Well, if DISH/SATS was using a Media Switch in their implementation, then TiVo would have requested the bench hearing incorporate an evaluation of infringement of the Hardware Claims. Instead, Judge Folsom did want to incorporate the evaluation of the Hardware Claims, but TiVo asked that evaluation be removed, as DISH/SATS is not using the Media Switch. The Hardware Claims have some software elements. The Software Claims have some hardware elements. The PID filter is part of the hardware elements of the Software Claims. Just because windshield wipers exist does not mean a patent for intermittent wipers should be invalidated, because the wiper is the important piece and is prior art. It is continually a strawman to say "PID filters" are prior art, when they exist in both the process and apparatus of the Software Claims in TiVo's Time Warp patent. MOST patents contain elements which are PRIOR ART. Don't believe me? Take a look at SATS patent application for their "brute force" software implementation for time-shifting in a DVR. For some reason there are pieces of hardware in it.