Archive for July, 2011

Did Motorola Get Caught With A Smoking Gun? TiVo Demands Source Code Access To Secret DVRs

Jul 28

Posted by Davis in Disclosure - I own stock in co. mentioned, SA, TiVo | 1 Comment

TiVo’s Motion To Compel Source Code

(Above you’ll find a copy of a motion to compel that TiVo filed against Motorola on July 22nd, 2011. On July 25th, the judge in the case gave Motorola 14 days to comply with the order or to explain their actions to the court. To view all of the exhibits, associated with the complaint, you may click on the following links: Declaration By TiVo’s Attorney, Court order requiring production of all source code, Motorola dodging TiVo’s phone calls, TiVo’s initial patent complaint against Verizon.) As a friendly reminder, I am both a TiVo customer and shareholder.

TiVo’s love quarrel with Echostar may have just come to an end, but they still have two more elephants lined up in the crosshairs of their gun and while I always hate to read too much into the legal tea leaves, recent action on one of the dockets, suggests that they may have just stunned one of them with a tranquilizer dart.

As part of their patent lawsuit against Verizon, TiVo had initially requested access to Verizon’s source code on their FIOS DVR. This kind of data makes it easier for TiVo to identify any potential infringement and would certainly be a key piece of evidence towards proving any patent violations. Now there are many reasons why Verizon might not want to turn over this kind of data, but where things start to get weird is that instead of objecting to the request, Verizon claimed they weren’t able to comply with it because Motorola was the one that developed their DVR. This seems fair enough, so in good faith TiVo began working with Motorola to obtain the data.

Fast forward through three months of stalling and Motorola finally turns over two different copies of their database to TiVo. The problem with this is that once TiVo started going over all the documents that they collected, they discovered that Motorola had actually developed “many more versions” of the source code using secret codes names like Burbank, Carlsbad, Del Mar and Cardiff. In total, TiVo believes that there are over 30 different models that Motorola has out there and after being stung with delay after delay over “software modifications” in their trial against Dish, it’s easy to understand why TiVo would want to exercise extreme due diligence on this one.

Once TiVo realized that Motorola was trying to pull off the old fumblerooskie play on them, they dragged Verizon and Motorola back into court and clarified that they wanted all of the source code data on their DVRs. The judge agreed and in March of this year, he ordered Motorola to release “without limitation all Deployed versions of Motorola’s Del Mar source code and all Deployed versions of any predecessor to the Del Mar source code, as well as associated Broadcom code.” [Note: Emphasis added by me]

After the subpoena, one would have really thought that this would be the end of it, but instead Motorola continued to try and string TiVo along. In the attached exhibits, TiVo demonstrated that they contacted Motorola numerous times to discuss the deficiency, yet Motorola seemed only willing to reply whenever TiVo threatened to flex their legal muscle in the case. At one point, Motorola even set up a conference call to deter TiVo from filing this motion to compel, but then opted to ditch out on the call (without even having the courtesy to cancel.)

While these sorts of petty issues won’t actually impact the case, they can still provide us with insight into the case. Motorola’s lack of responsiveness suggests a certain squirreliness on their part. Instead of portraying a company that is confident in their legal position, the attachments paint a portrait of a company that is desperately trying to do anything to avoid turning over this evidence. The very way that Motorola has treated TiVo over the last 8 months could be a primer on how to maximize passive aggressiveness by only using your caller ID. After considering TiVo’s frustration with moving the case forward and the lack of any real justifications for the delays, the judge gave Motorola a final deadline of 14 days to turn over the evidence in question or to demonstrate why they seem to feel that they don’t need to comply with the court’s instructions.

Netflix Gone Wild

Jul 25

Posted by Davis in Netflix | 5 Comments

Netflix may have one of the best movie recommendation engines out there, but from time to time, their suggestions do get thrown off the track. I’m not sure whether this is proof that Skynet Netflix still has a long ways to go before it becomes self aware or evidence that their algorithms are so good, that they can spot connections, even when they appear ridiculous to us mere humans. Either way though, the results can be hilarious! After pouring through 100′s of nominations, I’ve put together a top 10 list of some of their more wonky suggestions.


#10 – Make Love Not War

One would think that Ken Burn’s award winning documentary on WWII would appeal more to those who are further from the cradle than the grave, but apparently senior citizens enjoy Angelina Ballerina and Barney too! (h/t – Plamere)

#9 – Who Said Kids Find Documentaries Boring?

This may be a case where it would be more helpful for Netflix to suggest something the kids might like a little bit less

#8 – Beneath the tough rapper exterior lies the heart of a romantic

It may not be all that exciting of an ice cream flavor, but romantic musical fans will melt for vanilla

#7 – Who Knew Mrs. Doubtfire was so angry inside?

Robin Williams’ dressed in drag was pretty painful to watch, but not chop up and eat people bad.

#6 – One Of Netflix’s Darker Comedies

Yup, that’s right, after you watch Reno 911, even Auschwitz will seem funny by comparison

#5 – Beware the Penguins?

Oh sure they look all cute and adorable, but not if you’re the fish. Something tells me that Netflix may have outsourced this movie category to Charlie Tuna.

#4 – The Scariest Movie on Netflix


Mallcop may have been bad, but it’s a pretty low blow to call it a horror movie


#3 – I’m pretty sure that most pregnant women aren’t that flexible

Is your significant other all of a sudden obsessed with Cirque Du Soleil? You may want to think about taking a pregnancy test h/t – Tgidenver

#2 – Netflix Suggests That It May Be Time To Consider Therapy

It’s good to know that I’m not the only one from a dysfunctional family. For those looking to deal with your Father/Daughter issues, Netflix recommends, the Call Girl or the steamy erotic thriller, Lie with me.

#1 – A Friendly Reminder From Netflix That You May Not Be Ready For Kids Just Yet

Don’t be fooled by the photo of the cute baby on the cover of the movie, It’s Alive probably isn’t something you’ll want to watch if you’re expecting

Still haven’t had enough? Here are a few more that didn’t make the top ten list;

Want to learn whether or not your new date has apartment full of cats back at home? Find out her thoughts on King Lear, Looking for Swamp People? Try the Kardashians, Did you enjoy the Last of the Mohicans? Well Netflix is pretty confident that you’ll enjoy The Last of the Mohicans, Netflix outs Top Gear driving enthusiasts for being closet Jane Eyre fans, Do you enjoy Louis C.K.’s edgy sense of comedy? Well you may want to think about going back to school because Netflix sees advanced Physics in your future, Frankly, the talking lobster already freaks me out, but Netflix thinks people who enjoy movies about LSD, will really like the Little Mermaid too, When I think of classical movies, Black Snake Moan isn’t the first thing that pops into my mind, If you ask them, GI Joe fans will deny it, but apparently they have a soft spot for furry little Sharpays, Family Guy fans take note, you may be a freakin’ genius, Freaks and Geeks are always welcome in Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood.

Google Is Dialing Wrong Number When It Comes To Phone Spam

Jul 22

Posted by Davis in Search, Spam | Comments off

It may not be the most polite thing to do, but we’re all guilty of it. The phone rings and some random number pops up on your screen. 10 years ago, I would have answered it, but now thanks to caller ID, whoever it is can go straight to voicemail. Of course when they don’t leave a message, curiosity inevitably gets the better of me, so it’s off to Google in order to find out whose call it was that I just bounced.

To Google’s credit, they have been pretty aggressive about fighting spammy search results from content farmers, but when it comes to your digits, they still haven’t found a way to filter out the spammers from the legitimate information. Take for example, a Google search for my own phone number

As you can see from the screenshot, Google is really good at finding any and all search results with this number in it, but most of the links presented are directing users to pages and pages of meaningless phone numbers. If you click on Google’s #1 search result for my phone number, it leads to a company named AllCallerDirectory.com. While this site does provide “reverse lookup” services, it will cost you $15 if you want to buy a report letting you know that it was Davis Freeberg who called. While my blog’s contact page does show up as the 2nd search result for Google, the remaining 467 results are all similar search spam of some sort.

By comparison, the same search on Blekko (who tends to use more aggressive spam filters) yields only 2 results, both of which are high quality hits.

It would be easy to blame AT&T for this problem, because I imagine that there are all kinds of data silos that surround our phone numbers, but when you consider the my number is actually a Google Voice number, there really isn’t any excuse for Google to be directing traffic to these paid services instead of my Google profile.

While I’ve never spent money on any of these reverse lookup services, I imagine that there are lots of people who have paid for information that they could have gotten for free. In an ideal world, I’d like to see Google partner with some of the telephone directories to improve these types of searches for consumers, but in the meantime simply nuking the “directories” that are gaming the system would be a positive step in the right direction.

Why Doesn’t AMC Want My Money?

Jul 5

Posted by Davis in Disclosure - I own stock in co. mentioned, Movies, Netflix, TiVo, VOD | Comments off



AMC Empire
Originally uploaded by imoteph9


Most businesses are thrilled when someone wants to give them money, but for some crazy reason whenever you’re dealing with Hollywoodnomics, logic seems to get turned on it’s head. Case in point: MoviePass

I love the movies, in fact I’d argue that I’ve probably seen more films than 90% of the population. As a moviehound, you would think that I would be one of AMC’s best customer’s, but the truth is that in the last 5 years, I’ve only seen 2 movies in the theater. While there are a lot of reasons why, it essentially boils down to the fact that it’s hard for me to justify paying $9 for a film, when I can watch it at home for free*

Now in reality, my TV isn’t actually free, but psychologically, it feels that way because I “rent” my content through services like Netflix and TiVo. While I’m sure that PPV and Blockbuster would prefer that I take advantage of their services, the simple truth is that the transaction fee involved (no matter how small) has made them persona non grata in my lifestyle.

I’ll be the first to admit that watching a film on my 60″ TV isn’t the same as seeing it in Imax, but when the choice is to pay money vs. seeing something for free*, it makes it a lot harder to accept the premiums that the theaters charge. Four years ago, I noted that consumers were making a transition from a pay per view model to a subscription model and that movie theaters would be wise to endorse the trend.

“Why not offer a monthly subscription fee to your local movie theater chains. Consumers would be happy to spend $30 or $40 per month in order to have the privilege of seeing films the way I did when I worked for the theaters. Instead of collecting $40 per year from me now, theaters could instead bring in $480 each year with an all you can eat model.”

A long time ago, I worked as an AMC projectionist and every Thursday night, I’d stay up to the wee hours of the morning screening the new films before they opened. Because of this experience, I know first hand how powerful a theater subscription model could be, which is why I’m so confused that my former employer wouldn’t recognize the brilliance behind MoviePass. What makes this all you can eat movie experience so special isn’t the access to the big hits that you’re dying to see, it’s being able to see mediocre films in a larger than life environment without having to put your wallet at risk. Yet for some strange reason, AMC isn’t interested in attracting customers to their most empty theaters.

Now I can’t speak for everybody, but in my case, had MoviePass existed back then, AMC would have collected $1,920 in ticket sales. Instead they’ve earned less than $40 from me and that includes popcorn.

Not everybody chooses to rent their content, but when you look at the number of cable, satellite, Hulu, Netflix, etc. subscribers, it becomes clear that a huge segment of society chooses to consume the bulk of their content this way. This is why, when I saw that MoviePass was going to create a subscription theater service, I thought it was a no brainer for the theaters involved.

Instead, AMC decides that they want no part of this? Can someone please help me understand how this makes sense because AMC’s justification that “plans for this program were developed without AMC’s knowledge or input,” or that “it does not integrate well into our programs and could create significant guest experience issues”, rings hollow in my opinion.

AMC could have picked up a brand new customer willing to buy tickets in bulk and instead of nurturing a new source of revenue (while MoviePass assumes the risk of proving an experimental business model), AMC has chosen to ban it because they weren’t consulted first? This seems awfully shortsighted and petty on the part of AMC.

If AMC really believed in the mantra, listen, learn, discuss, decide, execute, measure and … repeat, then they would have at least taken the time to see if MoviePass could bear any fruit. Instead, they’ve jumped straight to an execution (with a promise to repeat if anybody else decides that they want to give them buckets of money without permission.)

I could almost understand this reaction, if AMC had some type of similar program that MoviePass was competing with, but the reality is that AMC has failed dramatically when it comes to the execution of their customer loyalty programs.

For 25 years, AMC ran a program called Summer Movie Camp for kids. The idea was basically a seasonal version of MoviePass, except restricted to handful of old kids movies. Given it’s long run, one would think this was a homerun for the cinema, but I can tell you first hand that AMC did a terrible job of running it. Even on their own website, AMC admits it was a failure.

“Unfortunately, the number of guests has been fewer in recent years, with many shows operating with less than 25 guests in the auditorium. Last year, attendance dropped so significantly that we have made the difficult decision to discontinue the program.”

AMC’s most recent program, also looks like it will be a dud. Not only do consumers now have to pay $12 a year for the privilege of frequent customer membership bonuses, but they only save 10% off for every $100 they spend. This means that you would have to pay to see 33 films in a year before you would actually earn a free one under the program. It’s nice that they want to be so stingy with their best customers, but MoviePass really wouldn’t threaten this.

If MoviePase attracts moviehogs, then it will be uneconomical for them as a business. If they attract consumers like myself, who refuse to pay transaction charges for their entertainment, then it’s complimentary to AMC’s existing program and could greatly expand revenue. It’s hard to tell what the future holds for MoviePass at this point, but with the major theater cartels going hostile against this new innovator, I can only hope that independent theaters will be more interested in collecting hundreds of dollars a year from me instead.