Search results for query: *

Will you please stop saying this? The finding of hardware infringement was not reversed, it was remanded. For someone who claims to read as much case law as you have, you should know the difference by now.

This seems overly broad and unsubstantiated. Tivo has stated exactly the opposite - that it would prefer to partner and license, rather than litigate - and its' action seem to bear it out. I think ziggy29 sums it up rather well in his response to you. If any DVRs get shut off, it's bad...

Just type 6233389 into Google - Multimedia Timewarping system. The holder of the patent is one of the co-inventors of the Tivo DVR, so it does relate. :)

It's not that Tivo "doesn't like features that Dish DVRs", it's that they were implemented in violation of Tivo's IP, specifically claims software claims 31 and 61 of Patent 6,233,389. Tivo also claimed infringement of the certain hardware claims, but that has yet to be resolved - the CAFC...

That's funny. Just wait and see. If the sanctions against Dish are less than or equal $2.25 a box, I'll donate 1000 shares of Tivo stock to your favorite charity.

There is no pre or post judgement rate, only the rate for damages during the stay period ($1.25). That has no relevance to what Dish may be required to license the patent from Tivo. Are you stating that there is no way Folsom can set a different rate than the $1.25 for the sanctions?

jacmyoung - you are mistaken. The $1.25 applies to the stay period (September 2006 to April 2008) - that was set by the judge. Tivo could appeal it, but I doubt they will. The $5.00 (4x) figure is a reasonable expectation of what could be a sanction for the continued infringement from April...

Remanded is not the same as reversed (I presume you are referring to the hardware claims). What is it that you think was reversed?

This is the part I like. So many people forget that the CAFC has essentially already upheld this once before.

Only true regarding the additional damages awarded. For the sanctions, who knows. But even Folsom implied that $2.25 was a good starting point, so if you use the Paice logic, $5 isn't out of the question. And then there is the ongoing license, should Tivo be so inclined. The new DTV rate...

Dish gets temporary stay Apparently, Dish has a temporary stay. It's my understanding that this are pretty much automatic, giving the CAFC time to read the rulings/filings, so not a big surprise. I think they got a stay the last time within a day too. Would love to see what possible...

What does this have to do with anything? I've been lurking here for years and am flabbergasted at the stuff jacmyoung gets away with, while seeing others that point out obvious factual errors get banned almost immediately. Opinion is one thing and if you don't like someone's opinion (even...

The appeals court said no such thing. The hardware claims were remanded back to Folsom. As for the VIPs being safe - given what was in the testimony that Dish tried to have stricken regarding the software on those boxes, it sure seemed to me it was more likely than not that the VIP software...

It's been "debunked"? By whom and where? And, even if so, we'll still have to wait until the box is released to know for sure. I just don't understand why anyone who wants a DVR for DirecTV would want to wait for an unproven box when they can have a proven box today.

I'd complain if I got an R15 after asking for a Tivo. DirecTV has indicated they will continue to sell DirecTivos for those who want them. Pretty sneaky (though not at all unexpected to BS with the "we have better technology" line about their DVR). If you ever think you'll ever order a...

I've used Tivo and quite a few other DVRs. While I like some non-Tivo features better on some models, there isn't ANYTHING on an E* DVR I like better than a Tivo-based one. I was a E* sub for 8 years and went to DTV as soon as the Series 2 Tivos were available. Haven't regretted it one...