`EXHIBIT 2173
`CBM2013-00020 (APPLE v. SIGHTSOUND)
`PAGE 000001
`
`In The Matter Of:
`
`APPLE INC.
`v.
` SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`TOM WEYER - Vol. 1
`March 31, 2014
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 000002
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` vs. No. CBM2013-00020
`
`SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, CBM2013-00023
`
` Patent Owner.
`______________________________/
`
` DEPOSITION OF TOM WEYER
`
` March 31, 2014
`
`Reported by:
`
`Natalie Y. Botelho
`
`CSR No. 9897 (SF-001621B)
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000003
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 2
`
` INDEX
`
` INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS
`
` Page
`
`EXAMINATION BY MS. LANSBERY..........................4
`
`EXAMINATION BY MR. BATCHELDER.......................58
`
` ---oOo---
`
` EXHIBITS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION
`
`No. Description Page
`
`Exhibit 1 A document dated January 15,.........13
` 1999, to Steven Jobs, from
` Scott C. Sander
`
`Exhibit 2 A document entitled..................13
` "SightSound.com," described
` as a blow-up of page 2 of
` Exhibit 1
`
`Exhibit 3 A document dated February 3,.........16
` 1999, to Mr. Scott C. Sander,
` from Albert P. Cefalo
`
`Exhibit 4 Declaration of Tom Weyer.............19
`
`Exhibit 5 Declaration of Scott C. Sander.......42
` in Support of Patent Owner
` SightSound Technologies, LLC's
` Response Petition
`
`Exhibit 6 United States Patent No..............51
` 5,191,573
`
`Exhibit 7 United States Patent No..............52
` 5,966,440
`
` ---oOo---
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000004
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 3
`
` BE IT REMEMBERED THAT, on Monday, March 31,
`
`2014, commencing at the hour of 1:50 o'clock p.m. of the
`
`said day, at the law offices of ROPES & GRAY LLP, Three
`
`Embarcadero Center, Third Floor, San Francisco,
`
`California, before me, NATALIE Y. BOTELHO, a Certified
`
`Shorthand Reporter for the State of California,
`
`personally appeared TOM WEYER, a witness in the
`
`above-entitled court and cause, who, being by me first
`
`duly sworn, was examined in said cause.
`
` APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
` ROPES & GRAY LLP
` BY: JAMES R. BATCHELDER, ESQ.
` 1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
` East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
` (650)617-4000
` james.batchelder@ropesgray.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
` ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
` BY: KRISTAN L. LANSBERY, Ph.D., Esq.
` 555 Twelfth Street, NW
` Washington, DC 20004-1206
` (202)942-5186
` kristan.lansbery@aporter.com
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000005
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 4
`
` MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2014, 1:50 P.M.
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`
` TOM WEYER,
`
` being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION BY MS. LANSBERY
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. You understand you're under
`
`oath just as you would be in a court of law?
`
`A. I do.
`
`Q. My role is to ask you questions. Your role is
`
`to answer them to the best you possibly can.
`
`A. Mm-hmm.
`
`Q. Please give audible answers, and we'll try not
`
`to speak over one another either.
`
`A. Okay.
`
`Q. If you have any questions about a question, if
`
`you don't understand something, please just ask.
`
`Otherwise I'll understand that you already heard -- you
`
`understood. Unless your attorney specifically instructs
`
`you not to answer a question, you'll answer to the best
`
`of your ability.
`
`A. Okay.
`
`Q. Is there any reason you can't give your best
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000006
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 5
`
`testimony today?
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. There's no drug or condition that might impair
`
`your ability to understand my questions or to answer
`
`them accurately?
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. And then we've agreed to a two-hour period for
`
`testimony, but either one of us can take breaks as long
`
`as there's no question pending.
`
`A. Okay.
`
`Q. Have you previously testified for Apple?
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. And who did you discuss this deposition with
`
`for preparation?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: I'll object on the ground of
`
`attorney-client privilege, only to say that you can
`
`answer that by naming people and talking about how much
`
`time you spent, but please don't disclose the substance
`
`of any communications.
`
` THE WITNESS: Right. We spoke. I spoke just
`
`with the gentleman beside me.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Okay. And when did you
`
`speak with him?
`
`A. On Friday, three days ago.
`
`Q. And that was the only time you spoke with him
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000007
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 6
`
`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
`
`about the deposition?
`
`A. That was the only time I spoke with him about
`
`the deposition.
`
`Q. Okay. And how long did you speak with him?
`
`A. I don't recall exactly. About an hour and a
`
`half or so.
`
`Q. Okay. And did you take any notes during that
`
`meeting?
`
`A. I did not.
`
`Q. Did you do anything else to prepare for this
`
`deposition?
`
`A. Not that I'm aware of.
`
`Q. Okay. Are you currently employed?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Can you give me your title and the company?
`
`A. Senior -- well, global product manager for
`
`Equinox.
`
`Q. And when were you employed by Apple?
`
`A. 1996 through 2009, I believe.
`
`Q. Okay. And how did you get your job with
`
`Apple?
`
`A. I don't understand. I mean --
`
`Q. How did you first become to be employed at
`
`Apple?
`
`A. I interviewed for a position in evangelism,
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000008
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 7
`
`which is where I worked at Apple.
`
`Q. How long were you an evangelist?
`
`A. From '96 through maybe 2004, about two-thirds
`
`of the time that I was at Apple.
`
`Q. Okay. And did you have a subspecialty as an
`
`evangelist?
`
`A. I was focused -- well, I had a number of roles
`
`while I was at Apple even within evangelism. There were
`
`a number of reorgs at the time. I covered networking
`
`predominantly, and later on I worked on server products.
`
`Q. Can you give me more details about networking?
`
`What was involved?
`
`A. I was -- the original job title was open
`
`transport evangelist when I first started, because that
`
`was the API set that we had at the time. Then I was the
`
`networking communications evangelist. Then I was the
`
`networking communications technology manager, which is
`
`another word for evangelist. So the titles changed, but
`
`by and large, my responsibility was to try and help
`
`developers to understand the networking API's that were
`
`within the operating system and to help them to try and
`
`be successful in the marketplace by shaping their
`
`products to meet the expectations of our customers.
`
`Q. Did you view yourself as helping Apple to work
`
`with the third parties? I'm not sure I understood your
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000009
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 8
`
`answer.
`
`A. Yes. That's what developer relations did.
`
`Q. So would you actively solicit from the third
`
`parties requests that they would have?
`
`A. More often than not, they found us, but we did
`
`do outreach at events like at Macworld. We walk the
`
`floor, you see who's got something that's interesting,
`
`you talk to them a little bit about it, offer them
`
`whatever advice you could. But more often than not
`
`people came to us expressing, you know, interest. It's
`
`like, "Hey, isn't this a good product?" You know, they
`
`predominantly came to us, but we did both. We also had
`
`a number of accounts that we managed. But again, I
`
`don't know how much of that's particularly relevant
`
`here.
`
`Q. Well, maybe you could say something about how
`
`folks would come to you, how the third parties would
`
`come to you. When you say "us," do you mean you
`
`specifically --
`
`A. Developer relations, evangelism. We were
`
`all -- there were two groups of evangelists during most
`
`of the time. There were folks who were focused on
`
`relationships and folks who were focused on
`
`technologies. I was focused on the technology side,
`
`which is why I described it the way that I described it.
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000010
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 9
`
`And there were other folks who managed accounts. Like
`
`there was an evangelist who was focused on Microsoft.
`
`There was an evangelist who was focused on like Netscape
`
`at the time, you know, the traditional business stuff.
`
`And those two roles or those two groups made up half of
`
`developer relations at that time. The other half was a
`
`bunch of engineers who were -- who would answer
`
`developer technical questions. DTS, developer technical
`
`support.
`
`Q. And in the technologies group that you were
`
`in, who would tell you what third parties to meet with?
`
`A. We would have -- it depends. There's a number
`
`of different ways things came in. Like I say, you walk
`
`around the floor, you see things. We would get meeting
`
`requests from folks, which is probably what's germane in
`
`this case. Somebody might say, "Hey, take a look at
`
`this technology. Is this something that looks
`
`interesting? Is this something that makes sense?" And
`
`that is the other way that we typically ended up with
`
`meetings.
`
` The other thing is, you know, you stay abreast
`
`of your field, obviously, whatever that field is. So in
`
`the networking space, you know, you would look at people
`
`who had networking devices or networking software, so
`
`forth.
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000011
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 10
`
`Q. Could you possibly have met with all the
`
`people that were interested in meeting with you?
`
`A. Probably not.
`
`Q. How would you decide between all of those
`
`third parties that were interested in meeting with you?
`
`A. Well, some of it is based on, you know, what
`
`is the most likely return here. Is this something that
`
`looks like it has promise? Is this something that
`
`somebody asked you to do? Is that person your manager?
`
`There are a variety of ways that you would weight
`
`things, obviously.
`
`Q. Would it depend on how the inquiry came in to
`
`Apple?
`
`A. Yeah, anything that came from like Steve Jobs
`
`gets done. Doesn't matter who asks. Doesn't matter
`
`what it is.
`
`Q. Okay.
`
`A. So, I mean, that's the classic example. It
`
`always depends on who asks you to do something.
`
`Q. Sure, sure. Who was your manager at the time?
`
`A. During which time?
`
`Q. The 1990 time frame. 1999.
`
`A. I don't know. I can say it's one of probably
`
`two people. Again, during that period of time, there
`
`were a lot of changes within Apple, a lot of reorgs. So
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000012
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 11
`
`it was probably either Guillermo Ortiz, David
`
`Harrington, or -- I guess three people -- or I guess Tim
`
`Holmes was one of those three people.
`
`Q. Did the different evangelists meet regularly
`
`to discuss different inquiries that had come into Apple?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection; vague.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. You can answer the
`
`question.
`
`A. I mean, I don't know -- we probably had staff
`
`meetings like anyone had staff meetings, but I don't
`
`remember, you know, the specifics of that.
`
`Q. Okay. You don't remember who would have
`
`attended those meetings?
`
`A. I mean, again, it depends on what period of
`
`time, and I don't even remember who the manager actually
`
`was at that time, so I don't remember all the people who
`
`were in the group at that time.
`
`Q. Do you remember how many third-party requests
`
`would have been -- you would have been asked to attend
`
`by Steve Jobs?
`
`A. I don't have a clue.
`
`Q. Would it have been more than a dozen?
`
`A. No. I don't -- I don't -- I could only recall
`
`maybe one, and I don't even know what it was. One
`
`particular e-mail that came in through like a thread
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000013
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 12
`
`that listed Steve on it, and I don't even know what it
`
`was on. And it wasn't to go to a meeting. It was
`
`something else. We used to jokingly call it a command
`
`performance. So, you know, I don't know what it was,
`
`but it was something, you know, you got done then. But
`
`it wasn't a developer meeting. I don't know what it
`
`was, though.
`
`Q. What would happen within Apple before meeting
`
`with a third party? Were there any processes that --
`
`A. No. And again, we took lots of different
`
`types of meetings, so it's not like there was one
`
`standard formula for doing things. You know, a meeting
`
`with somebody could be just a phone call with a
`
`developer. It could be they came in to Cupertino and
`
`showed us mock-ups of an application or hardware. So
`
`it's not like there was kind of one answer or one size
`
`fits all for any of that.
`
`Q. Okay. Have you heard of a company called
`
`SightSound?
`
`A. Not until this came up.
`
`Q. Okay. And when would that have been that you
`
`might have heard about it recently?
`
`A. Just as this was brought to my attention, that
`
`I was being asked about documentation related to it.
`
`Q. So within the last month?
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000014
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 13
`
`A. No. It was whenever this -- it came up -- I'd
`
`have to, like, pull up my laptop to find an e-mail. It
`
`was longer ago than that, and went away for quite a
`
`while. I produced some information, went away for a
`
`while, and then came up again maybe about a month or so
`
`again.
`
`Q. Okay. Have you heard of Scott Sander?
`
`A. I don't know who that is.
`
`Q. Okay. Have you heard of Art Hair?
`
`A. I don't know who that is.
`
`Q. Okay.
`
` (Whereupon Exhibit 1 was marked for
`
` identification.)
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. So I'd like to mark
`
`Exhibit 1, which is a letter dated January 15, 1999,
`
`from Steve Jobs -- I'm sorry -- to Steve Jobs. Could
`
`you take a minute just to look at the letter? The
`
`second page is hard to read, and I'll give you a blow-up
`
`of that. Exhibit 2.
`
` (Whereupon Exhibit 2 was marked for
`
` identification.)
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. So Exhibit 2 is a blow-up
`
`of the second page of the letter from January 15, 1999.
`
`I don't need you to look at it, the second page.
`
`A. Yeah, you need me to look at this, the second
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000015
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 14
`
`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
`
`page?
`
`Q. You've got it for your reference, but --
`
`A. Oh, that's this?
`
`Q. Right.
`
`A. Oh.
`
`Q. Just if that generally refreshed your
`
`recollection or would be helpful.
`
`A. I don't recall --
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Let her ask you a question.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Okay. Have you ever seen
`
`this letter?
`
`A. I don't recall having seen either the letter
`
`or the diagram. But the letter's not addressed to me,
`
`so that's not surprising.
`
`Q. Right. Who is it addressed to?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection; the document
`
`speaks for itself.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. He's not supposed to be
`
`making speaking objections, so if you would just answer
`
`the questions to the best of your --
`
`A. Well, the name on the document says that it
`
`was delivered via FedEx to Steve Jobs. That's what it
`
`says.
`
`Q. Mm-hmm. And it says that it was in care of
`
`Andrea Nordemann. Do you know who she was?
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000016
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 15
`
`A. I don't have a clue.
`
`Q. Okay. Would you have any idea whether Steve
`
`Jobs would have reviewed the letter?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection; calls for
`
`speculation.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't have any idea.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Would you have any reason
`
`to think that Steve Jobs wouldn't have read this letter?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Same objection.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't have any thought one way
`
`or another. I don't know.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Okay. Are you aware of any
`
`discussions that would have involved Steve Jobs about
`
`SightSound?
`
`A. I'm not aware of any discussions regarding
`
`SightSound.
`
`Q. Okay. You've looked at the letter, correct?
`
`Page 1?
`
`A. I read page 1, yes.
`
`Q. Do you have any understanding as to what the
`
`letter was proposing?
`
`A. I don't know what --
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection to form.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. You can answer the
`
`question.
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000017
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 16
`
`A. I don't know what it's proposing.
`
`Q. It states that, "We have identified specific
`
`functionality we believe would be beneficial to have
`
`added to the Mac operating system," correct?
`
`A. "We've identified specific functionality we
`
`believe would be beneficial to be added to Mac OS," yes.
`
`Q. Would you understand that to be referring to
`
`digital rights management?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection; form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't know what you mean by
`
`"digital rights management." What I read there just
`
`says there's some functionality. It doesn't specify
`
`what it is.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Okay.
`
` (Whereupon Exhibit 3 was marked for
`
` identification.)
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. So I'm handing you
`
`Exhibit 3. It's a letter dated February 3, 1999. It's
`
`a non-confidentiality agreement.
`
`A. Okay.
`
`Q. Have you seen this document before?
`
`A. I have not seen this document before.
`
`Q. Have you seen similar documents about
`
`non-confidentiality agreements?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection to form.
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000018
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 17
`
` THE WITNESS: What do you mean?
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. The letter is an agreement
`
`between Scott Sander and Apple that the meeting will not
`
`give any confidential basis and will not require an
`
`obligation based on the meeting.
`
`A. Okay.
`
`Q. Is that something that was typical to send
`
`before you met with a third party?
`
`A. There was a real NDA form. I don't know that
`
`this looks like it. It's been so long since I've seen
`
`it. There were three forms of an NDA. This may be one.
`
`I don't know. I thought they were longer.
`
`Q. This is saying that the conversation will not
`
`be confidential.
`
`A. Ah.
`
`Q. Is that unusual?
`
`A. No. I mean, there are lots of meetings that
`
`don't require NDA's. As I said, there -- I remember
`
`there were three different versions of NDA's. One is
`
`Apple discloses, one is third party discloses, one is
`
`both. This is basically -- based on what you just told
`
`me, this is a letter saying that there is no NDA. Okay.
`
`Q. And what percentage of the third-party
`
`meetings would you --
`
`A. I couldn't tell you --
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000019
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 18
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Let her finish her question.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. What percentage of meetings
`
`of third parties would be confidential in some way
`
`versus the non-confidential?
`
`A. I don't know the ratio of those.
`
`Q. Would it have been 50/50?
`
`A. I don't know the ratio of those. And like I
`
`said, there were three different versions of that beyond
`
`that. Depends on how you slice it.
`
`Q. Who would decide what version would go out?
`
`A. Usually if, you know, a developer is telling
`
`you something they want under nondisclosure, they tell
`
`you that up front, and they will either try and get you
`
`to sign their NDA or -- which we wouldn't do, or you
`
`would have a discussion with them and then we would try
`
`and use the Apple NDA, and that got handled by some
`
`other group.
`
`Q. And who would let -- would you send out the
`
`letter or be aware of what the conditions of the meeting
`
`were?
`
`A. I would not send out the letter. That stuff
`
`was all handled by others. There were, like I said,
`
`three template forms. It was done in nFormed, which
`
`probably doesn't exist any longer. There were three
`
`separate forms, and all I ever filled in was the name of
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000020
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 19
`
`the person and then the type of meeting, and then they
`
`were recorded within Apple.
`
`Q. And who decided which agreement you would have
`
`with that third party for the meeting?
`
`A. Again, if the developer requested that the
`
`meeting be under NDA, then they're the one who initiated
`
`it. It was very, very rare that Apple actually
`
`disclosed something under NDA to a developer. And the
`
`developer signed an NDA as a part of being a part of
`
`Apple's developer program anyways. So a lot of times we
`
`would just remind them of the fact that they had signed
`
`an NDA and nothing was drafted.
`
`Q. So this is -- this Exhibit 3 --
`
`A. I don't recall ever seeing a non-NDA NDA.
`
`Q. Okay.
`
`A. Which is what I guess I would call this
`
`document, which says there is no NDA, which is why I
`
`don't remember having seen one.
`
` (Whereupon Exhibit 4 was marked for
`
` identification.)
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. So this is Exhibit 4. It's
`
`your declaration. You signed it just a few weeks ago, I
`
`believe.
`
`A. Yeah, about a week and a half.
`
`Q. I specifically wanted to just ask some
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000021
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 20
`
`follow-up questions about paragraphs 7 and 8. If you
`
`want to look over those, you can.
`
`A. Sure.
`
` (Pause.)
`
` THE WITNESS: Okay.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Can you tell me, other than
`
`what it says in the declaration, who Mark Gavini was
`
`with relation to you in Apple?
`
`A. He was a colleague of mine in developer
`
`relations, another evangelist, focused on the audio
`
`space.
`
`Q. I believe you said you were a networking
`
`evangelist.
`
`A. Correct.
`
`Q. How did those two relate to each other?
`
`A. How does networking and audio relate?
`
`Q. Mm-hmm.
`
`A. As technologies? I don't understand what
`
`you're asking.
`
`Q. To the extent that your job was relating with
`
`third parties --
`
`A. Right.
`
`Q. -- how would networking -- meeting with third
`
`parties in networking relate to meeting with third
`
`parties in -- I'm sorry -- music? Was audio --
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000022
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 21
`
`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
`
`A. I said "audio technologies," yeah. So --
`
`Q. Would you -- just let me ask the question.
`
`Would you talk about the same third parties? Would you
`
`each be interested separately in the same third party
`
`ever?
`
`A. There -- I'll try and answer generally, and
`
`then maybe this will make more sense. So there's
`
`occasions where a developer may be of interest, because
`
`we're focused on verticals, where those verticals
`
`overlap.
`
`Q. What do you mean by "verticals"?
`
`A. Audio's a vertical, networking is a vertical.
`
`So there are developers. Like, for example, I'll use a
`
`different case. So there was an evangelist within
`
`developer relations who owned Microsoft as a
`
`relationship management. That developer has products
`
`that affect various technology managers. They had
`
`things that did networking, they had things that did,
`
`you know, various other things that other evangelists
`
`worked on. So other evangelists also dealt with them.
`
`So it's very rare that there's any developer that is so
`
`one-dimensional that only one developer would talk with
`
`them.
`
`Q. Can you give some examples of where your
`
`vertical and Mark's vertical would have overlapped, of
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000023
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 22
`
`technologies?
`
`A. I don't remember a lot of what he was doing
`
`other than, obviously, this case. I don't recall a lot
`
`of times where he asked me about something that related
`
`to audio, because I don't know a whole lot about audio.
`
`Certainly not at the time. And, yeah, I can't think of
`
`anything, but I'm sure there were cases. Just like with
`
`every other vendor or every other developer, there are
`
`cases where each of us interacted.
`
`Q. Okay. What percentage of your time as a
`
`network evangelist had to do with audio?
`
`A. I don't know. Fourteen years later, I
`
`couldn't begin to guess what percentage was any one
`
`thing versus anything else at that time.
`
`Q. Was it common or uncommon?
`
`A. I just don't know. I -- it's so long ago, I
`
`just don't remember because the question would be --
`
`it's like, well, what was more common? I don't know.
`
`What was common? I don't know.
`
`Q. So let me just try and ask one other way.
`
`Would it have been uncommon for you as a network
`
`evangelist to deal with an audio-related third party?
`
`A. I don't believe it was uncommon because,
`
`again, like I said, people intersect -- people intersect
`
`networking all the time, so I don't have a feeling for
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000024
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 23
`
`how common or uncommon it would be.
`
`Q. Okay. Was there -- were you aware of any
`
`project in Apple related to streaming audio?
`
`A. I wasn't aware of any product related to
`
`streaming audio.
`
`Q. Were you aware of any product of selling music
`
`over the Internet?
`
`A. Well, one correction. I believe there was a
`
`product called the QuickTime streaming server at one
`
`point, but I didn't control or wasn't responsible for
`
`QuickTime, so the only thing I knew about it is what I
`
`read online.
`
`Q. Okay.
`
`A. I wasn't responsible for those API's, so I
`
`didn't know much more than they just existed.
`
`Q. Okay. So looking at your declaration,
`
`paragraph 7, it says you were asked by Mark Gavini to
`
`attend this meeting.
`
`A. Mm-hmm.
`
`Q. How would he have asked you?
`
`A. I don't know. I would assume he either did it
`
`verbally or by e-mail.
`
`Q. Okay. Would he have given you any materials
`
`for that meeting?
`
`A. I don't know. I don't recall any materials.
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000025
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 24
`
`I don't recall having seen anything.
`
`Q. Okay. Do you recall if he mentioned a letter?
`
`A. I don't recall any letter or discussion of it.
`
`And I don't even recall -- insert one thing -- whether
`
`or not I knew in advance we were going to a meeting
`
`after the conference. I knew I was going down there for
`
`a conference, I knew it was in L.A., and that's about
`
`all I remember.
`
`Q. Was it unusual that Mark Gavini would have
`
`been going to a music conference?
`
`A. Not as the audio person.
`
`Q. And how did this conference reflect on
`
`networking?
`
`A. I don't know what you mean. I went because I
`
`was asked to go.
`
`Q. And why do you think you were asked to go?
`
`Why would this meeting have pertained to your job?
`
`A. I was asked to look at -- as it says in the
`
`document, look at the technology from a networking
`
`perspective and see if there was anything there that was
`
`interesting.
`
`Q. Maybe you can give me more about "networking
`
`perspective." What would -- what would have fallen into
`
`that terminology?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection; form.
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000026
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 25
`
` THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what you mean.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. I'm not that familiar with
`
`what you mean by "networking."
`
`A. By my title or by the term --
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Just let her ask the
`
`question.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. As networking evangelist,
`
`why would you have gone to this meeting?
`
`A. Again, I went because I was asked to go.
`
`Q. Why do you think you were asked to go?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I still don't know why. You're
`
`asking me why I was asked to go, was because I was asked
`
`to go. It seems circular. I don't understand.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Okay. I just don't quite
`
`understand how --
`
`A. I didn't read Mark's mind to know why he asked
`
`me to go, but the reason why -- and I can speak to why I
`
`went. The reason why I went was because I was asked to
`
`go.
`
`Q. As the Apple network evangelist, was there
`
`anything at the meeting that was interesting to you?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection; vague as to what
`
`meeting.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Talking about the SDMI
`
`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
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000027
`
`TOM WEYER - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 26
`
`conference.
`
`A. There -- in terms of in