I'm an E* sub in an E* forum....
You're an E* hater in an E* forum...
'nuff said. We definitely do know who the troll is...no insult, just the truth. Lost?
Go with God, Curtis....
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 178K
- Status
I'm an E* sub in an E* forum....
You're an E* hater in an E* forum...
'nuff said. We definitely do know who the troll is...no insult, just the truth. Lost?
Go with God, Curtis....
I thought this was a TiVo discussion. I have a TiVo, so I'm in the right thread. Their are other non-E subs in this discussion. Most of the discussion is between 2 non-E subs. Are they trolls too?
I think you missed the point. The OP is an E* sub talking about an E* courtcase that involves Tivo.
...And yes, this thread has become a Tivo-D* troll-magnet as a result...
...And here you are. Venting your hate by making false statements and picking fights with E* subs...namely me.
It is what it is...I suggest you examine your conscience a little.
Oh Please, so anyone with a different opinion than yours is a troll.
Yes, that does sound like you.
Oh E* your the best. Oh Charlie I love You. You can do no wrong. Stealing TiVo's software is OK, just squash them like a bug.
That is all that's allowed, if you say anything else, you're a TROLL.
A known E* hater in an E* forum harassing E* subs is troll...
In case you haven't read your last post, that is exactly what you are doing...
folks, lets keep the conversation about the Tivo vs E* law suit and not about who is trolling whom. There is enough trolling on both sides here without trolling for trolls 
See ya
Tony
See ya
Tony
Very doubtful. Echostar wants (needs) to prove their software does not infringe because they want to license their own STB to other companies and compete against TiVo. The only way they would license from TiVo would be if they completely lose the case.
I just wish this case would end in our lifetime. It's already dragged on long enough.
For those only care to read itJ
The TiVo’s software patent claims infringement were tested by both literal doctrine and by doctrine of equivalents, and the jury found infringements on all elements under both doctrines.
The TiVo’s hardware patent claims were tested only by the literal doctrine, and the jury was instructed by the judge somehow if they had made a decision of infringement under the literal doctrine, they would not be allowed to decide if the infringement was also true by the equivalents.
The jury then produced the verdict that the hardware claims elements were all infringed under the literal doctrine, and never made a decision under the doctrine of equivalents because of the judge’s instruction.
Now on appeal, due to the very stringent standard under the literal doctrine, some of the jury’s infringement decisions under the literal doctrine were overturned by the Appeals Court in both the software claims and the hardware claims.
But on the software claims, none of the infringement decisions based on the doctrine of equivalents were overturned by the Appeals Court, as a result the infringement of the software claims were upheld. Because to prove infringement, proof under only one of the doctrines is enough.
The problem with the hardware claims was, since there was no decision made under the equivalents, when the infringement under the literal doctrine was overturned, there was no infringement on the equivalents to recapture the infringement verdict. So the hardware claims were not ruled to have been infringed.
If you managed to read so far without tuning out, below is to explain why the hardware claims will not matter much in the next bench trialJ
Both the software and the hardware claims are nearly identical, E* only needed to infringe on one of the two to be infringing, which they did. The consequences of the infringement verdict was exactly the same too, E* ended up paying $74 million plus interest, and had an injunction against them.
Now for E* to get around the injunction and avoid another infringement verdict, they had to design around both the TiVo’s software and the hardware claims, which E* said they did, both literally and on equivalents.
In reality, since both the software and the hardware claims are essentially the same, only that one was titled software claims, the other titled hardware claims, infringement on the software claims means infringement on the hardware claims too, only that the court required separate verdicts on each claims, yet only one of the yes verdicts is needed to prove infringement.
Conversely, if there is no infringement on the software claims, it will be almost impossible to have an infringement on the hardware claims. E* claimed their new design no longer infringes on either claims.
To put it this way, the reversal of the infringement verdict on the hardware claims was immaterial to the final judgment before, and will not be material to the future verdict either, as long as the E*’s new design no longer infringe on the software claims, therefore not on the hardware claims either.
I don't think either the literal or equivalents software infringement findings by the jury were reversed or impacted in any way by the appeals court.
They weren't...
Don't let all the 'wasted words' fool you...at the end of the day, the software is not patented but just part of the patent itself. The lawyers on both sides are just picking on the software because its the easiest target.
The argument can be made that the hardware used in the patent is based on existing technology available prior to the patent.
The argument can also be made that the software that implements the hardware in question, is the technology itself and therefore patentable...
However, the software was developed under an open source license, and therefore....free. You can't steal something thats being given away...
BUT...separate the process, algorithm, and conceptual interfaces from the software/hardware combination...and call THAT the technology beyond the hardware or the software implementation of THAT technology...than you have something you can patent.
BUT...you also have an easy target for refuting the patent. Somewhere along the line, you have a very wide breadth of debate as to whether or not any re-implementation of the process does in fact duplicate the original process close enough as to warrant infringement.
Which it may, or may not...doubtful this will get resolved anytime soon, so anyone hoping for a quick end to their 'misery' is better off just sitting back and spend their time watching football every sunday for 12 hours...because the game will not end here any time soon...
But at the end of the day...this is an E* forum and an E* related topic started by an E* sub as the OP regarding how it affects other E* subs. As an E* sub personally, I would love to share in what they have to say. Otherwise, its nothing more than another warzone topic...even with the same participants...what does that tell you...
it would be very nice for E* subs to have a discussion on this topic without the 'interuptions' by the Tivo and D* faithful with no vested interest in E* what-so-ever other than to annoy and harrass their subs...
but...thats just my opinion...
Okay. You expressed the opinion. It has been duly noted. No need to mention it again. Report any posts you feel are inappropriate and leave any action taken to the staff who will act if it's deemed necessary.
See ya
Tony
I sometimes get away from this thread for a while, but the last 33 posts have been entertaining.
jacmyoung explained what has happened so far in a very lucid and helpful way.
vampz in post #272 pointed out what I think is critical in this argument: if Tivo could not patent the hardware, since others already have their patents for that, and if Tivo could not patent the software (since software is not so far as I know patentable per se) then it is in fact the process that was patented.
Dish is now claiming that it is not using the patented Tivo process; that it is in fact using a different process with new software and the same hardware. What the judge in the recent contempt proceeding obviously concluded is that if that is the case, then the contempt finding cannot be sustained; but, if Dish is incorrect and has not implemented a new process, the contempt finding can be sustained. The bench trial is for the purpose of determining whether Dish's contention is correct.
The question remaining before the court, thus, is not whether the old equipment could be maintained in the field with a new process, since the judge in effect ruled that could legitimately occur contrary to Tivo's claim, but whether the new process infringes. This in some ways may broaden the hazard to Dish, if the judge should find that the new process continues to infringe, since he could then legitimately require Dish to prove that the same process with other equipment does not also infringe (if Tivo made that claim).
Dish clearly needs to be able to show that it is not now infringing due to the contempt order which apparently could be reinstated with additional penalties if infringement is found to exist in the old equipment. Minimally, Dish would then have to pull the equipment and replace it immediately, which would have a disruptive effect on customer relations (and some extra cost to Dish). Still, Dish also clearly won a major battle against Tivo and was justified in being joyful...
Happy thanksgiving,
Fitzie
jacmyoung explained what has happened so far in a very lucid and helpful way.
vampz in post #272 pointed out what I think is critical in this argument: if Tivo could not patent the hardware, since others already have their patents for that, and if Tivo could not patent the software (since software is not so far as I know patentable per se) then it is in fact the process that was patented.
Dish is now claiming that it is not using the patented Tivo process; that it is in fact using a different process with new software and the same hardware. What the judge in the recent contempt proceeding obviously concluded is that if that is the case, then the contempt finding cannot be sustained; but, if Dish is incorrect and has not implemented a new process, the contempt finding can be sustained. The bench trial is for the purpose of determining whether Dish's contention is correct.
The question remaining before the court, thus, is not whether the old equipment could be maintained in the field with a new process, since the judge in effect ruled that could legitimately occur contrary to Tivo's claim, but whether the new process infringes. This in some ways may broaden the hazard to Dish, if the judge should find that the new process continues to infringe, since he could then legitimately require Dish to prove that the same process with other equipment does not also infringe (if Tivo made that claim).
Dish clearly needs to be able to show that it is not now infringing due to the contempt order which apparently could be reinstated with additional penalties if infringement is found to exist in the old equipment. Minimally, Dish would then have to pull the equipment and replace it immediately, which would have a disruptive effect on customer relations (and some extra cost to Dish). Still, Dish also clearly won a major battle against Tivo and was justified in being joyful...
Happy thanksgiving,
Fitzie
The patent validity was settled long ago. The hardware is patented and the process is patented. The process portions of the patent are sometimes referred to as "software claims". Even the district court and the appeals court used that term. The term is correct by convention. There is no code in the patent. The hardware claims are for the apparatus and the software claims are for the process.
No, the hardware and software claims weren't essentially the same, and they weren't titled separately. The court separated them into hardware and software claims, because the hardware claims included the physical media switch and other hardware, while the software claims included some software.jacmyoung said:
Except that it is mainly incorrect.Fitzie said:
In order to understand the problem you need to read the actual claims which were found infringing during the trial. Don't assume because one is "hardware claims" and one is "software claims" that it is only about hardware and software, respectively.
This is true. Many software patents steer clear from binding themselves to a sourcecode implementation to avoid tainting the patent with implementation specifics. They will usually use advanced modelling, pseudo-code, Z-specifications, and the like to illustrate what the software portion does in a very detailed, mathematical way while avoiding the use of implmentation specific source code.
And this is where I disagree with the courts. Separating the claims into categories like that was an attempt at the courts to compensate for their ignorance by breaking down the patent into merely the sum of its parts. Any software engineer out there knows that depending on the technology available, you can implement certain functions of hardware in software, as well as implement certain functions of software in hardware. If you asked me, the courts here sabotaged the case by over simplifying it to compensate for their ignorance.
Thanks for the last 3 or 4 posts. Now we will wait to see what the judge actually does. And I think he will just look to see if Dish's system infringes on Tivo's patented system. I don't know that anyone is contesting that the process, which I think you guys are calling the patented system, has on it a valid patent. But I think the courts shot down the hardware patent, unless my memory does me a disservice. The decision of the patent office that their decision was unappealable meant only to them--not the court.
I rest my case.
Good night, and happy thanksgiving.
Fitzie
I rest my case.
Good night, and happy thanksgiving.
Fitzie
A particular claim in the patent is either a hardware (apparatus) claim or a process (software) claim. For example, claims 1, 5, 21, 23, 32, 36, and 52 are hardware claims. They are for an apparatus. Claims 31 and 61 are process (software) claims. You misspoke by saying that the court found a problem with the hardware patent. Not true. First of all, there is no "hardware patent". There are some hardware claims within TiVo's patent. There are also some software claims within that same patent. The court found no problem whatsoever with any of the claims (hardware or software) or questioned their validity. There was a question as to whether Dish infringed the hardware claims in the patent so the issue was remanded back to the district court and will be part of the Feb. trial.
DISH/SATS after appealing, was found guilty of infringement on claims 31 and 61. However, claim 61, which is a "software claim", is not a process:Thomas22 said:
In other words, a box with some hardware and software, which decodes television data, analyzes it, stores it, displays it, and the user has the ability to control it, by some software functionality.
At this point, TiVo is not only asking to have DISH/SATS found in contempt for not disabling the DVR's that were found to infringe, TiVo is also asking to have the models sold with the new software found as infringements, and also in contempt regarding the injunction against infringements.
Because TiVo has asked that the modified DVR's be found in contempt, infringement and mere colorable difference must be found when comparing the modified DVR's with the ones already found infringing. Also, because discovery was not given to TiVo for them to analyze the changes, Judge Folsom must have felt it was important that infringement must be found on the modifications, so this bench trial was ordered.
It is DISH/SATS contention that the modification must be analyzed before contempt can be found regarding the order to disable. However, because Judge Folsom did not tip his hand in his order for the bench trial, it is unknown if this analysis of the modification ties to the disable order or to the no infringement order, or both. And one can bet this will also be tied to the damages motion.
- Status
