-196-
iii. Analysis of Expert Opinions
In projecting gross units shipped for the EBD film titles,
Mr. Medress selected arbitrary figures: In the rental market,
500 units for each film title; and in the sell-through market,
5,000 units for “Group 1” film titles and 100 units for “Group 2”
film titles. Mr. Medress indicates that he relied on his
industry experience in arriving at these figures; however, he
does not specifically explain how he derived the figures on that
basis. Mr. Medress also indicates that he incorporated into his
projections certain assumptions relating to the previous
distribution history and certain characteristics (such as age and
content) of the EBD film titles; he fails to explain, however,
precisely how these assumptions influenced or justified his
projections.
Moreover, Mr. Medress does not indicate which film titles he
considered for distribution in the rental and the sell-through
markets, and which film titles are in “Group 1” and “Group 2.”
He does not explain the method that he used to divide the film
titles into groups or what accounts for the vast difference in
146(...continued)
the transaction date.” Petitioner provides no evidentiary basis
for his contention, which appears to rest on speculation. We are
not persuaded by petitioner’s contention. It is reasonable to
assume that a hypothetical buyer would not pay any significant
amount for rights that were subject to such an attenuated
distribution period, especially with film titles that were
admittedly older “B” film titles.
Page: Previous 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011