Paramount Pictures Corporation v. ReplayTV, Inc., Joint Stipulation ...

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728offered to produce only consummated licenses, while depriving Plaintiffs of anyaccess to documents about efforts to license the ReplayTV 4000 technology to thirdparties. With regard to communications to investors, Defendants have offered toproduce only a generic “ information kit” given to potential investors (andrecordings of certain conference calls), while withholding all other communicationswith persons or entities considering investing in Defendants’ companies.Defendants’ proffer would exclude, for example, a customized PowerPointpresentation about the ReplayTV 4000 used in a sales pitch to a venture capitalist ora wealthy individual investor, or detailed plans by Defendants’ top executives forseeking funding based in part on the (infringing) new capabilities of the ReplayTV4000. As we explain in detail below, the Court should order Defendants to providea complete response to the requests at issue here.1. Documents and Information About Advertising by DefendantsDelivered Through the ReplayTV 4000.Defendants themselves already use the ReplayTV 4000 to deliver advertisingfor their own products, 56/ have run third-party advertising on earlier ReplayTVdevices, 57/ and may well have plans to sell third-party advertising delivered with theReplayTV 4000. This capability is squarely relevant both to Plaintiffs’ copyrightclaim (since advertising is presumably designed to generate a financial benefit toDefendants) and to their claim under Section 17200 of the California Business &56/Defendants have recently run advertisements for their “ Rio” MP3 player thatappear when a viewer pauses programming on the ReplayTV 4000. See, e.g., AVSForum Website, at http://www.avsforum.com/avsvb/showthread.php?s=77c29ef06efc92d90cd4656bcddf1e14&threadid=122236&highlight=Rio (visited Mar. 25, 2002).57/See Betsy McKay, Coca-Cola Promotions To Run on ReplayTV, Wall St. J.Europe, Sept. 29, 2000, at 28.74