Dish in another Patent Suite, This time over Dish Pro Plus

[KAB]

Just wondering:

The Glogal Communications Inc Patent was filed on March 24, 2005.

I searched and found articles on DishPro technology published on August 24, 2004.

I know it may be hard for the Charlie bashers to accept, but maybe this is a nuisance lawsuit againt E*.

You may have just ruined Goaliebob's day.
Edit: Don't know what you are looking at. Patent issue December 25, 2001. Goaliebob still happy.

[TheKrell]

Well, there's a difference between DishPro (bandstacked) technology and DishPro Plus, which is "bandstacked with a separator" for two tuners.

Here's the patent.. looks like they invented the DPP separator.. ..

No! No no no no! (A separator is just a diplexer with the crossover frequency set between bands of a DP signal.) How in h*&^ can you patent such an obvious application of a trivial filter? I think we should all patent inhaling oxygen while changing channels. That makes about as much sense.

[Voyager6]

7. On June 2, 2009, United States Patent No. 7,542,717 (“the ‘717 patent”) entitled
“Satellite Broadcast Receiving and Distribution System” was duly and legally issued with
James A. Green, Sr. and Austin S. Coker, Jr. as the named inventors after full and fair
examination. Global is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ‘717 patent and
possesses all rights of recovery under the ‘717 patent.

How can you be damaged when you file the lawsuit the same day as you get the patent?

[vodad]

From what I can find, this company has multiple patents in satellite equipment.

the one for DP Plus seems to have been issued on 06/02/2009

they have another that looks to be about simular stuff from 2001.


patent# - 6334045

The present invention relates generally to a satellite broadcasting receiving and distribution system, and more particularly to a broadcasting receiving and distribution system that will allow for the transmission of vertical and horizontal (or left-hand circular and right-hand circular) polarization signals simultaneously via a single coaxial cable.

the one from 2009

patent# - 7542717
The technology herein relates generally to a satellite broadcasting receiving and distribution system and more particularly to a broadcasting receiving and distribution system that will allow for the transmission of vertical and horizontal orleft-hand circular and right-hand circular polarization signals to be transmitted simultaneously via a single coaxial cable.

here is a third patent# - 6122482

That states almost the exact same thing as the other two, this one from 2000

I am not an expert on satellite broadcasting, but is this really DP Plus?

Could someone please explain it a little better than they did in the patent applications.

Thanks

[pabeader]

I'm no expert either, but from the way the patent shows the block diagram, it's close to a DPP but not exactly.
You would have to seperate a number of the internal components of A DPP into different boxes, and connect them by coax, to be the same.

[Roxor]

Dish keeps getting sued since it has deep pockets, plus it has a track record of losing. Dish, like other major companies, got successful by borrowing from others. Make billions and lose millions = you are still way ahead. It's always about the money.

[K9SAT]

You may have just ruined Goaliebob's day.
Edit: Don't know what you are looking at. Patent issue December 25, 2001. Goaliebob still happy.

You didnt ruined my day... Im actally for dish, I just bash on them because I think they are not doing enough and I know they could be doing better. Where they need to take the company and where its going is two diffrent things. Im a diffrent type of thinker around here.. Most dont like the way I think because they just dont get it. But once they hear me out, it makes sence and then they start to think the way I do.

[nelson61]

They got a little ahead of the horse when they filed on June 1 (from header) for a patent that did not exist until June 2. Probably racing to the courthouse door to pick their judge.

[primestar31]

Oh come on, I know Charlie is a pirate from way back, but still, Dish has been using DishproPlus technology for at least 3-4 years. This companies patent was only granted 3 weeks ago!

How is that stealing? Charlie had it before they did! If they really did "invent it" 9 years ago, and Charlie "borrowed it", I guess he'll have to pay them royalties now, but that's up to the judge to decide.

There is a situation, where several inventors can come up with the SAME invention, at the SAME time, by coincidence. It's happened many times over the years. I know Charlies history tends to go against that, but this situation doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make Charlie the "bad guy" here!

[iwc5893]

Oh come on, I know Charlie is a pirate from way back, but still, Dish has been using DishproPlus technology for at least 3-4 years. This companies patent was only granted 3 weeks ago!

How is that stealing? Charlie had it before they did! If they really did "invent it" 9 years ago, and Charlie "borrowed it", I guess he'll have to pay them royalties now, but that's up to the judge to decide.

There is a situation, where several inventors can come up with the SAME invention, at the SAME time, by coincidence. It's happened many times over the years. I know Charlies history tends to go against that, but this situation doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make Charlie the "bad guy" here!

The patent was originally filed for on July 21, 2000 and the effective date of the patent is listed as December 25, 2001. Just because it takes the USPTO years to approve a patent doesn't make Charlie the "good guy" either.

So the question is, are patents retroactive to the time they were filed or do they stand on the time they are approved? If the former, then Charlie could be in trouble....if the latter, then patentees really don't get any patent protection then, do they?