DISH - TiVO Case: Stay granted pending appeal

[jacmyoung]

The original ruling cannot be overturned.

I think he meant the full ruling dated 6/2/09. If not then you are correct, and I will add that DVRs are not "general purpose computers."

He is absolutely correct that software and hardware are integral part of the DVRs, if the software can make the DVRs non-infringing, then the DVRs are non-infringing, despite the fact the DVRs are still the "same" DVRs.

[jacmyoung]

Plenty of other things can and will happen.

For one thing, before Judge Folsom is the status conference on additional sanctions, though it will be interesting to see how it will proceed given the appeals court stay order.

I said the above on 7/2/09. I was thinking we might find out what E* would do on the above issue in their additional sanction response brief due on 7/13.

But today E* filed two motions ahead of the time. First they motioned Judge Folsom to suspend the scheduled additional sanction proceeding, citing the appeals court's stay of the judge's orders.

On the second motion E* asked if the judge would not automatically suspend his own proceeding, then both TiVo and E*'s briefings on the first E*'s motion to be shortened and to be completed by the end of this week.

Judge Folsom granted E*'s second motion with modification that TiVo's response is due by the end of the week, and E*'s response due by Monday next week, basically extending the time by one business day.

Next week we should know if the judge will stay his own additional sanction proceeding.