## Facts

- Three Utah television broadcasters operating Salt Lake City stations derived revenue from selling advertising time and did not charge viewers to receive over-the-air broadcasts.
- Because of distance and reception limits, the broadcasters’ signals could not be reliably received in or near Twin Falls, Idaho without relay equipment.
- One broadcaster had an existing rebroadcast arrangement with a Twin Falls station under which programs could be retransmitted for a per-hour fee.
- An Idaho company operated a community antenna television (CATV) system using high-gain antennas to receive distant stations not otherwise receivable in Twin Falls and to distribute the signals by cable to paying subscribers.
- Subscribers paid an initial connection fee and a monthly service fee for reception through the CATV system.
- The CATV operator announced plans to add facilities to receive and distribute the plaintiffs’ stations, and began soliciting subscribers for that expanded service.
- A related Idaho entity contracted to construct microwave relay facilities to bring the plaintiffs’ signals to the CATV system for cable distribution.
- The broadcasters sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that receiving and forwarding their broadcasts for a fee, without consent, constituted misappropriation, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment.

## Issues

1. Whether broadcasters have a legally protectable property or quasi-property interest in over-the-air broadcast signals that prevents a CATV operator from receiving and retransmitting those signals to paying subscribers without consent.
2. Whether the CATV operator’s receipt and retransmission of the broadcasts constitutes misappropriation, unfair competition, or unjust enrichment under an *INS*-type theory.
3. Whether the court should grant declaratory and injunctive relief barring the planned microwave-and-cable relay of the plaintiffs’ signals.

## Decision

- The court denied the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment.
- The court refused to grant declaratory or injunctive relief on the misappropriation, unfair-competition, and unjust-enrichment theories presented.
- The court concluded the plaintiffs had not shown a cognizable property or quasi-property interest in their broadcast signals, as against a CATV reception-and-relay service, sufficient to support the requested relief.
- The court determined the *International News Service v. Associated Press* misappropriation analogy did not fit the CATV context.

## Legal Principles

- Over-the-air broadcasting, made available to the public, does not by itself create a state-law property or quasi-property right in the signal that bars a third party from receiving and relaying the signal as a reception service to viewers.
- *INS*-style misappropriation is limited and does not extend to a noncompeting reception intermediary where the relationships and competitive posture differ from direct market competition for the same product.
- Unfair competition generally requires elements such as deception, “palming off,” or a competitive appropriation of another’s product; charging for improved reception, without more, does not convert retransmission into actionable unfair competition.
- Courts are reluctant to create new signal-property rights through unfair-competition doctrine where statutory regimes (e.g., copyright and communications regulation) occupy related ground.

## Conclusion

The court held that a CATV operator’s receipt and retransmission of free, over-the-air television broadcasts to paying subscribers, as a reception service, did not infringe a protectable property interest of the broadcasters and did not constitute misappropriation, unfair competition, or unjust enrichment on the record presented; summary judgment and requested declaratory and injunctive relief were denied.


Intermountain Broad. & Television Corp. v. Idaho Microwave, Inc., 196 F. Supp. 315 (D. Idaho 1961)