Those channels don't need to come back, AMC has more than enough channels to put that particular programming on now, instead of most of the repeats and drivel they currently broadcast. It might actually make their channels worth having then.
Voom Settlement?
- Thread starter wolfjc
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 174
- Views 19K
Those channels don't need to come back, AMC has more than enough channels to put that particular programming on now, instead of most of the repeats and drivel they currently broadcast. It might actually make their channels worth having then.
Just keep quoting that tripe, and maybe someday somebody will believe you! DISH told them to repeat the programming (that was proved here with some postings back then), and they followed orders. THEN Dish used that to attempt to break the contract. Now Dish is going to get their *ss handed to them to the cost of more than a BILLION dollars!
As for Chiller channel, it was good until SyFy took over the management, and turned it into "SyFy 2". Now it has almost nothing but SyFy channels garbage on it, and is barely ever watchable.
Thank you... Post of The Day!
I was beginning to believe I was the only one, who remembered the truth about all this! If Dish gets their a$$ handed to them, in this case they deserve it. The Voom product was excellent, in programming and picture quality, 'till Dish watered them down.
primestar31 said:
Good to know that it was Dish that asked VOOM to repeat the shows, and VOOM did. So where did VOOM spend all the money?
Now VOOM is asking billions of potential lucrative profits from people piling on to watch reruns over and over?
I don't remember Dish EVER telling them to water it down. Would love to see some proof besides he said she said.
dahenny said:
No need to ask for proof, just use the logic, Dish and VOOM basically colluded to kill the package, or at least Dish asked VOOM to violate the agreement, and VOOM agreed.
Maybe that was in part why the court said their agreement was a piece of you know what.
I've never heard of this theory of collusion between DISH and Cablevision/Voom , to destroy the Voom channels. This doesn't even sound reasonable .
I know you argued against Tivo for years and years and years and years despite the evidence. And I know you're going to ignore the evidence posted in the VooM vs. Dish Amended Complaint thread along with all the publically accessible artifacts posted at the New York Supreme Court (eCourts) website, case file #600292/2008.
Anyway, you can wade through the evidence and "spin" it whatever way you wish, but it probably won't change the outcome of this case. The evidence has supported each and everything VooM alleged in their May 2008 Amended Complaint and, so far, none of Dish's assertions have panned out. This case is a money-grab and all indications are that Charlie will be dressing in a Santa Suit and passing out billion-dollar gifts this holiday season...and he will be very, very generous. That's what all the industry pundits are predicting will happen, and it's pretty much what I said in 2008...2009...2010...2011...and now again in 2012. There is no need to belabor the point. Let's just see what happens.
FYI: VOOM/eCourts posted another ream of documents involving the financials on 6/27/2012 and both parties are to appear in court on 7/27/2012 to argue a motion to preclude something (evidence? witness testimony? I don't know!) that was filed by VooM.
It's an argument in VooM's Amended Complain (May, 2008)...i.e., they alleged VooM violated several provisions in the Affiliation Agreement as a tactic to force a renegotiation (they weren't happy with the deal and wanted a better one). After VooM successfully defended three or four bogus assertions (according to VooM), Dish began a concerted effort to devalue the VOOM HD product---such as threatening termination if VooM didn't alter their programming (more repeats and less original programming)---and to reduce subscriber "outcry" when they illegally terminated (VooM's words) the affiliation agreement. Again, it's all in VooM's Amended Complaint posted below. Read it if you wish. Again, this is what VooM had to say about the affiliation agreement being terminated.
Last edited:
Items #73 and #74 (page #23) of VooM's Amended Complaints. The matter is further discussed elsewhere in other filings, with more specificity, but I don't feel like looking for them.
riffjim4069 said:I know you argued against Tivo for years and years and years and years despite the evidence. And I know you're going to ignore the evidence posted in the VooM vs. Dish Amended Complaint thread along with all the publically accessible artifacts posted at the New York Supreme Court (eCourts) website, case file #600292/2008.
Anyway, you can wade through the evidence and "spin" it whatever way you wish, but it probably won't change the outcome of this case. The evidence has supported each and everything VooM alleged in their May 2008 Amended Complaint and, so far, none of Dish's assertions have panned out. This case is a money-grab and all indications are that Charlie will be dressing in a Santa Suit and passing out billion-dollar gifts this holiday season...and he will be very, very generous. That's what all the industry pundits are predicting will happen, and it's pretty much what I said in 2008...2009...2010...2011...and now again in 2012. There is no need to belabor the point. Let's just see what happens.
FYI: VOOM/eCourts posted another ream of documents involving the financials on 6/27/2012 and both parties are to appear in court on 7/27/2012 to argue a motion to preclude something (evidence? witness testimony? I don't know!) that was filed by VooM.
Of course you (like all the so called analysts) said the same about Charlie paying TiVo billions back then, because according to them, TiVo won at every step along the way. ln the end, he paid about $30M each year for 7 years so he can use TiVo's technologies. The other $300M was just the money Charlie had put in the escrow account long ago for the fight.
After the settlement, all the analysts were jumping up and down what a big win was that for TiVo, and how that win would influence the other litigations against ATT and Microsoft, after all, they were much bigger fish you know. Well ATT did pay TiVo $200M to end it, and MS paid nothing to force an end.
Not what I called good predictions by all your analysts. That is not to say your analysts cannot be right this time. Shooting dots blind folded you could hit it once in a while. But if I were you, I would have learned to be a little humble in my claims and predictions.
BTW I just checked TiVo (have not paid attention for awhile) and TiVo stock is lower than back when they were fighting Charlie. What happened to the $20 those analysts predicted?
Also, if I recall correctly, you at the time said you held both Dish and TiVo's stocks, or at least you were extremely concerned about the stock holders for both companies, and how Charlie was irresponsible to his stock holder's interests. I can see Dish value is still consistent.
But what happened to TiVo's duty to its stock holders, when the value has dropped?
You my friend may know all the details of the litigation, and you could even be finally 100% correct this time, but when I look at someone's predictions, I'd like to check his track records for reference.
I will say this again, the last court review panel was hard on Dish for expoilation, but it also had determined the agreement ambiguous. Since you seem to understand the law very well, you should know this bottom line, an ambiguous agreement is an ineffective contract, and the court cannot effectively enforce a contract that is ineffective. Everything else means little when the contract is unenforceable.
Last edited:
Thanks for the link but I really don't like to read legal stuff. It just seems funny for a company to claim harm in a lawsuit ,but also state in your legal briefs that you conspired with that company , that you are suing, to help destroy your own product or channels. Why wouldn't a judge just dismiss it outright ? It sounds ridiculous.
MikeD-C05 said:
Parties have the right to a jury trial. The court has to find based on the evidence the lawsuit has absolutely no merits. Even if there is the slightest chance the plaintiff may prevail, in the slightest degree, it cannot throw out the case.
The court clearly didn't like Dish's tactic and reckless behavior. But just like the TiVo case, there are always things that pop up here and there, undermine the plaintiff's claim. Even if the jury manages to despise Charlie to the point they decide to give Cablevision what they ask for, on appeal, the court has to see past all the emotional elements, and if the agreement itself, as the court pointed out, was confusing, it would not be able to help either party to such agreement.
If VOOM was willing to offer DirecTV a 5-channel package, at the same time refused to give Dish the same leverage, at minimum that undercuts its damage claim.
And if VOOM agreed with Dish to water down the value of the VOOM service, again at a minimum that undercuts VOOM's damage claim.
Of course there are many if's above, but why didn't he ever try to dispute such facts? After knowing all the details of the case, he could have easily responded to those arguments if he so strongly believes VOOM would prevail to the fullest extent.
Anyone has the insight on why Dish stock is jumping? Every time analysts warn a pending huge legal payout by Dish, it's value seems to go up. No wonder Charlie likes to fight.
A payout, i.e. settlement, will usually be lower than a jury award, plus it's the end of another court battle. In that regard, it's a good thing for a company or in this case, Dish.
A quote from one party's legal complaint hardly constitutes "proof". Heck, all that citation talks about is scheduling changes. When someone says something is fact, provide a link! Don't complain that the proof is there and you just don't feel like digging it up; defend your own argument. (This more applies to Primestar and others than you)
I highly doubt that Dish ever sent an email asking for the same 3 episodes of UFO, Thunderbirds, and Flipper be repeated all day.
More likely I believe Dish asked for, rather than many hours of "point your HD camera at something for an hour and call it a show" HD, like Voom had been creating for years, for fewer hours of more expensive, yet more intriguing original content. Voom probably said that would cause more repeats, while Dish was OK with that, as long as they saw that $100M go into some top quality original content that would bring in subs. Seems Dish got the former, but never the latter.
Dish eventually decided to ask where that $100M was going, as it never seemed to show up on screen, and were mortified that Cablevision could use clever accounting tricks to get that amount spent with little quality appearing on screen. There was probably a lot of internal debate on if this could be grounds to terminate (the contents of the deleted emails). They also knew Voom was offering up a 5 channel pack to Directv. So the made an ultimatum to Cablevision: give us the Voom 5-pack or we terminate based on the spend requirement. Voom decided that if they refused to bow and make Dish pull the plug, they had a stronger legal case (and they seemed to hate the Voom experiment anyway). So Voom went away and Cablevision sued.
To me, it seems that is the most likely string of events.
The interesting thing is that $100M is nothing for original programming. A lot of current prime time programming runs at $2+ million per hour in production costs. So, $100Million would have been 50 hours of programming a year, or 100 if you are cheap and go for $1 million per hour. You put that over 15 channels and you get 6 hours or so per year!
No wonder there were so many reruns on VOOM....
No wonder there were so many reruns on VOOM....
I just wish it was over already. My guess is we'll see an undisclosed amount of money paid by Dish to Voom/AMC, and the return of AMC networks to Dish.
