NO. Just another know it all analyst.Didn't we already know before the trial that the judge was going to instruct the jury with this language? Did anything that happened today really change dish's position?
NO. Just another know it all analyst.Didn't we already know before the trial that the judge was going to instruct the jury with this language? Did anything that happened today really change dish's position?
Yeah, there's a big difference between "may" and "must" in the jury instructions. However, in the Apple vs Samsung case, the jury didn't even bother to read the Judge's instructions.Sounds like the judge decided to with the Voom's ridiculous "because they deleted emails, they are guilty" instruction (not that the dish version wasn't rather spun as well).
Be nice to know what expert witness was denied and what they would have brought to the case.
Given how the case is going, I'm not sure why Cablevision would settle.
Sounds like Dish is racking up grounds for appeal, at least.
And as I recall, VOOM wasn't interested in offering that to Dish ! They felt they had Dish locked into the contract with ALL of their channels and wouldn't budge. Dish insisted on a smaller package of channels from VOOM, just like VOOM offered DirecTV...
The court did not have enough potential jurors to begin the section process, according to analyst Thomas Claps, of Susquehanna Financial Group.
Claps says that at the end of the court session, Judge Richard Lowe III “encouraged the parties to engage in discussions” aimed at settling the matter.
I heard there were 110 prospective jurors but when Judge Lowe stated, "Anyone here who hates Dish Network or Cablevision, please leave the room" he wound-up clearning the court...to include include Ergen and the Dolans.
Negotiations overheard in the hallway...
Dolan: We want 2 Billion and a 5-year carriage agreement for the AMC Networks channels at our quoted rate.
Ergen: We'll give you a Six Pack of Coors and a box of condoms.
Dolan: You'll have to come up a little.
Ergen: Fair enough...a Twelve Pack of Schlitz and a box of ultra-wide condoms.
Voyager6 said:However, in the Apple vs Samsung case, the jury didn't even bother to read the Judge's instructions.
Poke said:... so you would think the sooner they get it all over with the better it is for everyone..
The Judge sent 109 pages of instructions for the jury to follow. http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/ApplevSamsung-1903.pdfJust rumor or supported by facts?
In two instances, results were crazily contradictory, and the judge had to have the jury go back and fix the goofs. As a result the damages award was reduced to $1,049,343,540, [SUP]1[/SUP] down from $1,051,855,000. For just one example, the jury had said one device didn't infringe, but then they awarded Apple $2 million for inducement. In another they awarded a couple of hundred thousand for a device they'd ruled didn't infringe at all. This all was revealed by The Verge in its live blog coverage:
The jury appears to have awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE infringing — $219,694 worth — but didn't find that it had actually infringed anything....A similar inconsistency exists for the Intercept, for which they'd awarded Apple over $2 million Intercept: "The jury found no direct infringement but did find inducement" for the '915 and '163 utility patents. If a device didn't infringe, it would be rather hard for a company to induce said non-existant infringement.Obviously, something is very wrong with this picture. The Verge also reported that the jury foreman, who is a patent holder himself [this appears to be his patent, "Method and apparatus for recording and storing video information"], told court officials that the jury didn't need the answer to its question to reach a verdict:
The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions.
Sounds like the judge decided to with the Voom's ridiculous "because they deleted emails, they are guilty" instruction (not that the dish version wasn't rather spun as well).
Be nice to know what expert witness was denied and what they would have brought to the case.
Given how the case is going, I'm not sure why Cablevision would settle.
Sounds like Dish is racking up grounds for appeal, at least.
not to mention the ongoing carriage dispute with AMC. There's some financial incentive for both parties to package it all together and settle.It would appear that way, but a settlement is guaranteed money while a trial involves a jury of one's peers. I don't know about you but based on Jay Leno's Jaywalking, I'm not about to bank on a jury of my peers deciding a complex contractual dispute. I would apt to take the cash..
Voyager6 said:The Judge sent 109 pages of instructions for the jury to follow. http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/ApplevSamsung-1903.pdf
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
navychop said:I don't want to see AMC back. I hope Dish makes a stand here, as I think it will temper future demands from other providers.
I don't want to see AMC back. I hope Dish makes a stand here, as I think it will temper future demands from other providers.