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
    What are these different DVR functions you are talking about? If you think they can be specifically parsed (hmm...thats a funny) then you should be able to tell me what they are.
     
  2. nobody99

    nobody99 Icon

    807
    0
    May 20, 2008
    I'm not sure what I'd do with myself for the next week :lol:
     
  3. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    I'm leaving until more documents are posted. It is those documents that will show DISH/SATS thinking, although we received an inkling of it at the 30 May status hearing.

    I think that is why TiVo waited until the hearing to file a motion for contempt. TiVo's brief for the status hearing had three separate points, and after seeing DISH/SATS argument, TiVo simply went straight for the "prima facie" violations of apparent refusal to disable "Infringing Products". TiVo hasn't even addressed "prima facie" violations of continuing sales of "Infringing Products" and those "merely colorably different".

    I am gone from this thread, again, until another update is posted from the court. I am hoping it is DISH/SATS brief, but it could be the amended order for docket control, which lays out the rest of the Paice order.
     
  4. kmill14

    kmill14 Godfather

    487
    0
    Jun 12, 2007
    I'll give you 24 hours. :grin:
     
  5. Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,527
    102
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    I think they will. At least as far as future licensing goes. The more DISH fights, the more they have to pay as damamges for past infringement.

    The reason I think TiVo will be reasonable is so once this suit is behind them, they can go calling on the Cablecos (less Comcast & Cox) for licensing. They have a better shot at getting it with less fight if they are reasonable with DISH.
     
  6. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006

    Thank you! I hope none of us are on trial here:)

    I agree we should look carefully what DISH’s motion will be after 6/30. If DISH does not initiate such motion to change the language of the injunction, IMHO the outcome should not be that different simply because the universal rules governing the finding of a contempt of an injunction of infringement are quite clear, there must be acts of infringement of the patent for any violation (contempt) to even be possible.

    There are many contempt rulings that were overturned before, some of them due to the judge’s error in applying the injunction itself, some due to the fact the injunction was considered too broad, others because the judge did not correctly apply the uniform standards. While one cannot easily cite a prior case that is identical to this case, the more you research, the more cases you read, the more it becomes apparent why the Circuit Court said the following:

    An injunction can not prohibit acts that are not infringement of the patent by the adjudicated devices, and…

    Infringement of the patent is the essential act, without which, the violation (contempt) of an injunction simply cannot be.

    Devices that may not be enjoined by a separate complaint (a new trial), can not possibly be enjoined under the existing injunction in the contempt proceeding.

    The infringer should be allowed to modify his products to work around the patent, as long as the workaround is legitimate.

    The above opinions are universal, not specific to any one case, but all patent infringement cases.
     
  7. Jason Nipp

    Jason Nipp Analog Geek in a Digital World Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    10,074
    5
    Jun 10, 2004
    Northern...
    I agree. There's some people in here that need to take a break and cool down.

    Until there is a new filing, or a real update to this issue, this thread will remain closed.

    Do not open a similar thread.

    Regards,
    Jason
     
  8. James Long

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

    49,411
    1,758
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Full disclosure ... today's filing. Nothing too exciting, just an agreement on costs ... this thread remains closed until something real happens. (Once approved the signed version will be attached to this post.)

    1. On September 22, 2006, TiVo submitted its Amended Bill of Costs in the amount of $333,600.03 (Docket No. 810).

    2. EchoStar objected to $116,628.23 of the costs submitted by TiVo (Docket Nos. 811 and 814).

    3. The parties have agreed to the following resolution: (a) EchoStar will pay TiVo the amount of $275,286.00, payment to be received by TiVo within thirty (30) calendar days of entry of the proposed order submitted herewith, and (b) if, as a result of a petition for certiorari, the U.S. Supreme Court makes a determination pursuant to which EchoStar is no longer liable for infringement, then TiVo will refund this same amount to EchoStar within thirty (30) calendar days upon request, and if as a result of a petition for certiorari the U.S. Supreme Court makes a determination pursuant to which the issue of EchoStar's liability for infringement is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings, TiVo will refund this same amount to EchoStar within thirty (30) calendar days upon request, but without prejudice to TiVo's right to request its full costs if TiVo prevails in any remand proceedings.
     
  9. James Long

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

    49,411
    1,758
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall