TIVO vs E*

[jacmyoung]

You never used the term 'infringement' in the post I was replying too.......

Can you answer my question? Does the patent law allow or disallow infringement?

 

[vampz26]

Can you answer my question? Does the patent law allow or disallow infringement?

you never replied to my actual post, how can I answer your question if its based on an inaccurate reply?

the word infringement was never used in the original post or reply. The original post or reply has nothing to do with infringement.

You are playing word-substitution games...

I called you on it, and I'm right.

Ask a question based on the actual post and reply, and I will answer it. Substituting words for your own convenience is not an option.

 

[jacmyoung]

So was E*'s , but apparently its only ok for Tivo to 'steal'...lmao...

E* was found to infringe TiVo's patent. Was TiVo found to infringe E*'s patent?

No, TiVo was not infringing any E*'s patent, so as far as the patent law is concerned, "it is only ok for Tivo to 'steal'...lmao..." has no basis, am I right?

 

[vampz26]

E* was found to infringe TiVo's patent. Was TiVo found to infringe E*'s patent?

No, TiVo was not infringing any E*'s patent, so as far as the patent law is concerned, "it is only ok for Tivo to 'steal'...lmao..." has no basis, am I right?

Only when you said the ViP series has not been found to 'infringe'....

What Tivo is doing is stealing E*s right to invent and innovate where they failed too...and then control the outcome.

As well as hijacking and stealing the ViP technology with their latest patent onces they realized they had competition....

so yes, you are wrong, and so it Tivo.

 

[jacmyoung]

you never replied to my actual post, how can I answer your question if its based on an inaccurate reply?

the word infringement was never used in the original post or reply. The original post or reply has nothing to do with infringement. ...

In the original post, I mentioned the word "infringing" four times, but you caught my very first sentence, saying I did not use the word "infringement" but anyone with reasonable skill can understand I meant the law disallow infringement (i.e. "that" refers to "infringement.")

But you say so what you did not use the word infringement.

So now I made it more clear to you, when I used the word "that" it meant "infringement." I hope I have clarified it for you.

So let me ask again, does the patent law allow or disallow infringement?

 

[vampz26]

In the original post, I mentioned the word "infringing" four times, but you caught my very first sentence, saying I did not use the word "infringement" but anyone with reasonable skill can understand I meant the law disallow infringement (i.e. "that" refers to "infringement.")

But you say so what you did not use the word infringement.

So now I made it more clear to you, when I used the word "that" it meant "infringement." I hope I have clarified it for you.

So let me ask again, does the patent law allow or disallow infringement?

LMAO!!!

you DID! it MEANT what you wanted it to MEAN...lol...of course for your own convenience, I might add...

This conversation is over...consider yourself owned...

 

[jacmyoung]

Only when you said the ViP series has not been found to 'infringe'....

What Tivo is doing is stealing E*s right to invent and innovate where they failed too...and then control the outcome.

As well as hijacking and stealing the ViP technology with their latest patent onces they realized they had competition....

so yes, you are wrong, and so it Tivo.

But the 8 named DVRs were found to infringe, correct?

But you did not answer my question, on what basis did you say it was ok for TiVo to "steal?" Was TiVo found to infringe? If not, then on what basis did you say it was ok for TiVo to "steal?"

 

[jacmyoung]

LMAO!!!

you DID! it MEANT what you wanted it to MEAN...lol...of course for your own convenience, I might add...

This conversation is over...consider yourself owned...

Of course, I rest my case.

 

[vampz26]

But the 8 named DVRs were found to infringe, correct?

But you did not answer my question, on what basis did you say it was ok for TiVo to "steal?" Was TiVo found to infringe? If not, then on what basis did you say it was ok for TiVo to "steal?"

I answered it, go back and read it....

its not my fault you can't keep track of your own drivel and make up new meanings for what you say as you go along...

 

[vampz26]

Of course, I rest my case.

you didn't have a case to rest...you just make crap up as you go along...if you didn't say 'infringe', don't pretend you did. what you said was completely different, yet you won't even go back and address it...lol....

whatever...owned.

 

[jacmyoung]

I answered it, go back and read it...

Is it too much to ask you if you can quote your own answer to this question:

On what basis did you say it was ok for TiVo to "steal?" Because this question implies that TiVo did "steal," correct? So my question is on what basis you thought TiVo had "stolen" anything from E*?

 

[vampz26]

Is it too much to ask you if you can quote your own answer to this question:

On what basis did you say it was ok for TiVo to "steal?" Because this question implies that TiVo did "steal," correct? So my question is on what basis you thought TiVo had "stolen" anything from E*?

I said (several times now)...GO BACK AND READ IT!

I don't repeat myself to make up for the ignorance of others....

So whats the deal...Rocky made it perfectly clear he doesn't want to see the thread explode tonight. Are you looking to defy his wishes? Or something else...

 

[jacmyoung]

I said (several times now)...GO BACK AND READ IT!

I don't repeat myself to make up for the ignorance of others....

You should clarify if others are not so clear of your previous answer, it is a courtesy I am asking. When you pointed out how I had not said something, I had no problem to go back and look at it, if I did not say it, I tried to clarify what I should have said. It is a minimum courtesy to the others to clarify one's previous statement if there is any disagreement as what was said or not.

So I am asking you to extend the same courtesy, can you quote your answer to that question, if you say you had answered it before, I could not find it, so can you quote your own answer for us?

Seems a reasonable request?

So what was your previous answer to this question: On what basis did you think TiVo had "stolen" from E*?

 

[vampz26]

You should clarify if others are not so clear of your previous answer, it is a courtesy I am asking. When you pointed out how I had not said something, I had no problem to go back and look at it, if I did not say it, I tried to clarify what I should have said. It is a minimum courtesy to the others to clarify one's previous statement if there is any disagrement as what was said or not.

So I am asking you to extend the same courtesy, can you quote your answer to that question, if you say you had answered it before, I could not find it, so can you quote your own answer for us?

Seems a reasonable request?

So what was your previous answer to this question: On what basis did you think TiVo had "stolen" from E*?

my answer was given...go back and read it.

The only disagreement is because you failed to make your statement clearly, or read my statemnt clearly to begin with.... there is nothing to gain by repeating it.

like I said, spend less effort keying, and more effort READING...and you will be much better off...

listen to Rocky...are you trying to get us both banned? I think thats your goal...

and no...its not a reasonable request...its asking me to make up for your short-comings...I will not do that. you want to sound smart? then be smart....

 

[TNGTony]

Guys, give it a rest for the night. Come back and rehash your same old arguments tomorrow.

PLEASE discuss the topic and not each other's posts about the argument.
Point, counterpoint...Point, counterpoint

not

point,
critique about point with veiled insults question about point,
insult about reading comprehension saying read point, counterpoint,
insult about intelligence of counterpoint,
question on the insult and why it was so unintelligent
report post
insult about the insult and repeated question
etc...

 

[CuriousMark]

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting E* is a victim! Charlie is as responsible for this current mess as is TiVo, but it would seem that TiVo is more interested in milking license fees and dragging this out in court than in innovation. As others have pointed out, if TiVo and E* would work together imagine the dynamite product we might have!

When specifically asked by the judge if both sides were willing to settle, TiVo's lawyer gave a clear affirmative and Charlie equivocated and said maybe.

That puts the lie to beliefs that TiVo is trying to drag things out in court. TiVo has been clear all along that they would prefer to work with Charlie than fight. I agree with you that if they were to work together there would be much more cool stuff for all of us.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Guys, give it a rest for the night. Come back and rehash your same old arguments tomorrow.

PLEASE discuss the topic and not each other's posts about the argument.
Point, counterpoint...Point, counterpoint

not

point,
critique about point with veiled insults question about point,
insult about reading comprehension saying read point, counterpoint,
insult about intelligence of counterpoint,
question on the insult and why it was so unintelligent
report post
insult about the insult and repeated question
etc...

Thank you Tony.

 

[jacmyoung]

When specifically asked by the judge if both sides were willing to settle, TiVo's lawyer gave a clear affirmative and Charlie equivocated and said maybe.

That puts the lie to beliefs that TiVo is trying to drag things out in court. TiVo has been clear all along that they would prefer to work with Charlie than fight. I agree with you that if they were to work together there would be much more cool stuff for all of us.

I agree. The fact is TiVo has said more than once they wanted to work out an agreement, but Charlie refused, at least for now. He did say he would consider what to do next after this judge's ruling.

The question is, does his refusal constitue a bad faith act? Opinions can certainly differ. From his standpoint, he wants to clear his name, he wants to tell the court he no longer infringe ("steal") anymore.

Can you blame him for wanting to do so? If so please explain why.

 

[Curtis0620]

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...

You have just proven what most of us already know.

You add nothing to the debate other than insults.

 

[vampz26]

what I said needed to be said. expose your issues for what they are. don't take it personal. your the one with the 'hate' issue, not me. I just get stuck dealing with it and thus I get stuck esposing it. no biggee.

go with God, Curtis...