TiVo vs Echostar ... Discussion leading to September 4th Hearing

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by Curtis52, May 17, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kmill14

    kmill14 Godfather

    487
    0
    Jun 12, 2007
    :lol: :lol: :lol:


    Sorry, that last post was just so funny I had to dedicate an entire post just to laughing about it.
     
  2. brettbolt

    brettbolt Legend

    215
    0
    Feb 22, 2006
    If Tivo has to prove that there is still infringement, then that could lead to an endless cycle of the following:
    1) Trial to prove infringement
    2) Injunction
    3) Dish changes software and says it doesn't infringe.
    4) Go to step 1

    If this is true, then how could a software patent holder ever get patent protection? Each cycle could take years.

    I think Greg Bimson is right, that Dish is in contempt.

    I own a 501, a 508, and (gasp) a Tivo Series 3 which I use for local channels and online podcasts.

    I really don't care who wins the contempt hearing. I think that Tivo's patent is too broad and the US patent system grants far too many patents for obvious ideas. On the other hand, losing my 501 and 508 would force me to get a new receiver or cable.

    After 2500+ posts, I think this topic has been beat to death. We can speculate all we want, or simply wait till September 4th and just watch what happens.
     
  3. Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    Not at all. The cycle could end with the court saying that Dish doesn't infringe.

    On the other hand, if there is a series of "only colorably different" findings in contempt hearings the appeals court would support adding a clause to the injunction requiring pre-approval of changes. They've done it in the past in exceptionally egregious cases.
     
  4. nobody99

    nobody99 Icon

    807
    0
    May 20, 2008
    And I think far too many say this exact thing without having the faintest idea what was actually patented.
     
  5. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Friend has had a DP-522 for four years and running. His DP-522 hasn't been replaced. A DP-522 is an adjudicated product. If it made coffee and toast and didn't have DVR functionality, it would be fine.

    They were "modified" by DISH/SATS. Fine. Doesn't change the fact the 522 was found to infringe.
     
  6. brettbolt

    brettbolt Legend

    215
    0
    Feb 22, 2006
    Reread my post. I said it could lead to an endless cycle.

    My point was that if a situation occurs where its impossible for a product to be modified to avoid infringement (not necessarily this case), then the infringer could create an endless loop and never pay the plaintiff a dime.
     
  7. James Long

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

    49,396
    1,749
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Sounds like a Jedi mind trick ... 'these are not the "Infringing Products" covered by the injunction'. :D

    The trouble (for DISH) is that those eight models are the adjudicated devices. That leaves them trying to convince Judge Folsom that the concept of changing software to avoid infringement is acceptable when DISH was specifically told to simply disable DVR functionality.

    What DISH has done is not permitted by the injunction. I look forward to reading their explaination of why they thought their actions were appropriate.
     
  8. brettbolt

    brettbolt Legend

    215
    0
    Feb 22, 2006
    The patent deals with pre-processing the input stream before it is stored on a hard drive. (With the goal being able to easily skip around during playback).

    I've been a self-employed software developer for 18 years and that seems pretty obvious to me.

    I could give many more examples of obvious patents. I think you have underestimated the intelligence of people who complain about the patent system.
     
  9. Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    It's even more broad than that. The steps in the patent don't have to be done in any particular order. The parsing (analysis) doesn't necessarily have to be done before storage.
     
  10. nobody99

    nobody99 Icon

    807
    0
    May 20, 2008
    And I've been a software development for 18 years as well. Started with Omnis 3 for the Mac, went to dBase III, foxbase, foxpro, visual foxpro, and for the last seven or so years, ms-sql. Your point? Have you released a DVR based on your code? I don't think it's reasonable for someone who sums up the patent in one sentence to generalize about the whole patent system. And there are countless times that someone (not you) have said "patenting a DVR is ridiculous." Well, TiVo didn't patent a DVR, the patented a very particular way of doing a very particular thing that was not obvious.

    That's all beside the point. They have the patent. That patent grants them certain rights.
     
  11. brettbolt

    brettbolt Legend

    215
    0
    Feb 22, 2006
    My point is that development teams working independently are likely to come up with similar methods for accomplishing a given task. If a team needs to design a DVR, who wouldn't store an index to quickly locate a given video frame?

    And no, I have not developed DVR software. I don't want to get sued. But if I wanted to develop one I do have the technical capability.

    I did it in one sentence so as not to clog up this thread even more. We agree that we disagree. I am among the many who think that patenting a DVR or any particular implementation of it, no matter how you accomplish the goal, is indeed ridiculous. It is not in the best public interest. Again, I know you disagree and we'll leave it at that.
     
  12. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Oh James please, I dont think you need to bend over backwards to help out the Tivo fans, even they will not deny that the judge knew and implied very well the "disabling of the DVR functions" was to be carried out by a software download.

    The point I was trying to make, and no one on the other side could admit it, was that the adjudicated DVRs, once having the DVR functions disabled, and become standard receivers, they are then modified products, and the only reason the judge will allow them to be used as standard receivers, was because those modified products, once without the DVR functions, would no longer infringe on the Tivo patent.

    The above fits perfectly with the uniform standards, once the DP501s are modified to be non-DVRs, they will no longer infringe on the patent, and therefore the court can not prohibit their use as non-DVRs. The court can not prohibit acts that do not infringe on the patent.

    That is the only reason those receivers will be allowed to be used as standard receivers, no more no less. The answer is very straight forward, the reason the Tivo fans can not give such straight answer was because by admitting the above, they would have their own theory all messed up.

    That is the truth.

    Judge Folsom knows the rules, he knows his limits, he did not go beyond his power when framing his injunction, his ordered the infringing products to have the DVR functions disabled so they no longer infringe, and he stopped right there, because he knew once the DVR functions were disabled, there would no longer be acts of infringement by those modified products, and that he could not go beyond that point to order the DP501s without DVR functions to stop working, because they would not infringe on the patent.

    For the very same reason, once DISH's evidence establishes clear doubt in the judge's mind, whether the modified products, through a software download, with or without any DVR functions, still infringe on the patent or not, once that doubt can be established, he will not be able cite DISH in contempt.

    Well he could of course, but he should know very well that the Circuit Court would not allow it to pass.
     
  13. nobody99

    nobody99 Icon

    807
    0
    May 20, 2008
    And I'll ask again (I know, everyone's getting sick of it). How does a court issue an injunction that is upheld on appeal, that prohibits the sale of unpatented parts?

    You seem to be way too hung up on the idea that injunctions can only be used to prohibit infringement.
     
  14. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    That is what an injunction is, to prohibit infringement, you don't have to agree with it, but continue to ask the question is not helpful when my answer was given many times.
     
  15. kmill14

    kmill14 Godfather

    487
    0
    Jun 12, 2007

    jacmyoung, I am still waiting for your answer on why there are two very clear orders in this injunction. "Stop selling, using etc the Infringing Products and those only colorably different" ...and then a completely separate order to disable the ones in the hands of end users.

    Why the two orders?
     
  16. nobody99

    nobody99 Icon

    807
    0
    May 20, 2008
    What infringement? The part is upatented! Any other company can sell a replacement part. You don't find it odd that only one single company is prohibited from selling an upatented part, but everyone else can sell the part?
     
  17. kmill14

    kmill14 Godfather

    487
    0
    Jun 12, 2007
    Wouldn't it be funny if they actually used this defense?

    "Your honor, we didn't turn off the DVR functionality of those 8 products because we made them disappear from existence, with just a software update. Poof!!"
     
  18. James Long

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

    49,396
    1,749
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    No, no, no, no, no. An injunction is intended to modify behavior. It is a way for a judge to firmly instruct under penalty a party to perform or not to perform an action.

    You don't like to admit it ... and you should as it is the first step toward the solution ... that DISH was instructed by Judge Folsom to perform certain tasks and cease performing others. While it is true that IF DISH followed those instructions to the letter they would no longer infringe ... they were instructed by the court to do much more than cease infringing.

    Fair or not fair the instruction of the court was clearly written and not challenged during the appeals.
     
  19. kmill14

    kmill14 Godfather

    487
    0
    Jun 12, 2007
    Hence the two completely separate orders (which I am still waiting for jacmyoung to address.

    Well said James.
     
  20. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Fifteen yard penalty for delay of game...

    I cannot believe I have to explain this one.

    The order is to disable DVR functionality. According to your statement, the order should only be to disable "Time Warp" functionality. The DVR should be able to play a recorded program (but not record or play to another TV at the same time). The DVR should be able to record a program (but not record nor play another program).

    In other words, it should be able to behave like a single deck VCR, because it wouldn't infringe on the Time Warp patent.

    But that is not what is written.

    So this now blows your theory about what can and cannot be enjoined or prohibited.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall