Don't forget that the patent office is on the verge of invalidating TIVO's '389 patent. If the patent is invalidated soon, this could have a major impact on the appeals court. It may also affect Judge Folsom's decision making. Think on this paradox. E* must deactivate the infringing DVR's, due to Judge Folsom's injunction, for infringing on a now invalidated patent. If the "389 patent is invalidated by the patent office, I think that you will see E* immediately load the new redesigned software on the DVR's and tell TIVO to shove it.
Dish: Ready to shut down DVRs if it loses lawsuit
- Thread starter Bruce
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 211
- Views 29K
I see Bob that your doom & gloom is still here. But it's a nice day here and I wish you would have one there sometime. Hurry up and get that download set up going so then you can B about what's wrong with it.
geez I cover a couple of issues and suggest subs might want to protect their already recoded shows. since E could set their playback to expire after a week of no sat signal just like the programing does.
is it better to warn people of a possible hazard? like we do when folks come here saying my box is chirping... first advice save what you can before the hard drive dies.
or keep mouth shut and feel bad if shows can never be watched again??
what would you prefer?
heck if E has to shut down the DVRs they might as well sell out the company to D, the subs will evaporate........
Too many people reading into exactly what the injunction prohibits.
No, the ViP series does not have to be disabled, simply because they haven't been ordered disabled. The ViP series is not targeted by the disable order within the injunction.
The problem is that the ViP series is most likely merely colorably than those found infringing. That would be in violation of the order against infringements. Mere colorable difference is defined as meeting the infringed claim limitations is substantially the same manner. So if TiVo does in fact go after the ViP series, they would need to be found merely colorably different and infringing upon the patent before Judge Folsom would order them disabled. The problem here is that DISH/SATS would then be on the hook for damages since those DVR's were released.
That was TiVo's biggest blunder. They tried to go the quick method by claiming a violation against the order to disable. Instead of getting any ruling on the ViP series, those are still in limbo. Meanwhile, DISH/SATS has successfully argued at the PTO that the two infringed patent claims are indeed invalid, but that process is still a long ways off before it is final.
No, the ViP series does not have to be disabled, simply because they haven't been ordered disabled. The ViP series is not targeted by the disable order within the injunction.
The problem is that the ViP series is most likely merely colorably than those found infringing. That would be in violation of the order against infringements. Mere colorable difference is defined as meeting the infringed claim limitations is substantially the same manner. So if TiVo does in fact go after the ViP series, they would need to be found merely colorably different and infringing upon the patent before Judge Folsom would order them disabled. The problem here is that DISH/SATS would then be on the hook for damages since those DVR's were released.
That was TiVo's biggest blunder. They tried to go the quick method by claiming a violation against the order to disable. Instead of getting any ruling on the ViP series, those are still in limbo. Meanwhile, DISH/SATS has successfully argued at the PTO that the two infringed patent claims are indeed invalid, but that process is still a long ways off before it is final.
Bob what are you talking about?
The only DVR recordings they set to expire are the PPV movies (which DIRECTV also does) they are FORCED to do this by the studios. (I believe on Cable you can not record PPV on your DVR.)
As I said before no DVR's will be shut off.
The only DVR recordings they set to expire are the PPV movies (which DIRECTV also does) they are FORCED to do this by the studios. (I believe on Cable you can not record PPV on your DVR.)
As I said before no DVR's will be shut off.
Its no problen TIVO can just charge its normal 13 buck a month fee, and charlie can pass it on to the subs, a nice round 20 bucks a month
remember its all about money........
remember its all about money........
If by "on the verge" you mean there is a slim possibility they may invalidate the '389 patent within the next 5-years...well, then yes...the USPTO is indeed on the verge of invalidating the '389 patent. Additionally, the USPTO recently awarded Tivo a patent on their Season Pass Manager process (after 10-years in review) so the DISH/SATS DVRs probably infringe on this newly awarded Tivo patent.
TiVo Granted Season Pass Patent
Currently subed programing is automatically shut off after a week of no sat signal.
Now E could have added that to the latest software for all we know to ZAP playing already recored shows if TIVO is successful. So subs having programming might disconnect their receiver from the sat signal so they cant get the turn off zap, and still find their DVRs dead after a week...
Not saying its going to happen in fact I think E will buy TIVO first, but it COULD
and as such burning some discs of irreplaceble shows is probably a wise idea, just in case!
And why would you unhook your satellite receiver from the satellite signal bob? Thats why its called SATELLITE SERVICE.
On the verge: TiVo Patent May Be Invalid - 2009-08-08 06:00:00 | Multichannel News
As you already know, TIVO is attempting to amend the claims of the '389 patent to avoid total rejection of the patent by the PTO. Amending the '389 patent to satisfy the PTO may just let E* off the hook entirely.
And why would you unhook your satellite receiver from the satellite signal bob? Thats why its called SATELLITE SERVICE.
Assume TIVO is successful and E starts turning off DVR service. You have box FULL of shows, so you unplug the receiver and start watching and dubbing before the ZAP gets you.
Theres a CHANCE that E COULD OF changed the software so DVR watching expires after a week just like regular programing and PPVs.
No one would know till it started occuring
Thats my point.
although E turning off DVR functionality is industrial sucide
TiVo wouldn't issue a license for just a portion of the DVRs they believe infringe. In fact, TiVo may not be willing to license any of them period. DirecTV would pay a lot for an exclusive license.
they might as well shut down the entire system if they do that, who left with a dvr will subscribe
geez no DVRs at all? That would put E out of business.
D would be thrilled.
Could tivo legally REFUSE to license E at all?
And if the '389 patent is invalidated by the PTO, D* will have an exclusive license to what?
If the ViP series infringes, they never should have been enabled in the first place and Dish is in contempt. The corollary to that is that they would already be required to be disabled.
Patent holders can have several appeals within the USPTO and then if they aren't happy they can appeal in a federal court, then the Appeals Court, then the Supreme Court. It can take years. Meanwhile the patent is legally valid.
"Research In Motion on Wednesday lost two rounds in the long-running patent lawsuit that threatens to imperil the company's BlackBerry service in the United States.
U.S. District Judge James Spencer denied RIM's request to halt the proceedings until the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office re-examines whether the patents are valid. Spencer said judges are under no obligation to wait and suggested that the re-examination process could take up to 10 years, if appeals are counted."
Judge to RIM: We're not delaying this any longer - CNET NewsU.S. District Judge James Spencer denied RIM's request to halt the proceedings until the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office re-examines whether the patents are valid. Spencer said judges are under no obligation to wait and suggested that the re-examination process could take up to 10 years, if appeals are counted."
TIVO has survived so far, and would probably pick up a portion of the subs abandoing E, plus get $$ from D TIVO.
Could D legally encourage this?
oooooooooooooooooo...................................scary.............................
