Well, we've already established that you are not shy about providing us with examples with your endless posts of nonsense.
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 178K
- Status
Well, we've already established that you are not shy about providing us with examples with your endless posts of nonsense.
I’ve sat and had the best and the brightest explain this to us, and I’m just stubborn. -- Charlie Ergen
Q (Chu) SIR, CAN YOU GIVE US A ROUGH NUMBER OF HOW MANY OPINIONS
THAT YOU’VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH OVER THE TIME OF YOUR CAREER?
A (Hillman) OH, YOU KNOW, SCORES AND SCORES. I’M NOT REAL GOOD AT
NUMBERS, BUT MANY OF THEM.
Q (Chu) SIR, CAN YOU GIVE US A ROUGH NUMBER OF HOW MANY OPINIONS
THAT YOU’VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH OVER THE TIME OF YOUR CAREER?
A (Hillman) OH, YOU KNOW, SCORES AND SCORES. I’M NOT REAL GOOD AT
NUMBERS, BUT MANY OF THEM.
Enough with the quotes from whatever it is you are quoting; and can the caps too.
Have a civil discussion or refrain from posting in this thread.
There is only one of us not having a civil discussion.
Are you telling me to stay on topic? Or are you attacking me for a different reason?
Charlie is the best! I'm telling you! I can't believe how smart he is!!
He's the smartest CEO of the BEST company in the WORLD!!
He's the smartest CEO of the BEST company in the WORLD!!
Oh...I don't know...by the looks of things, when it comes to calling things spam, I think I hit the target pretty close.
There was no need for all that nonsense. A polite explantion and a link to the source would have been plenty for any interested member to take advantage of.
Spamming sometimes refers to the spammer posting large body of biased text, often times repeating the same large body of text, the purpose is to scroll others off the screen. The spammer in such fashion has no interest in any meaningful analysis of the text he puts out, in this particular case he is not even capable of any meaningful analysis, his only goal is to repeat the same “large body of biased text” to move others off the screen.
The spammer makes no effort of his own, only copy and paste a lot of large body text over and over, therefore making it difficult for the others to carry on their usual discussions.
And Thomas22, I am not talking about you, so please calm down
Seriously, you don't see it? The irony is so obvious it's like it's hitting you over the head with a baseball bat.
You don't have much command of English to read and understand what is spam, so I will not blame you
I do want to make a point, your post appears a serious threat, I know you do not think it that way, but since your command of English is questionable I am just letting you be aware.
You don't have much command of English to read and understand what is spam, so I will not blame you
I do want to make a point, your post appears a serious threat, I know you do not think it that way, but since your command of English is questionable I am just letting you be aware.
Ouch. To have jacmyoung question one's command of the English language hurts. It's almost like having a third-grader question your...well...command of the English language.
Jac, read your quote about spamming. You've described yourself to perfection. Was that your intent?
- large bodies of biased text
- no interest in meaningful analysis
- no even capable of meaningful analysis
- his only goal is to repeat the same "large body of biased text"
Seriously, about the only thing you need to add to describe yourself would be:
- comical misspellings
- substantial flaws in logical reasoning leading to hilariously silly conclusions
- Liberal and completely random sprinkling of commas throughout text
Enough. Stop the bickering and personal attacks. On all sides. One person has already gotten the boot today.
Now this is very interesting, I went to the USPTO site to find the TiVo ‘389 patent description itself, and this is what TiVo’s patent description describes of the need for indexing and the advantage of indexing the time stamps into a stream and stores such stream:
The above description does not specify any patent claims, for example neither specifically the hardware claims nor specifically the software claims. In fact the entire TiVo’s “Detailed Patent Description” never mentions any specific patent claim at all. The reason is simple, all the patent claims describe the same, and the only invention.
The above indexing method, according to TiVo during the trial, is the core of the invention. As a result, the appeals court accepted it when they discussed the hardware claims, and the court should accept it equally when discussing the software claims next.
Also notice the term "parse" as I emphasized, clearly describes analyzing the start codes or time stamps in the streams. Can the PID filter do that? Of course not.
The above description does not specify any patent claims, for example neither specifically the hardware claims nor specifically the software claims. In fact the entire TiVo’s “Detailed Patent Description” never mentions any specific patent claim at all. The reason is simple, all the patent claims describe the same, and the only invention.
The above indexing method, according to TiVo during the trial, is the core of the invention. As a result, the appeals court accepted it when they discussed the hardware claims, and the court should accept it equally when discussing the software claims next.
Also notice the term "parse" as I emphasized, clearly describes analyzing the start codes or time stamps in the streams. Can the PID filter do that? Of course not.
One of my favorite quotes from the hearing transcript.
Dr Storer is admitting that Dr. Barton testified that PID filtering is the physical data source described by the software claims:
Q DR. STORER, ON THAT LAST POINT, IS THE MEDIA SWITCH AN EXAMPLE OF THE PHYSICAL DATA SOURCE?
A ABSOLUTELY.
Q DO YOU RECALL MR. BARTON DESCRIBING THROUGH THE REST OF HIS DEPOSITION, WITHOUT HAVING TO SIT HERE AND READ INTO THE RECORD ALL OF THE FEW HUNDRED PAGES, DO YOU RECALL HIM DESCRIBING OTHER EMBODIMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL DATA SOURCE?
A ABSOLUTELY. AND HE, OF COURSE, WAS PROUD OF HIS INVENTION AND WAS DESCRIBING THE WHOLE THING, LOTS OF –- LOTS OF FOCUS ON THE MEDIA SWITCH IN CLAIM 1 AND THROUGHOUT THE DEPOSITION.
Q AND DO YOU RECALL HIM DESCRIBING AN ENCODER AS AN EMBODIMENT OF THE PHYSICAL DATA SOURCE IN CLAIMS 31 AND 61?
A YES.
Q AND DO YOU REMEMBER HIM DESCRIBING THE PID FILTER AS AN EMBODIMENT DISCLOSED IN THE PATENT FOR THE SOFTWARE CLAIMS 31 AND 61?
A YES.
Q THANK YOU, DOCTOR.
Dr Storer is admitting that Dr. Barton testified that PID filtering is the physical data source described by the software claims:
Q DR. STORER, ON THAT LAST POINT, IS THE MEDIA SWITCH AN EXAMPLE OF THE PHYSICAL DATA SOURCE?
A ABSOLUTELY.
Q DO YOU RECALL MR. BARTON DESCRIBING THROUGH THE REST OF HIS DEPOSITION, WITHOUT HAVING TO SIT HERE AND READ INTO THE RECORD ALL OF THE FEW HUNDRED PAGES, DO YOU RECALL HIM DESCRIBING OTHER EMBODIMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL DATA SOURCE?
A ABSOLUTELY. AND HE, OF COURSE, WAS PROUD OF HIS INVENTION AND WAS DESCRIBING THE WHOLE THING, LOTS OF –- LOTS OF FOCUS ON THE MEDIA SWITCH IN CLAIM 1 AND THROUGHOUT THE DEPOSITION.
Q AND DO YOU RECALL HIM DESCRIBING AN ENCODER AS AN EMBODIMENT OF THE PHYSICAL DATA SOURCE IN CLAIMS 31 AND 61?
A YES.
Q AND DO YOU REMEMBER HIM DESCRIBING THE PID FILTER AS AN EMBODIMENT DISCLOSED IN THE PATENT FOR THE SOFTWARE CLAIMS 31 AND 61?
A YES.
Q THANK YOU, DOCTOR.
So what? He was wrong, now E* is pointing this out that Dr. Barton was wrong.
TiVo's argument was but why didn't E* appeal on that point? If E* did not appeal on that point, E* may not now put forward such argument.
Of course E* could have put forward that argument last time, had they done so, E* could have been found not to infringe by the jury, not certainly but possibly could. But E* failed to do so last time, they may no longer change that fact.
The question the judge needs to answer is, is E*'s current assertion that PID is not that "physical data source" the correct assertion? If the current E* assertion is correct, and Dr. Barton's was wrong, the judge cannot say it is wrong anyway, because E* failed to correct it last time.
What is correct is correct, what is wrong is wrong.
Once the judge decides what is correct, if he agrees with E* that the PID filter is not that physical data source, then the next question is, had E* corrected that wrong assertion of Mr. Barton's back then, could that have possibly changed the jury's mind?
If it could have possibly changed the jury's mind, there is the reason to deny this summary contempt motion.
Yes E* may not go back to overturn the last Final Judgment and the Injunction, and get back that $104M, but the judge must deny this TiVo's summary judgment motion, because there now exists a dispute that could have changed the jury's mind.
How to resolve this issue then? Go through the new jury trial and let the new jury decide, after telling them the PID filter cannot be the physical data source, to see what their verdict will be for the new design.
It is too late for the old design, but certainly not too late for the new design, because whether the new design is infringing or not is not determined.
To prove the new design still an infringement, in this summary contempt proceeding, TiVo must prove by clear and convincing evidence, there cannot be any dispute at all, if there is any distupe at all, this summary proceeding will be inappropriate.
For the new design, the dispute, if any, must be resolved in a full trial, which will be that DE new action.
Quoting out of context is a known fallacy...you're not going to get very far trying to base an opinion out of a few lines of cut-and-paste text in an attempt to represent YEARS of trial proceedings...especially something so highly subjective...
- Status
