TIVO vs E*

[vampz26]

There you go again. It's ok to steal someone elses idea and profit from it.

Hey, you can't support your weak point here by taking the moral highground. At the end of the day, business is business...a good idea is one thing, and a better idea is another, but to stifle the better idea for lack of innovation on your own part? Well now...

You need to go back too school.

 

[Curtis0620]

Hey, you can't support your weak point here by taking the moral highground. At the end of the day, business is business...a good idea is one thing, and a better idea is another, but to stifle the better idea for lack of innovation on your own part? Well now...

You need to go back too school.

A better idea that uses the first one is illegal. Whether you like it or not, it is illegal.

 

[jacmyoung]

There you go again. It's ok to steal someone elses idea and profit from it.

Let's just take TiVo folks' sorry proposition that E* has "stolen" from TiVo, and let's also take another of your sorry proposition that the court has not done its job to correct that.

So even if we take such sorry propositions, there are several problems:

1) E* did pay $104M, and TiVo did cash out that check.
2) It is possible that the two TiVo's software claims should not have been granted by the USPTO in the first place.
3) Whether E* continued to "steal" after 10/06 is yet determined, not because the court was lousy, but TiVo has yet done their job so far to prove that E* continued to "steal" after 10/06.

So even if we supposedly take your sorry propositions, you should pull your collective heads out of the sand and realize:

1) Whatever was "stolen" was paid back, interest included.
2) There is a chance that in the end it may turn out the USPTO failed to do their job in the first place, resulting in E* been wrongly accused of "stealing" and TiVo got paid by mistake. But notice that E* will not and cannot ask for the money back even in such case.
3) If the TiVo folks are frustrated about what is going on, call TiVo, and tell them to get their act together and do their job right. It is TiVo who must prove by clear and convincing evidence that E* is "stealing" therefore if TiVo has failed so far, blame them, not anyone else.

 

[Curtis0620]

It's a FACT that DISH stole TiVo technology. Proven in court and they were fined.

Ongoing? I don't know.

I'm just defending the Patent system.
The creator must be protected from the likes of Charlie.

 

[Curtis0620]

Let's just take TiVo folks' sorry proposition that E* has "stolen" from TiVo, and let's also take another of your sorry proposition that the court has not done its job to correct that.

So even if we take such sorry propositions, there are several problems:

1) E* did pay $104M, and TiVo did cash out that check.
2) It is possible that the two TiVo's software claims should not have been granted by the USPTO in the first place.
3) Whether E* continued to "steal" after 10/06 is yet determined, not because the court was lousy, but TiVo has yet done their job so far to prove that E* continued to "steal" after 10/06.
So even if we supposedly take your sorry propositions, you should pull your collective heads out of the sand and realize:

1) Whatever was "stolen" was paid back, interest included.
2) There is a chance that in the end it may turn out the USPTO failed to do their job in the first place, resulting in E* been wrongly accused of "stealing" and TiVo got paid by mistake. But notice that E* will not and cannot ask for the money back even in such case.
3) If the TiVo folks are frustrated about what is going on, call TiVo, and tell them to get their act together and do their job right. It is TiVo who must prove by clear and convincing evidence that E* is "stealing" therefore if TiVo has failed so far, blame them, not anyone else.

So you admit E* did steal. I'm glad you agree.

 

[jacmyoung]

So you admit E* did steal. I'm glad you agree.

It is not stealing, but you just learned that? Where have you been?

I have said a year ago after the appeals court decision, and time after time since then, that E* lost, they infringed, they would pay, fair and square.

But this is not a stealing case, because Judge Folsom said so when he denied the treble and attorney fees in 2006. He said this was not a copying case (i.e. not a stealing case), so no treble and attorney fees for TiVo.

I value the judge's opinion more so than yours, but of course many of those TiVo folks believe the judge is a moron, it is impossible to argue against that mentality.

 

[vampz26]

Wow! Hate-monger is in rare form today! Must be those new E* channels...

Relax curtis...courts don't prove anything. No facts come out of court, just opinions. You need to control your rage, friend...

 

[Curtis0620]

Patent infringement is not stealing?

wow

 

[Curtis0620]

Wow! Hate-monger is in rare form today! Must be those new E* channels...

Relax curtis...courts don't prove anything. No facts come out of court, just opinions. You need to control your rage, friend...

You have the patent on hate-mongering.

 

[nobody99]

You have the patent on hate-mongering.

AMEN!

 

[vampz26]

You have the patent on hate-mongering.

Now should I take you to court for infringement since you've clearly done a better job at it?

 

[Curtis0620]

Now should I take you to court for infringement since you've clearly done a better job at it?

If you believe in the US Patent system.

 

[vampz26]

If you believe in the US Patent system.

HA! The courts are one of the reasons I DON'T believe in the patent system.

 

[jacmyoung]

My general rule for posting my analysis of the hearing transcript is this, I will try to post only what I believe are the important exchanges, and if I post any party's exchange with Judge Folsom, I will post only that one party's exchange with the judge unless the other party was also involved in that conversation.

But if I plan to post a key Q/A section by one party, I will also post the Q/A section that was directly related to the opposing party's Q/A section.

After posting each or several sections, I will try to comment on it/them. I am still wading through the maze, as I said it will take a while, but I will trickle things down here as I go along. Many of the exchanges I had already anticipated them in the past, but some of them will not be posted until I read through the whole thing just to be sure I do not miss any points that might have been raised by either one or both parties in a later section related to the same issue.

 

[jacmyoung]

The first section quoted was in the early part of the TiVo's opening statement, when Judge Folsom interrupted Mr. Chu:

THOSE OPINION LETTERS WERE IN HAND AT ECHOSTAR, IN HAND WHEN THEY WENT SCREAMING TO THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. THAT WAS NOT SHARED WITH THIS COURT, WITH THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, AND THEIR ONLY STATEMENTS TO THE PUBLIC WERE ALONG THE LINES THAT THEY WERE MAKING EFFORTS TO DESIGN-AROUND. BUT WHEN THE FINAL JUDGMENT CAME –-

THE COURT: WELL, PERHAPS A BETTER PRACTICE WOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS COURT AND THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, BUT UNDER THE ORDER WERE THEY UNDER ANY OBLIGATION TO DO SO YOU FEEL?

MR. CHU: BY THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE ORDER, NO, BUT I BELIEVE, YOUR HONOR, WHEN SOMEONE IS ASKING FOR EMERGENCY ACTION FROM A COURT, OMITTING MATERIAL FACTS IS NOT THE PROPER COURSE OF CONDUCT. AND HOW DO WE KNOW THOSE FACTS ARE MATERIAL?

As I said many times before, and the judge was asking too, where in the order did the Court ask E* to inform parties of their design around? It would be better had they done it, but did they violate any order?

 

[jacmyoung]

Part of TiVo’s quote in the opening statement:

AND HERE IS THE EVIDENCE: DR. STORER AT THE FIRST JURY TRIAL STATED THAT THE PID FILTERING OPERATION IS PARSING. AND THIS WAS A POINT THAT ECHOSTAR WAS MAKING ON ITS CROSS EXAMINATION OF PROFESSOR STORER. DR. RHYNE, ECHOSTAR’S EXPERT, WHEN ASKED WHETHER THE ECHOSTAR PRODUCTS DO ACTUALLY PARSE, HE SAID THE PID FILTERS DO A PARSING. THERE IS NO ALLEGED CHANGE TO THE PID FILTERS. THE PID FILTERING THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PARSING, IS THE QUESTION. YES. AND HE SPECIFICALLY SAID IT INCLUDED BOTH THE ST AND BROADCOM CHIPS THAT ARE AT ISSUE TODAY.

Recall the above was mentioned many times, that during the trial the E*’s expert asserted that the PID filter met the parsing limitation.

Now E*’s related quote in its opening statement:

A QUOTE THAT MR. CHU JUST SHOWED YOU FROM THEIR EXPERT. TIVO TOOK THE POSITION THAT PID FILTERING IS NOT THE PARSING OF THE CLAIMS. IT TOOK THAT POSITION TO DEFEND AGAINST ECHOSTAR’S INVALIDITY CASE BECAUSE ECHOSTAR HAD PRIOR ART THAT HAD PID FILTERING BUT NOT INDEXING, AND TIVO WANTED TO SAY THAT THOSE PIECES OF PRIOR ART DID NOT INVALIDATE THE CLAIMS. ECHOSTAR TOOK THE POSITION –- THIS WAS A CORRECT THING THAT MR. CHU TOLD YOU, THAT THE PARSING OF ALL CLAIMS COULD BE MET BY PID FILTERING. ECHOSTAR LOST THAT ISSUE, YOUR HONOR. TIVO WON IT. TIVO WON THAT PID FILTERING IS NOT THE PARSING OF THE CLAIMS.

TIVO’S CASE, A MAJOR PART OF WHAT THEY SPENT THEIR TIME TALKING ABOUT AT TRIAL WAS THAT THE PARSING OF ALL THESE CLAIMS AND ONE OF THE KEYS TO THEIR INVENTION, THE ANALYSIS OF AUDIO AND VIDEO THAT THESE CLAIMS TALK ABOUT, IS FINDING START CODES FOR FRAMES, AND BUILDING AN INDEX OF THEM AND STORING IT SO THAT LATER ON PLAYBACK YOU CAN DO TRICKPLAY.

THAT WAS THE BASIC DISPUTE ABOUT PARSING AND PID FILTERING, BUT THIS WAS DISPUTED. THE CRUX OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY WAS DISPUTED. TIVO TOOK THE OPPOSITE POSITIONS AT TRIAL THAT THEY ARE TAKING TODAY. THEY WON. WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THEIR POSITIONS, YOUR HONOR. WE CAN’T CLING TO THE ONES WE PUT FORWARD AND LOST. NOT JUST UNDER KSM WHICH SAYS IN CONTEMPT YOU GO BY THE SCOPE OF THE CLAIMS AS ADJUDICATED AND THIS IS WHAT WAS ADJUDICATED, BUT ALSO –- IF WE COULD PUT UP THAT OTHER SLIDE NOW –- THE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL SLIDE, IT’S SLIDE 24, UNDER FIFTH CIRCUIT LAW, WHICH WE BELIEVE IS CONTROLLING, BUT FEDERAL CIRCUIT LAW AS WELL ON JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, TIVO CANNOT TAKE POSITIONS AT TRIAL IN ORDER TO TRY TO WIN A JURY VERDICT. WIN, WHICH IT DID, GET A VERDICT FOR $104 MILLION DOLLARS WITH INTEREST, ETCETERA, ADDED ON, COLLECT THE CHECK, WHICH THEY HAVE DONE, KEEP THE $104 MILLION DOLLARS, AND NOW FOR PURPOSES OF CONTEMPT, TURN AROUND AND TAKE DIFFERENT POSITIONS. BOTH UNDER KSM AND UNDER THE LAW OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, TIVO CANNOT DO THAT, BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

It turned out that the reason the E* expert testified during the trial that the PID filter met the parsing definition, was in an attempt to prove that TiVo’s patent was invalid. E* used several prior art as the examples, and pointed to that prior art that described the PID filter as parsing not indexing, and since the TiVo’s patent also describe the PID filter as the parser, TiVo’s patent was invalid. TiVo disputed such E*’s assertion, in response TiVo said PID was doing tuning and selecting and converting, not parsing as described in the claims, therefore the prior art did not apply.

And the important thing is, TiVo won that argument, the jury agreed with TiVo, and found TiVo’s patent valid. E* lost, their assertion that PID was that parser was rejected by the jury. E* may not now hold the same assertion that PID is that parser, likewise, TiVo may not now say hey E* you said so before, now you changed your mind, you cannot do that. But E* was proven wrong, of course they have to now take the opposite position, the one TiVo held during the trial, that the PID is not the parser.

 

[isaac newton]

Hey, you can't support your weak point here by taking the moral highground. At the end of the day, business is business...a good idea is one thing, and a better idea is another, but to stifle the better idea for lack of innovation on your own part? Well now...

You need to go back too school.

I don't understand the argument about stifling better ideas. Are you saying that if someone can improve on an existing patent they should be free to use that patent? Or are you just saying that's what e* did and they're just using the patent/court system to their best ability to get around it?

 

[vampz26]

I don't understand the argument about stifling better ideas. Are you saying that if someone can improve on an existing patent they should be free to use that patent? Or are you just saying that's what e* did and they're just using the patent/court system to their best ability to get around it?

I believe that if if somebody builds a better mousetrap, thats just as good as inventing a better mousetrap. Here is what Tivo 'invented', now someone invented something better. Tivo is trying to say its the same thing, and thats what this whole bloody courtroom nonsense is about.

 

[vampz26]

It's a FACT that DISH stole TiVo technology. Proven in court and they were fined.

Ongoing? I don't know.

I'm just defending the Patent system.
The creator must be protected from the likes of Charlie.

Note: hate-mongering post...

Just for the record...

And also for the record. You aren't defending any system but your own hatred and bigotry. You HATE E* and thus embrace any system or idea that enables your HATRED and BIGOTRY towards all things E*. You hate E*, you hate E* subs, and you hate Charlie...hence your obsessive compulsive need to post brief, bitter, hateful invectives in every other post...

Probably go thru your neighborhood in the middle of the night vandalizing E* dish antennas out of mere principle.

Well now...am I glad we cleared the air on that one...I would hate for anyone to actually take any of your contrived nonsense seriously...

 

[jacmyoung]

I believe that if if somebody builds a better mousetrap, thats just as good as inventing a better mousetrap. Here is what Tivo 'invented', now someone invented something better. Tivo is trying to say its the same thing, and thats what this whole bloody courtroom nonsense is about.

The law does not allow that. If someone invents a "moustrap" and gets a patent, and a later person invents a "better moustrap" but that better one contains all the steps of the first "moustrap," then the later "better mousetrap" has infringed the first one, even if the later person did not even know that the first "mousetrap" ever existed.

The law appears unfair, but it is a sacrifice of the right of the later person, for the good of the society, the reason is, if there is no such right granted to the first person to refuse to disallow the later person to infringe, then nobody will want to disclose their inventions, because there is no incentive to do so.

When that happens, everyone will just keep his invention to himself, as trade secret. And the socieaty does not benefit if no one knows what good ideas the other person has come up with.

The patent system encourages the first inventor to disclose his idea, rather for him to keep it a secret, in exchange, the patent law grant him a special right, to refuse the next person from infringing on his invention, even if the next person might be a "better inventor."