Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24829 Page 1 of 142
`
` 572
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BEFORE HONORABLE DANA M. SABRAW, JUDGE PRESIDING
`
`
`________________________________
` )
`WI-LAN INC., )
` )
` PLAINTIFF, ) CASE NO. 14CV1507-DMS
` ) CASE NO. 14CV2235-DMS
` VS. )
` ) SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
`APPLE, INC., ) THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2018
` )
` DEFENDANT. )
`________________________________)
`AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS )
`________________________________)
`
`
`
`
`
`REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`JURY TRIAL, DAY 4, VOLUME 4A
`PAGES 572-713
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY STENOGRAPHY, TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY
`COMPUTER ASSISTED SOFTWARE
`____________________________________________________________
`
`MAURALEE RAMIREZ, RPR, CSR NO. 11674
` FEDERAL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`ORDERTRANSCRIPT@GMAIL.COM
`
`
`
` 572
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BEFORE HONORABLE DANA M. SABRAW, JUDGE PRESIDING
`
`
`________________________________
` )
`WI-LAN INC., )
` )
` PLAINTIFF, ) CASE NO. 14CV1507-DMS
` ) CASE NO. 14CV2235-DMS
` VS. )
` ) SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
`APPLE, INC., ) THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2018
` )
` DEFENDANT. )
`________________________________)
`AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS )
`________________________________)
`
`
`
`
`
`REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`JURY TRIAL, DAY 4, VOLUME 4A
`PAGES 572-713
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY STENOGRAPHY, TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY
`COMPUTER ASSISTED SOFTWARE
`____________________________________________________________
`
`MAURALEE RAMIREZ, RPR, CSR NO. 11674
` FEDERAL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`ORDERTRANSCRIPT@GMAIL.COM
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24830 Page 2 of 142
`
` 573
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`COUNSEL APPEARING:
`
`FOR PLAINTIFF: ROBERT A. COTE, ESQ.
` JONATHAN R. YIM, ESQ.
` KEVIN R. SCHUBERT, ESQ.
` CHRISTOPHER MCNETT, ESQ.
` BRETT E. COOPER, ESQ
` MCKOOL SMITH
` ONE BRYANT PARK, 47TH FLOOR
` NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10036
`
` MICHAEL MCKOOL, JR., ESQ.
` ASHLEY NICOLE MOORE, ESQ.
` MCKOOL SMITH
` 300 CRESENT COURT, SUITE 1500
` DALLAS, TEXAS 75201
`
` WARREN HENRY LIPSCHITZ, ESQ.
` MCKOOL SMITH
` 1719 WHITTIER AVENUE
` DALLAS, TEXAS 75218
`
` STEVEN J. POLLINGER
` MCKOOL SMITH
` 300 W 6TH STREET, SUITE 1700
` AUSTIN, TX 78746
`
`FOR DEFENDANT: JOHN ALLCOCK, ESQ.
` SEAN C. CUNNINGHAM, ESQ.
` ERIN PAIGE GIBSON, ESQ.
` JACOB ANDERSON, ESQ.
` TIFFANY CAROL MILLER, ESQ.
` DLA PIPER
` 401 B STREET, SUITE 1700
` SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
`
` ROBERT BUERGI, ESQ.
` DLA PIPER
` 2000 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
` EAST PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24831 Page 3 of 142
`
` 574
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA - THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2018 - 9:00 A.M.
`(CASE CALLED)
`THE COURT: GOOD MORNING. WE HAVE COUNSEL PRESENT.
`WE'RE OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY. THERE WAS AN ISSUE WE
`NEEDED TO ADDRESS PRIOR TO BRINGING IN THE JURY?
`MR. CUNNINGHAM: YES, YOUR HONOR. IT RELATES TO THE
`ISSUE WE RAISED YESTERDAY WITH REGARD TO MR. SKIPPEN'S
`TESTIMONY. AND WE FILED A BENCH BRIEF LAST NIGHT ON THE ISSUE
`TRYING TO SORT OF ENCAPSULATE WHAT WE THINK IS WRONG WITH WHAT
`HE SAID. IF YOU RECALL HOW THIS GOT GOING, YOU HAD GRANTED THE
`MOTION IN LIMINE THAT WE BROUGHT THAT SAID THEY WEREN'T
`PERMITTED TO CAST DISPERSIONS ON THE FACT THAT WE HAD NOT
`RECEIVED AN OPINION OF COUNSEL AND HAD NOT HAD OUR ENGINEERS
`LOOK AT THE PATENTS AND PROVIDE ENGINEER OPINIONS. IN RESPONSE
`TO THAT, THEY SENT YOU A LETTER ON SATURDAY URGING THAT APPLE
`ENTER INTO A STIPULATION THAT WOULD TAKE OUT WILLFULNESS, TAKE
`OUT INDUCEMENT, AND THEREBY REMOVE THE INTENT FROM THE CASE,
`AND IN RETURN, WE WOULD NOT MENTION THE FACT THAT WI-LAN HAD
`LITIGATED AGAINST APPLE IN THE PAST.
`SO WE ULTIMATELY RESPONDED TO THAT STIPULATION BY
`NEGOTIATING A DEAL, AND THAT DEAL GOT FILED SUNDAY NIGHT. THAT
`DEAL CONTAINS TWO PARTS THAT ARE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO US,
`ONE OF WHICH IS THAT WI-LAN WILL NOT STATE OR ARGUE THAT APPLE
`IS THE ONLY OR RARE MOBILE DEVICE MANUFACTURER OR COMPANY THAT
`HAS NOT ENTERED INTO A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH WI-LAN.
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24832 Page 4 of 142
`
` 575
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`THE OTHER PART SAYS THAT WI-LAN WON'T ARGUE THAT
`LITIGATION WITH WI-LAN JUSTIFIES AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF ANY
`LICENSE OR THAT LITIGATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES JUSTIFIES AN
`UPWARD ADJUSTMENT.
`AND IF YOU HAVE SEEN OUR BENCH BRIEF, YOUR HONOR
`YOU'LL SEE THAT WE EXCERPTED SEVERAL PASSAGES OF MR. SKIPPEN'S
`TESTIMONY THAT SAYS JUST THAT.
`THE COURT: I DID READ THE BENCH BRIEF. IS THIS AN
`ISSUE WE NEED TO ADDRESS NOW?
`MR. CUNNINGHAM: IT'S AN ISSUE WE NEED TO ADDRESS
`BEFORE WI-LAN CLOSES ITS CASE, BECAUSE IF THERE IS TO BE
`FURTHER TESTIMONY BY MR. SKIPPEN, WE WOULD LIKE THAT TO HAPPEN
`IN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR CASE IN CHIEF, AND WE THINK ESSENTIALLY
`THAT'S THE ONLY REMEDY THAT'S APPROPRIATE AT THIS POINT.
`THEY'VE MADE THE CLEAR IMPLICATION THAT APPLE IS THE RARE -- HE
`SAID IT TWICE -- COMPANY THAT REFUSED TO TAKE A LICENSE AND
`THAT THEY WOULD CHARGE MORE TO A COMPANY LIKE APPLE FOR
`LITIGATING. THAT'S WHAT HE SAID YESTERDAY.
`THE COURT: I THINK WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS
`COMPLETE -- BECAUSE WE HAVE A COUPLE MORE WITNESSES,
`MR. PRINCE, AND THEN THERE'S ONE OTHER WITNESS.
`MR. CUNNINGHAM: CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
`THE COURT: THEN POTENTIALLY MR. SKIPPEN; AM I
`
`CORRECT?
`
`MR. CUNNINGHAM: THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24833 Page 5 of 142
`
` 576
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`THE COURT: OKAY. SO I HAVE THE ARGUMENT IN MIND.
`MR. CUNNINGHAM: ALL RIGHT.
`THE COURT: OF COURSE, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WI-LAN'S
`RESPONSE, AND WE CAN ADDRESS THE ISSUE PERHAPS AT THE NEXT
`BREAK.
`
`MR. CUNNINGHAM: SOUNDS GOOD, YOUR HONOR.
`THE COURT: OKAY. LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING THE JURY
`
`IN.
`
`(PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS)
`(JURY ENTERING AT 9:05 A.M.)
`THE COURT: OKAY. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
`WELCOME BACK. WE HAVE ALL JURORS PRESENT. WE'RE GOING TO PICK
`UP PRECISELY WHERE WE LEFT OFF YESTERDAY. WE'RE STARTING THE
`REDIRECT NOW OF MR. PRINCE.
`AND, SIR, I WOULD REMIND YOU THAT YOU REMAIN UNDER
`OATH FROM YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS.
`THE WITNESS: YES, YOUR HONOR.
`THE COURT: COUNSEL.
`MR. YIM: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
`REDIRECT EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. YIM:
`Q
`WELCOME BACK, PROFESSOR PRINCE.
`A
`THANK YOU.
`Q
`REMIND US WHERE WE LEFT OFF. COULD YOU EXPLAIN AGAIN WHY
`YOU'RE HERE TESTIFYING IN COURT?
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24834 Page 6 of 142
`
` 577
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`SURE. SO I DESIGNED AND ANALYZED SURVEYS TO MEASURE
`A
`WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR FEATURES ON SMARTPHONES, INCLUDING VOLTE
`CALL QUALITY AND UPLOAD AND DOWNLOAD SPEED ON LTE.
`Q
`AND THIS WAS A CHOICE-BASED CONJOINT SURVEY?
`A
`YES, IT WAS.
`Q
`SPECIFIC TO FEATURES THAT YOU WERE ASKED TO EVALUATE?
`A
`YES.
`Q
`WHO ASKED YOU TO EVALUATE THOSE FEATURES?
`A
`MR. KENNEDY.
`Q
`OKAY. AND WHO IS MR. KENNEDY?
`A
`I BELIEVE HE IS AN EXPERT WHO WILL ALSO COMMENT ON DAMAGES
`FOR THIS CASE.
`Q
`OKAY. AND WHAT WAS THE ASSIGNMENT, IN A LITTLE MORE
`DETAIL, THAT MR. KENNEDY GAVE YOU?
`A
`SO HE WANTED ME TO PROVIDE VALUATIONS FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS
`AND THE FEATURES THAT DR. MADISETTI HAD INDICATED.
`Q
`OKAY. AND MAY I HAVE SLIDE 2, PLEASE. SLIDE 3.
`AND SO THESE WERE THE RESULTS THAT YOU DISCUSSED YESTERDAY,
`CORRECT?
`A
`YES, THEY ARE.
`Q
`CAN YOU GIVE US WHERE IN THIS FRAMEWORK OF PROFESSOR
`MADISETTI AND MR. KENNEDY, YOUR WORK, YOUR OPINIONS FIT?
`A
`SURE. SO THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE BENEFIT SIDE, THIS IS
`WHAT CAME FROM PROFESSOR MADISETTI WHO WE HEARD EARLIER, AND
`THEN MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE FIGURES I WAS ABLE TO COME UP
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24835 Page 7 of 142
`
` 578
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WITH MY SURVEYS WILL THEN BE INPUT INTO MR. KENNEDY'S ANALYSIS.
`Q
`AND DO YOU HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHAT TYPE OF
`ANALYSIS MR. KENNEDY IS DOING?
`A
`IN GENERAL -- YES, I KNOW HE'S LOOKING TO ESTIMATE THE
`DAMAGES IN THIS CASE ULTIMATELY.
`Q
`OKAY. THANK YOU. SO YESTERDAY WHEN YOU WERE TESTIFYING ON
`CROSS-EXAMINATION WITH COUNSEL FOR APPLE, MS. GIBSON, THERE WAS
`A LOT OF SKEPTICISM AS TO THE VALIDITY OF YOUR RESULTS. CAN
`YOU EXPLAIN IF YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS OR SKEPTICISM ABOUT YOUR
`RESULTS?
`A
`I DON'T. I THINK THROUGH OUR DISCUSSION I WAS ABLE TO
`INDICATE A LOT OF THE CHECKS THAT I DID THAT WERE PRETTY WELL
`KNOWN AND UNDERSTOOD IN THE FIELD.
`Q
`AND WHAT ABOUT THIS NOTION THAT IF YOU ADD UP WILLINGNESS
`TO PAY WITH, IT EXCEEDS THE PRICE OF THE PHONE; DOES THAT GIVE
`YOU ANY CONCERN?
`A
`NO, IT DOESN'T.
`Q
`CAN YOU EXPLAIN?
`A
`THAT'S A COMMON MISUNDERSTANDING WHEN PEOPLE HAVEN'T REALLY
`DONE THESE SURVEYS VERY MUCH. THERE'S A FEW KEY POINTS TO MAKE
`WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WILLINGNESS TO PAY AND PRICE. THE FIRST
`ONE IS THAT THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE IDEAS. SO WHEN YOU THINK
`ABOUT -- A SIMPLE WAY TO EXPLAIN THAT IS WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT
`THE PRICE, THE THINGS THAT FACTOR INTO THAT AREN'T JUST
`WILLINGNESS TO PAY, IT'S HOW MUCH DID IT COST TO MAKE IT, HOW
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24836 Page 8 of 142
`
` 579
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`MUCH COMPETITION THERE WAS. ALL THESE KINDS OF THINGS FEED
`INTO WHAT THE PRICE WILL BE, AND THOSE AREN'T PART OF WHAT
`WILLINGNESS TO PAY IS ABOUT. WILLINGNESS TO PAY IS AS A
`CONSUMER, HOW MUCH IS THIS THING WORTH TO ME.
`ANOTHER POINT TO MAKE ON THIS IS EXPERTS IN THIS AREA
`GENERALLY AGREE THAT WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR A PRODUCT, YOU JUST
`DON'T SIMPLY ADD THE WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR THESE INDIVIDUAL
`FEATURES, SO THAT'S A PRETTY WELL UNDERSTOOD IDEA.
`AND THEN ONE OTHER KIND OF FINAL POINT THAT IS DRIVING THE
`INTUITION AS TO WHY THAT IS NOT TRUE, IF YOU THINK ABOUT -- I
`GUESS WE DON'T HAVE THE BOARD FROM YESTERDAY, BUT IF YOU THINK
`ABOUT THE LIST PUT UP ON THAT BOARD YESTERDAY, A SIMPLE WAY TO
`THINK ABOUT WHY YOU JUST DON'T ADD THEM UP TO SAY WHAT'S THE
`SMARTPHONE WORTH IS TO SAY WELL, THINK ABOUT SOME OF THE KEY
`FEATURES OF A SMARTPHONE AND THEN IMAGINE I START TAKING THEM
`AWAY. SO HERE IT IS. YES. SO IMAGINE I START SCRATCHING OFF
`THOSE FEATURES, ASK YOURSELF AT WHAT POINT ARE YOU JUST NOT
`EVEN GOING TO THINK ABOUT BUYING THAT PHONE ANYMORE. AND EVEN
`THOUGH THERE MIGHT BE HUNDREDS OF FEATURES, I WOULD ARGUE THAT
`IT'S LIKELY TO BE THE CASE IF I SCRATCH OFF FIVE, SEVEN, EIGHT,
`NINE OF THOSE THINGS, ALL OF A SUDDEN, IT'S NOT A PRODUCT
`YOU'RE LOOKING AT ANYMORE. SO IT CHANGES THE WAY YOU'RE
`THINKING ABOUT THE PRODUCT. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE KEY
`INTUITIONS WHY IT'S NOT A SIMPLE ADD-UP PROCESS.
`Q
`PROFESSOR PRINCE, I'M PUTTING UP A Q AND A HERE. MAYBE WE
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24837 Page 9 of 142
`
` 580
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`CAN READ IT:
`"AND CAN YOU JUST ADD THESE NUMBERS UP, THE
`WILLINGNESS TO PAY FIGURES. IS IT APPROPRIATE TO JUST ADD THEM
`AND TALK ABOUT AGGREGATE WILLINGNESS TO PAY?"
`"ANSWER: NO. THAT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE. THAT'S
`NOT HOW YOU CAN INTERPRET THOSE NUMBERS."
`"OKAY. IS THAT WELL-KNOWN TO PEOPLE IN YOUR ART?"
`"ANSWER: YES."
`DO YOU HAVE THE STATEMENT --
`MS. GIBSON: OBJECTION. HEARSAY. MAY WE HAVE THE
`SOURCE OF THIS INFORMATION?
`THE COURT: THIS WAS YESTERDAY'S TESTIMONY?
`MR. YIM: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR?
`THE COURT: IS THIS FROM YESTERDAY?
`MR. YIM: THIS IS NOT FROM YESTERDAY'S TESTIMONY.
`MS. GIBSON: I'M SORRY.
`THE COURT: SO WHAT'S THE PROFFER?
`MR. YIM: I WAS ABOUT TO ESTABLISH THE FOUNDATION WITH
`PROFESSOR PRINCE WHO THE AUTHOR OF THIS WAS.
`THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT.
`BY MR. YIM:
`Q
`DO YOU KNOW WHO GAVE THESE ANSWERS?
`A
`MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY ARE FROM A PROFESSOR JOHN
`HAUSER.
`Q
`WHO IS HE?
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24838 Page 10 of 142
`
` 581
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`HE'S A PROFESSOR AT MIT.
`A
`IS HE WELL-KNOWN IN THE FIELD OF SURVEYS AND VALUING
`Q
`CONSUMER DEMAND?
`A
`YES, VERY.
`Q
`HOW WELL KNOWN IS HE?
`A
`HE'S COMMONLY KNOWN AS ONE OF THE LEADERS IN THE FIELD.
`Q
`AND DOES HE SPECIALIZE IN ANY PARTICULAR TYPE OF SURVEYS?
`A
`HE DOES CHOICE-BASED CONJOINT.
`Q
`ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY COMPANIES WHO HAVE HIRED PROFESSOR
`HAUSER TO CHOICE-BASED CONJOINT SURVEYS?
`A
`I KNOW APPLE HAS HIRED HIM, YES.
`Q
`OKAY. AND DID HE DO A CHOICE-BASED CONJOINT SURVEY FOR
`APPLE?
`A
`MY UNDERSTANDING IS HE DID, YES.
`Q
`AND DID YOU REVIEW HIS WORK WHEN YOU WERE ANALYZING
`CONSUMER DEMAND EVIDENCE IN CONDUCTING AND DESIGNING YOUR
`SURVEY? YOU READ HIS WORK?
`A
`I DID, VERY CLOSELY.
`Q
`WHY DID YOU REVIEW HIS WORK?
`A
`BECAUSE, AS I SAID, HE'S A LEADER IN THE FIELD. SO I WANT
`TO MAKE SURE I'M STANDING AT THE FRONTIER AS TO WHAT'S THE BEST
`PRACTICES.
`Q
`IS IT IMPORTANT THAT YOUR WORK IS CONSISTENT WITH A LEADER
`IN THE FIELD LIKE APPLE'S EXPERT, PROFESSOR HAUSER?
`A
`YES.
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24839 Page 11 of 142
`
` 582
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`AND WHAT DID YOU FIND? HOW CONSISTENT IS YOUR WORK IN THIS
`Q
`CASE WITH APPLE'S EXPERT, PROFESSOR JOHN HAUSER?
`A
`IT'S QUITE CONSISTENT.
`Q
`WHAT IS THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN YOUR METHODOLOGY FOR YOUR
`CHOICE-BASED CONJOINT SURVEY AND PROFESSOR HAUSER'S?
`A
`THAT COULD BE A LONG LIST. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE KEY
`THINGS TO POINT OUT IS A LOT OF THE THINGS I EMPHASIZED
`YESTERDAY, THINKING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF FEATURES TO INCLUDE,
`THE NUMBER OF LEVELS FOR THE FEATURES, ANALYTICAL METHODS,
`THINKING ABOUT HOW TO ESTIMATE WILLINGNESS TO PAY, THOSE KINDS
`OF THINGS. THERE ARE A LOT OF SIMILARITIES, YES.
`Q
`SO PROFESSOR HAUSER'S WORK FOR APPLE, IS THAT CONSISTENT
`WITH YOURS, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO HOW CONSISTENT IT
`WOULD BE WITH MS. GIBSON'S QUESTIONING FROM YESTERDAY ABOUT
`ADDING UP ALL THE WILLINGNESS TO PAY AND COMPARING IT TO THE
`PRICE?
`A
`I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR HIS ANALYSIS
`EITHER.
`Q
`AND WE CAN SEE HERE THIS WAS HIS STATEMENT WHERE HE SAID IT
`WAS INAPPROPRIATE TO DO THAT TYPE OF SUMMATION?
`A
`THAT'S CORRECT.
`Q
`YOU AGREE WITH PROFESSOR HAUSER, DO YOU?
`A
`I DO.
`Q
`NOW I'D LIKE TO TURN BRIEFLY BACK TO MS. GIBSON'S
`SUMMATION. I TYPED THIS UP FROM THE TRANSCRIPT YESTERDAY
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24840 Page 12 of 142
`
` 583
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`BECAUSE THE EASEL WAS MISSING. BUT, PROFESSOR PRINCE, YOU
`TESTIFIED YESTERDAY ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO SHOW YOUR WORK
`AND TO UNDERSTAND THE ANALYSIS TO MAKE SURE IT'S ACCURATE,
`RIGHT?
`A
`YES.
`Q
`WE WANT TO BE ACCURATE?
`A
`YES.
`Q
`OKAY. SO YOUR FIRST THREE NUMBERS HERE, THESE COME FROM
`YOUR ANALYSIS IN THIS CASE, RIGHT? 2.3 HIGHER VOLTE AND CALL
`QUALITY, 6 PERCENT INCREASE IN LTE DOWNLOAD, 16 PERCENT
`INCREASE IN LTE UPLOAD. THESE ARE YOUR NUMBERS IN THIS CASE,
`CORRECT?
`A
`THAT'S CORRECT.
`Q
`AND THEN ALSO MS. GIBSON POINTED OUT APPLE OVER ZTE BRAND
`$234.15. DO YOU SEE THAT?
`A
`I DO.
`Q
`YOU STUDIED THE PRODUCTS IN THIS CASE. IT'S SMARTPHONES,
`RIGHT?
`A
`YES.
`Q
`AND WHY DID YOU SELECT THE BRANDS THAT YOU INCLUDED IN YOUR
`SURVEY?
`A
`AT THE TIME, THEY WERE THE FOUR TOP SELLING BRANDS IN THE
`UNITED STATES.
`Q
`AND YOU WERE HERE FOR MR. SKIPPEN'S TESTIMONY, CORRECT?
`A
`I WAS.
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24841 Page 13 of 142
`
` 584
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`AND WHAT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS TO THE BIGGEST COMPETITOR
`Q
`TO APPLE IS?
`A
`I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE SAMSUNG.
`Q
`AND WHAT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS TO HOW COMPETITIVE SAMSUNG
`SMARTPHONE PRODUCTS ARE WITH APPLE'S IPHONE PRODUCTS?
`A
`I BELIEVE THEY'RE CLOSE COMPETITORS, YES.
`Q
`OKAY. SO WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE BETTER COMPARISON HERE
`IS INSTEAD OF APPLE OVER ZTE, IT WOULD BE APPLE OVER SAMSUNG?
`A
`I THINK THAT COULD CERTAINLY BE MORE INFORMATIVE, YES.
`Q
`OKAY. WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT SHOWING YOUR WORK. I DO
`HAVE YOUR EXHIBITS HERE, AND I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF NUMBERS
`THERE, BUT WOULD YOU INDULGE THE JURY AND WALK US THROUGH HOW
`YOU CALCULATE THE APPLE OVER SAMSUNG BRAND?
`MS. GIBSON: YOUR HONOR, OUTSIDE THE SCOPE. THAT
`CALCULATION WAS NEVER DONE.
`THE COURT: OVERRULED.
`YOU CAN RESPOND.
`THE WITNESS: OKAY.
`BY MR. YIM:
`Q
`WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SHOW THE JURY HOW TO DO THAT
`CALCULATION HERE?
`A
`OF COURSE.
`Q
`MR. DIAZ, CAN WE PLEASE HAVE EXHIBIT X-589 AND PAGE 7.
`SO DO WE GO TO EXHIBIT 7A OF YOUR REPORT TO FIND THESE
`FIGURES?
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24842 Page 14 of 142
`
` 585
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`YES, THAT'S RIGHT.
`A
`OKAY. NOW SLOWLY WALK THROUGH. IT'S A LOT OF NUMBERS.
`Q
`WHERE DO WE LOOK FOR THE APPLE BRAND?
`A
`OKAY. SO I KNOW THIS IS AN UGLY GRAPH, BUT I'LL TRY TO
`WALK THROUGH IT HERE. SO RIGHT THERE IT THE BRAND APPLE AND
`THAT'S ONE OF THE ESTIMATES THAT COMES OUT OF THE MODEL. SO
`REMEMBER HOW ONE OF THE THING WE JUST SAW THE PRIOR SLIDE IS
`THAT 237-SOME DOLLAR FIGURE, AND THAT BRAND APPLE COEFFICIENT--
`THANK YOU -- THAT BRAND APPLE IS SIMPLY THE NUMBER THAT COMES
`OUT OF THE MODEL THAT I'LL ULTIMATELY USE THAT CAN GET YOU TO
`THAT FIGURE, AND IT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APPLE AND ZTE. SO
`THINK OF ALL THESE BRANDS -- COEFFICIENTS WE CALL THEM -- AS
`BEING RELATIVE TO ZTE.
`Q
`AND THEN, HOW DO WE FIND OUT WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THE APPLE
`BRAND OVER THE SAMSUNG BRAND FROM YOUR SURVEY RESULTS?
`A
`SO THERE WE NEED TO COMPARE THE COEFFICIENTS FOR APPLE AND
`SAMSUNG. SO THE PLACE WE HAVE BEEN FOCUSING IS THE PRICE
`SENSITIVE GROUP. SO IF YOU LOOK OVER HERE, THE TOP ONE I'VE
`INDICATED IS THE APPLE NUMBER, THE BOTTOM ONE IS THE SAMSUNG
`NUMBER. SO THE THING WE'RE INTERESTED IN IS THE DIFFERENCE
`BETWEEN THE TWO.
`Q
`OKAY. AND THEN WE'LL GET TO THE ARITHMETIC IN A SECOND,
`BUT ONCE YOU HAVE THE DIFFERENCE, WHAT DO YOU NEED TO DO? I
`DON'T SEE DOLLAR SIGNS HERE.
`A
`RIGHT. AS I SAID YESTERDAY, THIS IS A UTILITY MODEL. THE
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24843 Page 15 of 142
`
` 586
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WAY TO INTERPRET ALL THESE NUMBERS IS IN THIS ABSTRACT
`CONSTRUCT CALLED YOODLES (PHONETIC), SO HOW MUCH YOU LIKE IT.
`BUT THEN THE WAY YOU CONVERT IT TO MONEY IS TO ESSENTIALLY SAY
`WELL, HOW MUCH DO PEOPLE DISLIKE PAYING MONEY, RIGHT, RELATIVE
`TO HOW MUCH DO PEOPLE LIKE CERTAIN BRANDS. SO THEN IF YOU WANT
`TO VALUE THE BRAND, YOU ESSENTIALLY SCALE IT BY HOW MUCH PEOPLE
`DISLIKE PAYING MONEY, AND THAT'S HOW MUCH THEY'RE WILLING TO
`TRADE THE MONEY FOR THE BRAND. AND SO ESSENTIALLY, WHAT I
`WOULD DO IS TAKE THE DIFFERENCE --
`MS. GIBSON: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. THESE ARE BRAND
`NEW OPINIONS.
`MR. YIM: YOUR HONOR, MAY I RESPOND?
`THE COURT: I WOULD BE INCLINED TO SUSTAIN THE
`OBJECTION.
`YOU'RE JUST SHOWING THE WORK, RIGHT?
`MR. YIM: THIS IS A DIRECT RESPONSE TO MS. GIBSON'S
`CRITICISM OF THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY. SHE PRESENTED $234 AS
`AN APPROPRIATE POINT OF SUMMATION, AND I'M OFFERING A
`COUNTERPOINT TO THAT CROSS-EXAMINATION POINT.
`MS. GIBSON: FOR THE FIRST TIME, YOUR HONOR.
`THE COURT: I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.
`MR. YIM: OKAY.
`BY MR. YIM:
`Q
`NOW, PROFESSOR PRINCE, IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THE
`SUMMATION, THE PROPRIETY OF ADDING UP ALL THE WILLINGNESS TO
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24844 Page 16 of 142
`
` 587
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`PAY FIGURES. CAN YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF -- A COMMON EVERYDAY
`EXAMPLE OF WHY THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE?
`A
`SURE. I MEAN, THERE ARE MANY. YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO
`THINK ABOUT -- I OFTEN LIKE TO THINK ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF CARS,
`RIGHT? SO CARS ARE ALSO COMPLEX PRODUCTS. AND SO IF YOU -- IF
`YOU TAKE A CAR, RIGHT, IF YOU STARTED REMOVING IMPORTANT
`FEATURES OF THAT CAR, YOU'RE GOING TO START VALUING THAT CAR A
`LOT LESS; BUT THEN WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT HOW MUCH YOU'RE WILLING
`TO PAY FOR THAT CAR, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO THEN THINK ABOUT
`EVERYTHING YOU COULD HAVE REMOVED THAT WOULD ULTIMATELY WOULD
`NOT MAKE YOU INTERESTED IN THAT CAR ANYMORE AND THEN ADDING UP
`THE VALUE OF ALL THOSE THINGS TO SAY HOW MUCH YOU'RE WILLING TO
`PAY FOR THAT CAR.
`SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT SOME OF THE LEADING FEATURES OF THE
`CAR THAT MIGHT DRIVE YOUR INTEREST, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT
`THAT IF I STARTED TAKING AWAY IMPORTANT FEATURES LIKE THE
`ENGINE OR, YOU KNOW, THE CARBURETOR OR IMPORTANT THINGS THAT
`MAKE THE CAR WORK, ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE VERY
`INTERESTED IN THAT CAR.
`SO IT'S NOT A PROPER WAY TO THINK ABOUT HOW TO EVALUATE A
`PRODUCT BY SIMPLY MEASURING FOR A HANDFUL OF FEATURES. IF I
`REMOVE THEM, HOW MUCH DOES IT DEGRADE THE PRODUCT, AND THEN
`EXTRAPOLATE THAT INTO SAYING OKAY, WELL, THEN THAT'S THE WAY TO
`VALUE EVERY SINGLE FEATURE, AND THE PRODUCT IS SIMPLY THE SUM
`WITH ALL THOSE PARTS. IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT.
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24845 Page 17 of 142
`
` 588
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IF WE COULD MOVE BACK TO YOUR METHODOLOGY IN GENERAL. DO
`Q
`YOU REMEMBER A LOT OF EXAMINATION QUESTIONS ON CROSS CALLING
`INTO QUESTION YOUR METHODOLOGY?
`A
`YES.
`Q
`ARE THERE ANY BIG COMPANIES THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT
`ACTUALLY USE CHOICE-BASED CONJOINT SURVEYS TO HELP THEM MARKET
`PRODUCTS, TO PRICE PRODUCTS, TO INTRODUCE PRODUCTS?
`A
`YES. MANY COMPANIES DO THIS. SO RESEARCH NOW, THEY WORK
`WITH A HUGE CHUNK OF THE FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES TO RUN THESE
`SURVEY TO HELP THEM TO UNDERSTAND THEIR CUSTOMERS. SO IT'S A
`VERY COMMON PRACTICE. I BELIEVE THEY DO A COUPLE THOUSAND A
`MONTH, SO IT'S A BIG BUSINESS.
`Q
`AND WHAT'S THE MAGNITUDE OF THE DOLLARS OF THE PRODUCTS AND
`SERVICES THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THESE SURVEYS?
`A
`OH, IT'S IN BILLIONS FOR SURE.
`Q
`AND APPLE IS ONE OF THOSE COMPANIES, TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING,
`RIGHT?
`A
`IT IS.
`Q
`DO YOU REMEMBER ON CROSS-EXAMINATION MS. GIBSON SUGGESTED
`THAT THE SURVEY-TAKERS WEREN'T USING THEIR REAL MONEY TO MAKE
`REAL DECISIONS, SO SOMETHING MIGHT BE OFF. DO YOU RECALL THAT?
`A
`I DO.
`MR. YIM: CAN WE HAVE SLIDE 28, PLEASE.
`MS. GIBSON: YOUR HONOR, HEARSAY.
`THE COURT: I WOULD SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24846 Page 18 of 142
`
` 589
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`MR. YIM: OKAY.
`BY MR. YIM:
`Q
`ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH PROFESSOR HAUSER'S WRITINGS IN THE
`FIELD?
`A
`YES.
`Q
`OKAY. AND WHAT DOES PROFESSOR HAUSER STUDY IN TERMS OF
`HYPOTHETICAL BIAS?
`A
`I'M SORRY. CAN YOU CLARIFY?
`Q
`I'M SORRY. WHAT HAVE PROFESSOR HAUSER'S FINDINGS BEEN IN
`HYPOTHETICAL BIAS?
`MS. GIBSON: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. THIS IS ALL NEW
`TOO. THERE'S ONE FOOTNOTE. IT'S NOT THIS.
`THE COURT: TO THE EXTENT YOU WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT
`PROFESSOR HAUSER'S OPINIONS, THAT WOULD BE HEARSAY, AND I WOULD
`SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.
`MR. YIM: YES, YOUR HONOR.
`BY MR. YIM:
`Q
`SO, PROFESSOR PRINCE, CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THE RESEARCH
`THAT YOU'VE DONE, AND YOUR COLLEAGUES HAVE DONE, IN
`INVESTIGATING HYPOTHETICAL BIAS IN CHOICE-BASED CONJOINT
`SURVEYS?
`A
`SURE. SO THE RESEARCH THAT I'VE DONE, IT'S GENERALLY NOT A
`MAJOR ISSUE. SO IF YOU SEE, LIKE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WITH
`THE EXTERNAL VALIDATION, THERE WASN'T A LOT OF ADJUSTMENT
`NEEDED TO BE DONE. AND WHAT THAT INDICATED -- SO IF YOU RECALL
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24847 Page 19 of 142
`
` 590
`
`I TALKED ABOUT STORAGE AND SCREEN SIZE YESTERDAY AND SHOWED
`THAT THE NUMBERS THAT WERE COMING OFF FOR THOSE PARTICULAR
`FEATURES WEREN'T WILDLY OUT OF LINE WITH WHAT WE SEE PEOPLE
`ACTUALLY PAYING FOR THEM IN THE MARKET. THAT'S ONE WAY OF
`GETTING A SENSE OF DO PEOPLE ACTUALLY SEEM TO CARE ABOUT MONEY
`WHEN THEY DO THESE HYPOTHETICAL SURVEYS. AND IN OTHER WORK
`I'VE DONE, THAT'S OFTEN BEEN THE CASE. EVEN IN THE
`HYPOTHETICAL SETTING, PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO
`MEASURE OR EXPRESS TRADEOFFS THAT THEY HAVE FOR DIFFERENT
`PRODUCT FEATURES, PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO INTERNALIZE THE MONEY IN A
`WAY THAT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY DO IN THE MARKETPLACE.
`Q
`AND HAVE YOU SEEN THESE STUDIES THAT DO CHOICE-BASED
`CONJOINT SURVEYS FIRST AND THEN LOOK AT ACTUAL MARKETING
`BEHAVIOR TO SEE IF THEY MATCH UP?
`A
`YES, I HAVE.
`Q
`WHAT ARE THE RESULTS THAT YOU'VE SEEN?
`A
`THEY FOUND VERY SIMILAR FINDINGS.
`Q
`PROFESSOR PRINCE, DO YOU REMEMBER YESTERDAY THERE WAS A LOT
`OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT YOU DIDN'T TEST EVERY SINGLE IPHONE
`FEATURE. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
`A
`YES.
`
`MR. YIM: MR. DIAZ, CAN WE PLEASE HAVE SLIDE -- I'M
`SORRY PX-588. AND CAN WE GO TO PAGE 20, PLEASE. IF WE CAN
`ZOOM INTO THE ACTUAL QUESTION OF THE TOP HALF OF THE PAGE.
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24848 Page 20 of 142
`
` 591
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`BY MR. YIM:
`Q
`AND SO HERE WE SEE YOUR ACTUAL FEATURES THAT YOU TESTED,
`CORRECT, PROFESSOR PRINCE?
`A
`YES.
`Q
`DOES THIS MEAN THAT YOU WERE ASKING THE RESPONDENTS TO PICK
`PHONES THAT HAD ONLY THESE, I BELIEVE, NINE FEATURES AND NO
`OTHER FEATURES?
`A
`NO.
`Q
`CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? I DON'T SEE NINE FEATURES HERE.
`A
`RIGHT. SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE MADE CLEAR IN THE SURVEY IS
`THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY IDENTICAL OTHER THAN THESE FEATURES, SO
`THINK ABOUT -- AND THIS IS STANDARD IN THE PRACTICE WHEN WE SAY
`TRY TO CHOOSE AMONGST THESE SEVEN SMARTPHONES, HERE ARE THE
`FEATURES THAT ARE VARYING, BUT THEN IN YOUR MIND WHAT YOU
`SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT IS THEY'RE THE SAME OTHERWISE. SO,
`YES, THEY HAVE OTHER THINGS YOU WOULD TYPICALLY FIND IN A
`SMARTPHONE, BUT HOLD THOSE FIXED. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT HAS
`BEEN MADE CLEAR IN THE INSTRUCTIONS.
`Q
`AND IS THIS STANDARD IN THE INDUSTRY OF CONDUCTING
`MARKETING SURVEYS, CHOICE-BASED CONJOINT SURVEYS?
`A
`YES, IT IS.
`Q
`IS IT FEASIBLE TO ASK PEOPLE, HERE IS AN IPHONE THAT HAS
`500 FEATURES ON IT, I'M GOING BURY THEM, PLEASE PICK A PHONE?
`A
`NO, THAT'S NOT REALISTIC.
`Q
`WHY IS THAT NOT REALISTIC?
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24849 Page 21 of 142
`
` 592
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IT'S JUST COGNITIVE OVERLOAD IT WOULD JUST BE TOO MANY
`A
`THINGS TO KEEP TRACK OF FOR THE RESPONDENTS, SO YOU JUST DO NOT
`SEE THIS HAPPEN.
`Q
`AND HAS THIS BEEN AN AREA OF RESEARCH IN YOUR FIELD AS
`WELL?
`A
`YES.
`Q
`WHAT HAVE THOSE FINDINGS BEEN?
`A
`WITH REGARD TO WHAT, HOW MANY FEATURES?
`Q
`YES.
`A
`OH, SO I THINK WHEN YOU START GETTING ABOVE -- WHEN YOU
`START GETTING INTO DOUBLE DIGITS, IT JUST BECOMES DIFFICULT FOR
`PEOPLE TO KEEP TRACK OF EVERYTHING. SO I HAVE RUN A LOT OF
`FOCUS GROUPS. I HAVE A GOOD SENSE OF HOW MUCH PEOPLE FEEL
`COMFORTABLE PROCESSING, BOTH IN THE NUMBER OF FEATURES AND THE
`NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THEY CAN FIELD AND FEEL LIKE THEY'RE GIVING
`ACCURATE ANSWERS.
`Q
`AND YOU CONDUCTED FOCUS GROUPS IN THIS SURVEY, RIGHT?
`A
`YES, THAT'S RIGHT.
`Q
`CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT HOW THE RESPONDENTS FELT ABOUT THE
`NUMBER OF FEATURES? DID YOU GET ANY FEEDBACK ON THAT?
`A
`I GOT A LOT OF COMFORT WITH THEM. YOU KNOW, AS I THINK I
`MENTIONED YESTERDAY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME OUT THAT WAS
`INFORMATIVE IS THEY WANTED A FEW EXAMPLES IN THE DESCRIPTIONS,
`WHICH I ULTIMATELY DID PROVIDE IN THE ONLINE SURVEY. BUT IN
`TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF FEATURES THAT ARE VARYING, THE NUMBER OF
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24850 Page 22 of 142
`
` 593
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`QUESTIONS THAT I ASKED, THEY SEEMED VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT
`AMOUNT TO PROCESS.
`Q
`AND JUST TO REMIND THE JURY IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW
`IT, I BELIEVE THAT'S PX-590; IS THAT YOUR RECOLLECTION.
`A
`I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
`Q
`YOU INCLUDE THE ALL THE FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONNAIRES AND YOUR
`NOTES IN THERE?
`A
`YES, THAT'S RIGHT.
`Q
`DO HAVE YOU ANY RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER YOUR FOCUS
`GROUPS HAD DIFFICULTY HOLDING ALL THE OTHER FEATURES CONSTANT,
`THE ONES THAT WERE NOT EXPRESSLY LISTED IN YOUR CHOICES?
`A
`I THINK GENERALLY THAT THEY SEEMED TO BE FINE WITH THAT.
`IF I RECALL, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ONE OR TWO THAT HAD A LITTLE
`TROUBLE, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MOTIVATED THE REALLY
`STRONG EMPHASIS IN THE WAY THE ONLINE SURVEY WAS PRESENTED. SO
`IT WASN'T A HUGE ALARM IN THE FOCUS GROUPS BUEHRER, JUST TO BE
`EXTRA CAUTIOUS, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT IT UNDERLINED AND BOLDED
`THERE ON THE ONLINE SURVEY, JUST TO MAKE SURE IT WAS VERY
`CLEAR.
`Q
`SO THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE FOCUS GROUP, TO TWEAK YOUR
`SURVEY LANGUAGE BEFORE IT GOES INTO THE VENDOR?
`A
`THAT'S RIGHT.
`Q
`THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID HERE? YOU HEARD SOME CONCERNS
`ABOUT HOLDING THINGS CONSTANT?
`A
`THAT'S RIGHT.
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24851 Page 23 of 142
`
` 594
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`AND THEN YOU MADE THESE CHANGES?
`Q
`YES.
`A
`YOU TESTIFIED YESTERDAY THIS IS YOUR FOURTH TIME TESTIFYING
`Q
`AS A SURVEY EXPERT IN FEDERAL COURT; IS THAT RIGHT?
`A
`YES, THAT'S RIGHT.
`Q
`AND YOU KNOW THE PROCESS OF GETTING TO THIS POINT IN A
`TRIAL. YOU PREPARE A REPORT, AND IT HAS YOUR OPINIONS AND YOUR
`ANALYSIS IN THEM, AND IT'S SUBMITTED TO APPLE, THE OTHER SIDE,
`CORRECT?
`A
`YES.
`Q
`AND THE OTHER SIDE HERE, APPLE, HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT
`YOUR OPINIONS BY SERVING A REBUTTAL REPORT BY ANOTHER EXPERT,
`CORRECT?
`A
`THAT'S RIGHT.
`Q
`DID YOU GET A REBUTTAL EXPERT -- SURVEY EXPERT REPORT IN
`THIS CASE?
`A
`NO, I DID NOT.
`Q
`OKAY. SO YOU ARE THE ONLY QUALIFIED SURVEY EXPERT WHO IS
`DELIVERING ANY OPINION ON THE SPECIFIC VALUE OF THE SPECIFIC
`FEATURES IN THIS CASE; IS THAT CORRECT?
`A
`AS FAR AS I KNOW, THAT'S RIGHT.
`MR. YIM: I PASS THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR.
`RECROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`BY MS. GIBSON:
`Q
`GOOD MORNING, PROFESSOR PRINCE.
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24852 Page 24 of 142
`
` 595
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`GOOD MORNING.
`A
`HOW ARE YOU?
`Q
`GOOD. HOW ARE YOU?
`A
`GOOD. WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THIS THIS MORNING, SO I THOUGHT I
`Q
`WOULD PUT IT BACK UP. I'LL JUST GO TO THE BOARD TO BE CLEAR.
`MS. GIBSON: YOUR HONOR, MAY I?
`THE COURT: YES.
`MS. GIBSON: THANK YOU.
`BY MS. GIBSON:
`Q
`THE FIRST SEVEN FEATURES ON THIS BOARD, THESE VALUES WERE
`CONDUCTED WITH THE RESULTS OF YOUR SURVEY, CORRECT?
`A
`YES, THAT'S RIGHT.
`Q
`AND SOME OF THESE OTHERS, THESE TWO, THESE WERE YOUR
`SURVEYS TOO, JUST DIFFERENT SURVEYS, RIGHT?
`A
`THAT'S CORRECT.
`Q
`AND THIS IS ANOTHER SURVEY DONE BY SOMEONE YOU KNOW, BUT
`NOT YOU?
`A
`THAT'S CORRECT.
`Q
`AND ALL OF THESE INVOLVE FEATURES ON IPHONES?
`A
`YES.
`Q
`AND YOU STAND BY YOUR OPINION THAT THESE FIRST SEVEN -- AT
`LEAST THESE FIRST SEVEN FEATURES THAT THIS ACCURATELY VALUES
`CONSUMER WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR THOSE FEATURES, RIGHT?
`A
`THAT'S CORRECT.
`Q
`TO YOU, THAT MAKES COMMON SENSE?
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 515 Filed 09/24/18 PageID.24853 Page 25 of 142
`
` 596
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`I DON'T KNOW ABOUT COMMON SENSE, BUT I THINK THEY COME OUT
`A
`OF THE ANALYSIS THAT I DID, YES.
`Q
`NOW WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT DR. HAUSER WHO HAS DONE SOME
`CHOICE-BASED CONJOINT SURVEY FOR APPLE IN THE PAST, RIGHT?
`A
`YES.
`Q
`AND THERE WAS ONE THAT YOU STUDIED FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR
`REPORT; DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT?
`A
`YES.
`Q
`I THINK THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD YOU TO SAY JUST A FEW
`MINUTES AGO?
`A
`THAT'S RIGHT.
`Q
`NOW CHOICE-BASED CONJOINT, THAT'S JUST THE SURVEY METHOD,
`RIGHT?
`A
`YES.
`Q
`IN OTHER WORDS, IT DOESN'T DETERMINE THE INPUTS TO THE
`SURVEY?
`A
`THA
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
