Search results for query: *

Nope. Here is what I said: The judgment in question is the contempt finding. TiVo has not received any money for this, the judgment in question.

Once more time: I corrected a poster who thought the $105 million judgment is in question. It is not in question. It was appealed fully. The Supreme Court declined the appeal. It is history and is not in question.

Perhaps the subtlety escaped you. The $105 million judgment is not in question.

Yep. $105 million from the judgment that is not in question.

Echostar's liability limit is $5 million.

Nope. TiVo hasn't been paid yet for the judgment in question.

The TiVo patent involved in this case expires 07-30-2018.

It certainly isn't correct to characterize it as "losing money hand over fist". TiVo has several other irons in the fire too such as Virgin cable in England. TiVo and Virgin Media Partner in the UK TiVo Inc. and Virgin Media Inc., the UK's leading entertainment and communications company...

TiVo has several hundred million dollars in the bank, no debt, and a low cash burn rate.

I'll bet TiVo isn't exactly thrilled with this. It doesn't surprise me though.

I guess the big question is whether the DVRs are capable of bypassing the hard drive completely (as required by the injunction) and still display a picture.

Judge Folsom looks at the total public benefit of having a good patent system. Here is what he wrote: Although the injunction will likely result in some degree of customer loss and will impact Defendants’ ability to compete in the market, Defendants will not be irreparably harmed. Again...

... and then TiVo could buy them at a fire-sale price.

Patent holders can have several appeals within the USPTO and then if they aren't happy they can appeal in a federal court, then the Appeals Court, then the Supreme Court. It can take years. Meanwhile the patent is legally valid. "Research In Motion on Wednesday lost two rounds in the...

If the ViP series infringes, they never should have been enabled in the first place and Dish is in contempt. The corollary to that is that they would already be required to be disabled.

TiVo wouldn't issue a license for just a portion of the DVRs they believe infringe. In fact, TiVo may not be willing to license any of them period. DirecTV would pay a lot for an exclusive license.

Thread drift.

Perhaps you didn't hear about the recent contempt of court ruling by judge Folsom. Dish claimed that their workaround created products more than colorably different from the named products and not subject to the injunction. TiVo disagreed. So did Judge Folsom. So there is the "who" and the 'what...

The point I was making is that the injunction already orders the ViP series to be disabled if they are only colorably different from the named models. Ergen knows.

I think there is a problem with the tense (in a legal sense). If it is determined that the ViP models are only colorably different from the named models then the damages for contempt won't start with the date of the contempt finding. The damages will be retroactive to the date they were offered...

Dish applied for a patent for the software that was found to be in contempt. There is no other patent applied for. It's all the same stuff.

Judge Folsom has granted a stay until midnight, June 4.

"A contempt proceeding for violation of a patent infringement injunction will lie where the new and alleged offending device is merely 'colorably' different from the enjoined device or from the patent. In American Foundry & Mfg. Co. v. Josam Mfg. Co., supra, this Court held, 79 F.2d at 117:10"

So a company can just slap a new model number on a box and make a few minor unrelated changes and say that they are off the hook? Nope. That's why everyone deserves a day in court to determine in a contempt hearing whether there is only a colorable difference. If there's more than a colorable...