You cut the attacks. Argue the issues, I will decide what is cluttering the thread.
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 169K
- Status
You cut the attacks. Argue the issues, I will decide what is cluttering the thread.
Yes. It can.
Folsom's rulings and subsequent appeals can be used to strengthen TiVo's position in the four-factor test for granting a preliminary injunction. If it is shown that the technology of other DVR's are likely not to be colorably different than those ruled upon in the E* case, it will be shown to be likely that TiVo will succeed based on the merits of the case. TiVo can then get a preliminary injunction issued against those DVR's.
Simple as that.
Not if they are not the defendants subject to the injunction. Please don't make things up.
Folsom's rulings can't even be mentioned in a different lawsuit. Mistrial city. Totally irrelevant.Yes. It can.
Folsom's rulings and subsequent appeals can be used to strengthen TiVo's position
The issues may be relevant as far as infringement of the TiVo's patent, but still he was totally off the base.
The only thing one can say is, if TiVo is successful on appeal, many others on the fence may decide not to fight rather sign license agreement with TiVo.
Personal attack noted.
No conspiracy. Its just rather obvious there are shady dealings happening there.
They knew which name to pick because E* had their prototype DVR, and their code, TiVo knew E*'s DVRs very likely used TiVo's technology, it was easy picking.
What TiVo did not expect was Charlie would not settle. He would fight all the way.
The way it appears, if your DVR can do "trick play", TiVo is going to go after them. Motorola, Scientific Atlanta, Time Warner, an so on, here they come. Of course, for all anyone knows, TiVo has "private" licensing agreements with one or more of those companies. It's not like there has to be a press release. One of those companies may not want it known that they are using TiVo technology.
No, I understand your point, I am just saying that it is wrong. It wasn't Echostar the company that was prepared not to settle, it was Charlie the majority stockholder. His insane approach to this has put the rest of the company owners, as well as his customers in jeopardy. When the class action suits get filed, and Charlie is crying that he was doing the best thing for the company, as opposed to just feeding his ego, we will see about the destruction of E*.
What I was saying was E* was not a name in the hat TiVo happened to pick out by chance. TiVo offered E* their prototype DVR and code. Other companies did not have such info.
Is that another educational lecture?
E* has the right to change the service or terminate any part of the service, it is in the contract, there will be no class actions. People can leave.But just like when you said the appeals court could find E* appeal frivolous, this class action thing is another one of your hypotheticals that has no factual basis to stand on.
Stop lying! I never said there was a second contempt ( I believe the first contempt has been reiterated, and will ultimately come to bear with punitive measures on E*), and I never said I wanted to see E* destroyed, I simply pointed out what an admirable job the CEO is doing in that regard.
If you are going to refer to something that you think I have said, please quote it, because obviously you need to re-read things before you make reference to them.
I simply don't recall the number of lines of code being referred to as the only criteria for E*'s edited code being found no more than colorably different. Can you provide a citation for those statements please?
We are talking about a preliminary injunction. Not a permanent injunction. All that must be shown is likelihood of success on the merits. If, say Time Warner DVR's infringe on the same claims that the jury, Folsom, the CAFC and patent re-exam all upheld, TiVo can use that to demonstrate the likelihood of success.
This would be done through a separate lawsuit and when a preliminary injunction is given the new defendant does not lose due process rights or get a mistrial as someone else on here had said.
Believe me, the rest of the shareholders are not happy with the way this is being handled. I know you can only view this from the standpoint of the users, but there are others that have a large stake in it and have no agreements not to sue.Is that another educational lecture?
But just like when you said the appeals court could find E* appeal frivolous, this class action thing is another one of your hypotheticals that has no factual basis to stand on.
Regarding lines of code, that is indeed irrelevant and as anyone knows trivial code changes such as indirect parsing in the header versus direct parsing are not patentable based on the doctrine of equivalents in patent law.
In terms of lines of code, I have programming experience and there are many places I've seen in the corporate world where 10,000 lines can be condensed into less than a 100 by using simple looping and conditional statements. Often as programming is added to existing code for new products or trivial changes the lines of code grows exponentially. Therefore lines of code is truly irrelevant.
Additionally, I've seen programming costs for what are on the surface simple changes. I've seen an estimate from an IT division of over $100,000 for a simple change where a variable was pulled from an alternate system. The majority of IT costs can be due to implementation factors and testing. Not the actual change itself.
Really cost or number of lines is irrelevant. It is all about the resulting change and reading through the E* patent the main "difference" is indirect versus direct "parsing" of video and audio data. IMO, it is an extreme long shot that parsing indirectly would ever hold up in a patent exam or the courts. Indirect or Direct still ends up with the same net result and there is no substantive benefit of indirect parsing. I mention this because a key measure of the ability to patent something is if it improves on the original patent. I would argue it is clear that indirect parsing does not.
A jury would need to make such a decision. That's the central question in the lawsuit. "Did they infringe?".
Of course, and that right is not waived. But a PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION is determine preliminarily before any jury determines any decision. It is done by the judge based on the four-factor test that you should be aware of... all TiVo needs is a likelihood of success and I would argue that if the DVR's for another infringer perform trick play in the same way as E* that they violate claims 31 and 61.
As you said, the jury could still make a separate decision, but the DVR functionality would likely be turned off...
I am "aware of...". Apparently you aren't. The Supreme Court's four factor test applies to permanent injunctions. Their decision said nothing about preliminary injunctions.
A new Markman hearing in a new lawsuit might easily define terms such as "parsing" with a completely different result. That's one of the main reasons Dish tried to start a new lawsuit in Delaware. They wanted a new Markman hearing. They wanted new definitions. A new lawsuit would start over from scratch whether it happens in Texas or Delaware. Whatever Folsom ruled previously would never even be heard from. It's irrelevant.
Last edited:
Be careful with the personal attacks and focus more on researching your false asssertions. I will stick to proving you wrong.
The four-factor test is regarding injunctive relief. It should be obvious that preliminary or permanent doesn't matter because at either point it is still an injunction. Here is one of many reputable links that discuss the four factor test for preliminary injunctions.
Patent Law Blog (Patently-O): CAFC: As a Matter of Law, Preliminary Injunction Defeated by "Casting Doubt" on Patent's Validity
That preliminary injunction was shot down by the appeals court. Conveniently, it says so right in the link provided. That isn't the important point. No court is going to relinquish their authority to define terms to another court on the same level. The next court in the next lawsuit may define "parsing" as spreading peanut butter on a sandwich. Each court and each lawsuit is independent.
- Status
