Almost all deals are settled in the accounting room, whether spending a little or a lot of time in court. So of course DISH/SATS is attempting to litigate this into financial oblivion.To design another workaround?
I personally believe the workaround is being evaluated for one reason and one reason alone (so keep in mind this is my opinion):
The models of DVR's found infringing are still under jurisdiction of the court. Therefore, the order to disable still stands, to this day. However, since Judge Folsom has to rule on contempt, the order which he issues must reflect the current status of infringement.
My belief is that DISH/SATS is in contempt, simply because the order to disable has been ignored. Judge Folsom can rectify that by granting contempt and issuing a new order to disable. However, issuing another order to disable infringing devices means those devices must still infringe. Therefore, an evaluation of those devices is required before issuing another order.
As far as advancing technology, it isn't like changing from MPEG2 to MPEG4 or adding a few tuners is a novel techological change. That is simply adding a new chipset or a couple of tuners, and tweaking the software to allow those changes.True. I simply believe DISH/SATS has a way to get out if they no longer infringe. If those devices still infringe, then this will be very ugly.