TIVO vs E*

[rockymtnhigh]

No.
....
Nothing red herring about that. The failure to recognize that is astounding.

Don't start down that path. Its heading towards a personal attack. Stop it now.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

....

I take back what I said about the red herring. I think you may just have difficulty following a technical discussion. Thats all. I suggest you pay closer attention to avoid confusion. Thanks.

AND you know better. I have repeatedly warned you not to fall for any personal attacks; and while this one was extremely mild (and more of a dig), you still could not help but respond in turn. Don't do it again vampz.

 

[vampz26]

Infringement isn't necessarily based on technology; it is based upon process. And this thread is about infringement. So I've discussed that EVERY expert that testified at the trial that PID filtering, a piece of technology, met the parse element in the step of the Software Claims. Therefore I've discussed technology at every point I've needed to: at the point the elements in the claim MEET the technology.

This is a thread about infringement, not technology, correct?

What element does the ability to decode MPEG4 remove? All that has been offered is that "it might change the design". I've offered that DISH/SATS changed the software on the 622/722 during the stay period, then informed their dealers in a letter that the software was changed to avoid infringement. Yet the repeated excuse is that the addition of MPEG4 may have completely overhauled the design. Even DISH/SATS admitted it didn't, as they had to change the software on the 622/722. Therefore, the addition of MPEG4 capability is simply a red herring.

MPEG4 is a red herring because adding pieces of technology to a device doesn't necessarily change the process it uses to accomplish its goals. Adding MPEG4 to a design found infringing would simply make the DVR with MPEG4 capability an infringement.

Of course, I can see an arugment coming about how bogus it is the patent can apply to new technology and that is why this needs to stop.

Take a look at the patent. In the overview it even mentions that it covers digital formats such as any from the MPEG group. Yes, patents are allowed to be forward thinking, just like advances in technology.

So what is the next piece of immaterial technology as it relates to the patent is next?

This thread is about the trial, technical aspects, business aspects, AND legal aspects...it is YOU that are about the infringement...

Here is what you need to do, 1) stop repeating yourself, I couldn't care less about that bogus patent other than the fact that it is bogus and I've already demonstrated why. 2) look at the technology, UNDERSTAND the technology, and REALIZE the extent of that technology, both hardware and software before commenting again. Because reciting your legal dogma over and over again just ain't cutting it. Stay within your comfort zone if you must, but don't annoy others by leaving it.

Now I don't want to tick-off rocky, so I'm going mute on the subject, but let it be known that you peppering every one of your posts with subtle personal attacks against me and my initial statement is what started this line of discussion.

Apologies, Rock...sincerely...

 

[jacmyoung]

...Yet ALL FIVE paid experts testified at trial that PID filtering met the parse step. Arguing facts of the case may be stupid, but it is impossible to refute...

All five experts agreed on one thing, that one thing was an opinion not a fact. "The PID filter meets the parse step" is an opinion not a fact. It is certainly a very important and seemingly credible opinion, but you cannot say such opinion is impossible to refute.

E*'s expert is now refuting such opinion, including his own previous opinion. But he is not just refuting for the sake of refuting, he presented tons of evidence, including those from TiVo's own testimonies during the dury trial and from the patent specification.

In other words, E* is disputing such opinion now, with ample evidence, in a summary proceeding. The question the court must address in a summary proceeding is not whether the court must believe those five experts, or believe this one expert who happened to refute his own opinion.

The question to be answered in a summary proceeding is whether a dispute of material facts exists, if such dispute exsits, and if such dispute is supported by material facts, then a summary judgment (i.e. in this case, a contempt) should not be granted.

Because the relative credibility of the witnesses is not to be determined in a summary proceeding, rather in a jury trial or a full bench trial, in a new suit.

The question now is whether there is a dispute, the dispute is whether PID filter meets the definition of "parse" as interpreted in the context of the patent specification, the prosecution history of the patent, and in the context of the entire patent, not just in the context of the software claims themselves.

 

[CuriousMark]

He did not because he never mentioned patent specification. Another quick way to know he did not read the patent specification is when he agreed with TiVo that the terms "start codes" and "indexing" were "irrelevant" because they were not mentioned in the software claims, even though they were mentioned in the patent specification and also mentioned over and over by TiVo during the jury trial.

Just because his opinion does not specifically mention the patent specification, you can't assume he did not take it into account.

When E* made such argument during the hearing, TiVo never responded to such argument either, because TiVo could not, they would have refuted themselves had they done so.

TiVo responded by pointing to the claim language and constructions. That is not a non-response.

Look I am not even saying the judge must agree with E*'s interpretation, after interpreting the software terms in the context of the patent specification and the prosecution history, he might still disagree with E*'s interpretation after all, what is not correct is when he refused to interpret the terms in the context of the patent specification and prosecution history, and in the context of the entire patent, instead limited it only to the software claim terms themselves.

This is exactly what I believe he did. Claims must also stand alone, these claims still support the patent specification, just different elements of it.

 

[Curtis0620]

This thread is about the trial, technical aspects, business aspects, AND legal aspects...it is YOU that are about the infringement...

Here is what you need to do, 1) stop repeating yourself, I couldn't care less about that bogus patent other than the fact that it is bogus and I've already demonstrated why. 2) look at the technology, UNDERSTAND the technology, and REALIZE the extent of that technology, both hardware and software before commenting again. Because reciting your legal dogma over and over again just ain't cutting it. Stay within your comfort zone if you must, but don't annoy others by leaving it.

Now I don't want to tick-off rocky, so I'm going mute on the subject, but let it be known that you peppering every one of your posts with subtle personal attacks against me and my initial statement is what started this line of discussion.

Apologies, Rock...sincerely...

Yes, DISH's technology infringes on TiVo's patent. DISH will have to pay or shut them down.

DISH has lost every step of the way and there is no reason to drag this out any further. The appeal will be denied and Charlie will cry foul. I wonder if DISH can get a bailout?

 

[jacmyoung]

[/SIZE]
Just because his opinion does not specifically mention the patent specification, you can't assume he did not take it into account.

It is not an assumption rather a deduction. He said "start codes and indexing are not relevant because they do not appear in the software claim terms." By deduction he was only looking at the software claim terms, not the patent specification in the context of the entire patent, because had he looked at the patent specification in the context of the entire patent, he would not have said the above highlighted.

TiVo responded by pointing to the claim language and constructions. That is not a non-response.

What I said was, when E* was arguing on the patent specification, TiVo never responded to the evidence used by E* in the patent specification.

For example, E* used a figure in the patent specification, combined with TiVo's own testimonies to point out the PID filter was a part of the "input device" not a part of the "media switch." There were several other similar issues when examining the patent specification, BTW figures in the patent specification are very important, figures are used regularly by the appeals court, just read the last link I posted.

But TiVo chose to stick to the software claims only, they intentionally avoided any discussion of the patent specification and any figures in there, for a good reason.

This is exactly what I believe he did. Claims must also stand alone, these claims still support the patent specification, just different elements of it.

I agree with you each independent claim stands alone, but the appeals court said when you try to interpret each term in that claim, you must interpret it in the context of the patent specification and the prosecution history of the patent, and in the context of the entire patent.

The reason an independent claim can stand alone is because it describes an invention that is not obvious by prior art. If it were true that the software claims could stand alone by only describing how the PID filter parsed the data, it would not have stood alone, by the virtue of them standing alone, there has to be something else than just PID filter parsing the channel ID packets, something like parsing start codes and later allowing the "source object" to built an index table out of such start codes.

Of course one would not be able to interpret in the above fashion if one refuses to read the patent specification and prosecution history of the patent, in the context of the entire patent.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Yet ALL FIVE paid experts testified at trial that PID filtering met the parse step. Arguing facts of the case may be stupid, but it is impossible to refute...

All five experts agreed on one thing, that one thing was an opinion not a fact.

Ah, but because ALL FIVE paid experts testfied during trial that PID filtering met the parse step, it has become a "fact of the case", not a fact. Just because new testimony was given to try to hook to the separation and indexing of the video and audio data to the parse element doesn't dismiss the old testimony, a point that wasn't lost on Judge Folsom.

I agree with you each independent claim stands alone, but the appeals court said when you try to interpret each term in that claim, you must interpret it in the context of the patent specification and the prosecution history of the patent, and in the context of the entire patent.

And that was done during the trial and appeal, and as such PID filtering meets the parse element has become a fact of the case.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Yes, DISH's technology infringes on TiVo's patent. DISH will have to pay or shut them down.

DISH has lost every step of the way and there is no reason to drag this out any further. The appeal will be denied and Charlie will cry foul. I wonder if DISH can get a bailout?

Sure it does. It doesn't want to pay TiVO.

Never underestimate Charlie Ergen.

 

[vampz26]

Ah, but because ALL FIVE paid experts testfied during trial that PID filtering met the parse step, it has become a "fact of the case", not a fact. Just because new testimony was given to try to hook to the separation and indexing of the video and audio data to the parse element doesn't dismiss the old testimony, a point that wasn't lost on Judge Folsom.And that was done during the trial and appeal, and as such PID filtering meets the parse element has become a fact of the case.

Not a fact. Just something the court chooses to believe when making their decision.

Please don't confuse the technical issues by confusing the opinions of the court with actual facts.
Thanks.

 

[jacmyoung]

Ah, but because ALL FIVE paid experts testfied during trial that PID filtering met the parse step, it has become a "fact of the case", not a fact.

Now the E* expert says no, the PID filter does not meet the term "parse" as interpreted in the context of..., and this is also "'a fact of the case', not a fact." I don't see the ponit in this argument.

Just because new testimony was given to try to hook to the separation and indexing of the video and audio data to the parse element doesn't dismiss the old testimony, a point that wasn't lost on Judge Folsom. And that was done during the trial and appeal, and as such PID filtering meets the parse element has become a fact of the case.

As long as it is not a fact, only an opinion, embraced by the district court yes, but still an opinion, then you cannot say it is impossible to be refuted by E* on appeal.

BTW E* did not try to hook anything, E* used the patent specification, the prosecution history, in the context of the entire patent, to demonstrate in many ways the PID filer cannot be that "physical data source:"

1) Based on the figure in the patent specification, the PID filter is a part of the "input device." As such it is not the "physical data source." Just read the first step in the software claims, they cannot be the same thing.

2) It is impossible for the PID filter to analyze any audio and video data from the broadcast data because at the PID stage the broadcast data is encrypted, the PID filter only analyzes the channel ID packets, such ID packets contain no audio and video data.

3) The PID filter does not temporarily store any data, this much the TiVo expert admitted in the hearing.

Of course the judge never paid any attention to the above testimonies by E*. But I have a feeling the appeals court tend to be much more careful, I got this feeling by reading the appeals court's decision from the last appeal by E*. Else they would not have overturned the hardware claim verdicts.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

For the 37,000th time. Stop the bickering.

It seems to me that when you run out of things to argue, you all start going after each other.

 

[jacmyoung]

...Never underestimate Charlie Ergen.

He is quickly running out of options.

The reason one should not underestimate Charlie is if you look at the ADD situation. He pushed the legal envelop to the very limit and lost, but came up with this ADD idea so his distant subs could continue to get the distant networks.

FOX (then affiliated with DirecTV) motioned the court to find him in contempt, FOX lost. The court said there was nothing wrong with him letting ADD provide the programming to the E* subs, even though they were using the same satellite, same signals and same receivers in the subs' homes.

Here is something to consider, this whole TiVo's DVR patent is about the "simultaneous storage and playback" of TV programming. He could easily come up with a quick fix just like the ADD thing, download a software to disable the DVR functions, then restore some of the functions, as long as the DVRs no longer do the recording and playback at the same time. While it will not be as nice as before, just like the ADD thing, don't be surprised if he pulls another one like this.

Yes if he tries that, he must first inform the judge this time, that is why to have the appeals court to stay the injunction is very important, but if all things fail, he can still quickly make that request and implement such downgraded DVR functions to keep the loss of the subs at a minimum while waiting for the appeals court's decision.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Ok, once again, people don't listen. The rules are simple. Debate the issues; do not attack each other. Curtis is gone; Vampz is gone.

Anyone else?

 

[rockymtnhigh]

I would remove or move to a pit forum those bickering posts - why clogging the thread ?

Smith, I have it under control and will be cleaning it up. Give me a few minutes, please.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Ok, nothing to see here... back to your business folks.... But before you do, I will re-iterate the rules:

1) If you attack others, or try to bait them with provocative statements intended to incite, you will get a minimum 3 day vacation the first time. If you are allowed to return, and reoffend, the second offense will result in a permanent vacation.

2) IF you fall for the bait, you will get a 3 day vacation. I promised that 10 days ago, and today, was forced to carry through.

Do not underestimate my intention to keep this thread at a functioning level.

THANK YOU.

 

[CuriousMark]

Here is something to consider, this whole TiVo's DVR patent is about the "simultaneous storage and playback" of TV programming. He could easily come up with a quick fix just like the ADD thing, download a software to disable the DVR functions, then restore some of the functions, as long as the DVRs no longer do the recording and playback at the same time. While it will not be as nice as before, just like the ADD thing, don't be surprised if he pulls another one like this.

Yes if he tries that, he must first inform the judge this time, that is why to have the appeals court to stay the injunction is very important, but if all things fail, he can still quickly make that request and implement such downgraded DVR functions to keep the loss of the subs at a minimum while waiting for the appeals court's decision.

The shutoff will have to be immediate, and the restoring of some form of limited DVR workaround will take some time to be cleared by the court, but yes I see it as a real possibility too. Dish has shown that using the subscriber base as a weapon can be made to work, at least in the medium term. I personally think that doing so, is not in Dish's best long term interests, it might stem the customer loss, but certainly would not eliminate it. Not being able to offer full up DVR service would also make it harder to attract new subscribers. Still, I can see Dish doing this. I also think it is not in the interest of subscribers, but they are on their own here, just as they were over the ADD issue you mentioned in the top of your post.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

The shutoff will have to be immediate, and the restoring of some form of limited DVR workaround will take some time to be cleared by the court, but yes I see it as a real possibility too. Dish has shown that using the subscriber base as a weapon can be made to work, at least in the medium term. I personally think that doing so, is not in Dish's best long term interests, it might stem the customer loss, but certainly would not eliminate it. Not being able to offer full up DVR service would also make it harder to attract new subscribers. Still, I can see Dish doing this. I also think it is not in the interest of subscribers, but they are on their own here, just as they were over the ADD issue you mentioned in the top of your post.

There is no way on earth Dish is going to allow its DVR features to be shut-down. Its one thing to allow a local affiliate to go dark due to a failed contract negotiation; it is entirely a different thing to impact ALL subscribers to DVR receivers. There is no way it will ever happen. Ever.

And for those who received distant networks because there was no local coverage, Dish DID NOT leave them in the cold; that was the whole point of the ADD service.

 

[CuriousMark]

There is no way on earth Dish is going to allow its DVR features to be shut-down. Its one thing to allow a local affiliate to go dark due to a failed contract negotiation; it is entirely a different thing to impact ALL subscribers to DVR receivers. There is no way it will ever happen. Ever.

And for those who received distant networks because there was no local coverage, Dish DID NOT leave them in the cold; that was the whole point of the ADD service.

I sincerely hope you are right. To me it just seems that doing so would fit the pattern of past actions. First, I really do not believe it will be all DVRs, just most of the named models, and I strongly suspect there are fewer of them really out there than the big numbers of all DVRs currently being bandied about. Secondly, those units will still be excellent non-DVR receivers while a rework to limited DVR functionality was being worked. Based on the history of this case, it may already be in work and could be reviewed by the court relatively quickly with a turn-on available in as little as a few months. thirdly Dish will certainly try to upgrade as many users as it can to VIP models as quickly as it can to provide as many users as possible with a quick fix option. So all in all, these subscribers won't be left totally in the cold either, should Dish let it come to that.

Even with al that said, I agree that it is an unlikely scenario. I just fear it is still real and believe it could happen.

Let's all hope it does not come to that. It would be bad for all involved, Dish, TiVo, and subscribers.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

I sincerely hope you are right. To me it just seems that doing so would fit the pattern of past actions. First, I really do not believe it will be all DVRs, just most of the named models, and I strongly suspect there are fewer of them really out there than the big numbers of all DVRs currently being bandied about. Secondly, those units will still be excellent non-DVR receivers while a rework to limited DVR functionality was being worked. Based on the history of this case, it may already be in work and could be reviewed by the court relatively quickly with a turn-on available in as little as a few months. thirdly Dish will certainly try to upgrade as many users as it can to VIP models as quickly as it can to provide as many users as possible with a quick fix option. So all in all, these subscribers won't be left totally in the cold either, should Dish let it come to that.

Even with al that said, I agree that it is an unlikely scenario. I just fear it is still real and believe it could happen.

Let's all hope it does not come to that. It would be bad for all involved, Dish, TiVo, and subscribers.

As you say, I agree that the first thing Dish would do is make a mass swap out of the remaining offending receivers in service with Vip mpeg4 receivers. And then a whole new realm of litigation would start over whether the Vip series are offending; and the circle would begin again.

In many ways I think TiVo ends up as the big loser here, as Dish has been doing some amazing innovation with its NEWEST receiver the 922. You add Sling capability to a box, and its a totally different ball-game; and plus, Echostar is marketing that to cable providers too.