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

Tivo vs. Dish: Petition for rehearing en banc granted

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by dfd, May 14, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nov 3, 2010 #461 of 1139
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Currently, there is no requirement to evaluate a work around.
     
  2. Nov 3, 2010 #462 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    If so, then only when the requirement kicks in should E* begin to accumulate liability, but since this is not true, therefore your answer is not correct. Infringement must stop at any time regardless if there is injunction or not, else damages will accumulate, even possible sactions. The problem is, E* cannot implement anything this time unless the court approves it. You can't blame E* for not stopping any alleged infringement when the court refuses to let E* do so.
     
  3. Nov 4, 2010 #463 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Now we have this analyst telling the investors TiVo is looking good for one reason, the PTO again affirmed its patent. Supposedly the CAFC judges will take a look at the PTO documents and highly regard the affirmation in TiVo's favor.

    Hello? It has been E* who tried to have the judges review the PTO proceedings as evidence in E*'s support, and TiVo has been trying to keep the PTO evidence out of the court, arguing that it is irrelevant to the court proceedings.

    Sometimes I wonder how analysts keep their jobs.
     
  4. Nov 4, 2010 #464 of 1139
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Again, there is no requirement to evaluate a workaround. There will be if Judge Folsom's injunction is in full force and effect. Because the injunction is not in effect, Dish Network most certainly can implement anything they want.
     
  5. Nov 4, 2010 #465 of 1139
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    Yep, even so, there would be those that claim Dish acted in bad faith and was "sneaky". Deja Vu.
     
  6. Nov 4, 2010 #466 of 1139
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    They don't have to make sense or be backed up with precedent, they just have to appear to be reasoned. Clients pay for news and they expect to get it whether or not anything has materially happened.
     
  7. Nov 4, 2010 #467 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Not only that but in contempt:) Except Greg does not want to face the issue of E* cannot do anything unless the court first approves it this time. TiVo cannot now say but the order is stayed E* can do whatever during the stay, if so, E* can say hey then we should not be held responsible during the last stay you know.

    So can we start all over and be consistent this time?:)
     
  8. Nov 4, 2010 #468 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    How do you appear reasonable but make no sense at the same time?:)
     
  9. Nov 4, 2010 #469 of 1139
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Let's make this simplistic as possible:

    Dish Network cannot be held in contempt of an injunction that is not in full force and effect. Therefore, Dish Network can infringe, sell infringing devices, keep devices with their functionality enabled, and employ any workaround they see fit.

    So I am completely facing "the issue of E* cannot do anything unless the court first approves it this time." Contempt cannot be found against an order that isn't active. However, if infringement is still present, TiVo can ask for more damages because the infringement is still present.
    Contempt was found because Dish Network was still infringing and was still enabling DVR functionality on the receivers ordered disabled once the injunction became active.

    Technically, Dish Network can do whatever they like. If they don't employ a workaround during this stay, and the DVR's are still infringements after the appeals expire, Dish Network will be on the hook for more money while infringing during the stay period. But they cannot be found in contempt during the stay period, as there is no active order.

    The problem with the argument is that there is tying of the injunction to ongoing damages for infringement. They are separate issues. Contempt is simply a violation of the order. Damages are awarded because of ongoing infringement, which has nothing to do with contempt. That is why TiVo was awarded damages during the stay period (even though Dish Network argued that their workaround limited the damages), yet contempt was only found because once the order was active, Dish Network was found in violation of two different provisions.

    Ongoing infringement and following the orders of an inactive injunction are two different items. It's legalese. No one is expected to remember it all. :)
     
  10. Nov 4, 2010 #470 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006

    You seem to making argument only you are making. Why don't you read what E* said, what TiVo said, and what the judge said?

    E* asked the judge to review the new work around, did TiVo object? No, TiVo never said but it was not necessary because the order was stayed and E* could just implement the work around as they wished, TiVo said let's have a full discovery.

    The judge never said oh don't worry E*, you do whatever because my order is stayed. In fact Judge Folsom pointed out the serious need to timely clarify the issue for both E* and TiVo on the issue of the new work around, only that at that time he did not have time to do so for them.

    So please try to stay with the arguments made by the parties involved in this case.
     
  11. Nov 4, 2010 #471 of 1139
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Okay.

    What motion is currently in front of Judge Folsom's court?
    I'll be happy to follow the guideline, with a caveat:

    Complaining that Dish Network has "informed" the court of their workaround attempt because that is what the injunction says to do, yet the injunction also says to disable the DVR functionality of the DVR's found infringing and they aren't disabled yet. The argument that "Dish Network is simply following the injunction" was made by neither party, but is continually being addressed here.

    So I'll be happy to stay within the arguments made by the parties as long as everyone else does the same.
     
  12. Nov 4, 2010 #472 of 1139
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    Considering how you just distorted those arguments, I don't think you have any room to lecture someone else about them.
     
  13. Nov 4, 2010 #473 of 1139
    James Long

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

    46,176
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    You're missing the point.

    There is NO injunction in effect. DISH can do whatever they like as long as there is no injunction in effect. They could revert to 2005 code and reenable everything they disabled as long as there is no injunction in effect. (That would not be recommended as restoring infringing code would add more months and infringing units to eventually pay court ordered royalties for. It would be better to have non-infringing code in place and, when it comes to that, be able to prove it.)
     
  14. Nov 4, 2010 #474 of 1139
    bnborg

    bnborg Icon

    616
    0
    Jun 3, 2005
    Politicians do it all the time. :rolleyes:
     
  15. Nov 4, 2010 #475 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    The motion for Judge Folsom to review the new work arounds by E*, had been sitting on his desk since I think March.

    Did you get to see the new codes in the new work around? TiVo did, TiVo never said to Judge Folsom, look E*'s new work around still had DVR functions, TiVo just said yes let's do a discovery to figure it out. E* wanted the judge to figure it out for them too, even the judge said he understood the need to help both parties to figure it out, only that he did not have time to do so.

    Neither TiVo, nor Judge Folsom ever even implied that E* could just implement all it wanted just because the order was stayed. So yes please stick to the arguments they made.
     
  16. Nov 4, 2010 #476 of 1139
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    TiVo clearly believed that there was no need for E* to worry due to the stay.

    After all of this time, ALL of your posts, have you not learned what a stay does and means?

    Stay = No injunction = E* can do whatever they want

    Of course once the injunction is reinstated, E* is at risk of being found to be still infringing under the injunction.
     
  17. Nov 4, 2010 #477 of 1139
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    I see in the discourse of one of the other threads that the injunction was stayed by Judge Folsom until June, 2010. I see it is an "emergency motion for resolution".

    What I don't see is any schedule to get this ball rolling. Remember all of the meetings and schedules issued by docket during the contempt charge? Nothing is here, yet. It may be because I haven't been able to read any of them, but I did see that they were docket numbers in the 1020's to docket number 1040.

    Of course, TiVo is entitled to discovery, and I'm not sure that was ever granted.
    That's because...

    When the injunction became active the first time, it was clear that EchoStar didn't bother informing the court of the possible workaround when the requirement was to disable DVR functionality.

    This go around is exactly what should have happened last time, and once again, there is no mention that Dish Network may have actually downloaded workaround #2 already without anyone noticing. EchoStar can certainly do that and it wouldn't have to be brought up to the court.

    I'm making the argument because it wasn't addressed by anyone at all. The issue on the docket is to determine if the workaround is still infringing; it doesn't address that the workaround may have already been deployed, could be deployed or hasn't even been deployed, as it is irrelevant to the motion itself. That is why you don't see anyone addressing it.
     
  18. Nov 4, 2010 #478 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Only in terms of not having to rush into implementing anything, i.e. not even having to disable the DVR functions. Hopefully such statement can later be used by E* to its benefit, if TiVo wins en banc:)

    But TiVo did not say E* could implement all E* wanted because of the stay, TiVo in fact wanted to have a full discovery into the new work around.

    It does not matter what I have learned, it matters what E* had said, what TiVo had said, and what Judge Folsom had said. Because based on what I have learned E* has been in compliance since 07, but not according to TiVo or Judge Folsom, so I say stick to what they have to say:)
     
  19. Nov 4, 2010 #479 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    It was not deployed by E* because E* told Judge Folsom E* needed him to approve it so E* could implement it. Judge Folsom never gave a final answer. He did not say hey go ahead do it since my order was stayed, he only said I had no time to review it.

    Would you go ahead implement it anyway without the judge's blessing this time, giving that he made it very clear he did not like you do so without his approval, regardless whether the order is stayed or not?
     
  20. Nov 4, 2010 #480 of 1139
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,420
    59
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    As long as the judge did not explicitly say "don't deploy it" - I would. If nothing else - it's "less infringing" than the original, and there's a good chance that it isn't infringing.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page