DISH -VS- VOOM - A Settlement has been reached!

Court Ordered Stipulation - 9 Nov 2009

Whereas, to date, the parties have completed 24 depositions and are scheduled to conduct additional depositions every week going forward, including the week of Thanksgiving and the week before Christmas.

Additional Whereas':

- Depositions revealed the existence of additional documents...to engage in the process of collecting and producing responsive documents
- Many issues to be addressed through expert testimony are complex...requiring additional depositions.
- Both parties believe a short extension is necessary
- Parties agree that this request shall not prejudice either party's right to request an advanced trial date

Botton line is the court timeline gets pushed back a month. However, it's beginning to look like a trial date may be requested in February.
 
"A weak man has doubts before a decision, a stong man has them afterwards."

As long as the strong man does not have to bear the consequences of his decisions, kudos to him:)

I thought you were against making decisions without first thinking about the livelihood of the stockholders? Change of heart?
 
"A weak man has doubts before a decision, a stong man has them afterwards."

As long as the strong man does not have to bear the consequences of his decisions, kudos to him:)

I thought you were against making decisions without first thinking about the livelihood of the stockholders? Change of heart?
My signature line was taken from an episode of Criminal Minds. You can visit the SatelliteGuys Criminal Minds Forum here. As for as your other questions...I don't see how they relate to my signature line nor do I understand the context in which your questions are posed. :confused:

Regardless, I don't see how making a thoughful decision while considering the concerns of all stakeholders would be exclusive to either a strong man or weak man? My quote merely states that a weak man doubts his decisions before them, while a strong man has doubts afterwards - it certainly does not indicate who made the better decisions.

Of course, decision making would introduce the element of Situational Leadership. For example, a leader's style would be more "participatory" if he were leading a group of peers and/or senior personnel. Whereas his leadership style be more "autocratic" if they he in charge of a group of junior and/or inexperienced personnel.

Anyway, it's a moot point since I changed my signature line. :D

Back to the topic on hand...the VOOM versus EchoStar case is proceding about a month behind schedule. There's really nothing new to discuss until some of the courtroom/trial records are disclosed to the public or the parties release public statements. Of course, people can always post their opinions.
 
Last edited:
"My quote merely states that a weak man doubts his decisions before them, while a strong man has doubts afterwards."

Yes, you have repeatedly in the past said Charlie should think about his shareholders interest before he made his decisions to fight TiVo. Basically you were asking him to behave like a "weak man".

Now it appears Charlie was a "strong man" after all, according to you, because he made his decisions to fight TiVo, without any doubt, now his shareholders are benefiting from his decisions.

I am surprised you did not see my point, and I am glad you decided to change your signature.

Now with regard to your new signature:

"These violent delights have violent ends."

TiVo decided to go the "violent" route, sought contempt charges against Charlie, and TiVo for awhile was enjoy its "delights" of the contempt ruling, but are you so sure TiVo will not see "violent ends" if and when the appeals court overturns the ruling?
 
"My quote merely states that a weak man doubts his decisions before them, while a strong man has doubts afterwards."

Yes, you have repeatedly in the past said Charlie should think about his shareholders interest before he made his decisions to fight TiVo. Basically you were asking him to behave like a "weak man".

Now it appears Charlie was a "strong man" after all, according to you, because he made his decisions to fight TiVo, without any doubt, now his shareholders are benefiting from his decisions.

I am surprised you did not see my point, and I am glad you decided to change your signature.

Now with regard to your new signature:

"These violent delights have violent ends."

TiVo decided to go the "violent" route, sought contempt charges against Charlie, and TiVo for awhile was enjoy its "delights" of the contempt ruling, but are you so sure TiVo will not see "violent ends" if and when the appeals court overturns the ruling?
I am not sure where are concocting this "stuff" but as the master of what I have said, I can assure you that your diatribe is 100% inaccurate. Regardless, you mentioned "Tivo" five times in your post. People have no desire to discuss Tivo over here so let's stick to discussing VOOM versus EchoStar in the VOOM versus EchoStar lawsuit thread.;)

I can only conclude that you are trying to close this thread? To be honest, I really don't have much to say about the VOOM versus EchoStar case until new information is provided by the court or either party. :confused:

My new signature had absolutely nothing to do with Tivo. :)
 
I am not sure where are concocting this "stuff" but as the master of what I have said, I can assure you that your diatribe is 100% inaccurate. Regardless, you mentioned "Tivo" five times in your post. People have no desire to discuss Tivo over here so let's stick to discussing VOOM versus EchoStar in the VOOM versus EchoStar lawsuit thread.;)

I can only conclude that you are trying to close this thread? To be honest, I really don't have much to say about the VOOM versus EchoStar case until new information is provided by the court or either party. :confused:

My new signature had absolutely nothing to do with Tivo. :)

I get it I get it, this is about VOOM v. E*, so let's talk about it.

According to you, it was very irresponsible for Charlie to remove the VOOM channels without considering the end results, after all that is why you kept bringing up this case to imply that Charlie might suffer some serious consequences.

Regardless if it is true or not, as least you must admit what Charlie did in this case was a decision made by a "strong man"? You know he did not have doubts before making the decision to remove VOOM, only trying to firght it out with CV after the fact?

And of course CV could have recognized their VOOM sucked and had no hope regardless, but instead CV wanted to go the "violent" route, try to sue Charlie for billions, which you know and we know they have little chance. Your latest court filing further proved there might be no end to this case.

So is CV prepared for a long fight with "violent ends"?

Or are you going to tell us your new signature has nothing to do with VOOM?
 
According to you, it was very irresponsible for Charlie to remove the VOOM channels without considering the end results, after all that is why you kept bringing up this case to imply that Charlie might suffer some serious consequences.
I've said many things about this case: some of it was factual, some was taken from court documents and press releases, and some of it was pure speculation. To be honest, I don't remember 90% of it. However, my position in this case has always been the following:

1. E* signed a horrible contract with VOOM in their zeal to become the HD Leader and obtain the old Rainbow-1 satellite; they were committed to paying year 2005 "premium" prices for HD for 15-years when HD no longer commanded these rates in 2008 and forward.

2. E* wanted to negotiate a better deal. V* wanted no part of a "new deal" and did little to market VOOM to other MSOs because of the "sweet" deal they signed with E*. Simply stated, Dish Network was their cash cow/suggar mama.

3. When V* refused to renegotiate E* tried to terminate the affiliation agreement through various legal loopholes in the contract. E* says VOOM violated the spending provision (and other provisions) - V* says they complied with all provisions and (according to VOOM) exceeded all contract requirements.

4. V* claims that E* took steps to devalue the VOOM brand and tried numerous unsuccessful times to break the contract starting in October/November 2007. E* disputes this assertion by V*.

5. Whether E* legally terminated the contract is a matter before the courts and we in the cheap-seats have not been provided with enough information to make an accurate decision. E* should win this case if V* didn't meet their contractual obligation, and V* should win if they did.

6. I have stated that V*'s story is more plausable simply based on the fact is would be pure stupidity for them not to comply with all terms & conditions of their affiliation agreement with E* because...well, because E* would be a cash-cow in years coming...even if they elected not to seriously market the VOOM channels. I have also stated that "heads should roll" in the Cablevision boardroom if they failed to meet the contract obligations with E* - it will have cost the company upwards of a billion dollars in lost income.

7. I have speculated that it was a prudent "bottom-line" business decision for E* to terminate the V* affiliation agreement simply because VOOM was not worth the 1+ billion dollars (I don't recall the exact numbers) it would cost them to continue the existing affiliation agreement with V*. Whether they legally or illegally terminated the agreement in a matter before the court. Regardless, I have always believe this is a shady way for E* to conduct business (unethical?) and cited their checkered past in which they have had multiple legal disputes with other programmers and business partners.

8. I have also said that VOOM is certainly culpable because they took advantage of the horrible contract E* signed with them. In a nutshell, the VOOM product became a pseudo-exclusive on Dish-HD because it were paid a lot of money to do very little. This is a horrible business model if you ask my opinion. Likewise, as a business partner VOOM could have permitted E* to negotiate more favorable terms. I just get the feeling that Charlie used threats instead of sitting down at the table and negotiating "in good faith" like responsible adults. Again, this is just my opinion based on what I read in the court filings and what other programmers have also mentioned. Regardless of the outcome...both parties are to blame to some degree.

Regardless if it is true or not, as least you must admit what Charlie did in this case was a decision made by a "strong man"? You know he did not have doubts before making the decision to remove VOOM, only trying to firght it out with CV after the fact?
I would tend to agree if he based his decision with a genuine belief that VOOM had violated the affiliation agreement. However, if he made his decision without knowing for certain that V* had violated the agreement (or knowing they did comply with the agreement)...well, then he had to be aware that his actions were going to cause VOOM great harm. If so, I would equate this act to a man who beats his wife and dog. Sorry, but two wrongs do not equal a right. Again, all this is going to play-out in a court of law.

To answer your questions...yes, it would be irresponsible for Charlier to have knowingly illegally terminate their VOOM affiliation agreement. To be honest, it may actually save them money in the long-run over honoring a poor contract they signed with VOOM. If so, we'd then have to evaluate business ethics with the bottom-line and perhap any damage to the Dish Network brand. Conversely, if VOOM failed to the comply with the spend limit and other contractual requirements...well, then heads should roll at Cablevision.

And of course CV could have recognized their VOOM sucked and had no hope regardless, but instead CV wanted to go the "violent" route, try to sue Charlie for billions, which you know and we know they have little chance. Your latest court filing further proved there might be no end to this case.
I thought VOOM had some good channels (others will agree and disagree), but they sure seemed to go down-hill the last 7-8 months, which is the timeframe that VOOM claims E* demanded they repeat their programming. According to VOOM, they later concluded this was a concerted effort by E* to reduce customer backlash when they later pulled the channels if V* didn't comply with their demands for a better frachise terms. VOOM also stated they have the artifacts (meeting notes, emails, etc.) to prove it. We shall see.

So is CV prepared for a long fight with "violent ends"?
No idea...you would have to ask VOOM (aka Rainbow Media, aka Cablevision). Apparently they are prepared to continue litigating this matter in the courts.

Or are you going to tell us your new signature has nothing to do with VOOM?
It honestly had nothing to do with VOOM and everything to do with your talking about Tivo in the VOOM versus EchoStar thread. ;)
 
...To answer your questions...yes, it would be irresponsible for Charlier to have knowingly illegally terminate their VOOM affiliation agreement.

But according to you, if he had doubts about his ethics before he made his decision to terminate, he would be a "weak man", that was according to your signature. Do you prefer him be the "strong man" or the "weak man"?

To be honest, it may actually save them money in the long-run over honoring a poor contract they signed with VOOM. If so, we'd then have to evaluate business ethics with the bottom-line and perhap any damage to the Dish Network brand. Conversely, if VOOM failed to the comply with the spend limit and other contractual requirements...well, then heads should roll at Cablevision.

So far, whose heads had rolled? Whether from E* side or from CV side? How long do you think this thing will last before we see any heads roll?

No idea...you would have to ask VOOM (aka Rainbow Media, aka Cablevision). Apparently they are prepared to continue litigating this matter in the courts.

If in the end the heads at CV must roll, do you not agree with me it will be a "violent end"? Or do you believe Charlie's head may roll if he loses? I see "heads roll" to be very much one-sided, i.e. the "violent ends" could only happen at CV.

It honestly had nothing to do with VOOM and everything to do with your talking about Tivo in the VOOM versus EchoStar thread. ;)

Are we talking VOOM now or TiVo?
 
So far, whose heads had rolled? Whether from E* side or from CV side? How long do you think this thing will last before we see any heads roll?
How long will this case last? I think the trial will be over before the end of 2010. How long will the appeals process last? I don't know, but if E* loses there will most certainly be an appeal.

Additionally, I think we've already seen a some heads roll regarding this issue: a few VOOM execs are no longer with the company and, if I recall, didn't E*'s VP of Programming depart last year?

If in the end the heads at CV must roll, do you not agree with me it will be a "violent end"? Or do you believe Charlie's head may roll if he loses? I see "heads roll" to be very much one-sided, i.e. the "violent ends" could only happen at CV.
Ergen and Dolan are way too powerful for their heads to roll. However, I'm sure some of their minions will part company...if they haven't already done so. Anyway, it should be an interested case once the trial starts.
 
Do you think Charlie is a "weak man" or a "strong man"?

You don't get it do you? You have admitted you don't like what Charlie has done, you do not think his acts were ethical. Yet you refuse to mention that the judge in this case had denied CV's motion for a preliminary injunction against DISH. Which meant the court did not think CV had demonstrated a strong likelihood of success in this case.

Now that we know the fact of this case indicates that Charlie likely did not do anything unethical, let me ask you again, do you think Charlie is a "strong man" or a "weak man"?

Do you really think I care about this case? No I do not. I am only using this opportunity to tell you, next time before you put some big quote in your signature, at least read it and make sure you agree with it first.
 
It is my understanding that VOOM serives were seldom viewed niche channel such as "monsters". "Rave" which is a skatboarding, snow boarding X games type channel. The other VOOM channels were quite low on the ratings totem pole.
Dish needed the space on Rainbow I (satellite) so they booted VOOM. At least that is the version I got.
 
Do you think Charlie is a "weak man" or a "strong man"?
I would be inclined to say strong man, but I have no way of knowing since I cannot read his thoughts nor I am a trusted confidant. Regardless, such a meaningless observation has nothing to do with this case...and I really don't care if he is an INFP, ESTJ, etc. (Myers-Briggs) for that matter since it is equally unimportant.

You have admitted you don't like what Charlie has done, you do not think his acts were ethical.
I also said this was my opinion, which is based on years of observing his methods and means of conducting business with programmers and business partners...in addition to the VOOM case. I have also mentioned that Mr. Ergen is a genius with the company financials, a visionary and strategic planner, but not-so-much with managing daily operations and business relationships. Again, I believe my assessment is fair and accurate. I can understand if you feel differently, but my reasoning is sound and...quite frankly, it doesn't matter because they are my opinions.

Yet you refuse to mention that the judge in this case had denied CV's motion for a preliminary injunction against DISH. Which meant the court did not think CV had demonstrated a strong likelihood of success in this case.
This is completely not true and misleading. First, I have mentioned and/or discussed this fact numerous times in this thread and the now defunct (closed) "VOOM goes Boom" thead. Additionally, we're talking apples and oranges since the "legal standard required for the issuance of a court-ordered injunction is something completely different." Here are just two examples of the "injunction" issue being discussed.

http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-ne...-voom-vs-echostar-lawsuit-25.html#post1783148

http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-ne...-voom-vs-echostar-lawsuit-24.html#post1782744

In this case you're making an argument that EchoStar cannot be convicted for killing VOOM simply because a judge failed to issue a protective order (aka injunction) while VOOM was on life support. The judge's ruling was based largely on the fact that VOOM couldn't prove they would die at the hands of Echostar (go out of business) or suffer inreversible damage without court protection. However, if it can be proven that EchoStar pulled the trigger or drove the knife into VOOM's back that eventually killed their business...well, then that's a very different story. Here is a summary from mperdue on this issue: (I'm certain you've seen this before since you provided commentary)

So many people use this to indicate that VOOM somehow doesn't stand a chance to prevail - this couldn't be farther from the truth. An organization I'm a member of was just involved in a lawsuit against a department of the federal government. At the beginning the judge refused to issue a preliminary injunction because he did not see:

(1) that we had a reasonable likelihood of success based on the merits;
(2) that we would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted;
(3) that the balance of hardships tipped in our favor;
(4) that an injunction would be consistent with the public interest.

All of those must be true to issue a preliminary injunction.

We recently won that lawsuit.

Also, the reason VOOM is gone is because DISH stopped paying them the money they were due based on their contract. DISH has not won this case, not by a long-shot.

Mario

Just a quick obsevation...how can a judge be expected to issue an emergency injunction and VOOM be able to prove "that they had a reasonable likelihood of success based on the merits" based on the evidence VOOM submitted to the court in a matter of a few days? At last count, it has taken both parties more than a year to produce more than 2-million pages of artifacts for the court.

Do you really think I care about this case? No I do not. I am only using this opportunity to tell you, next time before you put some big quote in your signature, at least read it and make sure you agree with it first.
What we have here is a failure to communicate. I am not interested in discussing my signature line, my favorite color, if I prefer to bang blondes or brunettes, or Tivo versus EchoStar here in this thread? You have contributed nothing to this discussion and have only wasted my time since I have nothing new to add.

Anyway, you have prompted me to once again change my signature. You can rest assured that I know what my "big quote" means and to whom it applies. ;)
 
It is my understanding that VOOM serives were seldom viewed niche channel such as "monsters". "Rave" which is a skatboarding, snow boarding X games type channel. The other VOOM channels were quite low on the ratings totem pole.
Dish needed the space on Rainbow I (satellite) so they booted VOOM. At least that is the version I got.
That's an ultra condensed verision, but it works. VOOM was costing E* too much money and they needed room for mainstream HD for nickels on the dollar.
 
Yes & No

It is my understanding that VOOM serives were seldom viewed niche channel such as "monsters". "Rave" which is a skatboarding, snow boarding X games type channel. The other VOOM channels were quite low on the ratings totem pole.
Dish needed the space on Rainbow I (satellite) so they booted VOOM. At least that is the version I got.

They were "niche" but some were watched. "Rave" (a music channel) was one of the most watched It had many live (recorded) music events that couldn't be watched anywhere else. Monsters, Kung Fu were watched by many, also once FilmFest & Voom HD Movies were combined too. Now the rest did have low viewership had they be combined and rearranged the other channels could have had good viewership. The whole problem is Voom (CV) didn't want to listen to the public or E* and do some work. Now before we all getting Voom crazy again I'm gonna get the heck outta here. :D
 
... The judge's ruling was based largely on the fact that VOOM couldn't prove they would die at the hands of Echostar (go out of business) or suffer inreversible damage without court protection. However, if it can be proven that EchoStar pulled the trigger or drove the knife into VOOM's back that eventually killed their business...well, then that's a very different story. Here is a summary from mperdue on this issue: (I'm certain you've seen this before since you provided commentary)

Yes I have, the four factors used to determine whether to grant an injunction is used universally, the motion party (CV in this case) did not have to demonstrate all four factors by equal weight.

Had they demonstrated VOOM would very likely be out of the business (which was the case), they would not need to demonstrate as strong a likelihood that they would prevail on the case, for example.

But if they had failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood that they would be out of the business, they would have to demonstrate they would very likely to succeed on the case on the merits, in order to be granted an injunction.

I hope you can agree, the evidence at the time was strong that E* was the only cash cow for VOOM, so without E* VOOM would have easily gone out of the business. In other words, CV only needed to demonstrate the likelihood of success on the case, not a strong likelihood of success on the case, to get the injunction.

But they did not, meaning the court did not believe CV had demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits in this case, much less a strong likelihood of success.

Just a quick obsevation...how can a judge be expected to issue an emergency injunction and VOOM be able to prove "that they had a reasonable likelihood of success based on the merits" based on the evidence VOOM submitted to the court in a matter of a few days?

It happens all the time, that is how those preliminary injunctions are issued when the motions parties can demonstrate strong cases in a very short time.

At last count, it has taken both parties more than a year to produce more than 2-million pages of artifacts for the court.

All the reasons to point out this is hardly a clear case of who has the merits.

As far as your signature, it is relevant because you have always expressed your misgiving about Charlie mainly because as you said over and over, he did not think carefully before he made his decisions. You time after time stated your opinion that he should have thought about all the consequences (such as the shareholders' interests) before he acted.

Yet you used a big quote as your signature, in which it clearly bragged about a "strong man" who does not think before he acts, only after he acts. The signature depicted a man, who thought a lot before he acted (one which you wanted Charlie to be) as a "weak man".

You have contradcited yourself as far as what you believed how a strong person should be, v. what you want that person to be.

If you could not even give us a consistent view of a person in this case, how do you expect us to believe you are capable of providing us a consistent and objective view of this case?

Now I hope you realize how "stupid" your signatures are! Every signature you picked, made you look bad.
 
6. I have stated that V*'s story is more plausable simply based on the fact is would be pure stupidity for them not to comply with all terms & conditions of their affiliation agreement with E* because...well, because E* would be a cash-cow in years coming...even if they elected not to seriously market the VOOM channels. I have also stated that "heads should roll" in the Cablevision boardroom if they failed to meet the contract obligations with E* - it will have cost the company upwards of a billion dollars in lost income.

I think it is quite pausable that Cablevision in an effort to save money and make a profit did cuts across the board to all their divisions. The people doing the budget cuts (remember at the time VOOM was losing money big time, Dish's big payments are at the end of the contract) probably saw the big losses at VOOM and decided to make cuts. The people making the cuts were probably not aware of the provisions in the contract VOOM had with Dish.

Remember it was Dish's contention that Cablevision started to pay itself for services as part of the "investment" they were supposed to be making in VOOM programming. This was probably viewed by Cablevision as a win/win. They spend the money on themselves.

This is why the case is not clear. Did, as Dish claims, Cablevision funnel the investment to itself for bogus inflated expenses or did Cablevision live up to the contract? This is why the courts will have to settle the matter, and it will probably be years and many appeals later. Neither side will let the matter drop until the last appeal is done, way too much money at stake.
 
I hope you can agree, the evidence at the time was strong that E* was the only cash cow for VOOM, so without E* VOOM would have easily gone out of the business.
I agree that E* was their cash cow, but the court agreed with E* that VOOM had other customers, such as their distribution agreement with Cablevision for 900,000 HD customers, and the affiliation agreement between E* and V* was non-exclusive. In other words, V* had a distribution deal in effect with CV and they were free to pursue other licensing deals with large MSOs: D*, Comcast, Time-Warner, etc. VOOM simply provided a very weak argument as to their demise and the court sided with E*. As you'll recall, V* could have been distributing individual channels (like E* had hoped would happen), but V* would have been forced to offer similar deals to E*, thus losing their cash cow.

But they did not, meaning the court did not believe CV had demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits in this case, much less a strong likelihood of success.
This was true...based on the evidence (or lack thereof) VOOM provided to the courts and arguments they made in early February 2008. However, this does not mean they will not prevail after amending their case and crafting their litigation around a the 2+ million pages of artifacts already generated.

All the reasons to point out this is hardly a clear case of who has the merits.
I am glad we agree on something...because this is what I have been saying all along. There are simply too many unknowns for those of us sitting in the peanut gallery to state with certainty who will ultimately prevail in thise case. While I feel that VOOM's story is more plausible...hey, if they didn't meet their contractual obligations then they're toast! I've read both sides of the story (court filings) and it's apparent that both sides disagree as the contents and context of the April 2005 preliminary agreement and November 2005 affiliation agreement. Heck, they can't even agree on the how much VOOM was supposed to spend on the service....the cost allocation methods used...or how many channels were in the VOOM Lineup (10, 15, 21?).

As far as your signature, it is relevant because...
It is relevant to you, but not to me since I rarely think about Charlie Ergen...and I certainly don't comtemplate how any particular quote applies to Mr. Ergen in any particular situation. The thought just never creeps into my mind.

Yet you used a big quote as your signature, in which it clearly bragged about a "strong man" who does not think before he acts, only after he acts. The signature depicted a man, who thought a lot before he acted (one which you wanted Charlie to be) as a "weak man".
Big quote? Bragged? One which you wanted Charlie to be? Again, I post in many other forums and Mr. Ergen is not someone I often think about until you kept mentioning him...again...and again...and again. The only non-family person that I've been thinking about lately is Rich Rodriguez, the soon-to-be-fired ex-coach at Michigan.

You have contradcited yourself as far as what you believed how a strong person should be, v. what you want that person to be.
Again, I have no desire to engage you in your agenda to advance the study of EchoStar and worship of Charlie Ergen. And I continue to avoid such nonsensical questions.

If you could not even give us a consistent view of a person in this case, how do you expect us to believe you are capable of providing us a consistent and objective view of this case?
Again, not sure what you are talking about or why you're not discussing this case.

Now I hope you realize how "stupid" your signatures are! Every signature you picked, made you look bad.
Anyway, enjoy extracting what my new signature says about Charlie Ergen and EchoStar (nothing, I assure you!). Although I often do not always agree with your postings in the Tivo versus EchoStar thread, they are usually on-topic and provide useful insight into the case. However, I won't be reading any more of your posts since you've been added to my ignore list.:( I would ask that you return the favor in kind and add me to yours.:hatsoff:
 

Hopper and USB Hub???

Upgrade to 2nd Hopper questions

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

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)