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. Sep 2, 2009 #1101 of 2012
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    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.
     
  2. Sep 2, 2009 #1102 of 2012
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Ah, but that isn't the only issue. The assumption with that being the only issue is that 'the DVR's with the old software were "adjudged devices".' The inference with that statement is that with a modification of the software the devices are no longer "adjudged devices". DISH/SATS did not present any case law to the contrary, other than their belief that by pushing out software they've deemed non-infringing, it defeats the meaning of "Infringing Products", and DISH/SATS could then with those two interpretations escape from the disable provision.

    The other issue is the belief that by simply changing a byte of data within the software that the "adjudged devices" are no longer adjudged as infringements, that the physical device targeted by the injunction no longer exists.

    I can appreciate walking on a fine line, but certain elements of the argument, such as calling a four-year old DVR found infringing a new construct, are a bit far-reaching.
     
  3. Sep 2, 2009 #1103 of 2012
    dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    Right, DISH was ordered to disable the dvr functions in those devices.


    You are assuming facts not in the record. When has any court ruled that the dvs functions were disabled?

    I agree, Tivo and Folsom really let DISH of the hook with the way they structured the injunction.



    Like I said, I'm in no position to make that judgment.
     
  4. Sep 2, 2009 #1104 of 2012
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    if the DVRs had been ordered destroyed, I think we'd be in exactly the same situation today.
     
  5. Sep 2, 2009 #1105 of 2012
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    No, by conducting a colorable difference analysis the premise is the modified devices are no longer the adjudged devices. The adjudged devices do not require a colorable difference analysis.

    To understand it, let me try it a different way. The court consistently had defined two types of devices that may fall in the scope of an injunction, the adjudicated devices and the devices that are only colorably different there of. Therefore the adjudicated devices cannot be the devices that are only colorably different there of. The language of the law cannot be redundant and duplicative.
     
  6. Sep 2, 2009 #1106 of 2012
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    No, that was my opinion not an assumption of facts.
     
  7. Sep 2, 2009 #1107 of 2012
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Good point.
     
  8. Sep 2, 2009 #1108 of 2012
    dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    Fair enough, they way you made the assertion sounded as if you were stating a fact.
     
  9. Sep 2, 2009 #1109 of 2012
    dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    That's certainly possible. DISH could have tried to redefine destroy just as easily as disable.
     
  10. Sep 2, 2009 #1110 of 2012
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,315
    36
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    Exactly what do you mean - "destroyed" ?

    The point here being - you should precisely define the action you want to happen - With no "wiggle room".
     
  11. Sep 2, 2009 #1111 of 2012
    dfd

    dfd Legend

    168
    0
    Aug 29, 2008
    How do you do that when people cannot understand a simple word like 'disable'?

    dis⋅a⋅ble   [dis-ey-buhl]
    –verb (used with object), -bled, -bling. 1. to make unable or unfit; weaken or destroy the capability of; cripple; incapacitate: He was disabled by blindness.
    2. to make legally incapable; disqualify.
     
  12. Sep 2, 2009 #1112 of 2012
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,315
    36
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    You're thinking like Greg / Dgordo , etc. -

    what Echostar / Dish is thinking - the "infringing" DVR functions have been removed from the code of the DVR and replaced by different DVR functions.

    Now do you see the point ?
     
  13. Sep 2, 2009 #1113 of 2012
    dfd

    dfd Legend

    168
    0
    Aug 29, 2008
    They are making an argument I wouldn't have made to my mother, never mind to a judge.

    And if my kids tried to pull this on me I know which way I'd rule...
     
  14. Sep 2, 2009 #1114 of 2012
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Or more accurately, the infringing DVR functions were disabled and replaced with non-infringing DVR functions.
     
  15. Sep 2, 2009 #1115 of 2012
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    People regularly make arguments to judges that they would never dream about making to their mothers.
     
  16. Sep 2, 2009 #1116 of 2012
    dfd

    dfd Legend

    168
    0
    Aug 29, 2008
    Maybe judges need more power; my mother had a spoon that was REALLY powerful. I don't think she needs it now...
     
  17. Sep 2, 2009 #1117 of 2012
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    It isn't the DVR functions that were ordered to be disabled. DVR functionality was ordered disabled. That means the ability to function as a DVR was ordered disabled. DVR functionality was defined as the recording and playing back of television data.
     
  18. Sep 2, 2009 #1118 of 2012
    dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    :lol: Mothers are often smarter than judges, or can more easily see through their kids bs. :p
     
  19. Sep 2, 2009 #1119 of 2012
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    "But mommy, I didn't know you wanted to know whether I brushed my teeth today".
     
  20. Sep 2, 2009 #1120 of 2012
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,315
    36
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    I would have and probably did.

    The bigger issue comes down to -
    Are you a "only things allowed are specified, with all else forbidden" or
    "anything is allowed, unless it is specifically forbidden" ?

    Most people are somewhat inbetween.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page