# Dish granted full court review



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Wow.

Dish has been granted a full appeals court review of the contempt finding.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20100514/D9FMN9Q00.html


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

So how long has this case been going on now?


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

This is never going to end, is it?


----------



## kevinwill1 (Apr 18, 2004)

Yeah, it probably will end, but long after both companies lose absolutely every bit of their relevancy. Crazy stuff...


----------



## reubanks (Feb 19, 2006)

Well since Tivo took what is probably a short term hit on stock prices, maybe now is a good time to buy?


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

reubanks said:


> Well since Tivo took what is probably a short term hit on stock prices, maybe now is a good time to buy?


depends on your definition of "short term". since it will be months before it has any chance of jumping back up again why buy now?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

WhiskeyTango said:


> This is never going to end, is it?


In the year 2525, If man is still alive, If woman can survive, They may find...


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

reubanks said:


> Well since Tivo took what is probably a short term hit on stock prices, maybe now is a good time to buy?


Without a big payout from Dish and on going fees from Dish TiVo is a decade plus old company without a way to show a profit. Just exactly how much do you think a company is worth that burns money every quarter? If somehow Dish gets out of this TiVo is/will be without a path to profitability.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

bigpuma said:


> So how long has this case been going on now?


6 years since filed, 4 years since the initial decision in TiVo's favor. This might not be a record, but it's got to be one of most drawn out court cases in history.

The en banc hearing wasn't expected to be granted, that's why the stock dropped since the market doesn't like to be surprised. I don't know how long an en banc hearing normally lasts (I've heard anywhere from 1 to 3 months), but since DISH has lost every appeal they've made so far, I don't see them winning this one either. If that happens, I expect the stock will go back up.

At the rate things go though, TiVo's patent will expire before the courts render a final decision.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

I'm confused here. This ruling only covers the contempt charge appeal correct? That is all the stuff that I have been able to find. If that is the case I don't understand how Tivo could be worth $750+ million less if they lost $200 million. The infringement case still stands as best I can tell. That means they can still get (extort if you so choose to think of it that way) payments from all the other DVR manufacturers.


----------



## SleepyBob (Sep 28, 2000)

socrplyr said:


> I'm confused here. This ruling only covers the contempt charge appeal correct? That is all the stuff that I have been able to find. If that is the case I don't understand how Tivo could be worth $750+ million less if they lost $200 million. The infringement case still stands as best I can tell. That means they can still get (extort if you so choose to think of it that way) payments from all the other DVR manufacturers.


Many investors probably expected that TiVo would end up with a lucrative licensing agreement with Dish after this. The potential loss of that is more significant than the $200M. Plus, stock prices are all about perceived value, not actual value.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

SleepyBob said:


> Many investors probably expected that TiVo would end up with a lucrative licensing agreement with Dish after this. The potential loss of that is more significant than the $200M. Plus, stock prices are all about perceived value, not actual value.


And I guess you don't get what I was saying either. The contempt charge has nothing to do with the licensing or possible licensing. The $200 million was for Dish _knowingly_ creating the software update that was not colorably different. The other $100+ million (on top of the original $100+ million) was for licensing the tech. Those were not punitive damages like the $200 million was. Now either the news is misreporting what the appeal is about or investors are morons.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

socrplyr said:


> The contempt charge has nothing to do with the licensing or possible licensing.


Actually it has everything to do with it. Dish refused to license or shut down instead choosing to disregard a court order. Contempt is about forcing them to either obey or strike a deal. If Dish strikes a deal, it is very likely that everyone else will also do the same. If Dish is shut down, it is very likely that everyone else strikes a deal. If Dish gets away with it, and gets the contempt reversed, there is no incentive for Dish or anyone else to strike a deal, they can all keep using TiVo's technology for free.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

socrplyr said:


> And I guess you don't get what I was saying either. The contempt charge has nothing to do with the licensing or possible licensing. The $200 million was for Dish _knowingly_ creating the software update that was not colorably different. The other $100+ million (on top of the original $100+ million) was for licensing the tech. Those were not punitive damages like the $200 million was. Now either the news is misreporting what the appeal is about or investors are morons.


investors are most concerned with what they think a company will earn in the future. this ruling draws Tivo's ability to collect future sky high license fees into question. if you give dish long enough they will come up with a valid workaround and never have to license tivo's patents. they just got another 6 months or more to try. one possible outcome is the cafc will rule dish deserves a new trial on the workaround. if that happens then all bets are off.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

CuriousMark said:


> Actually it has everything to do with it. Dish refused to license or shut down instead choosing to disregard a court order. Contempt is about forcing them to either obey or strike a deal. If Dish strikes a deal, it is very likely that everyone else will also do the same. If Dish is shut down, it is very likely that everyone else strikes a deal. If Dish gets away with it, and gets the contempt reversed, there is no incentive for Dish or anyone else to strike a deal, they can all keep using TiVo's technology for free.


You logic here is incorrect. If the contempt charge is dismissed in this case, it is because the court buys Dish's good faith workaround argument. It does not change the fact that Dish is still infringing and will still have to pay royalties and will still have to eventually make a deal with Tivo. That is why I see the issue with what I have been reading from the press, which says this is for the contempt charge only. If it is only for the contempt charge Dish must still license and they must still license NOW. Somehow I am beginning to believe that this is more than just about the contempt charge, but that is not what the reports I have read state.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

HiDefGator said:


> investors are most concerned with what they think a company will earn in the future. this ruling draws Tivo's ability to collect future sky high license fees into question. if you give dish long enough they will come up with a valid workaround and never have to license tivo's patents. they just got another 6 months or more to try. one possible outcome is the cafc will rule dish deserves a new trial on the workaround. if that happens then all bets are off.


Actually investors are not interested in how much money a company makes they are interested in how much they can sell a stock for at a later date. If they were interested in how much a company makes they would need a dividend or some similar payout. Maybe you are right, but you miss the folly here. If a workaround is possible, it will happen whether or not Dish licenses Tivo's IP or not. If they license first and come up with a workaround later, then they stop paying (assuming they don't sign up for egregious terms in their licensing). If they don't license now and come up with a workaround later, they will still have to pay Tivo through court decided fees. Maybe the $100 million figures were lower than what Tivo wants to license over an equivalent number of machines and time? However, loosing a contempt judgment doesn't undo the infringing judgment. However, you do make a good point that maybe Dish can get to a workaround cheaper this way. In the end, if a workaround was possible, then the folly was that the investors thought one wasn't possible. So far there is no word on a workaround that is good. Either way... If you think a workaround is possible, then the stock shouldn't drop as you should have already thought about that before you bought it. If you think a workaround is not possible, then the stock shouldn't drop as it is not possible. Now the stock should have dropped today by some fraction of the $200 million as that is what Tivo stands to lose here.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

socrplyr said:


> You logic here is incorrect. If the contempt charge is dismissed in this case, it is because the court buys Dish's good faith workaround argument. It does not change the fact that Dish is still infringing and will still have to pay royalties and will still have to eventually make a deal with Tivo. That is why I see the issue with what I have been reading from the press, which says this is for the contempt charge only. If it is only for the contempt charge Dish must still license and they must still license NOW. Somehow I am beginning to believe that this is more than just about the contempt charge, but that is not what the reports I have read state.


Part of the appeal is that the original shutdown order was too broad. Dish could theoretically win on that and have the the injunction go away. Another part of the appeal is on whether contempt was the correct process. If they win on that, a new trial, and several years would elapse before we even know if the DVRs with the workaround infringe or not.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

CuriousMark said:


> Part of the appeal is that the original shutdown order was too broad. Dish could theoretically win on that and have the the injunction go away. Another part of the appeal is on whether contempt was the correct process. If they win on that, a new trial, and several years would elapse before we even know if the DVRs with the workaround infringe or not.


OK, that I will buy from the standpoint that it doesn't contradict what the media is saying about the situation. Several outlets just say that $200 million ruling. I think maybe saying what you have said in another way might be more clear though:
Dish's argument is that they aren't in contempt, because their updated software was judged to be infringing through the contempt cycle of the case. They are arguing that a new trial for new software should be given.

I won't pretend to know law here, but that would be asinine assuming that the new software was given a full chance to be non-infringing by the court. If the court sets that precedent, then no litigation will ever end as a minor changes will continually be made. Personally, I believe that once you are guilty of infringement it should now be your duty to prove innocence in the future. (Consider it a punitive ruling...) However, what I think and the way things are (or should be) are two completely different things.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

socrplyr said:


> OK, that I will buy from the standpoint that it doesn't contradict what the media is saying about the situation. Several outlets just say that $200 million ruling. I think maybe saying what you have said in another way might be more clear though:
> Dish's argument is that they aren't in contempt, because their updated software was judged to be infringing through the contempt cycle of the case. They are arguing that a new trial for new software should be given.


Yes, well said.



> I won't pretend to know law here, but that would be asinine assuming that the new software was given a full chance to be non-infringing by the court. If the court sets that precedent, then no litigation will ever end as a minor changes will continually be made. Personally, I believe that once you are guilty of infringement it should now be your duty to prove innocence in the future. (Consider it a punitive ruling...) However, what I think and the way things are (or should be) are two completely different things.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## sender_name (Feb 12, 2005)

stock...never about yesterday, or today...only tomorrow...Companies can have a HUGE quarter and list a minor downgrade in the forecast for the upcoming quarter and the stock will take a ridiculous dive...


----------



## mchief (Sep 10, 2005)

And therein lies the 'buy on the rumor - sell on the news'


----------



## PawsitiveTrainer (May 4, 2007)

I wish the investors were half as smart as the Tivo community! If no one freaked out and sold, then the stock price would not drop!! I lost a ton of money today


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

reubanks said:


> Well since Tivo took what is probably a short term hit on stock prices, maybe now is a good time to buy?


FYI, there is no stock talk here.. (I don't agree with that personally..)

but that kind of talk can get threads locked.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

PawsitiveTrainer said:


> I wish the investors were half as smart as the Tivo community! If no one freaked out and sold, then the stock price would not drop!! I lost a ton of money today


Technically you've only lost money if you sell right now. I still think there's a good chance TiVo will win the en banc which should drive the price back up.

And that's all I'll say about that since I'm already in gray territory as it is.

Actually was the "no stock talk rule" ever reconfirmed after the forums were sold? I haven't seen an official post anywhere on here about it. Maybe it was repealed similar to the old rule that your avatar had to be an image of you?


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

morac said:


> ...Actually was the "no stock talk rule" ever reconfirmed after the forums were sold? I haven't seen an official post anywhere on here about it. Maybe it was repealed similar to the old rule that your avatar had to be an image of you?


It's still listed as a banned topic in the forum rules, but FWIW, so is "Discussion about file conversion or circumventing .tivo encryption."


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

orangeboy said:


> It's still listed as a banned topic in the forum rules, but FWIW, so is "Discussion about file conversion or circumventing .tivo encryption."


Ironically one of the rules is you can't promote specific companies. So no talking about Tivo or its products. 

I have a feeling the "no stock talk" rule was designed to prevent people from coming in here and recommending stock about other companies (stock spam). One would think talking about TiVo stock on a TiVo forum would be okay as long as it was pertinent to the discussion at hand. In other words posting "buy/sell stock X now" in a help or feature request thread would be bad. I would think speculating on how the outcome of a Dish/TiVo law suit would affect TiVo's stock be okay. It's not like analysts wade through the boards looking for tips from average users.


----------



## 6079 Smith W (Oct 2, 2000)

morac said:


> I have a feeling the "no stock talk" rule was designed to prevent people from coming in here and recommending stock about other companies (stock spam). One would think talking about TiVo stock on a TiVo forum would be okay as long as it was pertinent to the discussion at hand.


Actually, the "no stock talk" rule was largely due to a notorious TiVo stock short-seller that used to come in here and spew nonsense about the company in an effort to help his position.

That kind of thing got out of hand enough for the rule to be put into place, though it seems a bit more relaxed than those days.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

6079 Smith W said:


> Actually, the "no stock talk" rule was largely due to a notorious TiVo stock short-seller that used to come in here and spew nonsense about the company in an effort to help his position.
> 
> That kind of thing got out of hand enough for the rule to be put into place, though it seems a bit more relaxed than those days.


Nobody on this or any other form would ever give out non public information about any stock, as one could go to jail for that. Any stock information would be only speculation, or misinformation to help the posters' position. If I wanted to say purchase TiVo stock I would first try to drive the price down, purchase, than sing TiVo praises, that may be why talking about the stock should be avoided.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

lessd said:


> Nobody on this or any other form would ever give out non public information about any stock, as one could go to jail for that. Any stock information would be only speculation, or misinformation to help the posters' position. If I wanted to say purchase TiVo stock I would first try to drive the price down, purchase, than sing TiVo praises, that may be why talking about the stock should be avoided.


The thing is, nothing anyone posts here (short of a post by the CEO) could budge the stock price up or down. Nearly all stock movement these days (and this is true of most companies) is triggered by large Mutual Fund and ETF investment firms and they simply don't read through forum threads here looking for tips. They use high tech software analysis tools while also looking at the quarterlies and trial news. The idea that someone posting here could move the market is ridiculous.

It's like the deluded people who spam post over on the Yahoo stock boards thinking that their posts are actually moving the stock price. It's actually funny to read.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

The court appears to be particularly interested in the question of whether the judge erred by deciding that the DVRs still infringed based on a contempt hearing rather than a new infringement trial.

That doesn't mean the whole can of worms won't be reviewed, they say that they'll be hearing the case based on the original briefs as well as new ones to be filed, but it sounds like it's the legal points that caught their interest more than the technical question of whether the devices did or did not still infringe.

This should draw some interest from the industry in the form of amicus briefs. A ruling that a new trial should have been required to determine continued infringement would mean that companies like Dish can put patent holders on an endless treadmill of new suits by simply updating their device and claiming a "good faith" effort to design around the patent.



> IT IS ORDERED THAT:
> (1) The petition of Defendants-Appellants EchoStar Corporation et al. for panel rehearing is denied.
> 
> (2) The petition of Defendants-Appellants EchoStar Corporation, et al. for rehearing en banc is granted.
> ...


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

morac said:


> The thing is, nothing anyone posts here (short of a post by the CEO) could budge the stock price up or down. Nearly all stock movement these days (and this is true of most companies) is triggered by large Mutual Fund and ETF investment firms and they simply don't read through forum threads here looking for tips. They use high tech software analysis tools while also looking at the quarterlies and trial news. The idea that someone posting here could move the market is ridiculous.
> 
> It's like the deluded people who spam post over on the Yahoo stock boards thinking that their posts are actually moving the stock price. It's actually funny to read.


What you said is true on one level but if I posted that my brother Joe who works in TiVo accounting told me that TiVo just found out that (you fill in the rest) someone on this form may purchase/sell the TiVo stock. If the stock than went in the wrong direction for them they may get mad and ask for a class action suit ..Ha Ha.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

lessd said:


> What you said is true on one level but if I posted that my brother Joe who works in TiVo accounting told me that TiVo just found out that (you fill in the rest) someone on this form may purchase/sell the TiVo stock. If the stock than went in the wrong direction for them they may get mad and ask for a class action suit ..Ha Ha.


Well that wouldn't be the first time I've seen someone post here about starting a class action law suit.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

nrc said:


> A ruling that a new trial should have been required to determine continued infringement would mean that companies like Dish can put patent holders on an endless treadmill of new suits by simply updating their device and claiming a "good faith" effort to design around the patent.


It will also prevent companies like TiVo to claim that workaround still infringes even if it doesn't without a new trial.


----------



## socrplyr (Jul 19, 2006)

samo said:


> It will also prevent companies like TiVo to claim that workaround still infringes even if it doesn't without a new trial.


Umm if there is a new trial, then Tivo would be claiming that it infringes. In this trial Tivo claimed that the workaround infringes. The difference? 5 years and countless hours wasted in court. The judge in this case looked at the new software by seeing what Dish changed. It was found to still be infringing. If the whole case came through the same judge again, he would call it infringing again. Thus wasting lots of time and money for a whole new trial for nothing.

It only makes sense to do it in the same trial as the patents that Dish is said to be in violation of are the same for both the original and new software. However, the question asked by the appeals court is whether or not the way the law is written reflects that. There are a lot of arcane and stupid things that must be followed in the law.

In this case it is clear the Dish is infringing. They continue to infringe (according to the judge in the case). They will continue to infringe in the future, but they want to drag this out for another 5 years. Assuming the law was followed when it comes to determining infringement (not what court proceedings, but listening to arguments and applying patent law), then Dish will be found guilty again. Period.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

socrplyr said:


> Umm if there is a new trial, then Tivo would be claiming that it infringes. In this trial Tivo claimed that the workaround infringes. The difference? 5 years and countless hours wasted in court. The judge in this case looked at the new software by seeing what Dish changed. It was found to still be infringing. If the whole case came through the same judge again, he would call it infringing again. Thus wasting lots of time and money for a whole new trial for nothing.


A new trial means a new jury. The jury is the one that determines infringement. A new jury could find that the new products do not infringe (although that wouldn't happen in this district).

This is why software-based patents aren't worth very much. It is easy to develop work-arounds for them. Then the work-around is judged, and if it's also found to infringe, you just deploy another work-around. You keep doing that until you get it right. Once you do, the patent is worthless, the holder's stock price plunges and goes out of business, and you can redeploy the original solution without fear of being sued.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> This is why software-based patents aren't worth very much. It is easy to develop work-arounds for them. Then the work-around is judged, and if it's also found to infringe, you just deploy another work-around. You keep doing that until you get it right. Once you do, the patent is worthless, the holder's stock price plunges and goes out of business, and you can redeploy the original solution without fear of being sued.


the patent holder does get paid for infringement until the infringer is no longer infringing. so no matter how many workaround iterations it takes, the patent holder is still paid.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

samo said:


> It will also prevent companies like TiVo to claim that workaround still infringes even if it doesn't without a new trial.


it was a Judge who ruled the work around still infringed. TiVo and DISH can claim all they want but a Judge is who makes the ruling that matters. I see no problem with giving a judge some lattitude on this in order to avoid the treadmill


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

maybe this isn't the right place to ask- but why do these things take so darn long? Is there just a lack of courtrooms and judges so there's a crazy backlog? 

I can see the logic that a new trial should be required- but in the real world it's not workable if it takes another 5 years. Larger companies could string out things to take 10, 15, or even 20 years. And just bury smaller competitors with lawyers and courts. There's got to be some realistic ability of an underdog to win before they are put out of business with lawyer debt or otherwise the powerful entities just control everything. 

Also- did Folsom say the new software was infringing or just that it wasn't more than colorably different so didn't deserve a new trial? (reading the appeal ruling above sounds like he picked words in the middle? implying it was more than colorably different but that still wasn't clearly non-infringing?)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

> An original and thirty copies of new en banc briefs shall be filed, and two copies of each en banc brief shall be served on opposing counsel.


33 copies?!- gees the EPA should step in and get the court system under control- seems we could fix global warming by saving all the tries the courts are killing.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> Also- did Folsom say the new software was infringing or just that it wasn't more than colorably different so didn't deserve a new trial? (reading the appeal ruling above sounds like he picked words in the middle? implying it was more than colorably different but that still wasn't clearly non-infringing?)


he never used the phrase "colorably different" and the en banc acceptance made note of that.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

Incredible:



> After going through six years of litigation and three law firms, EchoStar Communications hasn't had much to cheer about in its epic patent fight with TiVo Inc. Finally, though, the company that runs the Dish Network for satellite television got some good news: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit announced on Friday that it was granting EchoStar's request for an en banc rehearing. The Federal Circuit will reconsider a ruling that EchoStar was in contempt for failing to comply with an injunction ordering it to remove infringing digital video recorders from the market.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

socrplyr said:


> I'm confused here. This ruling only covers the contempt charge appeal correct? That is all the stuff that I have been able to find. If that is the case I don't understand how Tivo could be worth $750+ million less if they lost $200 million. The infringement case still stands as best I can tell. That means they can still get (extort if you so choose to think of it that way) payments from all the other DVR manufacturers.


The results of the original infringement are, ironically, irrelevant at this stage of the game because TiVo won't be able to "extort" because if the FC rules in what can be termed Dish's favor, all others TiVo intends to extort will use the same tactic as Dish and design new software workarounds like Dish, and it is OVER for TiVo. TiVo needs the continuing stream of a license agreement to stay alive, and if the FC finds that Folsom erred in not granting Dish a new trial for the software workaround or was wrong in attempting to subject subsequent models of Dish DVR's to the original ruling of the trial, then TiVo is toast, and Verizon and AT&T will drag it out just as long as Dish and by then TiVo's patents are no more. So, this case is EVERYTHING for TiVo. Keep in mind that Judge Folsom has among the highest rates of decisions being overturned by appellate courts, and has received some of the most harsh admonishments from appellate courts. Even Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia refers to Folsom's Tyler, TX playground as a "rouge court."

The results of the original infringement trial are truly irrelevant at this point in the game. TiVo's survival now is all about "colorable" differences will be viewed by the FC, if the FC rules if it was proper to add subsequent models of DVR to the original ruling of the trial and how Folsom came to his conclusion on that and if Folsom should have ordered a new trial for the software workaround and if he was correct in ruling that Dish was in contempt by not notifying him about the software workaround because all that will determain if Dish has to license the new work around. *Oh, and Dish is working on yet ANOTHER software workaround, but this time with Folsom's participation.* So, that, if Folsom finds the new workaround not to infringe, will mean no license payments to TiVO and TiVo goes right back to being in a very bad position for the future. This FC en banc is EVERYTHING to TiVo's whole strategy suing those who do not enter into license agreements with them.

I'm not beating up on TiVo, it is just that TiVo knew that it had NO FUTURE with so many less expensive (and, in most cases, inferior) DVR's being handed out for free, and Tom Rogers took TiVo down the only path that gave the company a chance at survival: turning TiVo into a software licensing company by either providing the software in agreements, or sue all the others claiming they infringe on TiVo's patents to extract licensing agreements, and DUMPING the entire hardware part of the business, the most expensive part of the business and the reason the Premier was so underwhelming: they are not going to sink tons of money into 3rd or 4th tuners and any truly new revolutionary boxes since they are trying to get out of having to make the boxes in the first place.

It could still go TiVo's way, but we won't know for SEVERAL months.


----------



## falcon26 (Mar 17, 2010)

My father bought Tivo stock about a month ago at $18 a share he's not too happy right now :-(


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

we're not supposed to talk stock- but some analyst decided google may buy tivo and so tivo is worth 24. So who knows. It's all a crapshoot. 

If you are going to buy stock in some dink company like tivo then it's not much more than gambling. (one could certainly argue that even big giant players like GM or GE are gambles too). The odd's might be better than roulette but for every winning bet in the stock market there is a losing side.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> we're not supposed to talk stock- but some analyst decided google may buy tivo and so tivo is worth 24. So who knows. It's all a crapshoot.
> 
> If you are going to buy stock in some dink company like tivo then it's not much more than gambling. (one could certainly argue that even big giant players like GM or GE are gambles too). The odd's might be better than roulette but for every winning bet in the stock market there is a losing side.


24? 24 what? Not USD. 52 week high is $18.93. I don't think TiVo's seen the $20's since the dot com days, when everything was artificially inflated...


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Series3Sub said:


> The results of the original infringement are, ironically, irrelevant at this stage of the game because TiVo won't be able to "extort"


and stopped reading right at that point - what a long post to support your agenda

oh and the original finding is still relevant. The En Banc hearing is simply because the court wants itself to look at the question of how to deal with IP patents and how to enforce them in the face of being able to just make a change and claim it is now not infringing and put _the courts_ on a roller coaster of going around and around on the same issue.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> The En Banc hearing is simply because the court wants itself to look at the question of how to deal with IP patents and how to enforce them in the face of being able to just make a change and claim it is now not infringing and put _the courts_ on a roller coaster of going around and around on the same issue.


And you know this how? I didn't realize the cafc had explained why they granted the en banc. I must have missed that document.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

HiDefGator said:


> And you know this how?


because I am an educated reader. All of this is right here in this thread.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> because I am an educated reader. All of this is right here in this thread.


My bad. I didn't realize the other people writing in this thread had inside information on the cafc and their motives.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Wow, seems like someone is getting paid... just not Tivo.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

HiDefGator said:


> My bad. I didn't realize the other people writing in this thread had inside information on the cafc and their motives.


One of the posts (I'm too lazy to search for it) in this thread links to court official decision on granting en blanc. The way I understand the reason (IANAL), it has to do with a judge making a decision that Dish's workaround still infringes during contempt hearing and not ordering the new trial. Seems to me a reasonable question - should the judge have an authority to do that or not?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

samo said:


> One of the posts (I'm too lazy to search for it) in this thread links to court official decision on granting en blanc. The way I understand the reason (IANAL), it has to do with a judge making a decision that Dish's workaround still infringes during contempt hearing and not ordering the new trial. Seems to me a reasonable question - should the judge have an authority to do that or not?


Thanks Samo - that is what I was thinking of, but HidefGator will just have to read the thread like the rest of us


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

samo said:


> One of the posts (I'm too lazy to search for it) in this thread links to court official decision on granting en blanc. The way I understand the reason (IANAL), it has to do with a judge making a decision that Dish's workaround still infringes during contempt hearing and not ordering the new trial. Seems to me a reasonable question - should the judge have an authority to do that or not?


There is a danger of getting to the point of permanent retrials.

If that is the case, there is effectively no patent protection for software.

Make a minor change...go back to trial...make a minor change...go back to trial. That could be kept up forever and easily to the point that the software is irrelevant.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

acvthree said:


> There is a danger of getting to the point of permanent retrials.
> 
> If that is the case, there is effectively no patent protection for software.
> 
> Make a minor change...go back to trial...make a minor change...go back to trial. That could be kept up forever and easily to the point that the software is irrelevant.


exactly-

However, on the flip side just because you win the original case you probably shouldn't be able to just point at ever new version of software that the defendant makes and say it doesn't deserve a new trial. In this case, most people here being tivo fans probably wouldn't mind if that was the case, but say the shoe was on the other foot and Dish had a patent that tivo was found to infringe- Dish could put tivo out of business by never allowing them to come up with a non-infringing version of their only product.

It's an interesting legal conundrum. Will be interesting how the courts decide to balance the needs/rights/whatever of both sides going forward. Colorably different was a reasonable standard for widgets, but seems maybe software is a more complex beast that can't be so clear cut?

It's not tough to imagine that if the court of appeals thought this were an important issue to set precedent with that the supreme court wouldn't want to jump in too at this point... Could be a long ride.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

acvthree said:


> There is a danger of getting to the point of permanent retrials.
> 
> If that is the case, there is effectively no patent protection for software.
> 
> Make a minor change...go back to trial...make a minor change...go back to trial. That could be kept up forever and easily to the point that the software is irrelevant.


yeah - they have a hard process to figure out here


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

acvthree said:


> There is a danger of getting to the point of permanent retrials.
> 
> If that is the case, there is effectively no patent protection for software.
> 
> Make a minor change...go back to trial...make a minor change...go back to trial. That could be kept up forever and easily to the point that the software is irrelevant.


In which case our next TiVo DVRs will have place shifting built right in. 

Clarity on software based patents will probably help the whole industry, one way or the other.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

CuriousMark said:


> ..
> Clarity on software based patents will probably help the whole industry, one way or the other.


i think that's very true. If they could resolve the current issue and figure out how to speed the system up than i think that would help things a lot.


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

Speedy is an issue isn't it.

How useful is a patent process where a trial is longer than the useful life of the software?

Like you say, a thorny issue.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Dish got at least part of the patent voided...


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

The patents will remain valid and enforceable during TiVo's appeal process so it shouldn't affect the review. It could affect future law suits though.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Look like the en banc review between TIVO vs. Dish (DISH) might be cancelled.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/213866-friday-options-recap?source=email


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

Johncv said:


> Look like the en banc review between TIVO vs. Dish (DISH) might be cancelled.
> 
> http://seekingalpha.com/article/213866-friday-options-recap?source=email


Why is there absolutely no other news stories concerning the supposed cancellation? I'm thinking it's just an "analyst" trying to move the market on rumor...


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Is there any precedence for such a cancellation? The only grounds that I can think of for such a thing would be a settlement. 

Someone posted on DBSTalk that some amicus briefs were recently rejected. It appears that may have been on a technicality, but it wouldn't be unusual for investor forums to spin that kind of thing into a rumor.


----------

