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.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Michael, Jul 15th, 2014 @ 11:14am

    What does the FOX say?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Roger Strong (profile), Jul 15th, 2014 @ 11:15am

    Oh for Fox's sake. Not having a valid argument has never stopped them before.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 15th, 2014 @ 11:17am

    Re:

    That the Appeals Court ruling will cause them irreparable harm. Do you really expect them to go off script and say "Oh, that's okay"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Jul 15th, 2014 @ 11:22am

    Re:

    Clearly this ruling was due to the Climate Change Cabal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jul 15th, 2014 @ 11:26am

    FOX misread the Supreme Court opinion

    FOX thought they would go to the appeals court and try out the "looks like a dick" test. The appeals court agreed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 15th, 2014 @ 11:36am

    Re:

    LieLieLieLieLieLieLieLieLieLie.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Violynne (profile), Jul 15th, 2014 @ 11:39am

    Re:

    I may not know what a Fox says, but I do know this Fox is howling and whining because it just got spanked.

    Again.

    Bad dog, er Fox!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Rich, Jul 15th, 2014 @ 11:42am

    Re:

    What does Red Foxx say?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Rich, Jul 15th, 2014 @ 11:43am

    Re: Re:

    I think you missed the joke.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Jul 15th, 2014 @ 11:45am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I don't think so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    techrebel (profile), Jul 15th, 2014 @ 11:46am

    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.

    Mike,

    It's hard to imagine how your analysis could be any more sophomoric. Are you seriously arguing that the appellate court didn't touch the Aereo argument because they were giving it "the amount of respect" it deserved? Do you really think that's how these things work?

    The actual reason the appellate court didn't touch the Aereo argument was because Fox was challenging the district court's standard for irreparable harm. Fox's likelihood of success on the merits of its Aereo argument wasn't the issue on appeal. So it's not like the appellate court ignored it because it just didn't think much of the argument. It ignored the argument because it was irrelevant to the actual issue before the court.

    Care to offer a substantive response?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 15th, 2014 @ 12:04pm

    Re: Re:

    "It's the big one! You hear that, Elizabeth? I'm coming to join ya honey!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    psxndc, Jul 15th, 2014 @ 12:07pm

    Re: Re:

    "Get these worms out of my eye holes."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 15th, 2014 @ 12:25pm

    The stupid 'looks like a duck' ruling by SCOTUS has sure opened up a can of worms.

    No real basis in law reasoning given yet widely available in it's vagueness to be applied nearly anywhere that the incumbents want to argue or attempt to stop anything they don't give their economic blessing to.

    Yet another landmark screw up decision ranking right in there with Citizens United decision.

    Increasingly the government and it's branches are showing just how out of touch it is with its citizens it's supposed to support.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Ruben, Jul 15th, 2014 @ 12:35pm

    Re:

    He wasn't referring to the Supreme Court ruling, rather Fox's application of it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Rich, Jul 15th, 2014 @ 12:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    techrebel (profile), Jul 15th, 2014 @ 12:57pm

    Re: Re:

    He wasn't referring to the Supreme Court ruling, rather Fox's application of it.

    I apologize if my comment was unclear. Mike is arguing that the Ninth Circuit simply ignored Fox's argument on the merits about how Dish is infringing under the holding in Aereo. This is silly because it wasn't just Fox that argued Aereo helped; Dish argued that Aereo supported its arguments on the merits as well. The Ninth Circuit didn't mention the Aereo arguments from either side because it limited its review to the primary question on appeal, which was whether the district court used the correct standard for the irreparable harm analysis. So it's not just that the Ninth Circuit ignored Fox's arguments about Aereo, it ignored Dish's arguments about Aereo as well. And it ignored them all because the issue squarely on appeal was irreparable harm, not the merits.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 15th, 2014 @ 1:36pm

    Re:

    SCOTUS reigns...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 15th, 2014 @ 5:25pm

    Re:

    And the usual jackass trolls insisted the Aereo ruling wouldn't result in a slippery slope as predicted, then clammed up when this happened.

    What a bunch of morons.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), Jul 15th, 2014 @ 5:41pm

    Railed to pass the "looks like a Fox" test.

    eom

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Jul 15th, 2014 @ 6:50pm

    Hey Fox, Fuck You and the Anti-Consumer stance you rode in on...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Whatever (profile), Jul 15th, 2014 @ 10:56pm

    proof positive

    Here is proof positive that the recent SCOTUS ruling won't make the sky fall. While noting the decision, the court ruled clearly that this was not the same thing (for many reasons).

    Perhaps now all the chicken littles screaming that sky was falling can sit back, relax, have a coffee and chill.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2014 @ 12:04pm

    Re: Re:

    brother, I thought I was blind til you walked through the door...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jul 17th, 2014 @ 2:46am

    Re: proof positive

    So one court case taking the path of sanity proves that all the worries were overblown, and the concerns from multiple groups were groundless? That's like saying 'Look, that guy pulled the trigger and he's obviously still alive, so clearly all that hype over the 'dangers' of russian roulette are overblown and excessive.'

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 17th, 2014 @ 11:25pm

    Re: proof positive

    That there are people who are around to ensure the idiocy of others does not go out of hand does not absolve the others of their idiocy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.