TiVo Sued: A Taste of Their Own Medicine
- Thread starter DishSubLA
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 195
- Views 16K
Link?
This is entirely different than the delay of 922, E* is not out of the stock of any DVRs, but TiVo has no DVRs in stock to sell, yet the new one remains a rumor. Have you ever seem a company run out of existing stock and its only stock to sell while the new ones are still just a rumor?
How can you even compare this with Apple? Is Apple in danger of losing subs?
No, according to your logic. So please stop "interpreting" my position. It amazes me the amount of times I've had to state my position, and you get it completely incorrect. It amazes me that you've completely blown away your own position.jacmyoung said:
Microsoft is selling a modified version of Word 2007. That is perfectly fine and legal until i4i decides the modified version is merely colorably different and infringes, at which time i4i would then file a contempt motion because of this perceived violation. It has been your position (or for some reason your interpretation of my position) that just because Word 2007 was modified doesn't change the fact it is target of the injunction. It was StarBrite v. Gavin however that states otherwise, and you continue to ignore it.
TiVo at some point was forced to ask the court to rule that the modified DVR's were also merely colorably different and infringing, which violated the order against infringements.
AGAIN:
DISH/SATS created the DVR 625. It was found infringing. An injunction was issued to force DISH/SATS to disable DVR functionality to those DVR 625's that were installed at the time of the injunction.
Sometime after the injunction was issued but before it went into effect, DISH/SATS modified the DVR 625. They sold new 625's with modified software. They even took the time to download that modified software to those 625's subject to the disable order.
DISH/SATS was found in contempt as the modified 625 and the other seven models violated the provision of sales of products merely colorably different and infringing.
DISH/SATS was also found in contempt for failure to disable functionality within the subset of 625's (and the other seven models) targetted by the disable order.
Does not matter because according to you, once a product is adjudicated to be an infringing product, no modification can change its legal definition, do you want me to quote you on that? You just said so yesterday.
Since 2007 Word is one of the products that was adjudicated to be the "Word products with the infringing custom XML editor", MSFT is prohibited from selling, offering to sell or use the 2007 Word after 1/11/10, according to the appeals court.
I am only using both your logic and the appeals court mandate to point out why you are wrong. Using your logic above, MSFT could sell, offer to sell or use 2007 Word before 1/11/10, but after that date, MSFT must throw away all the remaining 2007 Word copies, because according to you, modification does not change the legal status of an infringing products already adjudicated and named in the injunction.
Or MSFT could try to keep those 2007 Word copies in a safe place, ask the court to review the modification, only after the court delcares that the 2007 Word is no longer an infringing product and approves the sale, so can MSFT resume the sell, offer to sell and use the 2007 Word products. Again using your logic, MSFT is currently in contempt by continuing to sell, offer to sell and use the 2007 Word.
Are you ready to give up your contention that those DVRs, once "infringing Products", always infringing products, no modification can change their definition? If you refuse to do that, then you must admit MSFT is also in contempt.
If you are trying to draw a distinction between the 2007 Word sold before 1/11/10 and the 2007 Word sold after 1/11/10 using StartBrite case, please don't, because Judge Folsom drew no distinction between the 4 million named DVRs in use before the injunction took effect, and the additional 2 million same named DVRs installed after the injunction took effect, he said as long as they were the same named DVRs, modification or not did not matter.
So I suggest you follow Judge Folsom's train of thought and admit that MSFT is currently in contempt. It is not that hard.
If you still refuse to do that, then you must admit Judge Folsom was wrong for lumping the 4 million named DVRs installed before the injunction took effect, and the 2 million same named DVRs installed after the injunction took effect, your choice.
Last edited:
Sure. Go ahead. There are two different issues, but you'll find some way to "interpret" what I said to be nothing like I said.jacmyoung said:
Stop arguing with me and go look at StarBrite. AGAIN. Your interpretation is inconsistent with StarBrite, while mine is not.jacmyoung said:
Citation, please.jacmyoung said:
No, because you've failed to prove anything except the destruction of your own arguments. There's more holes in your interpretation than in a screen door.jacmyoung said:
So let me ask you this, is it your contention that any named DVRs installed after the 1/08 date should be considered differently than the ones installed before that date?
Therefore if the appeals court later decides that the modified DVRs may no longer infringe, E* would not be in violation for all the named DVRs installed after the 1/08 date?
But here is the problem, we have this current injunction continues to order the disablement of the same named DVRs, so how do you think the appeals court should treat those same named DVRs ordered to be disabled by the effective date of this current injunction, should the appeals court uphold the current injunction, at the same time they find the modified DVRs may no longer infringe?
Remember the current injunction continues to order the same disablement.
Therefore if the appeals court later decides that the modified DVRs may no longer infringe, E* would not be in violation for all the named DVRs installed after the 1/08 date?
But here is the problem, we have this current injunction continues to order the disablement of the same named DVRs, so how do you think the appeals court should treat those same named DVRs ordered to be disabled by the effective date of this current injunction, should the appeals court uphold the current injunction, at the same time they find the modified DVRs may no longer infringe?
Remember the current injunction continues to order the same disablement.
Because this is about legalities and semantics, let me put it this way:jacmyoung said:
A named DVR which received the old infringing software should be treated differently than a DVR which contained only the modified DVR software. I don't know about the 1/08 date, other than that was when the Court of Appeals released their decision upholding and affirming infringement and the injunction.
Correct. DISH/SATS would have the finding of contempt reversed regarding sales of products merely colorably different and infringing on the Time Warp patent. Remember that there is another finding of contempt besides that one.jacmyoung said:
The Court of Appeals would mandate that Judge Folsom change the injunction. After all, if a device does not infringe, it cannot be enjoined. That's been DISH/SATS hope all along. They'd live with the contempt for failure to disable, but if they can get a positive ruling, i.e., the devices don't infringe, that would force the injunction to be changed.jacmyoung said:
Thank you for finally asking the direct questions, instead of trying to interpret what I wrote.
Not so fast, don't assume I have agreed with you, only that I suppose you are correct, and go from there to see what the end result may be, it is called "on alternative" theory, remember?
So let's say the injunction was in effect in 4/08? If the appeals court finds the modified DVRs may no longer infringe, according to you it will then vacate the current injunction (it can either reinstate, or vacate and remand, it cannot make its own injunction), remand the issue back to Judge Folsom, maybe ask the judge to rewrite a new injunction?
How long do you think that will take? Remember both E* and TiVo will be back arguing on the term of the injunction, very likely E* will argue no more injunction will be needed since the appeals court already agreed with them they may no longer infringe. So maybe they will fight in that new action? Take into consideration of appeals and delays, how long do you think another injunction can take effect, if even likely? Over a year at least?
Meanwhile there will be no injunction at all, so E* will continue to use the DVRs, since no order will exist to order them to disable the DVRs.
As far as the money issue. Since Judge Folsom had already said he would not impose sanctions on the 4 million DVRs, and since we assume the DVRs may no longer infringe, the $130M damages during the last stay period will have to be vacated.
Which leaves the $200M damages plus sanctions for the contempt proceeding period. Since again we assume the DVRs no longer infringed, the damages will have to be vacated, only the sanctions may remain, which will be a very odd situation because I have never seen any cases without damages but only sanctions.
But let's assume there will still be sanctions, by my calculation about $88M out of the $200M. So E* pays the $88M and they go back to fight in that new suit currently pending for another year or two, with appeals and all.
What do you think about that? Not that different a result after all don't you think?
Of course the above is to assume the appeals court finds more than coloable difference and likely no longer infringement. If E* still is found to infringe by clear and convincing evidence, there is no dispute that E* will lose. My point is, if the appeals court finds in E*'s favor on the coloable and infringement issues, the end results will be very similar whether we use your theory or use mine.
Last edited:
My problem was that the "on alternative theory" was never close to the opinions and citations I listed. You tried to interpret what I wrote, instead of asking directly. The interpretations were way off, in my book.jacmyoung said:
I don't assume you agree with me, but I basically agree with the assessment you put forth regarding sanctions but no damages.
And yet you are wrong to assume I agreed with you on the sanctions.
I have demonstrated exactly how the "on alternative" tactic works, the goal is to seek agreement from the opponent, once the agreement is reached, I still can prove the outcome is not so different.
That is not to say I agree with your positions at all.
My position is, E* cannot be found to violate the injunction for performing a non-infringing act, period. Therefore if the modified DVRs are no longer infringing, the act of using them cannot violate the injunction, any injunction, period. Obviously you disagree.
It is your contention that the DVRs installed before 4/08 must be treated differently than the same named DVRs installed after 4/08. Even though I disagree with you but I use the "on alternative" tactic, supposedly you are right on this point, I can demonstrate that the outcome is no different at all if the appeals court finds the modified DVRs may no longer infringe, the injunction will be vacated, all the damages and the sanctions too.
Because as I said earlier, even Judge Folsom declined to impose sanctions for the stay period, stating that he considered E*'s effort a good faith one, though he did impose sanctions for the contempt proceeding period. But my opinion is if the appeals court finds possible non-infringement, the sanctions will very likely be vacated too. I have never seen one case that sanctions were affirmed on products that no longer infringed, not to mention even Judge Folsom had shown that he thought E*'s initial effort could be a good faith one.
Therefore even if I suppose you are correct the DVRs installed pre and post 4/08 must be treated differently, as long as the appeals court finds possible non-infringement, E* will not likely have to pay TiVo anything.
But of course you will disagree again, because you insisted the sanctions had to be imposed regardless, at that point, in order to get your agreement, I again went one step further and supposed that you were right E* had to pay the sanction award, I was able to demonstrate that under your agreement, the most E* would pay would be $88M, and no DVRs would be disabled and parties would go on to the next round if they liked to do so, that is if the appeals court decides the modified DVRs may no longer infringe.
See how the "on alternative" argument unfolded? The point is to destroy the "on the face" violation argument, by getting you to agree with me at some agreeable level, then demonstrate to you the outcome is not so different had we taken my original position in the first place.
In a nutshell -
Just because you needed to walk down a road starting with the theory that contempt for infringement will be overturned doesn't mean I agree. However, as your assessment states, the monetary damages for continuing infringement cannot be assessed if infringement isn't present.
However, in my opinion it would still be possible that DISH/SATS is found in contempt for violations of the disable provision. Just because something no longer infringes doesn't mean that contempt can't be found, as the disable order was violated. It was a legal order that is supposed to be followed even if in error. But that would only give TiVo a hollow victory. Other than any awarded sanctions, it would be a stunning defeat.
I did not agree with you on the sanctions. What I said was I agree with your assessment: if infringement is reversed then the only real possibility of money is from sanctions. I agreed with your assessment, not that you agreed with me on the sanctions.jacmyoung said:
Your original position has to assume overturning contempt for infringement. Not that I agree with that, but you know, I have to allow you to have your fun...jacmyoung said:
Just because you needed to walk down a road starting with the theory that contempt for infringement will be overturned doesn't mean I agree. However, as your assessment states, the monetary damages for continuing infringement cannot be assessed if infringement isn't present.
However, in my opinion it would still be possible that DISH/SATS is found in contempt for violations of the disable provision. Just because something no longer infringes doesn't mean that contempt can't be found, as the disable order was violated. It was a legal order that is supposed to be followed even if in error. But that would only give TiVo a hollow victory. Other than any awarded sanctions, it would be a stunning defeat.
My original position is not an assumption, my original position was E* was not in contempt, the position still stands.
What I am saying is, whether the contempt is overturned or not, as long as the appeals court finds likely no more infringement, the end result will be the same, i.e.:
But I still disagree with the below:
I don't think TiVo will likely get any sanction money either, if the appeals court finds likely no infringement.
So we at least agree, if the appeals court finds likely no infringement by the modified DVRs, it will be a stunning defeat for TiVo?
I've said that time and time again.jacmyoung said:
However, if the Court of Appeals reverses the infringement and colorably difference finding only to have the analysis done again by Judge Folsom, it's up in the air.
If so that's almost a given, that is what that pending new E* v. TiVo suit is all about, so you still disagree after all?
I just disagree that the Court of Appeals will reverse the infringement finding. Based upon all of the evidence and the deposition given in the bench hearing, I don't believe the finding of infringement will be reversed.jacmyoung said:If so that's almost a given, that is what that pending new E* v. TiVo suit is all about, so you still disagree after all?
That is not the point, I know you do not think the appeals court will reverse the infringement finding, I am not trying to change your mind.
The point is, if they do reverse, do you believe it will be a total loss for TiVo or not? You seemed to say yes at one time and no at another.
Similar threads
- Locked
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)
Latest posts
-
T
-
-
-
-
I