DISH - TiVO Case: Stay granted pending appeal
- Thread starter rdf249
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 51
- Views 7K
They might. That hasn't been determined yet. This suit is from before the 622/722/922 existed.
Thanls for posting this news release. The update thread has been updated.
Please keep discussion limited to this ruling. Thank you.
Please keep discussion limited to this ruling. Thank you.
Those that are following this -- the press release says in the case of Echostar v. Tivo; but from reading that, I am assuming that was a typo? This is referring to the Tivo v. Echostar litigation (the original suit). Please correct me if I am wrong. I do not have access to Pacer. And the second case was just transferred from Delaware to Folsom's court in Eastern Texas.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/motions/Orders/2009/2009-1374.7-1-09.1.PDF
I will go dig up the last 2006 stay order, at least the quote from it for comparison.
I will go dig up the last 2006 stay order, at least the quote from it for comparison.
When the appeals court granted the stay in 2006 during the last appeal, this is the quote:
Notice last time E* demonstrated both substantial case on the merits and the harm factors militate in its favor.
This time however as I suspected, the harm factors would not be in E*'s favor, the appeals court did not mention such factors in favor of E*. Therefore to get a stay, E* had to "establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits."
It appears E* had established just that, short of demonstrating harm factors in its favor:
Notice last time E* demonstrated both substantial case on the merits and the harm factors militate in its favor.
This time however as I suspected, the harm factors would not be in E*'s favor, the appeals court did not mention such factors in favor of E*. Therefore to get a stay, E* had to "establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits."
It appears E* had established just that, short of demonstrating harm factors in its favor:
Thanks jacy for that link and your post.
Guys, I have already had to delete one post and the dang thread has not been open an hour. This is not the same thread we had before; it is open strictly to discuss this news event. Show a little respect, so we can actually keep it open until it runs its course. THANK YOU.
Guys, I have already had to delete one post and the dang thread has not been open an hour. This is not the same thread we had before; it is open strictly to discuss this news event. Show a little respect, so we can actually keep it open until it runs its course. THANK YOU.
BTW, two other items worth mentioning:
1) Judge Folsom had already stayed the E* declaratory case against TiVo pending the outcome of this appeal, and
2) Judge Folsom also had granted E*'s unopposed motion for a bond in order to automatically stay his 6/2/09 money judgment.
The 6/2/09 order by Judge Folsom contained mainly two items, the injunction and the money judgment, both are now stayed pending appeal.
1) Judge Folsom had already stayed the E* declaratory case against TiVo pending the outcome of this appeal, and
2) Judge Folsom also had granted E*'s unopposed motion for a bond in order to automatically stay his 6/2/09 money judgment.
The 6/2/09 order by Judge Folsom contained mainly two items, the injunction and the money judgment, both are now stayed pending appeal.
This is just a ruling on the "stay", correct? It as nothing to do with the appeal of the decision of the original case, correct?
YES, just a ruling on the stay - the stay is in place pending the appeal. It is definitely good for Echostar's case, but ultimately its the actual decision that matters.
it means the courts are at least being fair about the whole thing for once...and not just allowing Tivo to commit acts of extortion at will...
I'm sure the Tivo 'supporters' will whine for reasons I may never quite understand...but this is the best decision under the circumstances...
Agreed. Nothing changes except customers may continue to use infringing DVRs during the stay. My how I wish E* would just settle this matter already and for this case to disappear.
But then again...what would we in the peanut gallery have to talk about.
I don't know if Rocky meant "nothing changes."
The difference between a stay and a no stay is huge.It is undisputed that this time around, the harm factors are not in E*'s favor, such was in agreement not just by TiVo, Judge Folsom, the TiVo supporters, and the analysts, but by me also
In fact most analysts were surprised the appeals court temporarily stayed the order on 6/3/09. One of those analysts frequently quoted by the TiVo folks recently just said it was "highly unlikely" the stay would be granted.The reason for such surprise and prediction was they only considered one issue, the harm factors, but not the issue of merits. Most did not think E* had any merits, in fact some predicted the appeal could be ruled frivolous.
Now it appears the appeals court three-judge panel had considered E*'s appeal having strong likelihood of success on merits, which was the reason E* got the stay.
I recall you said several times E*'s chance for settlement had long passed.
Agreed. Nothing changes except customers may continue to use infringing DVRs during the stay. My how I wish E* would just settle this matter already and for this case to disappear.
But then again...what would we in the peanut gallery have to talk about.
Remember...'infringing'....are they?
There is an appeal involved here...and questions all the way around regarding the courts decision...
With nothing proven any way you look at it, its still open, hence the stay...
As Jacy pointed out in other threads, the courts are well aware of their own faults, of which there are many...they admit their ignorance...chalk this up to one of the many checks and balances to limit the damage ignorance can cause...
Yes, the court found infringement, the Judge upheld the jury's verdict and ordered E* to disable all infringing DVRs, the appeals court upheld the jury's verdict, E* did not obey the court order and were subsequenly ruled to be in contempt of court. Did I miss something?
While E* receiving a stay while the contempt motion is being appealed is good news for DVR customers, it will not affect the ultimate outcome in which the appeals court will uphold Judge Folsom's contempt ruling. The only thing "not proven" is how E* will fare on their contempt appeal process...although the outcome is just a matter of procedure at this point.
The appeals court decision to continue the stay was a prudent and conservative decision in order to lessen the impact on millions of DVR customers (good thing) while additional fees and penalties will continue to mount up against E* during the stay. You can believe what you wish to believe, but the facts are the facts and no amount of wishful thinking will change them.
