The fact is that I did! Nearly 25 years ago. I even had it programmed on a VT100 terminal attached to a VAX. But never in a million years did I guess that the PTO would be granting patents over such trivia.
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 168K
- Status
If a patent says "drill a hole ..." that doesn't mean that hole drilling has never been done before or that the patent holder has patented the drilling of holes. The whole process is what gets patented. Each and every step of the process has to be performed for there to be infringement.
A patent has to disclose enough detail to allow others to perform the process without undue experimentation. That's what society gains in return for granting the monopoly for a period of time.
And this is where E* must get the appeals court to overturn the judge's decision.
TiVo said during the trial the PID filter was not the "physical data source" rather the "media switch" was the "physical data source" because the "media switch" analyzed the start codes and saved the codes to build the index table, so the rest of the invention could take place. Now TiVo says but the PID filter can be the "physical data source" too, even though they never said how. They never demonstrated how the PID filter analyzed what data, and they even admitted the new software did not "temporarily store" whatever was not analyzed by the PID filter. They only proved the "parse" limitation, but admitted the "temporary store" limitation was not met.
Either E* did not make this point in their FFCL even though they got TiVo's expert to admit it, which would be a big mistake, or the judge side-stepped that one also, my bet is the latter because as I said before, he side-stepped several issues.
But one thing is clear, and E* must seize on it, that is Judge Folsom made mistakes before, and is making mistakes now. The previous mistakes include:
1) The instruction given to the jury on two hardware claim constructions were too broad.
2) As the appeals court said, he told the jury if they found literal infringement, they may not determine infringement by the equivalents.
Now he is saying his injunction can prohibit acts even if such acts are non-infringing, totally against the most fundamental rule set by the appeals court and Rule 65(d). The fact he made that statement one may reason he either:
1) Had no regard of the appeals court such decision and Rule 65(d), or
2) He was not aware of such basic rule, or
3) He did not understand even the most basic rule.
If so, that most certainly raise the question whether he was correct when he tried to resolve the more complex issues such as colorable difference and proof of infringement by clear and convincing evidence.
I know it sounds bad, that E* will have to attack the judge's judgment this time, but that is exactly what the appeals are, attacking the district court judges' decisions in front of the appeals court judges.
"TiVo has just won a key ruling in its long-standing patent-infringement suit against satellite-TV operator DISH Network (DISH). The suit -- filed originally against EchoStar (SATS) before it divided into two companies, separating its set-top-box business from its TV service -- asserts that the DVRs that DISH provides violate a key TiVo patent. Last week, the court ruled that DISH/EchoStar has violated -- and continues to violate -- TiVo patents; it ordered DISH to turn off DVR service to four million customers and assessed $103 million in penalties. DISH won an emergency stay of the order, but there is widespread agreement on the Street that the company is merely delaying the inevitable and will be forced to negotiate a royalty agreement with TiVo -- at a rate less favorable than previous licensing deals TiVo cut with Comcast (CMCSA) and DirecTV (DTV)."
The DVR Business Is Poised for a Sudden Fast-Forward - Barrons.com
The DVR Business Is Poised for a Sudden Fast-Forward - Barrons.com
But as long as the law allows it, there is not much one can do whether you think it is an extortion or not.
It goes both ways, as long as E* can get a stay, "the Street" will just have to wait no matter how wide the agreement is. Again, as long as the law allows it, there is not much one can do no matter what they believe.
One more comment about "the Street." Statistics had shown that randomly shooting dots on a wall had consistently produced better results than those of "the Street"
Not saying "the Street" is wrong at all, just pointing to some fun facts.
On the issue of E* could get a rate less favorable than Comcast and D* if they are forced to settle, this is actually a very smart prediction by "the Street" because commonly the rates are based on how big the companies are, economy of scale works most of the time, it is known Comcast always gets the best rate due to their size. So this one prediction by "the Street" is really not much a prediction. Not to mention "the Street" is comparing the "previous rates" with Comcast and D*, not future rates. Future rates always tend to be higher than the old ones. Even D* will pay a "significantly higher rate" for their new TiVo box if it ever comes true.
Last edited:
Yup...the law is definitely and severely flawed. And this is not the only instance where the law supports extortion. Not by a long shot...
You have made such point over and over, I wonder what exactly are you trying to tell us? Stop discussing this case because in your view the patent law is severely flawed?
He is trying to argue just for the sake of arguing and bait others into arguing with him, like he always does. So he resorts to repetitive bullying in an attempt to get someone to bite. If they do, then he will accuse them of making it personal and bullying him. The best thing to do is to simply ignore him.
Gentlemen, you exhaust me. The endless debates, go around and around, its like dealing with my middle-schooler.
Please, do not argue just to argue. I can't believe you guys can find so much energy to rehash the same crap over and over.
Enough already.
Please, do not argue just to argue. I can't believe you guys can find so much energy to rehash the same crap over and over.
Enough already.
If you guys want to debate the politics of whether or not the court system or patent system is corrupt, our friends at Sonicbabble.com have created a forum where you can do just that.
Feel free to visit: Tivo and E*. Talk about patent laws and the court system - SonicBabble - Where America Debates America!
It is run by one of our own supporting members, and SatelliteGuys encourages you to visit it.
Lets keep this thread focused on the news and debate over the decision, but not the politics of whether the system itself is corrupt.
Feel free to visit: Tivo and E*. Talk about patent laws and the court system - SonicBabble - Where America Debates America!
It is run by one of our own supporting members, and SatelliteGuys encourages you to visit it.
Lets keep this thread focused on the news and debate over the decision, but not the politics of whether the system itself is corrupt.
Since the hardware claims were reversed and remanded by the Appeals Court way back when, doesn't this mean that TiVo can still go after them at a later date since technically, they haven't been decided yet?
And if that's the case, does anyone think it's a possibility that if TiVo does sue Dish over the hardware claims, that they would include the VIP series DVR's then? Maybe TiVo is just waiting to see how this turns out before they decide to go after Dish again.
And if that's the case, does anyone think it's a possibility that if TiVo does sue Dish over the hardware claims, that they would include the VIP series DVR's then? Maybe TiVo is just waiting to see how this turns out before they decide to go after Dish again.
CHARLIE! Just pay to license the software that you stole in the first place. Make this lawsuit go away and move on. It has consumed way to many years of all of our lives . Besides , you could always charge more for subs who wanted Tivo software ported to their receivers. Can you say $39.99 per account Charlie? Imagine all that money you would make in your favorite term : FEES.
TiVo doesn't need to go after the hardware claims to have the ViP series found infringing. All TiVo needs to do is file another contempt motion on the contention that the ViP series is not more than colorably different from the adjudicated devices in the context of the infringed claims (the software). The software claims were gone over with a microscope at the recent contempt of court hearing and everybody is familiar with the issues. No sense going into unfamiar territory (yet) when the software claims have been so successful by themselves.
I have explained why TiVo had decided to abandon the whole hardware claims issue in a previous post. Basically the appeals court said they would not have supported any jury's decision on that issue because Judge Folsom's instructions on that issue were wrong.
TiVo's supporters wanted to point out the appeals court remanded the issue allowing Judge Folsom to further address it if he wished, which he did, but TiVo told Judge Folsom they would not want to do that, so this issue was over.
Last edited:
Just wait...once Tivo secures a DVR monopoly and imposes their will upon the people, it ain't gonna matter whether a person loves or hates Tivo, it ain't gonna matter how many Tivo 'supporters' wave their naughty fingers at Dish and squeal "stealing! stealing! stealing" over and over again...it ain't gonna matter...
Because we all know what happens when a monopoly gets established, and you can be rest assured that FEEs will be the word of the day, but it won't be coming out of Charlies mouth, it will be Tivo's mantra.
The financial scourging that will inevitably take place will not just rip into the backs of E* subs, but DVR users everywhere. And even the diehard Tivo 'supporters' will not be spared the wrath of what lies ahead.
- Status
Similar threads
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)
Latest posts
-
T
-
T
