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‚Äôs 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.