Dish Sues Fitness Home Streaming Companies (1 Viewer)

NYDutch

SatelliteGuys Pro
Pub Member / Supporter
Dec 28, 2013
3,622
4,956
Where our wheels go
Both owned by charli ergen
Charlie owns about 48 percent of Dish and about 46 percent of Echostar shares. He has control of about 78 percent of Dish's and about 72 percent of EchoStar's total voting power. They're still separate companies though, even if they do share a Chairman of the Board.
 

chiodo

SatelliteGuys Pro
Pub Member / Supporter
Aug 17, 2005
506
200
Pacific NW
Charlie reminds me of my former employer, he was a litigation fanatic, he bought out a company that made a certain device, they were in the process of getting their parents, but there were already 2 other companies using similar devices for which they don't own the parents on so , when he boughto it company A, he sued company B and C , he lost B but won with C, he then took ownership of C, and kept on appealing B, too the point they had no choice by to sell company to him due to their legal fees, he has also since sued other companies using similar technology of the parents. He still owns all these companies but moved them into one location in Texas, and he has them compete against eachother, the devices are pretty well all the same, each device has a different brand name and company address and phone #. I can't give out the name of the company, But I hear even to this day he owns other companies and does the same with them, when it comes to patents.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: TheKrell

dishdude

SatelliteGuys God
Supporting Founder
Sep 7, 2003
18,929
30,209
Phoenix, AZ
Charlie reminds me of my former employer, he was a litigation fanatic, he bought out a company that made a certain device, they were in the process of getting their parents, but there were already 2 other companies using similar devices for which they don't own the parents on so , when he boughto it company A, he sued company B and C , he lost B but won with C, he then took ownership of C, and kept on appealing B, too the point they had no choice by to sell company to him due to their legal fees, he has also since sued other companies using similar technology of the parents. He still owns all these companies but moved them into one location in Texas, and he has them compete against eachother, the devices are pretty well all the same, each device has a different brand name and company address and phone #. I can't give out the name of the company, But I hear even to this day he owns other companies and does the same with them, when it comes to patents.

Nothing worse than a patent troll and someone weaponizing the courts for personal gain.
 

Jim S.

When someone asks you if you're a god, you say yes
Lifetime Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
5,290
723
FN11od
DISH paid a lot of money to obtain the VBR patents, and under the law must sue to protect them or lose their rights to them.
Would this be the VBR patents that cause my VOD to bounce between aspect ratios? Let 'em die!
 

NYDutch

SatelliteGuys Pro
Pub Member / Supporter
Dec 28, 2013
3,622
4,956
Where our wheels go
Well, looks like Starlink has possibly conceded to one of the Dish demands...
Hmmm, by my reading, it looks like SpaceX basically "conceded" to do exactly what they told the FCC they would do in the first place. ;)
 

ChadT41

THE BEST THERE HAS EVER BEEN
Pub Member / Supporter
Apr 20, 2014
10,897
4,342
Mesa, Az
To say he is dumb for protecting this patent, makes you wonder why he would ever go after having the license or patent.
Ironically, this is something the courts told us in December. If you do not act within a certain amount of time, there is no way you can make the argument about how destructive it was. Granted, that was for a different area(voting laws made a year or two prior), but ultimately the courts said had anyone disputed them sooner they would have likely agreed with the plaintiffs, but due to waiting for so long, there was no dispute and ultimately accept this as the ruling. Now if they want to dispute before the next event(election) they can. Same applies for the patents and Charlie would mostly be correct in protecting his investments.
 

Tampa8

Supporting Founder
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 8, 2003
17,961
7,409
Tampa/Eastern Ct
I'm not sure anyone quite has it quite right. I think the technology comes from Slingbox, not Sling TV. It may be used with Sling TV of course but DISH has the patents for why Slingbox can look so good. Should he be suing, I have no idea.
 

Tampa8

Supporting Founder
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 8, 2003
17,961
7,409
Tampa/Eastern Ct

Don in CT

SatelliteGuys Master
Pub Member / Supporter
Dec 4, 2013
7,607
9,180
Central CT
Dish never changed corporate owenship..they just split with echostar for a spin off sale that never happened...it was actually prevue channel that sued dish..somehow became tvguide channel...now pop sugar or something like that
Pop TV is fully owned by ViacomCBS.
 

Tampa8

Supporting Founder
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 8, 2003
17,961
7,409
Tampa/Eastern Ct
If you know you are going to lose or winning isn't worth it you cut your loses. They certainly have Attorneys on staff but not always the ones that would argue in Court. VERY common to have to pay for others. Further losing in Court can mean reimbursing DISH for their costs. Note that even Microsoft has hired outside Attorneys for the Court phases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell

NYDutch

SatelliteGuys Pro
Pub Member / Supporter
Dec 28, 2013
3,622
4,956
Where our wheels go
If you know you are going to lose or winning isn't worth it you cut your loses. They certainly have Attorneys on staff but not always the ones that would argue in Court. VERY common to have to pay for others. Further losing in Court can mean reimbursing DISH for their costs. Note that even Microsoft has hired outside Attorneys for the Court phases.
What attorneys are you thinking of? There was no court case involved, just an FCC filing. The costs would be minimal for a staff attorney to approve the wording of the response to the DISH filing or a DISH staff attorney to approve the initial FCC complaint filing.
 

DishSubLA

SatelliteGuys Master
Apr 9, 2006
5,198
1,068
Thank you... I didn't realize the action predated Dish and TV Guide both changing corporate ownership and was searching under the current names. Again though, Dish/Echostar came out of the settlement with the licenses needed to continue using the technology. Expensive, but obviously not fatal.
Actually, Echostar PREVAILED in the first trial. Gemstar/TV Guide sued EVERYBODY (as in every cable and sat company) who used any type of EPG. The suit involved the tech being migrated form Europe, IIRC. Anyway, Dish's win was appealed on some legal technicality that the appeals court ruled that a whole NEW trial must be take place. It was 2 weeks later that Gemstar/TV Guide and Echostar settled: Gemstar/TV Gude--then a dying company--didn't get anywhere near what they wanted, but at least they would get some change and NOT have to pay for a whole new trial and focus on all the other companies they has sued for the same claim, and Echostar could save on new trial costs and end this thing now for chump change, and Echostar got lifetime licenses to ALL Gemstar/TV Guide tech in exchange. This was virtually the identical settlement in TiVo vs. Echostar a few years later, and it was Echostar who got out CHEAP while TiVo had no choice but NOT WAIT for the Supreme Court (a brilliant action and subsequent move by Echostar's attorneys that resulted in a ruling requiring a WHOLE NEW TRIAL--hence TiVo's appeal to the Supreme Court that would take to long for SCOTUS to just DECLINE to hear the case) and take Echostar's money or file for bankruptcy, and then TiVo could focus on all the other MVPD's (except DirecTV who made no patent lawsuits clause as part of the contract if it moved to develop the new DirecTiVo) and all the STB makers for cable and sat and get even MORE money. BTW, Broadcom would have to have been a cohort in infringing upon TiVo's patents if, indeed, Echostar was infringing upon TiVo patents, but Broadcom was--STRANGELY--not named as a defendant in the suit.

Most often, there are no innocent victims in these lawsuits. It is corporate gamesmanship. It is all part of business. Even though Ergen knew/believed (even the Judge in the TiVo vs. Echostar case stated that "They [Echostar] must really believe they are not infringing.") NEVER had any ill feelings about the matter nor any ill feelings about his friend and CEO of TiVo at the time, Tom Rogers. Ergen spent some time on a conference call back then making it clear that there is no "bad blood" nor any ill feelings between he and Rogers, "It's a disagreement; it's just an honest disagreement. He [Tom Rogers CEO of TiVo back then] believes we are infringing, and we [Echostar] believe we are not." After the settlement, on the day of the first wire transfer of money to TiVo, Charlie Ergen said, "Now, I expect Tom to pay the bill the next time we go to lunch" It was a funny remark.

Don't ever read too much into such lawsuits and actions in the courtrooms or government agencies like the FCC when ALL companies move to do what is in their best interest, even if TiVo or Gemstar/TV Guide know that their patents are NOT being infringed (and both of those companies were in desperate shape when they decided to sue and hope to get some money for the effort). Even Tom Rogers stated clearly that any company that would not make a deal with TiVo for its tech or patents will be sued. Tom Rogers made such a statement because he knows that such outrageous games are just BUSINESS.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top