DBSTalk Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 373 Posts

·
Legend
Joined
·
171 Posts
What is this going to do to my old leased 508 running P407 s/w? Was the new compliant s/w included in downloads or do I have to trade it in?

Inquiring minds want to know!
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
1,487 Posts
Shellback X 23 said:
What is this going to do to my old leased 508 running P407 s/w? Was the new compliant s/w included in downloads or do I have to trade it in?

Inquiring minds want to know!
The Supreme Court ruling really wasn't about the injunction. The ruling from the district court judge on the failure of Dish to disable the DP-501, DP-508, DP-510, DP-522, DP-625, DP-721, DP-921, and DP-942 is due any time. It may be November before there is a ruling. Whatever the ruling is, there could be an appeal and a stay.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
I've never understood what this case is about with Dish and Tivo. When Dish introduced their DVRs, they basically were receivers that could do timer recordings like a VCR, they didn't have name based recording like Tivo, nor did Dish charge their customers a fee for the service. Tivo was far more advanced with name based recording and season pass features, etc.

Does this lawsuit have to do with then Dish introduced their name based recording receivers? Again, I don't see what the big deal is when cable boxes and directv receivers do the same thing now.

Tivo's independent service is too expensive at $12.99 a month when Directv customers were paying $4.99 for it. I've had Tivo and it was ok, but don't really care for their menus, guides, or remote.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
1,487 Posts
Press Release Source: DISH Network Corporation; EchoStar Corporation

DISH Network and EchoStar Statement Regarding Tivo
Monday October 6, 11:33 am ET

ENGLEWOOD, Colo., Oct. 6 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- DISH Network Corporation (Nasdaq: DISH - News) and EchoStar Corporation (Nasdaq: SATS - News) issued the following statement regarding today's ruling by the United States Supreme Court in EchoStar Communications Corporation vs. Tivo:

"As expected, the Supreme Court denied our petition for certiorari today.

The Supreme Court's decision, however, does not impact our software design-around, which has been placed in DISH DVRs subject to the district court's injunction, and our customers can continue using their DISH DVRs. We believe that the design-around does not infringe Tivo's patent and that Tivo's pending motion for contempt should be denied. We look forward to that ruling in the near future.

Because of the Supreme Court's decision, we will pay Tivo approximately $104 million (the amount the jury awarded in 2006 plus interest). The money is in an escrow account and will be released to Tivo in the next few days."
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
Curtis52 said:
Press Release Source: DISH Network Corporation; EchoStar Corporation

DISH Network and EchoStar Statement Regarding Tivo
Monday October 6, 11:33 am ET

ENGLEWOOD, Colo., Oct. 6 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- DISH Network Corporation (Nasdaq: DISH - News) and EchoStar Corporation (Nasdaq: SATS - News) issued the following statement regarding today's ruling by the United States Supreme Court in EchoStar Communications Corporation vs. Tivo:

"As expected, the Supreme Court denied our petition for certiorari today.

The Supreme Court's decision, however, does not impact our software design-around, which has been placed in DISH DVRs subject to the district court's injunction, and our customers can continue using their DISH DVRs. We believe that the design-around does not infringe Tivo's patent and that Tivo's pending motion for contempt should be denied. We look forward to that ruling in the near future.

Because of the Supreme Court's decision, we will pay Tivo approximately $104 million (the amount the jury awarded in 2006 plus interest). The money is in an escrow account and will be released to Tivo in the next few days."
Strike 1.

Contempt rulling soon.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,483 Posts
Shellback X 23 said:
What is this going to do to my old leased 508 running P407 s/w?
Absolutely nothing. This is status quo ... the only thing this ruling means is that DISH has reached the end of the road in the original infringement case - the appeals court verdict stands and payment up through 2006 must be made.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
6,544 Posts
The fact E* stated this SC decision was expected, underscores their determination to go all the way with the contempt proceeding too, even if the lower court issues a contempt ruling. E* "expected" the court reactions.

As I said before, by paying TiVo the money, one and probably the only incentive for E* to have a settlement with TiVo is removed. As long as E* is not in contempt of the injunction, this will be the end of it, there will be no benefit of any license agreement with TiVo, the damage during the stay will be minor compared to the $74 million.

No DVRs will be impacted, not unless there is a contempt and the appeals court upholds the contempt ruling, and again the SC refuses to hear the contempt petition. The whole process will again take a year or so.

But according to all case law, E* will not be in contempt because of the design around.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,483 Posts
jacmyoung said:
But according to all case law, E* will not be in contempt because of the design around.
Let's stick with reality and not continue the closed 7500 post unending debate.

You are not a lawyer. You are not Judge Folsom. You are not the sole arbitrator of "case law". This thread is on a short leash. Don't make me put that mod hat on.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
427 Posts
jacmyoung said:
The fact E* stated this SC decision was expected, underscores their determination to go all the way with the contempt proceeding too, even if the lower court issues a contempt ruling. E* "expected" the court reactions.

As I said before, by paying TiVo the money, one and probably the only incentive for E* to have a settlement with TiVo is removed. As long as E* is not in contempt of the injunction, this will be the end of it, there will be no benefit of any license agreement with TiVo, the damage during the stay will be minor compared to the $74 million.

No DVRs will be impacted, not unless there is a contempt and the appeals court upholds the contempt ruling, and again the SC refuses to hear the contempt petition. The whole process will again take a year or so.

But according to all case law, E* will not be in contempt because of the design around.
This was posted by stkhawk on the IV board.

"With the Supreme Court's refusal to accept Echostar's appeal, this means Judge Folsom's injunction order is now FINAL and is cast in stone. I do not believe it can even be changed by Judge Folsom himself.

In my opinion, Echostar failing to appeal the terms of Judge Folsom's Injunction order was a huge legal mistake. Where in Judge Folsom's injunction order does it allow Echostar to download new software to convert infringing boxes into (allegedly) non-infringing boxes? This issue should have been appealed to the CAFC in my opinion, but Echostar decided not to appeal the terms of the injunction, or inform the court of a potential workaround. If Judge Folsom or the CAFC had known this, they might have adjusted the injunction terms accordingly, but Echostar remained silent.

So now, Echostar faces the enormous risk that Judge Folsom that will find contempt, and simply order Echostar to comply with the terms of the injunction, which they chose NOT to appeal.

And who thinks the Federal Circuit will be sympathetic when Echostar comes crying to them requesting a stay of an injunction order, that Echostar already had a chance to appeal, but did not?

I think Echostar's silence to the courts was a huge mistake which they will end up regretting."
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
15,561 Posts
James Long said:
Let's stick with reality and not continue the closed 7500 post unending debate.

You are not a lawyer. You are not Judge Folsom. You are not the sole arbitrator of "case law". This thread is on a short leash. Don't make me put that mod hat on.
:goodjob:
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
6,544 Posts
Ergan's Toupe;1823201 said:
This was posted by stkhawk on the IV board.

"With the Supreme Court's refusal to accept Echostar's appeal, this means Judge Folsom's injunction order is now FINAL and is cast in stone. I do not believe it can even be changed by Judge Folsom himself.

In my opinion, Echostar failing to appeal the terms of Judge Folsom's Injunction order was a huge legal mistake. Where in Judge Folsom's injunction order does it allow Echostar to download new software to convert infringing boxes into (allegedly) non-infringing boxes? This issue should have been appealed to the CAFC in my opinion, but Echostar decided not to appeal the terms of the injunction, or inform the court of a potential workaround. If Judge Folsom or the CAFC had known this, they might have adjusted the injunction terms accordingly, but Echostar remained silent.

So now, Echostar faces the enormous risk that Judge Folsom that will find contempt, and simply order Echostar to comply with the terms of the injunction, which they chose NOT to appeal.

And who thinks the Federal Circuit will be sympathetic when Echostar comes crying to them requesting a stay of an injunction order, that Echostar already had a chance to appeal, but did not?

I think Echostar's silence to the courts was a huge mistake which they will end up regretting."
No need to be sympathetic at all, the injunction needs not changed, because even E* believes the injunction is correct. The SC petition was not about the injunction, the SC did not uphold the injunction, they just did not want to disturb the final judgment.

E* did not petition the SC to hear the injunction, because E* believes the injunction was correct, and they are in full compliance of the injunction.

Whether you beleive E* is correct is your right, when you continue to misquote E* as if E* was wrong for not appealing the injunction, no, E* believes the injunction is correct, let's get that record straight before those analysts or whoever they are to begin analyzing.
 

·
Legend
Joined
·
162 Posts
BrianB said:
This has nothing to do with that.
Yes it does. I am sick and tired of E* fighting with programers, fighting with equiptment supplies, pulling programing to supposedly save us money, and fighting with their own retailers; instead of catering to their client base.

I am tired of the off shore reps; tired of the canned lines when you ask anyone from dish a question and tired of waiting for programing that the competition offers today.

Charlie and his companies, have forgotten that customer service should be their Number 1 priority, and that is why many of us "stop feeding the cable pig" to come to his service.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
427 Posts
jacmyoung said:
E* did not petition the SC to hear the injunction, because E* believes the injunction was correct, and they are in full compliance of the injunction.

The injunction that the Appeals Court upheld (and as of today the Supreme court just agreed with) said to shut the boxes off for the life of the patent. Who told them they could turn them back on?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
427 Posts
"DISH Network (DISH) and EchoStar (SATS) issued the following statement regarding today's ruling by the United States Supreme Court in EchoStar Communications Corporation vs. Tivo: "As expected, the Supreme Court denied our petition for certiorari today. The Supreme Court's decision, however, does not impact our software design-around, which has been placed in DISH DVRs subject to the district court's injunction, and our customers can continue using their DISH DVRs. We believe that the design-around does not infringe Tivo's patent and that Tivo's pending motion for contempt should be denied. We look forward to that ruling in the near future. Because of the Supreme Court's decision, we will pay Tivo approx $104 mln (the amount the jury awarded in 2006 plus interest). The money is in an escrow account and will be released to Tivo in the next few days."

"As expected"?

I guess losing 104 million is ok if you "expect" it? :lol:

What would Charlie have said if the SCOTUS had TAKEN the case? "Well, we were just wasting time and money, you know we totally expected the SCOTUS to tell us to take a hike! Imagine our surprise when we able to con the Supreme court too!! :lol:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,483 Posts
Ergan's Toupe;1823463 said:
What would Charlie have said if the SCOTUS had TAKEN the case? "Well, we were just wasting time and money, you know we totally expected the SCOTUS to tell us to take a hike!"
They would have said "we are glad to see the Supreme Court take an interest in our case". I expect a lot of things that I don't want to happen.
 
1 - 20 of 373 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top