TIVO vs E*

[jacmyoung]

But why is it ok for you to assume otherwise?

No I did not assume anything, I only quoted you as saying eveyone else wanted to know my provider, and everyone else reports to the mod. It was your assumption everyone thinks like you.

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 eaxctly what I differ from you, I do not care what is your background, or Greg's, I only care what his argument is and repond to that only. This is how an argument is supposed to be made, on the merit itself, not the person who makes the argument.

You on the other hand had shown us you focus a great deal on the person, before his argument, it is a fallacy called arguing against the man.

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....

Your belief that your opinion is just as good and equal as the Court's, is an opinion, not a fact.

[jacmyoung]

...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.

Don't feel bad for Charlie or E"* subs, if he is willing to risk his money that is his right. As long as there is competition, we the consumers will be fine. People can always switch

I agree he has not conducted his business well lately, but that has nothing to do with this case. E* business was doing better than anyone else last year, back then it had nothing to do with this case either.

This case did not cause E* to do so well last year, nor did it make E* business go down hill lately.

And I want to add one other thing, the fact E* is rolling out the new DTVPal DVRs, and turning their 211 HD receivers into HD DVRs, and making the point that they are all based on their VIP DVR technology, is a good sign E* still cares little about the outcome of this case. Their DVRs are moving full speed ahead, in fact the DTVPal will be in direct competition to a TiVo standalone DVR more so than any other DVRs on the market.

If Charlie is willing to risk it all, I am only happy to sit back and enjoy the show

[Greg Bimson]

Now to understand the differences in cases...

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.

Are you talking about the Eolas case? If so,
Microsoft and Eolas settled

in August, 2007:

After eight years, Microsoft Corp. has settled a patent dispute with a University of California spinoff that accused the company of illegally using its technology in Internet Explorer.

Eolas, based in the Chicago area, was formed by former University of California researcher Michael Doyle. Eolas had alleged that Internet Explorer violated its patent for accessing interactive content on Web pages.

So it appears they did license the patent.

They did not have to disable internet explorer on every computer in the world.

Nope. The appeals process actually forced a retrial, so no injunction ever took effect.

Since the E* DVR hardware part was removed from the case it comes down to a software patch.

Actually, the DISH/SATS hardware part was not removed.

DISH/SATS has been found guilty of infringing claims 31 and 61 of TiVo's Time Warp patent. Claim 31 is an apparatus, and Claim 61 is a process. The "hardware" has not been removed. The judgment in this case was on the receiver. And that injunction orders DISH/SATS to disable their receivers, for infringing the patent.

[msmith198025]

This case did not cause E* to do so well last year, nor did it make E* business go down hill lately.

I agree, the average consumer doesnt know a thing about this case. All they know is, at this point, their DVRs work. Other factors are guiding the company in the direction they have taken over the past year IMO

[jacmyoung]

Now to understand the differences in cases...Are you talking about the Eolas case? If so,
Microsoft and Eolas settled

in August, 2007:So it appears they did license the patent.Nope. The appeals process actually forced a retrial, so no injunction ever took effect.Actually, the DISH/SATS hardware part was not removed.

In that case (it could be another one of the MS cases I just do not remember for sure), before the settlement, the pantentee did motion for an injunction, and the court denied such motion. And if you had read the reasons behind why the court denied the injunction request, you would have seen mike123abc's point.

The court argued that if they were to grant an injunction to prohibit MS from using the operating system, MS would have to update a software patch to all the millions of the users worldwide in a very short time in order to avoid a contempt, and that would have imposed an unreasonable burden on the consumers who would have to deal with all the bugs and troubleshooting, the logistic would have been too difficult to justify an injunction, from an equitable standpoint.

Instead the court imposed a large sum of damage on MS, paid to the patentee. MS soon started uploading the new patch, and a settlement also followed.

Notice how the court said MS could indeed avoid a contempt by uploading a software patch, only that the court thought it was too harsh, as a result the court denied the injunction all together.

DISH/SATS has been found guilty of infringing claims 31 and 61 of TiVo's Time Warp patent. Claim 31 is an apparatus, and Claim 61 is a process. The "hardware" has not been removed. The judgment in this case was on the receiver. And that injunction orders DISH/SATS to disable their receivers, for infringing the patent.

The injunctions in such cases had always been to prohibit the proudcts (in the Starbrite case), the services (in Footprint2.0 case), the processes (in Betow Food case) and any bunisess operations as a whole, even though the infringement is always only a part of that whole, often times a small part.

And in the end, if the infringers managed to design around that infringing part successfully, they always managed to avoid a contempt, regardless if the products/services/processes were already sold, or in the field, or being used by the consumers, or still in the warehouse, or still on the store shelves, or already buried in the sand, it did not matter.

What does matter is whether the infringer still infringes at the time the contempt decision is made. If the patentee fails to prove with clear and convincing evidence that the infringer still infringes, there will be no contempt, even though infringement has happened in the past.

That is because, the Court has ruled that the only acts the injunction may prohibit, are the acts of infringement of the patent by the adjudicated devices, or acts of infringement by devices that are only colorably different than the adjudicated devices, to comply with the Rule, the injunction may only proscribe such acts.

[jacmyoung]

If TiVo fails to prove with clear and convincing evidence that those E* DVRs still infringe, yet still believes the injunction can prohibit those DVRs, TiVo essentially is insisting that this injunction does not have to follow the above Rule.

The question is how likely the judge will be willing to say yes to TiVo, against the rule by his own boss--the appeals court.

[Greg Bimson]

Notice how the court said MS could indeed avoid a contempt by uploading a software patch, only that the court thought it was too harsh, as a result the court denied the injunction all together.

I would respectfully state that in the Eolas case, the issue in question is infringement by software. In the TiVo case, infringement by the receiver has been found.

The injunction in the TiVo case is iron-clad, was not denied, was upheld by the Court of Appeals, and is now in full force and effect.

That is because, the Court has ruled that the only acts the injunction may prohibit, are the acts of infringement of the patent by the adjudicated devices, or acts of infringement by devices that are only colorably different than the adjudicated devices, to comply with the Rule, the injunction may only proscribe such acts.

And the injunction does just that, as well as order DISH/SATS to disable the products deemed infringing in end users hands. And now that the injunction is in full force and effect, it is too late to challenge the wording of the injunction because it may not "comply with the Rule".

[vampz26]

No I did not assume anything, I only quoted you as saying eveyone else wanted to know my provider, and everyone else reports to the mod. It was your assumption everyone thinks like you.





That is eaxctly what I differ from you, I do not care what is your background, or Greg's, I only care what his argument is and repond to that only. This is how an argument is supposed to be made, on the merit itself, not the person who makes the argument.

You on the other hand had shown us you focus a great deal on the person, before his argument, it is a fallacy called arguing against the man.



Your belief that your opinion is just as good and equal as the Court's, is an opinion, not a fact.

That's a lot os useless word there...here, let me simplify things.

1) How can I be guilty of a fallacy if I'm not arguing? I was only pointing faults in your logic. And correctly at that.

2) How can asking who your provider is be wrong? I would think practicing what you preach to be essential to any point. You still didn't answer. What's there to hide?

3) Your last issue makes no sense. You can't support your claim here with cute little wordgames. It was clever though...

[jacmyoung]

That's a lot os useless word there...here, let me simplify things.

1) How can I be guilty of a fallacy if I'm not arguing? I was only pointing faults in your logic. And correctly at that....

Pointing faults in my logic is arguing, and you did not try to point out the faults in my arguments, rather trying to point out who I am and go from there, that is the definition of arguing against man.

Other than trying to define me, not my arguments, you also appear to say whatever our arguments are they are pointless, because in the end whatever the judge will say will just be as pointless as far as you are concerned. None amounts to much any way, you only care what you think, because what you think is all that matters, if so why bother? Maybe this thread is not for you, maybe you can start your own thread called "why your opinions do not matter, nor the judge's opinion".

Just look at what Greg is doing arguing with me, he did not commit such fallacy by aruging against who I am, we both are pointing out the merits (or lack of them) of our arguments themselves, not his bias or mine. We obviously cared what each other's opinions even though we may disagree, and also what the judge's opinion will be.

[jacmyoung]

I would respectfully state that in the Eolas case, the issue in question is infringement by software. In the TiVo case, infringement by the receiver has been found.

The injunction in the TiVo case is iron-clad, was not denied, was upheld by the Court of Appeals, and is now in full force and effect.And the injunction does just that, as well as order

The injunction here is as "iron-clad" as those in the Starbrite, the Footprint2.0, the Bestow Foods, the Price Fisher, KSM, and many many others. In all of those cases, the infringers were not in contempt aftere their design arounds were found more than colorable, no exception. This injunction is not special, only TiVo wanted to make it special, different than all the other ones. Judging by that I'd say they will fail.

DISH/SATS to disable the products deemed infringing in end users hands. And now that the injunction is in full force and effect, it is too late to challenge the wording of the injunction because it may not "comply with the Rule".

E* is not challenging the wording of the injunction, E* agrees with the wording of the injunction. Just like all the infringers in those above cases. They are saying they were in compliance of the injunctions.

What TiVo is facing is, if TiVo is right that even if the act of using the DVRs no longer infringe on the patent, the injunction may still prohibit such act, then TiVo is asking the court to violate its own Rule 65d, the law, by trying to prohibit such legal act, such non-infringing act, even though the Court said very clearly no injunction can do that.