Now...why don't you go something constructive...like dig up another offensive avatar or something....
I don't want to get sued by the pretend internet chat board lawyer.
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 178K
- Status
I don't want to get sued by the pretend internet chat board lawyer.
That is a common feeling of course, so let me offer my interpretation, again no one has to agree with me of course.
It is customary judges in civil disputes prefer settlement among the litigating parties themselves, in a cynical way, you can say so that the judges may not have to spend their time or make a tough decision, but seriously the court system is designed this way, to encourage settlement out of the court in civil dispute.
And for the vast majority of the cases, the courts do succeed in that effort, the vast majority of the cases settle out of the court, or settle under the mediation by the court.
But occasionally parties decide to rely on the Court to settle the dispute, and the Court will have to perform its duty for the parties.
In this case, Judge Folsom has been clearly trying to have E* and TiVo settle, he tried very hard, in fact too hard IMHO, but still it is not out of the ordinary for him to do so.
One of the most common ways to coax parties to settle is to threaten the losing party with sanctions, especially if the losing party is clearly in the wrong.
The reading between the lines? E*, as a losing party from the previous trial, is not clearly in the wrong this time, which is why Judge Folsom may not use the threat of a contempt as the usual stick, the only thing he can do is to give Charlie as much hard time as possible, short of abusing court's own discretion. And he is very good at that I must admit.
Because it is also clear in this dispute, Charlie is the one who refuses to settle, TiVo said they wanted to settle, TiVo knew they did not have a lot to go for in this contempt proceeding, it is a very tough thing to prove a contempt.
But Charlie is one of those rare characters, what can the poor judge do?
Last edited:
you don't need to worry about him while he avoids conversation that falls outside his comfort zone...
I have told you more than once that this thread is about the TiVo v. E* courtcase, everyone else seem to know it except you, your old point was this case did not matter, only the marketplace mattered, I addressed your old point why TiVo cannot rely on innovation to succeed in the marketplace, because TiVo has no market power, they do not have a content achor, they do not own or distribute content, the only thing they have is the DVR IPs.
Therefore the only way for TiVo to survive is to win the IP liscensing war.
Now if you still cannot understand, I am sorry can't help you anymore.
But if you disagree with my above opinion, that is fine, please make sure you understand, disagreeing with you is not avoiding you, the only reason I am going to avoid you is because you have no ability to understand, I have already given you too much attention more than you deserve.
No...here is the problem. How this Courtcase affects Tivo's business and long term chances of survival in todays market is 100 percent relevant to this discussion. It is YOU who not only pretends to be a lawyer, but also a moderator, who seems to think its OT. Or at least is trying to convince himself and everyone else that it IS OT only because it deviates from your comfort zone...I strongly suspect the latter.
you avoid it...pure and simple...you haven't even agreed or disagreed...just ignored it and attempted to dismiss it as OT when it obviously isn't.
Avoiding what? You are welcome to continue to post your view, no one is stopping you. But notice also no one is responding to your point, in fact I am the only person who has the courtesy to give your point some attention, but no more.
Dude! Gimme a break...when I originally posted my point you were posting a non-stop monologue testimonial to yourself! the rest were bored before I posted anything...
And avoided the point every time!
come on now...lets not play games...
Last edited:
Missed that one.
If E* is not in contempt, my speculation is another $20M to $30M damages to TiVo for the period during the stay of the injunction before the new software was downloaded.
If E* is in contempt, then the number can reach to TiVo's $220M.
However if the USPTO makes its decision to invalidate the two TiVo's software claims, before the next damages decision, it will be very interesting to see how Judge Folsom handles the issue.
And how will Tivo invest that money other than just trying to stay in business and satisfy their burn rate?
What will Tivo invest in to improve thier product.
What does this courtcase BUY Tivo outside of just an 'extended stay'....
If Tivo's survival is hinged on this courtcase, than how...and I do not mean by just prolonging the burnout factor...
If TiVo can get a contempt and have it stick, it will force Comcast, Cox and DirecTV to move their butts to get their TiVo sub numbers up, or else...
It will force other cable companies such as Time Warner and Cablevision to sign agreement too, and the monthly fees will finally begin to pour in, so much so the windfall will make the $220M look like lunch money for TiVo.
Q (Chu) WE HAD A GLITCH HERE. LET’S GO BACK TO SLIDE 64 WHERE WE WERE. OKAY. SO YOU MENTIONED SOURCE CODE. THAT IS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 3161. SO NOW WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE THAT’S AN
EXCERPT FROM TRIAL EXHIBIT 3161. WHAT DOES THAT SHOW ABOUT THE NUMBER OF BUFFERS?
A (Storer) SO AGAIN AS I WAS –- AS I WAS SAYING, WHEN YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE CODE THERE ARE NO IFS, ANDS, AND BUTS ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE TEN, TEN BUFFERS, TEN BUFFERS BEFORE OR TEN BUFFERS AT TRIAL, TEN BUFFERS IN THE CODE AS IT IS NOW. AND THE TITLE OF THAT DOCUMENT ON THE PREVIOUS PAGE –- GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS PAGE JUST FOR A SEC –- I MEAN, IT’S JUST THE TITLE, RIGHT, THEY’RE JUST FOR SOME REASON ARE GOING TO CALL IT THAT AND THINK THAT SOMEHOW THAT CHANGES REALITY OR SOMETHING. IT’S JUST THE TITLE. THERE ARE ACTUALLY TEN BUFFERS.
Q SO LET’S LOOK AT THE NEXT SLIDE, SLIDE 66, WHICH IS AN EXCERPT FROM EXHIBIT 3167. WHAT DOES THAT DOCUMENT SAY ABOUT BUFFERS –-
A SO –-
Q –- IN THE NEW IMPLEMENTATION?
A YES. SO WE MENTIONED THAT OBVIOUSLY THE BROADCOM CHIP, AND THIS IS A MEMO I BELIEVE FROM SOMEONE AT BROADCOM THAT REFERS TO BUFFERS IN THE PLURAL WHEN REFERRING TO THE NEW,QUOTE, IMPLEMENTATION.
Q AND IT SAYS, QUOTE, “THE DRIVER ALLOCATES RESOURCES SUCH AS BUFFERS,” CLOSE QUOTE, RIGHT?
A EXACTLY.
Q IS THAT ALLOCATION, BY THE WAY, A SOFTWARE OPERATION?
A SO, YES, THERE’S THE DRIVER –- THERE’S DRIVER –- SOFTWARE DRIVER CODE THAT’S BEING DISCUSSED HERE.
Q WHERE IN ECHOSTAR’S BOXES ARE THESE BUFFERS?
A SO IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, HERE AGAIN IS OUR PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BOX OPENED UP. AND AGAIN IT’S A LITTLE HARD TO SEE, BUT WE CAN BLOW IT UP HERE. THERE IS ACTUAL RAM MEMORY AND THE BUFFERS ARE STORED IN A PORTION OF THAT MEMORY.
Q HAS THAT RAM CHIP CHANGED SINCE TRIAL?
A NO. OF COURSE AS WE’VE SAID –- AS I SAID BEFORE, THE BOXES IN THE FIELD HAVE NOT CHANGED, THE HARDWARE HAS NOT CHANGED, AND, IN PARTICULAR, THAT MEMORY HAS NOT CHANGED.
EXCERPT FROM TRIAL EXHIBIT 3161. WHAT DOES THAT SHOW ABOUT THE NUMBER OF BUFFERS?
A (Storer) SO AGAIN AS I WAS –- AS I WAS SAYING, WHEN YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE CODE THERE ARE NO IFS, ANDS, AND BUTS ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE TEN, TEN BUFFERS, TEN BUFFERS BEFORE OR TEN BUFFERS AT TRIAL, TEN BUFFERS IN THE CODE AS IT IS NOW. AND THE TITLE OF THAT DOCUMENT ON THE PREVIOUS PAGE –- GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS PAGE JUST FOR A SEC –- I MEAN, IT’S JUST THE TITLE, RIGHT, THEY’RE JUST FOR SOME REASON ARE GOING TO CALL IT THAT AND THINK THAT SOMEHOW THAT CHANGES REALITY OR SOMETHING. IT’S JUST THE TITLE. THERE ARE ACTUALLY TEN BUFFERS.
Q SO LET’S LOOK AT THE NEXT SLIDE, SLIDE 66, WHICH IS AN EXCERPT FROM EXHIBIT 3167. WHAT DOES THAT DOCUMENT SAY ABOUT BUFFERS –-
A SO –-
Q –- IN THE NEW IMPLEMENTATION?
A YES. SO WE MENTIONED THAT OBVIOUSLY THE BROADCOM CHIP, AND THIS IS A MEMO I BELIEVE FROM SOMEONE AT BROADCOM THAT REFERS TO BUFFERS IN THE PLURAL WHEN REFERRING TO THE NEW,QUOTE, IMPLEMENTATION.
Q AND IT SAYS, QUOTE, “THE DRIVER ALLOCATES RESOURCES SUCH AS BUFFERS,” CLOSE QUOTE, RIGHT?
A EXACTLY.
Q IS THAT ALLOCATION, BY THE WAY, A SOFTWARE OPERATION?
A SO, YES, THERE’S THE DRIVER –- THERE’S DRIVER –- SOFTWARE DRIVER CODE THAT’S BEING DISCUSSED HERE.
Q WHERE IN ECHOSTAR’S BOXES ARE THESE BUFFERS?
A SO IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, HERE AGAIN IS OUR PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BOX OPENED UP. AND AGAIN IT’S A LITTLE HARD TO SEE, BUT WE CAN BLOW IT UP HERE. THERE IS ACTUAL RAM MEMORY AND THE BUFFERS ARE STORED IN A PORTION OF THAT MEMORY.
Q HAS THAT RAM CHIP CHANGED SINCE TRIAL?
A NO. OF COURSE AS WE’VE SAID –- AS I SAID BEFORE, THE BOXES IN THE FIELD HAVE NOT CHANGED, THE HARDWARE HAS NOT CHANGED, AND, IN PARTICULAR, THAT MEMORY HAS NOT CHANGED.
You're like a ten-car crash on the Interstate. You don't want to look, because you know it will be gruesome and painful, but you just can't help yourself.
Gee, making stuff up again? I am shocked. (NOT!)
Even if, for the .000001% chance that the USPTO invalidates the claims, Judge Folsom must treat the claims as valid until TiVo has exhausted all avenues of appeal. That is the law of the land.
As I (and numerous others) have pointed out to you time and time again, this case will long be over before all appeals have been exhausted. So the patents are valid for the duration of this case. That is a simple fact that you refuse to acknowledge.
Close but not quite. The chronology/terminology is wrong. The USPTO can't invalidate the claims until after all appeals have been exhausted.
I’ve sat and had the best and the brightest explain this to us, and I’m just stubborn. -- Charlie Ergen
Q (Chu) DO YOU KNOW WHAT A DESCRIPTOR COUNT IS?
A (Aaronson) I DO NOT.
Q DO YOU KNOW WHAT A DESCRIPTOR IS?
A I DON’T THINK IT HAS A MEANING IN THE ART, SO I DON’T –-
I REALLY DON’T KNOW.
Q YOU DON’T KNOW WHETHER INFORMATION IS BEING COMMUNICATED
BETWEEN BROADCOM DRIVERS AND THE ECHOSTAR APPLICATION. IS
THAT CORRECT?
A IN THE FINAL IMPLEMENTATIONS?
Q CORRECT. LET’S START WITH THE FINAL IMPLEMENTATION.
A I DON’T KNOW HOW THE FINAL IMPLEMENTATIONS WERE ACTUALLY
IMPLEMENTED.
Q WELL, WHEN YOU WERE ASKED IN GENERAL, WITHOUT LIMITING IT
TO THE FINAL IMPLEMENTATION, IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU SAID THAT
YOU JUST DIDN’T KNOW WHAT INFORMATION IS BEING COMMUNICATED
BETWEEN THE BROADCOM DRIVERS AND THE ECHOSTAR APPLICATION. IS
THAT CORRECT?
A AS WE –- AS I WROTE IN THE OPINION, IT WAS POINTER
VALUES.
Q I’M ASKING IF YOU CAN RECALL YOUR TESTIMONY FOR THE
MOMENT.
A I DON’T KNOW WHAT’S BEING COMMUNICATED, NO.
Q (Chu) DO YOU KNOW WHAT A DESCRIPTOR COUNT IS?
A (Aaronson) I DO NOT.
Q DO YOU KNOW WHAT A DESCRIPTOR IS?
A I DON’T THINK IT HAS A MEANING IN THE ART, SO I DON’T –-
I REALLY DON’T KNOW.
Q YOU DON’T KNOW WHETHER INFORMATION IS BEING COMMUNICATED
BETWEEN BROADCOM DRIVERS AND THE ECHOSTAR APPLICATION. IS
THAT CORRECT?
A IN THE FINAL IMPLEMENTATIONS?
Q CORRECT. LET’S START WITH THE FINAL IMPLEMENTATION.
A I DON’T KNOW HOW THE FINAL IMPLEMENTATIONS WERE ACTUALLY
IMPLEMENTED.
Q WELL, WHEN YOU WERE ASKED IN GENERAL, WITHOUT LIMITING IT
TO THE FINAL IMPLEMENTATION, IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU SAID THAT
YOU JUST DIDN’T KNOW WHAT INFORMATION IS BEING COMMUNICATED
BETWEEN THE BROADCOM DRIVERS AND THE ECHOSTAR APPLICATION. IS
THAT CORRECT?
A AS WE –- AS I WROTE IN THE OPINION, IT WAS POINTER
VALUES.
Q I’M ASKING IF YOU CAN RECALL YOUR TESTIMONY FOR THE
MOMENT.
A I DON’T KNOW WHAT’S BEING COMMUNICATED, NO.
I’ve sat and had the best and the brightest explain this to us, and I’m just stubborn. -- Charlie Ergen
Q (Chu) NOW, YOU –- SINCE YOU RENDERED OPINIONS AFTER THE INITIAL
OPINION LETTERS, INDEED WE SAW ONE IN 2008, YOU DID NOT
ACTUALLY REVIEW THE ECHOSTAR PRODUCTS TO SEE IF THE PROPOSED
MODIFICATIONS WERE THE SAME AS WHAT WAS PROPOSED, CORRECT?
A (Hillman) YES, THAT WAS NOT OUR ASSIGNMENT.
Q YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT HAD YOU BEEN ASSIGNED
IT, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q WHAT IS NO-SYNC?
A I DON’T KNOW.
Q YOU’VE NEVER HEARD OF A COMMAND CALLED NO-SYNC?
A I’VE SEEN REFERENCES TO IT IN PREPARING FOR THESE –- FOR
THIS TESTIMONY, BUT I DON’T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS.
Q YOU COULDN’T SAY WHAT FUNCTION IT RELATES TO?
A I DON’T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS.
Q YOU HAVE NO IDEA?
A NO.
Q (Chu) NOW, YOU –- SINCE YOU RENDERED OPINIONS AFTER THE INITIAL
OPINION LETTERS, INDEED WE SAW ONE IN 2008, YOU DID NOT
ACTUALLY REVIEW THE ECHOSTAR PRODUCTS TO SEE IF THE PROPOSED
MODIFICATIONS WERE THE SAME AS WHAT WAS PROPOSED, CORRECT?
A (Hillman) YES, THAT WAS NOT OUR ASSIGNMENT.
Q YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT HAD YOU BEEN ASSIGNED
IT, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q WHAT IS NO-SYNC?
A I DON’T KNOW.
Q YOU’VE NEVER HEARD OF A COMMAND CALLED NO-SYNC?
A I’VE SEEN REFERENCES TO IT IN PREPARING FOR THESE –- FOR
THIS TESTIMONY, BUT I DON’T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS.
Q YOU COULDN’T SAY WHAT FUNCTION IT RELATES TO?
A I DON’T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS.
Q YOU HAVE NO IDEA?
A NO.
I’ve sat and had the best and the brightest explain this to us, and I’m just stubborn. -- Charlie Ergen
Q (Chu) IF I ASKED YOU WHETHER THERE IS COMMUNICATION BETWEEN A
WRITE_TSP_THREAD IN A BROADCOM DRIVER, WOULD THAT RING ANY
BELLS?
A (Hillman) YES, IT RINGS A BELL.
Q DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS?
A DO I KNOW WHAT WHAT IS?
Q WHAT JUST RANG A BELL WITH YOU, THAT PARTICULAR –-
Q (Chu) IF I ASKED YOU WHETHER THERE IS COMMUNICATION BETWEEN A
WRITE_TSP_THREAD IN A BROADCOM DRIVER, WOULD THAT RING ANY
BELLS?
A (Hillman) YES, IT RINGS A BELL.
Q DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS?
A DO I KNOW WHAT WHAT IS?
Q WHAT JUST RANG A BELL WITH YOU, THAT PARTICULAR –-
I’ve sat and had the best and the brightest explain this to us, and I’m just stubborn. -- Charlie Ergen
Q (Chu) THANK YOU. AND YOU WERE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS WHERE YOU
TESTIFIED ABOUT THE CIRCULAR BUFFER THAT WAS IN THE ECHOSTAR
PRODUCTS DURING THE JURY TRIAL, CORRECT?
A (Hillman) YOU MEAN I WAS ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS DURING MY
DEPOSITION? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO?
Q YES.
A YES, I BELIEVE SO.
Q AND THEN YOU WERE ALSO ASKED SOME QUESTIONS AND YOU
TESTIFIED ABOUT THE CIRCULAR BUFFER THAT WAS IN THE ECHOSTAR
PRODUCTS AFTER THEIR SUPPOSED DESIGN-AROUND. IS THAT CORRECT?
A LOOK, I KNOW I WAS ASKED ABOUT A CIRCULAR BUFFER. I
DON’T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT THE QUESTIONS WERE. YOU COULD
REFRESH MY MEMORY BY SHOWING THEM TO ME.
THE COURT: YOU HAVE YOUR DEPOSITION IN FRONT OF YOU, MR. HILLMAN.
A DO I?
Q PAGE 25, LINE 22.
THE COURT: MAYBE YOU CAN SHOW IT ON THE SCREEN.
MR. CHU: YES.
THE COURT: IT MIGHT BE QUICKER FOR ALL OF US.
A YEAH.
Q (Chu) THANK YOU. AND YOU WERE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS WHERE YOU
TESTIFIED ABOUT THE CIRCULAR BUFFER THAT WAS IN THE ECHOSTAR
PRODUCTS DURING THE JURY TRIAL, CORRECT?
A (Hillman) YOU MEAN I WAS ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS DURING MY
DEPOSITION? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO?
Q YES.
A YES, I BELIEVE SO.
Q AND THEN YOU WERE ALSO ASKED SOME QUESTIONS AND YOU
TESTIFIED ABOUT THE CIRCULAR BUFFER THAT WAS IN THE ECHOSTAR
PRODUCTS AFTER THEIR SUPPOSED DESIGN-AROUND. IS THAT CORRECT?
A LOOK, I KNOW I WAS ASKED ABOUT A CIRCULAR BUFFER. I
DON’T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT THE QUESTIONS WERE. YOU COULD
REFRESH MY MEMORY BY SHOWING THEM TO ME.
THE COURT: YOU HAVE YOUR DEPOSITION IN FRONT OF YOU, MR. HILLMAN.
A DO I?
Q PAGE 25, LINE 22.
THE COURT: MAYBE YOU CAN SHOW IT ON THE SCREEN.
MR. CHU: YES.
THE COURT: IT MIGHT BE QUICKER FOR ALL OF US.
A YEAH.
- Status
