DISH NETWORK AND ECHOSTAR STATEMENT REGARDING TIVO
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 90
- Views 14K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
Or fail to educate the PTO office
Regardless, the PTO decision is now one evidence ordered to be noted by the appeals court panel, how successful TiVo may educate the PTO later is anyone's guess, but likely will not come before the appeals court makes its ruling.
The PTO rejected the two TiVo's software patent claims on 8/3/09.
TiVo will respond to that initial PTO action, either to convince the PTO to reverse its decision, or TiVo can modify its claims to satisfy the PTO, or TiVo can withdraw the claims by not contesting the PTO's decision.
Before any of the above things may happen though, the appeals court will have reviewed the PTO's initial rejection when it rules on the E*'s appeal.
Huh. Even armed with that date, I can't find mention of it on this forum. There's a later thread on the PTO dismissing "Tivo’s petition to vacate EchoStar’s re-examination of Tivo’s patent" started nearly a month later than your date. One wonders why the PTO is still reexamining anything if they've already (by 8/3/09) rejected Tivo's software patents.
OK, I finally found a preliminary finding here. Is that what you were referring to?
http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-ne...o-statement-echostar-lawsuit.html#post1913298
Poor baby...
Sorry...obviously nothing was proven fact or it wouldn't be challenged today...
Like I said, court never proves anything as fact, it just settles the issue. I was obviously correct in making that statement all along.
Yes.
The 8/3/09 PTO initial action rejecting the two software claims was the result of the reexamination, but not the end of it. It is now TiVo's turn to respond to the rejection, after that the PTO will make a final action whether continue to reject the claims, or reverse the initial rejection, either in part or in whole. Once the final action is made, I assume the reexamination ends.
...Like I said, court never proves anything as fact, it just settles the issue. I was obviously correct in making that statement all along.
The E*'s 8 named DVRs with the old software were proven infringement of the TiVo's software claims. E* had exhausted all legal means to disprove it. As a result E* wrote a $103M check to TiVo, end of the story.
What we are talking about now is a new game.
But no facts involved. What was ever proven as fact? ...its just a crooked settlement...
and we are talking about a whole new game...one that could make crooked settlement seem meaningless by comparison...
so quite your belly-achin'...courts do not dictate facts...end of story...
Can you not read? The proven fact is E*'s 8 named DVRs with the old software infringed the two TiVo's software claims, and this fact is legally in the books, not ever to be changed.
Even if later the two software claims are invalidated, the above proven fact will never change nor will it ever be disproven.
Last edited:
But E* will find a way...just as you've said they wouldn't, just as history says they have...Tivo will die at E*'s hand. Its only a matter of time. Live by the sword, DIE by the sword...
And as I've said nothing dictated in a courtroom is EVER a fact, only a settlement or a decision...and often enough, an incorrect one...
If you don't believe me...ask him...
Innocent man seeks millions after two years in jail - WAVE 3 TV Louisville, KY |
Proven wrong again, jacy...you need to keep your emotive opinions to yourself...because everything I told you is a FACT.
Don't try to use criminal law to confuse with the civil case there, especially when we talk about the patent law.
You said in this case no fact was proven, I showed you one. You want to use that criminal case to argue otherwise, but it does not apply here.
Because as I said, in this case, even if in a later date, the two software claims may be invalidated, (you may even say they should never have been granted by the PTO in the first place,) the above fact that the 8 named DVRs with the old software infringed these two software claims, will still be a proven fact that will never be changed or overturned.
This is entirely different than those criminal cases.
Nice try...its not different at all! It all comes from the same horse...
If one aspect of the court system fails, it reflects on the whole...
If one judge can make a grave mistake, so can another...
I just shown you that...now acknowledge and move on and quit embarrassing yourself...
the courtroom is a flawed system, no FACTS can be proven there...only settlements and opinions, and thats been proven by HISTORY!
And it applies here and applies in life. No facts are decided in court, just opinions.
Sorry...but you are wrong...
While I do not want to get too far off the topic, in that criminal case, whether the accused was guilty of the charge was not proven, however the proven fact in that case was, the prosecution (the State), in its protracted prosecution of the case, violated the accused the right to proper defensive representation. As a result, the State might be liable for the prosecution's misconduct.
Here even in that case there was a proven fact by the court, only that the violator was the party called "the State", because it was the State v. the accused in that criminal case. The court did make a ruling on a fact, and I have a feeling that you would not try to tell us that fact was not proven?
While I do not want to get too far off the topic, in that criminal case, whether the accused was guilty of the charge was not proven, however the proven fact in that case was, the prosecution (the State), in its protracted prosecution of the case, violated the accused the right to proper defensive representation. As a result, the State might be liable for the prosecution's misconduct.
Here even in that case there was a proven fact by the court, only that the violator was the party called "the State", because it was the State v. the accused in that criminal case. The court did make a ruling on a fact, and I have a feeling that you would not try to tell us that fact was not proven?
To many words to explain a simple concept...
Courts make mistakes...proof provided...
Therefore if courts make mistakes, courts can therefore be wrong...
Since courts can indeed be wrong, than no decision of the court can be assumed to be correct based solely on it being a decision of the court.
Therefore, no decision of the court can be said to prove a FACT! Because a fact is a concrete incontrovertible piece of truth. And the courts, being a flawed system as indicated by the proof provided, (AND MUCH MUCH MORE Historical proof is available than that!) are unable to provide anything that can be said to be a "FACT"...just a decision, opinion, or settlement, but not a FACT.
Wrong again, Jacy...save your rubbish for Bimson.
are you two children still fighting?
I know I can be in trouble for saying this, but as a moderator, we assume you have the minimum capability to determine who is the child, before making the above comment.
Now let me get this back to the topic.
Based on the latest info with the appeals court docket, it appears both parties have also brought up the sanction issues to the appeals court merits panel, the merits panel has been assigned, all the briefs and filings have been sent to the panel.
My estimate of the appeals court hearing is around the beginning of November, could even be sooner, of course could be later too, just a guess.
why would you get in trouble? We all know who the child is
They must have had a bad experience with Tivo or something because that 4 letter word to them is...well like a 4 letter wordyes please
why would you get in trouble? We all know who the child is
yes please
If pretending to be a lawyer on the internet somehow factors into ones maturity, than pass me my spiderman pajamas...lol.
Seriously, my criticisms of the court are relative to the discussion when anyone tries to leverage them to support non-existent facts. And those criticisms have been supported. So per your request, I will let it go and can further discussion on topic since there is no further need to prove anything.
But with all due respect, your snide comment was unappreciated and not necessary...
it isnt snide. Read through the threads. ANY thread with the word Tivo in you seem to come and argue for honestly no reason. You're the one with the "snide" comments in your threads. Here are some recent examples
so get back on topic
