I have to strongly disagree too
If the reaon for a stay were to avoid irreparable harm to E*, the appeals panel would have said that. Just read what they said in 2006, and how they denied the stay motion in another case I linked earlier. But here is no mentioning of any harm to E* cited as a factor, if it were a factor the decision makers would be compelled to state such.
Additionally, even if there may be "irreparable harm" to E*, the question is whether such harm factor militate in E*'s favor or not. In doing so "irreparable harm" to TiVo must also be considered. The appeals court simply did not go there, they relied on the merits.
Contempt of the court is a very serious offense, people go to jail for such offense, talk about "irreparable harm" when they go to jail. I am not saying this is the case here just to make a point. E* could easily avoid such irreparable harm by signing an agreement with TiVo. Many other companies already have such agreements with TiVo without any harm done to them. One can even argue that DirecTV benefitted a great deal by its agreement with TiVo, why not E*? If there is any harm, E* brought it onto themselves.