Nah, That's a cop out. I understand that this topic is a hot potato but really, I'm not buying the fact that TPTB didn't already bury this thread where no one will find it the second someone with a differing view spoke up.Originally Posted by msmith198025
Whatever. I appreciate the fact that you tried to keep the thread (and yourself) neutral. Hopefully something changes with the lawsuits and we have something to discuss other than each other.
Agreed, unfortunately everything that can be discussed.....
I am the one that moved it though, and I can assure you that is not the reason that it was moved. In any case, this is where it is, and while I do appreciate your view, it will not be moved again
I can promise you that I will keep it at the top of the tech page though, and as more post here it will not be hard to spot.
Lol, true enough. Perhaps it will pick up later?Agreed, unfortunately everything that can be discussed.....
Count on it. Like I said, this is a hot potato. Give everyone a day or two and this place will be swamped as soon as they grow bored and need their fix.
Ughh...I'd rather watch paint dry! :) :)
Haha, not my cup of tea either (I am suprised considering that you actually ARE a lawyer that you are not more interested), but I have no problem with the topic. To each his own, and this could have an impact on many. From time to time I do like to see what people think on this, it varies so much.
The only thing I know about IP/patent law is that it you basically have to be an engineer to practice it......that was enough to keep me far away. :)
As long as my DVR isn't turned off, I'll be happy!
You are ahead of the game then, at least compared to me.
I guess I should read up on it
I just posted the new "TiVo motion for interest during the stay period" on my website. It is of course being opposed. This is the certificate of Conference that was filed with the motion.Agreed, unfortunately everything that can be discussed.....Counsel has complied with the meet and confer requirement in Local Rule CV-7(h), and
this motion is opposed. Counsel spoke with counsel for EchoStar Karl Kramer on June 9, 2009
and the parties disagreed as to whether TiVo is entitled to the relief on interest requested herein.
Discussions have ended in an impasse, leaving an open issue for the Court to resolve. In fact, the
parties stipulated to their disagreement, and to present the issue to the Court for resolution.
Docket No. 936.
Last edited by Mainer_Ayah; June 22nd, 2009 at 08:10 PM. Reason: stupid spelling error
“One who elects to build a business on a product found to infringe cannot be heard to complain if an injunction against continuing infringement destroys the business so elected.”Windsurfing Int’l, Inc. v. AMF, Inc., 782 F.2d 995, 1003 n.12 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
Welcome Mainer.
Interesting first post
Hopefully, I can learn something about this case from you guys
One other new item, Folsom stayed the action taken against TiVo by E* that was transferred from DE pending the outcome of the appeal. That document also can be found at http://southernme.com/DAVY_v_GOLIATH/
“One who elects to build a business on a product found to infringe cannot be heard to complain if an injunction against continuing infringement destroys the business so elected.”Windsurfing Int’l, Inc. v. AMF, Inc., 782 F.2d 995, 1003 n.12 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
Thanks, hopefully the atmosphere will be a little more welcoming here. It seems at Sat guys and DBS every time I posted something controversial I was ridden out of town by the mods. They have to understand that if the Hatfields are going to run a BB now and then a McCoy might stop by with something to say that might ruffle a few feathers. I'll be the first to admit I deserved a warning now and then, but that was only out of the frustration of seeing all those Hatfields talking trash, and not getting warned as well.Welcome Mainer.
Interesting first post
Hopefully, I can learn something about this case from you guys
Anyway, this McCoy is more interested in spreading fresh information around than he is in insighting riots.
Last edited by Mainer_Ayah; June 22nd, 2009 at 08:32 PM. Reason: Another stupid spelling error
“One who elects to build a business on a product found to infringe cannot be heard to complain if an injunction against continuing infringement destroys the business so elected.”Windsurfing Int’l, Inc. v. AMF, Inc., 782 F.2d 995, 1003 n.12 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
The guys there just have a lot to deal with,it is a huge site. They are good mods though.
Anyway, again, welcome, and glad to have ya
Have fun! :) The only IP stuff I find remotely interesting is the law evolving around file-sharing. Trying to decipher the technical details of the Tivo patent just makes my head spin.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
