Yup, urban legend. And the Tivo / 'Agreement', if you call it that,
Was actually quite damaging to tivo. And now? Go figure...
You really haven't proven anything other than that I could be right about this.
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 171K
- Status
Yup, urban legend. And the Tivo / 'Agreement', if you call it that,
Was actually quite damaging to tivo. And now? Go figure...
You really haven't proven anything other than that I could be right about this.
Yes, maybe they will, and so then the court could still rule the appeal is frivolous. So I was no more misleading than E* was when they chose to not inform the courts on their herculean efforts toward the development of a workaround, because it might not work.
It's still an agreement.vampz26 said:
The argument was TiVo hasn't sued DirecTV. I've simply stated why.
About a conspiracy theory? There's no conspiracy.vampz26 said:
TiVo's lawsuit with DISH/SATS was started in 2004. At that time, TiVo had an agreement with DirecTV and was producing their entire DVR line. Why bother starting a lawsuit against DirecTV now, especially since the extended agreement does not allow either party to sue for patent infringement?
It's simple. In 2004, TiVo went after the biggest fish they believed infringed on their patents. TiVo wants an agreement with DISH/SATS. Two findings of infringement and two findings of contempt have yet to result in an agreement.
Interesting spin, here's mine:
First, from the thoroughness of its motion, only one day after Judge Folsom's ruling, E* clearly had been planning for such likely occasion. They knew Judge Folsom recognizes the holes (that E* also knew)that were in their case, and would likely rule against them. They were waiting for it and made a desperate run at it in a very short time frame, because they had pre-spun the weakest points of the case that they knew would be part of the ruling. So any notion that TiVo folks might come in here try to get Charlie to shake in his boots is futile, because anyone knows that any sane person in his position would already be trembling in the knowledge that he should have settled long ago instead of bringing his organization to the brink of destruction.
You are completely IGNORING the FACT that D* DID terminate the agreement with Tivo and DID begin producing their own DVRs and Tivo did incur major losses and damages as a result that no current 'arraingment' with D* has even come close to repairing all that. Tivo chooses to ignore all that with D* while attempting to destroy E* over what appears to be similiar issues.
Conspiracy? No. Shady business? Yes.
There is more going on here than you realize...
Astute observations, all. I'll bet many if not most of the jury were of modest intellect. College educations are probably rare. Do we ever get to see the makeup of the jury? I'm pretty sure the litigants get to see this, and even eliminate those they think will not be swayed by an appeal to emotion. I'll bet the Tivo lawyers even confused the jury into thinking this was a David vs Goliath situation. :rant:
I just have to shake my head in disbelief at confusion over parsing headers vis a vis video data, or how you can still infringe without any index of I frames whatsoever. It is as though any process beneath the aggregation of "DVR", is somehow all Tivo IP, according to a befuddled Folsom and his jury.
Whatever happened to the principle of being entitled to a jury of your peers? Is that only a right in criminal proceedings? Too bad because what complicated technical cases like this really need are a jury of software engineers.
But here is the problem, you completely missed my point, just like what you did in the last exchange regarding the "frivolous" issue.
My point is, the TiVo folks want to come in here to argue E* should settle, look all the analysts say so, the judge said so, even most posters here say so. TiVo wants to settle too, it is in TiVo's interest to keep E* DVRs going, as long as TiVo gets the cut. In fact the stock market is waiting for such settlement so TiVo investors can make a killing of it.
But E* was prepared not to settle. If E* loses the next round, it will not destroy it, if E* wins the next round, it will more likely destroy TiVo.
But they have not done so, therefore at this point, it is impossible for the appeals court to find E* appeal frivolous.
TiVo hasn't sued Time Warner either, despite the fact they have no agreement, care to explain why?
Where is the other contempt? And as I tried to explain to Mainer, there will not be one so folks should stop thinking about it. Most of you just like TiVo want a settlement so TiVo can benefit, I know, but put that thought away for now.
Mainer of course is one exception, he seems to believe TiVo does not want a settlement, TiVo wants to destroy E*. Not so, TiVo needs E* to continue its business in order to benefit from it.
The jury wasn't wrong though, the judge was then in part, and is now.
During the jury trial, the judge constructed two of the hardware claim limitations too broadly, the jury used such broad constructions to find infringement on the hardware claims, on appeal, the appeals court narrowed those two limitations and reversed the hardware claim verdict.
E* needs to convince the appeals court to do the same to the software claims verdict as they did to the hardware claim verdict last time.
I want to point out one other thing E* said in its 6/3 motion that we did not touch on. Recall both TiVo and the judge argued the new software is only colorably different than the old software because E* only changed 5,000 lines of code, among maybe tens of thousands of lines of the code?
But the code related to the DVR functionalities is just such several thousands of lines, and E* nearly re-wrote such code. Most other lines in the code have nothing to do with the DVR functions. Once you re-write almost the entire code that is relevant to the claims, of course the difference is more than colorable.
1) TiVo (probably) can't afford to fight two wars at the same time. 2) They're waiting until they "win" their first war. Remember, if they win against Echostar, that's precedent and will be used when they approach all of their future opponents and likely will avoid a long, expensive court fight.
People have always speculated that TiVo is going to sue every DVR manufacturer but one at a time. Dish just happened to be first.... They could have had names in a hat and Dish is who they drew.
District Court rulings are not precedential in any case and are irrelevant as to whether someone else's DVRs infringe. If TiVo sues someone else there would have to be a new Markman hearing. The whole process starts over at square one.
1) Link to a terminated agreement or news thereof, please. Realize agreements may have been amended, not terminated.vampz26 said:
2) DirecTV produced their own DVR's. And?
3) no 'arraingment' has repaired any of it?
4) TiVo did not incur major losses, other than to their subscriber numbers.
5) TiVo has only lost customers they can report. TiVo has hardly lost large amounts money from those customers.
No more shady than taking a prototype from a prospective partner and using it as the basis of your DVR business, especially after two findings of infringement and two findings of contempt.vampz26 said:
One granted contempt for violations of an injunction against infringement, one granted contempt for violations of an injunction on its face.jacmyoung said:
Since it is a judgment in standing, there is no need to think about it. It is what it is, which is two findings of contempt. It is unlikely that either finding is overturned. I'll grant there is a chance the finding of infringement could be overturned, but still not likely.
During the appeal of the verdict, DISH/SATS was able to get the Court of Appeals to review and examine the definition of the Hardware Claims. Once the appeals of the case ran its course, those claim definitions are now the law of the case.jacmyoung said:
The Software Claims cannot be re-examined. They stand as-is, as the time for a challenge to those claim definitions has passed. The only hope DISH/SATS has is that somehow PID filtering does not apply to the software claims. And in DISH/SATS response to the Court of Appeals, DISH/SATS even mentions that their own experts testified PID filtering met the limitation of the "parse" element.
Lmao!
Read the link in my sig regarding 'argument from ignorance' and read how you just now have been properly schooled.
Here is your challenge. Google it yourself. There are enough links out there for you to read and come to your own conclusions.
Go back and look up the old direct HD tivo. Look when it was released and look when D* announced their BIG plan.
Look at the tivo stock price history. I remember it taking a dive to 4 dollars a share after D* punted them to make their own mpeg4 dvrs.
Google it yourself. Do your research, and then get back to me. Until you do, you don't have a dog in the fight. You've got about 5 years of history to go thru because from the sounds of it, you don't remember.
Completely wrong so I must correct you.
If TiVo can establish that the same technology exists in competitor DVR's, they can receive an injunction against them based on the Doctrine of Equivalents. Simple as that.
Your arrogance is completely unfounded. Stop embarassing yourself and drop the conspiracy theory BS. It is cluttering this thread and it is nonsense.
Yes. It can.
Folsom's rulings and subsequent appeals can be used to strengthen TiVo's position in the four-factor test for granting a preliminary injunction. If it is shown that the technology of other DVR's are likely not to be colorably different than those ruled upon in the E* case, it will be shown to be likely that TiVo will succeed based on the merits of the case. TiVo can then get a preliminary injunction issued against those DVR's.
Simple as that.
- Status
