DISH Buying TIVO?
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 242
- Views 34K
I think it's funny that to rebut something your answer is 'well he just didnt know what he was talking about'.
Reminds me of the CEO of the insurance company in The Rainmaker.
Reminds me of the CEO of the insurance company in The Rainmaker.
not what I said
That isn't exactly what I said but I do doubt that he knows how many will really be affected but was stating a worse case. Also many of the DVR's in the suit no longer are is service. If he were told to shut down the DVR's then he should only shut down those that are listed in the original suit. I think that the court would be hard pressed to get him to shut down the VIP's since they weren't in the suit and Tivo wasn't able to get them brought in to the case.
That isn't exactly what I said but I do doubt that he knows how many will really be affected but was stating a worse case. Also many of the DVR's in the suit no longer are is service. If he were told to shut down the DVR's then he should only shut down those that are listed in the original suit. I think that the court would be hard pressed to get him to shut down the VIP's since they weren't in the suit and Tivo wasn't able to get them brought in to the case.
Last edited:
What exactly is it about Tivo that turns grown men into complete ignoramuses incapable of rational discussion? For the life of me, I'll never get it. oh well. 
If you think about it, the whole point is moot since Dish DVRs will never, ever, ever get shutdown...not a single one. It's just a matter of how much Dish is going to pay Tivo or their shareholders for the privilege.What exactly is it about Tivo that turns grown men into complete ignoramuses incapable of rational discussion? For the life of me, I'll never get it. oh well.
I think it's obvious to all objective thinking people that not a single Dish DVR will be disabled - it's just a matter of $$$ at this time. Also, while the VIP Series DVRs were not named in the original lawsuit, based on the contempt order it is reasonable to assume that Judge Folsom will get an opportunity to rule whether the VIP's are merely colorably different from those named in the original lawsuit and therefore subject to the contempt order. We shall find out soon enough.
still beating that horse
I know that you fell that way you've said that over & over. Thing is they were not in the suit and TIVO wasn't allowed to bring them into the suit after the fact so Folsom would be hard pressed to be able to include them in a shut off. Colorably different or not makes no difference since there has been no ruling that includes them. It's time you stop beating that dead horse it don't carry weight. Folsom would have to enjoin them and since TIVO wasn't allowed to it is unlike even that horses rear will either.
I know that you fell that way you've said that over & over. Thing is they were not in the suit and TIVO wasn't allowed to bring them into the suit after the fact so Folsom would be hard pressed to be able to include them in a shut off. Colorably different or not makes no difference since there has been no ruling that includes them. It's time you stop beating that dead horse it don't carry weight. Folsom would have to enjoin them and since TIVO wasn't allowed to it is unlike even that horses rear will either.
The question of whether they were in the suit or not would be the whole purpose of the contempt hearing. If the judge determines that they are the same as (not more than colorably different) what was in the suit then Dish will have been in contempt on the ViP models. Companies can't just put out a supposedly different product and get away with it if the differences aren't substantial and in the context of the infringed claims. That's contempt.
Shouldn't you be preparing more nonsense for the court with the rest of the tivo legal team? What are you doing here?
don't think you are right
With out them being part of the original suit it will be hard for them to be added after the fact. Your job would be to prove there is some proof that they could be included and so far no one has been able to do that. So go do your job, that is if you are 1 of the lawyers for TIVO. I'm completely tired of you repetition of BS. Come on finally admit whether you are TIVO's lawyer.
With out them being part of the original suit it will be hard for them to be added after the fact. Your job would be to prove there is some proof that they could be included and so far no one has been able to do that. So go do your job, that is if you are 1 of the lawyers for TIVO. I'm completely tired of you repetition of BS. Come on finally admit whether you are TIVO's lawyer.
lawyer
You are avoiding the question are you one of the TIVO team lawyers or just a troll for TIVO.
You are avoiding the question are you one of the TIVO team lawyers or just a troll for TIVO.
This entire case, and the many Tivo versus EchoStar threads, sound like a broken record with the same questions and comments repeating themselves - rinse, recycle and repeat.
And you too have made the same opposing argument with the same zest & zeal...over, and over, and over again. To be honest, there is really very little disagreement...nor is there any reason to parse court orders and artifacts since you agree that Judge Folsom has the authority to enjoin the VIP Series DVRs in this case - just like I do. I have never mentioned the VIP Series DVRs would be disabled per the contempt order. I have merely stated that Judge Folsom reserved the right to rule on whether the VIP Series DVRs are only colorably different if this issue is pursued by Tivo. Whether Judge Folsom entertains this motion is entirely up to him. Moreover, the VIP may be adjudged to be more than colorably different. Regardless, this matter will soon be resolved (Dish will purchase Tivo or license their IP) because the VIP Series DVRs likely infringe upon Tivo's newly awarded (10-years in the process) Season Pass manager and closed-captioned patents. Of course nobody---not even the most diehard Tivo and Dish zealots---want to see another Tivo versus EchoStar lawsuit. Egads!!!
BTW, it's your argument that doesn't "hold water" and for you to continue to spread misinformation by portraying the VIP Series DVR as never being subject to the contempt order is disingenuous and misleading. People should read the court orders and artifacts and make-up their own minds.
Folks...I cannot stand Tivo's horrible business model and sinister legal tactics, but Thomas has never done anything other than express his opinions in a respectul manner...and he has been correct 99% of the time. Can't we all just get along...
You haven't any thing
You have yer to show any proof that the VIP's can be included so I have had to repeat what was shown in the other threads that the VIP's were not included in the suit and would have to be listed in another suit. Your attitude from the start has been Charlie should roll over and just pay TIVO. I want to see this played out and finished so that TIVO has to give up this "Spanish Inquisition" techniques that they have deployed towards everyone that has a competing product. So show some proof that the VIP's can be included in the original suit. Neither you nor thomas22 has sown anything that would allow TIVO to include them in this. The dissenting opinon of the 3rd judge seems like this case may even have a chance help produce the en banc that E* has asked for. So we will see if either you roll over & die attitude or thomas22's TIVO fan boy haven't done anything to change most everyone's mind here.
This entire case, and the many Tivo versus EchoStar threads, sound like a broken record with the same questions and comments repeating themselves - rinse, recycle and repeat.
And you too have made the same opposing argument with the same zest & zeal...over, and over, and over again. To be honest, there is really very little disagreement...nor is there any reason to parse court orders and artifacts since you agree that Judge Folsom has the authority to enjoin the VIP Series DVRs in this case - just like I do. I have never mentioned the VIP Series DVRs would be disabled per the contempt order. I have merely stated that Judge Folsom reserved the right to rule on whether the VIP Series DVRs are only colorably different if this issue is pursued by Tivo. Whether Judge Folsom entertains this motion is entirely up to him. Moreover, the VIP may be adjudged to be more than colorably different. Regardless, this matter will soon be resolved (Dish will purchase Tivo or license their IP) because the VIP Series DVRs likely infringe upon Tivo's newly awarded (10-years in the process) Season Pass manager and closed-captioned patents. Of course nobody---not even the most diehard Tivo and Dish zealots---want to see another Tivo versus EchoStar lawsuit. Egads!!!
BTW, it's your argument that doesn't "hold water" and for you to continue to spread misinformation by portraying the VIP Series DVR as never being subject to the contempt order is disingenuous and misleading. People should read the court orders and artifacts and make-up their own minds.
You have yer to show any proof that the VIP's can be included so I have had to repeat what was shown in the other threads that the VIP's were not included in the suit and would have to be listed in another suit. Your attitude from the start has been Charlie should roll over and just pay TIVO. I want to see this played out and finished so that TIVO has to give up this "Spanish Inquisition" techniques that they have deployed towards everyone that has a competing product. So show some proof that the VIP's can be included in the original suit. Neither you nor thomas22 has sown anything that would allow TIVO to include them in this. The dissenting opinon of the 3rd judge seems like this case may even have a chance help produce the en banc that E* has asked for. So we will see if either you roll over & die attitude or thomas22's TIVO fan boy haven't done anything to change most everyone's mind here.
Ok, guys. Enough. We have been down this path 100 times before. Discuss the issues, do not attack each other. My comment earlier today was intended to get that message across, but I guess it didn't.
Dish has already lost multiple times, is why people have that attitude. They're going to pay, whether it be a final refusal of an appeal, a settlement, or Dish somehow buying TiVo.
There is no magical 'oh well Tivo will just go away now' short of them suddenly losing it all, which they've yet to do and would appear the least likely of all outcomes.
Queue the irrelevant 'but tivo violates replaytv repetition', it's been overdue for a little while. It's better than calling people a troll at least.
troll
The only 1 that seems to be the troll is thomas22. He comes in here and puts out a bunch of BS and sounds like he is part of the TIVO team but will not admit to it or just has an axe to grind. If he is in fact part of TIVO team then he is on the verge of breach client/attorney privilege. If he isn't part of the team I want to know what is axe to grind is about. Time for him to come clean about his motives here and what he thinks he is going to accomplish by always trying to stir things up. :rant:
The only 1 that seems to be the troll is thomas22. He comes in here and puts out a bunch of BS and sounds like he is part of the TIVO team but will not admit to it or just has an axe to grind. If he is in fact part of TIVO team then he is on the verge of breach client/attorney privilege. If he isn't part of the team I want to know what is axe to grind is about. Time for him to come clean about his motives here and what he thinks he is going to accomplish by always trying to stir things up. :rant:
