Contempt of court does not require a new trial. We just had an example of that. There would be a contempt hearing first to determine whether there is only a colorable difference and if so, Dish will have been in contempt on the newer models for Lo these many years (willfully according to the Dish admissions of needing to disable all their DVRs if they lost the appeal). If there is more than a colorable difference then a new trial would be needed.
Dish Faces April 30 Deadline In TiVo Case
- Thread starter Kheldar
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 154
- Views 21K
new trail
In your statement you have shown the need for a new trial. That would be to prove if the VIPs are more than a colorable differnce. These DVR's do not use same s/w so it would take another trail to prove that they are not.
In your statement you have shown the need for a new trial. That would be to prove if the VIPs are more than a colorable differnce. These DVR's do not use same s/w so it would take another trail to prove that they are not.
That's correct! In my opinion, only the nine (9) original models named in the suite would have to be disabled by 30 April. However, Tivo would then ask Judge Folsom to rule the ViP Series DVRs are only "colorably different" than the infringing models and therefore subject to the contempt order. Judge Rader (the sole dissenting opinion) may feel that Tivo will have to file a new case against the ViP Series DVRs, but his opinion and a couple dollars will buy someone a cup of coffee - nothing more. At this point does anyone really think that Judge Folsom will not order the ViP Series DVRs to be disabled? In a nutshell, Tivo will only need to file an infringement suit against the ViP Series DVRs if Judge Folsom tells them to do so.
Judge Folson had given DISH many opportunities to sign a licensing agreement with Tivo the past 2+ years so it should surprise no one when he sides with Tivo and orders the ViP DVRs to be disabled. The full appelate court will not hear rehear this case nor does the Supreme Court have time to hear such trivial matters...especially with 12 States challenging the new National Healthcare law.
There will be no new trial for the ViP Series DVRs; the appellate court en banc will not rehear the contempt motion; and the Supreme Court will not hear this case. The point in moot since DISH will pay the licensing fees or simply buy Tivo - it will just cost billion more than they thought.
Anyway, just my two cents.
A hearing is not the same as a trial. Judge Folsom is an expert is these matters (according to the Federal District Court) so it shouldn't take him long to decide if the VIP Series DVRs are only colorably different and therefore subject to the contempt order.
You are correct - they are not included...yet.
Perhaps, but only if Judge Folsom says so.
I don't like the Tivo patents either, but if E* buys Tivo you can bet your last dollar that TivoStar will continue their newly acquired lawsuits against AT&T and Verizon. Back in 2005 I mentioned the Cable/Satellite MSOs should buy Tivo and cross license the Tivo patents or make them public domain. Tivo needs to die...unfortunately, it looks like E* will be footing the entire bill.
Contempt of court decides only that DISH Network was in contempt. It doesn't decide any trial.
Instead of making stuff up and acting like we know what we are talking about lets take a look at the ruling...
The colorably different argument has NOTHING to do with the ViP series, that was the arguement used to see if the change that DISH did to get around the patent was "colorably different"
The ViP series is safe from this lawsuit.
You can play arm chair lawyer all you want, but the judges order is there in black and which, please stop adding words to it which are not there.
The colorably different argument has NOTHING to do with the ViP series, that was the arguement used to see if the change that DISH did to get around the patent was "colorably different"
The ViP series is safe from this lawsuit.
You can play arm chair lawyer all you want, but the judges order is there in black and which, please stop adding words to it which are not there.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT
Each Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice hereof, are hereby restrained and enjoined, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d), from making, using, offering to sell or selling in the Untied States, the Infringing Products, either alone or in combination with any other product and all other products that are only colorably different therefrom in the context of the Infringed Claims, whether individually or in combination with other products or as a part of another product, and from otherwise infringing or inducing others to infringe the Infringed Claims of the ‘389 patent.
Each Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice hereof, are hereby restrained and enjoined, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d), from making, using, offering to sell or selling in the Untied States, the Infringing Products, either alone or in combination with any other product and all other products that are only colorably different therefrom in the context of the Infringed Claims, whether individually or in combination with other products or as a part of another product, and from otherwise infringing or inducing others to infringe the Infringed Claims of the ‘389 patent.
Since the vips use the broadcom chipset to achieve this function, I would say that is colorably different. The hardware has not been found infringing.
Again your grasping at straws.
I am guessing your one of the attorneys working for Tivo in this trial just trying to stir the pot.
Again your grasping at straws.
I am guessing your one of the attorneys working for Tivo in this trial just trying to stir the pot.
Ad Hominems so early?
Some of the named infringing DVRs use the Broadcom chipset.
Also, any differences have to be in the context of the infringed claims to be considered relevant. The infringed claims do not specify a chipset.
different
Different chipset the ones in VIP's only came out just before they did. So are you a lawyer for TIVO? You sure are sounding like one.
Different chipset the ones in VIP's only came out just before they did. So are you a lawyer for TIVO? You sure are sounding like one.
It doesn't matter whether they use electron tubes and rubber bands. It's the process that's patented.
Answer the question
You are avoiding the question that has been asked twice are you one of TIVO's lawyers? BTW process has to be proved for a completely different device.
You are avoiding the question that has been asked twice are you one of TIVO's lawyers? BTW process has to be proved for a completely different device.
You may very well be correct! However, I do feel that Judge Folsom gets to rule on this matter if requested by Tivo. If Judge Folsom finds the ViP Series DVRs are merely colorably different than the infringing models he will likely enforce the court order and have them disabled. Of course, he may find them more than colorably different and tell Tivo to pursue the issue if they wish. I see both sides of the argument...but I do not consider the VIP's to be off-limits in this case.
It isn't about me.
The question is whether the ViPs are completely different or not. If they are only colorably different in the context of the infringed claims then Dish will be / has been in contempt and should have already disabled them.
Charles Ergen under oath at the contempt hearing:
Q IS THE FOLLOWING AN ACCURATE STATEMENT, THAT ECHOSTAR
WOULD LOSE 90 MILLION PER MONTH IF IT HAD TO COMPLY FULLY WITH
THE TERMS OF THE INJUNCTION, ASSUMING IT’S PROPERLY
INTERPRETED AS REQUIRING YOU TO DISABLE THE DVR FUNCTIONALITY
IN THE SPECIFIED PRODUCT LINES?
A THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A TIME FRAME THAT THAT WOULD HAVE
BEEN AN ACCURATE STATEMENT. TODAY THAT –-
Q NINETY –-
A –- TODAY IT WOULD BE MORE THAN THAT. TODAY WOULD BE MORE
THAN $90 MILLION DOLLARS.
Q AND HOW MUCH WOULD IT BE A MONTH TODAY?
A WOULD BE PROBABLY SEVERAL HUNDRED –- IT WOULD BE OVER
SEVERAL HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. I DON’T KNOW EXACTLY. I
DON’T HAVE THE FIGURES IN FRONT OF ME, BUT IT WOULD BE MORE
TODAY.
Q SEVERAL HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS A MONTH?
A IT MAY BE AS MUCH AS SEVERAL HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS A
MONTH.
Q TWO TO THREE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS A MONTH?
A WELL, I DON’T HAVE FIGURES IN FRONT OF ME –-
Q BUT JUST GENERALLY.
A –- BUT IT WOULD BE MORE –- IT WOULD BE –- SUFFICE IT TO
SAY IT WOULD BE MORE THAN $90 MILLION TODAY BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE DVRS TODAY AND OUR CUSTOMERS PAY US MORE TODAY.
More DVRs today that need to be disabled than existed in 2006? Hmmmmm....WOULD LOSE 90 MILLION PER MONTH IF IT HAD TO COMPLY FULLY WITH
THE TERMS OF THE INJUNCTION, ASSUMING IT’S PROPERLY
INTERPRETED AS REQUIRING YOU TO DISABLE THE DVR FUNCTIONALITY
IN THE SPECIFIED PRODUCT LINES?
A THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A TIME FRAME THAT THAT WOULD HAVE
BEEN AN ACCURATE STATEMENT. TODAY THAT –-
Q NINETY –-
A –- TODAY IT WOULD BE MORE THAN THAT. TODAY WOULD BE MORE
THAN $90 MILLION DOLLARS.
Q AND HOW MUCH WOULD IT BE A MONTH TODAY?
A WOULD BE PROBABLY SEVERAL HUNDRED –- IT WOULD BE OVER
SEVERAL HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. I DON’T KNOW EXACTLY. I
DON’T HAVE THE FIGURES IN FRONT OF ME, BUT IT WOULD BE MORE
TODAY.
Q SEVERAL HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS A MONTH?
A IT MAY BE AS MUCH AS SEVERAL HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS A
MONTH.
Q TWO TO THREE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS A MONTH?
A WELL, I DON’T HAVE FIGURES IN FRONT OF ME –-
Q BUT JUST GENERALLY.
A –- BUT IT WOULD BE MORE –- IT WOULD BE –- SUFFICE IT TO
SAY IT WOULD BE MORE THAN $90 MILLION TODAY BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE DVRS TODAY AND OUR CUSTOMERS PAY US MORE TODAY.
Recent Dish SEC filing:
"If we are unsuccessful in overturning the District Court's ruling on Tivo's motion for contempt, we are not successful in developing and deploying potential new alternative technology and we are unable to reach a license agreement with Tivo on reasonable terms, we would be required to eliminate DVR functionality in all but approximately 192,000 digital set-top boxes in the field and cease distribution of digital set-top boxes with DVR functionality."
All? Hmmm...
Yeah at that time it was most of all their DVR's.
Your grasping at straws now.
So if DISH does buy TIVO, do you think Charlie is going to keep you on the team Thomas?
Your grasping at straws now.
So if DISH does buy TIVO, do you think Charlie is going to keep you on the team Thomas?
Thomas makes a valid argument. Otherwise, E* could simply recall the infringing DVRs, swap-out a chipset, give it another model number and deploy DVRs that still infringe (aka colorably different)...and Tivo would have to go through another 3-5 court battle. The court order made it clear (to me, at least) they didn't want E* to deploy any other DVR models that are only colorably different. Regardless, I feel the court order provides Judge Folsom with the authority to rule on the whether the VIP Series DVRs are subject to the disablement order. To be honest, this is a moot point because any actions taken to disable the VIPs are months after any actions taken to disable the originally named DVRs - E* will sign a licensing agreement or buy Tivo prior to this happening. We shall see.
team thomas
Hope they got a good retainer cuz if Charlie does buy TIVO they are not gonna get much after that.
Hope they got a good retainer cuz if Charlie does buy TIVO they are not gonna get much after that.
I'm sure Tivo execs and shareholders will be more than fairly compensated...Hope they got a good retainer cuz if Charlie does buy TIVO they are not gonna get much after that.
