The appeals court rarely refuses to "accept" an appeal at this stage. I have never seen one which the appeals court rejected an appeal at this stage. The question is if they will stay the order pending appeal. Contempt is a very serious offense, IMHO the only reason the order should be stayed is if E* has demonstrated there are compelling reasons pointing out the contempt ruling is wrong.
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 179K
- Status
The appeals court rarely refuses to "accept" an appeal at this stage. I have never seen one which the appeals court rejected an appeal at this stage. The question is if they will stay the order pending appeal. Contempt is a very serious offense, IMHO the only reason the order should be stayed is if E* has demonstrated there are compelling reasons pointing out the contempt ruling is wrong.
So if no appeal accepted, by the end of July . Well I hope that this gets settled soon. It has gone on for way too long . I don't care if I have to see a dancing Tivo man in my guide as long as DISH gets this settled. THere are some really cool Tivo features that DISH could use that would give them an advantage. I think netflix movies even can watched over TIVO. That would be a plus .
I don't see how they can present any evidence to support this at this point. Even DISH has said today that they might not be able to do another work around this late.
Aren't you assuming that TIVO has actually offered a licensing deal to E*? TIVO is probably playing hardball right now and just watching E* squirm as the clock ticks down. Why talk to E* now? TIVO has almost all the bargaining chips right now. I would wait until a few days before the temporary stay expires before I even picked up the phone to talk to E*. I would give E* a "take it or leave it" offer. E* would then be forced to accept (fold), pass (call) and hope for a good decision by the Appeals Court or go "all in" and attempt to buy TIVO.Today, if Charlie signs a licensing deal.
Another design around will have nothing to do with this motion to stay issue, that is precisely why by E* informing the court they plan on another design around is just to tell them E* has no intention to settle.
Let's keep our eyes on the ball here, the issue today is whether Judge Folsom's order should be stayed or not, pending appeal. The appeal is a given, but the stay of the order is only temporary for now.
TiVo has always said they wanted to settle, only Charlie has refused to do so.
Which, btw...does make Tivo the bloody extortionist I say they are.
E* should have bought Tivo when they had the chance to turn it into a REAL technology company, and not just some schlock outfit living off a judges ignorance and an obsolete patent. What people don't realize in their fanboy rapture is that this nonsense stands to hurt the DVR customer in general and benefits no one in the long run, only Tivo in the here and now...and from where I sit, that's not going to do any of us any good whether you are pro-Tivo or not!
Yes, that has been TIVO's public position. Pay us whatever we ask and we may let you keep your DVR's working.
Yes, that has been TIVO's public position. Pay us whatever we ask and we may let you keep your DVR's working.
Yup, reason enough to fight into the next decade. And then to seek legislative redress if necessary.
Nope
Let encourage invention instead of being drug down by harnesses that one company is try to do to the entire industry. TIVO has done everything it can to force and DVR manufacturer to pay them. I'm almost surprised that they haven't sued Happtague for the DVR cards in PC's, but then that might put them up against the big dog know as Microsoft.
Let encourage invention instead of being drug down by harnesses that one company is try to do to the entire industry. TIVO has done everything it can to force and DVR manufacturer to pay them. I'm almost surprised that they haven't sued Happtague for the DVR cards in PC's, but then that might put them up against the big dog know as Microsoft.
...And what if the law breaks the law? Which could very well be the case here? One should have no recourse for justice?
What this case illustrates is the need to reform patent law entirely. TiVo should not be able to strangle other companies in terms of innovation. We have a 19th century system in a 21st century world. It needs to change.
Any Suggestions?
You must protect the innovator, not give the big-money players a free reign.
The bully must be made an example of here.
If you didn't have an interest in DISH, would you really be pulling for them here?
Last edited:
That's not the case here. In the case of patent law, it's more or less "who came first" and then that is the (new) law.
Agreed.
The ViP series are an outstanding innovation that made up bigtime for the lack on innovation in competitors, and Tivos attempt at bullying and extortion must me stopped or it is certain to damage the industry as a whole.
Does the name Timothy Geithner ring a bell?
Were Geithner's unpaid taxes errors or cheating? | McClatchyNo, I don't want to encourage lawbreaking (by any company or individual). However, I do believe that the Judge's decision regarding E*'s design-around was "colored" by his attitude toward E*. Any doubt as to whether the new software was "colorably" different should have thrown out the contempt and resulted in a new trial. However, the Judge decided that contempt was needed irregardless if the new software was indeed non-infringing.
If Judge Folsom is wrong, then yes the law had broken the law
TiVo of course can "bully" the others within the confine of the law, so can E* avoid being bullied within the confine of the law.
If Vampz really wants to talk about bullying, look to Paice v. Toyota for an example. Paice was a known patent troll, they did not practice the art themselves, they only went after the one that practiced the art. But guess what? Patent trolling is legal.
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
