ILNews

Federal court rules in favor of Indy company

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A federal appeals court in Florida has upheld an Indianapolis-based company's right to sell distant networking programming to its customers, finding the company was acting in accordance with the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA).

The unanimous opinion from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Monday, CBS Broadcasting Inc., et al. v. EchoStar Communications d.b.a. DISH Network, et al. No. 07-10020, ruled National Programming Service (NPS), a proposed intervenor-cross-appellant on the case, has the right to lease satellite equipment from EchoStar Communications Corp. even though EchoStar was involved in a lawsuit and had an injunction in place prohibiting the company from transmitting network programming to served and unserved customers.

Under SHVA, satellite carriers like NPS are able to get a compulsory, statutory license to engage in secondary transmission of copyrighted programming to unserved households - those that are unable to receive network programming at a specified level of intensity through the use of conventional rooftop antennas.

NPS saw an opportunity to step into the business after the injunction was placed against EchoStar. In 2006, NPS reached a deal with EchoStar about leasing its satellite equipment, which allowed NPS to use EchoStar's satellite transponder to retransmit distant network programming to unserved households that signed with NPS.

In 1998, several television networks and their affiliates sued EchoStar in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida claiming the company improperly provided distant network programming to served households - subscribers to the DISH Network satellite brand. An injunction was entered to stop the company from providing the programming under the SHVA's statutory license.

After the deal was reached between NPS and EchoStar, the television networks accused NPS of violating the injunction. The Florida federal court and now the 11th Circuit have ruled in favor of NPS.

The appellate court ruled NPS was lawfully transmitting network signals to unserved households pursuant to the act, said Todd Vare, partner at Barnes & Thornburg's intellectual property department who represented NPS in the suit.

"It's an important ruling in terms of how the court interpreted the statute," he said, adding it "allowed NPS to lease satellite equipment from somebody else without that somebody else somehow being subject to the statute."

The ruling also touched upon a public policy issue in the small-dish market. There were only two competitors - DISH Network and DIRECTV. If the injunction issued against EchoStar applied to NPS, then customers would have been left with only one provider and it would have essentially created a monopoly in the small-dish market, Vare said.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT