This is the part I like. So many people forget that the CAFC has essentially already upheld this once before.
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 169K
- Status
This is the part I like. So many people forget that the CAFC has essentially already upheld this once before.
Unfortunately you only read selectively what I said. In Paice, Paice asked for $250, Toyota asked for $17, the judge initially said $25, Paice appealed because they wanted $250 not $25, the appeals court vacated the judge's rate. On remand, both again argued for their positions, and the judge ruled a $96.
So far so good? Now in this case, TiVo asked for $2.25, E* said $1.00, the judge said $1.25, yes it is abased on the original jury's rate.
If TiVo does not like it, TiVo can appeal, arguing that the $1.25 is too low, $2.25 should be applied, if TiVo wins, then the court can grant the $2.25, or some thig between $1.25 and $2.25. But TiVo first must object to the $1.25 rate, then win on appeal, and then have the rate raised, but not over the $2.25 TiVo asked for themselves. I hope such baby step talk finally works this time.
Judge Folsom will not set on a rate that is higher than asked for. Now on the damages, it can change, but will not be over 3 times more because the law does not give the court the power to go above that. Treble damage is the most a court can hand down.
The $1.25 Judge Folsom just set is the post-judgment rate, only that it is the same as the pre- in this case. TiVo wanted $2.25 post- using your argument that post- can be higher than pre-, but the judge said in this case, no still the same.
Then we are discussing different things. But still you need to wait till TiVo ask the judge for the $5. They asked for $2.25 and got $1.25, that is a fact, but if you want to speculate that in the future it can be $5, be my guest, what I am saying is if you do at least wait for TiVo to ask for it.
Again exactly what TiVo argued on 9/4/08, but the judge did not buy it. He said still the $1.25 as back in 06.
Yes it does, it in fact happens a lot. If the court says $1.25 is a reasonable rate, and TiVo in private insists $5, there is ground for appeal to the court.
TiVo already tried to "force" him to hand them a $2.25 post-judgment rate but did not get it. So if later TiVo tries to "force" a $5, good luck. Go read Judge Folsom's reasoning why not $2.25.
Judge Folsom never said the latter part, the most you can say about the software in the VIPs is they are similar. To argue for infringement, the term used is not "similar" rather "substantially the same."
Last edited:
And so many people forget the appeals court reversed half of the verdict last time, but unfortunately the other half was good enough to uphold the judgment and the injunction.
Now E* will have to get the appeals court to reverse the other half in a sense. Only this time if this half is reversed, it will be enough to reverse the whole ruling.
I guess E* wasted no time at all. So fast that it seems E* had already prepared for this worst case scenario and filed the motion right the way, it is an indication Charlie does want to go the appeal route rather to settle.
Last edited:
Remanded is not the same as reversed (I presume you are referring to the hardware claims).
What is it that you think was reversed?
jacmyoung - you are mistaken. The $1.25 applies to the stay period (September 2006 to April 2008) - that was set by the judge. Tivo could appeal it, but I doubt they will. The $5.00 (4x) figure is a reasonable expectation of what could be a sanction for the continued infringement from April 2008 to whatever tome Dish actually disables the DVR function on the infringing devices.
It really isn't that hard to understand.
It really isn't that hard to understand.
The appeals court said they reversed the hardware claim verdict, I did not say so, did you read the decision? Remand usually follows a reversal.
The $1.25 is the post-judgment rate, TiVo argued so for $2.25, so was E* for $1.00 on 9/4/08, not me saying it. Judge Folsom now says $1.25, same as the pre-judgment rate. Just because it is the same as the pre-judgment rate does not make it a pre-judgment rate. A post-judgment rate can be higher, but can also be the same as the pre-judgment rate. In some cases it can be lower too.
There is no pre or post judgement rate, only the rate for damages during the stay period ($1.25). That has no relevance to what Dish may be required to license the patent from Tivo.
Are you stating that there is no way Folsom can set a different rate than the $1.25 for the sanctions?
The rate during the stay is the post judgment rate. The final judgement was made some time in 8/06 I believe, jury's rate was before that final judgment (pre-judgment), the rate during the stay was after that final judgment (post-judgment), only that both happened to be the same amount.
Did you not read what I said? Of course he can, just not more than what TiVo had asked for.
would you two give it a rest already...
If they valued the time spent arguing at minimum wage, they could pay E*'s fine and then we would be done !
here's another one.
5. E* files for bankruptcy, then is bought by Directv since E* will lose most of their subs if their DVR's get shut off. We don't have a DVR, but I know if i did have a DVR and it got shut off, contract IMO with dish becomes null, void, and nothing more than a piece of paper. Dish is really playing with fire on this one. And you all know what Dish will do if they settle with tivo.... pass the costs on to us subscribers.
I have not had the time to read all 70 or so pages to this forum so I apologize for the question that I am about to ask if it has already been answered.
What exactly are the features on Dish Networks DVR's that Tivo does not like? I mean exactly and specifically what features about the DVR. Please be specific.
Please dont say "tivo invented DVR and thats what they dont like." (or something like this in your own words)
What exactly are the features on Dish Networks DVR's that Tivo does not like? I mean exactly and specifically what features about the DVR. Please be specific.
Please dont say "tivo invented DVR and thats what they dont like." (or something like this in your own words)
That's funny. Just wait and see. If the sanctions against Dish are less than or equal $2.25 a box, I'll donate 1000 shares of Tivo stock to your favorite charity.
It's not that Tivo "doesn't like features that Dish DVRs", it's that they were implemented in violation of Tivo's IP, specifically claims software claims 31 and 61 of Patent 6,233,389.
Tivo also claimed infringement of the certain hardware claims, but that has yet to be resolved - the CAFC remanded it back to the lower court.
Ok, now I see where you are confused. You have the time periods of pre-judgment and post-judgment confused. While the period during the stay did happen after the judgment was rendered by HJF, the judgment was not final, as the appeal process was still going forward and the stay was on from the CACF. Thus, when this time period was being examined, pre-judgement damages had to be applied. It's during the time period where E* KNEW they were in violation, as the judgement was then final and the stay had been lifted, and still chose to steal TiVo's property that is to be considered next.
TiVo did try to argue for enhanced damages during the previous time period, but HJF properly found that the rate should be the same, as the judgement was not final. Now it is, and has been for some time. Thus, when the post-judgement damages get figured, you WILL see at LEAST 3X on the pre-judgement number, just like you saw E* get their butts handed to them yesterday.
I have looked up that patent # and I dont think that this relates to Tivo at all. Can you please give me the patent # again so I can read claim 31 and 61?
You say that its the software that they Tivo does not like. What parts of the software? Please be specific.
Please see my post above explaining why you have this wrong. You are just confused about what time period is pre- versus post- judgment.
On the damages front, would you please stop saying the same thing over again, when you've already been proven wrong. In fact, you've proved yourself wrong in your first paragraph above. You quote Paice numbers (incorrectly, of course, but at least you were close). It's actually $25 and $98, not $96. But less than 10 sentences later you say it can't be more than 3X. Hello, is anyone home? $98 is more than 3 times $25. How can anyone take you seriously when you not only ignore a previous post pointing this out, but you're inconsistent with yourself in your very own posts?
The only statement E* would have to the court if they don't like whatever private settlement offer TiVo makes them is that, "we can't come to agreement, you're Honor". There is no appeal, no objection, nothing like that. It's a private matter. Now, what happens when the two parties can't come to agreement? Well, you've seen it, and it's about to get much, much worse for E*.
- Status
