TIVO vs E*

[Richard Cranium]

Nope. It's a statement of fact. Patent validity would not be an allowed issue at the ViP contempt hearing just like it wasn't an allowed issue at the recent contempt hearing.

Of course this is fact. Why is this even being argued? I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet, but even I can plainly see this is a fact.

[Curtis0620]

Yes, you have been living in 2006 all this time, I know, and stay there.

For the rest of the folks, this is about the contempt proceeding, it started at around 6/08, not 2004.

Still waiting, what has DISH proven?

[Richard Cranium]

This is too funny.

TiVo has proven that DISH infringes on their patent.

What has DISH proven yet?

Charlie proved that crime doesn't pay to the tune of $105 million, with another $200 million or so more on the way.

Oh, and he's proven that he can litigate himself into paying $5.00 a box as opposed to the $1.50 a box Tivo originally asked for.

[jacmyoung]

Of course this is fact. Why is this even being argued? I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet, but even I can plainly see this is a fact.

This is exactly why one should not use the ignore button, makes the question sound stupid

[Curtis0620]

Charlie proved that crime doesn't pay to the tune of $105 million, with another $200 million or so more on the way.

Oh, and he's proven that he can litigate himself into paying $5.00 a box as opposed to the $1.50 a box Tivo originally asked for.

+1

[jacmyoung]

Still waiting, what has DISH proven?

1) TiVo's treble and attorney fees request denied;
2) TiVo's argument not to stay the injunction on appeal denied;
3) No infringement on the hardware claims;
4) TiVo's request for infringement analysis on 5/30/08 denied as urged by E*;
5) Violation on the face without looking at the design around is against the law;
6) Colorable difference issue must first be looked at;
7) The E* DE case is a solid case, not "forum shopping" as TiVo argued;
8) There is "substantial new question" regarding the validity of the two TiVo's software claims...

What has TiVo proven?

1) $104M;
2) The same $104M;
3) The same $104M; and
4) The same $104M...

But wait, I forgot, that was proven in 2006, my bad.

Nothing by TiVo in the last two and half years.

[nobody99]

I asked Nobody99 to show us the link to his "stats" about the second reexamination assertion, he could not provide one.

Vagts' Basic Corporation Law Materials, Cases and Text, 3rd Edition. Page 457, 3rd paragaraph.

Sorry, it's not online. You'll have to consult your own legal textbooks for this one. You can't believe everything you read on the internets.

[Curtis0620]

1) TiVo's treble and attorney fees request denied;
2) TiVo's argument not to stay the injunction on appeal denied;
3) No infringement on the hardware claims;
4) TiVo's request for infringement analysis on 5/30/08 denied as urged by E*;
5) Violation on the face without looking at the design around is against the law;
6) Colorable difference issue must first be looked at;
7) The E* DE case is a solid case, not "forum shopping" as TiVo argued;
8) There is "substantial new question" regarding the validity of the two TiVo's software claims...

So, they have proven how to manipulate the current court system to drap out the case.

The main issue is infringement, all of this is insignificant.

[Kevinw]

We have gotten to many reported posts today form this thread. Either play nice no more slagging name calling and reporting or I will give a vacation to those that hit the report button as well as the offender.

[jacmyoung]

So, they have proven how to manipulate the current court system to drap out the case.

So when E* had proven things, you call it manipulating the court system, but when TiVo had proven one thing back in 2006, it was something else?

Supposedly that the USPTO by failing to evaluate the two prior patents in combination, and made a mistake by granting the two TiVo's software claims, and therefore allowed TiVo to extort the $104M from E*, what would you call that?

I am not saying TiVo extorted anything, they did so through legal means, that is how things done in this country.

The main issue is infringement, all of this is insignificant.

True, whether the new design still infringes or not. TiVo has finally faced up to this reality. TiVo for the last year insisted the issue was "on the face" rather infringement, TiVo was disproven.