    It's actually a compound sentence that has to be read from left to right, and each qualification has to be taken into account in the whole to understand what Echostar says they "don't have".

    Actually, this only applies to the 50X DVRs. There is another lengthy and complicated analysis regarding the Broadcom DVRs infringement based on other claim limitations which, if Tivo is going to challenge, would have been detailed in their expert disclosures we haven't seen. So it's likely that Tivo has more than "one sentence" in their expert disclosures citing continued infringement, unless it's a really, really, really long sentence.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page