TIVO vs E*

[jfh3]

I have looked up that patent # and I dont think that this relates to Tivo at all. Can you please give me the patent # again so I can read claim 31 and 61?

You say that its the software that they Tivo does not like. What parts of the software? Please be specific.

Just type 6233389 into Google - Multimedia Timewarping system.

The holder of the patent is one of the co-inventors of the Tivo DVR, so it does relate.

[CuriousMark]

You say that its the software that they Tivo does not like. What parts of the software? Please be specific.

It is not that TiVo does not like the software. It is that TiVo came up with that approach and wants anyone using it to compensate them for having come up with it first.

Those claims have a series of steps that must be followed to implement a DVR the TiVo way. If you don't follow those steps, your DVR will not infringe that patent claim. Dish followed those steps exactly in their original DVR software. In their workaround they eliminated some functions in their software to try to get around one or two steps, but that didn't help because other parts of their software still implemented those steps, albeit slightly differently, but not enough differently to be colorable.

If Dish had changed the software much more dramatically, they would have been fine. They did what they thought was the minimum necessary and it didn't prove to be quite enough. If they had gotten someone to check their work, they might have had a chance to change it further and be safe, but they did not do so. their laxness will now cost them, and their customers more than it would have if they had simply agreed to use the features and paid a royalty from the very beginning.

For more specifics, please visit
Mainer's Law Library page

where the judge's decision is posted at the bottom (you want document 929) and read the specifics of what was changed and why it was not different enough to pass muster.

[Hall]

...but I know if i did have a DVR and it got shut off, contract IMO with dish becomes null, void, and nothing more than a piece of paper. ...

Since you don't have a DVR, you can claim you don't know what you're talking about in terms of your contract.... FWIW, no one's "contract" with Dish mentions anything related to DVRs that would make or break the terms. If Dish had to shut them off, they'd simply not charge the add'l fee, and all would be fine (legally).

[Bob Haller]

Since you don't have a DVR, you can claim you don't know what you're talking about in terms of your contract.... FWIW, no one's "contract" with Dish mentions anything related to DVRs that would make or break the terms. If Dish had to shut them off, they'd simply not charge the add'l fee, and all would be fine (legally).

If E shut off DVRs for folks under contract and tried to hold them to it the furor would make headlines.

E CANT have that happen

[rockymtnhigh]

If E shut off DVRs for folks under contract and tried to hold them to it the furor would make headlines.

E CANT have that happen

That isn't going to happen, in any way, shape, or form. They'd swap out mpeg-4 receivers before they shut people off. Come on. The Tivo folks would like that, but its not in the cards.

[Skyhi]

That isn't going to happen, in any way, shape, or form. They'd swap out mpeg-4 receivers before they shut people off. Come on. The Tivo folks would like that, but its not in the cards.

Bingo!!!

[jacmyoung]

Ok, now I see where you are confused. You have the time periods of pre-judgment and post-judgment confused. While the period during the stay did happen after the judgment was rendered by HJF, the judgment was not final, as the appeal process was still going forward and the stay was on from the CACF.

Please don't use the terms such as "confused" or "moron" when you yourselv makes mistakes in interpretation of law all the time. On or around 8/06 Judge Folsom entered his final judgment and the permenant injunction. E* was able to appeal the decision only because it was the final judgment by the court. Whether the appeals court unheld or overturned the final judgment would not have changed the fact it was the final judgment.

TiVo did try to argue for enhanced damages during the previous time period, but HJF properly found that the rate should be the same, as the judgement was not final.

Enhanced damages were to only over the stay period, which was post-judgment period. TiVo said so themselves, did you read their 9/4/08 arguments? TiVo never argued for anything "during the previous time" on 9/4/08, that was done and final, could not be changed. But TiVo argued to raise the post-judgment rate for the stay period. Judge Folsom ruled that no, he ruled it should be the same as the pre-judgment jury's rate.

Now it is, and has been for some time. Thus, when the post-judgement damages get figured, you WILL see at LEAST 3X on the pre-judgement number, just like you saw E* get their butts handed to them yesterday.

The final judgment was final back in 06, it could not be changed unless if the appeals court asked it to be changed which they did not. The final judgment covers the period prior to 08/06. The post-judgment stay period is now covered in this most recent ruling by the judge.

Judge Folsom asked for another proceeding to determine additional sanctions post-the-stay-period later this month, but as I said if E* can get a stay of the order from the appeals court, things will stop until the appeals court rule whether to uphold the judge's ruling and order, or overturn them, either in part or in whole.

E* already has the temporory stay, after TiVo's response, the appeals court will make a further decision on this issue.

[jacmyoung]

That isn't going to happen, in any way, shape, or form. They'd swap out mpeg-4 receivers before they shut people off. Come on. The Tivo folks would like that, but its not in the cards.

If the appeals court refuses to stay the order after reviewing TiVo's response, E* will have to shut off some of the DVRs unless they settle. I do not believe E* can replace all the DVRs in time.

They can decide which of those DVRs will continue to be used as part of the 190K units, and replace as fast as they could for the remaining DVRs, and for those that they cannot replace in time within the 30 days, they will have to notify the users of the impact, and maybe offer some discount until they get around to replace for them. But that is just one of the possible scenarios.

Which is why a stay is so important, even if it is "temporary." The 30-day clock stops ticking as long as there is a stay.

[harshness]

There only needs to be a contempt hearing to determine whether the newer models violate that injunction.

You can't have a contempt hearing before a lawsuit is lodged, no?

[rtmoore4]

Please don't use the terms such as "confused" or "moron" when you yourselv makes mistakes in interpretation of law all the time.

For the record, I never said moron, so don't put words in my mouth and try to get me banned. I'm doing my best to educate here, not bash you.

As for the rest, I give up. I think the rest of the community understands what a stay is and why a judgment isn't actually final until a stay is lifted. That was my only goal. There is clearly no convincing you of anything, despite having the facts beat you over the head repeatedly.