TIVO vs E*

[jacmyoung]

...It has consumed way to many years of all of our lives...

I don't think "our lives" have any significance at all in this case. We choose to have our lives "consumed" by this issue, but the business does not evolve around "our lives," most of the 13 million E* subs don't know anything about this case, as long as Charlie can stop their DVRs from being shut off.

Charlie is still as rich as he has been, and we know he does not mind to lose a lot of money as long as he can afford to lose. He seeks the thrill of winning once in a while, it is his money, we don't have to contribute our money

 

[vampz26]

I don't think "our lives" have any significance at all in this case. We choose to have our lives "consumed" by this issue, but the business does not evolve around "our lives," most of the 13 million E* subs don't know anything about this case, as long as Charlie can avoid their DVRs from been shut off.

Charlie is still as rich as he has been, and we know he does not mind to lose a lot of money as long as he can afford to lose. He seeks the thrill of winning once in a while, it is his money, we don't have to contribute our money

You are correct. This is just a rich mans game being played here. Our lives have nothing to do with it...

 

[jacmyoung]

...The software claims were gone over with a microscope at the recent contempt of court hearing and everybody is familiar with the issues. No sense going into unfamiar territory (yet) when the software claims have been so successful by themselves.

Everyone except Judge Folsom when he said E* would have violated his injunction even if the new design no longer infringed. He did not even have to make that statement but he did, without carefully recall (or maybe he never read it) what the appeals court said.

By so easily making such statement, I began to think he really did not put a lot of thought into this whole new software issue. The only question is, whether E* can successfully make the appeals court aware of this issue, among several other issues.

 

[jacmyoung]

You are correct. This is just a rich mans game being played here. Our lives have nothing to do with it...

I did not say "nothing to do with it" only that what we think our lives is not significant. Our lives actually have some to do with it, if no one can design around the TiVo's patent, the cost of the DVR services to the consumers will go up, and since we are all part of such consumers, there is an impact.

But in the scheme of things, from the standpoint of our lives, it is insignificant. No one should be consumed by a few bucks of DVR fees

 

[vampz26]

I did not say "nothing to do with it" only that what we think our lives is not significant. Our lives actually have some to do with it, if no one can design around the TiVo's patent, the cost of the DVR services to the consumers will go up, and since we are all part of such consumers, there is an impact.

But in the scheme of things, from the standpoint of our lives, it is insignificant.

I was only speaking from the perspective of the players, not the game.

Sure our lives are affected, that is true. But as far as Charlie or especially the courts are concerned, they couldn't care less...at least not in any positive way...

As for Tivo, their only desire is to hold Dish DVR user hostage...

 

[jacmyoung]

...or especially the courts are concerned, they couldn't care less...at least not in any positive way...

I have to say in this case, specifically for Judge Folsom, I agree with you, because what Judge Folsom said in that particular statement is basically that E* could have been found in violation "on the face" and "on the face" alone. That is an argument TiVo made from day one. If Judge Folsom agreed with such argument, then it is reasonable to ask, why did he make his decision such a costly one, why did he have to force the parties to go through two hearings, one of which we know had cost TiVo about $20 million alone.

Can you imagine how much tax payers' money had been spent on all the related court proceedings in the past year?

 

[vampz26]

I have to say in this case, specifically for Judge Folsom, I agree with you, because what Judge Folsom said in that particular statement is basically that E* could have been found in violation "on the face" and "on the face" alone. That is an argument TiVo made from day one. If Judge Folsom agreed with such argument, then it is reasonable to ask, why did he make his decision such a costly one, why did he have to force the parties to go through two hearings, one of which we know had cost TiVo about $20 million alone.

Can you imagine how much tax payers' money had been spent on all the related court proceedings in the past year?

You know, a similar concept was brought up earlier in this thread about how poor little tivo suffered so during this whole grueling court battle. At the end of the day I feel they were victims of their own greed. They jumped into that arena guns ablazing, shutting down DVRs, demanding all kinds of horrible things, and lets face it, the more that gets placed on the line, the more that goes into the whole decision making process. Had Tivo taken a more reasonable approach in the beginning they probably would have been taken more seriously and such decisions on the part of the judge would have been easier to make. But as we both know, that didn't happen...

 

[jacmyoung]

... Had Tivo taken a more reasonable approach in the beginning they probably would have been taken more seriously and such decisions on the part of the judge would have been easier to make. But as we both know, that didn't happen...

But TiVo did get mostly what they wanted, and while TiVo did ask a lot from day one, they made the "on the face violation" the first and the key point. Not only that, Judge Folsom had no problem dismissing one of the TiVo's demands (discovery on the new software) initially, so you cannot blame TiVo for asking too much, it is the judge's job to decide what should be considered and what should be put aside for the moment, as I said, he had no problem doing just that.

But in the end, he said "on the face violation" was enough, so the blame should be squarely on the judge to drag this thing out for over a year, costing both TiVo and E*, and the tax payers a lot of money. Unless there are some other good reasons I do not know about, what he did contradicts his repeated concerns for court economy.

 

[DSquared]

Which specific Dish HD DVRs would be affected by this judicial ruling?

 

[tnsprin]

Which specific Dish HD DVRs would be affected by this judicial ruling?

921 and 942 which are no longer suppose to be in service.

 

[TNGTony]

Folks, PLEASE talk about the issues and not each other. Call Dish Network or TiVo or the lawyers morons, not each other. This goes for everyone.

Thanks!

 

[rockymtnhigh]

I have read the entire board, and expected this as your statutory non-response. Three legitimate questions left unanswered, anyone care to make the case?

So, you are admitting you are here as a troll, and to cause trouble. Problem taken care of.


Anyone else?


Realize that I am serious about keeping this discussion at a professional and civil level. And when the next troll shows up, DO NOT fall for the trap. Just ignore. I take no pleasure in deleting 20 posts at a time. The next time it happens I will not only remove the troll, but will give a 3 day trip to anyone who falls into the trap.

 

[lakebum431]

rocky is cleaning house Good job buddy!

 

[Rey]

So, you are admitting you are here as a troll, and to cause trouble. Problem taken care of.


Anyone else?


Realize that I am serious about keeping this discussion at a professional and civil level. And when the next troll shows up, DO NOT fall for the trap. Just ignore. I take no pleasure in deleting 20 posts at a time. The next time it happens I will not only remove the troll, but will give a 3 day trip to anyone who falls into the trap.

:up:up it's good to be able to read this thread again.

 

[jacmyoung]

...Call ... the lawyers morons, not each other. ...

Have you talked to Rocky on this one?

Anyhow, I think what the judge said about the "on the face violation" is the key for E* to question some of his other justifications. If E* succeeds on such appeal, there will be a lot to blame the judge from the TiVo's camp.

In the latest TiVo's quarterly conference call right before the judge's ruling, TiVo stressed that no matter the outcome of the ruling, they expected the cost of the continued litigation would actually go higher in the third quarter.

If the last quarter's cost to TiVo was about $20M, I don't know why they predicted the future cost would be higher than that. Most of the cost can be attributed to the Feb hearing, which was essentially a trial involving days of expert/witness testimonies, and all the lawyers' fees and everything else running up to the hearing and after, that was where the high bills were from.

I don't see such high cost items to occur in the following months for TiVo. I wonder what was TiVo anticipating? Seemed to me at least they knew quite well Charlie would not give up and just settle.

 

[sca]

921 and 942 which are no longer suppose to be in service.

thats it?
whats the big deal then?
or does this cover the 625's, 522'2, 510's as well?

 

[jacmyoung]

thats it?
whats the big deal then?
or does this cover the 625's, 522'2, 510's as well?

Yes 625s, 522s and 510s. But if E* cannot have the order stayed, TiVo can ask Judge Folsom to bring in all other new E* DVRs in the next round.

One thing I have touched on earlier is the issue of "software claim elements" both TiVo and the judge hinged their opinions on. E* mostly argued on the issue of "doubt" regarding the jury verdict.

But E* also spent a lot of time on the claim elements during the hearing. First let's look at some of the key elements:

[1] providing a physical data source, wherein said (1)physical data source accepts broadcast data from an input device, (2)parses (3)video and audio data from said broadcast data, and (4)temporarily stores said video and audio data;

Elements (1) and (2) are done with, TiVo had already convinced the judge the PID filter could be (1), and it does (2). But elements (3) and (4) are still in dispute which were side-stepped.

E* during the hearing testified the PID filter cannot analyze "audio and video data" because at the PID stage, the broadcast data are encrypted, audio and video data simply cannot be read, and the PID filter only analyzes the channel number IDs in order to select which channel to tune to, it is impossible for the PID filter to even read any encrypted audio and video data at this stage, to which TiVo did not dispute. Also E* had the TiVo expert admitted that the PID filter does not "temporarily store" any data.

I have made the points above regarding elements (3) and (4) but it appears E* might not have emphasized them in their FFCL because Judge Folsom made no mention of them. If this is the case, I think this is the time now to make the points about (3) and (4) since Judge Folsom was so big on "claim elements." Elements (3) and (4) are most certainly crucial claim elements too.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Not an expert on this, but doesn't Dish have a much stronger claim against tivo with its mpeg-4 dvrs?

 

[Hemi 6.1]

TIVO , Needs to Just stop pissing and moaning , and Suck it up that the Tivo is and Never was as good as E* equipment, and get back out there with D* and Build some new HD DVRs and Prove they are the Brains behind the DVR. Because from where I sit, I'm yet to see any TIVO compair to VIP. Maybe the court should talk to E* customers who has some time with Tivo back in the day. I bet Tivo would lose for sure.
Sorry but EVERY, 10-250, HDVR2 Tivo I had Needed a Power Supply or Hard Drive replacement after 2 years. While the software was good, I gotta admit the Hardware sucked.

 

[jacmyoung]

Not an expert on this, but doesn't Dish have a much stronger claim against tivo with its mpeg-4 dvrs?

The appeals court already said all broadcast formats are game, MPEG2, MPEG4, ASTC, NTSC, or even PAL if used. They are all "broadcast data" so they all meet such element in the above step 1 quoted.

But to bring in the VIP DVRs, TiVo must prove the VIP DVRs are only colorably different than the 8 named old DVRs, both in software and hardware designs.

But given that Judge Folsom had flatly agreed with TiVo on almost all the arugments, I agree with Thomas22 he could easily agree with TiVo again on the VIPs. Which is why I think it is critical E* gets a stay of all the future court proceedings pending appeal.

TIVO , Needs to Just stop pissing and moaning , and Suck it up that the Tivo is and Never was as good as E* equipment, and get back out there with D* and Build some new HD DVRs and Prove they are the Brains behind the DVR. Because from where I sit, I'm yet to see any TIVO compair to VIP. Maybe the court should talk to E* customers who has some time with Tivo back in the day. I bet Tivo would lose for sure.
Sorry but and Tivo I had Needed a Power Supply or Hard Drive replacement after 2 years. While the software was good, I gotta admit the Hardware sucked.

It does not matter, the law is the law. Had the court cared so much about you the DVR customers, Judge Folsom would not have ordered the DVRs be shut off. There is a balance the court must reach, Judge Folsom could have gone the Paice route, declined to issue the permanent injunction, rather forced a compulsory licensing deal on E* to pay TiVo $1.25 for example, but he did not think at that time, and still not this time that the DVR customers' interest out-weighed the harm done to TiVo.