Summing up yesterday's arguments in ABC v Aereo
Tom Paine
Follow @phillytechnews
Subscribe in a readerSubscribe to Philadelphia Tech News by Email
Below is a summary of some of the better analyses of yesterday's oral arguments in ABC v. Aereo in front of the Supreme Court.
Getting a grasp of the complex technology issues was difficult, as at least one justice openly admitted. Also, justices seemed reluctant to step on a 2008 appeals court ruling that upheld Cablevision Systems Corp's cloud storage video recorder.
While several justices were skeptical of the purpose of Aereo's technology, implying it was designed primarily to evade existing copyright law, most were very concerned about interfering with the future growth of cloud computing in its many different forms.
Comcast joined lead plaintiff ABC in appealing the case against Aereo to the Court. While some cable system operators where generally more sympathetic to Aereo than broadcasters were, Comcast of course is both of these through its NBC ownership.
First Round Capital and FirstMark Capital, another VC firm active in the Philly area, were
early seed investors in Aereo, which was then known as Bamboom Labs, in 2011. Others, led by IAC Corp's Barry Diller, came in later as major investors.
Philadelphia was originally scheduled to receive Aereo service in 2013 but that never happened, and it is now tentatively scheduled to receive it some time this year, probably
pending the decision in this case, which might come in June or July.
At oral arguments, Supreme Court isn’t sold on Aereo (Ars Technica)
At Stake in the Aereo Case Is How We Watch TV (New York Times)
U.S. justices show little support for Aereo TV in copyright fight (Reuters)
At Aereo arguments, can old-school analogies explain new technology? (Reuters Blog)
Supreme Court justices skeptical of Aereo, but wary of killing it (Fortune)
Cloud implications could save Aereo (SNL Kagan)
Justices Express Concern Over a Sweeping Aereo Ruling (Variety)
Why the Supreme Court, and You, Should Side with Aereo in the Legal-Tech Case of the Year (Yahoo Tech)
