lawsuits against fta manufacturers records compiled.

[polo90]

ho ho tothecoders and merrychristmas a big thank @thanked merry christ mas to all and good moring

[polo90]

thank thanked to coder merry christmas

[lewitt14]

yes we see

[creativegenius]

I just watch FTA stuff. But sure, if it was $50.00 for a decent package I might be swayed.

Creative Genius

Originally Posted by odmillan

If satellite tv wasn't so **** expensive I would very gladly pay for it. But with so much advertisement, long commercial breaks, infomercials that last all night long, and prices that go well beyond $100 per month for some decent channels, I much rather stick with my FTA receiver. My question is: if you were able to obtain everything that you currently get for less than $50, would you get it legit?

[joker78]

Originally Posted by grasshopper

Panrarex Inc. (Pansat) got sued // 2007-09-18
This lawsuit happened on Sept 11 2007 and details are coming in..... First going after Viewsat, Echostar decided to sue Panarex which is parent company of the FTA receiver Pansat.

Here is the information on the case.

Echostar Satellite L.L.C. et al v. Panarex, Inc. et al
Plaintiffs: Echostar Satellite L.L.C., Echostar Technologies Corporation and Nagrastar L.L.C.
Defendants: Panarex, Inc. and Does

Case Number: 2:2007cv05897
Filed: September 11, 2007

Court: California Central District Court
Office: Western Division - Los Angeles Office [ Court Info ]
County: XX US, Outside California
Presiding Judge: George P. Schiavelli
Referring Judge: Paul L. Abrams

Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Cable/Satellite TV
Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Here is the url Justia Federal District Court Filings and Dockets

I'm behind with info, what happend with viewsat?

[cbcbass]

What I find amazing, is the stations we pay advertisers to see are the same ones the dih people charge for. If they approched their business from the standpoint of premium TV-give its subs the channels we pay for through commercials and charge us for premium channels as we use them. Seems like double jeoprady to me. Most of the channels on the sats can be received analog or digital with a simple TV antenna. Sure, you can only receive the channels in your area but they are still free. I don't think their lawsuit has any legs.

[sodusme]

You mean the McSkimmings and Garcia were....forgive me....but dumb enough to return bootleg receivers to echostar??? Again forgive me but if you do something that silly well you're just asking to caught!!!

[bbondenator]

Originally Posted by sodusme

You mean the McSkimmings and Garcia were....forgive me....but dumb enough to return bootleg receivers to echostar??? Again forgive me but if you do something that silly well you're just asking to caught!!!

I couldn't agree more, what kind of moron would be that stupid??? You would have to know it was altered.

[Whistle65]

I pay fifty dollars a month to Direct, twelve a month to cable, and have fta. I would gladly pay five hundred a year to have the combo in one box.

[68vett]

I agree MOPAR Man if we could pay a half decent fee a year DN and many others would benefit but that’s what happens in the bueiness world everyone wants it all to them self’s and with all these law suites being haded out by Charlie they would save a lot of money because they’s things could get tied up in court for a long time and time is money!

[dlee87]

Pansat being sued now by Echostar

who know who win yet !!!!!!!!! EchoStar got sue by Tivo and maybe money running low want to sale company to AT&T, now turning around collect some pennies !!!!!!!!!!!! pity

[arboristman]

lawsuits against fta manufacturers records compiled.

[fishsmacker]

I dont know about you but I have my hands in my own pockets and dont want them in anyone elses.Everyone knows its about money, wow that was hard to figure.