Dish: Ready to shut down DVRs if it loses lawsuit

I will preface this comment by saying that I don't think Charlie is stupid enough to let this case reach the point of disabling the DVRs, and if it does reach that point, it won't last very long. But, with that said:



You bought the hardware, yes. You are licensing the software.
The DishNet Residential Customer Agreement, section 4A and 4H:


So DishNet has the right (and obligation, in case of any future court-ordered shutdown) to change the software or disable the DVR functionality in their licensed software.

Altering the software to disable the DVR functionality does not damage the hardware (unless they are dumb enough to accidentally overheat something with the new software).


--------------------------



If the customer agreement holds up in court, then no. You would still be charged the ETF.

Section 4:


And Section 7:


From those sections, DishNet reserves the right to change the software on the receiver at any time, won't be responsible for any lost recordings or the ability to record, and "shall have no liability to you for any interruptions in Services".

So, if this DVR shutdown happens, you are still bound to the contract, because you agreed that they can change the software at any time and there is no escape clause based on a software alteration.

You still can't charge for services not rendered. Secondly it is considered fraud on Dishes part by not specificly informing new customers that there was a court case that could cause them to loose the DVR function. There is one thing that trumps everything. That is called the "implied warranty". If I sell you a car, it should transport you. If I sell you a stereo, it should play music. Etc... Etc.. So if I sell you a DVR, it should function. The arguement about the licensing not being paid for is moot for two reasons. First, by Dishes own words they charge you more for a dvr receiver. So licensing fees are taken in the sale of that receiver to the customer. At least that is how it is supposed to work. Are computers being shut down for not paying licensing fees? How many checks have we wrote to Microsoft, or Apple so we can use our computers year after year? I havn't wrote a dime. The licensing was figured into the price of the computer. I am not continueing to pay licensing in spite of the use on the internet. The DVR thing is the same. A customer pays a higher price for a functioning DVR as opposed to a standard receiver. How many DVRs would they sell telling people that they cost more but won't work? If people based their decision to go with Dish as opposed to Direct because of the DVR thing. Those people that subbed because of the DVR function would have a case to tell Dish to take their ETF and shove it. Implided warranty overcome many a small print. Have a great day!
 
Last edited:
You still can't charge for services not rendered.

Yes, and if Dish were to charge a DVR fee after the functionality was disabled, there would be a serious problem.

Secondly it is considered fraud on Dishes part by not specificly informing new customers that there was a court case that could cause them to loose the DVR function.

Considered fraud by whom, you? The court case was public knowledge. Unless Dish actively misled you about it, thereby inducing you to purchase a 722, good luck with the fraud claim. Considering that the 722 was not a part of the case to begin with is an even bigger problem for any fraud claim you'd try to make.

There is one thing that trumps everything. That is called the "implied warranty". If I sell you a car, it should transport you. If I sell you a stereo, it should play music. Etc... Etc.. So if I sell you a DVR, it should function.

An implied warranty claim could be interesting to argue, but I still don't think it'd be a winner for you. But the biggest problem you have is that you bought the receiver and it did work as a DVR. In fact it will continue to work as one until they are forced to shut off that functionality at some future date. (All acceptable pursuant to the contract that you agreed to when signing up for Dish service.) Now, it'd be different if the functionality was ordered shut off and Dish was still advertising and selling it as a DVR after the shut off. Then there'd be a clear problem.
 
An implied warranty claim could be interesting to argue, but I still don't think it'd be a winner for you. But the biggest problem you have is that you bought the receiver and it did work as a DVR. In fact it will continue to work as one until they are forced to shut off that functionality at some future date. (All acceptable pursuant to the contract that you agreed to when signing up for Dish service.) Now, it'd be different if the functionality was ordered shut off and Dish was still advertising and selling it as a DVR after the shut off. Then there'd be a clear problem.
I guess the big question is whether the DVRs are capable of bypassing the hard drive completely (as required by the injunction) and still display a picture.
 
If Tivo is declared the winner in all this with them having been deemed the creator of the dvr system " colorably different or not", what's to stop a company or group of companies like let's say network stations NBC,CBS, ABC ESPN etc.... from then buying "at any cost" Tivo and refusing to license the technology to anyone. By doing that, they would then be able to charge more for their commercials that nobody could skip over. :rolleyes: This is where this case leads to, a total monopoly of a modern technology that's already in the public domain. Only when their so called patents expire would the world have a dvr again.:D
 
If Tivo is declared the winner in all this with them having been deemed the creator of the dvr system " colorably different or not", what's to stop a company or group of companies like let's say network stations NBC,CBS, ABC ESPN etc.... from then buying "at any cost" Tivo and refusing to license the technology to anyone. By doing that, they would then be able to charge more for their commercials that nobody could skip over. :rolleyes: This is where this case leads to, a total monopoly of a modern technology that's already in the public domain. Only when their so called patents expire would the world have a dvr again.:D

Interesting nightmare DefDude!

He must have forgotten to wear his tin foil hat today.:eek:
 
If Tivo is declared the winner in all this with them having been deemed the creator of the dvr system " colorably different or not", what's to stop a company or group of companies like let's say network stations NBC,CBS, ABC ESPN etc.... from then buying "at any cost" Tivo and refusing to license the technology to anyone. By doing that, they would then be able to charge more for their commercials that nobody could skip over. :rolleyes: This is where this case leads to, a total monopoly of a modern technology that's already in the public domain. Only when their so called patents expire would the world have a dvr again.:D
What's to stop them? Anti-trust laws.
 
This is not obsoleting equipment, it is DAMAGING equipment! I BOUGHT that DVR for the reason that it IS a DVR. If the DVR function is disabled, it is as useful as a car with all four tires flat. Remember, I BOUGHT it, not leased or rented it. It is MY property. If you willfully damage MY property, that makes you a felon. It is against the law. Whether my two year old 722 is not worth a whole lot anymore or not is irrelevant. Fact is it is an individual's personal property, and thus it is nobody else's business whatsoever.
i'm just saying that Dish has a bad track record with customers who have purchased their own equipment. They seem to push them into leasing by obsoleting equipment.

Personally i think this Dish will do whatever it takes to maintain the status quo in terms of DVR function for customers. Possibly including replacing equipment as the very worst possible case.

Even when this DVR thing is sorted out though... customers who own equipment are always at risk because of the way Dish does business.
 
If Tivo is declared the winner in all this with them having been deemed the creator of the dvr system " colorably different or not", what's to stop a company or group of companies like let's say network stations NBC,CBS, ABC ESPN etc.... from then buying "at any cost" Tivo and refusing to license the technology to anyone. By doing that, they would then be able to charge more for their commercials that nobody could skip over. :rolleyes: This is where this case leads to, a total monopoly of a modern technology that's already in the public domain. Only when their so called patents expire would the world have a dvr again.:D
Possible, but recent studies are showing the "Tivo Effect" has no impact on users buying preference. Study Debunks The TiVo Effect - HotHardware
 
What's to stop them? Anti-trust laws.

That and they would have to honor any pre-existing licensing agreements. Not to mention that there are other similar patents that belong to other entities. It would be really hard for such a DVR doomsday scenario to come about.
 
DefDude said:
If Tivo is declared the winner in all this with them having been deemed the creator of the dvr system " colorably different or not", what's to stop a company or group of companies like let's say network stations NBC,CBS, ABC ESPN etc.... from then buying "at any cost" Tivo and refusing to license the technology to anyone. By doing that, they would then be able to charge more for their commercials that nobody could skip over. :rolleyes: This is where this case leads to, a total monopoly of a modern technology that's already in the public domain. Only when their so called patents expire would the world have a dvr again.:D

Oh my god what will we do without DVRS? Maybe use VCR or recordable DVD and Blueray.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Deja vu!!! It seems like we keep repeating this same thread every couple of months... :eek:

Yes, this thread is only colorably different from the other threads.

And now you understand what that means !

Of course, the ViP series' DVR function is substantially different from the 501, etc.

However, if a judge decided differently, it would be far from the first time that a judge had made a ridiculous decision (consider that 5 top judges decided that corporations are the same as the "people" mentioned in the Constitution - in fact they decided that corporations are only colorably different from people. ;) ).

So, Charlie is taking into account the possibility that there could be ridiculous decisions, which is exactly what the SEC requires a CEO to do.

I really hate when people say this, but this time I am going to say:

Time to close this thread.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)