TIVO vs E*

[jacmyoung]

... so in no way will a judges opinion prove anything. But in this particular case...if it stops jacmyoung from trolling E* forums looking for trouble and you all can use the judges opinion for establishing a common ground...I say go for it! Excellent idea.

1) A judge's opinion always means more than yours and mine, and a judge's opinion, upheld by the appeals court, then the Supreme Court, will most certainly mean a lot more than what you and I think, even if at times our legal system may do people wrong. There is a reason you and I are not a judge

2) You do not know if I am still a E* sub or not, but assumed I am not.

3) Additionally, I am in the E* forum defending E*, because there are non-E* subs, mostly TiVo supporters, continue to come into the E* forums to tell the E* subs how their DVRs will have to be shut off. You could not even correctly identify who is really trolling here.

[jacmyoung]

Oh, I'll admit that my position is wrong if Judge Folsom does not grant the contempt motion.

However, it is that my belief in the justice system will be shaken...

Here is where you and I differ, no matter how wrong I may be proven by the judges, my belief in the justice system will not be shaken. Nothing is perfect, there will never be a time that we can have perfect justice, but I am convinced over time the system will be more just than before.

[vampz26]

1) A judge's opinion always means more than yours and mine, and a judge's opinion, upheld by the appeals court, then the Supreme Court, will most certainly mean a lot more than what you and I think, even if at times our legal system may do people wrong. There is a reason you and I are not a judge.

I am not a judge, but I have a very vast knowledge of the legal system from many, many angles. If anyone knows the faults in the legal system, I do. Any attempt at using a judges opinion as a basis of fact is nothing more than an appeal to false authority, because in most cases not only is the judge a failed attorney appointed to a government position thanks to nepotism, but has virtually no knowledge what-so-ever on the details of what they are judging! Does a family court attorney know the character of the couple? Does a criminal court judge personally know the crediblity of the defendent? Is Judge Folsom an engineer? NO! He only knows the law and whatever flim-flam the lawyers yammer about it...his opinion proves nothing. It just gets the job done so people can get on with their lives...

2) You do not know if I am still a E* sub or not, but assumed I am not..

I assumed nothing...I asked a question...and told you why I asked it.

You didn't answer it...

3) Additionally, I am in the E* forum defending E*, because there are non-E* subs, mostly TiVo supporters, continue to come into the E* forums to tell the E* subs how their DVRs will have to be shut off. You could not even correctly identify who is really trolling here.

Than do what everyone else does...report the post.

[jacmyoung]

...I assumed nothing...I asked a question...and told you why I asked it.

No you didn't. You said everyone wanted to know, but I could only find you asking that question, not another person. You did assume everyone wanted to know.

Than do what everyone else does...report the post.

Again your assumption everyone reports. Not everyone wants to bother the mods Besides there were members who said they liked to read the debate between Greg and me to learn more.

But we are going OT here because of you now

[vampz26]

No you didn't. You said everyone wanted to know, but I could only find you asking that question, not another person. You did assume everyone wanted to know.

I assumed everyone was at least curious....am I wrong? Anyone that knows your posting history would be. You still didn't answer the question...

Again your assumption everyone reports. Not everyone wants to bother the mods Besides there were members who said they liked to read the debate between Greg and me to learn more.

There were members who were annoyed as well...and there was nothing to learn...

BTW...thats what the mods are here for...stop useless bickering...(like ours at the moment...)

But we are going OT here because of you now

I didn't go OT...I asked who you subbed too in order to better understand your position, and disagreed with the value you placed on a judges opinion...you made it personal.

And you still didn't answer the question...

[jacmyoung]

...I didn't go OT...I asked who you subbed too in order to better understand your position, and disagreed with the value you placed on a judges opinion...you made it personal.

And you still didn't answer the question...

I didn't make it personal, the fact you think I made it personal was unfortunate. I simply tried to point out several of your statements seemed to be based on the assumption that whatever you want to know or do, everyone else must also want the same. I only speak for myself, no one else.

I do not think whether I sub to E* or not will help you understand my position better, because my position cannot be clearer already.

That is why I care not to answer your question. No one else cared to ask it. It is OT and you started it by asking it. The title of this thread is TiVo vs E*, not who is your provider.

Your opinion of our judges may have some relevance to this thread, I hope we can agree to disagree and move on.

[msmith198025]

Charlie's stubborn ass cheapness.

aint that the truth

[vampz26]

I didn't make it personal, the fact you think I made it personal was unfortunate. I simply tried to point out several of your statements seemed to be based on the assumption that whatever you want to know or do, everyone else must also want the same. I only speak for myself, no one else..

But why is it ok for you to assume otherwise?

I do not think whether I sub to E* or not will help you understand my position better, because my position cannot be clearer already..

Not really. WHo you sub to is very important. It helps illustrate your perspective which is essential to the validity of your point.

That is why I care not to answer your question. No one else cared to ask it. It is OT and you started it by asking it. The title of this thread is TiVo vs E*, not who is your provider..

lol...if you say so....

Please wipe your feet on the mat...

Your opinion of our judges may have some relevance to this thread, I hope we can agree to disagree and move on.

Thats not my opinion on judges...its a fact about our legal system. A well documented fact at that. You may choose to ignore it if you like, but don't expect me to....

[Greg Bimson]

And with that said, I am a DirecTV sub with TiVo DVR's. However, I also chimed in on the distant network mess at the end of 2006.

I don't like seeing the satellite television industry taking hits, and most of them are coming from the "I'm just stubborn" CEO of Dish Network and Echostar.

IN MY OPINION, the more the TiVo case is prolonged, the more it will cost everyone in the long run. IN MY OPINION, the law is on TiVo's side, and Mr. Ergen is acting as if TiVo is a windmill while he is Don Quixote. Meanwhile, the business of DISH is being ignored while this fight is ongoing. And the business of DISH is suffering.

[mike123abc]

The simple fact is that for any piece of equipment which can be modified once sold and installed, which is most consumer electronic devices nowadays, there will be no way a patentee will ever be able to hold an infringer's feet to the fire, even with an injunction. That is severely flawed.

Think about it. All DISH/SATS has to do is change one byte of code so they can ignore a court order. Even if DISH/SATS modifies a billion lines of code, it doesn't change the finding of infringement of near 4 million receivers. The injunction orders DISH/SATS to shut down those receivers ruled infringing. If DISH/SATS wants to keep them on, they do what the egg processor did: move the court to find their new process no longer infringes.

It happens all the time. Microsoft lost the case where an application can load into a browser automatically. They sent out a patch to make it so you have to click to activate an app in IE. They did not want to license the patent. They did not have to disable internet explorer on every computer in the world. Since the E* DVR hardware part was removed from the case it comes down to a software patch.