I wouldn't exactly call it a headline but it was on page one of the business section in USA Today....................
Ed
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 168K
- Status
I wouldn't exactly call it a headline but it was on page one of the business section in USA Today....................
Ed
Echostar has a very uphill battle from here on out if they do not want to settle. I do not see a way out of this for Echostar via the appeals process, they essentially have to prove the judge was incompetent.
Reading the complete decision was interesting, of course a good judge writes it to make the judge's decision as bulletproof as possible. The problem that Dish faces is that the case already was reviewed and upheld in the appeals process. The standards for appeal are now much higher, and since the appeals court already ruled on it in the past, and other jurisdictions did not want the case, Dish is running out of options quickly.
The only thing I see the appeals process doing for Dish is buying a small amount of time. After reading the decision, I see major problems with the MPEG-4 DVRs. If Dish tries to switch out all the old DVRs with new ones, I suspect they will lose that battle pretty quick.
I still think there are errors, especially since the Judge views PID filtering as parsing the data causing an infringement. PID filtering has been going on long before invention of of the DVR, how do you infringe on a patent by doing somethat that has been done for many years before the patent was written? But, the patent has been valided by the patent office, and until it is invalidated it is valid.
Even if Dish were to be successful appealing some parts of the case, I do not see them being able to get them all overturned. If even one thing is not overturned Dish is out of luck. The court is not going to let them keep trying new design arounds.
Reading the complete decision was interesting, of course a good judge writes it to make the judge's decision as bulletproof as possible. The problem that Dish faces is that the case already was reviewed and upheld in the appeals process. The standards for appeal are now much higher, and since the appeals court already ruled on it in the past, and other jurisdictions did not want the case, Dish is running out of options quickly.
The only thing I see the appeals process doing for Dish is buying a small amount of time. After reading the decision, I see major problems with the MPEG-4 DVRs. If Dish tries to switch out all the old DVRs with new ones, I suspect they will lose that battle pretty quick.
I still think there are errors, especially since the Judge views PID filtering as parsing the data causing an infringement. PID filtering has been going on long before invention of of the DVR, how do you infringe on a patent by doing somethat that has been done for many years before the patent was written? But, the patent has been valided by the patent office, and until it is invalidated it is valid.
Even if Dish were to be successful appealing some parts of the case, I do not see them being able to get them all overturned. If even one thing is not overturned Dish is out of luck. The court is not going to let them keep trying new design arounds.
I don't care for the General TIVO interface, but one thing that could come back is the older Dish interface for trick play that was definitely more reliable for such functions than the current "bypass". I believe they can also use more of the Broadcom chips buit-in DVR code for this.No I don't think that the VIP receivers should come with Tivo by default, but the software should be available as an option for those who love TIVO.
From what I am hearing the new DirecTV Box with Tivo is going to be a standard receiver which can be upgraded with Tivo software on top of the DirecTV software already on the box.
This will allow them to give customers what they want.There is money to be made here. I don't see why they are leaving all this money on the table.
Last edited:
It is actually the opposite based exclusively on the matter of law.
During the last appeal, TiVo only needed to prove by preponderance of evidence, a lower burden of proof, even so, the appeals court overturned half of the verdicts which were embraced by Judge Folsom, in part because as the appeals court said two of the claim constructions by Judge Folsom were too broad and the appeals court narrowed them down, as a result the hardware claims verdict were reversed. But since the software verdict stood, the final judgment and the permanent injunction were upheld because only one of the verdicts was enough. What that meant however was Judge Folsom did make several mistakes, according to the appeals court.
During this appeal, TiVo needs to prove by clear and convincing evidence, a higher burden of proof. If during the last round under a lower burden of proof, appeals court overturned the hardware claims verdict, despite Judge Folsom’s blessing, it is reasonable to say under the higher burden of proof this time around, the appeals court may also overturn the Judge Folsom’s recent decision, and yes E* only needs one thing to do that, that is to convince the appeals court Judge Folsom made an error for not considering the issue of "doubt."
However from the standpoint of public perception, I agree with you, no matter what the law is, most people only live on the impression based on the court decisions. For example, one can certainly drive through the impression that the appeals court agreed with Judge Folsom 100% because they upheld his rulings last time, even though in reality the appeals court only agreed with him 50%, disagreed with him on the other 50%, this much was actually admitted by Judge Folsom during the 2/17/09 hearing. But back then only 50% was needed for TiVo to win.
I also agree with you that if the appeals court refuses to stay the order pending appeal, in all practicality it is over for E*. Even if E* ultimately wins on appeal, the current order will likely force E* to settle as it maybe the only realistic option.
So watch for the appeals court's decision on E*'s motion to stay, after TiVo's response by 6/10.
"PID filtering" represents only one element of the claim. That alone does not make for infringement. Every element of the patent claim has to be met for infringement.
I do agree that legal interpretation strengthens the TiVo patents, since that function is essential for all software running on Broadcom DVR hardware. Dish Network and other DVR manufacturers will have to look to other areas to avoid infringement.
Hear hear. I would call this "egregious incompetence" on the part of the judge.
The judgement was for $1.25/month per dvr for 20 months - or $103,068,886.
That back calculates to 4,122,753 infringing recorders (another 192,708 are licensed).
Use replacement cost of about $200 per recorder and Dish's addtional exposure ballons to 4,122,753 X $200= $824,550,600.
TIVO's in the catbird seat
That back calculates to 4,122,753 infringing recorders (another 192,708 are licensed).
Use replacement cost of about $200 per recorder and Dish's addtional exposure ballons to 4,122,753 X $200= $824,550,600.
TIVO's in the catbird seat
That's why I always say tivo specializes in legalizing extortion and consumer economic terrorism, but hey...its all what a corrupt legal system enables.
Well, even though I totally disagree with the decision, there's no denying that I profitted by it. I may be looking at a possible 70 percent return here.
WTF. DISH blatantly stole TiVo's intellectual property because they didn't want to pay for it. Do you honestly think TiVo prefers that DISH stole it instead of licensing it up front? I just don't understand how people can blame TiVo here; they have been wanting DISH to settle (and license what they stole) all along. DISH seems to be the one trying to abuse the legal system by delaying proceedings and claiming they had a good work-around (when in fact their software is still infringing).
A moral highground regarding a corrupt legal system makes no sense.
Nobody 'blatantly' stole anything while developing their own product, any more than people 'blatantly' get divorced while planning a wedding. It just plain didn't work out for the best, that's all that happened here.
...And I made money off it.
I think we can reasonably differ on the *degree* of the merits of the lawsuit and we can reasonably differ on what the remedy should be. I find it hard to believe, though, that someone thinks it's "economic terrorism" or "extortion" for someone to prevent their own property from being illegally used against their own interests. And in one form or another, to one degree or another, it's hard to deny that's what is happening here; E* has very obviously ripped off TiVo's technology without permission or licensing agreements (or "borrowed without asking" if you prefer that semantically), and this comes to the detriment of TiVo since every user who commits to Dish is a user that TiVo can't reach.
You have it the opposite. Echostar/Dish has the burden of proof in the appeal. Echostar/Dish "needs to prove by clear and convincing evidence, a higher burden of proof". TiVo already has the judgement in its favor, it is Dish that needs to prove it was wrong. If TiVo had lost the injunction then they would have had to do the proving, their work is done, it is up to Dish to prove now that the judge was wrong.
The appeals court ruled that the software infringement was valid. Yes they threw out half the judgement last time (via hardware claims), and the judge no longer considered the HW claims, only the SW ones.
Given that the appeals court has already ruled that the software claims were valid and the injuction should stand, I agree Dish probably will not get a stay on the injunction, they already had their time.
Will you please stop saying this?
The finding of hardware infringement was not reversed, it was remanded.
For someone who claims to read as much case law as you have, you should know the difference by now.
Nobody 'deliberately' did anything. All the Tivo 'supporters' want too turn this whole thing into a morality play by squealing 'steal, steal, steal' over and over again, which imho, take away all credibily of the tivo 'supporter' branding their testimony as strictly emotive.
As for me, I know what a competitive market is, and I know what competition is. To build a better mousetrap in the open market is not stealing, its called competition. And what we've witnessed here is an abomination of the free-market, hence my accusations against tivo and the courts.
But it doesn't really matter now, does it? Tivo supporters can squeal all they like. They can keep their outdated DVRs, and I'll keep my five figures of discressionary income. Thanks Tivo! Lol...
As for me, I know what a competitive market is, and I know what competition is. To build a better mousetrap in the open market is not stealing, its called competition. And what we've witnessed here is an abomination of the free-market, hence my accusations against tivo and the courts.
But it doesn't really matter now, does it? Tivo supporters can squeal all they like. They can keep their outdated DVRs, and I'll keep my five figures of discressionary income. Thanks Tivo! Lol...
So it's okay for one company to build a better mousetrap by using (say) 75% of their competitor's patented parts and adding 25% of your own, so you can pretend it's a completely "different" product?
That's fair competition? I can spend millions and millions on R&D and someone else can just use most of that to damage my own business?
Apparently you don't accept the concept of intellectual property rights.
Are you wanting someone to give you a cookie and tell you "great job"? Because you seem to have to mention this in every post you make lately.
Maybe you are just trying to make yourself look cool, but I could honestly care less because it has nothing to do with the arguement.That's your opinion, but saying it over and over doesn't make it fact. I guess DISH just invited TiVo in to demo their software and only asked them to leave it with them for awhile just for the heck of it. I'm sure DISH never studied it closely, and it was absolutely no help in bringing the DISH DVR product to market. The simple fact of the matter is it is far cheaper to steal intellectual property than it is to develop it yourself. Just ask China or France...
And for the record, I am using a 722 DVR.
I accept it so long as its not abused or used abusively, which in this case I feel it was.
Are you wanting someone to give you a cookie and tell you "great job"? Because you seem to have to mention this in every post you make lately.
That's your opinion, but saying it over and over doesn't make it fact. I guess DISH just invited TiVo in to demo their software and only asked them to leave it with them for awhile just for the heck of it. I'm sure DISH never studied it closely, and it was absolutely no help in bringing the DISH DVR product to market. The simple fact of the matter is it is far cheaper to steal intellectual property than it is to develop it yourself. Just ask China or France...
And for the record, I am using a 722 DVR.
2 personal attacks
1 burden of proof fallacy
1 urban legend
1 red herring fallacy
Anything else you want to waste my time with?
First let me quote what the appeals court said since you obviously had no interest in reading it yourself:
While I am at it, let me also explain why TiVo had since decided to abandon the hardware claims issue. Below the appeals court also said regarding the hardware claims:
In the above statement, the appeals court said Judge Folsom’s instructions on that two hardware claim constructions were too broad, and the appeals court decided on a more restrictive form, therefore even if the jury had the chance to make the decision all over again and find infringement by the equivalents, the appeals court would not be able to uphold such jury’s verdict anyway.
If you believe that Dish "stole" anything from TiVo, you are severely misguided about the US' patent system. TiVo patented a "process". Dish accomplished the same process using different methods. TiVo's patent is like this: They patent the summing of numbers that equals "4". In their patent example, they show "2 + 2 = 4". Dish comes along and writes code that has to sum numbers to equal "4" also, but they do it with "1 + 1 + 2 = 4". TiVo sues them because they added up to .... "4".
Unless Dish got a hold of TiVo's programming source code, they didn't steal anything. This kind of process -- and many, many companies have ridiculous patents -- simply shouldn't be patentable.
- Status
