Nope. It's a statement of fact. Patent validity would not be an allowed issue at the ViP contempt hearing just like it wasn't an allowed issue at the recent contempt hearing.
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 191K
- Status
No, you wish TiVo will even get a chance to go after the VIPs
It is not a statement of fact that TiVo is going after the VIPs, it is wishful thinking. TiVo is not going after the VIPs at this time. They can't even get the 8 named DVRs.
It isn't about me. Don't try to change the subject.No, you wish TiVo will even get a chance to go after the VIPs
Wrong, it was not about you, rather about the wishful thinking that TiVo is going after the VIPs.
You are the one that keeps bringing up hypothetical "next litigation" and then you try to change the subject when someone talks about it.
The next litigation is not a hypothetical one at all, it is this DE case right under our noses.
The reexamination is not a hypothetical one either, it is right under our noses.
The following are hypothetical ones, some are downright ridiculous:
1) There might be a preliminary (or "updated", or "temporary") injunction soon;
2) There is a contempt;
3) There is a contempt proceeding for the VIPs;
4) There will be treble damages;
5) There will be $220M damages;
6) The DE case is "already" transferred to the TX court;
7) Once valid in the first reexamination, will almost certainly be valid in the second reexamination...
Last edited:
Judicial economy dictates that there should be a full blown trial when a contempt hearing would (and already has) accomplish the same thing? That's not hypothetical, that's fantasy.
Are you denying there is a DE case right under our noses?
Are you still insisting that the DE case is a hypothetical one?
If so why would TiVo try so hard to get it transferred to the TX court, what a waste of time? Apparently TiVo is treating this DE case as if it is a real future litigation, not a hypothetical one.
Should I believe you or TiVo?
But wait, maybe I should believe you, after all, TiVo hasn't proven much yet
Are you denying there is a DE case right under our noses?
Are you still insisting that the DE case is a hypothetical one?
If so why would TiVo try so hard to get it transferred to the TX court, what a waste of time? Apparently TiVo is treating this DE case as if it is a real future litigation, not a hypothetical one.
Should I believe you or TiVo?
But wait, maybe I should believe you, after all, TiVo hasn't proven much yet
This is too funny.
TiVo has proven that DISH infringes on their patent.
What has DISH proven yet?
Yes, you have been living in 2006 all this time, I know, and stay there.
For the rest of the folks, this is about the contempt proceeding, it started at around 6/08, not 2004.
Of course this is fact. Why is this even being argued? I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet, but even I can plainly see this is a fact.
Charlie proved that crime doesn't pay to the tune of $105 million, with another $200 million or so more on the way.
Oh, and he's proven that he can litigate himself into paying $5.00 a box as opposed to the $1.50 a box Tivo originally asked for.
Of course this is fact. Why is this even being argued? I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet, but even I can plainly see this is a fact.
This is exactly why one should not use the ignore button, makes the question sound stupid
Charlie proved that crime doesn't pay to the tune of $105 million, with another $200 million or so more on the way.
Oh, and he's proven that he can litigate himself into paying $5.00 a box as opposed to the $1.50 a box Tivo originally asked for.
+1
1) TiVo's treble and attorney fees request denied;
2) TiVo's argument not to stay the injunction on appeal denied;
3) No infringement on the hardware claims;
4) TiVo's request for infringement analysis on 5/30/08 denied as urged by E*;
5) Violation on the face without looking at the design around is against the law;
6) Colorable difference issue must first be looked at;
7) The E* DE case is a solid case, not "forum shopping" as TiVo argued;
8) There is "substantial new question" regarding the validity of the two TiVo's software claims...
What has TiVo proven?
1) $104M;
2) The same $104M;
3) The same $104M; and
4) The same $104M...
But wait, I forgot, that was proven in 2006, my bad.
Nothing by TiVo in the last two and half years.
Vagts' Basic Corporation Law Materials, Cases and Text, 3rd Edition. Page 457, 3rd paragaraph.
Sorry, it's not online. You'll have to consult your own legal textbooks for this one. You can't believe everything you read on the internets.
So, they have proven how to manipulate the current court system to drap out the case.
The main issue is infringement, all of this is insignificant.
We have gotten to many reported posts today form this thread. Either play nice no more slagging name calling and reporting or I will give a vacation to those that hit the report button as well as the offender.
So when E* had proven things, you call it manipulating the court system, but when TiVo had proven one thing back in 2006, it was something else?
Supposedly that the USPTO by failing to evaluate the two prior patents in combination, and made a mistake by granting the two TiVo's software claims, and therefore allowed TiVo to extort the $104M from E*, what would you call that?
I am not saying TiVo extorted anything, they did so through legal means, that is how things done in this country.
True, whether the new design still infringes or not. TiVo has finally faced up to this reality. TiVo for the last year insisted the issue was "on the face" rather infringement, TiVo was disproven.
- Status
