It’s risky enough to be receiving illegal satellite or cable TV broadcasts on your own, but for some people that’s not quite enough, and they think of ways to make money for themselves by setting illegal equipment to others. Those that venture into that type of “business” model should prepare themselves for serious consequences if they are caught.

That’s the case with Won Tak Kim, “president” of an outfit called Panarex. The organization was in the business of selling “free-to-air” or FTA satellite systems, which can be perfectly legal when used to receive signals that are intended to be free for public consumption. Panarex, however, was also providing customers with some extra “features,” specifically DISH Network signals that are intended only for DISH Network subscribers.

Although satellite signals that are broadcast by pay-TV providers like DISH Network are encrypted in order to make it more difficult for individuals who attempt to “pirate” the broadcasts without paying for a subscription, there are some individuals who have the technical expertise to manufacture the equipment required to receive the encrypted signals.

When DISH Network learned that Panarex was selling satellite systems that were imported from South Korea and were able to receive encrypted DISH Network broadcasts after downloading decryption codes from the internet, they took legal action.

A federal district court in California ordered Panarex to surrender their inventory and stop selling the illegal receivers. The company was also ordered to pay a $121 million penalty to DISH Network.

No word on how Panarex customers will fare after this settlement, but I would not want to be someone with one of those illegal receivers in my home. Some customers probably believed that they were buying satellite systems that were legal, but there is no doubt that many of them knew exactly what they were getting and may be at risk of prosecution.

Well, I thought it was a bit silly from the start and it seems that a Federal Judge may be in agreement.

The lawsuit filed by DirecTV against DISH Network was a result of DirecTV’s reported belief that the ads were misleading. U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty denied DirecTV’s request for a temporary restraining order that would have halted the advertisements that DirecTV did not like.

Apparently, the judge left the door open for DirecTV to renew their request and better explain what exactly it is about the “Why Pay More?” ads that has DirecTV execs crying foul.

I would think that instead of running to court like a little kid running to mommy after skinning his knee, DirecTV would just come up with some ads of their own that even the score with DISH Network. That seems to be the way it usually goes. My earlier example of how Verizon and AT&T have been ripping each other to shreds is something that I think consumers are accustomed to.

As you might expect, company lawyers presented their cases in court and for now at least, DirecTV was told to pick up all their toys and go home. Perhaps they’ll prepare a better case, or if they smarten up, hire an advertising agency to come up with some ads that target DISH Network.

It’s nice to see a little common sense come from a case like this. It would be nice to see more silly lawsuits get thrown out like this, even if it is just for the time being.

This is one of those stories that makes you say: “Huh?”

It’s being reported that DirecTV, the largest satellite TV provider in the country, is suing DISH Network for “false advertising.”

It’s all due to some commercial advertisements that DISH Network has been using that claim they are offering the same programming that DirecTV does for $24 less per month. At least that’s what the suit claims. The DISH ads feature a slogan that asks, “Why pay more?”

I’m a little surprised by this news, since I constantly see competing advertisements on TV for various products and services that tell completely different stories. An excellent example would be the latest Verizon Wireless vs.. AT&T commercials.

If I am not mistaken, Verizon started the battle by featuring a map of their wireless coverage compared to AT&T’s, which, if the Verizon ads were to be believed, looked pretty pathetic compared to how they depicted their own network.

It didn’t take AT&T too long to fire back, claiming that their wireless network was much better than Verizon was claiming, and if course, while they were at it, they declared that AT&T’s wireless network was better.

Well, obviously someone is not telling the truth. These two companies are tearing each other up with claims that are completely contradictory, yet I am not hearing any reports of AT&T suing Verizon or vice versa.

As far back as I can remember, competing companies have used advertising that oftentimes shed a rather unflattering light on on another, but I don’t think they spent a lot of time suing each other. It seemed that was just the way the advertising game was played.

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

In an ever-expanding effort to stuff their coffers with more taxpayer money, the state of Massachusetts approved a new “satellite tax” last summer. As a refugee who was born and raised in Massachusetts, I am very familiar with the state government’s appetite for taxpayer dollars.

It appears that the top satellite TV providers are not about to take this move lying down. In a rare spirit of cooperation, DISH Network and DirecTV have joined to file suit against Massachusetts, calling the new 5% tax “discriminatory.”

The state does impose a tax on cable TV companies and probably other utilities as well, since their lines have to be routed along streets and roads that are considered public property. The satellite companies believe ” and I agree ” that since they are not making use of public property, there are no grounds for the state to impose such a tax.

If the state of Massachusetts is going to start taxing the electromagnetic spectrum, they better figure out a way to start taxing people who watch or listen to any broadcast that is not carried by wires. Perhaps that can add a little bit onto their “excise tax” that all owners of motor vehicles have to pay (at least when I lived there) if the vehicle in question is equipped with a radio!

Apparently, greedy politicians in Florida, Ohio and Tennessee have imposed similar taxes on their residents. Legal action against those states is pending.

Hopefully, the courts will see the flawed logic behind these taxes and abolish them.

I suppose this is what we should expect from politicians when the economy tanks. People are losing their jobs and their homes and they decide to raise taxes. That will be a big help for a lot of struggling families, I’m sure.

Psssst! Hey buddy, want to buy a free satellite TV descrambler? A shady looking character on a street corner selling illegal satellite receivers out of the back of a van is the image that comes to mind when I think about satellite pirates. This kind of stuff has been going on for years, even before the age of satellite TV when people would hijack cable TV programming by hooking up their homes illegally or buying descrambler boxes which allowed them to watch programming that was not part of the package they were paying for.

In this recent case of satellite piracy, forget about the shady dude with the van – these bozos actually set up a company that was selling a device called “Coolsat,” which allowed purchasers to receive DISH Network programming without paying for it. These geniuses, and their company, called “Freetech” (I wonder how they came up with that name?) recently but the dust in a big way after DISH Network prevailed in a lawsuit that netted a $97 million judgment against the company, hand over all its liquid assets to DISH Network and shut down its business which was reportedly engaged in “business” in other parts of the world beyond the U.S.

Talk about a smack down. Perhaps this will serve as a warning for anyone else foolish enough to actually set up a company and start selling equipment to receive television programming illegally.

I guess “Coolsat” didn’t turn out to be so cool after all.

A recent court ruling has come down against Dish Network which may result in a hefty monetary penalty for the company. Tivo had filed a suit claiming patent infringement due to the technology used in Dish Network’s DVR or digital video recorders.

The satellite giant may have to dish out as much as $94 million to Tivo as part of the ruling against them.

Apparently, Tivo filed suit alleging both hardware and software infringement. Although Dish has apparently emerged victorious on the hardware side, Tivo was the winner on the software side of things.

Dish Network says that they will appeal the ruling, as we might all expect. They go on to say that all current and future Dish Network DVR customers do not have to worry about any changes in the way things work because their engineers have made changes to the software to eliminate the portions that violated Tivo’s patent. The new software has already been downloaded to all Dish Network DVR units.

I am glad to see that there are no changes in the way my DVR operates since I was a bit concerned that I might lose some of the most useful features if Tivo won the lawsuit.

What I don’t understand is why Dish Network didn’t make these changes to the software when Tivo first complained about it. I’m sure it cost them a lot less than $94 Million to implement those changes and it seems like it would have spared them a lot of trouble (and money) to have made the changes before it all ended up in court.