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]

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.

In case you've been hiding in a cave, you know the real estate market in the US is experiencing a kind of meltdown these days. It's probably no coincidence, then, that The National Association of Real Estate Brokers (NARB) has turned to a classic alternative revenue stream -- the lawsuit. NARB has brought suit against AT&T, citing the exploding batteries in some U-verse cabinets as damper on property value. NARB claims that sales in areas near the affected cabinets "will show a dramatic drop-off until their security is ensured," which will in turn negatively impact the livelihood of realtors. Oh, if only blame could be laid at the feet of "supply and demand" issues instead!

We'll be straight with you -- we aren't surprised one iota by this one. For those keeping tabs, Samsung's slate of Blu-ray players have been plagued with issues essentially from day one, and while it has released a flurry of firmware updates over the years in an attempt to mend a variety of incompatibility issues, even its recent BD-UP5000 hybrid player is being axed early on after giving owners all sorts of fits. Apparently, one particular buyer isn't taking things lying down, and has decided to file suit against the mega-corp alleging that it has sold "defective Blu-ray players" to consumers. According to the suit, Sammy was "fully aware of the defective nature of the player [BD-P1200, in particular] at the time of manufacture and sale," and it also claims that the firm has "failed to provide a remedy consistent with the products' intended and represented uses." More specifically, the verbiage picks on the units' inability to play back select BD titles, and while some fixes have indeed been doled out, we still get the feeling many consumers have been left dissatisfied. Needless to say, this outcome should be interesting.

[Thank, Nfinity and Prey521]

Apparently, DirecTV isn't looking to pay its lawyers any overtime over the holiday break, as it has been settling outstanding lawsuits recently like it's going out of style. Just over a week after it put aside its differences with Cox, the satellite provider has decided to make amends with Comcast over a suit filed in May. If you'll recall, DirecTV was quite flustered by Comcast's "survey," which allegedly found that two-thirds of respondents preferred Comcast's HD picture over that offered up by DISH Network / DirecTV. Notably, the actual terms of the deal weren't disclosed, but spokespeople from both outfits affirmed that they were satisfied with the outcome -- which, by the way, does allow Comcast to continue to cite the survey.

Apparently, slapping your rival with one lawsuit per year just isn't enough for Sharp, who is tossing yet another case Samsung's way over -- surprise, surprise -- LCD patent infringement. This complaint, which was filed in the Seoul Central District Court in South Korea, claims that Samsung has infringed on three patents relating to brightness, response times and viewing angles of LCD panels. As expected, Samsung spokesman James Chung noted that the firm would be "responding actively to the lawsuit," and Sharp is asking the court to "award it compensatory damages and prohibit the production and sale in South Korea of the products concerned." C'mon guys, can't we just all get along?

[Via EETimes]

It takes some serious swallowing of pride -- or a rather large check -- for a company to put aside its legal beef with another and agree to move forward, but that's about to happen in the nearly two year-old dispute between Samsung and Matsushita. Reportedly, the two have "entered into a memorandum of understanding in which they have agreed in principle on terms and conditions of a formal settlement and cross-license agreement," which would finally conclude the bickering surrounding patents for plasma screens. Essentially, the two have accused each other of infringing on PDP-related patents for years, but it seems that all this holiday cheer has gotten the best of 'em. Notably, no terms of the (potential) agreement were loosed, but we're expecting some serious coin to change hands, regardless.

Although the casual HDTV fan may not be entirely familiar with NuVision's "High Definition Living" trademark, a recently filed lawsuit is likely to bring you up to speed. The Arizona-based display maker purports that its slogan has been in use since the company's inception in 2005, and now that it has finally received registration of the mark this month, it's targeting Panasonic for infringement. If you'll recall, Panny launched its "Living in High Definition" program earlier this year, which NuVision has taken serious issue with. According to its CEO, Panasonic has "knowingly and willfully infringed upon its mark," and another company exec even stated that the alleged culprit "believes that it is so large that the law does not apply to it and that it can copy [NuVision's] trademark with impunity." And considering that the aforementioned program is slated to run until March of next year, we highly doubt Panasonic is anxious to just ditch the slogan and move on.

Although FiOS just celebrated its second birthday last month, the third year isn't exactly off to a sensational start. Reportedly, Digital Art Services, a New York-based advertising company, has slapped Verizon Communications with a lawsuit alleging that the firm "overstated subscribers to its fiber-optic service and charged inflated prices for advertisements there." Essentially, the plaintiff is suggesting that Verizon included "pending customers" in its public subscriber reports which were "false and inflated." Interestingly, a spokesperson for Verizon stated that while he had yet to see the lawsuit, it sounded like a "garden variety business dispute." Of note, Digital Art was informed that pending customers could be included "as they were usually converted to active subscribers within two weeks," but it found that many prospective buyers "waited up to 10 months for their service to become active."

The seesaw match between DirecTV and Time Warner (parent company of AOL, which owns Engadget) over those blasted "superior HD" spots has reached another milestone, as a US appeals court has "upheld a lower court's decision that prohibits the satellite television operator from airing advertisements that claim superior service in markets where Time Warner Cable operates." Notably, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit did, however, "set aside part of the lower court's order, saying the way it had been worded could be construed to prohibit the unfavorable comparison of even Time Warner Cable's analog programming." Ah well, it's not like those ads were exceedingly enthralling to begin with, right?

As if the cutthroat price wars in the LCD space weren't demanding enough, Samsung is now being forced to attend to a lawsuit that Sharp just filed over LCD patent infringement. Reportedly, Sharp is seeking "compensation as well as the prohibition of sales of products that it alleges infringe five of its LCD patents, including one that relates to technology used to enhance display quality." The products in question include Samsung televisions and monitors as well as mobile handsets that feature Samsung's LCD modules. Unsurprisingly, Samsung refused to comment on pending litigation, but a Sharp spokeswoman went so far as to say that it had "been in talks with Samsung, but it appeared difficult to solve the matter through negotiations," which apparently led to a lawsuit being filed. So much for talking things out, eh?

Major League Baseball may not be happy about Sling Media enabling fans to stream out of market baseball games over the internet, but it is apparently backing off of plans to sue the company into oblivion, RIAA-style. Bob Bowman, president of Major League Baseball Advanced Media said in an interview that winning could be done with "good technology and good content, not lawyers". Following up on its decision not to freeze cable customers out of its Extra Innings package, baseball's new strategy seems to lean towards not irritating its best customers. While we're intrigued by their ideas, we're not subscribing to the newsletter -- yet.

[Warning: subscription req'd for link]

As if Sony's legal team hasn't dealt with enough this year already, they're getting dialed up yet again for alleged patent infringement, and this time the California-based Target Technology Company is the one pointing the finger. Apparently, the firm is suing several segments of Sony for "deliberately and willfully" infringing on a patent that Target was granted in 2006. The plaintiff claims that products "marketed under the Blu-ray name infringed on a patent for reflective layer materials in optical discs," and more explicitly, "specific types of silver-based alloys with the advantages (but not the price) of gold." The suit was actually filed as an "intellectual property" matter rather than one of chemical imbalances, and while Target Technology is purportedly seeking a "permanent injunction preventing Sony from violating its patent rights in the future, as well as damages with interest," we won't be surprised if a sizable check from Sony's wallet makes this all disappear.

[Via GameSpot, thanks Evan]

You're probably familiar with the old adage that getting sued just isn't satisfying enough until you take someone else to court over the exact thing that you're being accused of, but even if you're not, DirecTV's here to refresh your memory. The satellite TV provider has apparently scrunched up its nose at a recent promotional advertising campaign in which Comcast claims that two-thirds of satellite customers felt "Comcast delivered a better HD image" when compared to DirecTV and Dish Network alternatives. Not believing that we oh-so-capable humans might be able to actually perceive the difference when an HD feed is somewhat crippled, DirecTV decided that the results mustn't be correct, and suggested that the "survey upon which Comcast relies does not provide or sufficiently substantiate the propositions for which Comcast cites the survey," and concludes by boldly proclaiming that all of the claims "are literally false." Of course, Comcast is standing strong behind its results for the time being, and while either party could most certainly have a case against the other, why are we using cash for HD channel expansion to pay legal teams?

[Via TGDaily]