E* has the legal right to appeal, but I'd say if the appeals court decides to lift the stay after hearing TiVo's response, that will be pretty much the same as saying E*, you are done with appeals.
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 179K
- Status
E* has the legal right to appeal, but I'd say if the appeals court decides to lift the stay after hearing TiVo's response, that will be pretty much the same as saying E*, you are done with appeals.
LMFAO!! I am an unemployed lawyer and I'm trying my best to stay away from this trainwreck of a thread!
Since the news broke there have been about 18,000 hits on this thread so far, I don't think someone who likes to claim he does not care about this thread (while still posting here
) had made much head waveAnd way too many "unemployed lawyers and law school dropouts" watching the fight, occasionally can't help themselves but poke fun at those other "unemployed lawyers and law school dropouts"
In all seriousness, is there any limit to the number of times one can appeal a court finding ? Appeals have their place because errors or new evidence can come about, but in this case, Dish is appealing simply because they don't like the outcome.
And way too many "unemployed lawyers and law school dropouts" watching the fight, occasionally can't help themselves but poke fun at those other "unemployed lawyers and law school dropouts"
What do you call sky-diving unemployed lawyers and law school dropouts who participate on TIVO/E lawsuit threads?
Skeet!
Dish has hurt TiVo a lot with this case. Considering the number of years that have gone by TiVo has lost a lot of potential revenue. Over half the life of the patent has gone by. While Dish may be paying TiVo for the use over the past years, TiVo has not really been able to sue other DVR makers until this one is cleared up. Not to mention all the MPEG-4 DVRs that Dish has not been paying for either.
TiVo of course made the mistake of going after Dish first. They should have started with cable companies. I know Dish had the most DVRs at the time this started, but now cable has far more DVRs. I doubt the cable companies would have fought so hard since they did not have the large investment in DVRs yet, they would have settled.
TiVo of course made the mistake of going after Dish first. They should have started with cable companies. I know Dish had the most DVRs at the time this started, but now cable has far more DVRs. I doubt the cable companies would have fought so hard since they did not have the large investment in DVRs yet, they would have settled.
You can appeal until the next higher up court refuses to take your appeal. Last time it stopped when the Supreme Court refused the appeal. The appeals court will consider the appeal. If they decided to refuse it, Dish can try again with the Supreme Court. The losing side pretty much always wants to appeal if they think they could get a better outcome/deal. If they settle there will undoubtedly be an agreement to stop appeals.
It is possible the appeals court takes the case finds something and sends it back to the lower court. Then when the lower court rules again, the parties can appeal again. It can repeat over and over. But, it is unlikely, courts have enough work and they do not like cases to go on forever.
Sympathy for the Devil.
That's the price of greed. The bigger the demands, the longer it takes to decideif they are reasonable or not.
There are plenty of new evidence in the current situation, so much so it took over a year, two separate hearings to sort out the new evidence. Of course parties appeal mostly because they simply do not like the outcome.
There is certainly a limit how many times one can appeal, last time the limit was reached when the Supreme Court declined to review E*'s appeal. We should find out soon enough what the appeals court will say this time. If they lift the stay, while E* can still appeal, it is pretty much over.
E* cannot appeal to the Supreme Court if the appeals court refuses to stay Judge Folsom's order while pending appeal. I could be wrong, any lawyers (hopefully still under employment
)?
E* cannot appeal to the Supreme Court if the appeals court refuses to stay Judge Folsom's order while pending appeal. I could be wrong, any lawyers (hopefully still under employment
Sure....it will be $250/hour.
In all seriousness, I havn't been following this case AT ALL (even though I've made a few appearances in this thread), so I can't answer your question. Maybe a law school dropout who's actually been paying attention can help?
There are plenty of new evidence in the current situation, so much so it took over a year, two separate hearings to sort out the new evidence. Of course parties appeal mostly because they simply do not like the outcome.
There is certainly a limit how many times one can appeal, last time the limit was reached when the Supreme Court declined to review E*'s appeal. We should find out soon enough what the appeals court will say this time. If they lift the stay, while E* can still appeal, it is pretty much over.
E* cannot appeal to the Supreme Court if the appeals court refuses to stay Judge Folsom's order while pending appeal. I could be wrong, any lawyers (hopefully still under employment
There are no appeals to the SCT, just petitions for the court for certiorari to review the lower court (almost always Federal Court of Appeals or State Supreme Court decisions), and those have to be based on either constitutional issues or issues of federal law. So, its likely the COA decision would be the last step, but the COA could also just send the case back to the district court.
TiVo may recover some lost revenues with this suit, but they will never recover the lost time. Even a modest licensing fee of $1.25/mo (on 4-7 million DVRs) would have allowed for significant increases in R&D across a number of years, thereby allowing TiVo to implement new features and other improvements. The lack of licensing revenue (save for $0.90-$1.10/mo on original DirecTiVos) dictated a certain R&D budget, and that has limited TiVo's ability to maintain or grow the substantial advantages it once held over the competition. More R&D also translates into more IP, extending the useful value and life of a patent portfolio.
The absence of licensing revenue also contributed to a significantly lower stock price, causing the defection of TiVo talent to other companies involved in cable and satellite DVR development.
This is the only thing I've seen in the LOOOONG thread that makes no sense AT ALL. I understand where you are coming from, but to say they had to shut down R&D doesn't make a lot of sense. You MAY be right, but it just sounds off.
The fact is, Tivo is a company that basically has a bunch of "lemmings" paying a monthly fee to use a souped-up VCR. Could you imagine your parents paying a monthly fee to use a VCR back in the day? We pay fees to our satellite provider to use these features, but we also get the added feature of actual content, although I'm not sure paying them the low price that we pay is worth it either.
I can't believe there are people in this country defending Tivo (or E*) with regards to this "invention". Sounds to me like they are essentially patenting something that basically already existed - it's called a PC!!!
Actually, this makes a lot of sense. He's essentially saying that if their patents had not been stolen, they would have had more revenue, been profitable sooner, and been able to do more R&D, perhaps make strategic acquisitions, etc. For example, if TiVo had not had their patents stolen, perhaps E* never would have been able to acquire Sling, as TiVo would have bought them first.
LOL. By that standard, we're all lemmings, since we all pay money to some content provider for things our parents never paid for. It's called OTA TV and it's free. I happen to pay TiVo because I find the interface well worth it. I do this despite the "popular" opinion that TiVo is a commodity and any old DVR is the same. Since a lemming is usually defined as someon who follows the crowd, I think that makes you more of a lemming than me. http://www.satelliteguys.us/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Hah! Might as well throw the patent system completely out the window. If it was so obvious, how did they get one again? Sure, it's easy to see how to do it now, but at the time, they did something unique. Complain about it all you want, but they invented something and deserve to get credit for it, according to the law of the land, which is there to protect such creativity.
Yes a PC could do all that back in 1998 when the patent was filed. The point of the patent was to be able to do it without the horsepower of a PC. PCs (back then) were $1000+ items, they were doing it for a couple hundred $. Dish was able to save $500+/DVR using TiVo's idea. Even paying Dish still came out ahead.
Yes I think the patent should not have been granted, perhaps a narrow patent over certain parts. The current patent seems way too broad and could cover things that were already prior art.
As far as the monthly fee -- Most of the consumers probably still had blinking 12:00 on the VCR and paying a fee to have someone read the program guide every week and program the VCR is something that people wanted.
Evidence for absolutely everything he said is in HJF's decision earlier this week. Go read it, please. I think you'll find it's all there, including the gaming the system reference.
Pretty much like the last time. But I think E* still can go to SCT this time if turned down by the COA, can't they? Though not going to make much defference I agree.
... but the COA could also just send the case back to the district court.
Without offering any opinions? How often does that happen?
I assume "send the case back" you meant upholding the lower court ruling and order without delay and minimum explanation, if so could the opposite happen too, reverse the lower court ruling and order without delay?
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
