Fox Loses Yet Again Against Dish Autohopper; Appeals Court Ignores Silly Aereo Argument
from the innovation-allowed dept
Some good news on the innovation front. Following on Fox's big initial loss in trying to stop Dish's Autohopper DVR feature, an appeals court has upheld the ruling. The main issue? Fox completely failed to show how an injunction is necessary to stop "irreparable harm." The court is pretty sure that any "harm" would be quite "reparable." There isn't much analysis -- the court just clearly is not convinced. Beyond saying that the district court didn't make any legal errors in issuing the original ruling, the appeals court notes that the service has been available for a while already, kinda disproving the whole "irreparable harm" argument.
Here, the district court found that Fox’s lack of evidence that the
complained-of technology, available for several years, had yet caused Fox’s
business any harm weighed against Fox’s argument that it would be irreparably
harmed absent a preliminary injunction. In so finding, the district court did not
hold Fox’s evidence to a more rigorous standard than our law requires and so did
not abuse its discretion.
Perhaps more importantly, the court totally and completely ignored Fox's ridiculous attempt to argue that the Aereo ruling supports its position. That was a crazy argument from the very beginning, and clearly attempted to stretch the whole "looks like a duck" test beyond the breaking point. As Dish had pointed out in its response, Aereo lost because it didn't have licenses. Dish has licenses, so it's not even close to being relevant. The court appears to have treated it with the amount of respect Fox's argument deserved: none.