TIVO vs E*

[Greg Bimson]

The 1st statement sounds like your source is Wikipedia version and yes have read that.

I didn't look up Wikipedia. I just remember some of the news as it occurred. Especially the part about DirecTV purchasing the ReplayTV patents from D&M Holdings. I also remember SonicBlue filing for bankruptcy, unrelated to TiVo. The fight for standalone DVR supremecy ended with a whisper.

About the judge and jury not sure either know enough about the products to understand more than they both record and playback using a hard drive. I think that is part of the basis for the continuation of the fight that is going on. And I have no idea how it would be possible to educate a jury well enough for them to understand the intricacy of the technology.

Ahh, but there is the problem.

TiVo was able to convice 12 jurors that DISH/SATS' DVR's infringe upon the Time Warp patent. Maybe TiVo's lawyers were just as good as DISH lawyers were bad? TiVo educated the jurors on the specifics of the Time Warp patent and proved enough that DISH/SATS products were an embodiment of the same apparatus and process.

Before anyone jumps down my throat for that one I work with TV-sat & PC and I'm not sure that I completely understand the very slight differences.

Why jump? It's an honest question. The reality is if a "Trick Play" doesn't do the same process as written in the Time Warp patent, then it doesn't infringe.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Here is a link to the thread set up for it if interested.

Tivo and E*. Talk about patent laws and the court system - SonicBabble - Where America Debates America!

Thank you!

 

[jacmyoung]

... The reality is if a "Trick Play" doesn't do the same process as written in the Time Warp patent, then it doesn't infringe.

Does the new design have this "physical data source" that "analyzes audio and video data from the broadcast data?" If so please tell us what is this "physical data source" in this new design.

 

[whatchel1]

why?

Here is a link to the thread set up for it if interested.

Tivo and E*. Talk about patent laws and the court system - SonicBabble - Where America Debates America!

Why would we want to go there? Were having so much fun here.

 

[N6BY]

Do you guys realize (or even care?) that in order to find out any useful information on this topic, I had to google it and read info on other sites because all that's going on in here is just a bunch of B.S!

In 10 minutes on other sites, I found out what was going on with the case and I had to spend almost an hour reading through a buncha garbage and OT bickering here just to get some minorly useful details.

I understand that everyone has opinions, thoughts, ideas (subjective and otherwise), but c'mon already...can't we have more substance and less conjecture, please???

I come here to find out stuff (which 95% of the time works out just great), but this thread is a freakin' nightmare...almost as bad as the Voom thread was...

I agree. Its hard to find facts. Yet here I am adding another post.

Now for some substance:

One false post in this thread has raised many eyebrows here and elsewhere. I am referring to post #2370 which suggests that the stay of the injunction was made to last for the duration of the appeal. At the time of the post and as I write this, it is not true.

A few dozen posts later there was a correction, but how many people will/already have read #2370 but not the correction? I think the post should be deleted to avoid confusion.

And as DNC said above, I think it might be a good time weed this thread of all the posts that lack useful info.

 

[vampz26]

Does the new design have this "physical data source" that "analyzes audio and video data from the broadcast data?" If so please tell us what is this "physical data source" in this new design.

I'd love to hear him actually explain to the rest of us what one actually is...

 

[vampz26]

Why would we want to go there? Were having so much fun here.

Maybe too much fun perhaps?

 

[iwc5893]

But none-the-less, I'm not going to think twice about writing "Tivo vs. E*: The Movie" in time for a summer release...

Best comment of the thread!!! :up:up

 

[Thomas22]

I agree. Its hard to find facts. Yet here I am adding another post.

Now for some substance:

One false post in this thread has raised many eyebrows here and elsewhere. I am referring to post #2370 which suggests that the stay of the injunction was made to last for the duration of the appeal. At the time of the post and as I write this, it is not true.

A few dozen posts later there was a correction, but how many people will/already have read #2370 but not the correction? I think the post should be deleted to avoid confusion.

I have figured out the substance of the post you are referring to. He's on ignore. If the post hasn't been deleted it should be deleted as soon as possible. It is a lie and will surely lead readers astray. Take action.

 

[jacmyoung]

I have figured out the substance of the post you are referring to. He's on ignore. If the post hasn't been deleted it should be deleted as soon as possible. It is a lie and will surely lead readers astray. Take action.

There was other false information, such as E* will pay a billion damages, E*'s appeal will likely be ruled frivolous, the appeals court did not reverse the hardware claim verdicts, the USPTO did not agree substantial new evidence questioning the validity of the software claims... Should we delete them too? Or should it be enough that the other side gets the chance to dispute such info?

Why is there such fear that the readers are so stupid they can easily be led astray, are they not capable of reading both sides?

 

[vampz26]

There is nothing worse as far as false information goes, than somebody quoting legal rhetoric like gospel while completely forgetting the spirit of the law.

You will find no bigger liar than that...

 

[rockymtnhigh]

I have figured out the substance of the post you are referring to. He's on ignore. If the post hasn't been deleted it should be deleted as soon as possible. It is a lie and will surely lead readers astray. Take action.

As if people can find any info in the cacophony of posts in this thread. But a correction has been made to that post in question, stating that its accuracy is in doubt.

 

[jacmyoung]

There is nothing worse as far as false information goes, than somebody quoting legal rhetoric like gospel while completely forgetting the spirit of the law.

You will find no bigger liar than that...

Except they did not even quote legal rhetorics correctly.

According to TiVo, if a term is not mentioned it is irrelevant. PID filter is not mentioned in the software claims, therefore PID is irrelevant as far as contempt is concerned.

Did TiVo identify that "physical data source" that "analyzes video and audio data from the broadcast data" in E*'s new design that meets this two software claims limitations?

BTW Vampz, next time please quote me so Thomas22 can read my response. He did something to make him sound like he had run out of argument, not able to respond to my legit questions. Talk about one whose most concern is whether the readers may be led astray

 

[vampz26]

...So basically, this thread has come down to arguing over minor misunderstandings in previous arguments...

NEXT!!

 

[Greg Bimson]

Does the new design have this "physical data source" that "analyzes audio and video data from the broadcast data?" If so please tell us what is this "physical data source" in this new design.

The same as it was in the old design: the testimony has been that the PID filter is part of the physical data source and that it fulfills the limitation of the parse element in the first step of the Software Claims.

Even DISH/SATS admits it:

Like the district court, TiVo not only ignores the invalidity implications of its new position on PID filtering [yet it is the same position as was during the trial], it applies a kind of reverse judicial estoppel, holding the testimony of EchoStar's experts - which was rejected by the jury - against Echostar. But what EchoStar's experts said in a losing effort cannot be used to establish the "adjudicated scope" of the claims.

In other words, they are trying to redefine their testimony. Again.

Why is there such fear that the readers are so stupid they can easily be led astray, are they not capable of reading both sides?

Why not? A few people have suggested people are such idiots that they found DISH/SATS infringed.

There was other false information, such as E* will pay a billion damages, E*'s appeal will likely be ruled frivolous, the appeals court did not reverse the hardware claim verdicts, the USPTO did not agree substantial new evidence questioning the validity of the software claims... Should we delete them too? Or should it be enough that the other side gets the chance to dispute such info?

The issues:

1) DISH/SATS could end up paying well over a billion dollars by the time this is all said and done. It is simple math:

a) $100 million for infringement up to 8 September 2006
b) $100 million for infringement up to 18 April 2008
c) contempt damages to TiVo at least in the neighborhood of $300 million for the past 14 months of contempt
d) that doesn't address the ViP receivers at all, which will have to be included at some point either in a settlement or more damages

2) DISH/SATS appeal could be ruled frivolous. Who knows?

3) The Court of Appeals did reverse the finding of literal infringement on the Hardware Claims.

4) The USPTO did agree to review the Software Claims. It is unknown if it is because there is substantial new evidence, as the USPTO did not issue a press release.

Let's not forget in December 2007 when Judge Folsom issued his order for evidentiary hearing that many assumed the violation of an injunction on its face was no longer an issue. While in a very minority, I did keep repeating that point: there was no ruling regarding prima facie contempt and that Judge Folsom could simply be making the decisions on all issues in front of him before issuing his ruling. Lo and behold, Judge Folsom found contempt TWICE. I don't want to mute a discussion, but would simply like to keep the facts straight.

 

[jacmyoung]

The same as it was in the old design: the testimony has been that the PID filter is part of the physical data source and that it fulfills the limitation of the parse element in the first step of the Software Claims.

But TiVo's testimonies had changed, TiVo now says what is not mentioned in the software claims is not relevant anymore. So my question is:

Did TiVo identify what are relevant? Did TiVo identify that "physical data source" that "analyzes video and audio data from the broadcast data?"

I don't think any poster has considered those who believe E* still infringes are idiots, that is a misleading statement, among many others in your above post, besides we are talking about the readers not the posters, do you think your above post should be deleted?

 

[Greg Bimson]

But TiVo's testimonies had changed, TiVo now says what is not mentioned in the software claims is not relevant anymore.

Just because DISH/SATS wants to argue the Hardware Claims doesn't change the evidence that supported infringement on the Software Claims.

TiVo's testimony did not change. Just because DISH/SATS says it changed does not mean it actually did.

Did TiVo identify what are relevant? Did TiVo identify that "physical data source" that "analyzes video and audio data from the broadcast data?"

Both TiVo and DISH/SATS did during the April 2006 trial. TiVo did once again during the February 2008 evidentiary hearing. DISH/SATS tried to change the testimony.

 

[jacmyoung]

Just because DISH/SATS wants to argue the Hardware Claims doesn't change the evidence that supported infringement on the Software Claims...

E* argues PID filter is not relevant to the software claims not only because it is not mentioned in the software claims, but it does not meet the "analyzes video and audio data from the broadcast data" limitation in the software claims. I don’t know why you keep saying E* argued on hardware claims. Is the above limitation in the hardware claims?

TiVo's testimony did not change. Just because DISH/SATS says it changed does not mean it actually did.

During the jury trial discussing what PID filter did, TiVo’s expert Storer testified that while "you might call [PID filtering] even a type of parsing," this was not the claimed "pars[ing],"

During the 2/09 hearing the judge said: "both parties have totally switched their position since trial."

Do you still believe TiVo did not change?

Both TiVo and DISH/SATS did during the April 2006 trial. TiVo did once again during the February 2008 evidentiary hearing. DISH/SATS tried to change the testimony.

During the trial E* said the PID filter met the term "parse" or "analyze." But that was not my question. The question is, did TiVo demonstrate E* still meet the limitation "analyze video and audio data from the broadcast data?" I am talking about this specific software claim limitation, not the other limitation called "parse."

 

[CuriousMark]

Thank you again for clarifying too, when CuriousMark made a big deal of you being unfairly treated by me for not linking your site, only a direct link to one of your files, he made a point of how your business could be harmed for me doing so. He also made a big impression on a lot of people that you badly needed the money. Thank you for pointing out it was just a big misunderstanding.

Please don't put words in my mouth that I did not specifically say, that I said in private and were not for public posting, and for exaggerating one small part of what I told you way beyond my main point, which was about allowing Mainer's business (or hobby) to be seen and not bypassed.

And as a side note, a thanks for actually heeding the main point. But posting what you did just now, is way off topic.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Guys, I have had it. Its one bit of teenage drama queen after another. I am closing this thread for the next several days. If ANY NEWS actually occurs, we'll create a new thread. I'll also start working on a locked stickied thread that provides news -- you sure as heck can not find any news here.

In a few days, this will reopen in the dish warzone, where the normal rules of behavior on SatelliteGuys will apply.

In the meantime, if you want to argue about the politics of the lawsuit or whatever else it is you want to do, please visit:

Tivo and E*. Talk about patent laws and the court system - SonicBabble - Where America Debates America!