TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 169K
- Status
Actually, it's up to Dish to get a stay granted after briefs from each side are reviewed by the judge. Where did you learn your law?
Part of the reason why the Federal Court is coming down so hard on Dish is because Dish was previously granted a stay under false pretenses; they were claiming hardship while they were serruptiously working on a design-around, which they failed to disclose to the court.
I wouldn't hold your breath on Dish getting a permanent stay. I think the FC and CAFC want to send a message to companies that try to game the system, which Dish definitely tried to do.
Yet impossible to disprove. Go figure...
I've got tivo source code myself sitting on my old hard drive and you are telling me it doesn't exist. I believe it is series 1 code (I would have to plug in my old hard drive and look at the release notes again) I downloaded right off tivos website at the time, and I guess I supposedly stole it too.
Or maybe the magazine article I read on building your own Tivo is guilty of organized crime. Lol.
Whatever...
Like I said, you can't steal something that's given away...
Yet impossible to disprove. Go figure...
I've got tivo source code myself sitting on my old hard drive and you are telling me it doesn't exist. I believe it is series 1 code (I would have to plug in my old hard drive and look at the release notes again) I downloaded right off tivos website at the time, and I guess I supposedly stole it too.
Or maybe the magazine article I read on building your own Tivo is guilty of organized crime. Lol.
Whatever...
Like I said, you can't steal something that's given away...
Tell it to the judge
Proof? Sounds like a mouth full of libel with not of shred of evidence to back up your attack on Dish.
Once again, opinion consituting libel.
Present your arguments establishing Dish acting surreptitiously (Correct spelling, apparently your law education skipped spelling) while lying to the court who granted a stay under false pretenses.
Define "gaming the system", it's legal and ethical implications, and documented proof that Dish acted in this fashion as established by authority higher than you.
These Tivo vs Echostar/Dish threads are as entertaining and full of crap as the Voom threads were.
Now that the judiciary can legislate from the bench based on opinion and preference without regard for the law, the only thing we can do is watch and see what happens next.
Tell it to the judge
You wanna buy a tivamp26 DVR? It will even cut your grass, toast a slice of bread, impress the ladies, and even comes with a free book of coupons.
....But wait...there's more!
You get this free set of vampzu knifes for just 29.99 shipping and handling.
You wanna buy a tivamp26 DVR? It will even cut your grass, toast a slice of bread, impress the ladies, and even comes with a free book of coupons.
...But wait...there's more!
You get this free set of vampzu knifes for just 29.99 shipping and handling.
That's just scary, and wrong.
I am not a lawyer but I can read. E* filed their motion to stay already, based on that filing the appeals court stayed the order right the way, then ordered TiVo to respond to E*'s motion to stay by 6/10 and argue why there should not be a stay. That is why it is currently a temporary stay. E* had already done their part, the appeals court is waiting to hear TiVo's response only.
You need to first tell us on what basis you believe the appeals court came down on E* so hard.
If after TiVo's response the appeals court agrees with TiVo and lifts the stay, then I will agree with you they will have come down so hard on E*.
Not the appeals court. If the appeals court wanted to "send the message" they would not have stayed the order so fast, right the next day. E* has 30 days to carry out the order, the appeals court could have easily waited for TiVo to respond by 6/10 then decide what to do, while allowing the 30-day clock to tick away, but they did not, they stopped the clock so fast it caught most analysts by surprise.
what the heck are you talking about? are YOU going to sue somebody for libel?!?
This is an internet forum...chill out...dude...
The law is rubbish and thats a fact...just live in a community that puts those little cameras on stoplights and then some 'robot' charges you 100 dollars for making a legal righthand turn, and you will get the idea...
Look for Charlie to announce on the Charlie Chat after next: Dish with Tivo, an alternative to our standard Dish Network DVR's. Just like Direct TV. I do believe that Dish won't just pay the license fee, but will partner with Tivo to offer a Dish-Tivo with the understanding that the license paid by Dish for using Tivo patents on Dish DVR's be less than without the partnership. This is assuming Dish ultimately loses, which now seems to look likely.
. Just like Direct TV. I do believe that Dish won't just pay the license fee, but will partner with Tivo to offer a Dish-Tivo with the understanding that the license paid by Dish for using Tivo patents on Dish DVR's be less than without the partnership. This is assuming Dish ultimately loses, which now seems to look likely.
Do you really have to ask?????You wanna buy a tivamp26 DVR? It will even cut your grass, toast a slice of bread, impress the ladies, and even comes with a free book of coupons.
...But wait...there's more!
You get this free set of vampzu knifes for just 29.99 shipping and handling.
It has been TiVo's argument that E* lied to the appeals court when they motioned for a stay last time. But it is not true.
What happened last time was, E* first asked Judge Folsom himself to stay his order so E* could appeal his decision, claiming hardship. Judge Folsom passionately denied E*'s request based on hardship, saying E* could deal with it just fine from the business standpoint, so much so that his passionate statement had been used by those TiVo supporters many times during the debate in the past year.
E* then motioned to the appeals court for the stay, and of course the appeals court looked at all the arguments, including that of Judge Folsom's, and granted the stay against his will.
To say E* fooled the appeals court last time is baseless, E* most certainly did not "fool" Judge Folsom. The appeals court simply disagreed with Judge Folsom last time on that issue despite the fact he so adamantly believed there should not be a stay.
This time E* did not bother to ask Judge Folsom for a stay because he already said he would not during the 9/4/08 hearing. When Judge Folsom "sent a message" this time, E* went straight to the appeals court, and the appeals court wasted no time turning that "message" off at least temporarily.
However as I said whether the appeals court will let the stay stand or not will be a crucial test for E* this time. This time hardship may not work, it has been tried already, this much I agree with TiVo. IMO E* must demonstrate it is more than probable that they may prevail on appeal in order to win that stay.
This thread is sounding like a bunch of unemployed lawyers arguing with a bunch or law school dropouts.
LMFAO!! I am an unemployed lawyer and I'm trying my best to stay away from this trainwreck of a thread!
I am just a constitutional lawyer, who really doesn't care about this particular case - just doing my moderating job by staying current with it, and herding cats.
But libel? Seriously???
But libel? Seriously???
dish will appeal over and over dragging this thing out forever. i don't even care anymore. it is time for the judges to say no. your done appealing. pay the price and move on with your business.
- Status
