E* ordered to shut down DVR's within 30 days - BLOCKED by Federal Appeals Court - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 10:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jediphish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by necrolop
I dont understand Tivos Patent.

How can you patent recording video to a hard drive? Tivo did not invent this, they did not invent hard drives, nor video. They simply decided to make a product using this technology. ********.

Tivo did something "novel" with available technology, which is entirely patentable in this country. Improving upon an existing technology is patentable, unless it would have been the natural result of the technology. In this instance, the US Patent and Trademark Office determined, after its investigation of the patent's claims (part of the patent application process), determined that what Tivo created was NOT the natural result of existing technology. Bottom line - no one had ever done what Tivo did before Tivo did it and Tivo got a patent on the technology. The US copyright law fully protects Tivo's rights over its invention. The point of copyright is to foster development. If profits could not be derived from an invention, through monopoly and/or license, then what would be the incentive to try and develop anything new? Of course, "open source" arguments exist for changing patent and copyright laws, but changing the law is another argument for another day.
Jediphish is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 10:11 AM
Senior Member
 
lflorack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hilton, NY
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampz26
the TIVO 'victim' shouldn't care...protecting the real victims, the E* DVR users, is the courts responsiblity. Not Tivos. (And its pretty much up to E* to in this case to remind the courts of that! ) The E* DVR users acted in good faith in their use of the E* DVR service. And if E* treacherous act was so heinous as to require immediate and irrevocable shut down of all DVRs, then the E* DVR users are the real victims here and should be compensated for their trouble as well. Its that simple. Had E* intentially attempted to violate the patent, they would have in turn intentionally attempted to defraud their DVR subscriber base, thus their subscriber base would be entitled to damages as well. However, the courts ruled that there was no intentional act, therefore the courts are required to protect the the interests of the E* DVR sub, either by allowing E* to continue service to them within reasonable extent of the law, or if that is not possible, insure fair and just compensation for damages to the E* DVR subs who are the real victims here.
The complaint in front of the courts right now is Tivos -- regarding patent infringement. They have found that they are indeed the injured party here and the quickest way to stop the continuing 'injury' to Tivo is to stop the use of E*'s DVR's. within 30 days (which I know is on hold right now). Within those thirty days, there's nothing to say that E* and Tivo don't come to an amicable agreement that allows E* to pay the court-assessed penalties and back licensing fees -- and then agree to pay all future appropriate fees OR disable the infringing functionality or replace it, etc. Lastly, they could also negotiate a lesser settlement for the future licensing fees that Tivo is willing to accept that they feel is in their shareholders and customer's best interest.

The way I look at it, the 30 day period is just an incentive for E* to get busy with the future fees settlement negotiations. Unless E* wants to be totally stupid, it's unlikely that E*'s DVR's will ever really get shut off. Again, it's just a way to get E* to the table to negotiate a reasonable future compensation with Tivo while also protecting their IP.

So, with the only complaint before the courts being Tivo's, I'm unsure (I'm not a lawyer so no surprise here) how the courts would handle the protection of E*'s customers. I guess if the 30-day period doesn't work out properly for them, the courts could add on to the ruling in some way to protect them -- but again, i doubt they'll actually get iunjured since E* can protect them in several ways. AND I doubt they actually get hurt.

Links: My System Diagram / System Pix
Yamaha RX-A2010, Samsung UN55B8000, AppleTV, Roku3, Yamaha CDC-685, Oppo BDP-93
Klipsch: (2) RF-83's, (1) RC-64, (2) RVX-54's, (2) RSX-5's
SVS: (1) SB13-Ultra
See links above for additional system details.
lflorack is offline  
post #183 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 10:27 AM
Senior Member
 
speavler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Danville, CA
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Vampz, didn't the jury find that E* did in fact willfully infringe? And I disagree that the courts have a duty to protect DVR subscribers - I'm just not following that argument I guess. Anyway, I think some kind a licensing agreement will be worked out before DVR's are shut down, or a work-around is implemented. E* simply can't risk losing their subscriber base.
speavler is offline  
post #184 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 11:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bfdtv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 13,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
speavler,

Yes, Echostar was found to have willfilly infringed, although the judge decided not to award triple damages, presumably to reduce the grounds for appeal by Echostar. Tivo is certainly within its right to appeal the decision not to award damages for willful infringement to get 300% of the damages they were awarded.

In its statement, Echostar suggested that they were found not to have willfully infringed, when in fact the opposite is true -- they simply weren't penalized for their willful infringement. If they had, the damages would have been in excess of $200 million.
bfdtv is offline  
post #185 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 11:56 AM
 
Vampz26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfdtv
speavler,

Yes, Echostar was found to have willfilly infringed, although the judge decided not to award triple damages, presumably to reduce the grounds for appeal by Echostar. Tivo is certainly within its right to appeal the decision not to award damages for willful infringement to get 300% of the damages they were awarded.

In its statement, Echostar suggested that they were found not to have willfully infringed, when in fact the opposite is true -- they simply weren't penalized for their willful infringement. If they had, the damages would have been in excess of $200 million.
Well, from what I know, the JURY verdict stated that they 'willfully infringed', while the COURT conluded saying that Echostar had not acted in 'bad faith' upholding the verdict of 'infringement', yet not penalizing them for the willful infringement and giving them an avenue for appeal.

The courts and the government have a duty to protect the public. Thats the purpose they serve. In theory, if the government is not here to serve the people, than whom pray tell are they here to serve? (I say in theory because once you start on theories about the government being about business and screwing the people...this thread becomes something else entirely...) 3 million DVR users are part of the public and are 'really' the innocent victims here, and that must be considered in the final rulings. Granted its E*'s responsibility to protect its subs and bring these issues to the courts attention, but they could also be setting themselves up for a class-action lawsuit from their DVR subs if the injunction does go thru anyway. They are not in a good position either way...

A responsible decision of the courts will entitle Tivo to what they have due them, but will NOT affect the E* current DVR subscriber base.
Vampz26 is offline  
post #186 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 12:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Budget_HT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Renton, WA
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampz26
Well, from what I know, the JURY verdict stated that they 'willfully infringed', while the COURT conluded saying that Echostar had not acted in 'bad faith' upholding the verdict of 'infringement', yet not penalizing them for the willful infringement and giving them an avenue for appeal.

The courts and the government have a duty to protect the public. Thats the purpose they serve. In theory, if the government is not here to serve the people, than whom pray tell are they here to serve? (I say in theory because once you start on theories about the government being about business and screwing the people...this thread becomes something else entirely...) 3 million DVR users are part of the public and are 'really' the innocent victims here, and that must be considered in the final rulings. Granted its E*'s responsibility to protect its subs and bring these issues to the courts attention, but they could also be setting themselves up for a class-action lawsuit from their DVR subs if the injunction does go thru anyway. They are not in a good position either way...

A responsible decision of the courts will entitle Tivo to what they have due them, but will NOT affect the E* current DVR subscriber base.
Are your statements strictly your personal opinions, or do you know of legal precedents that provide a firm basis for your opinions?

Dave
Budget_HT is offline  
post #187 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 01:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 204
I once owned a Kodak Instant Camera and Polaroid won an infringement suit against them and I wasn't able to use it any more because they quit making film for it.

I don't think that would happen in this case, but it's not impossible.
Artwood is offline  
post #188 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 01:22 PM
Senior Member
 
yunlin12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 221
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampz26
The E* DVR users acted in good faith in their use of the E* DVR service. And if E* treacherous act was so heinous as to require immediate and irrevocable shut down of all DVRs, then the E* DVR users are the real victims here and should be compensated for their trouble as well.

If you bought stolen goods unknowingly, when the cops come to your door, they have every right to take the stolen goods away.
yunlin12 is offline  
post #189 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 01:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
generalpatton78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Carterville IL
Posts: 681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampz26
Nobody is being emotional here other than corporate Tivo rah-rah guy. I just find it offensive that somebody would get a sick thrill out of millions of customers potential downfall based on nothing more than his own product loyalty. It make no sense so he was called out on it. His posts are offensive and have been offensive. He is basically here to gloat, nothing more...we should all be happy for him to take his 6 Tivos and shut up right about now because he has yet to say anything of value...
Vampz26 I'm not going anywhere. I've been here for over two years and enjoy talking on these boards and many others including AVS sister forum Tivo community boards. Nothing I've said is offensive except for asking you to calm down maybe. This thread wasn't created for E* DVR customers only. It was created for everybody to discuss the situation and rulings and thats all I'm doing.

Now I certainly prefer the tivo UI over the other DVRs I've owned (moto6412,R15 and some others). I also agree with the decision that was issued and I'm sorry if that offends you. I do plan on "leasing" the HR20 when it comes out in my part of the country not just LA. However I do plan on buying several Series 3 to use with my cable company. So while I certainly prefer the tivo UI over anything else I've used. I have and will continue to use all types of DVRs if they offer features I want. However I would prefer Tivo software to be offered by more providers. I think this decision is crucial to making that happened and thats part of why I'm happy about this. Again I don't want you 622 turned off, but tivo can't let companies like E* walk all over there patents either.

So I hope you can understand I'm not taking some sick joy out of the possibility of your 622 getting turned off and I hope you will accept my friendship bracelet as a peace offering. ;)

Fredfa-"I agree with generalpatton78 "
generalpatton78 is offline  
post #190 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 01:31 PM
 
Vampz26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by yunlin12
If you bought stolen goods unknowingly, when the cops come to your door, they have every right to take the stolen goods away.
I'll Quote myself from a previous post:

Poor analogy. Likening a trusted service provider and consumers purchasing services in good faith from that provider to some guy who buys stolen radio from a fence on the street knowing the risks involved in the purchase is a poor analogy. Its not the same thing at all...
Vampz26 is offline  
post #191 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 01:49 PM
 
Vampz26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget_HT
Are your statements strictly your personal opinions, or do you know of legal precedents that provide a firm basis for your opinions?
LOL...you know whats funny? The Legal precidence your referring to is usually set on the BASIS of someone's personal opinions.... :D And sometimes, even on the opinions of someone like me....

Seriously though, if you must know...I am a software engineer, own a few copyrights and have personally witnessed much if the patent and IP process. I been a hired here and there as an expert witness in a few instances involving IP cases because many of these cases involve complex terminology that pretty much require interpretation for the courts. Most large IP firms have thier own expert witness on staff...I'm not one of those guys. I basically was given an opportunity here and there by some smaller firms when I was teaching university and consulting. I've also drafted technical software designs for the sole purpose of securing intellectual property.

As I've already said, I would love to have the time and read the court procedings more accurately, as the news articles only tell half the story. For example, Tivo software is written under the GPL open source license, so I would be curious how the GPL license legally affects the patent. Also, presuming that E* developed their software independently of Tivo as they say they did, it may do the same exact thing, but is it really the same software?

It could be the same software, because legally E* could build on an open source version of Tivo software and distribute it just like so many companies distribute flavors of linux. I'm just curious to where the patent comes in while still keeping the software technically open source. I'm not a lawyer, I just know something about the law.

But than what if it ISN'T the same software? I would be curious about what finer points in the software design and what algorithms within the source code are technically in question when determining that the patent itself was indeed infringed...there would have to be enough similiarity in the software design and algorithmic logic to prove this. Not just two programs doing the same thing.

Now as for precidence...thats another post...how much would you like to know about legal precidence? Personally, all I've ever seen come out of something like this on a much smaller scale (consultant/client IP cases involving software ) I've seen firm reprimands, damages awarded and paid, etc. But I've never seen a company 'forced' to uninstall software at a client. This situation strikes me as being similiar.
Vampz26 is offline  
post #192 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 02:08 PM
Senior Member
 
yunlin12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 221
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampz26
I'll Quote myself from a previous post:

Poor analogy. Likening a trusted service provider and consumers purchasing services in good faith from that provider to some guy who buys stolen radio from a fence on the street knowing the risks involved in the purchase is a poor analogy. Its not the same thing at all...
Good then, since E* is so established (and not a 2 bit street thug), E* customers should have no problem finding the responsible one when their stolen technology is taken away from E*'s box. We'll all seewhat a trusted service provide and consumer purchasing service Dish is.
yunlin12 is offline  
post #193 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 02:23 PM
Senior Member
 
D_Doherty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 311
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampz26

As I've already said, I would love to have the time and read the court procedings more accurately, as the news articles only tell half the story. For example, Tivo software is written under the GPL open source license, so I would be curious how the GPL license legally affects the patent. Also, presuming that E* developed their software independently of Tivo as they say they did, it may do the same exact thing, but is it really the same software?
Two things that amuse me:

1 . How many people that are not lawyers in real life but want to play one on the net.

2. All the internet lawyers are so much smarter than the real lawyers. You can find arguments about what both Tivo and E* should have done but didn't.

Did E* not understand the GPL terms?
Did E* not understand the concept of prior work?
Did E* not look in to patents when developing their own DVR?

I'm sure E* was aware of what they did all along the way - and that was also the jury's opinion.
D_Doherty is offline  
post #194 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 02:27 PM
 
Vampz26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by yunlin12
Good then, since E* is so established (and not a 2 bit street thug), E* customers should have no problem finding the responsible one when their stolen technology is taken away from E*'s box. We'll all seewhat a trusted service provide and consumer purchasing service Dish is.
another corporate rah-rah guy with nothing to win or lose, just another meaningless gloat with no substantiation...

If you have something intellegent to say regarding the topic, proceed...otherwise you can be easily ignored without concequence...

Sorry...I wish you were a happier person and not just some jealous, angry, frustrated fellow who has to resort to 'hate posts' to feel better about a previously purchased product...after all, we both know E* will be just fine in the end, and E* customers will be much better off....we always are... :D
Vampz26 is offline  
post #195 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 02:37 PM
 
Vampz26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Doherty
Two things that amuse me:

1 . How many people that are not lawyers in real life but want to play one on the net.

2. All the internet lawyers are so much smarter than the real lawyers. You can find arguments about what both Tivo and E* should have done but didn't.

Did E* not understand the GPL terms?
Did E* not understand the concept of prior work?
Did E* not look in to patents when developing their own DVR?

I'm sure E* was aware of what they did all along the way - and that was also the jury's opinion.

Who's playing anything? lol...you asked and I told you who I was and what my experience is...sorry if it wasn't the response you thought you were going to get...

I at no point claimed to know more about the case or how it should have been handled. I actually said the opposite. I know very little details about the case and would like very much out of curiousity to know more. All I know at this point is the stuff in the press releases. I may look up more info if I have time...

So whats your level of experience in IP? Are you a lawyer? Are you a Software Engineer...? Just curious here...

E*'s level of awareness is actually whats in question at this point in terms of enforcing the injunction...even if the jury did think so, the judge obviously didn't...

-V
Vampz26 is offline  
post #196 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 02:37 PM
Senior Member
 
yunlin12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 221
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampz26
As I've already said, I would love to have the time and read the court procedings more accurately, as the news articles only tell half the story. For example, Tivo software is written under the GPL open source license, so I would be curious how the GPL license legally affects the patent. Also, presuming that E* developed their software independently of Tivo as they say they did, it may do the same exact thing, but is it really the same software?

Tivo's time warping patent (6,233,389) is for the process and apparatus of a DVR, and is not specifically covering a piece of GPL code.

For example, the central software claim 31 starts:
"A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising the steps of:
providing a physical data source,wherein said physical data source accepts broadcast data from an input device, parses video and audio from said broadcast data, and temporarily stores said video and audio data; ...."

This is also the reason why this would give Tivo leverage in going after other DVR vendors such as Motorola, it doesn't matter what programming language the code is written in. The patent is about using a low power CPU to do data flow control between MPEG source (usually an encoder,but could be direct digital TV signal), hard drive, MPEG decoder to output, that can handel multi-MB/second throughput. Tivo figured out how to route/index the data directly on the hard driver without the need for intermediate memory to store MB's of data for the CPU to process. This was how Tivo made their first DVR in late 90's for 100's of $, while E* had a different prototype that didn't get this level of optimization and costed 1000's of $ to make.
yunlin12 is offline  
post #197 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 02:40 PM
Senior Member
 
yunlin12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 221
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampz26
another corporate rah-rah guy with nothing to win or lose, just another meaningless gloat with no substantiation...

If you have something intellegent to say regarding the topic, proceed...otherwise you can be easily ignored without concequence...

Sorry...I wish you were a happier person and not just some jealous, angry, frustrated fellow who has to resort to 'hate posts' to feel better about a previously purchased product...after all, we both know E* will be just fine in the end, and E* customers will be much better off....we always are... :D
:confused: was this necessary?
yunlin12 is offline  
post #198 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 02:46 PM
 
Vampz26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by yunlin12
Tivo's time warping patent (6,233,389) is for the process and apparatus of a DVR, and is not specifically covering a piece of GPL code.

For example, the central software claim 31 starts:
"A process for the simultaneous storage and play back of multimedia data, comprising the steps of:
providing a physical data source,wherein said physical data source accepts broadcast data from an input device, parses video and audio from said broadcast data, and temporarily stores said video and audio data; ...."

This is also the reason why this would give Tivo leverage in going after other DVR vendors such as Motorola, it doesn't matter what programming language the code is written in. The patent is about using a low power CPU to do data flow control between MPEG source (usually an encoder,but could be direct digital TV signal), hard drive, MPEG decoder to output, that can handel multi-MB/second throughput. Tivo figured out how to route/index the data directly on the hard driver without the need for intermediate memory to store MB's of data for the CPU to process. This was how Tivo made their first DVR in late 90's for 100's of $, while E* had a different prototype that didn't get this level of optimization and costed 1000's of $ to make.
WOW! Very good!

How different my response would have been if you had just said something intellegent like this to begin with instead of acting like....well an a$$... :D

Yes, a 'process' itself can be legally patented. So the code or software itself was not the patented piece, but the process itself. Therefore the software/hardware implemented here is intended to implement 'this process'. Got it...Thanks...this is great information.

So the real question here is whether or not E* knowingly copy this specified process or stumbled upon it as well as they tried to create a competing product.
If the technology is there...people are going to stumble upon similiar ideas on how to use it...
Vampz26 is offline  
post #199 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 02:49 PM
 
Vampz26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by yunlin12
:confused: was this necessary?
Was this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by yunlin12
Good then, since E* is so established (and not a 2 bit street thug), E* customers should have no problem finding the responsible one when their stolen technology is taken away from E*'s box. We'll all seewhat a trusted service provide and consumer purchasing service Dish is.
its nothing more than a gloat...I've got no patience for stuff like that anymore...

your next post was much more interesting...
Vampz26 is offline  
post #200 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 02:54 PM
Senior Member
 
speavler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Danville, CA
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampz26
Well, from what I know, the JURY verdict stated that they 'willfully infringed', while the COURT conluded saying that Echostar had not acted in 'bad faith' upholding the verdict of 'infringement', yet not penalizing them for the willful infringement and giving them an avenue for appeal.

The courts and the government have a duty to protect the public. Thats the purpose they serve. In theory, if the government is not here to serve the people, than whom pray tell are they here to serve? (I say in theory because once you start on theories about the government being about business and screwing the people...this thread becomes something else entirely...) 3 million DVR users are part of the public and are 'really' the innocent victims here, and that must be considered in the final rulings. Granted its E*'s responsibility to protect its subs and bring these issues to the courts attention, but they could also be setting themselves up for a class-action lawsuit from their DVR subs if the injunction does go thru anyway. They are not in a good position either way...

A responsible decision of the courts will entitle Tivo to what they have due them, but will NOT affect the E* current DVR subscriber base.
But are not TIVO shareholders the public as well? I just signed up for Dish and their DVR, which my be worthless in 30 days. At most, I'll lose a couple hundred bucks. What do TIVO shareholders stand to lose?
speavler is offline  
post #201 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 02:57 PM
Senior Member
 
lflorack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hilton, NY
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampz26
The courts and the government have a duty to protect the public. Thats the purpose they serve. In theory, if the government is not here to serve the people, than whom pray tell are they here to serve?

[snip]

A responsible decision of the courts will entitle Tivo to what they have due them, but will NOT affect the E* current DVR subscriber base.
My point in bringing up (in an earlier message) was that the courts have Tivo's complaint regarding patent infringement before them and that is what they are acting on. I don't know that I agree (again, I'm not a lawyer) that the courts should worry about E*'s DVR customers at this point. They've provided the 30-day period to E* so they can react properly -- both to Tivo and their customers. They've already been told what their penalty is for infringement. At the point that E* doesn't take care of their customers properly, the courts could ( I guess) step in and make them take care of it. What's more likely though is that the customers could bring their own complaint to the courts for relief. But again, the courts are currently only addressing Tivo's complaint. It probably won't come to that though since E* (hopefully) isn't that stupid.

What I'm saying is that E*s customers have a beef with E* -- not the courts or Tivo. If E* was smart, they'd take care of their customers or chance losing them all AND getting sued too.

Links: My System Diagram / System Pix
Yamaha RX-A2010, Samsung UN55B8000, AppleTV, Roku3, Yamaha CDC-685, Oppo BDP-93
Klipsch: (2) RF-83's, (1) RC-64, (2) RVX-54's, (2) RSX-5's
SVS: (1) SB13-Ultra
See links above for additional system details.
lflorack is offline  
post #202 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 03:00 PM
 
Vampz26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by speavler
But are not TIVO shareholders the public as well? I just signed up for Dish and their DVR, which my be worthless in 30 days. At most, I'll lose a couple hundred bucks. What do TIVO shareholders stand to lose?
about 20% to 30% of its current value, already raised due to the hype of this case.

It will unlike go much below 5 dollars a share again because its revenue stream remains steady. Its the potential for additional revenue streams that is fueling the current stock price...

BTW: yes stockholders are the public, and they are legally protected as the stockholders for any other company are. However in this case they invested in Tivo KNOWING the risks just as any investor does. Its the customers who've been using the product in good faith with presumably no risks...those are the ones I'm talking about. Stockholder and customer are very different entities here. Different rules apply to each...
Vampz26 is offline  
post #203 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 03:07 PM
Senior Member
 
yunlin12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 221
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampz26
So the real question here is whether or not E* knowingly copy this specified process or stumbled upon it as well as they tried to create a competing product.
If the technology is there...people are going to stumble upon similiar ideas on how to use it...
What I gathered was that E* tried a few different proto-types, including buying the Microsoft webTV-plus (IIRC), which had some redimentary DVR functionality, I think their earlier models may have technologies from those, which may be a reason why some models are not infringing. (I wonder how those earlier models worked.) Tivo made a couple of visits to E* trying to sell their product, starting 1999 (again, IIRC), then again later (2000?), and on their second trip they also informed E* that this technology is under patent application. Tivo also left a box in E*'s office and never took it back, but I don't remember on which trip they brought it to E*. E*'s court case was built around their so-claimed prior arts that predate Tivo's, but none held up, which is why Tivo won the trial decisively (2 hour jury deliberation).

Even though the law as interpreted is clear that E*'s boxes infringed, I think it's hard to prove the willfulness, but looks to me that E* knew what they were doing a long time ago, or at least should've suspected, but they still came out with their products.
yunlin12 is offline  
post #204 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 05:04 PM
Senior Member
 
D_Doherty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 311
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampz26
Who's playing anything? lol...you asked and I told you who I was and what my experience is...sorry if it wasn't the response you thought you were going to get...

I at no point claimed to know more about the case or how it should have been handled. I actually said the opposite. I know very little details about the case and would like very much out of curiousity to know more. All I know at this point is the stuff in the press releases. I may look up more info if I have time...

So whats your level of experience in IP? Are you a lawyer? Are you a Software Engineer...? Just curious here...

E*'s level of awareness is actually whats in question at this point in terms of enforcing the injunction...even if the jury did think so, the judge obviously didn't...

-V
I am not a lawyer, but I pay one in real life (actually a few). I am a part time s/w engineer and I own my own company.

I have been dealing w/IP lawyers off and on for about 7 years now and for the most part find the whole process a waste of my time and money.

That being said, I have taken an interest in this case because it demonstrates points that I have used when discussing IP at work:

1. patents are expensive to get (for a small company)
2. even if you have a valid patent, enforcing it can be more than it is worth or you can afford
3. lawyers know items 1&2 to be true
4. some lawyers are not very nice (the nicest way I can say it)
5. some companies paired with some lawyers will infringe upon a patent because of item 2 above

The whole process reminds me of a scene from 'Trading Places', when Billy Ray is told of how the markets work and responds with, “Well it sounds to me like you guys are a couple of bookies.â€

In the end the only GUARANTEED winners are the lawyers.
D_Doherty is offline  
post #205 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 06:29 PM
 
Vampz26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Doherty
I am not a lawyer, but I pay one in real life (actually a few). I am a part time s/w engineer and I own my own company.

I have been dealing w/IP lawyers off and on for about 7 years now and for the most part find the whole process a waste of my time and money.

That being said, I have taken an interest in this case because it demonstrates points that I have used when discussing IP at work:

1. patents are expensive to get (for a small company)
2. even if you have a valid patent, enforcing it can be more than it is worth or you can afford
3. lawyers know items 1&2 to be true
4. some lawyers are not very nice (the nicest way I can say it)
5. some companies paired with some lawyers will infringe upon a patent because of item 2 above

The whole process reminds me of a scene from 'Trading Places', when Billy Ray is told of how the markets work and responds with, “Well it sounds to me like you guys are a couple of bookies.â€

In the end the only GUARANTEED winners are the lawyers.
Sounds like we both went to the same school of law...literally... the only reason I got involved with the whole expert witness thing was to find a kink in the systems legal armor. The whole thing is a racket at heart. I've even considered going back to school for a JD just because it was still cheaper than hiring more lawyers.

:D

Well, with regards to the ongoing conversation, I believe we've confused the words "willfully" and "knowingly" when making our points, (as well as interpreting everyone elses) if that makes sense.

I'm not sure where the whole "left the demo box at the office" story came from...but hey, whatever. lol.

At the end of the day, if I hadnt made my point clear enough. Whether or not E* did or did not infringe the patent, I believe it is wrong for the courts to shut off E* subs DVRs. I'm certain that the judge is just playing hardball here with E* to get them to play ball all the way around, but in the end...if DVRS get shut off for E* subs who've done nothing wrong without first exhausting EVERY POSSIBLE OPTION with E* to resolve this matter...than our nations court system has failed the people. They need to just leave the existing DVRs alone, refrain from selling any new DVRs if they must, award appropriate compensation for those existing DVRs already out there in order to keep them running....case closed.
Vampz26 is offline  
post #206 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 06:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 204
Many PR departments and many lawyers try cases in the media.

Is there any chance that such a thing could happen here?
Artwood is offline  
post #207 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 06:56 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bfdtv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 13,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Note that satellite boxes are typically sold with a disclaimer (often in small print) stating that features can change at any time.
bfdtv is offline  
post #208 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 07:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
davehancock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY (near Buffalo)
Posts: 5,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfdtv
Note that satellite boxes are typically sold with a disclaimer (often in small print) stating that features can change at any time.
Including that they may cease to work at all? :cool:

Dave Hancock
davehancock is offline  
post #209 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 08:22 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
bfdtv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 13,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Including that they may cease to work at all?
There's no threat of that happening here. Dish Network's DVRs are already designed to function with the DVR features disabled. On other forums, customers have found that Dish DVRs continue to function as set-top boxes when their hard drive has died.
bfdtv is offline  
post #210 of 267 Old 08-21-2006, 08:45 PM
Senior Member
 
speavler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Danville, CA
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood
Many PR departments and many lawyers try cases in the media.

Is there any chance that such a thing could happen here?
It's all posturing. Companies I've invested in that have gone through patent cases - both companies will put out press releases saying how they're confident they'll get a favorable ruling. Each party wants to sound like they will not hesitate to go to trial, (or in this case, appeals) and fight tooth and nail so when they do finally start negotiating, maybe they'll have a little more leverage.
speavler is offline  
Closed Thread HDTV Recorders

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off