Scenario: Imagine if the infringer used the last two years to physically recall and replace every "Infringing Product" with completely new models. The customer had no gap in service and only minor inconvenience as they swapped receivers (perhaps even including a service call to transfer content from the old DVR to the new). The infringer has no gap ... the customer remains "sticky" and there is nothing the plaintiff can do except file a new suit against the new product or pray that the court sees the new receivers as only colorably different. There is NOTHING in the injunction requiring there to be a service gap. There is NOTHING in the injunction requiring DISH to lose customers. If Tivo can't "catch up" to DISH that is their problem. They should have got an injunction requiring DISH to "cease offering DVRs for a period of one year". Tivo didn't get that injunction. So we're back to arguing the difference between physically replacing receivers in the field with non-infringing product or 'virtually' replacing them. If it would be OK with the injunction to physically replace every receiver it should be OK with the injunction to virtually replace every receiver. It is just a matter of opinion. It depends on how the judge interprets their own order.