TIVO vs E*

[Curtis0620]

sigh... ...saw this coming...

1) I know...thats kind of my point.
2) I mean contest Tivo in the market, not the courtroom. Contest by putting out a superior DVR product LIKE the ViP. A superior product using technology that Tivo failed to innovate, and has now evolved beyond the scope of a weak patent (You know I don't give a rats behind about that courtroom. )
3) Once again, too hung up on that courtroom. Who cares about 100MM?? Companies stay in business via the revenue stream, not the payday. And if Tivo is looking to stay in business based on a revenue stream hinged on licensing DVR technology, that revenue stream may be in jeoprody regardless of that 100M.
4) How have they innovated? What have they done to build on their base technology? Catch up to the ViP? Maybe E* should sue Tivo!
5) I'm not talking about D*Tivo, I'm talking about Tivo. The problem is the D*Tivo is the best (and only real) practical application of Tivo, and thus the most prevalent in discussion.

Failed to innovate?

See this compare:

Compare TiVo with cable and satellite DVRs - TiVo

 

[llzel]

Curtis, old Tivo propaganda, DISH DVR can add recording capacity later with hard drive, dish DVR can remote schedule.

 

[jacmyoung]

...Did I or Did I not address the trial? Yes I did...

Of course you did, you said you don't give a #$%^&*& about this case

...for example...who said anything about a jury trial just now? lol...just you...lol

I did, and for a very good reason. I was trying to explain why E* had a strategy from the time they filed this new suit on 6/1/08. They demanded a jury trial for a reason, because they were fully prepared.

They anticipated that TiVo would try to dismiss this new case, they were prepared to defeat such TiVo's attempt.

They also anticipated once TiVo's such attempt was defeated, TiVo would try to transfer this case to the TX court. The most compelling reason for the transfer is the TX judge is familiar with this case.

But if the new trial will be a jury trial, whether the judge is familair with the case matters little, because the jury will be a new jury, they will have to be familiarized with the issues all over again, therefore having this case in the TX court will not "strongly" favor the court economy concern.

And it was the very DE court in one case cited by E*, said, in order to transfer a case, there had to be factors "strongly" in favor of such transfer. If not, then the plaintiff's "first-to-file" preference must be the consideration.

 

[jacmyoung]

Curtis, old Tivo propaganda, DISH DVR can add recording capacity later with hard drive, dish DVR can remote schedule.

Does not matter, TiVo did not stop innovating, their own DVRs are some of the best on the market, that is the point.

The problem is TiVo is not a content provider, they must rely on the others' willingness to license its technologies to receive revenue streams in the form of monthly fees.

That is why this lawsuit is TiVo's life line, nothing is more important to TiVo than winning this case.

 

[vampz26]

Of course you did, you said you don't give a #$%^&*& about this case

thats right...because this case will have very little to do with Tivo's survivability in the marketplace...which is where every company's fate lies...

I did, and for a very good reason. I was trying to explain why E* had a strategy from the time they filed this new suit on 6/1/08. They demanded a jury trial for a reason, because they were fully prepared.

They anticipated that TiVo would try to dismiss this new case, they were prepared to defeat such TiVo's attempt.

They also anticipated once TiVo's such attempt was defeated, TiVo would try to transfer this case to the TX court. The most compelling reason for the transfer is the TX judge is familiar with this case.

But if the new trial will be a jury trial, whether the judge is familair with the case matters little, because the jury will be a new jury, they will have to be familiarized with the issues all over again, therefore having this case in the TX court will not "strongly" favor the court economy concern.

And it was the very DE court in one case cited by E*, said, in order to transfer a case, there had to be factors "strongly" in favor of such transfer. If not, then the plaintiff's "first-to-file" preference must be the consideration.

But why would you explain this to me? I don't care and I didn't ask...

This is what I meant about not wanting the conversation to take a turn outside of your comfort zone and attempting to control it. I caught you on that one...

You think you're the mod of this thread or what?!?

lol

 

[vampz26]

Does not matter, TiVo did not stop innovating, their own DVRs are some of the best on the market, that is the point.

The problem is TiVo is not a content provider, they must rely on the others' willingness to license its technologies to receive revenue streams in the form of monthly fees.

That is why this lawsuit is TiVo's life line, nothing is more important to TiVo than winning this case.

'willingness'....thats the key...

Apparently, not many folks are 'willing'...and thats the problem.

The courtcase won't change that...delay that, but not change that...

 

[Curtis0620]

Does not matter, TiVo did not stop innovating, their own DVRs are some of the best on the market, that is the point.

The problem is TiVo is not a content provider, they must rely on the others' willingness to license its technologies to receive revenue streams in the form of monthly fees.

That is why this lawsuit is TiVo's life line, nothing is more important to TiVo than winning this case.

+1

 

[jacmyoung]

thats right...because this case will have very little to do with Tivo's survivability in the marketplace...which is where every company's fate lies...

I have already stated why TiVo's survivability lies in winning this case, you of course have a totally different view, I just disagree, and I know many others agree with me, because they all said the same thing, that this case is so important to TiVo, if TiVo loses this contempt case, TiVo must continue with this new case, this much is agreed by people on either side, E* or TiVo, especially from the TiVo supporters.

But why would you explain this to me? I don't care and I didn't ask...

That is the whole problem with your attitude, you think I was only responding to you, you have no idea I was posting to all the people who read this thread. This debate is not about you, nor me, rather this lawsuit.

You are expressing your views, in a manner and attitude that you think you can humiliate me.

I am expressing my views, in a manner and attitude that I think how to best let the audience understand why I have such views.

I trust the audience smart enough to read those posts, whether they agree with me or not. I am not here to prove you wrong, rather to express my views, and your posts happened to provide me all the good opportunities to express my views.

We can certainly agree to disagree.

 

[jacmyoung]

'willingness'....thats the key...

Apparently, not many folks are 'willing'...and thats the problem.

The courtcase won't change that...delay that, but not change that...

This courtcase had already changed that, after TiVo won the first case in 2006, D* agreed to license TiVo and TiVo made good money on that agreement, by D* selling millions of D*TiVo DVRs and TiVo collecting fees from D*.

If E* is found in contempt this time, TiVo will have a much easier time to get the new D*TiVo DVRs project rolling, and also get Comcast and Cox to move their rear ends faster to implement their own TiVo projects.

 

[vampz26]

Failed to innovate?

See this compare:

Compare TiVo with cable and satellite DVRs - TiVo

You know...this is the third time you've tried to pass off a companies own marketing drivel as a reliable source of information. lol...I can't believe you sometimes...

Besides, adding games and little VOD features on an STB isn't any more innovative than me installing games on my laptop...lol. Now implementing an mpeg4 video buffer in hardware as opposed to software...thats innovative. Thats real technology....not the marketing nonsene on the website about downloading from NetFlix...lol.

I can't believe what some people try to pass off as 'information' around here...

 

[vampz26]

Of course you did, you said you don't give a #$%^&*& about this case



I did, and for a very good reason. I was trying to explain why E* had a strategy from the time they filed this new suit on 6/1/08. They demanded a jury trial for a reason, because they were fully prepared.

They anticipated that TiVo would try to dismiss this new case, they were prepared to defeat such TiVo's attempt.

They also anticipated once TiVo's such attempt was defeated, TiVo would try to transfer this case to the TX court. The most compelling reason for the transfer is the TX judge is familiar with this case.

But if the new trial will be a jury trial, whether the judge is familair with the case matters little, because the jury will be a new jury, they will have to be familiarized with the issues all over again, therefore having this case in the TX court will not "strongly" favor the court economy concern.

And it was the very DE court in one case cited by E*, said, in order to transfer a case, there had to be factors "strongly" in favor of such transfer. If not, then the plaintiff's "first-to-file" preference must be the consideration.

So, you basically admit you responded to my post with something completely irrelevant to what I said instead of addressing the issue...figures...

 

[vampz26]

This courtcase had already changed that, after TiVo won the first case in 2006, D* agreed to license TiVo and TiVo made good money on that agreement, by D* selling millions of D*TiVo DVRs and TiVo collecting fees from D*.

If E* is found in contempt this time, TiVo will have a much easier time to get the new D*TiVo DVRs project rolling, and also get Comcast and Cox to move their rear ends faster to implement their own TiVo projects.

Where are all these D* Tivo DVRs you are talking about?

Vaporware don't pay the bills...and who said the D* thing even came out of the courtcase and not the fact that D*s current DVRs are rubbish compared to the ViP and it was an easy opportunity for at least an improvement? Tivo DVRs were popular amongst the D* constituency, and from what I can tell by this thread...still are...(even if new ones don't really exist!)

You are way too focus on that stupid courtcase...the rest of the world is passing you by. The marketplace, the consumer trends, everything....woooosh!

 

[Curtis0620]

You know...this is the third time you've tried to pass off a companies own marketing drivel as a reliable source of information. lol...I can't believe you sometimes...

Besides, adding games and little VOD features on an STB isn't any more innovative than me installing games on my laptop...lol. Now implementing an mpeg4 video buffer in hardware as opposed to software...thats innovative. Thats real technology....not the marketing nonsene on the website about downloading from NetFlix...lol.

I can't believe what some people try to pass off as 'information' around here...:rolleyes:

Yes, so why do you continue to pass off your flawed opinion as fact.

 

[vampz26]

Yes, so why do you continue to pass off your flawed opinion as fact.

I'm not....

Because its a sound opinion stated with conviction, you interpret it as a fact.

I readily admit that like anyones opinion in this forum, mine may be wrong. However do not discount the possibility that in the end, I may be right. And so far, I've been right about a great many things regarding this trial over the duration.

 

[Curtis0620]

I'm not....

Because its a sound opinion stated with conviction, you interpret it as a fact.

I readily admit that like anyones opinion in this forum, mine may be wrong. However do not discount the possibility that in the end, I may be right. And so far, I've been right about a great many things regarding this trial over the duration.

:haha:haha:haha:haha:haha:haha:haha

 

[vampz26]

:haha:haha:haha:haha:haha:haha:haha

Keep laughing like people will start to doubt your sanity...

(just add it to the list of things we doubt about you... )

 

[Curtis0620]

Keep laughing like people will start to doubt your sanity...

(just add it to the list of things we doubt about you... )

:neener:neener:neener:neener:neener:neener

 

[jacmyoung]

As I have pointed out, our moderators had agreed, the topic of this thread is about this TiVo v. E* courtcase, so I will continue to stick to this case and any related court issues, rather issues related to "marketplace."

The appeals court has established the standards when it comes to deciding whether a case should be transferred or not, these standards are also called the "convenience factors:"

1) Whether it is convenient for the witnesses and documents to be sought in one court against the other.
2) Whether one court may not have jurisdiction over maybe some of the parties involved in the litigation, and
3) Whether the case in question may be integrated with other related litigations currently on-going in the other court.

As E* argued, the only really relevant "convenience factor" in this case is 3). The question is whether this new case may be integrated with the case in the TX court.

This case in the TX court is over as far as this new case is concerned because Judge Folsom will almost certainly produce one of the two rulings:

1) The new design is only colorably different, and this new case will likely be moot.
2) The new design is more than colorably different, then the TX case should be over.

Therefore regardless the outcome of the TX case, there should be no "integration of the two cases" to speak of, and therefore the 3rd convenience factor is not "strongly" in favor of a transfer.

Here once again we are talking about the standards established by the Federal Circuit, much the same when we debated the standards established by the Federal Circuit in KSM, when it comes to determining the issue of violation of an injunction on continued infringement.

I am interested to see how TiVo will respond.

 

[vampz26]

As I have pointed out, our moderators had agreed, the topic of this thread is about this TiVo v. E* courtcase, so I will continue to stick to this case and any related court issues, rather issues related to "marketplace."

The appeals court has established the standards when it comes to deciding whether a case should be transferred or not, these standards are also called the "convenience factors:"

1) Whether it is convenient for the witnesses and documents to be sought in one court against the other.
2) Whether one court may not have jurisdiction over maybe some of the parties involved in the litigation, and
3) Whether the case in question may be integrated with other related litigations currently on-going in the other court.

As E* argued, the only really relevant "convenience factor" in this case is 3). The question is whether this new case may be integrated with the case in the TX court.

This case in the TX court is over as far as this new case is concerned because Judge Folsom will almost certainly produce one of the two rulings:

1) The new design is only colorably different, and this new case will likely be moot.
2) The new design is more than colorably different, then the TX case should be over.

Therefore regardless the outcome of the TX case, there should be no "integration of the two cases" to speak of, and therefore the 3rd convenience factor is not "strongly" in favor of a transfer.

Here once again we are talking about the standards established by the Federal Circuit, much the same when we debated the standards established by the Federal Circuit in KSM, when it comes to determining the issue of violation of an injunction on continued infringement.

I am interested to see how TiVo will respond.

Hey...you can post whatever your heart desires. My only issue was you responding to my posts with irrelevant jibberish. Besides, my commentary regarding the courtcase being less significant to Tivos long-term success than its survivability in the DVR market was not off-topic, and as relevant to the topic as any of your repetitive and lengthy posts, and it wasn't really fair of you to just dismiss it. That's all.

 

[jacmyoung]

What I like to point out also is, in most patent cases when the decision of case transfer became an issue, especially in similar cases when one party had filed a (non-infringement) declaratory judgment suit, there were usually the patent owners also filing another suit in another court, alleging infringement by the same products, only that it was filed after the declaratory judgment suit by the defendants.

In this case, as E* pointed out, TiVo never filed a new suit alleging infringement by the new design, despite the fact TiVo had all this time to file such suit in Judge Folsom's court. For example, right after E* filed this suit on 6/1/08, TiVo could have filed a similar suit alleging infringement by the new design, before Judge Folsom, and then asked the DE judge to transfer the E* suit to Judge Folsom for the purpose of "integration."

But TiVo never did, and still has yet done so. Instead, TiVo tried to dismiss this E* suit, and of course failed. This is why the DE judge in his ruling to deny TiVo's motion, said TiVo should have asked for a case transfer, rather to dismiss.

As it stands now, there is not even an infringement case before Judge Folsom to even integrate this E* case into.