TIVO vs E*

[jacmyoung]

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.Except that it is mainly incorrect.

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.

The hardware and software claims both contained the same 10 claim elements, the software claims mainly describe the invention, and the hardware claims try to cover any hardware that may use such same invention.

TiVo's such patent is not a software nor a hardware patent, rather a process.

They are titled differently by the court to make the above distinction because one set of the claims (defined by the court as software claims) are independent claims, and the other set (hardware claims) are dependent claims.

But they are essentially describing the exact same invention and the same 10 elements. Remove those elements in the E* DVR process that once infringed the patent claims, especially in the independent (software) claims, the dependent claims will simply have no effect on the new design anymore.

 

[jacmyoung]

...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.

The bench trial is tied to all of the issues because all of the issues are dependent on if the new design still infringes or not.

The disable order specifically ordered the DVR functions disabled from the "Infringing Products". If those products are ruled to no longer be infringements in the coming bench trial, then they are no longer "Infringing Products", therefore this second disable order simply will not apply.

If the new design is again found an infringement, then TiVo will be able to bring a new contempt motion charging E* in contempt for using all of its DVRs, not just the 8 named DVRs, but also all new DVRs, such as the VIPs, because E* said they all use the new design.

Of course this new court order is a victory for E*, but E* cannot win the final bettle unless E* can convince the court that they no longer infringe on the TiVo's patent, that is the bottomline.

Or if TiVo decides to withdraw before the next trial verdict is out.

Or TiVo and E* decide to settle before that.

But if E* does not win the next trial, they will be in real trouble. Not that E* will not be able to design around again, but it will be too costly.

Based on what E* described of their new design, IMO there is no way it is still infringing, but others disagree. It will be another subject of debate.

 

[Greg Bimson]

The hardware and software claims both contained the same 10 claim elements, the software claims mainly describe the invention, and the hardware claims try to cover any hardware that may use such same invention.

That's what you believe, but you'd be wrong.

The claims that were reversed were the hardware claims, which were 1, 5, 21, 23, 32, 36 and 52:

1. A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising the steps of:
accepting television (TV) broadcast signals, wherein said TV signals are based on a multitude of standards, including, but not limited to, National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) broadcast, PAL broadcast, satellite transmission, DSS, DBS, or ATSC;

tuning said TV signals to a specific program;

providing at least one Input Section, wherein said Input Section converts said specific program to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation;

providing a Media Switch, wherein said Media Switch parses said MPEG stream, said MPEG stream is separated into its video and audio components;

storing said video and audio components on a storage device;

providing at least one Output Section, wherein said Output Section extracts said video and audio components from said storage device;

wherein said Output Section assembles said video and audio components into an MPEG stream;

wherein said Output Section sends said MPEG stream to a decoder;

wherein said decoder converts said MPEG stream into TV output signals;

wherein said decoder delivers said TV output signals to a TV receiver; and

accepting control commands from a user, wherein said control commands are sent through the system and affect the flow of said MPEG stream.

5. The process of claim 1, wherein the storing and extracting of said video and audio components from said storage device are performed simultaneously.

21. The process of claim 1, wherein said storage device is connected to said Media Switch.

23. The process of claim 1, wherein said Media Switch is implemented in hardware.

32. An apparatus for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising:
a module for accepting television (TV) broadcast signals, wherein said TV signals are based on a multitude of standards, including, but not limited to, National Television Standards Committee (NTSC) broadcast, PAL broadcast, satellite transmission, DSS, DBS, or ATSC;

a module for tuning said TV signals to a specific program;

at least one Input Section, wherein said Input Section converts said specific program to an Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) formatted stream for internal transfer and manipulation;

a Media Switch, wherein said Media Switch parses said MPEG stream, said MPEG stream is separated into its video and audio components;

a module for storing said video and audio components on a storage device;

at least one Output Section, wherein said Output Section extracts said video and audio components from said storage device;

wherein said Output Section assembles said video and audio components into an MPEG stream;

wherein said Output Section sends said MPEG stream to a decoder;

wherein said decoder converts said MPEG stream into TV output signals;

wherein said decoder delivers said TV output signals to a TV receiver; and

accepting control commands from a user, wherein said control commands are sent through the system and affect the flow of said MPEG stream.

36. The apparatus of claim 32, wherein the storing and extracting of said video and audio components from said storage device are performed simultaneously.

52. The apparatus of claim 32, wherein said storage device is connected to said Media Switch.

Since DISH/SATS is claming they do not use a media switch, and I tend to believe them from the information that was gathered, these hardware claims will be hard-pressed to be found guilty again. In the parent claims 1 and 32, a media switch is required. If it were bypassed, then infringement of these claims is no longer present. However, that does not remove the issues of infringement with claims 31 and 61, which were upheld:

31. A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising the steps of:
providing a physical data source, wherein said physical data source accepts broadcast data from an input device, parses video and audio data from said broadcast data, and temporarily stores said video and audio data;

providing a source object, wherein said source object extracts video and audio data from said physical data source;

providing a transform object, wherein said transform object stores and retrieves data streams onto a storage device;

wherein said source object obtains a buffer from said transform object, said source object converts video data into data streams and fills said buffer with said streams;

wherein said source object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object;

providing a sink object, wherein said sink object obtains data stream buffers from said transform object and outputs said streams to a video and audio decoder;

wherein said decoder converts said streams into display signals and sends said signals to a display;

wherein said sink object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object;

providing a control object, wherein said control object receives commands from a user, said commands control the flow of the broadcast data through the system; and

wherein said control object sends flow command events to said source, transform, and sink objects.

61. An apparatus for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising:
a physical data source, wherein said physical data source accepts broadcast data from an input device, parses video and audio data from said broadcast data, and temporarily stores said video and audio data;

a source object, wherein said source object extracts video and audio data from said physical data source;

a transform object, wherein said transform object stores and retrieves data streams onto a storage device;

wherein said source object obtains a buffer from said transform object, said source object converts video data into data streams and fills said buffer with said streams;

wherein said source object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object;

a sink object, wherein said sink object obtains data stream buffers from said transform object and outputs said streams to a video and audio decoder;

wherein said decoder converts said streams into display signals and sends said signals to a display;

wherein said sink object is automatically flow controlled by said transform object;

a control object, wherein said control object receives commands from a user, said commands control the flow of the broadcast data through the system; and

wherein said control object sends flow command events to said source, transform, and sink objects.

They are titled differently by the court to make the above distinction because one set of the claims (defined by the court as software claims) are independent claims, and the other set (hardware claims) are dependent claims.

Incorrect. The "hardware claims" are the pieces of hardware in the box substantive to the invention. Claim 1 is the process of using that hardware; claim 32 is the apparatus containing that implementation of hardware. Below each of claim 1 and 32 are dependant claims, such as having the media switch connected to the storage device (which were claims 5 and 36).

Claims 31 and 61 were the "software claims", and they were the pieces of the software in the box substantive to the invention. Claim 31 is the process of using that software; claim 61 is the apparatus containing that implementation of software. Add to the fact that both of these claims have hardware elements, such as "a physical data source, wherein said physical data source accepts broadcast data from an input device, parses video and audio data from said broadcast data, and temporarily stores said video and audio data", and you can see that although there are hardware claims, there is hardware in the software claims. Of course, claims 31 and 61 do not have the media switch, or any dependant claims attached to them.

The bench trial is tied to all of the issues because all of the issues are dependent on if the new design still infringes or not.

Which is your opinion. It is possible Judge Folsom has the entire order ready to go, except for a finding of ongoing infringement on the modified DVR's which have been sold, and any damages which could be given to TiVo for sales of a device which most likely still infringes.

I admit having a bench trial tilts the idea that finding infringement is imperative to finding contempt on the disable order, but I don't believe that to be the case. That is my opinion.

 

[jacmyoung]

You said infringement on the hardware claims will be hard to find because of the removal of the "media switch", that I agree, removal of infringement on even one element of one claim (each of the above claims has about 10 elements), means no infringement on that claim.

But furher more, the law says finding infringement on the hardware claims (dependent claims) is useless unless infringement is also found on the software claims (independent claims). The reverse is not true. Finding of infringement on the dependent claims is enough.

The question is then why bother with the hardware (dependent) claims? I believe if the hardware claims were all upheld, TiVo would have been able to file that contempt motion to name not just those 4 million DVRs, but all E* DVRs, because all of them used to use that same media switch.

 

[Greg Bimson]

But furher more, the law says finding infringement on the hardware claims (dependent claims) is useless unless infringement is also found on the software claims (independent claims). The reverse is not true. Finding of infringement on the dependent claims is enough.

The question is then why bother with the hardware (dependent) claims?

From the first paragraph, all of the "hardware claims" are not "dependent claims". Claims 1 and 32 are independent. If you look above to my last post, you'll see that claims 5, 21 and 23 start with "The process of Claim 1", which makes those claims dependent upon Claim 1. If Claim 1 is not found as an infringement, then those dependent claims upon Claim 1 cannot be found as infringements, either. Heck, that is precisely why all the hardware claims were overturned by the Court of Appeals; they found an issue with Claims 1 and 32, so both of those as well as the dependent claims were reversed. However, for the record, the "Hardware Claims" and the "Software Claims" are independent, with some additional claims being dependent upon the hardware claims.

And now you understand why I felt it was immaterial to retry the hardware claims if the media switch were removed.

Unless somehow DISH/SATS flat out lied about no longer having an index table and doing analysis pre-storage to implement markers, arrays or indecies, there is no way DISH/SATS is infringing on the "hardware claims" any longer.

I have a feeling that TiVo may go after only the software claims at the bench trial, and they may even try to tie the ViP series in on it.

I believe if the hardware claims were all upheld, TiVo would have been able to file that contempt motion to name not just those 4 million DVRs, but all E* DVRs, because all of them used to use that same media switch.

Not so fast. If the "hardware claims" were upheld, we would be in the exact same position today as we currently are. DISH/SATS definitely would have not disabled DVR functionality and tried to redesign around the patent. That is exactly why they obtained outside opinion from Fish and Richardson before the final judgment and injunction order was even signed by Judge Folsom. They were going to obtain a workaround even if the entire jury verdict was upheld.

DISH/SATS feels since they no longer use the media switch that they no longer infringe any of the claims, period, so they don't have to disable anything.

If anyone wants some reading that will put you to sleep (besides my posts), take a look at the TiVo Time Warp patent itself.

 

[jacmyoung]

If we can agree on that then it is obviously very important to make sure the new design no longer infringe on the software claims.

The two software claims contain the identical ten elements, to continue to infringe on the TiVo's patent, the new design must again infringe on each of the 10 elements of the software claims.

E* said they no longer use the so-called "index file", the index file was the essential element in finding infringement before. By removing it:

The first element is no longer met, because there is no "temporarily stores said video and audio data" anymore. All A/V data are parsed then stored directly onto the hard drive, no index file there to offer a temporary storage location.

The fifth element is no longer met because the new design has no automatic flow control.

And I think the 6th element is no longer met because E* said the new design has no such sink object but I am not sure. But even if the sink object is still present:

The 8th element is no longer met because again the new design does not use any automatic flow control.

I did not read all of the E* evidence to say if the rest of the elements are still met of if so how many are still met. The rest of the elements are not even inventions because all MPEG type of TV decoders must use those steps to allow people to watch TV or radio programmings.

TiVo of course is saying, the new E* design still uses this thing called the PID analyzer, which meets the elements where they mention the word "parse", as "analyze".

If that is TiVo's only argument, it will obviously fail because only the first element mentions the word "parse", and as I said that element is no longer met because of lack of "temporary" storage. An element is met only if the process is "essentially the same" as described in the element. Removing the "temporary" part, the element cannot be "essentially the same".

Not to mention all the other elements that the new design no longer meets.

Again, all elements must be met to find an infringement of that claim.

 

[vampz26]

You know...anyone reading this thread (ignoring the unsolicited emotive comments by haters and fanboys and focusing on the actual meat of the discussion, of course), would find a veritable wealth of information ranging from legal to technical. However it does seem that in the midst of all these words going back and forth, we are starting to repeat ourselves ad nauseum over this...

Is there any way we can establish some closing remarks here just to quantify our positions under a single heading? We may find that there is more agreement than disagreement here embodied in this discussion...

 

[Greg Bimson]

E* said they no longer use the so-called "index file", the index file was the essential element in finding infringement before. By removing it:

The first element is no longer met, because there is no "temporarily stores said video and audio data" anymore. All A/V data are parsed then stored directly onto the hard drive, no index file there to offer a temporary storage location.

The fifth element is no longer met because the new design has no automatic flow control.

And I think the 6th element is no longer met because E* said the new design has no such sink object but I am not sure. But even if the sink object is still present:

The 8th element is no longer met because again the new design does not use any automatic flow control.

The problem is that your argument and DISH/SATS argument aren't the same, but I'll be happy to counter-point:

Element 1: Of course there is some "temporary storage location". Once the incoming transponder is parsed to only keep the channel being requested, that data has to go somewhere before being written to disk. Probably some kind of buffer. DISH/SATS did not say they do not have a temporary storage location. They did mention they have a buffer, which I can assume to be temporary storage. This could be a point DISH/SATS tries to make during the bench trial, but this has not been addressed so far.

Element 6: DISH/SATS never said they no longer have a "sink object".

Elements 5 and 8: Just like you, DISH/SATS has stated that the software is no longer "automatically flow controlled". However, the interpretations of the claims in this case defines "automatically flow controlled" as "self-regulating". I suspect it is the component of this element where Judge Folsom has questions which needs answers, from the evidence presented so far.

Is there any way we can establish some closing remarks here just to quantify our positions under a single heading? We may find that there is more agreement than disagreement here embodied in this discussion...

I'll try, but mine is more slanted towards what I believe is the rule of law...

There are two points where TiVo is trying to have DISH/SATS found in contempt: violations of the disable order and of the stop continuing to infringe order. I believe they are mutually exclusive, i.e., finding contempt for failing to disable would not have an impact whether or not the modifications continue to infringe. TiVo does not want the outcome that DISH/SATS no longer infringes. TiVo now MUST get a ruling that DISH/SATS continues to infringe, even if Judge Folsom goes against them and must appeal to the Supreme Court, or they will not get what they want: an ongoing licensing contract, royalties for the patent.

If the outcome is completely against DISH/SATS, they will also go to the Supreme Court. If that judgment is upheld on appeal, DISH/SATS will be in a world of hurt, as it will take SCOTUS and any findings related to the contempt case until 2010 to rule. Two years is a lot of contempt damages to be paying.

 

[jacmyoung]

The problem is that your argument and DISH/SATS argument aren't the same, but I'll be happy to counter-point:

Element 1: Of course there is some "temporary storage location". Once the incoming transponder is parsed to only keep the channel being requested, that data has to go somewhere before being written to disk. Probably some kind of buffer. DISH/SATS did not say they do not have a temporary storage location.

Yes E* did say the incoming A/V data are no longer temporarily stored anywhere rather stored directly onto the hard drive.

They did mention they have a buffer, which I can assume to be temporary storage.

No, just like the words "buffer" and "buffers" are used in the elements 4 and 6 in the TiVo's software claims, a buffer is not the same as a "temporary storage", in fact the court had different definition for each term. If they are the same, they should not be defined in two different terms in the patent claims.

A buffer provides a very very short data retaining step that can disappear in a millisecond. The "temporary storage" is achieved by that index file, a physical file created to store the A/V index information before the A/V streams are permanently stored onto the hard drive. During trick plays, the commands the users issued will be matched to the index information in that index file, by doing so the CPU is not overly taxed. The index file (temporary storage) does not go away, even though the word "temporary" is used.

But the point is, the "temporary storage" is not the same as a "buffer", because the court issued separate definitions for them. E* can still have buffers, which may still meet Element 4, but no temporary storage means Element 1 is not met.

Elements 5 and 8: Just like you, DISH/SATS has stated that the software is no longer "automatically flow controlled". However, the interpretations of the claims in this case defines "automatically flow controlled" as "self-regulating". I suspect it is the component of this element where Judge Folsom has questions which needs answers, from the evidence presented so far.

The question whether "automatic flow control" or "self-regulating" was there was answered when TiVo proved E*'s old design used that so called "media switch", the function of that media switch was to provide such automatic flow control, or self-regulation.

I beleive you agreed if the media switch is in fact removed, the hardware claims will no longer be infringed, for the exact same reason, because the media switch is gone, the function of which it serves--automatic flow control, is also gone.

I'll try, but mine is more slanted towards what I believe is the rule of law...

There are two points where TiVo is trying to have DISH/SATS found in contempt: violations of the disable order and of the stop continuing to infringe order. I believe they are mutually exclusive, i.e., finding contempt for failing to disable would not have an impact whether or not the modifications continue to infringe. TiVo does not want the outcome that DISH/SATS no longer infringes. TiVo now MUST get a ruling that DISH/SATS continues to infringe, even if Judge Folsom goes against them and must appeal to the Supreme Court, or they will not get what they want: an ongoing licensing contract, royalties for the patent.

TiVo of course wanted to separate the disabling order from the first order (stop additional infringement by the sale, make...), but TiVo had failed on that, as I pointed out and will repeat:

The disabling order specifically said to disable the DVR functions...from the Infringing Products. If those DVRs are found no longer infringements, of course you cannot say they are "infringing Products" anymore, and therefore the disabling order no longer applies to them.

 

[Thomas22]

Judge Folsom claim construction:

The Court finds that, although the term “buffer” has a plain and ordinary meaning
to persons of skill in the art, it requires additional construction for clarification. Because
neither party has offered a stand-alone construction for this term in their papers, and is
not defined in the ‘389 patent, the Court turns to extrinsic evidence in order to assist its
understanding of the term. Phillips, 2005 WL 1620331 at *15. In this instance, the Court
turns to technical dictionary published by the Institute of Electronic and Electrical
Engineers, the IEEE STANDARD DICTIONARY OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS TERMS
(6th ed. 1997), which defines “buffer” as: “(5)(A) A device or storage area used to store
data temporarily to compensate for differences in rates of data flow, the time occurrence
of events, or amounts of data that can be handled by the device or process involved in the
transfer or use of the data.” IEEE STANDARD DICTIONARY OF ELECTRICAL AND
ELECTRONICS TERMS at 113 (6th ed. 1997). The Court notes that EchoStar’s expert
witness, Dr. Rhyne, has acknowledged that the IEEE dictionary this is a widely accepted
technical dictionary in the electrical engineering field. Rhyne Decl. at 45. On the basis
of the use of the term in the ‘389 claims, and on the basis of its IEEE dictionary
definition, “buffer” will be construed as “memory where data can be temporarily stored
for transfer.” This definition is further consistent with the definition provided by counsel
during the claims construction hearing. 5/23/05 Hr. Tr. 58:11-13.
The claim phrase as a whole, “obtains a buffer” is therefore construed as “obtains
memory where data can be temporarily stored for transfer.”

All hard drives contain buffers. There may also be other buffers elsewhere in the circuitry.

 

[Greg Bimson]

TiVo of course wanted to separate the disabling order from the first order (stop additional infringement by the sale, make...), but TiVo had failed on that, as I pointed out and will repeat:

The disabling order specifically said to disable the DVR functions...from the Infringing Products. If those DVRs are found no longer infringements, of course you cannot say they are "infringing Products" anymore, and therefore the disabling order no longer applies to them.

Ah, but therein lies the rub...

Even with this upcoming bench hearing, the order is to disable those devices found infringing. If (and/or when) the adjudged devices are no longer infringements, then they will no longer be subject to the disable order. Only once Judge Folsom decrees that those devices are infringement-free would they no longer be subject to the disable order. That certainly doesn't mean that those same devices aren't subject to the disable order, as at this point those devices have been ruled as infringements. It is important to receive the "free and clear" signal from the courts for the devices ruled as infringements and subject to the disable order.

 

[Thomas22]

Even with this upcoming bench hearing, the order is to disable those devices found infringing.

If the assumption is that the units still infringe, there would be no need for the bench trial. Instead, the asumption is that the DVRs were made non-infringing by the modification until such time as proven otherwise. That's why the bench trial comes before any contempt finding, not the reverse.

 

[Greg Bimson]

If the assumption is that the units still infringe, there would be no need for the bench trial.

But there is the need for the bench trial to test infringement:

DISH/SATS wants to prove their workaround no longer infringes, and believes that finding attaches to the disable order.

TiVo wants to prove the workaround still infringes, so that all sales of those eight models with the modification can be another finding of contempt.

And that is irrespective of the motion for damages.

Absolutely no rulings have been made, yet.

Judge Folsom did not tip his hand why he needs to find the status of "continuing infringement".

 

[jacmyoung]

But there is the need for the bench trial to test infringement...

Please Greg, unless you still believe even if E*'s new design is found not an infringement, E* would still have violated the disable order.

Otherwise you are basically saying the same thing we had been telling you.

...Absolutely no rulings have been made, yet...

And whether there will be a ruling of contempt will have to be based on whether the new design is an infrignement or not.

And BTW, please do not make such a big deal out of TiVo's asking for infringement finding to settle the additional damages. In all the similar cases, the additional damages were all dependent on whether there were contempt or not, which were dependent on whether the new designs were infringements or not.

TiVo wanted to argue that neither the disable order, nor the additional damages, had much to do with whether the new design was still an infringement or not, by ordering this bench trial to do one thing and one thing only, to determine whether the new design is an infringement or not, Judge Folsom agreed with E*, and disagreed with TiVo.

 

[Greg Bimson]

And whether there will be a ruling of contempt will have to be based on whether the new design is an infrignement or not.

Yet Judge Folsom has not stated that, yet, nor does KSM specifcally apply to this...

Please Greg, unless you still believe even if E*'s new design is found not an infringement, E* would still have violated the disable order.

Not would have, but technically did. There may be a technicality that by modifying those receivers that they are no longer "Infringing Products", but that isn't even DISH/SATS' argument.

 

[jacmyoung]

...Not would have, but technically did. There may be a technicality that by modifying those receivers that they are no longer "Infringing Products", but that isn't even DISH/SATS' argument.

First off if you read the E* filing prior to 5/30, the issue of the "Infringing Products" was E*'s main point against TiVo's contempt charge.

As far as technicality, if that is what you believe, fine, but then you will again end up blaming TiVo's lawyers for not closing the hole way back then, when the judge was framing the injunction. Should not have allowed the term "Infringing Products" in the order, right?

My answer is not, because E* insisted the term be used, and the judge agreed, because the order was to prevent continued infringement, and that is the goal of all injunction in patent infringement cases, and the only goal. Everything else is covered by the damages.

Without admitting that, you will just end up asking why did TiVo not do this, why did the judge allow E* to get away with that, what went wrong?

But as soon as you accept what the Court said:

"Infringement is the sin qua non (without which it simply cannot be) of violation of injunction on infringement;"

"Simply finding violation of the injunction is not sufficient, infringement must also be found;"

(I can list 5 or 6 more of the quotes), then everything can be easily explained.

 

[vampz26]

Sigh...more unstoppable force meeting the immovable object...

NEWSFLASH!

Anyone out there care to acknowledge the simple fact that this whole trial BS, Lock, Stock, and Barrel...is nothng more than a crock of fertilizer?

Heck, when Tivo first came out, I thought it was the best thing ever and even was an investor the minute they went public. I LOVED IT! But low and behold! Tivo FAILED to innovate their product! Tivo FAILED to keep it competitive! And now Tivo would rather rest on their legal laurels than do anything to improve thier product...now thats just wrong. I don't know how even the most diehard Tivo fanboy could see otherwise...

I mean, why was Dish the first to come out with an Mpeg4 HD-DVR? Why didn't Tivo? Is it Dishes fault for releaseing and improved product to meet existing demands or is it Tivos fault for not rising to the needs of those existing demands themselves and putting out a competitive product? Tivo wants to blame Dish...but shame on Tivo....its their own damn fault. Its a shame it comes to this courtroom nonsense, which has no merit in the real world what-so-ever when it comes to reality...its just to bad the courtroom nonsense eventually dictates reality...because lord knows, there is no reality involved dictating the courtroom nonsense...

 

[jacmyoung]

You can believe the courtrooms are BS, but as long as you understand the courts have power over you, and do not say the same things you just said in front of the judges, no one should stop you from expressing your opinions

 

[iwc5893]

I'm surprised that Tivo isn't claiming that they patented using AC power to power DVR's, so that any DVR that uses AC power would be infringing.

 

[vampz26]

You can believe the courtrooms are BS, but as long as you understand the courts have power over you, and do not say the same things you just said in front of the judges, no one should stop you from expressing your opinions

experience is the best teacher...

I'm a divorced man with a kid... I KNOW the courtrooms are BS...

And given my fair share of life experience, I KNOW they have power over me as you said, but you honestly don't expect that simple fact to give them any credibility now, do you? Why should it? I consider it proof to my claims against them...

You, given a fair share of life experience, would KNOW same thing...