TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 170K
- Status
Except not just Rogers, but the retailer chat said so too.
Look at it this way, E* must prepare for the next status meeting coming soon later this month if the appeals court does not stop it, on that meeting TiVo will likely introduce all the E* new DVRs including the VIPs.
By downloading the same new software onto them, as long as E* is confident that the new software is non-infringing, the issue will have to be sort out along the appeal. The appeals court usually takes about 6 months to make a decision, while Judge Folsom's proceedings will take about the same time if not longer.
As long as E* is confident they can win on appeal, there is no downside of declaring that all E* DVRs now are redesigned.
Depends, only a chosen few have the right to express their opinion, and those chosen few aren't shy about ganging up on those who don't !
You're a few hours slow there ... he's been told who it is and has thanked those who told him (including you !). Until your post earlier, I had NO clue who he was either.
My tolerance for you is very thin.
I asked a question, got an answer; and said thank you - twice.
If you choose to attack me, I will not hesitate to send you packing. Consider this the public warning.
Not "so most recently". This was back when DISH/SATS uploaded new software to the eight models of receivers found infringing. DISH/SATS also uploaded that software to the 622/722.jacmyoung said:
That tidbit was mentioned in a letter to retailers dated 18 April 2008. That was the date the injunction was put into effect.
There has supposedly been no new software since the design-around software, and I'd suspect all receivers have some variation of that software. That is the the same software which is now running on the receivers found infringing for a second time.
Unfortunately we do not have E*'s motion to read, but by the reading of TiVo's response, it appears E* did not mention the two other elements of the software step: the "audio and video data" and the "temporarily stores." If E* only argued on a single element "parse" I don't see a likelihood of succeeding. One can certainly say the PID filter parses too, just not the kind of parse that has to do with the "audio and video data from the broadcast data," nor "temporarily stores said audio and video data," even though during the hearing E* spent a lot of time on these two elements.
On the issue of "Infringing Products" in the injunction, TiVo argued the same as the judge, that the "Infringing Products" meant for the adjudicated DVRs in their "entirety," meaning both the hardware and software. Because of that TiVo argued even if the new software is non-infringing, it only covers part of the "Infringing Products" and the hardware part is still under the injunction.
But such argument misses the point, if only the new software no longer infringes, the "entire" DVRs no longer infringe, therefore the "entire" DVRs are no longer "Infringing Products," and as such the injuction no longer applies to them.
As I said I believe for the appeals court to stay the order pending appeal, E* must prove there is a very good likelihood that E* can succeed on appeal, nothing else should matter much this time. Without seeing E*'s motion, there is no way of telling what exactly did E* say in there. Will have to wait and see how the appeals court will respond.
On the issue of "Infringing Products" in the injunction, TiVo argued the same as the judge, that the "Infringing Products" meant for the adjudicated DVRs in their "entirety," meaning both the hardware and software. Because of that TiVo argued even if the new software is non-infringing, it only covers part of the "Infringing Products" and the hardware part is still under the injunction.
But such argument misses the point, if only the new software no longer infringes, the "entire" DVRs no longer infringe, therefore the "entire" DVRs are no longer "Infringing Products," and as such the injuction no longer applies to them.
As I said I believe for the appeals court to stay the order pending appeal, E* must prove there is a very good likelihood that E* can succeed on appeal, nothing else should matter much this time. Without seeing E*'s motion, there is no way of telling what exactly did E* say in there. Will have to wait and see how the appeals court will respond.
But doesn't the new software still infringe because it is only "colorably different" according to the District Court?
I think that this the whole debate we have been trying to have (with limited success) in the past couple days.
The point was, both TiVo and the judge said even if the new software was more than colorably different and the design-around was non-infringing, the DVRs were still "Infringing Products." This is the biggest hole in the ruling.
I think that this the whole debate we have been trying to have (with limited success) in the past couple days.
Not exactly, yes we have been debating whether the design around is still an infringement or not, but the above point was argued by TiVo and the judge under the assumption that the design-around is non-infringing.
- Status
