News Corp Found Guilty Of Hacking Only A Single DISH Smart Card
from the that's-not-gonna-hurt dept
Last month we wrote about the strange case of DISH Networks accusing a News Corp subsidiary of hacking its smart cards and distributing them. This seemed really unlikely, as there was little incentive for the company to do so. The company did admit to reverse engineering DISH Networks technology (which is perfectly legal). It appears that a jury wasn't particularly convinced either. It did find the subsidiary guilty of hacking one single smart card, for which the company was fined $49.69 (ouch!), and then the court added another $1000 for "damages." So, technically it's a "victory" for DISH, but probably not to the level it was expecting.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: hacking, satellite tv
Companies: dish network, echostar, news corp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
a win is a win though, if they won against an average person, it would be significant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA violation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA violation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a "significant blow"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a "significant blow"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]