1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

EchoStar Settles Nine Year Litigation With ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox Affiliates (maybe)

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by JohnH, Aug 28, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kstuart

    kstuart Icon

    643
    0
    Apr 25, 2002
    Bob - you say that one side is always wrong (the "loser") about the law, but in this case, both sides have embraced the idea that a settlement is possible, as well as two US Senators' staffs.

    That's dozens of attorneys who think that a settlement is legally possible.

    But aside from that, I would bet on US$100 million to "win" over any number of attorneys and judges any day of the week.
     
  2. joblo

    joblo Godfather

    484
    0
    Dec 10, 2003
    With only 25 out of 800 stations, Fox's piece of the settlement would be nothing but pocket money for NewsCorp. I suspect they may have other goals.

    See, for instance, this thread.
     
  3. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002

    I read your post and I appreciate it I just think that you a re mistaken---as you think I and those that have participated in the settlement process are . While i think that one is possible I think that we agree that it is unlikely that one will be reached that includes Fox.
     
  4. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    It is interesting that some are not finding NewsCorp owned WWOR listed as a superstation. But What agenda do you see? just asking.
     
  5. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002

    But NewsCorp would not see the entire sum. It is clear that they were not interested in the settlement offer. We will see what that does to the proceedings.
     
  6. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    There is a massive problem with this theory.

    Settlements usually occur before a judge hands out the penalites. The Blackberry suit is one such example; the TiVo v. Echostar is another example where the parties can settle and dismiss all claims.



    The distant network license is not so easy. For example, when the networks sued DirecTV and received their injunction in 1999, DirecTV and the networks settled before the injunction took hold; DirecTV would cut-off all misqualified subscribers within Grade A contours by 30 June, and all subscribers misqualified within Grade B contours by 31 December. It just so happens that Congress stepped in and created the SHVIA, which grandfathered the misqualified Grade B subscribers. The settlement was possible because DirecTV simply wanted to end the litigation, and there weren't any mandatory penalties for their transgressions.

    However, Dish Network has been found guilty of a pattern or practice of willful infringement, for which the judge must issue a permanent injunction. The question is whether or not a settlement trumps the mandatory punishment. And you don't normally see mandatory punishments in civil law, which is why this so gray area.

    By the way, WWOR, until the law is changed, will always be a superstation. If Dish Network elects not to offer it, that is fine and dandy, too.
     
  7. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    let's see what happens. Fox maintains that it MUST be issiued. Echostar something else in its filing.


    As for when settlements usaully occur I agree but that does not mean that one cannot happen---having said that it is my personal opinion that the judge will not look favorably on this settlement because all parties have not agreed to it. I realize that you see this as a "massive problem with this theory". Understand that others think that the existence of negotiations might point outa problem with your theory that no settlement is possible.

    Again ALL the parties entered into a settlement negotiation and continued it well after the initial ruling. What I am asking you to recognize is that this may be an indication that the outcome is not the slam dunk that some of you see in reading the underlying law or the rulings made to date.
     
  8. joblo

    joblo Godfather

    484
    0
    Dec 10, 2003
    Actually, it's not clear to me exactly what Fox's position is, since I haven't seen their brief, and I'm not sure that lay press reports are entirely reliable, especially after the recent Reuters mistake.

    It someone w/PACER or other access could post Fox’s brief, that would be helpful.
     
  9. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    If you are interested in PACER only check Mr. Long's posts. I believe he has provided links.


    As for the superstation reference I am not sure anyone ever said that WWOR is not one. I was asking what the first poster (joblo) meant by his comment.
     
  10. kstuart

    kstuart Icon

    643
    0
    Apr 25, 2002
    I think you (and the others who said the same thing) are missing the point.

    The law is not a group of networked computers that operate the statutes as written. It's a group of self-interested human beings.

    If government (and that includes attorneys and judges) were run for the best interest of the people, then we would have access to any network station we wanted.

    We don't because of the financial interests of the stations and networks determine who gets money for election campaigns, who gets invited to all expenses paid "conferences" in Oahu, and so on.

    There is a scene in the excellent film "Aguirre, Wrath of God" (based on a true story), where Emperor Guzman says "the case being proved, he is sentenced to death. But, today is the feast day of ______ [don't remember the name] so I will suspend the sentence." Prior to that, a whole trial goes on, in order to give the aura of legality, but Guzman can do what he likes.

    US$100 million can do what it likes.

    PS The judge will have a hard time not implementing the injunction for the Fox stations if Newscorp continues to refuse the settlement, so since Dish operates each network individually anyway, then the injunction will have to be issued for Fox distant channels only.
     
  11. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    i don't follow all your logic---but you may be right that the judge will stop DISH from selling FOX distant nets. Many articles have speculated that this will be the case. But we will see.
     
  12. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,317
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I hope this is worth the $$ it took to retrieve it. The way FLSC's PACER works one must pay to view the entire record of a case in order to view any documents attached. If you just want to see the docket entries with no attachments you can view the last few entries for only 16¢ (search plus page price). It gets expensive to view a 108 page docket just to grab an attachment (at another per page price).

    Anyways ... Here is Fox's request.
     
  13. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Your logic is severly flawed:
    I am a person. If I start a company, how are my interests any different than "the best interest of the people"? My interests are discounted? And if I start a corporation and make billions of dollars, my interests are again discounted?

    If government were run for the best interest of the people, there would be anarchy, as my best interest is more important than your best interest. :)

    I wrote this before, and I'll say it again: However, Dish Network has been found guilty of a pattern or practice of willful infringement, for which the judge must issue a permanent injunction. The question is whether or not a settlement trumps the mandatory punishment.

    The judge will answer the question.
     
  14. kstuart

    kstuart Icon

    643
    0
    Apr 25, 2002
    "People" is plural.

    Also, both of you mention "my logic". My point is that logic is not involved.

    I could spend thousands of hours posting illogical decisions by judges on every level, including the Supreme Court.
     
  15. JohnH

    JohnH Hall Of Fame

    7,802
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    That would be "People are plural" then.
     
  16. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Sure people is plural.

    So because the people no longer want to be in Iraq, we should leave? Because the people want BMW's for free, BMW should acquiesce? After all, you've already jumped to the conclusion that if the government was run in "the best interest of the people", the business of network television would be ruined. Sounds like logic to me.

    Laws should be based upon a "people's" desire, but only when those people are in the majority? How does this work, this "best interests of the people"? Laws to limit corporations and businesses? Inquiring minds want to know...
     
  17. FLWingNut

    FLWingNut Godfather

    467
    12
    Nov 19, 2005
    Nicely put.
     
  18. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002

    Actually the people as individuals are not but the word is.

    but we are getting pretty far afield here comparing all this to Iraq or free BMWs. I am not sure i follow the earlier poster but I think that all he was saying was that the law protects economic interests and not the people and that therefore the verdict will follow the money. I don't necessarily agree but that seems to be the assessment.
     
  19. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,317
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    There is a difference between 'what the people want' and 'what is best for the people'. It takes a wise man to tell the difference, and then usually it is in retrospect.

    I believe that if you actually polled the people they would care less about distants and out of market TV. Most would just want all the stations in their area, not all the stations in the US. It would be cool to be able to flip to any station when something is happining in that community ... but I'd have a hard time saying that a majority of people would want to fight for that priviledge.
     
  20. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    No, I understand kstuart as well. I get the idea. It is just far from the truth.

    The fact is that, like most lawsuits, these are civil matters. All civil matters can be swept under the rug if both parties agree. Otherwise, someone is brought in to settle the disputes. That someone is the US Court system.

    Even I understand about the illogical verdicts handed out by the courts. There is no reason to have an anti-trust exemption in baseball, but the courts agreed, and the presiding judge later became the Commissioner of MLB.

    After all, when the Supreme Court normally gives out their decisions, they somewhat fall along party lines.

    But in the instance we are discussing, one party fought tooth and nail until the courts decided the party was abusing the law. Only at that time did the plaintiff decide to settle. However, the way the law is written, the settlement might not trump the remedy. That is up to the judge to decide.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page