I suppose that when one is drive and sees that "Speed Limit 55" sign, it is only a suggestion.
Therefore I suppose when DISH/SATS "are hereby FURTHER ORDERED to, within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this order, disable the DVR functionality (i.e., disable all storage to and playback from a hard disk drive of television data) in all but 192,708 units of the Infringing Products that have been placed with an end user or subscriber", it is simply a suggestion.
The definition of Infringing Products? It is:
Defendants’ following DVR receivers (collectively the “Infringing Products”): DP-501; DP-508; DP-510; DP-522; DP-625; DP-721; DP-921; and the DP-942.
The receivers are NAMED because they have been found to INFRINGE upon the patent. Just because something was pushed to those receivers doesn't mean they aren't still NAMED. And as I said, the action that was to be followed was to disable the NAMED receivers for the life of the patent. Therefore, once the kill command should have been sent, they are still NAMED receivers. They no longer infringe, but they are still NAMED.
And I am not an English major. But the "technologists" and "programmers" are suggesting definitions are not necessary, and that is very silly. MPEG2 and MPEG4 are STANDARDS, and if a file doesn't meet the DEFINITION of that format, then it is not MPEG. Programmers have to setup DECLARATIONS to DEFINE the task they are attempting to accomplish. The "technologists" and "programmers" see things in "black and white". Yet many cannot see this simple fact:
The order stated to disable. How many DVR's did DISH/SATS disable? Was there an "exception clause", like an "if-then" clause, which allowed DISH/SATS to escape the "disable provision"?