TiVo's contempt motion is out

[jacmyoung]

I agree with your point, if dish isn't infringing they win. But they have already been found to infringe. Maybe the court will decide that they are no longer infringing but maybe the court will rule that the injunction has nothing to do with software or hardware but rather devices that needed to be disabled. Remember, tivos patent never doesn't say anything about software or hardware. Its just not as cut and dry as you made it seem.

The problem is the long held standard in citing a violation of an injunction on finringement is, there has to be infringement present, regardless what is said in the injunction, without infringement, violation of an injunction on finringement simply can not happen:

Infringement is the sine quo non of violation of an injunction on infringement.

The above statement is absolute, no matter what the injunction says in itself.

 

[jacmyoung]

DISH has to prove their new software doesn't infringe, not Tivo. If they can't then they are definately in contempt. I think we can at least agree about this.

Absolutely false. DISH only needs to establish the doubt whether their Infringing Products still infringe or not, if they can do that there will not be a contempt.

Even if in the end the Infringing Products still may be proven to infringe, at this juncture, DISH only needs to established that doubt, that will be enough to avoid a contempt.

In a contempt poceeding, it is the plaintiff who has to prove with "clear and convicing evidence" that the defendant still infringes in order to secure a contempt. You had it reversed.

You might be thinking of a formal trial, but this is a summary contempt proceeding, not a formal trial.

The reason I highlighted the word summary is because a contempt proceeding is a form of summary proceeding. And I am sure dgordo as a lawyer knows exactly who carries a very heavy burden of proof in a summary proceeding, yes the movant, i.e. Tivo in this case.

 

[dgordo]

The problem is the long held standard in citing a violation of an injunction on finringement is, there has to be infringement present, regardless what is said in the injunction, without infringement, violation of an injunction on finringement simply can not happen:

Infringement is the sine quo non of violation of an injunction on infringement.

The above statement is absolute, no matter what the injunction says in itself.

With all due respect, I have no interest in discussing this case with you here. If I did, I would do so on the other site.

I only got involved in this thread because a comment was made that dish would easily win, they may win, they may not, but it is far from a sure thing.

 

[DishSubLA]

Just like you are so against TiVo.

Way to jump on someone that has a different opinion that you. DISH is not an angel in this. They were found guilty of willfull infringement. They were ordered to turn off the listed 8 DVR models and have not.

Dish, and most defendants in the court of the "rouge judge" (A Supreme Court Justice's description of the Tyler, TX court and their mis-use of tort justice to benifit the local economy--lest we forget that the rouge judge's Tyler, TX court has the highest rate of reversals and legal chiding form superior judges from higher courts of any other court in the nation) are victims of the morons who populate our juries across the country.

In this case, the poor devils on this jury were out of their depth. The question is software, and it is a different language, as mathematics. Not a one of those poor jurors understand or are capable of "reading" or even explaining, what any of that software MEANS! Many computer science professors would have difficulty, as well. So, the only thing those poor lay-people could comprehend was that Tivo left one of their DVR's with Dish that was never returned, therefore, Dish must have "stolen" infringed, copied, whatever lay-term, or used the Tivo software. VERY poor logic from a group of people who are put in the positions of authority. Yet, how many of the jury can understand or "interpret" software. NOT A ONE OF THEM.

Unfortunately, this same limited intellect within the jury pool infects many criminal cases, as well. Was O.J. innocent, after all? The truth is many technical cases should have juries who have some chance of understanding what they are required to review, and not depend upon the paid "experts" who can always put things in a manner as to make it seem each side is correct.

Even if Dish has a bad day in September, there is a good chance that Dish may never have to pay a dime. The road taken by Dish has been taken by others and is just beginning for the Barbie Doll lawsuit. 'Nuff said.

 

[nh_dish]

If you're not going to use your God-given common sense, then you're obviously a Tivo fanboy. Go away.

LMAO... from the culmination of his posts, I'm thinking Thomas22 is also a Tivo stockholder

You were not doing the same thing, you were watching a live program while the VCR recorded something else. The TiVo innovation was to permit viewing of a recorded program while recording another program. You could not do that even if you had 2 VCRs, because you could not start watching a program from the beginning while it was still recording and FF through the commercials.

EXACTLY!! With multiple VCR's, I recorded multiple events while still watching one live... over a decade before Tivo came about. So their patent warrants disabling DVR function entirely? I would think that only the "time-warp" functions should be in jeopardy.

The TIVO patent is more innovative than 90% of what is granted...
As for the TIVO sw patent, it really was something special...

I'm still waiting for someone to address my argument of why it makes a difference that it's digital video being recorded vs. any other sort of data, when random-access including multiple handles on a single file has been part of computer science for a long time.

Whether or not Tivo SHOULD have been issued a patent, they did. And it does appear to be a real work. I think that Tivo KNEW full well what they were up against. They were using existing computer file technology. They were duplicating a process already performed though more complicated methods (i.e. cascading multiple recording devices). They merged the two into one product... great idea! But I think they knew that the rapidly growing computer technology market would quickly surpass their invention. Rather than invest in product development, they enlisted lawyers to design a patent that would lock up an entire concept and hopefully prevent any competition from advancing technologies.

I'm glad this hasn't happened in more genres of technology, or we might all still be running 486 based computers if IBM had a similar patent on processor design. Or we'd still be using 5-1/4 floppies if the concept of digital data storage had been similarly patented, preventing the introduction of HDD's, CD's, etc. Get the idea?

Quote from Case 2:04-cv-00001-DF-CMC Document 846 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 1 of 3

- In any event, due to internal business decisions, EchoStar recently determined that it no longer needs the relief requested. EchoStar is increasingly moving to set-top boxes compatible with MPEG-4 technology, as opposed to MPEG-2, which is the platform for the DP-721, DP-921, and DP-942 models.
Thus, EchoStar has recently adopted a new program in which it replaces non-functioning boxes of those three models with different models compatible with MPEG-4 technology. End Quote

I'm still unclear how much of this affects me. I own, not lease, a 721. Does Tivo have the right to make my unit non-functional? In all previous cases of patent infringement, I cannot think of any where the court ruled confiscation or dismantling of in-service units. Since when is it acceptable to financially penalize the consumer for their purchase, rather than the offending corporation who profited illegally (allegedly) from the patent violation? Typically, the violating manufacturer is fined, forced to pay royalties, ordered to cease production, etc. But the consumer is not directly included. I can't help but feel the court ruling sets a dangerous precedent. What if some day, for example, Toyota were to sue GM for patent infringement, and ask the courts to disable all affected GM models? Should the precedent be to leave all GM owners with a useless pile of metal in their driveway?

 

[nh_dish]

BTW, the more I think about this whole issue, the more I think it's time to enlist a couple of bottom-end, single-tuner receivers (non-DVR), routed directly into a networked HTPC.

It's an idea I've considered for years. Such a system could easily duplicate DVR capabilities and much, much more. Recorded programs could be viewed from multiple rooms wireless, or anyplace with internet access for that matter. And best of all is totally out of the reach of Tivo or anyone else.

 

[Jim S.]

BTW, the more I think about this whole issue, the more I think it's time to enlist a couple of bottom-end, single-tuner receivers (non-DVR), routed directly into a networked HTPC.

The only problem with that plan is that if you invest the money to do it in HD (and I wouldn't invest the time to do it in SD!), you run the risk of them disabling the component output later if they think too many people are doing it.

 

[wiredgirl]

I'm still unclear how much of this affects me. I own, not lease, a 721. Does Tivo have the right to make my unit non-functional?

This is the info I'm looking for too. I'm searching this forum to find out what might actually happen in the home -- is a technician going to come to my house and swap out my box for something else? Or does someone flip a switch remotely and one day the DVR just stops working? Any insight into if they have a plan?

 

[KAB]

This is the info I'm looking for too. I'm searching this forum to find out what might actually happen in the home -- is a technician going to come to my house and swap out my box for something else? Or does someone flip a switch remotely and one day the DVR just stops working? Any insight into if they have a plan?

With E*'s move to all MPEG 4, your 721 will become useless anyway (except for OTA). You should call Dish about upgrading to a VIP receiver. BTW, any Tivo action, if any at all, would be months away if not longer.

 

[navychop]

It will be many years before Dish is all MPEG-4. Unless you move onto EA, that is. I'm sure Dish will be making us 721 owners a good deal long before then.

 

[mike123abc]

This is the info I'm looking for too. I'm searching this forum to find out what might actually happen in the home -- is a technician going to come to my house and swap out my box for something else? Or does someone flip a switch remotely and one day the DVR just stops working? Any insight into if they have a plan?

If Dish loses the next round and is forced to turn off the boxes, I am sure Dish will be contacting all the affected subs pronto to replace their boxes. If Dish wins the next round with their new software (that they claim no longer infringes), nothing will happen and things will go on as usual.

 

[kstuart]

If Dish loses the next round and is forced to turn off the boxes, I am sure Dish will be contacting all the affected subs pronto to replace their boxes.

Uh, replace them ? With what ?

Even if you pull out the hard drive from a Dish DVR, it will still function as a non-DVR satellite receiver.

If a Judge decides that Dish must disable all their DVRs period, full stop (unlikely, but possible), then Dish will spool a new software version that has no DVR functionality. They could certainly continue to use the hard drive for nine-day Guide storage, as well as Video On Demand storage and playback.

 

[iwc5893]

Isn't this hearing coming up soon, like in the next week or so?