Yes he said that, I just do not have time to quote it for now. That was not the point, the point was, if the DVRs were allowed to continue to operate after a software download to disable the DVR functions, then the injunction would have allowed the products to continue to infringe, if and only if your assertion is correct that for the products to be non-infringing, the court must make that determination, before such, the products remain infringing. Keep in mind that had E* actually disabled the DVR functions, TiVo would not have accused E* of contmept for not disabling the DVR functions, and the court would never have the need to redefine those DVRs, and according to you, those DVRs would have forever been infringement, and yet still allowed to be used. If an injunction allows continued infringement, then the inunction is flawed and should have no enforcement power. Get one that does its job right first.