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 15, 2010 #661 of 1139
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,319
    38
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    You say that like it's a bad thing.
     
  2. Nov 15, 2010 #662 of 1139
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    No I didn't.

    I should restate my position as:

    ignoring casino rules = gutsy

    ignoring "the way things usually are done" and starting a successful satellite business = smart

    ignoring indisputable case law governing injunctions = contemptious and stupid = "a bad thing" = going "all in" on black
     
  3. Nov 15, 2010 #663 of 1139
    FTA Michael

    FTA Michael Hall Of Fame

    3,474
    4
    Jul 21, 2002
    The law firm of Foley & Lardner LLP commented on the case in an article on Lexology a few days ago. http://www.lexology.com/library/det...=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2010-11-15&utm_term=

    The article's conclusion was that "several" judges thought this would have been better handled in a new infringement suit rather than holding EchoStar in contempt. It also said that the court "appears likely to also address" E*'s failure to complain about the ambiguity of the initial court order in a more timely fashion.
     
  4. Nov 15, 2010 #664 of 1139
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    Here are a few more articles - unfortunately I cannot post the analyst reports:

    http://www.foley.com/publications/pub_detail.aspx?pubid=7653

    http://www.pepperlaw.com/publications_update.aspx?ArticleKey=1936

    http://ipwatchdog.com/2010/11/11/federal-circuit-hears-tivo-v-dish-oral-arguments-en-banc/id=13288/
     
  5. Nov 15, 2010 #665 of 1139
    James Long

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

    45,954
    1,026
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I agree ... and that is why I stated was the only crime was being smarter than the house. Not against the law just annoying to those who run the place.
     
  6. Nov 15, 2010 #666 of 1139
    James Long

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

    45,954
    1,026
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Wouldn't Tivo love that? Sounds pretty arrogant of a desire to me.

    Tivo can only prevent DISH/Echostar from using Tivo's patent in a DVR. They cannot kick DISH out of the DVR market nor can the Federal Courts forbid DISH/Echostar or any other company from developing a DVR product.

    The case is only about DISH/Echostar use of Tivo's patents - not their existence in the marketplace.
     
  7. Nov 15, 2010 #667 of 1139
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    All of the analysts are predicting that Dish will be forced to license TiVo if they lose this en banc. The alternative for Dish would be to not offer DVR's to customers or to invent. But invention is easier said than done.
     
  8. Nov 15, 2010 #668 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Not again:)
     
  9. Nov 15, 2010 #669 of 1139
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,319
    38
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    We don't care what the analysts are saying. All I care about is what the ruling from this latest hearing is.

    But that being said - I wouldn't mind if Tivo gets told they can't change their interpretations midstream like they did 2006 vs 2008.
     
  10. Nov 15, 2010 #670 of 1139
    Curtis0620

    Curtis0620 Hall Of Fame

    1,497
    24
    Apr 22, 2002
    Or that DISH can't ignore an injunction.
     
  11. Nov 15, 2010 #671 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Which version? The one told by TiVo in 2006, or the one told by TiVo in 2008?
     
  12. Nov 15, 2010 #672 of 1139
    HobbyTalk

    HobbyTalk Hall Of Fame

    1,685
    0
    Jul 14, 2007
    This has yet to be determined :)
     
  13. Nov 15, 2010 #673 of 1139
    Curtis0620

    Curtis0620 Hall Of Fame

    1,497
    24
    Apr 22, 2002
    The one that said to Disable your DVRs. The one that DISH did not dispute. The one that DISH ignored.

    The one currently in front of the court, that if they rule for DISH will totally destroy the current patent system.

    The one that if the do rule this way, the Supreme Court will beat them down.

    That one.
     
  14. Nov 15, 2010 #674 of 1139
    HobbyTalk

    HobbyTalk Hall Of Fame

    1,685
    0
    Jul 14, 2007
    That is your opinion. It has yet to be determined.
     
  15. Nov 15, 2010 #675 of 1139
    HobbyTalk

    HobbyTalk Hall Of Fame

    1,685
    0
    Jul 14, 2007
    The current patent system could use a bit of destroying.
     
  16. Nov 15, 2010 #676 of 1139
    HiDefGator

    HiDefGator Legend

    193
    0
    Nov 19, 2005
    A little alarmist aren't we? If they order a new trial on the workaround I'm pretty sure the world won't end.

    At least I sure hope not because I'm pretty sure that is what is going to happen 4 months from now.
     
  17. Nov 15, 2010 #677 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Despite that fact you repeated it several times, it is still only ONE of the interpretations, the one TiVo used in 2008:)

    There are two other interpretations, one by E*, one by TiVo in 2006 when they proposed the injunction. The latter two (a majority) agreed with each other, against the first one.

    My understanding is the majority rules:)
     
  18. Nov 15, 2010 #678 of 1139
    Curtis0620

    Curtis0620 Hall Of Fame

    1,497
    24
    Apr 22, 2002
    It will kill innovation, as any blatant infinger like DISH will just ask for a re-trial for every trivial modification they make.
     
  19. Nov 15, 2010 #679 of 1139
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,319
    38
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    Not hardly.

    It's requiring the patent holder to have to go through a full trial for any "MORE THAN COLORABLE" differences if they think they are infringing. It would be enforcing that a CONTEMPT hearing is NOT the appropriate place for this determination. Basically this is the status quo.
     
  20. Nov 15, 2010 #680 of 1139
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    It was well argued by the early adopters ReplyTV was a better DVR, but they lost to TiVo not because TiVo's DVR technology was more innovative, rather TiVo won in the marketplace through PR, litigation and alliance with DirecTV, they were much better than ReplayTV in that department.

    What killed ReplayTV was not innovation, nor will this case kill any innovation. A business' success however is largely based on PR, innovation is important, but don't make the TiVo innovation more than it really is. TiVo was good in making a housesold name for itself not because it had a better DVR technology, ReplayTV was better but they still lost, so was Xerox, OS2...many better innovations lost to less innovative ones, but that never stopped innovation.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page