TIVO vs E*

[vampz26]

Ask the courts

Don't need too...(the courts don't have a clue anyway...never do.)

The software is open source licensed under the GPL, and needs to be because it runs on the linux operation system and has some really highly-integrated drivers.

And the software is NOT patented...its the process by which the whole "time warping" thing is implemented using a combination of hardware and software algorithms that is patented...

Recent changes in the GPL (and crap like this trial) have forced Tivo to limit is open source avialability to the bare necessities, that being the direct modifications to the linux kernal and drivers...but back in the day, you could have downloaded the whole blinking source code and built your own Tivo if you wanted to...

...they didn't care until someone built a better one...but thats life...

 

[Ronnie-]

Again I say, ask the courts. They may, based on the trial, have a different opinion on what stealing in this case means. Thats been a big part of the argument going on here, and other threads.
Honestly, I just want my DVR to work. What happend, the details anyway, are so complex that unless someone is actually a part of the court proceedings, I doubt they can ever know what really is going on (heck even if they are part of it, most wouldnt). All we are posting here is opinions on what WE think is correct. In the court, in this case, that doesnt mean much.

 

[vampz26]

Again I say, ask the courts. They may, based on the trial, have a different opinion on what stealing in this case means. Thats been a big part of the argument going on here, and other threads.
Honestly, I just want my DVR to work. What happend, the details anyway, are so complex that unless someone is actually a part of the court proceedings, I doubt they can ever know what really is going on (heck even if they are part of it, most wouldnt). All we are posting here is opinions on what WE think is correct. In the court, in this case, that doesnt mean much.

What I posted is a fact...not an opinion...like i said, no courts necessary...

The software is open source...
The software itself is NOT patented...
The software is part of a process that IS patented...

So go ahead and look it up yourself instead of siding with D* trolls in an E* forum...

as for the complexity of the details...whats the difference? Are you supporting my claim regarding the incompetence of the courts?

(the warzone must be REALLY boring these days, thats all I have to say. )

 

[CuriousMark]

What I posted is a fact...not an opinion...like i said, no courts necessary...

The software is open source...
The software itself is NOT patented...
The software is part of a process that IS patented...

GPL allows closed source private code, like TiVo's, to run on top of an open source platform. Go read the GPL if you haven't yet. TiVo's software is NOT open source. It is highly integrated with drivers and an operating system that is open source, but that says very little about the details of the TiVo code that is related to the Time Warp patent.

It was a nice try though, better luck next time. :

 

[vampz26]

GPL allows closed source private code, like TiVo's, to run on top of an open source platform. Go read the GPL if you haven't yet. TiVo's software is NOT open source. It is highly integrated with drivers and an operating system that is open source, but that says very little about the details of the TiVo code that is related to the Time Warp patent.

It was a nice try though, better luck next time. :

:::::


LMAO!!!!!

THATS EXACTLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!!!

THE TIVO SOFTWARE ITSELF IS NOT PATENTED! AND SAYS VERY LITTLE ABOUT THE DETAILS OF THE PATENT! THATS WHAT I SAID! LMAO!!!!!!

Oh man...that was too easy...

My only point was that the entire Tivo source code was open source at one time way back when. Due to changes in the GPL and the concerns over their IP...they restricted the rights to their software to just that which was explicitly bound...but the fact remains, they were giving it way at one point...its as simple as that...you need to know your history...attending a few Tivo stockholders meetings like I did would have helped that.

This was too easy...nice try, better luck next time...( maybe you need to be more curious... )
::::::

 

[jacmyoung]

A patent owner has the exclusive right granted by the State to restrict anyone from the use of the patented art, or the patent owner has the right to grant someone, or anyone the rights to use such patented art, at a cost or at no cost.

If the patent owner decides not to grant a party the right to use such art, and that party either copied such art, or developed his own art that happened to have infringed on the patented art, either by chance or knowingly, the patent owner has the right to ask that the party stop the use of such art.

If that party refuses to cease such activities, the patent owner can seek relief from the State, in the form of compensation for loss resulting from that party's infringement activities, and injunction to prohibit continued infringement.

The right of a patent owner to do the above expires when the patent expires.

 

[jacmyoung]

In any event, E* is not in contempt because the judge by his latest order had decided not to initiate a contempt proceeding, rather to ask both parties to go through a new bench trial, to again try whether the new design is an infringement or not.

 

[Thomas22]

In any event, E* is not in contempt because the judge by his latest order had decided not to initiate a contempt proceeding, rather to ask both parties to go through a new bench trial, to again try whether the new design is an infringement or not.

9-4 was a contempt proceeding.

 

[jacmyoung]

9-4 was a contempt proceeding.

Not what the judge's order stated, the order stated at the time of the order "Before the Court is TiVo’s Motion to Hold EchoStar In Contempt For Violation Of This Court’s Permanent Injunction."

I will not say the 9/4 hearing was not a contempt proceeding, but by the reading of the latest order, the court referred to what was present at the time as a motion to hold in contempt.

Maybe the 9/4 proceeding ended without a ruling, the motion remained open, and by the order of a bench trial, the judge was saying there were substantial open issues with regard to whether the accused DVRs still infringe or not, therefore a summary contempt proceeding would not be appropriate, rather a trial was necessary.

Since what TiVo asked for was an "on the face contempt" proceeding, which does not require a trial, by ordering a trial the judge was telling TiVo their "on the face contempt" did not fly.

 

[Thomas22]

Since what TiVo asked for was an "on the face contempt" proceeding, which does not require a trial, by ordering a trial the judge was telling TiVo their "on the face contempt" did not fly.

If the modified DVRs are not more than colorably different then the adjudicated devices were never disabled as required. If expert tedtimony is needed to determine colorable difference then a trial is the proper forum.

 

[Curtis0620]

What I posted is a fact...not an opinion...like i said, no courts necessary...

The software is open source...
The software itself is NOT patented...
The software is part of a process that IS patented...

So go ahead and look it up yourself instead of siding with D* trolls in an E* forum...

as for the complexity of the details...whats the difference? Are you supporting my claim regarding the incompetence of the courts?

(the warzone must be REALLY boring these days, thats all I have to say. )

Typical.

 

[jacmyoung]

If the modified DVRs are not more than colorably different then the adjudicated devices were never disabled as required...

To me what exactly the requirement was not even all that important because people can interpret it in different ways, but whether the accused devices still are infringments will be conclusive after the trial, only if still infringements, the order was violated, otherwise the order was not violated because the order was to prohibit continued infringement.

 

[MikeD-C05]

I just wonder what ya'll are going to talk about once this is settled once and for all by the judge? It would be funny if after all these years of lawsuits, countersuits, and court decisions that DISH would end up making a deal with Tivo and licensing the Tivo software.

 

[Curtis0620]

I just wonder what ya'll are going to talk about once this is settled once and for all by the judge? It would be funny if after all these years of lawsuits, countersuits, and court decisions that DISH would end up making a deal with Tivo and licensing the Tivo software.

That is exactly what will happen.

 

[Ronnie-]

That is exactly what will happen.

I guess anything is possible, but what makes you think this will happen

 

[vampz26]

Typical.

Typical troll...

nothing more...

are you lost?

(ole boy here says the base programming was stolen, I show him where its given away...and this is the best he got...poor guy IS lost...or trolling...given his hating ways, I suspect the latter...)

 

[vampz26]

I guess anything is possible, but what makes you think this will happen

The fact that he's been reading other people speculate on that for monthes now...

 

[Ronnie-]

The fact that he's been reading other people speculate on that for monthes now...

Yeah, but he didnt give any reason why HE thought so. Just curious

 

[Curtis0620]

Typical troll...

nothing more...

are you lost?

(ole boy here says the base programming was stolen, I show him where its given away...and this is the best he got...poor guy IS lost...or trolling...given his hating ways, I suspect the latter...)

Why do all your posts do nothing but insult people?

I think we all know who the troll is in this thread.

 

[Curtis0620]

Yeah, but he didnt give any reason why HE thought so. Just curious

I think because the hardware claims are going to be reviewed based on the "Doctrine of Equivalents"will be what is going to force them to reach a licensing deal.

This is why the hardware claims were thown out by the appeals court. If the Hardware infringement comes back, DISH must settle.