TiVo vs. Dish: TiVo won appeal

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by Curtis52, Mar 4, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. May 11, 2010 #961 of 1017
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,299
    389
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Several times I have been surprised that the court has not simply said to Charlie "shut the listed units DVR function off today or there'll be Federal Marshal's at your front door tomorrow."

    But it seems Charlie & Co. have figured out at every step how to delay. And right now I take his statement in the conference call as a continued negotiations with TiVo for whenever the court appears it will actually do something. (I can't find enough inventory in the quarterly to replace several million DVRs, but they may be there.)
     
  2. May 11, 2010 #962 of 1017
    Matt9876

    Matt9876 Hall Of Fame

    1,006
    0
    Oct 11, 2007
    You are correct and they would most likely turn me me off just like everyone else but I have a feeling a lawyer might find some merit to proceed in such a case,lets just face the fact this is a real mess and Dish should just settle the best way they can and stop threatening it's customers with pulling the plug on the hard drives.
     
  3. May 11, 2010 #963 of 1017
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,873
    131
    Apr 22, 2002
    Kansas City KS
    I don't think Tivo was prepared to deal with someone as obstinate as Charlie - They thought it would be a quick one and done in that east Texas kangaroo court and Dish would fold (i.e. sign license agreement) - little did they realize....
     
  4. May 11, 2010 #964 of 1017
    dfd

    dfd Legend

    168
    0
    Aug 29, 2008
    To be precise, please explain where it says in the injunction that only the hard drive in the Infringing Product is subject to the injunction.

    How about where E* said it?

    AFAIK you are the only one that subscribes to that.
     
  5. May 11, 2010 #965 of 1017
    Voyager6

    Voyager6 Cool Member

    27
    0
    Apr 17, 2006
    Think about this scenario. Judge Folsom has made it pretty clear that he wants the infringing DVR's shut down (even if they no longer infringe - his words). He even insists that E* clear any proposed work-arounds through him first. While his injunction is stayed by the CAFC, E* presents two work-arounds to Folsom. Folsom claims not to have the time to review the work-arounds. But what if Folsom has already reviewed the new work-arounds and sees that they are clearly "colorably different"? Does he approve the new software and let E* implement it? Wouldn't this invalidate his injunction? TIVO would naturally object. This could start the trial process all over again. What's a Judge to do? Stall, and hope that the CAFC rules against E*'s en banc hearing request.
     
  6. May 11, 2010 #966 of 1017
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    Granting more stays seems to be an odd way to stall. Folsom is under no obligation to do anything.
     
  7. May 11, 2010 #967 of 1017
    Voyager6

    Voyager6 Cool Member

    27
    0
    Apr 17, 2006
    So you are saying that Folsom does not have to review the new software, that he insisted E* submit to him, before E* implements it?
     
  8. May 11, 2010 #968 of 1017
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    Correct, the obligation is on Dish to seek approval. He has no obligation to provide it and certainly not as a top priority.
     
  9. May 11, 2010 #969 of 1017
    Voyager6

    Voyager6 Cool Member

    27
    0
    Apr 17, 2006
    Oh, so he can stall any new work-arounds if he chooses to.
     
  10. May 11, 2010 #970 of 1017
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,873
    131
    Apr 22, 2002
    Kansas City KS
    Then Judge Folsom is the wrong judge to be sitting here - his first priority should be to ensure that Dish/Echostar is no longer infringing - whether that is thorough disabling the DVR functions or using a different set of noninfringing DVR functions.

    Anybody taking odds about a new trial happening if Echostar has found a "non-infringing" method ? It would surprise me greatly if Tivo doesn't open a new case on the different method.
     
  11. May 11, 2010 #971 of 1017
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,873
    131
    Apr 22, 2002
    Kansas City KS
    But if he doesn't approve disapprove anything - he can't penalize either.
     
  12. May 11, 2010 #972 of 1017
    Voyager6

    Voyager6 Cool Member

    27
    0
    Apr 17, 2006
    Judge Rader on the CAFC agreed in his dissenting opinion.


    I don't think that TIVO could afford another trial. They are already suing AT&T and Verizon. Microsoft has joined in against TIVO. The legal bills are really mounting.
     
  13. May 11, 2010 #973 of 1017
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    Tivo stands to get at least $500 million from Dish if en banc is denied. I think TiVo can now afford to sue just about anyone they want.
     
  14. May 11, 2010 #974 of 1017
    dfd

    dfd Legend

    168
    0
    Aug 29, 2008
    Horseshoes and hand grenades.
     
  15. May 11, 2010 #975 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Which is why I said most of what the worst pictures he painted are BS:)
     
  16. May 11, 2010 #976 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Everything said in that “disablement provision” was “of the Infringing Products”, there is no exception. A hard drive later attached to the DVR will not be “of the Infringing Product” because it is an accessory, it did not even exist at the time the injunction was issued, therefore the injunction could not have possibly meant to address it.

    I am the only one who had said many things before, later many of my arguments appeared in the court papers, either by the lawyers, or by Judge Rader, or by some of those law professors. Not because I know things, just that when you read the case law, you can pickup on things.

    The lawyers, the judges and the professors, they are reading the same case law.
     
  17. May 11, 2010 #977 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    That is a great point I did not want to bring out, because I did not want to drive TiVo folks even more nuts:)

    As incredible as it may sound, if Judge Folsom has the time to determine the merits of (his words not mine) the new E* options, and if he agrees with E*, he is obligated to approve them for implementation, and after that E* cannot be in violation of his injunction. That is not invalidating his injunction, rather to find that the injunction may no longer be necessary, because he will have decided that infringement no longer exists. TiVo can’t even go after E* in a new trial on this issue anymore, because Judge Folsom will have already made the decision there is no longer infringement.

    If as you speculated he had already made such decision, but he simply does not want to give E* more leverage, while I have serious doubt about this, I can see the logic in your theory. My bet is still that he simply does not want to deal with it anymore.
     
  18. May 11, 2010 #978 of 1017
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    You forgot the "not colorably different" part.

    :confused: :nono2:
     
  19. May 11, 2010 #979 of 1017
    Jhon69

    Jhon69 Hall Of Fame

    4,764
    8
    Mar 27, 2006
    Central San...

    The only benefit I know of if you have Tivo Lifetime is if you have a DirecTV DVR.
     
  20. May 11, 2010 #980 of 1017
    Jhon69

    Jhon69 Hall Of Fame

    4,764
    8
    Mar 27, 2006
    Central San...
    Well Charlie can turn off my recording features on my 625 if it still infringes.I will then go down and purchase a DVD recorder/player....no DVR fee to Dish or Tivo....problem solved.;)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall