TIVO vs E*

[jacmyoung]

Which would be claim 1. Not claim 31 or 61. They also describe parsing. Dish simply wants to redefine that parsing to ONLY be the same exact parsing that goes on in claim 1.

They did not try to redefine the word "parsing" rather used TiVo's own expert testimonies where they said, the word "parse" meant the same thing both in the hardware and the software claims. Those were TiVo's words, not E*'s words, back during the jury trial.

Yes, Dish wants to force this new very limited definition on parsing and analyzing.

If you mean "audio and video data" is "start codes" is a new definition, that may be correct, because this term was never defined before, not by E*, not by TiVo nor by the court. Now E* decided this is the way it should be defined and presented ample justifications too do so, TiVo needs to dispute such definition, if TiVo simply has no response, then Judge Folsom must take E*'s assertion.

If one recall what E* needs to do to win the summary contempt issue? E* only needs to demonstrate a dispute of material facts, TiVo as the mover must prove by clear and convincing evidence that such dispute simply does not exist. In this case, TiVo did not even try to dispute E*'s new definition.

About 50% of TiVo's expert witness testimony went directly to explaining and describing how Dish's assertion was wrong. Please don't let the a single exchange between a single lawyer and a single witness confuse you into believing the above factually wrong statement. ...

Well then quote them, obviously you have over 50% of TiVo's words to quote on that specific issue, how about quote a page or two as a starter?

Show me where did TiVo say, no, the audio and video data as described in the step 1 of the software claims is not the start codes. If you have over 50% of the TiVo's transcripts to dispute it, it should not be too hard to quote one or two.

As I said, I have read the transcripts three times, I could not find anywhere TiVo even disputed that new definition, the only response I found related to that E*'s assertion was: "no further questions."

[CuriousMark]

They have already been quoted in this and other related threads. Objections have been raised to posting lengthy quotes here, so I think I will take a pass on posting duplicate, voluminous, information.

[jacmyoung]

They have already been quoted in this and other related threads. Objections have been raised to posting lengthy quotes here, so I think I will take a pass on posting duplicate, voluminous, information.

Whatever your reasons, I just want to point out that you did not want to provide any specific quote where TiVo said the audio and video data was not the start codes.

[CuriousMark]

Whatever your reasons, I just want to point out that you did not want to provide any specific quote where TiVo said the audio and video data was not the start codes.

Are you trying to say the parts where they said that the start codes were parsed FROM the audio and video don't count as an indication that the start codes are NOT identical to the audio and video data as you are saying?

Never mind, I have put my points out there. At least people have them to consider or not as they see fit.

Don't forget to reply to this post so you can get in the last word.

[jacmyoung]

Are you trying to say the parts where they said that the start codes were parsed FROM the audio and video don't count as an indication that the start codes are NOT identical to the audio and video data as you are saying?

Never mind, I have put my points out there. At least people have them to consider or not as they see fit.

Don't forget to reply to this post so you can get in the last word.

The only thing I am saying is you refused to quote where TiVo ever tried to dispute E*'s definition (not to "re-define" BTW because a definition was never given before) that "the audio and video data" are "start codes."

What I am looking for is the quote, not your interpretation of the quote. The same happened when you said you understood that TiVo said there was this "switch" in front of the "ring of the buffers" in the old design, but the new design removed that "switch," and when I asked you where did TiVo say there was a "switch" in front of the "ring of the buffers" before, you could not provide that quote.

Don't worry for me, mine will not be the last words.

[Thomas22]

Are you trying to say the parts where they said that the start codes were parsed FROM the audio and video don't count as an indication that the start codes are NOT identical to the audio and video data as you are saying?

Correct. Not even Dish made such a claim.

"Hey honey, what's on TV?"
"There's nothing on but start codes".

[jacmyoung]

Correct. Not even Dish made such a claim.

"Hey honey, what's on TV?"
"There's nothing on but start codes".

How about let's find out what claim (assertion) E* made?

E* used TiVo's own testimonies during the trial and the TiVo's patent specifications, to point out that:

SO THAT PARSING VIDEO AND AUDIO WAS IDENTIFIED [by TiVo] AS DETECTING START CODES.

That was E*'s assertion, based on TiVo's own testimonies and the patent specifications during the trial.

I am simply asking you folks to find where TiVo now says, no, parsing audio and video data was not identified by TiVo back during the trial as "detecting start codes."

If you cannot find that quote of TiVo's to disagree with the E*'s assertion, then what should the judge do in such situation?

[ts7]

They have already been quoted in this and other related threads. Objections have been raised to posting lengthy quotes here, so I think I will take a pass on posting duplicate, voluminous, information.

That is appreciated, but do you by any chance have any of the post #('s) where you believe these have previously been quoted? I apologize if this comes across as sarcasm - that is not the intent. This whole thing has gotten so convoluted, it is difficult to remember what was said where!

[jacmyoung]

That is appreciated, but do you by any chance have any of the post #('s) where you believe these have previously been quoted? I apologize if this comes across as sarcasm - that is not the intent. This whole thing has gotten so convoluted, it is difficult to remember what was said where!

Does that ring a bell:

I had already answered your question before, you just have to go back to find it, I am not going to answer it again because I do not give a damn, or you don't deserve my time, or the mods had said we should not quote long passages, or...whatever the excuses, just fill in the blank

Well I did not have to quote long passages, but even when some of the quotes are relatively long, as long as it is reasonable and not spam, it should be fine.

[CuriousMark]

That is appreciated, but do you by any chance have any of the post #('s) where you believe these have previously been quoted? I apologize if this comes across as sarcasm - that is not the intent. This whole thing has gotten so convoluted, it is difficult to remember what was said where!

If you start about
here

in this thread at the other forum and read the posts by curtis52, you will see the discussions to which I was referring. if You skip all the back and forth and just read Curtis posts of the trial transcript, I think it will go a long way in gaining understanding of the issues. Since it is already posted there, I don't see a reason to copy and paste it here, given that doing so might upset some readers here.

By the way, you are not being sarcastic at all, you are asking for a very reasonable thing, and I am happy to oblige given I found some time to do the searching.