Well, just when it seemed like our main legal issue was finally resolved in our favour, (notwithstanding the appeal by the government in Saskatchewan), we get a dissenting verdict in an entirely different court.
This decision was the result of a civil suit, filed by a consortium of Canadian companies who felt that their interests were being infringed by the sale and use of DSS systems in Canada. It seems the decision has given some creedence to this position, however I wonder how vigorously these defendants have fought this case and what sort of evidence was presented to support the contention that these systems cannot be outlawed.
Many people are viewing this decision as some sort of tantamount in this whole process, that importing or selling DSS systems in Canada is illegal now. Nothing could be further from the truth. This was a civil suit, brought against certain parties. The decision of that case only affects those who were named in the suit. So, there cannot be any sort of "ban" on systems based merely on one civil decision.
I have also been informed that some of the defendants merely settled the case, rather than fight it. As much as this angers me, since it hurts the very industry they are attempting to survive in, I can perhaps understand their point. Undoubtedly anyone, who would try to put up a long and ardous legal battle to try to legitamize "grey market" systems would surely be shunned when (or if...) a successfull DBS venture is launched in Canada.
It's hard to play both sides of the fence. We shall soon see if peddling "legal" systems can pay the bills and keep the doors open. I think not. We really only need to look at the offerings to conclude that ANY Canadian system, abiding by the CRTC rules, will not be able to offer much different than the local cable company. (In case you haven't figured it out yet, they don't want you to have a better choice than cable.....) This will only appeal to people who live outside of cabled areas, a far cry from the real potential marketplace of consumers who want true variety, regardless of what the government says they can watch.
There is also a severe conflict with this civil court ruling, and other recent criminal rulings, such as the one in Saskatchewan. Particularly since they are all coming from the Court of Queen's Bench, which means none takes precedence over the other. Where does this leave us? My position is this. There have been many more favourable rulings lately than not. All of the favourable rulings are the result of criminal charges being filed. The civil ruling is the result of a lawsuit. I do not believe that the civil decision negates in any way the other decisions. They serve different purposes.
The civil suit was filed, and a decision was rendered, based on the rights of those who felt infringed. The criminal decisions, were also made to protect rights. The rights and freedoms of citizens against such things as illegal search and seizure, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the right to receive signals from outside of Canada, even if they are not sold in Canada.
The real question seems to be, whose rights are more important? Those of a money making corporation, or those of the citizens? I think the latter, particularly when some of the rights we are talking about are fundamental freedoms gauranteed to us under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am not even sure if a civil decision has ANY relevance to a criminal trial, and could even be introduced. One point which I would find quite troubling is that a civil trial has a completely different standard of proof from a criminal trial. A civil trial only requires that you are guilty based on a "preponderance of the evidence", many lawyers refer to it as "51%". Of course, a criminal trial is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". This is a much higher standard than a civil court. The perfect example is, of course, O.J......not enough to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt, but on a "preponderance" of the evidence he is guilty.
I am holding my breath as we wait for an appeal date in Saskatchewan. This will be a very important decision, as it will be the highest court to ever rule on these issues. However I do believe there is one major issue not being argued here, which deserves to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is of Free Speech, which we have talked a great deal about here in the past. In a way, it's good it is not part of this case. This way, if this case is overturned on appeal, at least someone else can raise the issue, and we get one more kick at the cat, so to speak. We must be very careful in these unchartered waters, for one bad decision can wreak havoc on everything else.
Meanwhile, on another front,.GOOD NEWS ON THE NEW CARDS! As of this printing, there is a full working fix on the new series plastic cards. I had an opportunity to test drive one of these new cards, and they are impressive. The unit received all available services, including PPV without the buy screen, and the "hidden" channels (ie 600's), and worked flawlessly. Another real nice feature of this card is "Plug & Play" capability, which means you can move it from receiver to receiver without it getting "married" to one. Also, when you run the System Test, the card ID # generated is the same one that is printed on the card. It was only a short 3 weeks from the end of the "old" style cards till this was released, so really we have had longer downtime on simple ECMs. I think the release of this fix has caught everyone off guard! Most people were expecting at least months of down time, with the most skeptical comparing the "H" card to the VCII+, and assuming there would be no fix at all.
If all goes well, and this new technology runs fairly reliably through the fall, we can hopefully have the year we should have had last year, were it not for the desertion by the battery card group. September is a short 4 weeks away, and if we're still up and running you can expect sales to take off.
Stay tuned next month, when I may have some very exciting legal news, I just have to keep it under wraps for the moment.