Court Order issued in TiVo vs. Echostar scheduling contempt hearing (1 Viewer)

Thomas22

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Pro
Apr 13, 2008
483
0
Cowtown
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
TIVO INC., a Delaware Corporation

V.

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, a Nevada Corporation, ET AL.

ORDER

Pursuant to the Court’s April 23, 2008 Order, Plaintiff TiVo Inc. submitted topics for discussion at the status conference on May 30, 2008. One of the topics discussed at the status conference was enforcement of the Court’s Permanent Injunction. Specifically, TiVo requests a hearing at the earliest possible date to determine the following: (1) whether Defendant EchoStar Communications Corporation should be held in contempt for its failure to disable the DVR functionality in the Infringing Products and for its placement of new infringing DVRs; and (2) with respect to EchoStar’s modified software,1 whether TiVo should be allowed permission to serve limited discovery to obtain additional technical information before bringing a motion for an order to show cause why EchoStar is not in contempt for the continuing use of the Infringing Products, changed only by downloading modified software.

The Court has set for hearing September 4, 2008 the first issue of whether EchoStar has disabled the DVR functionality with respect to the Infringing Products as required by the Court’s Permanent Injunction.2 The second issue outlined above, namely TiVo’s request to take limited discovery regarding EchoStar’s allegedly new software, is denied at this time. In the interest of judicial economy, the Court will determine first whether EchoStar should be held in contempt for its failure to disable the DVR functionality in the Infringing Products and for its placement of new infringing DVRs as urged by TiVo or whether, as urged by EchoStar, the language of the Court’s
Permanent Injunction allows EchoStar to comply with the spirit of the injunction by changing the software so that the products no longer infringe. TiVo may renew its request to serve limited discovery regarding EchoStar’s modified software after the Court’s decision on the first issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1. EchoStar asserts it has complied with the Court’s Permanent Injunction by replacing its1
existing infringing software with redesigned software based on a novel approach.
2. At the September 4 hearing, the Court will also consider the damages that TiVo incurred2
during the period that the injunction was stayed.
 

mike123abc

Too many cables
Supporting Founder
Sep 25, 2003
23,499
2,145
Norman, OK
Well it is interesting to note that the court says it will make a decision on whether changing out the software on existing DVRs is allowed. I guess if the court decides against allowing the software to be changed there is no reason to have TiVo review the software.

Of course if the court decides that changing the software is allowed, then TiVo will have to essentially start over and prove the new software still infringes. :Sigh: this case looks to go on forever...
 

kstuart

SatelliteGuys Master
Nov 5, 2006
5,206
0
Northern California
A court has already ruled that EchoStar DVR hardware does not violate any TiVo patents.

In order for EchoStar's DVR hardware to not violate TiVo's patents, it must thereby be possible for EchoStar to have software which does not infringe.

So, it would illogical to rule that changing the software could not possibly remove the infringement.

It would be like saying " your company's new car model does not infringe any patents as long as you don't put a motor in it ". Such a claim is nonsensical.

PS The notice above also means that nothing will happen before September 4 (regarding this TiVo dispute).
 

Thomas22

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Pro
Apr 13, 2008
483
0
Cowtown
This will seal the end for Echostar thus it's not happening. The courts won't do it.

Judge Folsom:

Although the injunction will likely result in some degree of customer loss and will impact Defendants’ ability to compete in the market, Defendants will not be irreparably harmed. Again, Defendants’ core business is not the supply of DVRs. Defendants have not demonstrated that an injunction on the infringing products would have a severe financial impact on their core business or will lead to loss of employees. Defendants’ authorized retailers will still be able to sell and service Defendants’ non-infringing products. Conversely, absent an injunction, Plaintiff faces ongoing irreparable injury as detailed above.
 

Sean Mota

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Sep 8, 2003
19,040
1,738
New York City
Although the injunction will likely result in some degree of customer loss and will impact Defendants’ ability to compete in the market, Defendants will not be irreparably harmed. Again, Defendants’ core business is not the supply of DVRs. Defendants have not demonstrated that an injunction on the infringing products would have a severe financial impact on their core business or will lead to loss of employees. Defendants’ authorized retailers will still be able to sell and service Defendants’ non-infringing products. Conversely, absent an injunction, Plaintiff faces ongoing irreparable injury as detailed above.

Whomever wrote the above is not in touch with reality!
 

BobMurdoch

Playing XBoxOne/Supporter
Supporting Founder
Sep 12, 2003
5,767
188
Brielle, NJ
come on charlie, just buy the jerks and move on

If it weren't for these patents Tivo would have been dead already..... Buy them out and end the threat of that Sword of Damocles hanging over E*'s head.

Not to mention that an E* box with Tivo AND Slingbox features would be a world beater. D* still has sports, but E* can reposition themselves as the enthusiast's service (assuming that brand of enthusiast could care less about out of market sports)
 

philhu

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 1, 2004
1,215
0
Cold Boston Area
How about this....Charlie buys Tivo, throws the existing case so EchoTivoStar wins, and then goes after Motorola, Direct, etc and makes another Billion!

Nope, DirecTV bought a license when this all started. They are clear. And Motorola had Tivo write the CableBox Tivo firmware, so I think they are ok also since Tivo would not sue someone they are working with to modify their boxes to be tivos.
 

Curtis0620

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 8, 2003
1,269
5
Central Florida
If it weren't for these patents Tivo would have been dead already..... Buy them out and end the threat of that Sword of Damocles hanging over E*'s head.

Not to mention that an E* box with Tivo AND Slingbox features would be a world beater. D* still has sports, but E* can reposition themselves as the enthusiast's service (assuming that brand of enthusiast could care less about out of market sports)

License the technology and this all goes away. Why is Charlie so stuborn? He is already overcharging his customers for DVR service.
 

Thomas22

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Pro
Apr 13, 2008
483
0
Cowtown
Motorola had Tivo write the CableBox Tivo firmware, so I think they are ok also since Tivo would not sue someone they are working with to modify their boxes to be tivos.
TiVo has not made any deals with Motorola. TiVo wrote the software for the Motorola boxes on their own.
 

RVD420

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 4, 2004
902
0
Parts Unknown
Nope, DirecTV bought a license when this all started. They are clear. And Motorola had Tivo write the CableBox Tivo firmware, so I think they are ok also since Tivo would not sue someone they are working with to modify their boxes to be tivos.


WRONG!!!!

DirecTV didn't buy a license.

They are clear because the bought ReplayTV.

ReplayTV and Tivo have patent cross licensing agreements.
 

jrp

SatelliteGuys Master
Aug 24, 2007
6,103
434
Iowa
How about this:

DISH turn off all your DVR's. TiVo says no to any licensing agreement since DISH has been a total a$$ about this.

A corporation turn down money, possibly a very large sum of money, because it violates their principles? Not likely.
 

Geronimo

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 9, 2003
11,980
1,568
Whomever wrote the above is not in touch with reality!

In fairness it is the defendant's responsibility to explain what the realities are. If they fail to do so well it is hardly the fault of the judge.
 

Thomas22

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Pro
Apr 13, 2008
483
0
Cowtown
ReplayTV and Tivo have patent cross licensing agreements.
No. ReplayTV and TiVo never had a cross licensing agreement. The suits were dismissed without prejudice meaning they were free to sue again. Neither company announced a cross licensing agreement.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Latest posts

Top