Court Says Dish is not in violation of Injunction

[Scott Greczkowski]

Today the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued its findings in the long running Dish Network Distant Networks suit.

In its writing it stated that Dish Network was not in violation of the court ordered injunction which barred Echostar (Dish) from selling Distant Networks to customers.

You might remember that two days before the injunction was to go into effect Dish Network CEO Charlie Ergen pulled an ace out of his sleave and announced that hewas leasing a transponder to National Programming Service (NPS) so that NPS could sell Distant Networks too Dish Network customers.

You can read the full court document by clicking here!

 

[Tyralak]

Well, this is good news. Although, I'll have to admit when I saw the title of this thread, I thought it had to do with the Tivo injunction. I really hope to see the same thread title when that is finally settled.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Sorry ran out of room in the title.

 

[navychop]

What Tyralak said.

 

[tomcrown1]

what tyralak said.

+2

 

[riffjim4069]

Sometimes these matters almost become moot before they wind their way throught the courts. I suspect E* will not fare as well in the TiVo case...

 

[philhu]

Well, this is good news. Although, I'll have to admit when I saw the title of this thread, I thought it had to do with the Tivo injunction. I really hope to see the same thread title when that is finally settled.

You won't

Tivo is going to completly win that case. Dish infringed and like all their lawsuits and stuff, they work around the law to win. They lost the Tivo one, everyone saw it, DirecTV ponied up and bought a license, so did quite a few others. Dish just threw mud at a wall and hoped it stuck.

You can say whatever you want, but the idea of recording one show while watch another or watch a show paused WAS TIVO'S IDEA and was patented. It might seem second nature now but back then, it was a unique concept and that's what made it patentable. You can't come back 3 years later and say it is common now, so the patent doesnt apply

 

[fhsucade07]

I hope this doesn't sound stupid but does this mean:

a) We will continue to see our distant networks through NPS from San Francisco and Atlanta without interruption...

or

b) That DISH Network will once again begin selling distant networks directly to those customers that legally qualify for them (I'm assuming they would be a little more stringent on the qualification rules the next time around).

 

[NightRyder]

I hope this doesn't sound stupid but does this mean:

a) We will continue to see our distant networks through NPS from San Francisco and Atlanta without interruption...

or

b) That DISH Network will once again begin selling distant networks directly to those customers that legally qualify for them (I'm assuming they would be a little more stringent on the qualification rules the next time around).

A. yes

B. No
___________________________________
Hey where is Bimson? Got a big plate of crow for him.

NightRyder

 

[fhsucade07]

A. yes

B. No
___________________________________
Hey where is Bimson? Got a big plate of crow for him.

NightRyder

LOL. Simple enough and thanks for the answer. (I was afraid I wouldn't see a return of the Los Angeles locals).

 

[Tyralak]

You won't

Tivo is going to completly win that case. Dish infringed and like all their lawsuits and stuff, they work around the law to win. They lost the Tivo one, everyone saw it, DirecTV ponied up and bought a license, so did quite a few others. Dish just threw mud at a wall and hoped it stuck.

You can say whatever you want, but the idea of recording one show while watch another or watch a show paused WAS TIVO'S IDEA and was patented. It might seem second nature now but back then, it was a unique concept and that's what made it patentable. You can't come back 3 years later and say it is common now, so the patent doesnt apply

No, DirecTV didn't "pony up and buy a license" they had a cobranding agreement. Secondly, tivo did NOT invent the recording one thing and watching another. Replay already had that feature. Replay invented the DVR, Tivo was the immitator.

 

[navychop]

Beat me to it. I was about to comment that Replay (& others) might disagree with that attribution to TIVO.

And you don't get patents for thinking of something first. Must be novel, not obvious, etc. Sadly, almost anything can be patented these days.

 

[tomcrown1]

Beat me to it. I was about to comment that Replay (& others) might disagree with that attribution to TIVO.

And you don't get patents for thinking of something first. Must be novel, not obvious, etc. Sadly, almost anything can be patented these days.

You all answered what I was going to say also this idea was first patent in Germany. The Germans may want to sue TIVO thou.

 

[babcea]

I never understood why D* could do distant locals and E* could not.All that law suit went on before I knew about satelliteguys.I sure would like to have the new york fox back on.My mother still has it with D*.

 

[Spatch]

I never understood why D* could do distant locals and E* could not.All that law suit went on before I knew about satelliteguys.I sure would like to have the new york fox back on.My mother still has it with D*.

You can depending on where you live. It's called "moving".

 

[Anole]

back on topic . . .

Not likely you'll ever see our LA stations again.
They're all spot-beamed to us now.
And apparently, same for New York.

A buddy of mine actually moved out of the LA area a few years ago, north east about 150 miles.
He's real happy he is still within the LA beam to watch his stations! - :up

 

[giddy169]

The main four in HD from LA are still broadcast on sat 129 and not spot beamed so you could still get them.

 

[kstuart]

You won't

Tivo is going to completly win that case. Dish infringed and like all their lawsuits and stuff, they work around the law to win. They lost the Tivo one, everyone saw it, DirecTV ponied up and bought a license, so did quite a few others. Dish just threw mud at a wall and hoped it stuck.

You can say whatever you want, but the idea of recording one show while watch another or watch a show paused WAS TIVO'S IDEA and was patented. It might seem second nature now but back then, it was a unique concept and that's what made it patentable. You can't come back 3 years later and say it is common now, so the patent doesnt apply

You've been watching too much science fiction, because what you said was only true in some alternate universe.

The court already ruled that Dish's DVR hardware does not infringe on TiVo's patents.

They could not have ruled that if the DVR was "TiVo's idea".

Furthermore that means that Dish can make its DVR non-infringing by changing the software, since for the hardware to be non-infringing, it must be possible for it to be loaded with some sort of non-infringing software, otherwise the decision would be nonsensical.

 

[goober]

You've been watching too much science fiction, because what you said was only true in some alternate universe.

The court already ruled that Dish's DVR hardware does not infringe on TiVo's patents.

They could not have ruled that if the DVR was "TiVo's idea".

Furthermore that means that Dish can make its DVR non-infringing by changing the software, since for the hardware to be non-infringing, it must be possible for it to be loaded with some sort of non-infringing software, otherwise the decision would be nonsensical.

thanx for clearing that up charlie!!

 

[Curtis0620]

You've been watching too much science fiction, because what you said was only true in some alternate universe.

The court already ruled that Dish's DVR hardware does not infringe on TiVo's patents.

They could not have ruled that if the DVR was "TiVo's idea".

Furthermore that means that Dish can make its DVR non-infringing by changing the software, since for the hardware to be non-infringing, it must be possible for it to be loaded with some sort of non-infringing software, otherwise the decision would be nonsensical.

Assuming there is such a thing as "Non-infringing software."