TiVo vs. Echostar Court Case: Post Hearing Discussion

Discussion in 'Legislative and Regulatory Issues' started by Tom Robertson, Feb 17, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Apr 6, 2009 #1381 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    According to me the DE judge decided to disagree with TiVo that the difference was merely colorable, you simply did not read me right.
     
  2. Apr 6, 2009 #1382 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    The quesiton is whether TiVo, in its current condition, can even afford to go through that choice.

    Do you not agree that this time around, it will be much more difficult to prove infringement again, if even possible?
     
  3. Apr 6, 2009 #1383 of 1468
    nobody99

    nobody99 Icon

    807
    0
    May 20, 2008
    It doesn't matter what I think. This is the legal process. It's slow, ugly, and not fair to anyone. But DISH lost, plain and simple. They were trying to move the case to Delaware and failed.

    In all honesty, it was a longshot anyway.
     
  4. Apr 6, 2009 #1384 of 1468
    dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    Considering neither party was able to call witnesses to testify under oath its impossible it was the same. The DE motions contain nothing more than allegations and exhibits that have not been subject to examination.
     
  5. Apr 6, 2009 #1385 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Let me say it again, the case currently is still in DE court, not moved yet. Both parties has yet filed their arguments for or against the transfer.
     
  6. Apr 6, 2009 #1386 of 1468
    dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    How could he do that without a colorable difference hearing?
     
  7. Apr 6, 2009 #1387 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    It is the same because E*'s statement is still that the "indexing" is removed, and the "automatic flow control" is removed, neither had changed. The DE judge was given these two evidence, so is Judge Folsom now, only with more details and testimony.
     
  8. Apr 6, 2009 #1388 of 1468
    nobody99

    nobody99 Icon

    807
    0
    May 20, 2008
    Hahaha. that's funny :lol:

    TiVo has has $200 million in the bank, positive cash flow, no debt, and a proven legal team that's already won over $100 million. They have deals with Comcast and DirecTV that will bring them millions of subscribers over the next few years.

    DISH has $6 billion+ in debt and a legal team that lost $100 million. They lost a major source of subscribers with their deal through AT&T.

    In the last year, TiVo's stock is down 18% to DISH being down 60%.

    The question is really "is DISH in any position to fight another four-year battle?" The downside for TiVo is that if it takes four years, DISH will probably be bankrupt at the end of that period and they'll be nothing left to be paid with.
     
  9. Apr 6, 2009 #1389 of 1468
    dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    Tivo has no debt and over 200 million in cash. They have no choice but to defend their IP, it is the essence of their business model.

    No idea, after Judge Folsom rules this will be easier for me to know.
     
  10. Apr 6, 2009 #1390 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006

    I don't know, ask him, because he did.
     
  11. Apr 6, 2009 #1391 of 1468
    dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    Judge Folsom was presented with much more evidence that that.
     
  12. Apr 6, 2009 #1392 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    We have argued on the new design's infringement issue to death, if you had read them, you can get some idea.
     
  13. Apr 6, 2009 #1393 of 1468
    dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    So now he did hold a colorable difference hearing?
     
  14. Apr 6, 2009 #1394 of 1468
    dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    I'd rather wait for a judge to make the ruling.
     
  15. Apr 6, 2009 #1395 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Yet the DE judge only needed the two, and the two are still there and undisputed. E* only needs to provide the evidence to establish the doubt. One evidence will do, more evidence changes nothing unless they dispute this one core evidence.
     
  16. Apr 6, 2009 #1396 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    We all do.
     
  17. Apr 6, 2009 #1397 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    No, he did make that decison to disagree with TiVo that the difference was merely colorable.
     
  18. Apr 6, 2009 #1398 of 1468
    dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    I just want to figure out what you are saying.

    Did he or did he not hold a colorable difference hearing?

    If he didn't how could he making a ruling on colorable difference?
     
  19. Apr 6, 2009 #1399 of 1468
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    TiVo most certainly did dispute that DISH/SATS evidence was "inaccurate". TiVo portrayed DISH/SATS' contention of a lack of parsing by comparing the old, adjudged DVR's, where five of five experts agreed that PID filtering was the analysis step of the claim, to the modified DVR's which still contain that PID filter as an inaccurate statement. TiVo portrayed DISH/SATS' contention of a lack of automatic flow control by comparing the old, adjudged DVR's containing the circular buffer with the modified DVR's which still have that circular buffer as an inaccurate statement.

    And let's not forget that DISH/SATS threw the entire pantry at Judge Farner to state there was a colorable difference in the modifications, and Judge Farner has decided to ship the case off to Judge Folsom. Sounds like a TiVo win to me.

    The only reason TiVo didn't file a motion to transfer was because they were more interested in shelving the case. Since the Delaware case was filed, Judge Folsom has taken up the cause to evaluate the eight models of DVR, and Judge Farner has decided not to hear the case and is trying to ship it off to Judge Folsom.
     
  20. Apr 6, 2009 #1400 of 1468
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    If curtis52 agrees with you I will try to address that issue one more time:)

    No, it was not the "circular buffer" in the old design that managed the flow control, the "circular buffer" is a part of the hard drive itself, cannot possibly be the invention. TiVo simply tried to find anything that might stick.

    But you all try to forget, while he had tried to transfer the case, he also agreed with E*'s evidence and told TiVo he could not agree with them that the difference was merely colorable.

    Really? are you saying TiVo anticipated the DE judge would shelve the case? That would be some foresight! TiVo could not even anticipate that the "on the face contempt" would not fly! You are giving them too much credit.

    Please make sure we know the exact timeline. The DE judge only made his decision known on 3/31/09, TiVo wanted to dismiss the new action, TiVo failed. TiVo was not so smart to time the DE judge's decision to be at 3/31/09 and said, hey let's try to dismiss this case, and in effect it would be "shelved" till 3/31/09.

    No, having this case initiated by E* is bad for TiVo, that was why TiVo tried to dismiss it, not to transfer it, and to that extent, TiVo had failed.

    Had TiVo tried to transfer it in the first place, then I would have agreed with you TiVo had won, but this is not the case, so don't make it one.

    TiVo wanted to dismiss it, not transfer it, they lost.

    It is true that if the case is transferred it is not a perfect ending for E*, but at this moment, TiVo lost their bid to dismiss the case. While it is very likely the case will be transferred, let's not talk about it as if the transfer is already a fact, it is not.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements