DISH -VS- VOOM - A Settlement has been reached!
- Thread starter orlmac
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 316K
riffjim4069 said:
I thought the judge already reviewed the material and ruled on it, only that Dish's attorney failed to submit it to the reviews panel on appeal?
It seems the judge should not have allowed the interim appeal to take place. It would be an easy appeal I think if the judge decides to be the fact finder, bypassing the jury.
I thiink the author took a couple days to post his article...just interesting since another source confirmed Judge Lowe's reaction in the courtroom and provided a quote. I think the judge wanted the defendant's appeal, as it pertains to their claim of privilege, to be ruled on by the court so the matter can be fully resolved now and not wind up later being overturned...pretty much forcing a mistrial. I could be wrong, but I think these documents have only been seen by Judge Lowe and have not been shared with the plaintiff. Anyway, it seemed like a prudent choice since there won't be any further questions as to what documents are, in fact, priviledge communications.
looks like dish loses another appeal: latest documents in question ordered turned over after appeals court rules against dish.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-12/dish-ordered-to-turn-over-data-in-amc-trial-on-contract
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-12/dish-ordered-to-turn-over-data-in-amc-trial-on-contract
Also, from yesterday:
If Dish doesn’t give him (Judge Lowe) electronic copies of the material, he said, then he might rule in favor of AMC Networks in its $2.5B breach of contract suit before Dish even presents its case — leaving it to the jury to just decide on the size of the damages.
Lowe also told Dish’s lawyers that he might initiate an investigation to see which of them failed to follow his directions, according to Harms. ”I do not believe that he does not know” Lowe said, referring to one of the lawyers sitting in front.
If Dish doesn’t give him (Judge Lowe) electronic copies of the material, he said, then he might rule in favor of AMC Networks in its $2.5B breach of contract suit before Dish even presents its case — leaving it to the jury to just decide on the size of the damages.
Lowe also told Dish’s lawyers that he might initiate an investigation to see which of them failed to follow his directions, according to Harms. ”I do not believe that he does not know” Lowe said, referring to one of the lawyers sitting in front.
and a little more from today:
He agreed to VOOM’s motion requiring Dish to let auditors check its hard drives and IT system to see whether it destroyed a 2006 draft audit report of VOOM. If it did, then the judge could penalize Dish — possibly even deciding the case for VOOM. If investigators come up empty, then VOOM must pay for the examination. In addition, Dish must let auditors check its high-definition subscriber database to see whether the company correctly reported that just 40% of its current customers receive an HD service. If it’s wrong and the actual number is closer to the national average of around 70%, then that could add $1B to the damages that could be awarded to AMC and its former parent, Cablevision.
He agreed to VOOM’s motion requiring Dish to let auditors check its hard drives and IT system to see whether it destroyed a 2006 draft audit report of VOOM. If it did, then the judge could penalize Dish — possibly even deciding the case for VOOM. If investigators come up empty, then VOOM must pay for the examination. In addition, Dish must let auditors check its high-definition subscriber database to see whether the company correctly reported that just 40% of its current customers receive an HD service. If it’s wrong and the actual number is closer to the national average of around 70%, then that could add $1B to the damages that could be awarded to AMC and its former parent, Cablevision.
Man, if this keeps up, pretty soon we're going to be talking about some REAL money!
If Dish gave those figures and lied or was "mistaken" they deserve penalties. I do hope should their information be basically correct, that is taken into consideration for Dish.
So the "the service" wording was added into the contract later out of the concern that Cablevision might not support VOOM and pull the plug from it. If so, I don't know how such term continued to define the broadest definition of money spent by Cablevision, not in a more narrow scope, such as defining programming that was fed to Dish.
I said a week ago, the contract was about Dish buying VOOM HD service, i.e. those HD feeds. Even without the added term, I would not consider overhead cost incurred by Cablevision to be part of the service.
If I order a catering service from a restaurant, and the contract specifies $1,000 minimum must be spent on this catering deal, it is expected the money spent by the restaurant for such service does not include the money for refurbishing the back office of the restaurant. Now the money the restaurant collects from me can be used to refurbish the office or do other things.
If in addition to the general interpretation of the contract, there was an addendum clearly with the intent to narrow the scope of the money spent, then I can see how it was intended to define programming cost, or at a minimum, to exclude those overhead costs. Otherwise the addendum would have been meaningless.
I said a week ago, the contract was about Dish buying VOOM HD service, i.e. those HD feeds. Even without the added term, I would not consider overhead cost incurred by Cablevision to be part of the service.
If I order a catering service from a restaurant, and the contract specifies $1,000 minimum must be spent on this catering deal, it is expected the money spent by the restaurant for such service does not include the money for refurbishing the back office of the restaurant. Now the money the restaurant collects from me can be used to refurbish the office or do other things.
If in addition to the general interpretation of the contract, there was an addendum clearly with the intent to narrow the scope of the money spent, then I can see how it was intended to define programming cost, or at a minimum, to exclude those overhead costs. Otherwise the addendum would have been meaningless.
On one hand, I really hope Dish gets nailed hard for this. I'm SUPER bitter that they pulled the stations to gain a little leverage in the lawsuit, just like I was SUPER bitter when they dropped the VOOM stations (believe it or not, Monsters and KungFU HD were the selling points for me).
On the other hand, I know that if Dish does get smacked with a multi-billion dollar judgement, we will get the bill for it... and the way it feels lately, Dish may not ever carry Cablevision again .. like a spoiled kid on the playground .. doesn't get his way so he'll just take his toy and go home.
On the other hand, I know that if Dish does get smacked with a multi-billion dollar judgement, we will get the bill for it... and the way it feels lately, Dish may not ever carry Cablevision again .. like a spoiled kid on the playground .. doesn't get his way so he'll just take his toy and go home.
I think you meant Voom, not Cablevision...the cable operator and never on Dish.
I used Cablevision as a blanket name since they were the roots of the AMC Tree. .. AMC, IFC, Sundance, WE, VOOM etc.
I'm torn on this trial...on one hand, Dish's behavior and actions over the trial and previous evidence tampering demands a punitive response. Yet I also feel that a summary judgment in VOOM's favor sets a potentially dangerous precedent...while much of the contention of the dispute centers around the letter of the agreement, the meaning of "service" and whether the required spending limits were met, there is also the intent of the contract that should be considered. How much of the programming content decreased in both variety and quality from the start of the contract to the point of Dish dropping the channels? If VOOM wins this case without impunity, then that could open a door where programming providers could get into a long-term contract, and then later remove a significant portion of their programming content or add much more repetitiveness or paid programming to their feed, while the MVPD has little-to-no recourse. While the letter of the contract needs to be scrutinized, just as importantly so should the intent.
I am worried that everyone rates will go up $20 a month to pay for this of AMC wins. Are others concerned?
Dish is in it to make money, they are publicly traded so it is a must. The money will come from somewhere if they loose.
ScottChez said:
If this kind of discussions make you worry, then the best thing to do is stop reading them, and enjoy your TV programming.
Last edited:
