TIVO vs E*

Toggle sidebar
Status
Please reply by conversation.
I have a question if someone in the audience who is in the profession can clarify.

E* has so far filed three motions to strike, the earliest one on 4/1. So far TiVo has not responded to such motions. Obviously the expert testimonies E* is seeking to strike out are critical to TiVo's success.

So why hasn't TiVo responded? Is TiVo not allowed to respond to E*'s motion to strike?

TiVo has done many things I believe were less than thoughtful in the past year, as a result they still could not get a contempt out of something they thought was such a no brainer. The latest being:

1) Continued to insist E* was forum shopping before the DE judge, even though the same DE judge had already dismissed such argument,
2) Failed to respond to E*'s request that the DE judge delay his decision on transfer, and
3) Not yet responding to E*'s motions to strike.

It is not as if Judge Folsom has to wait for TiVo to respond before deciding if he would grant E*'s motions to strike, or is it?
 
jacmyoung said:
I have a question if someone in the audience who is in the profession can clarify.

E* has so far filed three motions to strike, the earliest one on 4/1. So far TiVo has not responded to such motions. Obviously the expert testimonies E* is seeking to strike out are critical to TiVo's success.

So why hasn't TiVo responded? Is TiVo not allowed to respond to E*'s motion to strike?

TiVo has done many things I believe were less than thoughtful in the past year, as a result they still could not get a contempt out of something they thought was such a no brainer. The latest being:

1) Continued to insist E* was forum shopping before the DE judge, even though the same DE judge had already dismissed such argument,
2) Failed to respond to E*'s request that the DE judge delay his decision on transfer, and
3) Not yet responding to E*'s motions to strike.

It is not as if Judge Folsom has to wait for TiVo to respond before deciding if he would grant E*'s motions to strike, or is it?
Click to expand...

Note: none of my points addressed.
 
Interesting after receiving that friendly note, I for the first time went to the TiVo Investors Village and read a bunch of the posts there, to my surprise a lot of them appear to bet against TiVo, noting that either TiVo might lose, or if TiVo wins, Charlie will just appeal.

While it is certainly reasonable to believe Charlie will appeal if the verdict is not in his favor, giving the history, this time however I think Charlie is gearing up to win, while TiVo is more resigned to whatever the outcome it may be.

TiVo never had a strategy since a year ago when the contempt issue came to the surface, they were all over the places:

1) Violation on the face, a no brainer,
2) Modification? Who cares?
3) Modification did not make any difference, those were still the same DVRs,
4) Modification may make some differences, but the differences were only colorable,
5) But E* did its modification in bad faith, because they did not tell the judge before hand,
6) The modification couldn't be in good faith, look E* only spent $750K on such effort, they were supposed to spend millions to be in good faith,
7) Good faith, bad faith, did not matter,
8) That DE new action was forum shopping, would have a chilling effect,
9) But the modifications were "irrelevant" to the patent claims,
10) But E* did not make a good record of when they actually modified the DVRs, how could anyone know if that particular DVR in Mr. Jones house was actually modified? What if he turned it off and did not bother to use it for the last year?
...

Notice all the subsequent points followed the defeat of the previous ones, but none of the points answers the ultimate question, that is, TiVo must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the current E* DVRs with the modifications still infringe on its patent.

Failing that, all else are background noise.
 
Last edited:
Thomas22 said:
There was one motion and one reply from TiVo.
Click to expand...

E* filed three motions to strike, on 4/1, 4/16 and 4/24.

If you say they should be considered the same motion, I will not dispute that, I am no lawyer, but TiVo has yet to respond to such motion to strike.

Maybe you know more than I do, that TiVo did respond to E*'s motion to strike, I just have yet seen any record of it.
 
Thomas22 said:
No.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct, I read them wrong. 4/1 was E*'s motion to strike, 4/16 was TiVo's response to the E* motion, 4/24 was E*'s response to TiVo's 4/16 response.

I think the one thing we can all agree, Judge Folsom should put his fishing gear away and rule already:)
 
When the DE judge asked both parties to brief on whether the case should be transferred, he ordered E* to do a 10-page briefing, and TiVo to do a 5-page response.

While TiVo did their 5-page response, they also attached over 100 pages of other supporting documents, meaning TiVo does want to prepare for the likelihood of Judge Folsom's finding of a no contempt.

As E* admitted, if Judge Folsom finds a contempt, this DE new action will likely be moot. TiVo trying so hard to have the DE new action transferred, at least shows they are now serious about it. Before they were not so serious, they simply thought they could have the DE judge dismissing it and be done with it.

TiVo should have had such serious attitude from the very beginning, on 5/30/08.

One of the most comical arguments by TiVo in the beginning was the good faith/bad faith effort argument.

TiVo argued E*'s design around was in bad faith because E* only spent $750K on the effort, not enough to be a good faith, and E* did not inform the judge about the effort.

When later E* requested the judge to postpone his hearing, or give each party 5 more hours, because E* wanted to prove their effort was in good faith, by submitting tons of new documents, and have more witnesses to testify on the effort.

TiVo's response was, good faith, bad faith, did not matter, E* was only trying to delay again.

In the end the judge allowed 2.5 more hours for each party. To which the TiVo supporters said oh well the judge just want to make sure he did not give E* another reason to appeal. Ok if that is your justification.

But what I am saying is, the reason the judge gave the extra time was because good faith, bad faith, did matter to him.

The only thing is, whether the effort was in good faith, or bad faith, will not be measured by how much was spent on the effort, or whether the judge was told of such effort.

Whether the effort is in good faith or bad faith, will be determined by whether the differences made, as the result of the effort, are more than colorable or not.

If the differences are only colorable, the effort was likely in bad faith, if the differences are more than colorable, the effort was likely in good faith.
 
Thomas22 said:
...Either way, the reader gets screwed.
Click to expand...

Still getting screwed?:)

Which was why I asked the question in the first place, I was wondering myself why TiVo failed to respond, it turned out, as you correctly pointed out, I read the link wrong.

Thank you for saving the reader from being screwed. I hope you come back more often, the reader needs you, so do I, I just made 10 "wild claims" about TiVo earlier, do correct me, I am willing to take the fault as long as no one is getting screwed in the end:)
 
Last edited:
jacmyoung said:
Interesting after receiving that friendly note, I for the first time went to the TiVo Investors Village and read a bunch of the posts there, to my surprise a lot of them appear to bet against TiVo, noting that either TiVo might lose, or if TiVo wins, Charlie will just appeal.
Click to expand...

Wow, you really are...nevermind, I don't want to get in trouble with my first post. Let's just say "uninformed."

You are reading one poster who is goading Judge Folsom into ruling. It's a joke. He's playing a game. I know, it might be a little subtle for you to pick it up, what with your less-than-impeccable command of the English language and all.

jacmyoung said:
TiVo never had a strategy since a year ago when the contempt issue came to the surface, they were all over the places:
Click to expand...

This is laughable. Let's see how their lack of a strategy has worked out:

1) Won a jury trial
2) Jury found willful infringement
3) Won the appeal
4) Won the Supreme Court non-decision
5) Collected $105 million
6) Patent was fully validated after first re-exam
7) About to win DE transfer back to TX

So if I understand you correctly, this strategy of winning at every turn is not working, but DISH's strategy of losing every decision is working. Funny. The only strategy that is working is the buffoon clown-posse that DISH has for a legal team. They are raping Chuckles in legal fees, and losing hand over fist.

By the way, feel free to come over to investor's village. I'd just love to see how you do over there. I dare you.
 
Jacmyoung, since you refused to answer questions at the other dbs forum, I'd like to ask you to clear up some misinformation that you posted. Please answer the following questions. If you do not answer, I will assume that you were intentionally misleading other posters.

jacmyoung said:
Part of the good spirit of a debate is to inform others
Click to expand...

It is also a part of a debate to "inform others" about misinformation. So I have started to collect what I consider to be misinformation that can be cleared up with a few simple answers.

jacmyoung said:
Three years ago that circular buffer existed as part of the hard drive, therefore it still exists today.
Click to expand...

Question: If you physically remove the hard drive, is the physical memory for the "circular buffer" still present in the DVR?

jacmyoung said:
because for TiVo to counter claim, they will have to ask Judge Folsom to declare the TiVo's DVRs also do not infringe on E*'s patent. That is why usually a counter claim does not happen in a declaratory judgment case.
Click to expand...

Question: What is the specific patent number that TiVo must ask Judge Folsom to declare non-infringingi?

jacmyoung said:
Judge Folsom specifically instructed the parties to fully inform him of any decisions that might come out of the DE court or from the USPTO
Click to expand...

Question: Please provide the text of specific instructions given by Judge Folsom
 
You know as I posted how the TiVo Investors Village had some info someone alerted me about. I did go there to read a few things and found out that the Investors Village, according to them, is a:

Social Networking For Serious Investors.

InvestorVillage is home to the most knowledgeable traders on the web, reacting to the latest market buzz in real-time
Click to expand...

And below is a most recent post about me posting over here about TiVo v. E*:

...
Click to expand...

Ok I know even the most tolerant mods will not allow such quote to show up here, so why bother? Let's just say that while there are indeed some good info on that page, I must say I have never seen such bunch of sour grapes at that level ever before:)

They made me almost want to stop posting anything negative about TiVo here just so a few poor souls may be saved.
 
Status
Please reply by conversation.
johnteeee

STRANGE ERROR!!

  • johnteeee
  • Replies: 7
A

purchase or lease a second VIP 211?

  • aduncan81
  • Replies: 3

Similar threads

marklyn
A&E channel occasional stutter?
Replies
6
Views
715
marklyn
marklyn
J
Hopper Plus vs Smart TV for Streaming
Replies
4
Views
960
jackson85
J
marklyn
owning vs leasing
Replies
47
Views
8K
jwhalerfan
J
nyrfan1
    • Like
DISH Lawsuit vs. Peloton
Replies
1
Views
1K
sam_gordon
S
Peter Parker
HWS vs. Hopper 3
Replies
25
Views
4K
Peter Parker
Peter Parker

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Latest posts

Share this page

Share this page
Top
Back