TIVO vs E*

[Greg Bimson]

Let encourage invention instead of being drug down by harnesses that one company is try to do to the entire industry.

TiVo should not be able to strangle other companies in terms of innovation.

Someone might want to look at the definition of a patent.

It isn't like TiVo didn't try to partner with DISH/SATS. TiVo held partnering talks with DISH/SATS back in 1999. DISH/SATS simply said they'll do their own DVR in-house.

DISH/SATS innovation? TiVo left a prototype. DISH/SATS used the exact same media switch that was in the prototype. Innovation does not involve copying someone else's patented design.

...And what if the law breaks the law? Which could very well be the case here? One should have no recourse for justice?

Now that I agree with.

Except from reading the DISH/SATS response, it appears to me that once again DISH/SATS is trying to relitigate that what was lost before. There are plenty of distorted facts in that document.

 

[vampz26]

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.

Who came first is a relative term.

...Especially when the next may actually be the first for something else...

 

[Greg Bimson]

However, the Judge decided that contempt was needed irregardless if the new software was indeed non-infringing.

Simply because DISH/SATS did not follow the one action the order dictated. No interpretation needed, as it the order was clear and concise.

 

[vampz26]

Someone might want to look at the definition of a patent.

It isn't like TiVo didn't try to partner with DISH/SATS. TiVo held partnering talks with DISH/SATS back in 1999. DISH/SATS simply said they'll do their own DVR in-house.

DISH/SATS innovation? TiVo left a prototype. DISH/SATS used the exact same media switch that was in the prototype. Innovation does not involve copying someone else's patented design.Now that I agree with.

Except from reading the DISH/SATS response, it appears to me that once again DISH/SATS is trying to relitigate that what was lost before. There are plenty of distorted facts in that document.

Lol...

No time for your false analogies or urban legends today, Greg...

If you want to see some distorted facts, look at the patent itself...its full of them!

 

[Voyager6]

Simply because DISH/SATS did not follow the one action the order dictated. No interpretation needed, as it the order was clear and concise.

I assume that you are referring to deactivating the DVR's. If the Judge did not consider the new software design-around just because E* didn't shut down the infringing DVR's then I do believe that the Appeals Court will have an issue with the Judge's decision.

 

[vampz26]

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.

You know...when it comes to proving that our patent system is fundamentally flawed at its core, I have no greater ally than you. Thanks.

 

[Curtis0620]

You know...when it comes to proving that our patent system is fundamentally flawed at its core, I have no greater ally than you. Thanks.

And this has ZERO to do with this case. The system isn't changing any time soon.

 

[Greg Bimson]

If the Judge did not consider the new software design-around just because E* didn't shut down the infringing DVR's then I do believe that the Appeals Court will have an issue with the Judge's decision.

The new software design was considered. Judge Folsom ruled that the eight models found infringing continue to infringe even with those modifications.

Lol...

No time for your false analogies or urban legends today, Greg...

TiVo met with DISH/SATS and provided a prototype back in 1999. It is part of the trial record.

The bias has become blatantly obvious:

A company makes an innovative product and receives a patent, has it stand up in review and in court, and it doesn't mean anything.
A company copies the product, replaces a chip and is found guilty of infringement (twice) is being called innovative.

I am about to ask people that have no knowledge of the case refrain from posting. The agenda is getting in the way of the discussion.

 

[Curtis0620]

The new software design was considered. Judge Folsom ruled that the eight models found infringing continue to infringe even with those modifications.TiVo met with DISH/SATS and provided a prototype back in 1999. It is part of the trial record.

The bias has become blatantly obvious:

A company makes an innovative product and receives a patent, has it stand up in review and in court, and it doesn't mean anything.
A company copies the product, replaces a chip and is found guilty of infringement (twice) is being called innovative.

I am about to ask people that have no knowledge of the case refrain from posting. The agenda is getting in the way of the discussion.

+1

 

[vampz26]

And this has ZERO to do with this case. The system isn't changing any time soon.

You are incorrect, since we are talking about E*s right to an appeal, the flaws in the system are what justify and necessitate it.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

The new software design was considered. Judge Folsom ruled that the eight models found infringing continue to infringe even with those modifications.TiVo met with DISH/SATS and provided a prototype back in 1999. It is part of the trial record.

The bias has become blatantly obvious:

A company makes an innovative product and receives a patent, has it stand up in review and in court, and it doesn't mean anything.
A company copies the product, replaces a chip and is found guilty of infringement (twice) is being called innovative.

I am about to ask people that have no knowledge of the case refrain from posting. The agenda is getting in the way of the discussion.

Your entire argument assumes that the Judge is not biased. A strong argument has already been made that his latest contempt holding is way off-base.

Seems perfectly reasonable to argue about the merits and demerits of the patent system as it relates to this case.

 

[vampz26]

The new software design was considered. Judge Folsom ruled that the eight models found infringing continue to infringe even with those modifications.TiVo met with DISH/SATS and provided a prototype back in 1999. It is part of the trial record.

The bias has become blatantly obvious:

A company makes an innovative product and receives a patent, has it stand up in review and in court, and it doesn't mean anything.
A company copies the product, replaces a chip and is found guilty of infringement (twice) is being called innovative.

I am about to ask people that have no knowledge of the case refrain from posting. The agenda is getting in the way of the discussion.

You would need to include yourself in that groups since you severely lack the technical knowledge to have a legitimate dog in the fight around here. You keep lording a patent over everyone yet refuse to acknowledge its validity or basis. That's where you are failing in making your case.

 

[Curtis0620]

You would need to include yourself in that groups since you severely lack the technical knowledge to have a legitimate dog in the fight around here. You keep lording a patent over everyone yet refuse to acknowledge its validity or basis. That's where you are failing in making your case.

The patent was already reviewed and ruled valid.

So that kills your theory.

 

[vampz26]

The patent was already reviewed and ruled valid.

So that kills your theory.

Not with regards to the newer technology yet to be reviewed...remember, the patent is also 'old' and getting more outdated every day.

My theory is alive and well, thaank you.

 

[CuriousMark]

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.

We have no idea what either side is doing from an negotiating perspective. Your estimate may be right on, or not. Both TiVo and Dish are supposedly working with a retired judge to coordinate negotiations between them. At the hearing Judge Folsom leaned on both sides to negotiate and the TiVo attorney said they were happy to cooperate. Charlie answered "maybe". So at that time, it was Dish not being willing to negotiate. As you say, that could be reversed now. Somehow, I don't think that is the case.

 

[Curtis0620]

Not with regards to the newer technology yet to be reviewed...remember, the patent is also 'old' and getting more outdated every day.

My theory is alive and well, thaank you.

2018 is right around the corner.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

2018 is right around the corner.

Enough already.

 

[vampz26]

2018 is right around the corner.

We can add that to the growing list of flaws in the legal system.

Technology advances MUCH faster than the law can keep up with.

That couldn't work in E*s favor as the trial drags on, afterall, any technology that continues to evolve eventually becomes new technology. And that happens much sooner than people realize and definitely at a faster rate than the law can handle.

 

[Greg Bimson]

You would need to include yourself in that groups since you severely lack the technical knowledge to have a legitimate dog in the fight around here. You keep lording a patent over everyone yet refuse to acknowledge its validity or basis. That's where you are failing in making your case.

DISH/SATS changed the software on the 622/722 when they were found to infringe eight other models. I can make my case just fine. I've read most of the case.

The patent has been ruled valid, both by the court and by the PTO Appeals Board. A few people here are arguing the basis and validity, when those are immaterial since they are laws of the case. I would espouse the theory that if MPEG4 is innovation, then technical arguments are immaterial.

And most importantly, DISH/SATS cannot seem to make their case. Sure, they may get a stay, but it may cost them dearly.

 

[vampz26]

DISH/SATS changed the software on the 622/722 when they were found to infringe eight other models. I can make my case just fine. I've read most of the case.

The patent has been ruled valid, both by the court and by the PTO Appeals Board. A few people here are arguing the basis and validity, when those are immaterial since they are laws of the case. I would espouse the theory that if MPEG4 is innovation, then technical arguments are immaterial.

And most importantly, DISH/SATS cannot seem to make their case. Sure, they may get a stay, but it may cost them dearly.

Lol..read my previous posts so I don't have to repeat myself.

And you're need to cherrypick the word 'mpeg4' as the basis for my reasoning is what weakens your position. mpeg4 is just an example of a technology than continues to evolve and affect the design of dvrs. The design of dvrs, mpeg compression algorithms, and technology in general are topics you have clearly demonstrated you know nothing about. This further demonstrated by your need to cherrypick the word 'mpeg4' out of my posts and choose to ignore their meaning.

My recommendation to you is to come up to speed with the underlying factors than affect the laws in this case before you attempt at lording the law over us like you have been. It would ad much more substance to your argument than just parroting rhetoric over and over again.