The infringing device as a whole was not ordered disabled, only the DVR functions, the infringing device was allowed to be used without the DVR functions, since without the DVR functions, it would no longer infringe. And they did. Too bad the court did not order them to destroy the DVRs. He was incorrect. No matter how similar a DVR is to a VCR, the invention is not about the DVR/VCR functionalities, rather how such functions are performed and whether the method discloses an art that a person of ordinary skill in the field cannot see as obvious based either on prior art or on his/her common sense. The TiVo invention discloses the art of detecting start codes in an MPEG digital stream, and use such start codes to help the DVRs to pinpoint the exact location of the TV program to stop, or move fast forward or backward...The use of the start codes in the MPEG stream at least for now is considered an invention. A VCR could not even begin to employ such invention because a VCR does not use digital streams rather analog signal, an analog signal contains no start codes or such digital-only items.