1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

TiVo vs EchoStar: Echostar found to be in Contempt

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by Curtis52, Jun 2, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jun 3, 2009 #61 of 2012
    nobody99

    nobody99 Icon

    807
    0
    May 20, 2008
    Incorrect. They only have to prove that the ViP series' software is not more than colorably different than the infringing products. if they use the same software, they too will be found in contempt.
     
  2. Jun 3, 2009 #62 of 2012
    dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    Let this be a lesson to anyone who thought that Judge Folsom had already denied the contempt on the face motion. I said it before and Ill say it again, the judge has not made a ruling until you see a document that says as much.
     
  3. Jun 3, 2009 #63 of 2012
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,053
    317
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Actually the order is sufficiently broad to put all of Charlie's assets on the line.

    :grin: In fact there is an interesting wording involved that I guess means we all have received some kind of constructive notice as the portion in bold has an "or".
    I think the judge has offered another interesting tidbit to any appellate judge when he says:
    IMHO those 35 pages in the Memorandum are really going to be tough for anyone to ignore. The odd part of the referred Deleware case situation is that in the Memorandum Folsom states with great clarity and detail why he says "this Court finds that EchoStar’s modified software continues to infringe the Software Claims of the ’389 Patent." If another trial judge in the same appellate district subsequently says it doesn't, it could create a situation where an appellate court might actually hold a hearing on facts.

    All of Charlie's eggs are in the workaround basket. It's a mistake.:nono:
     
  4. Jun 3, 2009 #64 of 2012
    dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    "Additionally, EchoStar is required to inform this Court of any future attempts to design-around the’389 Patent and obtain Court approval before any such design-around is implemented."

    Wow.
     
  5. Jun 3, 2009 #65 of 2012
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,053
    317
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Yeah, Folsom has tried to close every possible escape.
     
  6. Jun 3, 2009 #66 of 2012
    Kheldar

    Kheldar Icon

    773
    0
    Sep 5, 2004
    +1.
    He is trying to prevent Dish/EchoStar from saying "We've re-reworked the software. It doesn't infringe anymore, I promise."

    Essentially he wants Dish/EchoStar to prove the non-infringment before they implement the software?

    Am I understanding that correctly?
     
  7. Jun 3, 2009 #67 of 2012
    peak_reception

    peak_reception Icon

    961
    0
    Feb 10, 2008
    In that same quote (that Phrelin cites) I am struck by the word "escaped" which seems oddly strong, even prejudicial, to me given the purpose that patent injunctions are supposed to serve:
    To "escape" is to struggle free from confinement or imprisonment. However, patent injunctions are not supposed to be punitive as imprisonment but rather remedial as in motivating a push to non-infringement.

    I guess "escape" could've been meant to refer to the imprisoned Infringing Products, but the Judge explicitly writes that EchoStar is the escapee. Isn't EchoStar supposed to "escape" their infringing status by changing to a non-infringing status? I thought that was the whole idea?

    The Judge can (and did) of course rule that the changes EchoStar made were insufficient but I'm just very surprised and struck by that strong word "escaped" as he uses it to describe EchoStar and its behavior vis-a-vis the Injunction in this case. All of his other language seems so temperate and balanced.
     
  8. Jun 3, 2009 #68 of 2012
    JJJBBB

    JJJBBB Godfather

    270
    0
    May 26, 2007
    Heavens to Betsy, this is not good.
     
  9. Jun 3, 2009 #69 of 2012
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,661
    1,103
    Nov 13, 2006
    Rob peter to pay paul.. Not an acceptable solution if I hold stock in both companies.. i.e. if I'm Charlie..
     
  10. Jun 3, 2009 #70 of 2012
    deaincaelo

    deaincaelo AllStar

    70
    0
    Feb 5, 2009
    I know i asked this before, but what exactly would be a non infringing tv recorder, and how is that different then then tivo process?
     
  11. Jun 3, 2009 #71 of 2012
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,661
    1,103
    Nov 13, 2006
    This is an interesting statement..

    I don't know if it works that way or not, because they are both in trouble here. Can anyone say that there only needs to be an agreement from one of the companies, and that Dish Network could be the one? I would think that if only one company is paying for an agreement, it would have to come from echostar, not Dish... And then they could pass on the costs to Dish..

    Otherwise, Tivo would basically be trying to double dip on the licensing agreement, because echostar isn't allowed to even make the machines anymore... Which presumably Dish Network still wants access to. If I where a judge, I would not allow a settlement that would allow Tivo to create a licensing agreement, and continue to sue for additional damages because the other did not... Which is basically what you are implying, if I am undersatnding you...
     
  12. Jun 3, 2009 #72 of 2012
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,661
    1,103
    Nov 13, 2006
    You know, I wonder if any agreement now would have to include the buy in of the judge.. If so, that number he has decided on (1.25) may be what he would force Dish to pay to Tivo, keeping Tivo from asking for their preferred price (2.25) ...
     
  13. Jun 3, 2009 #73 of 2012
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,661
    1,103
    Nov 13, 2006
    Um, I think Echostar is being found infringing too, since they are specifically being told in this judgment they can not even MAKE more units... So I disagree with that idea that Dish network is responsible.. I think its echostar first for creating and selling the product (yes, they are selling them to dish, hence they are infringing at that point) and then dish is too, by default... Of course thats the way I see i by way of logic, and sense this is all legal, I can;t be sure.. But not being able to build them anymore, that says a lot to me...
     
  14. Jun 3, 2009 #74 of 2012
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,661
    1,103
    Nov 13, 2006
    I think it was his way of saying, ah, you where found guilty, you said I don't care, I'm going to do what I think is right without permission and then ask for it latter... That alone is cause for damages, and then, the reasoning you used to try and justify it was also found to be not acceptable, that just makes it all the matter worse, which Is why I believe he also said that they had to get permission before releasing anything that they claim to be more than color ably different...
     
  15. Jun 3, 2009 #75 of 2012
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,661
    1,103
    Nov 13, 2006
    :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

    I wouldn't worry about that just yet.. Its pretty obvious that no matter what, Dish has no intention of shutting off these machines.. I can't wait till latter down the road the Judge gets a hold of Dish after they don't cut a deal, and just try and appeal their way out and again defy the judges orders...
     
  16. Jun 3, 2009 #76 of 2012
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,661
    1,103
    Nov 13, 2006
    Dish was basically found to infringe on a patent that has to do with how info is stored and indexed on a hard drive, if I recall correctly. SO if they do it completely differently, they will be ok...
     
  17. Jun 3, 2009 #77 of 2012
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,661
    1,103
    Nov 13, 2006
    Um, I'm pretty sure those satellites and transmission equipment they own are worth some money..

    While Tivo isn't obligated, they would be smart to sign a deal, thereby giving them a guaranteed income, for at leas the next few years...
     
  18. Jun 3, 2009 #78 of 2012
    paulman182

    paulman182 Hall Of Fame

    4,841
    4
    Aug 4, 2006
    Kind of ironic that a company which supposedly hates piracy so much is repeatedly convicted of it.
     
  19. Jun 3, 2009 #79 of 2012
    nobody99

    nobody99 Icon

    807
    0
    May 20, 2008
    That was true two years ago. They've tried to do it differently, and were told by the judge that it was too similar and still infringed. And they were told to pay an additional $105 million through April 2008.

    They have been given 30 days to turn off the DVRs. There's also a hearing in July to determine damages and contempt fees for all DVRS from April 2008 to the present. This will likely result in an additional $250 million award to TiVo.

    DISH's last and only hope is that the Appeals Court grant a stay of the injunction. It's pretty unlikely they'll get a stay. If that's true, one of the following three things will happen after 30 days:

    1) They will come to a license agreement with TiVo, and all DVRs will continue to run.

    2) They will turn off all DVRs

    3) They will continue to ignore the injunction and pay TiVo $8-ish per DVR per month in contempt charges, and perhaps execs may face jail time.

    Clearly, option 1 is the best for everyone involved given the circumstances.
     
  20. Jun 3, 2009 #80 of 2012
    Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,503
    98
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...

    If need be, yes. Or corporate officers taken to jail.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page