Read this.Nope. Read the above link.
The problem with your sticking to the language of the court is that you assume there will never be room for modification once a court decision is rendered. I can tell you a death penalty can be reversed if new evidence surface to justify such.
If today ALL networks walk into the court room and ask the judge to lift that injunction for just cause, the judge will, and the appeals court will not intervene unless some party object to such new ruling and appeals to the court.
The same way how you use the above narrow interpretation to make a certain prediction why DISH is dead in the water in the Tivo suit. The fact is DISH did not follow the language of the injunction to turn off the DVRs, because in their view they are in compliance with the injunction since they believe the new software no longer infringes. It will take Tivo to request a contempt hearing for the judge to issue such ruling to force DISH to turn off the DVRs. If during the hearing the judge agrees with DISH their new software no longer infringes, he should lift the injunction. Or if Tivo decides for whatever the reason not to ask for a contempt hearing, DISH will be free to continue to operate its DVRs in the face of the injunction, one of such reasons can be DISH and Tivo settle, there can be other reasons too.
The same would be true for the distants case, if DISH settled with ALL parties, and continued to carry the distants signals despite the injunction, since no one would have gone to the judge to request he issue a contempt ruling, the injunction would be dissolved, the judge will not initiate a contempt hearing in a civil case, the parties must request that or object to that to move the court.
Unless you truely believe you are better legal expert than DISH's legal team, and I know you do think that way at times because "DISH has lost time after time" in those cases. But keep in mind DISH should lose, because they were wrong, they did infringe, they did violate the distants rule. The reason they appeared to lose over and over was becasue they always choose rigorous defense as their strategy and fight to the end.
That is not the same as saying their legal team is clueless, at least not more so than you are. If your reasoning were correct, then yes indeed the armed marshalls would already be locking Charlie up in a cell.