Tivo vs EchoStar ... September 4th Hearing (w/transcript)

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by James Long, Sep 4, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sep 4, 2008 #1 of 1182
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,552
    2,143
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
  2. Sep 4, 2008 #2 of 1182
    dgordo

    dgordo Hall Of Fame

    1,010
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    9/4 Motion Hearing transcript
     
  3. Sep 4, 2008 #3 of 1182
    Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,532
    104
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    That made little sense.:confused:
     
  4. Sep 4, 2008 #4 of 1182
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    TiVo originally addressed Walker v. Birmingham in their contempt filing from 13 June:
    Here is the text of the transcript posted by dgordo if Acrobat is not for you:
    I am unsure what TiVo counsel Chu and the reporter mean by "other hrg if necessary to have it", but I think it could mean the motion for contempt on the unadjudicated receivers was ready. It should mean "other hearing if necessary to have it", so the only outstanding hearing would be to go after the unadjudicated DVR's that are merely colorably different.

    It is the only reason why I believe TiVo counsel McElhinny would have mentioned a "huge pending discovery fight".
     
  5. Sep 4, 2008 #5 of 1182
    TBoneit

    TBoneit Hall Of Fame

    2,294
    7
    Jul 27, 2006
    There sure seemed to be lot missing from that pdf.
     
  6. Sep 4, 2008 #6 of 1182
    Curtis0620

    Curtis0620 Hall Of Fame

    1,503
    25
    Apr 22, 2002
    10:12 ct/ why didn’t you tell the court that you were attempting a design around;


    This line says alot.
     
  7. Sep 4, 2008 #7 of 1182
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,552
    2,143
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Thanks.
    Yep ... we had a "brief summary" like this for May 30th. A full transcript should be available later for all the gory details - including answers to the questions. :)
     
  8. Sep 4, 2008 #8 of 1182
    Bidderman9

    Bidderman9 Mentor

    49
    0
    May 23, 2008

    Hmmmm... Here's Something we can all agree on :lol:
     
  9. Sep 4, 2008 #9 of 1182
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    This was posted over at Motley Fool on the link provided by James Long:

    On the timing of the workaround:

    The judge asked why the court was not informed that a workaround was possible, and why they developed it in secret? Mcilhiney said that TiVo could have learned of the workaround from their SEC filings. The judge chuckled and asked Mcilhiny if he expected the court to read the SEC filings?
     
  10. Sep 4, 2008 #10 of 1182
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,552
    2,143
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    In summary ... what DISH failed to do (inform the court) wasn't illegal - but it may have been stupid.
     
  11. Sep 4, 2008 #11 of 1182
    nobody99

    nobody99 Icon

    807
    0
    May 20, 2008
    I thought this was interesting too, also from the Fool board:

    Yikes. Your defense team says you could be held in contempt?
     
  12. Sep 4, 2008 #12 of 1182
    Ergan's Toupe

    Ergan's Toupe Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    427
    0
    Aug 21, 2008
    While certainly not illegal, I think we can rule out Charlie acting in good faith.
     
  13. Sep 4, 2008 #13 of 1182
    TBoneit

    TBoneit Hall Of Fame

    2,294
    7
    Jul 27, 2006
    Would you lie to someone that would know you were telling an untruth?

    If they had said Should not could that would be different.
     
  14. Sep 4, 2008 #14 of 1182
    Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,532
    104
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    Given they already had a judge tired of their shenanigans, very stupid.
     
  15. Sep 4, 2008 #15 of 1182
    nobody99

    nobody99 Icon

    807
    0
    May 20, 2008
    Well, for all the other stunts they've pulled, it certainly would have made sense to say something like, "no, your honor, we can't be held in contempt because we no longer infringe."
     
  16. Sep 4, 2008 #16 of 1182
    Ergan's Toupe

    Ergan's Toupe Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    427
    0
    Aug 21, 2008
    I got the impression from talking to people that he has had enough of this BS and wants it over.

    The walls are slowly closing around Charlie and his merry band of lawyers.
     
  17. Sep 4, 2008 #17 of 1182
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    7,041
    163
    Apr 22, 2002
    Kansas City KS
    The short summary - about what we've been saying here. No further substantial action today.
     
  18. Sep 4, 2008 #18 of 1182
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    7,041
    163
    Apr 22, 2002
    Kansas City KS

    No - we can't. Echostar was within their rights to develop said workaround. Nothing in the injunction NOR in case law requires them to notify the court until now. Or, the judge got said notice on the briefings for the 30 May hearing.
     
  19. Sep 4, 2008 #19 of 1182
    Ergan's Toupe

    Ergan's Toupe Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    427
    0
    Aug 21, 2008
    From what I was told today, Folsom is not a happy camper and literally laughed in Mciilhiny's face when he asked Folsom if he would grant a stay if he found E* in contempt.

    Not a good sign. But what do I know.
     
  20. Sep 4, 2008 #20 of 1182
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    7,041
    163
    Apr 22, 2002
    Kansas City KS

    Depends on what the judges ruling actually is - they can't pretend to be foreshadowing the judges decision.

    I don't see it as anything more than a "yes/no" answer.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall