|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 12:48 PM EDT |
You're making a string of assumptions. Last I checked upgrading a TiVo's hard
drive voids the warranty, thus the point you discard "except for the
removable
media" is the critical point not whether the software is or is not
"interchangeable."
I do find it strange that you continue to agree with those of us stating that
you're
taking his quoted statement out of context but then within the same responses
continue to beat on the strawman argument that he (and apparently the rest of
the jury) simply refused to review the patents' validity at any level.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 12:57 PM EDT |
| I agree with you that Hogan's response to Demon-Xanth's is accurate, in re:
it
is not the jury's responsibility to question whether or not
something
"should" be patentable.
Well, you are both wrong then.
Whether a patent should ever have issued is the question when deciding if there
is or is not prior art and also whether or not the patent is obvious, because if
there is prior art, the patent should not have issued and ditto with obvious.
That is a central role of the jury, and they failed.
Should a rectangle with
rounded corners be patentable was in fact a central question that Samsung
hammered home time and again, including in the closing statement. He's just
confused about the law and thinks it says something it doesn't. But deeper, it
*is* the role of a jury to decide what is fair, not to rubber stamp a ridiculous
law, should they ever meet up with one. For example, suppose the law is that
the 1% can kill the 99% any time they feel like it, to suggest an extreme
example. The judge will tell the jury that this is the law and they are bound
to follow it, but in reality they don't have to. Think Nuremberg, in addition.
The excuse was that the law was the government could kill all the Jews or
incarcerate them, take all their assets, etc. But the trial established an
important principle: that sometimes you are confronted with a choice between the
law and a higher law. It's rare, but the principle is important. Not every law
passed is a good one, and when it isn't, the jury is the heart of the legal
system, because only the jury is allowed to consider the entire picture. A judge
has to go strictly by the law, but not so the jury, no matter what they say. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 02:31 PM EDT |
I had my (larger than stock) tivo hard drive in an off-the-shelf removable drive
tray before 2002.
not to mention, the "Multimedia PC" spec that came out around 1994 or
so which specified performance characteristics for systems, including CD drives.
Since CD burners were around (although still expensive enough to not be
everywhere), there were a lot of people recording bitstreams, saving them to
their hard drives, and then burning them on to CD drives.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 03:53 AM EDT |
Forget TiVo, Mythtv project started in April 2002, it more than covers his
patent,
removable media and all. Not only covers it, actually implements it. All in open
source code. All before patent was granted. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
