Your video feed carries D* copyright, but nowhere does it state what D* is contractually-obligated to provide its customers. It's describing conventional terminology in layman's terms, and nothing else. It is NOT a a service-level-agreement.
Your argument is the same as complaining that your residential ISP sells you a 10 Mbps cable feed, but that you seldom exceed 9.2 Mbps; the ISP does not guarantee residential bandwidth via SLA.
The lack of SLA means you haven't got an argument that a court will hear.
Sorry, not a lawyer here, so to any members who are, please correct me if I'm mistaken.
In the case of an ISP, the wording is something to the effect of "up to 10Mbps, actual download speeds may vary depending on network conditions..."
My point was that by referencing those specific definitions in their advertising and literature, they have an obligation to meet those requirements in absence of any other claims. Under your argument, they could reduce HD content to
any resolution, and still claim it's HD.
That might be a valid argument.... IF the tv makers also stuck to the ATSC definition for HD. The fact of the matter is that 90% of HDTV units do not comply with the ATSC specs. There are a ton of HDTV's whose native resolution is limited to 1280x1024.
I don't think we know what percentage of HD sets in use can be classified as HD. In your example, as long as a 1280x1024 monitor can fully produce a 1280x720p image, it is clearly HD.
Besides, I see that as being a separate issue. I don't think companies can get out of obligations just by pointing the finger and saying that some other guys are doing the same thing.
As far as customer impact goes, I don't think that matters either. Suppose a juice manufacturer claimed 12% fruit juice content, but only provided 8%. I'd bet that 90% of all consumers couldn't tell the difference, but that wouldn't let them off the hook for claiming one thing, but delivering another.
You can rationalize all you want. Rationalizing doesn't work in court. You need something more concrete. Right now 90% of D* HD subscribers are using monitors that are unable to present the lack of resolution; and the other 10% have no evidence of a contract obligating D* to provide anything more.
Furthermore, any legitimate ruling would have to address use of the terms HD and HDTV not only by broadcasters, cable, and satellite operators; it has to also apply to the TV/monitor makers. If it doesn't meet the standard definition, they shouldn't be permitted to use the term.
And therein lies the big problem: no court can penalize D* unless it's willing to penalize every noncompliant sat or cable operator; and every noncompliant display maker. Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba etc will not allow that to happen.
The court case in question would only cover DirecTV, although it would certainly open up all kinds of cases based on the decision.
I don't know if the other parties would have an opportunity to join party with DirecTV on the suit, or if they would necessarily want to. They may be better off fighting on their own, or banding together as a unified manufacturing group.
Any lawyers want to comment on these issues?
Scott