Wonder if E stock is dropping as we post?
A TIVO exclusive with E locked out of all DVRs would destroy the company
A TIVO exclusive with E locked out of all DVRs would destroy the company
Dish: Ready to shut down DVRs if it loses lawsuit
- Thread starter Bruce
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 211
- Views 30K
Is the sky in your world blue?
I'm beginning to wonder that myself. And he's still is avoiding my question. ANSWER THE QUESTION, MUG!
Do the millions of * customers who would be affected by the shutdown of their DVRs have any rights? Forget what the cost would be to E*. If I would be required to leave E* for D* to maintain DVR service , there would be a major cost for equipment and installation. I estimated that my cost would be about $500. In addition I would lose all the value of the programs I have stored on EHDs. At even $5 per movie I would lose another $1000. If there are 5 million affected E* subscribers at an average of $500 cost to change supplier. Wow that is 2.5 Billion. The judge should have some responsibility to protect the public also. He may say E* owes TIVO money. But he should also consider the harm to E* subscribers. Maybe we need to get a class action suit going to get our money back.
Judge Folsom does not have to take into account how the consumer would be affected. He doesn't care. He just wants E* to shut down the DVR's because he ordered it. E* attempted to change the software so the DVR's wouldn't infringe and that made Folsom mad. Now, he demands that E* clear any further attempts to change the software through him first. Naturally, Folsom is "too busy" to review E*'s new software.
Sure we'd be harmed, but we wouldn't have any recourse for it. We all signed a contract that explicitly states that Dish can change the service we pay for without notice. After that, it's individual choice as to whether to leave the new Dish service or not. It would also be hard to argue that customers have a right to the content recorded on EHDs forever. Although, I'd imagine Dish would have to refund the external hard drive enabling fee that we were charged since they would no longer work.
Judge Folsom looks at the total public benefit of having a good patent system. Here is what he wrote:
Although the injunction will likely result in some degree of customer loss and will impact Defendants’ ability to compete in the market, Defendants will not be irreparably harmed. Again, Defendants’ core business is not the supply of DVRs. Defendants have not demonstrated that an injunction on the infringing products would have a severe financial impact on their core business or will lead to loss of employees. Defendants’ authorized retailers will still be able to sell and service Defendants’ non-infringing products. Conversely, absent a stay, Plaintiff faces ongoing irreparable injury as detailed above.
Lastly, Defendants’ argument that the public interest in maintaining the status quo – allowing Defendants’ current DVR customers and its retailers to continue business as usual – is served by granting a stay. Without a stronger showing that the jury’s verdict will be overturned in its entirety on appeal, however, allowing the ongoing infringement is not within the public’s interest.
Lastly, Defendants’ argument that the public interest in maintaining the status quo – allowing Defendants’ current DVR customers and its retailers to continue business as usual – is served by granting a stay. Without a stronger showing that the jury’s verdict will be overturned in its entirety on appeal, however, allowing the ongoing infringement is not within the public’s interest.
After 12 years I would go "on vacation
:" if my DVR service were shutdown. Watch my HD locals (which Dish has not yet supplied to the 82nd largest DMA) until somebody caves.
:" if my DVR service were shutdown. Watch my HD locals (which Dish has not yet supplied to the 82nd largest DMA) until somebody caves."We the People" really let our System of Government get off track. To allow a single judge determine what will be in the public's interest is insane.
There are quite a few on this thread that actually believe what Charlie is saying about shutting down the DVRs. Why is this? Before this nobody believed a word Charlie would say. For better or worse, Charlie is a game player and it would be a HUGE surprise if any DVRs were shut off.
There is some government interest in this case, but at this time the help from above has not been used.
Here's Judge Folsom's contact info....
Welcome to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas I'm going to fax him. And then call. Then maybe fax again. Dude needs to know we the people are here and he needs to understand that he messed up during the second phase of this whole thing. If anyone has great writing skills and come up with a form letter for us to submit, it would be appreciated. I can do it, but I'll need to research the case in greater detail because after all this time I am fuzzy on the details - and frankly can't understand how he ruled against Dish when they changed everything.
Chambers Information
Divisions Served:
Marshall and Texarkana
Telephone Numbers:
(903) 794-4067 - voice
(903) 794-1224 - fax
Mailing Address:
The Honorable David Folsom
Federal Building
500 North State Line Ave, 3rd Floor
P.O. Box 2090
Texarkana, Texas 75504
(Please note: P.O. Box must be specified in mailing address)
Chambers Staff:
Betty Schroeder - Docket Coordinator
Julie Mitchell - Law Clerk
John LaHad - Odd Numbered Law Clerk
David Keyzer - Even Numbered Law Clerk
Mel Martin - Courtroom Deputy
Libby Crawford - Court Reporter
Physical Address:
The Honorable David Folsom
Federal Building
500 North Stateline, 3rd Floor
Texarkana, Texas 75504
Welcome to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas I'm going to fax him. And then call. Then maybe fax again. Dude needs to know we the people are here and he needs to understand that he messed up during the second phase of this whole thing. If anyone has great writing skills and come up with a form letter for us to submit, it would be appreciated. I can do it, but I'll need to research the case in greater detail because after all this time I am fuzzy on the details - and frankly can't understand how he ruled against Dish when they changed everything.
Chambers Information
Divisions Served:
Marshall and Texarkana
Telephone Numbers:
(903) 794-4067 - voice
(903) 794-1224 - fax
Mailing Address:
The Honorable David Folsom
Federal Building
500 North State Line Ave, 3rd Floor
P.O. Box 2090
Texarkana, Texas 75504
(Please note: P.O. Box must be specified in mailing address)
Chambers Staff:
Betty Schroeder - Docket Coordinator
Julie Mitchell - Law Clerk
John LaHad - Odd Numbered Law Clerk
David Keyzer - Even Numbered Law Clerk
Mel Martin - Courtroom Deputy
Libby Crawford - Court Reporter
Physical Address:
The Honorable David Folsom
Federal Building
500 North Stateline, 3rd Floor
Texarkana, Texas 75504
Sorry, it was a Jury trial.
Plus all the appeals, there were plenty of other judges that upheld the ruling.
I still think the vacation hold at $5/month will give Dish, TIVO and/or Folsom time to get their heads out of a dark place without switching vendors or panic on my part. Maybe a Spring vacation without TV might be good for us all.
Similar threads
