Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Legislative and Regulatory Issues' started by Tom Robertson, Feb 17, 2009.
Please study Obiter dictum.
Part of the good spirit of a debate is to inform others, (redacted)
Judge Folsom does not make a decision based on the DE judge's decision, though he will look at that decision, the DE's ruling will have some weight, there is no rule saying Judge Folsom cannot be influenced by that decision, because if he makes a ruling that is similar to that of the DE ruling, TiVo cannot appeal and say hey Judge Folsom abused his discretion by mimicking the DE ruling.
For one thing, TiVo forced the DE decision, for another, just because the two decisions may be similar, you cannot prove one is made from the other, as long as Judge Folsom does not cite DE's ruling, even though I do not know if it is even prohibited to cite DE's opinions, I will try to find out since you have no desire to share the good information.
But the above is not even the point, the point is on appeal, E* can argue there is a judge who had made his opinion known, that E*'s effort had no chilling effect, and the reason was E* should be encouraged to make design around attempts (hence "design-arounds" in plural). Therefore in the event that Judge Folsom makes an unfavorable decision against E*, TiVo will have a very hard time to say E*'s attempt was in bad faith and it was trying to fool the court or to "chill."
TiVo will have a very hard time to blame E* for trying to do something another judge had clearly said the very same effort E* was making did not have a "chilling effect" and should be encouraged.
As I suspected:
The only thing said was "obiter dicta" is not a binding opinion, but nevertheless it can be very persuasive, and can be quoted by the subsequent rulings. It only makes sense.
Since this thread is more of a legal nature, its been moved to our Legislative and Regulatory forum.
Again, my statement is one hundred percent correct and verifiable. So please do not tell me how to argue.
From the transcript:IT IS EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY THAT RELATES TO CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS THAT WERE NEVER MADE BY THIS COURT, RELATES TO CLAIM TERMS THAT ARE NOT IN THE CLAIMS, RELATES TO CONSTRUCTIONS THAT WERE NOT APPEALED TO THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, ALL OF WHICH WE BELIEVE IS IRRELEVANT.Sounds like there was a response. Something along the lines that start codes are irrelevant. Just like they were three years ago when PID filtering without start codes met the limitation.
But it was TiVo's position, so my argument still stands.
TiVo can simply prove there is no real reason why Dr. Rhyne should have changed his mind. Dr. Rhyne simply stated he changed his mind because DISH/SATS was found guilty, and TiVo's expert Dr. Storer still states that PID filtering meets the parse limitation.
Therefore, TiVo did dispute Dr. Rhyne's position by showing Dr. Rhyne impeached his own testimony during the trial, thus bringing his credibility into question, while still having their own expert still saying that PID filtering meets the parse limitation.
The circular buffer is not part of the hard drive. It is memory. Here is the refresher.
It's difficult to read, but there is an additional third footnote in Judge Farnum's decision, under the note that TiVo should have motioned to transfer.
In order for there to be a "subsequent ruling" there must be a first ruling. Delaware never made a ruling.
Simple common sense says Greg is correct. The hard drive's buffer is controlled by the hard drive's firmware and is used to cache data so it can level out the movement of the read/write heads across the platters; the DVR software has no access to it.
If DISH DVRs are anything like TiVo, you can pop any size hard drive in from any manufacturer. Since hard drive buffers vary considerably in both size and implementation, there's no possible way that the hard drive buffer is the same as the ten 140,000 byte buffers referenced by Greg's refresher.
Here's a thought experiment: if you pulled the hard drive out of a DISH DVR, is the physical memory for the buffer still present in the DVR?
It is most certainly not the hard drive buffer.
I had no idea this case was decided in England or Wales.
(Quote and reply redacted)
No he won't.
The rest of this is just more of your random speculation.
I think this thought of yours is very telling. You have no interest in your process being correct, only that Tivo loses in the end. Process is important.
Please inform others of the specific DISH patent that TiVo "will have to ask Judge Folsom to declare" non-infringing. (redacted).
I actually thought this was a pretty funny joke. Turns out it was true. Well, I suppose that's one way to kill a thread
You guys killed it a long time ago.
Discussion about anything new will be in the Dish forum but as soon as it turns legal, it gets moved here.
The original rules still apply along with the general forum rules. Be nice to eachother and be constructive.
Thanks for realizing that many of us simply want to know how the outcome of this case may or may not affect us. I can finally "unsubscribe" from this thread, without fearing that I'll miss some important bit of news! :hurah: /steve
It is also a part of a debate to "inform others" about misinformation. So I have started to collect what I consider to be misinformation that can be cleared up with a few simple answers.
Question: If you physically remove the hard drive, is the physical memory for the "circular buffer" still present in the DVR?
Question: What is the specific patent number that TiVo must ask Judge Folsom to declare non-infringingi?
Question: Please provide the text of specific instructions given by Judge Folsom
I have closed the thread for a few hours for cleaning and cool down.
I strongly urge all participants to remember the following:
Do not make arguments personal.
Inconsistencies in discussion may be pointed out--once. After that, take it to PM. (Or PM a moderator.)
If called upon to back up points, do so or drop them. Do not repeat points as facts that are unsubstantiated.
In this thread (and subsequent threads on this case) if someone violates the substantiate or drop rule, please report the post(s) (politely) or PM any moderator.
If a moderator redacts a portion of a post, treat that post very, very carefully. If you repeat or respond to what has been redacted, you will be infracted for questioning moderation.
Speaking of redactions... learn from what has been redacted from your posts. We want to keep discussion flowing, yet there are limits.
Thank for your understanding and following these rules.
Please remember the rules posted above.
Thread is re-opened.
DISH's statement to the Delaware Court on why they believe the Delaware case should not be moved to Texas.
 STATEMENT re  Order, (Echostar's Submission Regarding Potential Transfer Of This Action To The Eastern District Of Texas) by Dish Network LLC, Dish Network Corporation, Echostar DBS Corporation, Echostar Technologies LLC, Echosphere LLC. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)
Filed & Entered: 04/13/2009 - Modified on 4/14/2009
well, i'm still wondering what exactly WOULD get around 31/61?
TiVo's statement to the Delaware Court on why they believe the Delaware case should be moved to Texas.
 STATEMENT (TiVo's Brief in Support of Transfer to the Eastern District of Texas) re  Order, by TiVo Inc..
Filed & Entered: 04/20/2009 - Modified on 4/21/2009