It is, if TiVo demands that E* must clarify any unclear issues FIRST or else. Because if E* had never had any unclear issues with what they believed was what the injunction said, you cannot possibly demand that E* must FIRST seek clarification, when the other interpretation TiVo or Judge Folsom provided to E* was AFTER the fact. Now had TiVo and Judge Folsom told E* BEFORE the fact, say in 2006, that you must disable the DVR functions on those DVRs, whether they were infringing, or not, regardless how later you might modify them, then you can say, if E* did not agree, why didn't you appeal that. But that was not what happened, in fact as Judge Rader said, TiVo said in 2006 the injunction only sought to stop infringement, "nothing more, nothing less." TiVo also told Judge Folsom and E* that E* could comply with the injunction by disabling "the infringing DVR functions through a satellite download." For such reasons, Judge Rader concluded that at that time, any attorney could not possibly even have interpreted the injunction other than how E*'s attorney had interpreted.