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

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728ReplayTV 4000 device— they clearly do; the question is whether the allegedlyinfringing uses are the draw in the first place.Thus, any additional discovery of financial plans and potential revenues fromnon-infringing uses, or from anything other than product sales, is unnecessarilyburdensome. As Plaintiffs are themselves potential competitors, and are the majorshareholders in Defendants’ principal competitor, TiVo, there is good reason topreclude such discovery. 66/Plaintiffs’ refusal to accept anything less than everydocument “ regarding” or “ reflecting” any financial benefit connected to theReplayTV 4000 imposes a massive burden to produce such irrelevant information.3. Plaintiffs’ Demand For Each And Every Communication With ActualOr Potential Investors Is Burdensome, Harassing And WithoutJustification.Plaintiffs also purport to justify their entitlement to virtually everycommunication Defendants have ever had with any actual or potential investor ineither of their businesses on the ground that such documentation is relevant to the“ financial benefit” prong of vicarious infringement. This position is baseless. Forthe reasons explained above, the only relevant communications would be thoserelating to the allegedly infringing uses of the ReplayTV 4000. Communicationsconcerning Defendants’ business in general, or one of the many other productsDefendants manufacture, or unchallenged features, are not even conceivablyrelevant to the financial benefit prong. See Ellison, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at*29-30. 67/ In an effort to compromise, Defendants nonetheless agreed to produceAOL, the parent of the Time Warner Plaintiffs is the largest owner of TiVo.NBC has recently quadrupled its stake. And Sony, the parent company of theColumbia Plaintiffs, is also an investor.http://www.variety.com/story.asp?l=story&a=VR1117864363&c=1467/That the district court in the Napster case looked beyond payments receivedby consumers (i.e., Napster users) to funds received from investors is the exception,not the rule, and derives from the unique nature of that case. See A&M Records,Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Cal. 2000). Napster did not chargeits users for access to its system; thus the district court had to look beyondpayments for Napster’ s product to determine whether Napster nonetheless received66/85