TIVO vs E*

[Voyager6]

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.

Yes I am aware of most of what has been discussed in this thread and the previous thread. This is the part of the Judge's decision that I have an issue with. http://www.satelliteguys.us/1844085-post1325.html

"Even if EchoStar had achieved a non-infringing design-around, this Court would still find
that EchoStar is in contempt of this Court’s permanent injunction. EchoStar never complied with
the Disablement Provision of this Court’s order, which ordered EchoStar to “disable the DVR
functionality (i.e. disable all storage to and playback from a hard disk drive of television data) in all
but 192,708 units of the Infringing Products that have been placed with an end user or subscriber.”

I believe that the Judge's decision was influenced by the fact that E* did not deactivate the DVR's as his previous order had required. The fact that his order was stayed and that these products were using the different software at the time (4/18/2008) was irrelevant to him. He was pissed that E* changed the software, downloaded it onto the DVR's and didn't notify him in advance. He was probably doubly pissed when E* didn't shut down the DVR's permanently but instead used the work-around. I really don't believe that Judge Folsom gave E* the benefit of the doubt in regards to the new software. We shall see if the Appeals Court believes that Judge Folsom was honest in his decision making.

 

[Greg Bimson]

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.

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

The only urban legend and false analogy is that somehow DISH/SATS has done something "innovative". There certainly hasn't been any evidence from anyone to the contrary.

 

[Greg Bimson]

I believe that the Judge's decision was influenced by the fact that E* did not deactivate the DVR's as his previous order had required. The fact that his order was stayed and that these products were using the different software at the time (4/18/2008) was irrelevant to him.

Finally, a discussion worth having...

An order from the court is to be followed. Just because software was changed does not mean the order no longer applies.

If a reporter is ordered by the court to produce a source, and the reporter does not, then it is contempt.

DISH/SATS could have made a dozen arguments to either Judge Folsom while crafting the injunction or the Court of Appeals upon appeal as to why the injunction should be written differently, especially when they were already planning their workaround.

 

[vampz26]

The only urban legend and false analogy is that somehow DISH/SATS has done something "innovative". There certainly hasn't been any evidence from anyone to the contrary.

Sure there has, you choosing to ignore it (or failure to understand it) doesn't change that.

Please, either add some genuine substance to your discussion, or stop repeating yourself ad nauseum. Its getting tiring.

 

[Curtis0620]

Sure there has, you choosing to ignore it (or failure to understand it) doesn't change that.

Please, either add some genuine substance to your discussion, or stop repeating yourself ad nauseum. Its getting tiring.

Do you know that MPEG-4 is a patented technology?

Wasn't created by DISH either.

 

[jacmyoung]

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.

A judge making a wrong decision is no proof that the system is flawed, much less fundamentally flawed at its core.

But then you seemed to imply the appeal process was in place to address any "flaws" there. You cannot agree with the system in part, disagree with it in part if you believe it is fundamentally flawed at its core, can you?

 

[Greg Bimson]

Sure there has, you choosing to ignore it (or failure to understand it) doesn't change that.

Please, either add some genuine substance to your discussion, or stop repeating yourself ad nauseum. Its getting tiring.

Adding MPEG4 capability may change the design, but it might not (and most likely does not) change the patented process.

That is the real world answer some just don't want to hear.

 

[vampz26]

Do you know that MPEG-4 is a patented technology?

Wasn't created by DISH either.

Of course, and did you know that the audio part of mpeg4 is also a separate patent?

 

[Curtis0620]

Of course, and did you know that the audio part of mpeg4 is also a separate patent?

I wonder if DISH is licensing this or stealing it too.

 

[vampz26]

A judge making a wrong decision is no proof that the system is flawed, much less fundamentally flawed at its core.

But then you seemed to imply the appeal process was in place to address any "flaws" there. You cannot agree with the system in part, disagree with it in part if you believe it is fundamentally flawed at its core, can you?

Your logic is flawed.

One flawed system put in place to attempt some correction of another flawed system doesn't fix anything but makes it that much worse.

 

[Curtis0620]

Your logic is flawed.

One flawed system put in place to attempt some correction of another flawed system doesn't fix anything but makes it that much worse.

Stealing one technology to help you steal another doesn't fix anything either.

 

[vampz26]

I wonder if DISH is licensing this or stealing it too.

Nobody stole anything. Your inner troll is showing.

 

[Curtis0620]

Nobody stole anything. Your inner troll is showing.

No personal attacks.

Keep on topic.

 

[vampz26]

Adding MPEG4 capability may change the design, but it might not (and most likely does not) change the patented process.

That is the real world answer some just don't want to hear.

Lol!

Here is a real world answer for you...see this DVR? This is technology.

See this patent? Those are just words.

The problem here is that we are putting the words before the technology, and not the technology before the words. That's the problem in the patent system, this courtcase, and your logic.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

No personal attacks.

Keep on topic.

Enough guys. Curtis stop playing the innocent. You are just as guilty here.

Its tiring, really.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I wonder if DISH is licensing this or stealing it too.

Thats like saying Dish is stealing the energy they use to transmit their signals, its so far out there in left field its laughable.

Please keep it to the facts and keep left field open for the baseball players that belong there.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

No personal attacks.

Keep on topic.

And please stop baiting him.

 

[Curtis0620]

Thats like saying Dish is stealing the energy they use to transmit their signals, its so far out there in left field its laughable.

Please keep it to the facts and keep left field open for the baseball players that belong there.

It's no further out there than saying MPEG2 vs MPEG4 makes a difference in this case.

It's not how you broadcast the signal, it's what you do with the signal once you get it in the DVR.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Here is a real world answer for you...see this DVR? This is technology.

See this patent? Those are just words.

The problem here is that we are putting the words before the technology, and not the technology before the words. That's the problem in the patent system, this courtcase, and your logic.

In the surreal world, a comparasion between the TiVo receiver and ViP receiver is all that would be needed to determine infringement. However, the words of a patent are involved, and in law trump the technology.

Too bad the problem is the patent system, this courtcase and my logic are the real world.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

In the surreal world, a comparasion between the TiVo receiver and ViP receiver is all that would be needed to determine infringement. However, the words of a patent are involved, and in law trump the technology.

Too bad the problem is the patent system, this courtcase and my logic are the real world.

Well since you seem to think your argument is always the correct one, I guess I am not surprised you think you live in the real world and everyone else in the sur-real world.