You wouldn't think that anyone in the market for a $3,000 handheld camera capable of shooting 3K HD at 100MB/s would somehow get confused enough to end up with a mediocre LG plasma TV, but it seems like the folks at RED are worried -- the company's lawyers are preparing an opposition to LG's filing for the "Scarlet" trademark, and they've filed for their own mark. It looks like RED is getting pretty serious about protecting its marks -- president Jim Jannard is politely asking RED fans to include a trademark disclaimer when they post about the company's products, and he says that the proceedings against LG are "just the tip of the iceberg." Honestly, we think RED's going to have a tough time selling a judge on the likelihood of confusion between a consumer-oriented HDTV and a decidedly pro-grade camera, but we've been surprised in the past -- we'll see how this one plays out.

Read - Jim Jannard forum post
Read - Request for extension of time to file opposition

Why does it seem that Charter, out of all the cable carriers in the world, finds itself intertwined with so much mischief? The latest forehead-pounding episode is actually a two-fer, with gripes arising from Reno, Nevada and a rural section of North Carolina. In the Silver State, Charter is apparently looking to pull four public access channels to retrieve bandwidth for the launch of 12 new digital channels. The company's George Jostlin proclaims that the "majority of consumers are calling it on a daily basis and asking for more HD / digital programming," but the City of Reno has announced its intentions to sue the provider if an agreement can't be reached on the matter by next Wednesday. Across the country in McDowell County, NC, Charter is catching flack for wanting to strip Marion of its information channel (and combine it with the county's government channel) in order to add three HD stations. We like the intentions here, but seriously, you folks should work on the execution.

[Thanks PopWeaverHDTV, image courtesy of TSLPL]

Read - Issues in Reno
Read - Stirring the pot in rural NC

We've witnessed a few lawsuits related to Blu-ray, but this is the first one we can recall that perfectly fits the "patent troll" mold. The Patent Prospector has it that Acacia subsidiary Digital Security Systems is suing a smorgasbord of big BD players for infringing on a patent that it has held for years. Defendants named include Samsung, Best Buy, Denon, Funai, LG, Matsushita, Panasonic, Philips, Pioneer, and Sharp, though details beyond that are sadly scant. Oh, and if you're wondering where the complaint was filed, it was in the infamous Eastern District of Texas.

[Via FormatWarCentral]

It's been a while since we've heard about Canon's legal troubles with SED, but it sounds like things are taking a turn for the better -- the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that Canon had not broken its contract with Nano-Proprietary (now called Applied Nanotech Holdings) since Canon is now the sole owner of its previous joint venture with Toshiba, SED Inc. The court also reinstated Canon's license to the SED tech, but since Canon stopped working on the tech last year, it'll probably be a while before we see any SED displays actually show up. We'll see how it goes down -- hopefully those rumors of a skunkworks SED project inside Canon will make this all seem like a bad dream someday.

[Thanks, Alex]

You may not remember so vividly the fiasco surrounding Comcast's data meddling ways unless you were directly affected, but FCC chief Kevin J. Martin is looking out for us all by backing sanctions against the carrier in a stand for net neutrality. Essentially, Mr. Martin isn't asking that Comcast be fined; rather, he wants the provider to "change its practices and give the commission more details on what it did in the past." Essentially, he's aiming to establish a standard that will "make it difficult for an ISP to discriminate against users based on what they want to do online," which we couldn't possibly support more. Of course, there's nothing saying that sanctions will indeed be levied against Comcast, but whatever happens, we'd love to see a precedent set that forbids providers from tampering with those 1s and 0s.

[Thanks, Matt]

While Verizon and AT&T try to work their FiOS and U-verse services into new areas, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth circuit in Cincinnati handed them a victory today by ruling that the FCC's new rules setting time limits for local authorities to act on new franchise applications are within its authority. The new ruling at the heart of the debate gives local jurisdictions 90 days to act on apps by providers that already have access to city land to run connections, and 180 days for new entrants to citeis or towns, and bar them from mandating new requirements the FCC finds unreasonable, like building a community swimming pool. While we're big fans of municipal pools, we're also into competition and consumer choice, so if you've been waiting to get TV via telco breathe easy knowing the path just got a little smoother.

Read - Reuters
Read - Verizon's response

At long last, it seems the legal spat between Pulse~LINK and Tzero has come to an end. Federal courts have ratified the former company's patents in a UWB-over-coax patent infringement case against Tzero, affirming that Tzero will now have to pay licensing fees to use Pulse~LINK's technology. In the settlement, it was noted that Tzero had "suspended development of products that were the subject of the legal action," and if it chose to re-introduce any of those wares, it would first cut a check to Pulse~LINK. Time to hug it out? Nah, we thought not.

Far from being the first time Time Warner Cable has upset its subscriber base, the Los Angeles city attorney's office is pulling a Dee Snider and refusing to take the carrier's lackluster service anymore. In a 25-page lawsuit, the city is alleging that the operator "caused major havoc and distress" two years ago when it "failed to live up to its part of the franchise cable agreement requiring that a company answer subscribers' calls within 30 seconds and begin repairs of service interruptions within 24 hours of notification in 90% of its calls for service." The suit claims that no more than 60% of customer calls were answered in time, and cable / internet service was said to be "so intermittent and inferior in quality that it was not much better than no service at all." Not surprisingly, TWC representatives chose not to comment on the whole ordeal, but the outfit could face civil penalties of tens of millions of crisp US dollars in the case. Should've picked up the phone, TWC -- it would've been easier than picking up this tab. [Disclosure: Engadget is part of the Time Warner family]

[Image courtesy of Web 2 Concepts, thanks Scott]

If you had a sneaking suspicion that somewhat just wasn't right when all 15 of the VOOM HD networks suddenly vanished from DISH Network's lineup, um, you were right. Apparently EchoStar (now DISH Network) and VOOM Networks had inked a 15-year deal in 2005 that would give the latter "a license fee of $3.25 a month per HD subscriber receiving VOOM." Now, VOOM has "filed an amended complaint against EchoStar, claiming it will suffer more than $1 billion in damages." More specifically, it notes that "EchoStar had no right to terminate the affiliation agreement on the basis of a trumped-up and pretextual claim of breach simply because it no longer liked the deal it struck." As expected, EchoStar is remaining mum on the subject, but its ex-partner is seeking "substantial damages in an amount to be determined at trial." This one could get real ugly, and fast.

The timeshifting DVR patent that's been at the core of TiVo's closed-but-not-quite-closed lawsuit with DISH / EchoStar is being contested yet again by the very same company. Not content just appealing to the Supreme Court regarding the Federal Circuit's ruling against a rehearing for the last case, DISH / EchoStar has started up a whole new lawsuit against TiVo, requesting a Delaware court find the new version of their DVR software does not infringe TiVo's patents -- presumably as an embittered and pre-emptive measure before TiVo could kick off its inevitable next suit. Don't worry if you're confused as all hell, so are we -- the point is, despite the fact that decisions have been made and rulings handed down, these two companies are still managing to sue, re-sue, and counter-re-sue one another.

If it wasn't already perfectly clear by now that Monster Cable's cables aren't really worth the price (or any price above the cost of a coat-hanger), and that they're only using those bloated markups to perpetuate their reputation as money-grubbing lawsuit-happy snakeoil peddlers, we'd call your attention to their latest target: Monster Mini Golf, a chain of glow-in-the-dark mini-golf courses based out of Rhode Island. Apparently Monster Cable claims that the Monster Mini Golf brand is confusing to the public and dilute their trademark. Of course, this suit isn't really any more absurd than their suits against Monster.com, the Chicago Bears (aka the "Monsters of the Midway"), or the Pixar film Monsters, Inc. -- that is to say, it's equally and completely ridiculous. But hey, when you're making 1000%+ margin on merch, you can only swim in entire pools of liquid gold so long before seeking out the thrill only found in wasting taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits.

Hey, so here's an idea: perhaps everyone should just stop buying anything made by Monster Cable. That or set up a dummy corporation with the word "monster" in the name, since you're basically guaranteed they'll spin their wheels serving a summons for merely existing. (Don't worry, you'll have limited personal liability.) You pick, whatever's easier.

[Thanks, Jason; also, here's the Monster Mini Golf site]

Vote on whether Engadget should blackball coverage of Monster Cable here.

Remember that legislation we mentioned early last month which, if passed, could pave the way for AT&T's U-verse to infiltrate The Volunteer State? Governor Phil Bredesen just signed said bill into law, creating statewide TV cable franchising in Tennessee. Beyond that, details are few and far between, but don't be shocked to see yet another programming provider pop up in the not-too-distant future.

[Thanks, roflercopterer]

To no one's surprise, retailers are putting up a fight against fines handed out by the FCC regarding point-of-sale notification that analog-only TVs will go black after the digital switchover. Circuit City was the first to lodge a complaint and Best Buy followed quickly afterwards. Among the retailers' complaints are: the required signage was never made available for comment, the acts were not "willful or repeated," and that the FCC has no jurisdiction over the sales. We've tried to use arguments similar to those first two on speeding tickets -- you guess the result. Whether or not the FCC has jurisdiction is the more interesting point; the commission justified imposition of its point-of-sale rules in part III-B of its "Second Report and Order." Our take is that this legal action is really just a not-so-friendly way to negotiate the fines down, and expect the retailer bandwagon to get crowded if this is successful.

Read - Circuit City challenges FCC fine
Read - Best Buy challenges FCC fine
Read - FCC "Second Report and Order" [PDF link]

Although DISH Network was quick to assure customers that their DVRs would stay functional after losing its patent appeal against TiVo, it looks like the company was a bit quick on the draw. Although the majority of the company's DVRs have had their software updated to include non-infringing code, the VIP 721, 921, 942 and Homezone 1022 boxes haven't been updated and installers are being told that they can no longer install or activate them. You're safe if you've already got one up and running, but if you were in the market for a specific box, it's probably wise to double check those numbers.

[Thanks, Dennis]