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

TiVo vs Echostar ... June 30th-July 18th Filings

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by James Long, Jun 30, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ergan's Toupe

    Ergan's Toupe Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    427
    0
    Aug 21, 2008
    I don't need an "excist" strategy. Without a doubt, my TIVO will work fine either way after the 9/4 decision.

    Can you say the same about your DISH box? ;)
     
  2. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    You are so good at even ignore your own case, in the Safety 1st case you quoted yourselve, the 2) was addressed and the modified products were allowed to remain on the shelves, even though the order was to have them pulled off the shelves. And in Footrpoint 2.0 case 3) was addressed as for what may happen to an adjudicated serivce that was ordered to be shut down, yet a small modification by software update was enough to allowed it to continue be used as before, no stopping at all.

    Keep saying no case law to address 2) and 3) when they are right in your face, is just beyond me.
     
  3. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    I don't even need to say it, you know my answer.
     
  4. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Yes, all relevant within that same trial as evidence, for the same violation, of course the pattern of behavior would matter. But suh evidence cannot be used in a separate trial for a different act in review. This is the fundation of our legal system, only evidence specific to what is on trial, not evidence in a prior case or anything irrelevant, such as you personal opinion of the defendant, may be submitted.

    In a later contempt proceeding, in fact I beleive FOX used the precisely same argument that DISH was found guilty during the trial and not be trusted, did the court give such argument even the slightest look? No, DISH was not in contempt.
     
  5. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,954
    1,026
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Modified products were ordered removed from the shelves? Amazing! :rolleyes:

    The flaw in Fisher-Price vs Safety 1st was that un-modified products were easily confused with modified products leading to confusion over what was and was not sold after the injunction went into effect.

    But if you want to say that modified products were ordered removed, great, It just helps Tivo. :D
     
  6. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,954
    1,026
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    DISH wasn't in contempt because they were not in violation of the distants injunction. They had ceased offering distant networks by the deadline.

    We are talking within the same trial here ... Tivo vs Echostar ... DISH's actions since the beginning of the case are part of this case.
     
  7. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    I don't need to defeat the statement from the court. However, you are not using the correct quote from the court, even though DISH/SATS did:
    Marketplace means selling. DISH/SATS modified the 625 in order to have it "remain in the marketplace", because the injunction will not allow DISH/SATS to sell 625's already ruled as infringing. These devices are only covered by the "no infringement" order, not the disable order, as they aren't supposed to be sold. Modify those, and they become a manufacture not adjudicated by the court.

    DISH/SATS modified the infringing 625's in customers' hands. Those are not enjoined from sales or manufacture, because they've already been both manufactured and sold. Therefore the disable order only applies to these. And there isn't any language in the injunction about modifying the devices found infringing in customers' homes, other than the order to disable. Modify these, and there isn't any case law to support any other modification than ordered, i.e., disable the DVR's found infringing.
    You cannot relitigate a device found infringing. Simple fact of law there. Modifying the devices in customers' hands found infinging does not change the fact these devices were adjudicated.

    And the only thing I do is simply refuse to see the statements made by the courts and presented by others here taken out of context and applied incorrectly to this case.
     
  8. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Yes the modified products already on the shelves were also ordered to be pulled off the shelve, but the infringer did not follow the order, and was not in contempt. Happy now?

    So now you are talking about confusion? As if there is no confusion here? The fact you and I are arguing is an indication there is difference of opinions or confusion. Just because you beleive there is no confusion does not make it so, I have no confusion you are wrong, you have no confusion I am wrong, here lies confusion, and the defendant gets the benefit of that confusion, not the plaintiff.

    Tivo wants to benefit? Be a defendant next time, it is too late now.
     
  9. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    On or some time after 9/4 you will see all the case law be applied, like all other cases. Simply thinking this one case is above all other cases is ok, just not something you should try again after DISH is found not in contempt.
     
  10. peak_reception

    peak_reception Icon

    961
    0
    Feb 10, 2008
    So after four rounds of making a complete mockery of the patent protection system the court finally laid down the law and said "Hey, you can't do that any more without getting pre-approval." What a Joke! Patents will expire before those kind of games come to an end. I don't believe that Judge Folsom is such a joker, nor a sucker. Look for him to lower the boom on or about September 4. Sure, EchoStar will appeal but will even the CAFC want to hear any more of this crap?
     
  11. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Because the injunction allowed it, and Footprint 2.0 was not a DEVICE.

    It was ruled that the service was infringing, and that the service "as adjudicated" could not be used. So tweak a few things, and the service no longer exists "as adjudicated". That would put it out of scope of the injunction.
    NO.

    Safety 1st did not make a good-faith effort to recall the infringing product. Modified product had no bearing here. Safety 1st was found in contempt for not recalling the adjudicated product to the best of their ability.

    Nothing was mentioned about the recall and modified product.
     
  12. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    And you won't like the outcome.
     
  13. Ergan's Toupe

    Ergan's Toupe Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    427
    0
    Aug 21, 2008
    Actually, I don't. Why don't you tell me? :grin:
     
  14. Ergan's Toupe

    Ergan's Toupe Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    427
    0
    Aug 21, 2008
    Exactly why it's game over for Charlie. Folsom is not going to play "I dare you to step over this line, OK, THIS line" with Charlie.

    Folsom will rule contempt, Charlie will appeal, the CAFC will tell Charlie to pound salt and DTV will gain somewhere between 2-3 million new subs over night.

    All because of "stubborness". :nono:
     
  15. Ergan's Toupe

    Ergan's Toupe Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    427
    0
    Aug 21, 2008
    Don't take this as a personal attack, but that is just stupid. The stupidest thing I have read in this whole thread.
     
  16. Ergan's Toupe

    Ergan's Toupe Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    427
    0
    Aug 21, 2008
    Speaking of outcomes....

    I can see Charlie buying TIVO. It makes a lot of sense when you think about it. I think it's the only way Charlie can get out of this gracefully.
     
  17. scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,318
    38
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    Heck, if I was Charlie - I would have been marshalling the money to do it a long time ago :D
     
  18. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Have you even looked at Judge Folsom's own prior cases? I have, and I did not get any sense he was out there fighting for the patentees against this broken patent system. Stop dreaming.

    The jury found DISH infringement willful, but Judge Folsom told Tivo no treble damages and attorney fees, you two are both nuts and equally at fault for this mess.

    But hold on to your dream while it lasts.
     
  19. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Sorry Greg, the infringer needs not court's to allow any specific modification. The court will only look at such modificaiton after the fact. As stated earlier, only in one very extreme case after four bad faith attempts by the infringer did the court ever imposed some kind of measure to "allow" the next modificaiton attempt.

    Go read it again, Safety 1st was found not in contempt of the continued sale of the Bouncate products, and not pulling them off the shelves, even though the Bouncatte products was on the list to be pulled off the shelves. The only contempt was for the Digital Motion (?) products.

    Your refusal to even read your own case is beyond me.
     
  20. jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006

    Why? After the no contempt, Tivo will worth much less and continue to see itself becoming ever irrelevant.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page