Uh, no. We are talking about the new lawsuit because it is automatic whether the contempt issue fails or not. DE just made it easier to talk about.
Go back read the law before you make things up, as I quote Thomas22
If there is a contempt, it means TiVo has proven
by clear and convincing evidence that the new design is still an infringement, therefore this new DE case will be moot, because this new DE case is to determine if the new design still infringe or not.
Please understand the law before making things up, even E* had admitted if there is a contempt this new DE case will likely be moot.
"huge change" of attitude? Uh, no again. I still think they'll be found in contempt "on the face" (I assume you mean prima facie). It's just taking longer than I thought. But it's taking longer because Judge Folsom is taking this further than simple prima facie contempt and turning into both prima facie contempt for the 4+ million already-adjudicated receivers and ksm-style contempt for those sold since. D-Day for Dish.
Wrong again, this time on facts. Judge Folsom so far is still talking about the 4 million DVRs, no more no less, do not make things up! Even if E* is in contempt, it will only be about the 4 million old DVRs, nothing more at this time.
Again do not make things up.
Well golly gee, thank goodness yer letting us have us our opinion. I'm mighty obliged that you've let us have our lil' ol' thoughts on this thang for which you are so clearly intellectually superior to us simple folk. ("dripping with sarcasm" smiley goes here)
Again another rant without any substance.
You have identified the wrong party (it's not DISH who cannot face facts
), but correctly identified the issue. TiVo continues to pile up win after win over DISH (and they have $105 million and the bank to show for it), yet DISH keeps claiming victory. If they claim victory after each $105 million, I'm all for them winning another dozen times.
Again there is only one win by TiVo so far, that one $105M. You are too quick to claim victory after victory, get a contempt first, them we can talk, but you still do not have that.
Why, three words in and you've already made a fatal mistake in reasoning. Might have broken your own internet record. LOL.
I at least had stated a fact, you only had a rant again without substance.
Undisputed by whom? If I say "I dispute those statistics" is it still undisputed? (I hereby dispute those statistics). And, pray tell, please let me know the statistics for a patent that has already once successfully survived a re-exam.
You can of course dispute the statistics, by offering your own statistics, but until then the statistics are undisputed. And BTW the statistics are presented by Thomas22, and confirmed by many articles and the USPTO.
I am still waiting to see your statistics in dispute. Just saying you dispute is meaningless.
Do you know that 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Trident Gum to their patients? Therefore, TiVo has an 80% chance of winning the case.
Ok you did present your own statistics, I don't even have to respond to it do I?
Please, if you are going to pull magical statistics out of a hat, please try to make them funny so we can all laugh at your quick wit.
Again you lack the ability to read, I did not pull the statistics, your fellow TiVo supporter Thomas22 did, and his statistics are confirmed by many reputable articles and the USPTO.
BTW, although I disagreed with Thomas22 on many issues, I will value his arguments many times over, before even given your rants some serious attention.
Actually, quite the opposite. It is undisputed that any patent that has successfully survived an initial re-exam survives further re-exams in 96% of cases. It's all but certain that it survives again.
Please provide the link to that stats. I am willing to admit if there is actual data.
...In fact, even if contempt is not found, it is a near certainty that Judge Folsom will grant a temporary injunction from DISH selling any DVRs during the trial as a result of their past behavior.
If a contempt is not found that means E* is
not in violation, therefore your logic is completely false.
What is a "temporary injunction" that you just made up?
I have already pointed out three things you just made up.
That is a total lie, I can say this for sure, if you have been holding your breadth, you have done so for over a year already, you would not be talking here today
So it is a lie.
Three things made up and a clear lie, all in one post.
