NPS Wins Court Order

[Scott Greczkowski]

NPS Wins Court Order

From todays TransmitterNews!

http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/121206newsletter.cfm#H1


While awaiting a decision from Florida litigation between EchoStar and the network affiliates, Decisionmark terminated NPS’s access to the licensed products that NPS claimed it was entitled to under their contract with Decisionmark. The eligibility to receive lawful distant network programming under the SHVA act is determined by Decisionmark, and NPS or other companies with a Decisionmark contract pay for that information.

Citing irreparable harm to NPS, “for which there is no adequate remedy at law,” NPS filed for a preliminary injunction with the United States District Court of Indiana asking that NPS be forced to re-establish access to NPS as required under the License Agreement with NPS while the Florida litigation continues.

United States District Judge David F. Hamilton yesterday ordered Decisionmark Corporation to rescind its suspension of services under the Software Licensing Agreement with NPS. In addition, Judge Hamilton also ordered Decisionmark to “resume immediately” providing to NPS the services that Decisionmark was providing prior to December 5th, and all other services to which NPS is entitled. The order is in effect for ten days unless it is earlier terminated or modified.

The Transmitter News will bring you further updates on this story as they develop.

 

[SatinKzo]

it is just me (as I don't follow this stuff much) but does the second paragraph seema a bit confusing?

 

[makman]

it is just me (as I don't follow this stuff much) but does the second paragraph seema a bit confusing?

There are definitely typos.

Mitch

 

[db2]

...awaiting Greg Bimson's irrational response...

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

As Greg will tell you they should have won this one. They had a contract with Decisionmark which Decisionmark is between a rock and a hard place on - not E* - not NPS.

 

[db2]

As Greg will tell you they should have won this one.

Good. I am glad he's able to see that.

 

[Greg Bimson]

The only question was whether the contract was violated because of an action by NPS or by DecisionMark.

If the contract had no "termination" clause, then this temporary injunction should have been issued. Since we are not privy to the NPS contract with DecisionMark, I have every reason to believe the temporary injunction issued by the judge was correct.

 

[Robert NTSC Archivist]

Well in that case the broadcasters cant threaten Decisionmark any more as they have been given a court order to resume the service

 

[minnow]

The only question was whether the contract was violated because of an action by NPS or by DecisionMark.

If the contract had no "termination" clause, then this temporary injunction should have been issued. Since we are not privy to the NPS contract with DecisionMark, I have every reason to believe the temporary injunction issued by the judge was correct.

Well I know that I'll sleep more soundly tonight than I have in the last two weeks now knowing that Bimson is in full agreement with sitting Federal Judge. I can feel my eyelids getting heavier and heavier already.

 

[Robert NTSC Archivist]

Well if you look at it the contract between NPS and Decisonmark had nothing to do with Dish Network. All DM was doing was screening to see who was eligable for DNS.

The broadcasters and DirecTV were wrong to try and strong arm DM by threatening them with a law suit.

DirecTV wants a monopoly on those of us who still can legaly recieve DNS.

 

[Hall]

Good. I am glad he's able to see that.

Note also that this is an Indiana-based judge who issued this. NPS is based in .... yeap, Indiana.

 

[makman]

The only question was whether the contract was violated because of an action by NPS or by DecisionMark.

If the contract had no "termination" clause, then this temporary injunction should have been issued. Since we are not privy to the NPS contract with DecisionMark, I have every reason to believe the temporary injunction issued by the judge was correct.

The contract is somewhere on this board or the other one as a PDF. There were of course several termination clauses. None covered the reason Decisionmark said they were terminating the contract. Otherwise there would have been no order to resume issued.

Mitch

 

[chaddux]

Well I know that I'll sleep more soundly tonight than I have in the last two weeks now knowing that Bimson is in full agreement with sitting Federal Judge. I can feel my eyelids getting heavier and heavier already.

Same here. I was sweating it. We all know the federal court system of the greatest country on earth doesn't know what they are doing. We have to rely on GB to affirm their actions as correct.

 

[ArtWIS]

...awaiting Greg Bimson's irrational response...

Me too now that I've read yours!!!

 

[ArtWIS]

Well in that case the broadcasters cant threaten Decisionmark any more as they have been given a court order to resume the service

It's only a temporary order for only 10 days (at this point). Decisionmark must like this because it should keep them from getting legally involved in the NAB vs. E*, NPS, AAD case. They've shown that they don't want to do business with NPS/AAD but now the court has ordered them to do so.