Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

12 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Dec. 31, 2010

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

8.     Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

On May 5, 2011, we issued $2.0 billion aggregate principal amount of our ten-year, 6 3/4% Senior Notes due June 1, 2021 at an issue price of 99.093%.  Interest accrues at an annual rate of 6 3/4% and is payable semi-annually in cash, in arrears on June 1 and December 1 of each year, commencing on December 1, 2011.

TiVo.  DISH is responsible for making future payments to TiVo of $190 million in six equal annual installments between 2012 and 2017 related to the TiVo settlement.  See further discussion under “TiVo Inc.” below.

Guarantees

In connection with the Spin-off, we distributed certain satellite lease agreements to EchoStar and remained the guarantor under those capital leases for payments totaling approximately $245 million over approximately the next four years.

In addition, during the third quarter 2009, EchoStar entered into a new satellite transponder service agreement for Nimiq 5 through 2024.  We sublease this capacity from EchoStar and DISH guarantees a certain portion of its obligation under this agreement through 2019.  As of June 30, 2011, the remaining obligation under this agreement is the guarantee of $529 million.

As of June 30, 2011, we have not recorded a liability on the balance sheet for any of these guarantees.

Contingencies

Separation Agreement

In connection with the Spin-off, DISH entered into a separation agreement with EchoStar that provides, among other things, for the division of certain liabilities, including liabilities resulting from litigation.  Under the terms of the separation agreement, EchoStar has assumed certain liabilities that relate to its business including certain designated liabilities for acts or omissions prior to the Spin-off.  Certain specific provisions govern intellectual property related claims under which, generally, EchoStar will only be liable for its acts or omissions following the Spin-off and DISH will indemnify EchoStar for any liabilities or damages resulting from intellectual property claims relating to the period prior to the Spin-off as well as our acts or omissions following the Spin-off.

Litigation

We are involved in a number of legal proceedings (including those described below) concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of our business activities.  Many of these proceedings are at preliminary stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages.  We regularly evaluate the status of legal proceedings in which we are involved, to assess whether a loss is probable or there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred and determine if accruals are appropriate.  We further evaluate each legal proceeding to assess whether an estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss can be made, if accruals are not appropriate.

For certain cases described below, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss because, among other reasons, (i) the proceedings are in various stages; (ii) damages have not been sought; (iii) damages are unsupported and/or exaggerated; (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (vi) there are novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories to be presented or a large number of parties (as with many patent-related cases).  For these cases, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

Broadcast Innovation, L.L.C.

During 2001, Broadcast Innovation, L.L.C. (“Broadcast Innovation”) filed a lawsuit against us, DirecTV, Thomson Consumer Electronics and others in United States District Court in Denver, Colorado.  Broadcast Innovation is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.  The suit alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,076,094 (the ‘094 patent) and 4,992,066 (the ‘066 patent).  The ‘094 patent relates to certain methods and devices for transmitting and receiving data along with specific formatting information for the data.  The ‘066 patent relates to certain methods and devices for providing the scrambling circuitry for a pay television system on removable cards.  Subsequently, DirecTV and Thomson settled with Broadcast Innovation leaving us as the only defendant.

During 2004, the District Court issued an order finding the ‘066 patent invalid.  Also in 2004, the District Court found the ‘094 patent invalid in a parallel case filed by Broadcast Innovation against Charter and Comcast.  In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned that finding of invalidity with respect to the ‘094 patent and remanded the Charter case back to the District Court.  During June 2006, Charter filed a reexamination request with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  The District Court has stayed the Charter case pending reexamination, and our case has been stayed pending resolution of the Charter case.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.  In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe any of the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain user-friendly features that we currently offer to consumers.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Channel Bundling Class Action

During 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers filed an antitrust action against us in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.  The suit also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision, Cox, Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC Universal, Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group and Walt Disney Company.  The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to bundled channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the ability to purchase channels on an “a la carte” basis.  On October 16, 2009, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice.  The plaintiffs have appealed.  We intend to vigorously defend this case.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

ESPN

During 2008, we filed a lawsuit against ESPN, Inc., ESPN Classic, Inc., ABC Cable Networks Group, Soapnet L.L.C. and International Family Entertainment (collectively, “ESPN”) for breach of contract in New York State Supreme Court.  Our complaint alleges that ESPN failed to provide us with certain high-definition feeds of the Disney Channel, ESPN News, Toon and ABC Family. ESPN asserted a counterclaim, and then filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that we owed approximately $35 million under the applicable affiliation agreements.  We brought a motion to amend our complaint to assert that ESPN was in breach of certain most-favored-nation provisions under the applicable affiliation agreements.  On April 15, 2009, the New York State Supreme Court granted our motion to amend the complaint, and granted, in part, ESPN’s motion on the counterclaim, finding that we are liable for some of the amount alleged to be owing but that the actual amount owing is disputed.  We appealed the partial grant of ESPN’s motion to the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.  After the partial grant of ESPN’s motion, ESPN sought an additional $30 million under the applicable affiliation agreements.  On March 15, 2010, the New York State Supreme Court affirmed the prior grant of ESPN’s motion and ruled that we owe the full amount of approximately $66 million under the applicable affiliation agreement.  On December 29, 2010, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the partial grant of ESPN’s motion on the counterclaim.  As of December 31, 2010, we had $42 million recorded as a “Litigation accrual” on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

On June 21, 2011, the First Department affirmed the New York Supreme Court’s ruling that we owe approximately $66 million under the applicable affiliation agreements.  We intend to seek leave to appeal that decision to New York’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals.  As a result of the First Department’s ruling, during the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, we recorded $24 million of “Litigation Expense” on our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) and increased our “Litigation accrual” to a total of $66 million as of June 30, 2011.  This reflects our estimated exposure for ESPN’s counterclaim.  We intend to vigorously prosecute and defend this case.

Ganas L.L.C.

During August 2010, Ganas, L.L.C. (“Ganas”) filed suit against us, Sabre Holdings Corporation, SAP America, Inc., SAS Institute Inc., Scottrade, Inc., TD Ameritrade, Inc., The Charles Schwab Corporation, TiVo Inc., Unicoi Systems Inc., Xerox Corporation, Adobe Systems Inc., AOL Inc., Apple Inc., Axibase Corporation, DirecTV, E*Trade Securities L.L.C., Exinda Networks, Fidelity Brokerage Services L.L.C., Firstrade Securities Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, iControl Inc., International Business Machines Corporation and JPMorgan Chase & Co. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos.  7,136,913, 7,325,053, and 7,734,756.  The patents relate to hypertext transfer protocol and simple object access protocol.  Ganas is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.  In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe any of the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Katz Communications

During 2007, Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. (“Katz”) filed a patent infringement action against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  The suit alleges infringement of 19 patents owned by Katz.  The patents relate to interactive voice response, or IVR, technology.  The case has been transferred and consolidated for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.  In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe any of the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain user-friendly features that we currently offer to consumers.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

NorthPoint Technology

On July 2, 2009, NorthPoint Technology, Ltd. filed suit against us, EchoStar and DirecTV in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,208,636 (the ‘636 patent).  The ‘636 patent relates to the use of multiple low-noise block converter feedhorns, or LNBFs, which are antennas used for satellite reception.  On April 21, 2011, the US Patent and Trademark Office issued an order granting reexamination of the ‘636 patent.  On June 21, 2011, the District Court entered summary judgment in our favor, finding that all asserted claims of the ‘636 patent are invalid.  The plaintiff has appealed.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.  In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Olympic Developments

On January 20, 2011, Olympic Developments AG, LLC (“Olympic”) filed suit against us, Atlantic Broadband, Inc., Bright House Networks, LLC, Cable One, Inc., Cequel Communications Holdings I, LLC, CSC Holdings, LLC, GCI Communication Corp., Insight Communications Company, Inc., Knology, Inc., Mediacom Communications Corporation and RCN Telecom Services, LLC in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of  United States Patent Nos. 5,475,585 and 6,246,400.  The patents relate to on-demand services.  Olympic is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.  On June 13, 2011, the case was transferred to the Northern District of California.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.  In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Personalized Media Communications

During 2008, Personalized Media Communications, Inc. (“PMC”) filed suit against us, EchoStar and Motorola Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 4,694,490; 5,109,414; 4,965,825; 5,233,654; 5,335,277; and 5,887,243, which relate to satellite signal processing.  PMC is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.  Subsequently, Motorola Inc. settled with PMC leaving EchoStar and us as the only defendants.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.  In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe any of the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain user-friendly features that we currently offer to consumers.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Retailer Class Actions

During 2000, lawsuits were filed by retailers in Colorado state and federal courts attempting to certify nationwide classes on behalf of certain of our retailers.  The plaintiffs requested that the Courts declare certain provisions of, and changes to, alleged agreements between us and the retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to award damages for lost incentives and payments, charge backs and other compensation.  On September 20, 2010, we agreed to a settlement of both lawsuits that provides, among other things, for mutual releases of the claims underlying the litigation, payment by us of up to $60 million, and the option for certain class members to elect to reinstate certain monthly incentive payments, which the parties agreed have an aggregate maximum value of $23 million.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty how many class members will elect to reinstate these monthly incentive payments.  As a result, a $60 million “Litigation accrual” was recorded as of December 31, 2010 on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.  On February 9, 2011, the court granted final approval of the settlement, and we made a $60 million settlement payment on April 28, 2011.

Suomen Colorize Oy

During October 2010, Suomen Colorize Oy (“Suomen”) filed suit against DISH Network L.L.C., our indirect wholly owned subsidiary, and EchoStar in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 7,277,398.  Suomen is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.  The abstract of the patent states that the claims are directed to a method and terminal for providing services in a telecommunication network.  The action has been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.  In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Technology Development Licensing

On January 22, 2009, Technology Development and Licensing L.L.C. (“TDL”) filed suit against us and EchoStar in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement of United States Patent No. Re. 35,952, which relates to certain favorite channel features.  TDL is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.  In July 2009, the Court granted our motion to stay the case pending two reexamination petitions before the Patent and Trademark Office.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.  In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain user-friendly features that we currently offer to consumers.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

TiVo Inc.

In connection with DISH’s litigation with TiVo Inc. (“TiVo”), which is described in our periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 under the caption “Item 3.   Legal Proceedings - TiVo Inc.,” on April 20, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the District Court’s contempt ruling on infringement, articulated a new standard for determining “colorable difference” and remanded that issue back to the District Court for determination.  The Federal Circuit also vacated the District Court’s amended injunction requiring that DISH inform the court of any further attempts to design around TiVo’s United States Patent No. 6,233,389 (the ‘389 patent) and seek approval from the court before any such design-around is implemented.  The Federal Circuit also vacated the infringement damages for the period after DISH deployed its original alternative technology (although it did not foreclose that damages may be reinstated if upon remand a new court or jury decision found that the original alternative technology infringed TiVo’s ‘389 patent).  The Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s contempt ruling on disablement, holding that the original 2006 injunction required that DISH disable DVR functionality in all but approximately 192,000 digital set-top boxes deployed with customers (the “Disablement Provision”) and affirmed the $90 million in contempt sanctions awarded against DISH for violating the Disablement Provision.

On April 29, 2011, DISH and EchoStar entered into a settlement agreement with TiVo.  The settlement resolves all pending litigation between DISH and EchoStar, on the one hand, and TiVo, on the other hand, including litigation relating to alleged patent infringement involving certain DISH Network digital video recorders, or DVRs, which litigation is described in our periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission including in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 under the caption “Item 3.  Legal Proceedings - TiVo Inc.”

Under the settlement agreement, all pending litigation has been dismissed with prejudice and all injunctions that permanently restrain, enjoin or compel any action by DISH or EchoStar have been dissolved.  DISH and EchoStar are jointly responsible for making payments to TiVo in the aggregate amount of $500 million, including an initial payment of $300 million and the remaining $200 million in six equal annual installments between 2012 and 2017.  Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the agreements entered into in connection with the Spin-off of EchoStar from DISH, DISH made the initial payment to TiVo in May 2011, except for a contribution from EchoStar totaling approximately $10 million, representing an allocation of liability relating to EchoStar’s sales of DVR-enabled receivers to an international customer.  Future payments will be allocated between DISH and EchoStar based on historical sales of certain licensed products, with DISH being responsible for 95% of each annual payment.

As previously disclosed, our total litigation accrual for TiVo was $517 million as of December 31, 2010.  As a result of the settlement agreement, we reversed $335 million of this accrual and made a payment of approximately $290 million for our portion of the initial payment to TiVo.  Of this amount, approximately $182 million relates to prior periods and the remaining $108 million represents a prepayment.  Our $108 million prepayment and our $190 million share of the remaining payments, a total of $298 million, will be expensed ratably as a subscriber-related expense from April 1, 2011 through July 31, 2018, the expiration date of the ‘389 patent.  In connection with our TiVo settlement, TiVo agreed to advertise and market certain of our products and services.  As a result, $6 million was recognized as a reduction of litigation expense and we recorded a pre-paid marketing asset on our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) and our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, respectively.

In addition, under the settlement agreement, TiVo granted DISH a license under its ‘389 patent and certain related patents, for the remaining life of those patents, with respect to DISH-branded and co-branded products and services.

DISH and EchoStar, on the one hand, and TiVo, on the other hand, have also agreed on mutual releases of certain related claims and agreed not to challenge each other’s DVR technology-related patents that are licensed under the settlement agreement.

Because both DISH and EchoStar were defendants in the TiVo lawsuit, DISH and EchoStar were jointly and severally liable to TiVo for any final damages and sanctions that could have been awarded by the District Court.  As previously disclosed, DISH determined that it was obligated under the agreements entered into in connection with the Spin-off to indemnify EchoStar for substantially all liability arising from this lawsuit.  EchoStar contributed an amount equal to its $5 million intellectual property liability limit under the receiver agreement.  DISH and EchoStar further agreed that EchoStar’s $5 million contribution would not exhaust EchoStar’s liability to us for other intellectual property claims that may arise under the receiver agreement. DISH and EchoStar also agreed that DISH and EchoStar would each be entitled to joint ownership of, and a cross-license to use, any intellectual property developed in connection with any potential new alternative technology.  Any amounts that EchoStar is responsible for under the settlement agreement with TiVo are in addition to the $5 million contribution previously made by EchoStar.

Voom

In January 2008, Voom HD Holdings (“Voom”) filed a lawsuit against us in New York Supreme Court, alleging breach of contract and other claims arising from our termination of the affiliation agreement governing carriage of certain Voom HD channels on the DISH Network satellite TV service.  At that time, Voom also sought a preliminary injunction to prevent us from terminating the agreement.  The Court denied Voom’s request, finding, among other things, that Voom had not demonstrated that it was likely to prevail on the merits.  In April 2010, we and Voom each filed motions for summary judgment.  Voom later filed two motions seeking discovery sanctions.  On November 9, 2010, the Court issued a decision denying both motions for summary judgment, but granting Voom’s motions for discovery sanctions.  The Court’s decision provides for an adverse inference jury instruction at trial and precludes our damages expert from testifying at trial.  We appealed the grant of Voom’s motion for discovery sanctions to the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.  On February 15, 2011, the appellate Court granted our motion to stay the trial pending our appeal.  Oral argument on the appeal took place on April 27, 2011.  Voom is claiming over $2.5 billion in damages.  We intend to vigorously defend this case.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Other

In addition to the above actions, we are subject to various other legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of business, including, among other things, disputes with programmers regarding fees.  In our opinion, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to any of these actions is unlikely to materially affect our financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

11.  Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

As of December 31, 2010, future maturities of our long-term debt, capital lease and contractual obligations are summarized as follows:

	Payments due by period
	Total		2011		2012		2013		2014		2015		Thereafter
	(In thousands)
Long-term debt obligations	$	6,227,965	$	1,006,094	$	6,444	$	506,114	$	1,005,778	$	756,160	$	2,947,375
Capital lease obligations	286,971		24,801		21,700		22,630		24,881		27,339		165,620
Interest expense on long-term debt and capital lease obligations	2,443,097		467,758		401,896		399,672		362,274		264,500		546,997
Satellite-related obligations	2,416,671		229,492		242,308		250,749		230,731		230,514		1,232,877
Operating lease obligations	115,533		48,647		31,739		19,232		8,355		3,077		4,483
Purchase obligations	1,917,381		1,022,932		256,998		253,947		240,543		136,701		6,260
Total	$	13,407,618	$	2,799,724	$	961,085	$	1,452,344	$	1,872,562	$	1,418,291	$	4,903,612

The “Satellite-related obligations” in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed on March 9, 2010 inadvertently excluded the EchoStar XVI ten-year satellite lease commitment, which was agreed to in December 2009, and is expected to commence during the fourth quarter of 2012.  The obligations associated with this lease would have increased the previously reported “Satellite-related obligations” during 2012, 2013, 2014, and thereafter by approximately $18 million, $72 million, $72 million and $553 million, respectively.  These amounts are included in the table above.

In certain circumstances the dates on which we are obligated to make these payments could be delayed. These amounts will increase to the extent we procure insurance for our satellites or contract for the construction, launch or lease of additional satellites.

The table above does not include $170 million of liabilities associated with unrecognized tax benefits which were accrued, discussed in Note 8, and are included on our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2010. We do not expect any portion of this amount to be paid or settled within the next twelve months.

We entered into a commitment following December 31, 2010 relating to DBSD North America, which is not included in the table above. See Note 16 for further discussion.

Satellite-Related Obligations

Satellites Under Construction. As of December 31, 2010, we have agreed to lease capacity on two satellites from EchoStar that are currently under construction. Future commitments related to these satellites are included in the table above under “Satellite-related obligations.”

· QuetzSat-1. During 2008, we entered into a ten-year transponder service agreement with EchoStar to lease capacity on QuetzSat-1, a DBS satellite, which is expected to be launched during the second half of 2011.

· EchoStar XVI. During December 2009, we entered into a ten-year transponder service agreement with EchoStar to lease all of the capacity on EchoStar XVI, a DBS satellite, which is expected to be launched during the second half of 2012.

Guarantees

In connection with the Spin-off, we distributed certain satellite lease agreements to EchoStar and remained the guarantor under those capital leases for payments totaling approximately $290 million over approximately the next four years that are not included in the table above.

In addition, during the third quarter of 2009, EchoStar entered into a new satellite transponder service agreement for Nimiq 5 through 2024. We sublease this capacity from EchoStar and DISH guarantees a certain portion of its obligation under this agreement through 2019. As of December 31, 2010, the remaining obligation under this agreement, including the guarantee of $553 million, is included in the table above.

As of December 31, 2010, we have not recorded a liability on the balance sheet for any of these guarantees.

Purchase Obligations

Our 2011 purchase obligations primarily consist of binding purchase orders for receiver systems and related equipment, digital broadcast operations, satellite and transponder leases, engineering and for products and services related to the operation of our DISH Network. Our purchase obligations also include certain guaranteed fixed contractual commitments to purchase programming content. Our purchase obligations can fluctuate significantly from period to period due to, among other things, management’s control of inventory levels, and can materially impact our future operating asset and liability balances, and our future working capital requirements.

Programming Contracts

In the normal course of business, we enter into contracts to purchase programming content in which our payment obligations are fully contingent on the number of subscribers to whom we provide the respective content. These programming commitments are not included in the “Commitments” table above. The terms of our contracts typically range from one to ten years with annual rate increases. Our programming expenses will continue to increase to the extent we are successful growing our subscriber base. In addition, our margins may face further downward pressure from price increases and the renewal of long term programming contracts on less favorable pricing terms.

Rent Expense

Total rent expense for operating leases was $263 million, $189 million and $204 million in 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

Patents and Intellectual Property

Many entities, including some of our competitors, now have and may in the future obtain patents and other intellectual property rights that cover or affect products or services directly or indirectly related to those that we offer. We may not be aware of all patents and other intellectual property rights that our products may potentially infringe. Damages in patent infringement cases can include a tripling of actual damages in certain cases. Further, we cannot estimate the extent to which we may be required in the future to obtain licenses with respect to patents held by others and the availability and cost of any such licenses. Various parties have asserted patent and other intellectual property rights with respect to components within our direct broadcast satellite system. We cannot be certain that these persons do not own the rights they claim, that our products do not infringe on these rights, that we would be able to obtain licenses from these persons on commercially reasonable terms or, if we were unable to obtain such licenses, that we would be able to redesign our products to avoid infringement.

Contingencies

In connection with the Spin-off, DISH entered into a separation agreement with EchoStar, which provides, among other things, for the division of certain liabilities, including liabilities resulting from litigation. Under the terms of the separation agreement, EchoStar has assumed certain liabilities that relate to its business including certain designated liabilities for acts or omissions prior to the Spin-off. Certain specific provisions govern intellectual property related claims under which, generally, EchoStar will only be liable for its acts or omissions following the Spin-off and DISH will indemnify EchoStar for any liabilities or damages resulting from intellectual property claims relating to the period prior to the Spin-off as well as its acts or omissions following the Spin-off.

Acacia

During 2004, Acacia Media Technologies (“Acacia”) filed a lawsuit against us and EchoStar in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  The suit also named DirecTV, Comcast, Charter, Cox and a number of smaller cable companies as defendants.  Acacia is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.  The suit alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,132,992; 5,253,275; 5,550,863; 6,002,720; and 6,144,702, which relate to certain systems and methods for transmission of digital data.  On September 25, 2009, the District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants on invalidity grounds, and dismissed the action with prejudice.  On October 8, 2010, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.  Acacia may no longer appeal this dismissal since their time to seek en banc review with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals or petition the United States Supreme Court for certiorari has now expired.

Broadcast Innovation, L.L.C.

During 2001, Broadcast Innovation, L.L.C. (“Broadcast Innovation”) filed a lawsuit against us, DirecTV, Thomson Consumer Electronics and others in United States District Court in Denver, Colorado.  Broadcast Innovation is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.  The suit alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,076,094 (the ‘094 patent) and 4,992,066 (the ‘066 patent).  The ‘094 patent relates to certain methods and devices for transmitting and receiving data along with specific formatting information for the data.  The ‘066 patent relates to certain methods and devices for providing the scrambling circuitry for a pay television system on removable cards.  Subsequently, DirecTV and Thomson settled with Broadcast Innovation leaving us as the only defendant.

During 2004, the District Court issued an order finding the ‘066 patent invalid.  Also in 2004, the District Court found the ‘094 patent invalid in a parallel case filed by Broadcast Innovation against Charter and Comcast.  In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned that finding of invalidity with respect to the ‘094 patent and remanded the Charter case back to the District Court.  During June 2006, Charter filed a reexamination request with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  The District Court has stayed the Charter case pending reexamination, and our case has been stayed pending resolution of the Charter case.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.  In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe any of the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain user-friendly features that we currently offer to consumers.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Channel Bundling Class Action

During 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers filed an antitrust action against us in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.  The suit also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision, Cox, Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC Universal, Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group and Walt Disney Company.  The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to bundled channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the ability to purchase channels on an “a la carte” basis.  On October 16, 2009, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice.  The plaintiffs have appealed.  We intend to vigorously defend this case.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

ESPN

During 2008, we filed a lawsuit against ESPN, Inc., ESPN Classic, Inc., ABC Cable Networks Group, Soapnet L.L.C. and International Family Entertainment (collectively, “ESPN”) for breach of contract in New York State Supreme Court.  Our complaint alleges that ESPN failed to provide us with certain high-definition feeds of the Disney Channel, ESPN News, Toon and ABC Family.  ESPN asserted a counterclaim, and then filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that we owed approximately $35 million under the applicable affiliation agreements.  We brought a motion to amend our complaint to assert that ESPN was in breach of certain most-favored-nation provisions under the applicable affiliation agreements.  On April 15, 2009, the New York State Supreme Court granted our motion to amend the complaint, and granted, in part, ESPN’s motion on the counterclaim, finding that we are liable for some of the amount alleged to be owing but that the actual amount owing is disputed.  We appealed the partial grant of ESPN’s motion to the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.  After the partial grant of ESPN’s motion, ESPN sought an additional $30 million under the applicable affiliation agreements.  On March 15, 2010, the New York State Supreme Court affirmed the prior grant of ESPN’s motion and ruled that we owe the full amount of approximately $65 million under the applicable affiliation agreement.  There can be no assurance that ESPN will not seek, and that the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department will not award a higher amount.  On December 29, 2010, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the partial grant of ESPN’s motion on the counterclaim.  However, it did not rule on the amount that we owe ESPN pursuant to its counterclaim.  The appellate court will determine this amount as part of a separate proceeding.  For the year ended December 31, 2010, we recorded $42 million as a “Litigation accrual” on our Consolidated Balance Sheets and in “Litigation expense” on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss), which reflects our estimated exposure for ESPN’s counterclaim. We intend to vigorously prosecute and defend this case.

Finisar Corporation

Finisar Corporation (“Finisar”) obtained a $100 million verdict in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against DirecTV for patent infringement.  Finisar, an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein, alleged that DirecTV’s electronic program guide and other elements of its system infringe United States Patent No. 5,404,505 (the ‘505 patent).

During 2006, we and EchoStar, together with NagraStar L.L.C., filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Finisar that asks the Court to declare that we do not infringe, and have not infringed, any valid claim of the ‘505 patent.  Finisar brought counterclaims against us, EchoStar and NagraStar alleging that we infringed the ‘505 patent.  During April 2008, the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment against DirecTV and ordered a new trial.  On remand, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of DirecTV and during January 2010, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment, and dismissed the action with prejudice.  Finisar then agreed to dismiss its counterclaims against us, EchoStar and NagraStar without prejudice.  We also agreed to dismiss our Declaratory Judgment action without prejudice.

Ganas L.L.C.

During August 2010, Ganas, L.L.C. (“Ganas”) filed suit against us, Sabre Holdings Corporation, SAP America, Inc., SAS Institute Inc., Scottrade, Inc., TD Ameritrade, Inc., The Charles Schwab Corporation, Tivo Inc., Unicoi Systems Inc., Xerox Corporation, Adobe Systems Inc., AOL Inc., Apple Inc., Axibase Corporation, DirecTV, E*Trade Securities L.L.C., Exinda Networks, Fidelity Brokerage Services L.L.C., Firstrade Securities Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, iControl Inc., International Business Machines Corporation and JPMorgan Chase & Co. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,136,913, 7,325,053, and 7,734,756. The patents relate to hypertext transfer protocol and simple object access protocol. Ganas is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.  In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe any of the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Katz Communications

During 2007, Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. (“Katz”) filed a patent infringement action against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit alleges infringement of 19 patents owned by Katz. The patents relate to interactive voice response, or IVR, technology.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe any of the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain user-friendly features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

NorthPoint Technology

On July 2, 2009, NorthPoint Technology, Ltd. filed suit against us, EchoStar and DirecTV in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,208,636 (the ‘636 patent). The ‘636 patent relates to the use of multiple low-noise block converter feedhorns, or LNBFs, which are antennas used for satellite reception.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Olympic Developments

On January 20, 2011, Olympic Developments AG, LLC (“Olympic”) filed suit against us, Atlantic Broadband, Inc., Bright House Networks, LLC, Cable One, Inc., Cequel Communications Holdings I, LLC, CSC Holdings, LLC, GCI Communication Corp., Insight Communications Company, Inc., Knology, Inc., Mediacom Communications Corporation and RCN Telecom Services, LLC in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,475,585 and 6,246,400.  The patents relate to on-demand services.  Olympic is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.  In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Personalized Media Communications

During 2008, Personalized Media Communications, Inc. (“PMC”) filed suit against us, EchoStar and Motorola Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 4,694,490; 5,109,414; 4,965,825; 5,233,654; 5,335,277; and 5,887,243, which relate to satellite signal processing. PMC is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe any of the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain user-friendly features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Retailer Class Actions

During 2000, lawsuits were filed by retailers in Colorado state and federal courts attempting to certify nationwide classes on behalf of certain of our retailers.  The plaintiffs requested that the Courts declare certain provisions of, and changes to, alleged agreements between us and the retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to award damages for lost incentives and payments, charge backs and other compensation.  On September 20, 2010, we agreed to a settlement of both lawsuits that provides, among other things, for mutual releases of the claims underlying the litigation, payment by us of up to $60 million, and the option for certain class members to elect to reinstate certain monthly incentive payments, which the parties agreed have an aggregate maximum value of $23 million.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty how many class members will elect to reinstate these monthly incentive payments.   As a result, we recorded $60 million as a “Litigation accrual” on our Consolidated Balance Sheets and in “Litigation expense” for the year ended December 31, 2010 on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss).  On February 9, 2011, the court granted final approval of the settlement; however, our payment of the settlement amount is still subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, including the lapse of all applicable appeal periods.

Suomen Colorize Oy

During October 2010, Suomen Colorize Oy (“Suomen”) filed suit against DISH Network L.L.C., our indirect wholly owned subsidiary, and EchoStar in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 7,277,398.  Suomen is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein.  The abstract of the patent states that the claims are directed to a method and terminal for providing services in a telecommunication network.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.  In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Technology Development Licensing

On January 22, 2009, Technology Development and Licensing L.L.C. (“TDL”) filed suit against us and EchoStar in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging infringement of United States Patent No. Re. 35,952, which relates to certain favorite channel features. TDL is an entity that seeks to license an acquired patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein. In July 2009, the Court granted our motion to stay the case pending two re-examination petitions before the Patent and Trademark Office.

We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we infringe the asserted patent, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction that could require us to materially modify certain user-friendly features that we currently offer to consumers. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Tivo Inc.

During January 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the April 2006 jury verdict concluding that certain of our digital video recorders, or DVRs, infringed a patent held by Tivo.  As of September 2008, we had recorded a total accrual of $132 million on our Consolidated Balance Sheets to reflect the April 2006 jury verdict, supplemental damages through September 2006 and pre-judgment interest awarded by the Texas court, together with the estimated cost of potential further software infringement prior to implementation of our alternative technology, discussed below, plus interest subsequent to entry of the judgment.  In its January 2008 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict of infringement on Tivo’s “software claims,” and upheld the award of damages from the District Court.  The Federal Circuit, however, found that we did not literally infringe Tivo’s “hardware claims,” and remanded such claims back to the District Court for further proceedings.  On October 6, 2008, the Supreme Court denied our petition for certiorari.  As a result, approximately $105 million of the total $132 million accrual was released from an escrow account to Tivo.

We also developed and deployed “next-generation” DVR software.  This improved software was automatically downloaded to our current customers’ DVRs, and is fully operational (our “original alternative technology”).  The download was completed as of April 2007.  We received written legal opinions from outside counsel that concluded our original alternative technology does not infringe, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, either the hardware or software claims of Tivo’s patent.  Tivo filed a motion for contempt alleging that we are in violation of the Court’s injunction.  We opposed this motion on the grounds that the injunction did not apply to DVRs that have received our original alternative technology, that our original alternative technology does not infringe Tivo’s patent, and that we were in compliance with the injunction.

In June 2009, the United States District Court granted Tivo’s motion for contempt, finding that our original alternative technology was not more than colorably different than the products found by the jury to infringe Tivo’s patent, that our original alternative technology still infringed the software claims, and that even if our original alternative technology was “non-infringing,” the original injunction by its terms required that we disable DVR functionality in all but approximately 192,000 digital set-top boxes in the field.  The District Court also amended its original injunction to require that we inform the court of any further attempts to design around Tivo’s patent and seek approval from the court before any such design-around is implemented.  The District Court awarded Tivo $103 million in supplemental damages and interest for the period from September 2006 through April 2008, based on an assumed $1.25 per subscriber per month royalty rate.  We posted a bond to secure that award pending appeal of the contempt order.  On July 1, 2009, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals granted a permanent stay of the District Court’s contempt order pending resolution of our appeal.

The District Court held a hearing on July 28, 2009 on Tivo’s claims for contempt sanctions.  Tivo sought up to $975 million in contempt sanctions for the period from April 2008 to June 2009 based on, among other things, profits Tivo alleges we made from subscribers using DVRs.  We opposed Tivo’s request arguing, among other things, that sanctions are inappropriate because we made good faith efforts to comply with the Court’s injunction.  We also challenged Tivo’s calculation of profits. On September 4, 2009, the District Court partially granted Tivo’s motion for contempt sanctions and awarded $2.25 per DVR subscriber per month for the period from April 2008 to July 2009 (as compared to the award for supplemental damages for the prior period from September 2006 to April 2008, which was based on an assumed $1.25 per DVR subscriber per month).  By the District Court’s estimation, the total award for the period from April 2008 to July 2009 is approximately $200 million.  The District Court also awarded Tivo its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred during the contempt proceedings.  Enforcement of these awards has been stayed by the District Court pending resolution of our appeal of the underlying June 2009 contempt order.  On February 8, 2010, we and Tivo submitted a stipulation to the District Court that the attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees and costs, that Tivo incurred during the contempt proceedings amounted to $6 million.  During the year ended December 31, 2009, we increased our total accrual by $361 million to reflect the supplemental damages and interest for the period from implementation of our original alternative technology through April 2008 and for the estimated cost of alleged software infringement (including contempt sanctions for the period from April 2008 through June 2009) for the period from April 2008 through December 2009 plus interest.  During the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, we recorded $124 million and $361 million, respectively, of “Litigation expense” on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss).  During the year ended December 31, 2008, we did not record any litigation expense related to this case.  Our total accrual at December 31, 2010 was $517 million and is included in “Litigation accrual” on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

In light of the District Court’s finding of contempt, and its description of the manner in which it believes our original alternative technology infringed the ‘389 patent, we are also developing and testing potential new alternative technology in an engineering environment.  As part of EchoStar’s development process, EchoStar downloaded several of our design-around options to less than 1,000 subscribers for “beta” testing.  On March 11, 2010, we requested that the District Court approve the implementation of one of our design-around options on an expedited basis.  There can be no assurance that the District Court will approve this request.

Oral argument on our appeal of the contempt ruling took place on November 2, 2009, before a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.  On March 4, 2010, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s contempt order in a 2-1 decision.  On May 14, 2010, our petition for en banc review of that decision by the full Federal Circuit was granted and the opinion of the three-judge panel was vacated.  Oral argument occurred on November 9, 2010.  There can be no assurance that the full Federal Circuit will reverse the decision of the three-judge panel.  Tivo has stated that it will seek additional damages for the period from June 2009 to the present.  Although we have accrued our best estimate of damages, contempt sanctions and interest through December 31, 2010, there can be no assurance that Tivo will not seek, and that the court will not award, an amount that exceeds our accrual.

On October 6, 2010, the Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”) issued an office action confirming the validity of certain of the software claims of United States Patent No. 6,233,389 (the ‘389 patent).  However, the PTO only confirmed the validity of the ‘389 patent after Tivo made statements that we believe narrow the scope of its claims.  The claims that were confirmed thus should not have the same scope as the claims that we were found to have infringed and which underlie the contempt ruling that we are now appealing.  Therefore, we believe that the PTO’s conclusions are relevant to the issues on appeal.  The PTO’s conclusions support our position that our original alternative technology does not infringe and that we acted in good faith to design around Tivo’s patent.

If we are unsuccessful in overturning the District Court’s ruling on Tivo’s motion for contempt, we are not successful in developing and deploying potential new alternative technology and we are unable to reach a license agreement with Tivo on reasonable terms, we may be required to eliminate DVR functionality in all but approximately 192,000 digital set-top boxes in the field and cease distribution of digital set-top boxes with DVR functionality.  In that event we would be at a significant disadvantage to our competitors who could continue offering DVR functionality, which would likely result in a significant decrease in new subscriber additions as well as a substantial loss of current subscribers.  Furthermore, the inability to offer DVR functionality could cause certain of our distribution channels to terminate or significantly decrease their marketing of DISH

Network services.  The adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations if the District Court’s contempt order is upheld is likely to be significant.  Additionally, the supplemental damage award of $103 million and further award of approximately $200 million does not include damages, contempt sanctions or interest for the period after June 2009.  In the event that we are unsuccessful in our appeal, we could also have to pay substantial additional damages, contempt sanctions and interest.  Depending on the amount of any additional damage or sanction award or any monetary settlement, we may be required to raise additional capital at a time and in circumstances in which we would normally not raise capital.  Therefore, any capital we raise may be on terms that are unfavorable to us, which might adversely affect our financial position and results of operations and might also impair our ability to raise capital on acceptable terms in the future to fund our own operations and initiatives.  We believe the cost of such capital and its terms and conditions may be substantially less attractive than our previous financings.

If we are successful in overturning the District Court’s ruling on Tivo’s motion for contempt, but unsuccessful in defending against any subsequent claim in a new action that our original alternative technology or any potential new alternative technology infringes Tivo’s patent, we could be prohibited from distributing DVRs or could be required to modify or eliminate our then-current DVR functionality in some or all set-top boxes in the field.  In that event we would be at a significant disadvantage to our competitors who could continue offering DVR functionality and the adverse effect on our business would be material.  We could also have to pay substantial additional damages.

Because both we and EchoStar are defendants in the Tivo lawsuit, we and EchoStar are jointly and severally liable to Tivo for any final damages and sanctions that may be awarded by the District Court. DISH has determined that it is obligated under the agreements entered into in connection with the Spin-off to indemnify EchoStar for substantially all liability arising from this lawsuit. EchoStar contributed an amount equal to its $5 million intellectual property liability limit under the Receiver Agreement. DISH and EchoStar have further agreed that EchoStar’s $5 million contribution would not exhaust EchoStar’s liability to DISH for other intellectual property claims that may arise under the Receiver Agreement. DISH and EchoStar also agreed that they would each be entitled to joint ownership of, and a cross-license to use, any intellectual property developed in connection with any potential new alternative technology.

Voom

In January 2008, Voom HD Holdings (“Voom”) filed a lawsuit against us in New York Supreme Court, alleging breach of contract and other claims arising from our termination of the affiliation agreement governing carriage of certain Voom HD channels on the DISH Network satellite TV service.  At that time, Voom also sought a preliminary injunction to prevent us from terminating the agreement.  The Court denied Voom’s request, finding, among other things, that Voom had not demonstrated that it was likely to prevail on the merits.  In April 2010, we and Voom each filed motions for summary judgment.  Voom later filed two motions seeking discovery sanctions.  On November 9, 2010, the Court issued a decision denying both motions for summary judgment, but granting Voom’s motions for discovery sanctions.  The Court’s decision provides for an adverse inference jury instruction at trial and precludes our damages expert from testifying at trial.  We appealed the grant of Voom’s motion for discovery sanctions to the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.  On February 15, 2011, the appellate Court granted our motion to stay the trial pending our appeal.  Voom is claiming over $2.5 billion in damages.  We intend to vigorously defend this case.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

Other

In addition to the above actions, we are subject to various other legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of business, including, among other things, disputes with programmers regarding fees. In our opinion, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to any of these actions is unlikely to materially affect our financial position, results of operations or liquidity.