Thread: Notice of Tivo Injunction

Originally Posted by TWT

You already know i said DVR' users.



God's law.

ALL DVR users? That was my question. I guess my follow up is what about the units not mentioned.
Also, and feel free to dodge the question again, but what United States laws are Dish Network DVR customers breaking? Links?
And why should I feel joy if all dish DVRs got turned off if they (the customers) arent breaking any laws?

Originally Posted by TWT

You believe that DISH DVR customers deserve to steal from TIVO.

Where did I say that?

Originally Posted by TWT

This is a very bad example. DISH customers do not murder people by watching their DVR's.

Dish CUSTOMERS also did NOT write the code that makes the DVRs infringe. So your argument here is no good either.

Originally Posted by TWT

There is absolutely no proof that Replay TV did not infringe on the Tivo time warp patent. We would need 4.5 years worth of trials to figure that one out.

Replay beat them to market by a couple of months. We went over this. They tried suing each other early on, and settled on a non-agression pact. If Replay really was infringing, Tivo has had almost a decade to do something about it, and THEY HAVEN'T.

Originally Posted by Tyralak

Replay beat them to market by a couple of months. We went over this. They tried suing each other early on, and settled on a non-agression pact. If Replay really was infringing, Tivo has had almost a decade to do something about it, and THEY HAVEN'T.

TiVo marketed the first DVRs. ReplayTV was second:

"They released their first DVR to market shortly after TiVo did, in 1999."

Gizmo Lovers Blog » ReplayTV

ReplayTV never had enough money to make a lawsuit worthwhile.

Originally Posted by Thomas22

TiVo marketed the first DVRs. ReplayTV was second:


Gizmo Lovers Blog » ReplayTV

ReplayTV never had enough money to make a lawsuit worthwhile.

But do you think now DirecTV has enough money to make it worthwhile?

Originally Posted by TWT

Nope, I only drink on Thanksgiving and Christmas. One drink.

Don't tell me...TiVo Kool-Aid?

While I do think the judge will have no choice but to turn off all infringing DVRs, I certainly won't be gloating over how Ma and Pa Kettle's DVRs...the ones they purchased using retirement funds...get turned off.

Originally Posted by Ken F

I'll wait for the transcript, but it sounds like the court dismissed Echostar's claim of new, non-infringing software -- i.e. the new software still infringes -- and the court will proceed with the contempt hearing and discussion of damages on September 4.

It turned out the "early words" about that meeting was very much off base.

The meeting lasted about 15 minutes, all it did was to schedule the next hearing in 09/08, a little over three months from now, meanwhile absolutely no discussion about the new software took place in that meeting.

The meeting did give some clues:

1) The differences on the escrow issue (damages prior to 06 appeal) were resolved between DISH and Tivo on their own.
2) Some minor issues such as how to treat the box swapping among the 192,000 units that were allowed to continue with the infringing software, if they are gone bad, can other infringing products take their places by swapping, as long as the total infringing units remain no more than 192,000? This issue will be decided in the next meeting also.
3) The judge scheduled the 09/08 contempt hearing to address only one issue about the injunction, that is Tivo's part 1 request about the "disabling of the DVR functionalities of the Infinging Products".

The judge however denied Tivo's request to include its part 2 in the next hearing, saying the part 1 must be resolved first.

The part 2 Tivo included in its filing has to do with the enhenced damages during the stay of the injunction when DISH was appealing the jury verdict. It also touched on all DISH DVRs that are not on the injunction list.

What that means is for Tivo to even begin to discuss anything else (enhenced damages, other DVRs) the disabling of the DVRs on the list must first be resolved. And judging from the court busy schedule, this process can take 6 months or more, because DISH has the appeal rights.

As far as DISH subs stealing, I know the Tivo folks come up with such catchy slogans all the time, as far as the court is concerned, it is one of the 4 tests they use to determine the measures taken to an infringer, that one is called "public interest" test.

In almost all similar cases, the infringing products already in the hands of the end users were never disabled or removed, they were always allowed to be used in the future. Only the infringers are not allowed to sell addtional such infringing products. So the idea of the end users should not be allowed to continue to steal is stupid to begin with.

In this case however, the injunction actually went beyond the usual cases, insisted all Infringing Products on the list in the field must also be disabled. The question is how will the judge explain it, if he decides that those modified DVRs (with new software), which may not be infringing anymore, must still be disabled, when in his other cases he regularly allowed infringing products in the field continue to infringe.