Again, its considered fact as far as the law as concerned, no matter how ANYONE spins it
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 178K
- Status
Again, its considered fact as far as the law as concerned, no matter how ANYONE spins it
Well...its definitely a good thing YOU aren't a lawyer...at least my clients would have a fighting chance...
I never wanted to be one truthfully. So we are all good
Actually its not...sorry...its considered, resolved, settled, proven beyond a reasonable doubt ("reasonable doubt" being the key phrase here) but never a fact.
No judge, lawyer, or anyone else would tell you a courtroom judgement ever dictates a fact...even under law....sorry...
What is so hard for you to understand here....its not that difficult to figure out.
I did...but after two degrees I just couldn't bear the thought of sitting thru a JD as well...I settled for an certification instead so I could at least write 'legalese' when i had too during my consulting years...
I guess I didnt sit through many law courses, so my perception over what is considered fact based on what the courts decide may be wrong. Its possible. I guess all I have is my opinion on the matter, works for me:up
You kept saying your prediction, your prediction, if I understand you correctly, you are predicting E* will be found in contempt? When did you make such prediction? Six months ago or just recently?
Am I also to understand you were one time a lawyer wantabe but no longer so because you ended up disagreed with the judges most of the time? Or to say the judges often went against your judgment? Are you still so sure of your above prediction now?
I am not here to judge back then who were right, you or the judges in front of you. All I know is you said yourself your opinions seemed always in disagreement with the judges to the point you decided to quit.
And you now are warning potential clients to stay away from us non-lawyers, what about staying away from you?
If I am a client, I sure would like to find a legal consultant or a lawyer that has a winning record, as being able to get the judge to agree. When I go to the court, the highest priority for me is to win the case, not for you to tell me how factual I am despite the fact most likely I will lose my case with your help.
Last edited:
No....
http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-network-forum/153883-tivo-vs-e-17.html#post1607683
interesting, it was in response to one of your posts... Somebody hasn't been paying attention...
Wow...you are confused! ...
Read above, my decision to not go for a JD has more to do with just being tired of school after earning two degrees. Nothing to do with judges. I got a certification in legal writing to bolster my consulting practice. Worked well too.
Quit what? When did I say that? lol...you making up things as you go? If you want my life story, we can arrange for an interview...in the mean time, lay off the fabrications as they don't make you look...well...very smart...
Sounds like solid advice...yes stay away....far away! But not for those reasons...
No...you would lose your case without it...with it, you would at least be guaranteed a chance...
No....
http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-network-forum/153883-tivo-vs-e-17.html#post1607683
interesting, it was in response to one of your posts... Somebody hasn't been paying attention...
I thought you predicted in that post Judge Folsom will completely rule in TiVo's favor, which I took as saying he will find E* in contempt, after all how is it a complete ruling in TiVo's favor if E* will not be in contempt?
So I will ask again, did you predict the judge will find E* in contempt? If so when did you make such prediction, 6 months ago or recently?
So you were tired of the additional degrees necessary to become a lawyer, not because you did not like those clueless judges? Then why the hostility against the judges?
If you want my life story, we can arrange for an interview...in the mean time, lay off the fabrications as they don't make you look...well...very smart...
I don't think anyone here ever cared about your life story as I did not ever read anyone asking about it, you brought it up yourself.
Look many of us here have a lot of interest in what Judge Folsom may rule in the future, and we speculate what he may do based on our interpretation of the law, most of us are no lawyers so we know our interpretations may not be as good as yours, but still this thread is here for us to speculate.
As long as the moderators allow it, I think we can continue to speculate without you constantly coming here to lecture us why we should not bother to speculate.
As one of the staff said already, you have made your point, repeating the same point over and over will not make that point more convincing.
Why would you think that? The contempt motion and the infringement ruling are two different things...the infringement is the real issue. The contempt nonsense is just more Tivo corporate extortion games, to go along with their consumer terrorism.
Don't care if they do or don't. Why do you care what I care? You are very confused...thats what you get for not paying attention....
I've lived a long life, there Jac...I decided not to become a lawyer long before I realized how clueless judges were...the decision not to become a lawyer was a conscious decision, the realization that judges are clueless and courtrooms are a joke came...well...naturally...as it should for most intellegent people who know the legal system.
Oh, but you must care...you just keep making things up as you go along here...I already told you I'll come clean...just ask. Its a lot better than fabricating things...
Aren't they all?
Who lectured anyone...when a few fanboys stepped out of line I corrected the fallacies, nothing more. In some ways, I contributed more to the whole discussion in a day than the repetition adnauseum has done in three weeks.
It doesn't need convincing...its a true statement. And you've kind of proven it, in your own little unique way of course. You're good for that...
Fine then you think Judge Folsom ruled completely in favor of TiVo in his final infringement judgment, correct so far?
Yet you forgot before the final judgment, TiVo asked for treble damages and attorney fees as part of the judgment, based on the jury's willful infringement verdict. The judge denied such TiVo's request forcefully.
Now you said contempt issue is not the same as the final judgment, you were referring to the judge's final judgment as completely in favor of TiVo, yet the fact pointed to otherwise. The final judgment was not completely in TiVo's favor.
You did not even know the fact when you made that comment the judge ruled completely in TiVo's favor.
I didn't forget anything. Nor Did I care. And you are still not paying attention. My only point was regarding the legitimacy of any ruling in this case which I think is a total farce to begin with. Read what I wrote again....and what I was talking about. Particularly regarding the circumstances I feel would be surrounding the ruling...
Then reply...
Otherwise, you look ridiculous because all you are doing is trying give me the bums rush here fabricating things, and ignoring virtually any point that I legimately made.
Focus on what I said, not on what 'you think', ok? Thats why all your discussions here go off the deep end, you don't stay focused on the discussion the other person is engaged in, but manufacture arguments for them. now thats not very nice, is it?
Yes you did, below was what you said:
"What do you want me to say? If you ask me, given Folsoms connections, I'd expect the whole outcome of this trial to go completely in Tivo's favor, but not because of whatever is right, wrong, or even fair...I expect it to go that way because this country is so screwed up financially already..."
You don't even remember what you just said less than 7 hours ago?
Since you have two degrees in law, I hope you know the whole outcome of this trial includes the final judgment, the ruling of the coming bench trial, the final ruling on the contempt issue, and the final ruling on the additional damages?
What happened to your breadth of legal understanding when you seemed to imply the contempt issue was a different issue, when you predicted the whole outcome of the trial, which includes the ruling on the contempt issue yet to come?
I sure do...but you obviously have no clue as to what I was talking about...
HELLO! NEWSFLASH! The whole infringement thing and contempting thing are...WOW TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!
You trying to lump them into one for your own personal convenience at the moment does not change that.
Read the rest of what I wrote instead of quoting me out of context...it pretty much tells you thats exactly what I'm talking about...
(oh how you love your precious games...no substance...just games...
)LAW? WHO SAID LAW? My degrees are a BS on Computer Science, and MS in Software Engineering...I have certifications in legal writing and thats about it.
You see, this is exactly what I meant when I accused you of fabricating a life story for me...you do that often ... and thats not right...
(LOL...I just realized you enumerated three different trials here...gee, too which trial was I refering to when I said "whole out come of THIS trial"? 'This' is a singular, 'Those' is a plural...wow.. I know what I said and was very clear about it. why are you confused?)
Hello...is anyone home? Or have you just gone mad here...
The contempt issue was a different issue all together...where do you get off thinking they are the same thing? One is contempt, one is infringement....two separate cases here....two separate charges...two separate hearings...two separate trials.... The only thing in common is that Tivo is using the infringement case as consumer terrorism trying to bully a decision in the infringement case. Thats about it. You need to stop taking quotes out of context and placing them with your own fabricated context in an effort to refute them. it makes you look bad...repeatedly...
My breadth of legal knowledge is alive and well...yours is taking a few critical shots here. I'm sure it will survive so long as you know when to shut your piehole...
I swear, I think I've made a career here at satguys out of proving you wrong...
Last edited:
I sure do...but you obviously have no clue as to what I was talking about...
HELLO! NEWSFLASH! The whole infringement thing and contempting thing are...WOW TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!
You trying to lump them into one for your own personal convenience at the moment does not change that.
I did not try to lump them into one, you did, when you said "the whole outcome of the trial". The whole trial has yet concluded, the contempt proceeding is part of the whole trial, and the coming bench trial is also a part of it, they are all under one case number.
I did, what you said next was because Judge Folsom was President Clinton's appointee, therefore you believed the whole outcome of the trial would be completely in TiVo's favor.
You did not tell us why just because he was Clinton's appointee he would rule completely in TiVo's favor, please enlighten us as why, how you went from A to B.
LAW? WHO SAID LAW? My degrees are a BS on Computer Science, and MS in Software Engineering...I have certifications in legal writing and thats about it.
Thank you for learing it up for me.
I did not fabricate I misinterpreted what you said, because you did not say it clearly. Now we know the only legal education you had was a certification on legal writing, I am not surprised you did not understand when you used the term "the whole outcome of this trial", which includes the jury's infringement verdict, the judge's final judgment based on the jury's verdict, the appeals court's upholding in part, reversal in part of the verdict, the contempt motion, the bench trial in 02/09, the judge's verdict from that bench trial, the appeals court decision if there will be an appeal, the ruling on the contempt motion, and the ruling on the damages, adn may be more.
All of them comprise "the whole outcome of the trial", so be careful what you say next time.
You are confused, we only have one case here, not three different cases, they are all under the same case number.
But if you insist you meant the jury trial as "the whole outcome of the trial" you were referring to, you were still wrong, as I pointed out, that whole outcome of the trial did not go completely in TiVo's favor, in that same trial, TiVo asked for treble and attorney fees, Judge Folsom denied both.
You did not go mad, you just did not know what you were saying, you admitted so yourself, you did not care.
Wrong agiain. The contempt proceeding is not a trial, it is a summary proceeding, a sumamry proceeding is a part of a trial, not a trial itself. Did you forget what you learned in that legal writing certification course again?
And such so called "consumer terrorism" is legal, TiVo is allowed to use the summary contempt proceeding to further pursue the infringer, rather go through another trial, only that TiVo failed when the judge ordered another bench trial. So you see it again proves it did not go completely in TiVo's favor, you were wrong again.
My breadth of legal knowledge is alive and well...yours is taking a few critical shots here. I'm sure it will survive so long as you know when to shut your piehole...
You have already proven how lack of legal concept you are, not knowing what a whole trial was, not even knowing a contempt proceeding is not a trial, rather a summary proceeding, as I pointed out above.
So please be careful what term you are using before you make a blanket statement, "the whole outcome of the trial" consists more than just the jury's infringement verdicts, which the appeals court overturned half of them BTW. How did you even begin to conclude it was "completely in TiVo's favor" when half of the infringement verdicts were overturned?
Did you even know this trial before making all those statements?
...and since when can't you have more than one trial attached to a single case file?
...and since when does the term 'whole' trial mean more than one trial?
...and since when does your 'interpretation' of what I said take presidence over what I actually said?
If you want to take aim and fire at your 'interpretation', than you are arguing with yourself.
What I said was clear and accurate, and your attempt to convolute it is just more childish flim-flam that you like to do when desparate...I was point5ng out that the outcome of this trial could have a global implact. And any appointee of the 'new world order' president would be well aware of that. I was stating that I would expect the infringement trial to go in favor of Tivo, not because they are right or wrong in this case, but because the US could use this trial to stake a claim in the global market. Thats all...its complicated, not something you elaborate on in the middle of one of a reply to one of your 'wasted words' posts...')
What choice do I have? While you were getting creative with my life story here...
LMAO!!!! I could let you ramble on like this all day! (I think I did...)
I don't know who the confused one is here...but it isn't me...
You just said their are three cases here, one case number, AND you gave a LIST of trials...wow...and you expect my term 'whole trial' to mean everything you listed, when I was strictly referring to the infringment trial, AND that was made clear in that I was directly referring to the patents impact on the global markets.
I may be the only one who's not confused after your latest flim-flam speech...
I don't...I don't care about most of the things you say...look at all these wasted words...
You know...convoluting the issue does not make you right...it proves you wrong.
Enough to know a personal attack when I see one by desparate man looking to salvage whatever dignity he has left from an argument he can't hope to win so he is over-complicating to death...
WOW LOOK, HE IS STILL TALKING! ....and saying nothing!
What am I wrong about? Your making things up again that I said...lol
Any other things you want to think I said...I made a one paragraph post and you are turning it into a testimonial to your own ignorance here...please...stop...I can't bare to watch...lol...
he is still talking...
My legal concepts are fine...still are, have been, and you've yet to prove otherwise..
I said whole trial, and you made it plural. THe knowledge requred isn't a law degree, its a fourth grade grammar class. Trial is one. Trials is many. Everything else you've just fabricated a bunch of things I never said, and then proceeded to argue with yourself here line-by-line...
According to who, you? LMAO!!!
ok....and your still talking...
Anyway...since your done picking apart my one paragraph comment and turning it into an entire argument you've just had with yourself. LOL....I say whole trial strictly in the context of the infringement trial, and you go and start telling me all the things I meant. "Oh really! Thats what I meant! How did you know!" Look...here's a clue...I know what I meant, I know what I said...you coming up with all these variations of what I meant and what I said doesn't prove anything...it just means you are very creative at fabricating nonsense...
Ah, forget it...you've just made a complete fool out of yourself. I am not even going to mention all your past nonsense and humiliate you further. All I can do is apologies for getting you all riled up again...you do this every time. You get annoyed by me when I'm right, and then you go start making up things and writing whole thesis on whatever you made up...
yes...
one paragraph folks...one paragraph...which included a flippant comment on how I expected the outcome of this trial to more or less be dictated by the state of the world markets than anything else. I not only had to show him where the post was, but THIS is all he got out of it...lol...
Wow...I'm stunned and speechless by the effort we have just put forth into the absurd...
Oh really? Do you even know the US patent infringement enforcement cannot reach outside of the US territories, do not apply to globle commerce, rather is strictly limited to trade within the US? Again forgot about what you learned in that "legal writing certification" course?
Why did you avoid this point: even if you meant your "whole outcome of the trial" was referring to the infringement trial, did you realize part of the infringement verdict was overturned, and TiVo's treble and attorney fees motion was denied, when you said it was "completely in TiVo's favor"?
What about the part you said the contempt proceeding was another trial? Have you even heard of a summary proceeding before?
Every time you open your mouth your lack of legal knowledge is proven once more, even if I gave you all the benefit of clarifying your initial comments. And for you to pretent you know the ultimate truth, at a minimum make sure you at least sound like someone actually know a little about this case and the US patent law.
Proof you didn't read what I wrote...
Even if DVRs get manufactured overseas cheaper and more cost effectively, if those DVRs are to be sold within the united states, they must honor US patents.
You must have missed that detail yourself...
Mind sharing some of your background since all you can do is criticize others?
Avoid the point, you NEVER had one! LMAO!!!
Dude, in your infinite wisdom you basically took a flippant comment I made regarding the general outcome of all this nonsence. A general comment I made to illustrate a viewpoint. A general comment I made that was unrelated to any comment before it, and you chose to not only cherry-pick the language, but extrapolate the whole thing across the entire discussion in which is was not even directly related too. And than on top of that, you start inventing a life story for me.
The only point you made is that you have a deeply personal issue here, and need some help.
Of course...
Mind focusing on what I said and not your 'interpretation' of what I said? You've ignored my statement a long time ago (as you've proven time and time again) in favor of your own interpretation of it. You've been arguing with yourself this whole time. And your getting scary again in your obsessiveness and personal attacks....Like I said, do you mind clarifying your expertise? AT least if your going to make a personal attack like that, commit an argument to the man, you may as well tell us all where you are coming from in doing so...
I'm perfectly comfortable with my legal knowledge here, and have made a pretty penny for it. Just because I don't cast my pearls before swine, that doesn't mean I have no pearls to cast. It just means I know better than to give away the pearls. AND for your information, all this banter, speculation, circular arguments, and personal attacks on your part do nothing to change what will be the inevitable outcome of this trial, which will be one of two things.
1) A settlement is reached because the coffers are dry, Dish's ideal situation.
2) The infringement verdict finally sticks, which is Tivos ideal situation.
The later of which I suspect only because it directly ties to whats going on with the global economy, and the roll the US is intended to take in it in terms of invention and innovation...and Clinton's vision of it, and the fact that Folsom is Clintons boy.
Now you see? Theres my point, as you can see it has nothing to do with your interpretation or any of the other gibberish you've been babbling about for the last several posts.
Wow...all of a sudden I'm that much smarter, and your that much 'not smarter'...see how that works? I would suggest you take a pill, calm down, and please control yourself...you are starting to get scary with your personal attacks and aggressive tone.
Oh...and one more thing...off topic. There isn't enough HD on Disney channel to fill ONE DVR, much less 6...I don't know where you got that information a while back. And people are still looking for all those free DVRs you promised them...
Your legacy lives on...
:
No... you can eat alone..lol...
Its like you just have to sit back and brace yourself for whatever nonsense that guy is going to come up with next!
I"m taking my daughter to the movies before dropping her off back by her moms....if he decides to post any more nonsence in the next few hours...he'll be talking to himself (more than usual)...
- Status
