whatchel1 said:
You would think that, but look at the way the NFLPA used a Minnesota court to get a ruling for the entire league. Rulings in one state can have an effect on other states when it's a big company or organization.
Dish HD vs Disney (DISH sort of won...)
- Thread starter wingnut10
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 226K
-
Server Issues. We are very aware that there have been system issues the past few days. In troubleshooting the system, it has been determined that the issue is at our provider and is hardware related. As of 12:05 PM ET our provider has moved us to a new server.
Things seem to be running better on this new server. However in trying to diagnose the issue (before finding out it was a hardware issue) we made some system changes which we need to undo. So if you find any issues or errors please let us know in the Operations Center Forum.
Thank you for your patience! Sorry for the issue!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
You would think that, but look at the way the NFLPA used a Minnesota court to get a ruling for the entire league. Rulings in one state can have an effect on other states when it's a big company or organization.
The Tivo case was in a federal court dealing with federal patent law and related matters. The NY case is a state case dealing with a business contract. There is also a suit dealing with the Mouse-Dish contract in the federal courts. Dish won the first round of that one.
I don't think anti-trust will work, because we have other options to get Disney. I could be dead wrong though.
It goes 2 ways. Disney holds the monopoly on distribution of the programming. That is the way I'm seeing it. Not that there are other ways that we can get it. But if Disney is breaking the "rules" and unfairly targeting one company over another then I think that may still be part of anti-trust.
Disney has a right to negotiate access to it's intellectual property, no monopoly here.
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
Anyone have an update on the litigation process? I know there have been rulings and appeals but I am not clear where this stands in court. I know Scott mentioned in another thread that Dish and Disney are reportedly in the middle of a long term contract so it doesn't appear that we can hope for this issue to be resolved when it's time to renegotiate.
When Dish files its next stockholders report this month, we will probably see an update in the litigation section.
I wonder how long the contract that Echostar/Dish Network signed with Disney in 2005 was good for....anyone know how to find this out? I am just curious how much longer we have to wait for these channels since this seems to be the only way they will return.
My opinion is they do have that right, but so did Microsoft. We all seen where that went.
MS isn't a monopoly as there are other OS's like Apple & Linux. They only have the lion share of the market. Why because they had reasonable pricing. Where Disney is more like Apple which is a niche OS and so cost more because of the lack of numbers of people that use it.
Here is from this mornings DISH Network 10K filing...
ESPN
During 2008, we filed a lawsuit against ESPN, Inc., ESPN Classic, Inc., ABC Cable Networks Group, Soapnet L.L.C. and International Family Entertainment (collectively, “ESPN”) for breach of contract in New York State Supreme Court. Our complaint alleges that ESPN failed to provide us with certain high-definition feeds of the Disney Channel, ESPN News, Toon and ABC Family. In October 2011, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. We intend to appeal.
ESPN had asserted a counterclaim alleging that we owed approximately $35 million under the applicable affiliation agreements. On April 15, 2009, the New York State Supreme Court granted, in part, ESPN’s motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim, finding that we are liable for some of the amount alleged to be owing but that the actual amount owing is disputed. On December 29, 2010, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the partial grant of ESPN’s motion on the counterclaim. After the partial grant of ESPN’s motion for summary judgment, ESPN sought an additional $30 million under the applicable affiliation agreements. On March 15, 2010, the New York State Supreme Court affirmed the prior grant of ESPN’s motion and ruled that we owe the full amount of approximately $66 million under the applicable affiliation agreement. As of December 31, 2010, we had $42 million recorded as a “Litigation accrual” on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.
On June 21, 2011, the First Department affirmed the New York Supreme Court’s ruling that we owe approximately $66 million under the applicable affiliation agreements and, on October 18, 2011, denied our motion for leave to appeal that decision to New York’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals. We sought leave to appeal directly to the New York Court of Appeals and, on January 10, 2012, the New York Court of Appeals dismissed our motion for leave on the ground that the ruling upon which we appealed does not fully resolve all claims in the action. As a result of the First Department’s June 2011 ruling, during the year ended December 31, 2011, we recorded $24 million of “Litigation Expense” on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) and increased our “Litigation accrual” to a total of $66 million as of December 31, 2011. This reflects our estimated exposure for ESPN’s counterclaim. On February 6, 2012, ESPN filed a motion seeking $5 million in attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party on both our claim and ESPN’s counterclaim, which we intend to oppose. We intend to vigorously prosecute and defend this case.
ESPN
During 2008, we filed a lawsuit against ESPN, Inc., ESPN Classic, Inc., ABC Cable Networks Group, Soapnet L.L.C. and International Family Entertainment (collectively, “ESPN”) for breach of contract in New York State Supreme Court. Our complaint alleges that ESPN failed to provide us with certain high-definition feeds of the Disney Channel, ESPN News, Toon and ABC Family. In October 2011, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. We intend to appeal.
ESPN had asserted a counterclaim alleging that we owed approximately $35 million under the applicable affiliation agreements. On April 15, 2009, the New York State Supreme Court granted, in part, ESPN’s motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim, finding that we are liable for some of the amount alleged to be owing but that the actual amount owing is disputed. On December 29, 2010, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the partial grant of ESPN’s motion on the counterclaim. After the partial grant of ESPN’s motion for summary judgment, ESPN sought an additional $30 million under the applicable affiliation agreements. On March 15, 2010, the New York State Supreme Court affirmed the prior grant of ESPN’s motion and ruled that we owe the full amount of approximately $66 million under the applicable affiliation agreement. As of December 31, 2010, we had $42 million recorded as a “Litigation accrual” on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.
On June 21, 2011, the First Department affirmed the New York Supreme Court’s ruling that we owe approximately $66 million under the applicable affiliation agreements and, on October 18, 2011, denied our motion for leave to appeal that decision to New York’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals. We sought leave to appeal directly to the New York Court of Appeals and, on January 10, 2012, the New York Court of Appeals dismissed our motion for leave on the ground that the ruling upon which we appealed does not fully resolve all claims in the action. As a result of the First Department’s June 2011 ruling, during the year ended December 31, 2011, we recorded $24 million of “Litigation Expense” on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) and increased our “Litigation accrual” to a total of $66 million as of December 31, 2011. This reflects our estimated exposure for ESPN’s counterclaim. On February 6, 2012, ESPN filed a motion seeking $5 million in attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party on both our claim and ESPN’s counterclaim, which we intend to oppose. We intend to vigorously prosecute and defend this case.
