DISH - TiVO Case: Stay granted pending appeal

[jacmyoung]

I respectfully disagree. I stand by my story that this was merely a procedural courtesy (to E* and its customers) regardless of what the court stated. It's not an uncommon for an appellate court to take this sort of action.....we'll agree to disagree.

My point was, if the harm factor were a consideration, the appeals court would have stated such, they did so in 2006, today there is more reason to state such reason if it is a factor, given the serious nature of the offense, certainly much more serious than back in 2006.

Of course we can agree to disagree, this much is a given.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Well at least you are both agreeing to disagree about agreeing, or whatever it is... civilly.

 

[vampz26]

Well at least you are both agreeing to disagree about agreeing, or whatever it is... civilly.

Things work out better when people avoid taking a moral highground. When folks base their arguments on a moral highground, they assume correctness on an unsubstantiated basis, and then it becomes nothing more than politics and religion.

 

[Fitzie]

To add a further comment about the stay, just based on the order itself.

The order says that to grant the stay, the movant (E*) must either:

a) Have a strong liklihood of success of their appeal on the merits; or
b) Have a substantial case on the merits and the harm militates in E*s favor.

A strong liklihood of success of the appeal on the merits would mean at the least that the appeals court felt there was strong doubt there was continuing infringement.

A substantial case on the merits with the harm militating in E*s favor would mean that, on the face of it, the appeals court felt E* could, based on the available evidence, potentially show there was no continuing infringement, and that the damage to E*s customers outweighed any delay in Tivo receiving potential damages, i.e., cash payments.

Either way, there is at least a substantial grounds for E*s appeal on the merits. There is no way of knowing, without being privy to the discussion between the appeal court judges, whether those judges feel Judge Folsom got it wrong or just "may" have gotten it wrong. To me, the expedited hearing indicates that the judges have a strong leaning one way or the other, and just want to move on so they can render a "considered" judgement. There is the possibility, also, that the judges have decided they want to make some declaratory precedential ruling that Judge Folsom will be required to follow.

Regards,
Fitzie

 

[mike123abc]

Dish Wins Stay in TiVo Spat - WSJ.com

Wall Street Journal's take on it:

Most believe that if TiVo wins, the two sides will come to a settlement in which Dish pays a recurring licensing fee. TiVo already has a distribution agreement with Dish rival DirecTV Group Inc. and cable provider Comcast Corp.

With fewer customers actually buying TiVo boxes, and instead relying on digital video recorders provided by their TV service provider, the company has shifted its business model to focus on licensing out its technology. A deal with Dish would provide a badly needed catalyst.

Essentially Dish has received another year's time.

 

[cmcnabb]

Just opining here, but it could be that the appellate court is looking at the Bilski ruling, and based on that might just might overturn the original ruling in full. For those who do not know, Bilski basically stated that software patents do not exist unless the software is tied to a particular machine. Like the *original* Supreme Court ruling that established software patents, Bilski basically said that the software must be an integral part of the machine, not something that can run on a general purpose computer. Since Tivo's and Dish's DVR's are both essentially general purpose computers, the appeals court may be taking a long hard look at Bilski. Just my two cents.

 

[am7crew]

worst case scenario Dish loses and pays Tivo for a license, either way it will not be the end of dish dvr's.

 

[Thomas22]

and based on that might just might overturn the original ruling in full.

The original ruling cannot be overturned.

 

[vurbano]

I respectfully disagree. I stand by my story that this was merely a procedural courtesy (to E* and its customers) regardless of what the court stated. It's not an uncommon for an appellate court to take this sort of action.....we'll agree to disagree.

I agree. I think its all due to the amount of E* customers that are going to have their DVR's ripped away from them.

 

[vampz26]

I agree. I think its all due to the amount of E* customers that are going to have their DVR's ripped away from them.

As it should be.

 

[jacmyoung]

The original ruling cannot be overturned.

I think he meant the full ruling dated 6/2/09. If not then you are correct, and I will add that DVRs are not "general purpose computers."

He is absolutely correct that software and hardware are integral part of the DVRs, if the software can make the DVRs non-infringing, then the DVRs are non-infringing, despite the fact the DVRs are still the "same" DVRs.

 

[jacmyoung]

Plenty of other things can and will happen.

For one thing, before Judge Folsom is the status conference on additional sanctions, though it will be interesting to see how it will proceed given the appeals court stay order.

I said the above on 7/2/09. I was thinking we might find out what E* would do on the above issue in their additional sanction response brief due on 7/13.

But today E* filed two motions ahead of the time. First they motioned Judge Folsom to suspend the scheduled additional sanction proceeding, citing the appeals court's stay of the judge's orders.

On the second motion E* asked if the judge would not automatically suspend his own proceeding, then both TiVo and E*'s briefings on the first E*'s motion to be shortened and to be completed by the end of this week.

Judge Folsom granted E*'s second motion with modification that TiVo's response is due by the end of the week, and E*'s response due by Monday next week, basically extending the time by one business day.

Next week we should know if the judge will stay his own additional sanction proceeding.