I wonder who that could be?
The old 'talking about people behind their back' thing...
Got to love the character of some of these folks, I tell you...real stand up guys.
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 178K
- Status
The old 'talking about people behind their back' thing...
Got to love the character of some of these folks, I tell you...real stand up guys.
There is not more than one person.
Your use of plural can be viewed as a fallacy called "pleading to the authority/crowd" when you attack your opponent by purporting support from the public, when in fact you are the only one at your corner.
His "behind their back" was in reference to those PMs which implied talking about someone in private. He has good reasons to make such assumption, the only problem is, like you said, Vampz continues to think he is everyone else and everything else is about him.
Those PMs were not all about you Vampz.
Those PMs were not all about you Vampz.
There is enough history here to support my concerns...
Even DK's joke, there is truth in jest.
I can accept the fact that my suspicions could be misguided, but you can't deny for a minute that some of you deserve a little scrutiny once in a while. You've earned it.
Besides, jac...I think you've made it painfully obvious all the way around, that this thread is DEFINITELY not all about ME! In fact, its all about YOU!
Back to the topic.
Right after both parties submitted their final FFCLs to Judge Folsom on 03/31/09, as promised by E* during the 02/17/09 hearing, E* filed motion to strike some of the TiVo's expert witness Dr. Storer's testimonies.
The reason was he made some new testimonies that he did not disclose in his pre-hearing expert disclosures. There was dispute between the two sides as whether he indeed disclosed those new testimonies prior to the hearing, in the end Judge Folsom stopped the argument, said he would make a note, and E* could motion him to strike later.
E* has since motioned Judge Folsom to strike on several different issues. But the one that I know about was Dr. Storer's testimonies about how the E* new design still had some "circular buffers" on the hard drives, therefore still met the definition of "multiple buffers" that could perform the "automatic flow control" function. This function was related to the E*'s Broadcom DVRs such as the 625s.
If Judge Folsom grants E*'s motions to strike, that will be a sign that, at a minimum, all the Broadcom DVRs may be off the hook. The rest of the DVRs are the 50Xs. The only issue related to the 50Xs is the lack of the "indexing method."
Right after both parties submitted their final FFCLs to Judge Folsom on 03/31/09, as promised by E* during the 02/17/09 hearing, E* filed motion to strike some of the TiVo's expert witness Dr. Storer's testimonies.
The reason was he made some new testimonies that he did not disclose in his pre-hearing expert disclosures. There was dispute between the two sides as whether he indeed disclosed those new testimonies prior to the hearing, in the end Judge Folsom stopped the argument, said he would make a note, and E* could motion him to strike later.
E* has since motioned Judge Folsom to strike on several different issues. But the one that I know about was Dr. Storer's testimonies about how the E* new design still had some "circular buffers" on the hard drives, therefore still met the definition of "multiple buffers" that could perform the "automatic flow control" function. This function was related to the E*'s Broadcom DVRs such as the 625s.
If Judge Folsom grants E*'s motions to strike, that will be a sign that, at a minimum, all the Broadcom DVRs may be off the hook. The rest of the DVRs are the 50Xs. The only issue related to the 50Xs is the lack of the "indexing method."
...Besides, jac...I think you've made it painfully obvious all the way around, that this thread is DEFINITELY not all about ME! In fact, its all about YOU!
I never claimed or implied such, the fact you think this thread is all about me is your opinion, which I do not necessarily want to refute
Not that I agree with you, I just see no benefit for me to refute you on this one
Enough! Debate the issues of TIVO v. Echostar, NOT each other. One and only warning. No attacks on each other, veiled or otherwise.
Debate the ideas not the person making the statements. Please.
Debate the ideas not the person making the statements. Please.
...see what I mean...
The topic definitely isn't "ME"...lol...
Let me try again, the topic is about this TiVo v. E* courtcase and the related courtcases, if any.
The fact E* had since found so many of TiVo's expert testimonies to strike, is very telling. It is an indication that TiVo was unprepared, they kept trying to cure their deficiencies, as late as during the hearing, by adding new items to beef up their arguments.
The problem is, all those arguments had to be disclosed prior to the hearing, in their "final" expert disclosures, so to be fair to the other side. Anything new after those final disclosures should not be considered by the judge.
Excellent idea, rock...
If I can recall the discussion 'before' the wheels fell off the cart, we were discussion the relevance of the courtcase to Tivo's survival. While some folks think the courtcase is the ultimate key, I don't agree. I think Tivo needs this courtcase to at least sustain in the marketplace, but ultimately the market will decide the fate of Tivo, courtcase or not.
The question remains:
1) Will Tivo be able to sell a competitive DVR product in the long run based on their existing patented technology? Superior products like the ViP series have already shown an advantage in this area, and while adding 'features' to Tivo software such as netflix can certainly add value to the product, it is no substitute for innovation.
2) Can Tivo survive as just a technology licensing company? Are companies going to license Tivo technology if its already proven that the patent is contestable, win or lose, it IS contestable, and that work around are indeed possible? Can Tivo build its castle on a patent that has already shown such a high degree of vulnerability to dispute? Whether Tivo wins or loses here, can they afford to do battle like this in the long run every time a competitor feels they've built a better mousetrap? Because eventually...they will lose...
If I can recall the discussion 'before' the wheels fell off the cart, we were discussion the relevance of the courtcase to Tivo's survival. While some folks think the courtcase is the ultimate key, I don't agree. I think Tivo needs this courtcase to at least sustain in the marketplace, but ultimately the market will decide the fate of Tivo, courtcase or not.
The question remains:
1) Will Tivo be able to sell a competitive DVR product in the long run based on their existing patented technology? Superior products like the ViP series have already shown an advantage in this area, and while adding 'features' to Tivo software such as netflix can certainly add value to the product, it is no substitute for innovation.
2) Can Tivo survive as just a technology licensing company? Are companies going to license Tivo technology if its already proven that the patent is contestable, win or lose, it IS contestable, and that work around are indeed possible? Can Tivo build its castle on a patent that has already shown such a high degree of vulnerability to dispute? Whether Tivo wins or loses here, can they afford to do battle like this in the long run every time a competitor feels they've built a better mousetrap? Because eventually...they will lose...
Speaking of curing the deficiencies, as I recall soon after Judge Folsom ordered the 2/17 hearing, E* provided TiVo with their initial disclosures, but TiVo did not provide the same sufficient response in time, because TiVo said they were busy reading through E*'s initial disclosures.
E* motioned Judge Folsom to compell TiVo to cure the deficiencies in TiVo's initial disclosures. Judge Folsom denied E*'s motion to compell without prejudice, according to the judge, TiVo was likely to cure the diffeciencies, if any, in their final expert disclosures, but E* may again motion to compell later if circumstances again indicating TiVo's deficiencies existed (which was what "without prejudice" meant).
While E* never motioned again to compell TiVo to cure its diffeciencies, the current motions to strike are essentially the same as saying that TiVo's final expert disclosures were deficient, only that TiVo may not try to cure such deficiencies during the hearing. Any attempt by TiVo during the hearing trying to cure its deficiencies must be stricken.
E* motioned Judge Folsom to compell TiVo to cure the deficiencies in TiVo's initial disclosures. Judge Folsom denied E*'s motion to compell without prejudice, according to the judge, TiVo was likely to cure the diffeciencies, if any, in their final expert disclosures, but E* may again motion to compell later if circumstances again indicating TiVo's deficiencies existed (which was what "without prejudice" meant).
While E* never motioned again to compell TiVo to cure its diffeciencies, the current motions to strike are essentially the same as saying that TiVo's final expert disclosures were deficient, only that TiVo may not try to cure such deficiencies during the hearing. Any attempt by TiVo during the hearing trying to cure its deficiencies must be stricken.
Yes, I remember you stating this before more than a few times. Has something changed to make it worth mentioning again?
Did you not read to understand E*'s motions to strike are new? The most recent of such motion to strike was yesterday, certainly newer than your old argument.
Look I did not question your old circular arguments, I let it be. If you want to question mine because you do not think mine has anything new, then at a minimum make sure you have researched first before attacking me for not having anything new.
Each and every one of my posts (at least those not responding to your posts) contains some new info, fact, or new analysis. As the mod said, attack my points all you want, but do not attack the person who make such points. Question my ability to stay new, rather question my points themselves, is attacking the person, especially when you apparently did not care to find out what is new.
And most importantly, when you yourselve were repeating the same old points of your own without offering anything new.
I didn't attack your post, I was only asking for clarification...
If its a recap in order to support one of your earlier posts...than say so.
You're posting so much here, including repetitive recaps...that some clarification would be to everyones benefit. Separating new information from repetition of the older information would greatly enhance the reading experience.
Lets face it, I would probably be less critical of your posts it there was just a wee-bit more clarity....thats all...
So you are questioning my ability to clarify, not my positions themselves?
Did I clarify it for you enough in the last post?
As recently as yesterday, E* motioned Judge Folsom to strike TiVo's testimonies. It can't be any newer than this one. You know courts do not open in the weekends
Now my point was, when Judge Folsom back then denied E*'s motion to compell TiVo, he did so without prejudice, said E* may motion again later if TiVo still was not doing their part.
Yesterday was the latest one of such renewed E* motions filed before Judge Folsom. I hope it is clear enough for you now.
BTW, that was not a "recap" to support my previous positions, rather a statement of a new fact, just so you are clear, the above statement was not my position, rather a statement of E*'s position, and Judge Folsom's position in response, and the latest E*'s response based on Judge Folsom's position.
No.you did not clarify anything other than your desire to dominate this thread even if it means repeating yourself ad nauseum.
Please, if there was a new development, than do share. But wasting words just to sound smarter only convolutes the topic abd diminishes the value of an otherwise sound update.
Just some friendly advice in an attempt to better understand you.
Please, if there was a new development, than do share. But wasting words just to sound smarter only convolutes the topic abd diminishes the value of an otherwise sound update.
Just some friendly advice in an attempt to better understand you.
...in an attempt to better understand you.
Honestly you are creeping me out, I'd rather you do not try to understand me, but try to understand what is developing in this courtcase.
Oh I am sorry, you already said you do not think this courtcase had much relevance, so why bother? But still please do not try to understand me, it creeps me out
Don't ask me if I am a lawyer, or whose service do I use, or what is my intention, or if I simply was bullied by Rogers in the grade school
, you have shown too much interest in me. This thread is not about you nor me.
Last edited:
Honestly you are creeping me out, I'd rather you do not try to understand me, but try to understand what is developing in this courtcase.
Oh I am sorry, you already said you do not think this courtcase had much relevance, so why bother? But still please do not try to understand me, it creeps me out
Don't ask me if I am a lawyer, or whose service do I use, or what is my intention, or if I simply was bullied by Rogers in the grade school
Nothing to get creeped out about at all...to be quite honest, I just plain don't have a very high opinion of your posts. They come across as pompous, overly-worded, and repetitious. Granted you get the occasional newbie or loyalist that finds it 'profound' because granted it comes across well the 'first' time you read it, but quite honestly...after reading the same incessant BS over and over for the last few years...its gotten old and downright annoying.
And this thread was the last straw. After hearing you hawk free DVRs and coupon books like a snake-oil merchant, blatantly lie about how much HD is on Disney channel, and now you are dominating an otherwise open discussion thread by ignoring and attempting to over-convolute any different viewpoint or relevant topic OUTSIDE the courtroom by twisting and turning it into something your way, but without addressing the actual point one bit of course...
And now after numerous moderator interventions telling us BOTH to shut up. I'm just sick of it. And the only reason I am sick of it is that you admittedly only play games in these forums to 'out-do' someone. You've made that clear to me in the past. You see, I am interested in a serious discussion...and I have yet to have one with you. All you have to offer are these monologues and self-testimonials and yarns of BS...and then you get defensive if anyone posts anything else but what you are attempting to dictate. And thats is why my issue is with you.
My apologies to the mods for calling this all out. But as I've said, its been years of nonsense, it needs to be settled....
jacmyoung...who do you think you are? You pass yourself off as some kind of expert, yet provide not a shred of evidence to give yourself any credibility what-so-ever. Heck, even if you were just a guy who said they read the wall street journal...that would count from something....lol. So anyway....the gauntlet has been thrown down...pick it up...
- Status
