SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`EXHIBIT 2373
`CBM2013-00023 (APPLE v. SIGHTSOUND)
`PAGE 000001
`
`In The Matter Of:
`
`APPLE INC.
`v.
` SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - Vol. 1
`March 31, 2014
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2373
`CBM2013-00023 (APPLE v. SIGHTSOUND)
`PAGE 000001
`
`In The Matter Of:
`
`APPLE INC.
`v.
` SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - Vol. 1
`March 31, 2014
`
` ___________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 000002
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 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 MARCO MAZZONI
`
` March 31, 2014
`
`Reported by:
`Natalie Y. Botelho
`CSR No. 9897 (SF-001621A)
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000003
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 2
`
` INDEX
`
` INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS
`
` Page
`
`EXAMINATION BY MS. LANSBERY..........................4
`
`EXAMINATION BY MR. BATCHELDER.......................30
`
` ---oOo---
`
` EXHIBITS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION
`
`No. Description Page
`
`Exhibit 1 Declaration of Marco Mazzoni.........15
` in Case CBM2013-00020
`
`Exhibit 2 Declaration of Marco Mazzoni.........15
` in Case CBM2013-00023
`
`Exhibit 3 A document dated January 15,.........15
` 1999, to Steven Jobs, from
` Scott C. Sander
`
`Exhibit 4 A document entitled..................15
` "Sightsound.com," described as
` a blow-up of page 2 of Exhibit 3
`
`Exhibit 5 A document dated February 3,.........20
` 1999, to Mr. Scott C. Sander,
` from Albert P. Cefalo
`
`Exhibit 6 Declaration of Scott Sander..........21
` in Support of Patent Owner
` Sightsound Technologies, LLC's
` Response Petition
`
` ---oOo---
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000004
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 3
`
` BE IT REMEMBERED THAT, on Monday, March 31,
`
`2014, commencing at the hour of 10:01 o'clock a.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 MARCO MAZZONI, 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
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 4
`
` MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2014, 10:01 A.M.
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`
` MARCO MAZZONI,
`
` being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION BY MS. LANSBERY
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. So you understand you're
`
`under oath, just like if it was a court of law?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And that my role today is to ask you
`
`questions, and your role is to answer them the best you
`
`can?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And we'll try not to speak over one another so
`
`that the court reporter can get an accurate transcript.
`
`A. Okay.
`
`Q. Great. If you don't understand something I've
`
`asked, please ask me to rephrase or clarify. Otherwise,
`
`I'll understand that you understood the question.
`
`A. I will do that.
`
`Q. Great. Your attorney is likely to have
`
`objections. Unless your attorney specifically instructs
`
`you not to answer, your role will still be to answer the
`
`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
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 5
`
`question.
`
`A. Understood.
`
`Q. Is there any reason you can't give your best
`
`testimony today?
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. Okay. We can take breaks, but not during when
`
`a question is pending. And we've agreed to a two-hour
`
`time period for -- that's for the testimony time. So
`
`the breaks won't be included in that two-hour time
`
`frame.
`
`A. Okay.
`
`Q. Have you ever provided testimony before for
`
`Apple?
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. Have you ever been known by any other names?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. What are those names?
`
`A. My legal birth name was Mark Lawrence Gavini,
`
`and that's the name that I had while I was employed with
`
`Apple Computer. 2005 I legally changed my name to Marco
`
`Lorenzo Mazzoni, which is the name I go by now.
`
`Q. Great. Can you say why you made the change?
`
`A. It's personal family reasons.
`
`Q. Okay. Did you discuss the deposition with
`
`anyone to prepare for today?
`
`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
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 6
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: If I could, I just want to
`
`object on the ground of attorney-client privilege. You
`
`can certainly answer that question "yes" or "no," but
`
`you shouldn't divulge the substance of any of your
`
`communications with me.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. So if you can tell me who,
`
`for example, that's -- just a list of who you met with,
`
`if you met with anyone.
`
`A. I met with Jim.
`
`Q. Okay. And that's Jim Batchelder?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Batchelder.
`
` THE WITNESS: (Nods head.)
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Thank you. So then you
`
`didn't talk with anyone at Apple that you previously
`
`worked with, or is currently --
`
`A. No.
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: If I could, just make sure
`
`she's done with her question before you begin.
`
` THE WITNESS: Understood.
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: It just helps the court
`
`reporter.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. How many times did you meet
`
`with Jim?
`
`A. Once.
`
`Q. And how long did you meet 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 000008
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 7
`
`A. Approximately an hour.
`
`Q. Did you take any notes during that meeting?
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. Did you discuss any depositions that have
`
`already occurred with regard to the 5,191,573 patent or
`
`the 5,966,440 patent?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection on the ground of
`
`attorney-client privilege. The substance of our
`
`communications are privileged, so I instruct you not to
`
`answer that question.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: I think I can just get a
`
`subject line of -- a "yes" or a "no." I don't need the
`
`content.
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: I disagree. You're asking
`
`him about content, so I object on that ground.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Can I refer to the '573
`
`patent and '440 patents in the future, and we'll know
`
`those are the two that I'm referring to?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: I don't --
`
` MS. LANSBERY: That was a question for Marco.
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Okay. I'll just object on
`
`the ground of ambiguity. The witness doesn't have those
`
`two patents, and I don't have any reason to think he's
`
`familiar with them.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Okay. We'll let him answer.
`
`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
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 8
`
`Q. Do you -- can I refer to the 5,191,573 patent
`
`as the '573 patent, and you understand what that means?
`
`A. I --
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Same objection.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. You can still answer.
`
`A. I do not know the specifics of the patents you
`
`are referencing.
`
`Q. Okay. What else did you do to prepare for the
`
`deposition?
`
`A. Nothing.
`
`Q. Okay. Are you currently employed?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Who with?
`
`A. I am self-employed.
`
`Q. What's your title, the name of the company?
`
`A. The company name is Northwest Home Comfort. I
`
`am the building analyst/owner.
`
`Q. Okay. And when were you employed by Apple?
`
`A. As an Apple badged employee, from April of
`
`1992 until July of 2000.
`
`Q. Okay. And how did you get your job with
`
`Apple?
`
`A. I was a contractor at Apple answering
`
`telephone calls for their support hotline and applied
`
`for a permanent employee position.
`
`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
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 9
`
`Q. And what was your title in 1992, when you
`
`started?
`
`A. Support analyst, I believe.
`
`Q. Okay. And do you remember the titles that --
`
`did your title change before you left in 2000?
`
`A. Yes, several times.
`
`Q. Can you give me some of the -- a list of those
`
`titles, to the best of your ability?
`
`A. Support analyst, customer requirements
`
`specialist, marketing specialist, evangelist, product
`
`marketing manager.
`
`Q. And in 1999, what was your title?
`
`A. Evangelist.
`
`Q. Okay. What type of -- what were your
`
`responsibilities at that time, in 1999?
`
`A. In 1999, I was responsible for music and audio
`
`technologies, hardware and software.
`
`Q. Can you give any further description about
`
`what would have been covered in that; more specifics?
`
`A. My job as an evangelist was to develop
`
`relationships with third-party hardware and software
`
`vendors in the music and audio technology space.
`
`Q. Was music security a concern for you at that
`
`time?
`
`A. No.
`
`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
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 10
`
`Q. What type of companies were the -- you said,
`
`"hardware and software vendors." Can you give examples
`
`of some of those companies?
`
`A. Yes. Opcode, Digidesign, Steinberg, Emagic
`
`are the -- some of the large names at the time.
`
`Q. And what type of vendor were they, other than
`
`software and -- can you give some more description of
`
`that?
`
`A. Opcode was a hardware and software vendor that
`
`developed music authoring and recording software aimed
`
`at musicians. It's a technical tool that a musician
`
`would need to write and record music compositions.
`
`Digidesign was a hardware and software vendor that
`
`developed digital signal processing hardware that would
`
`be installed into a computer and the software that would
`
`manage the digital signal processing hardware for
`
`recording audio information, either music or spoken word
`
`or anything along those lines.
`
`Q. Okay. Did you then not meet with any third
`
`parties regarding music security?
`
`A. I met with a lot of developers over my tenure
`
`as an evangelist, and it is possible that I did meet
`
`with people involving music security, but it was not a
`
`focus of mine at the time, so my memory is scarce.
`
`Q. Were there team meetings during that time
`
`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
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 11
`
`period when you were an evangelist?
`
`A. Please describe "team meetings."
`
`Q. Sure. Would there be a team meeting with
`
`other evangelists? Were there -- well, I'll let you
`
`answer that.
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection; vague.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. I can try and rephrase.
`
`Did you get together with colleagues to discuss what was
`
`going on in your position at Apple?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection; vague.
`
` THE WITNESS: Are you referring to meetings
`
`internally or meetings --
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Meetings internally would
`
`be fine.
`
`A. No, not really. I was the only person focused
`
`on music and audio technologies in my department.
`
`Q. Did you get together with colleagues outside
`
`of the office, not regularly scheduled?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection; vague.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. To discuss third parties
`
`and what was going on in the industry at the time.
`
`A. I would say that there were conversations with
`
`like-minded people in the industry on an informal basis
`
`to discuss trends in the industry, yes.
`
`Q. Was music security a hot topic?
`
`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
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 12
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. How many, approximate, third parties did you
`
`meet with during your time as an evangelist?
`
`A. I do not have an exact number, but vaguely I
`
`would say somewhere between 50 and 100 different
`
`developers.
`
`Q. And that -- what was -- was that your primary
`
`role as an evangelist?
`
`A. My primary role was to be an advocate for
`
`Apple technologies to the third-party developers to
`
`promote Apple technologies that might be of use to the
`
`developers, at the same time acting as a champion for
`
`third-party developer issues within the company.
`
`Q. Okay. When you were acting as a champion for
`
`the third-party developer issues within the company, how
`
`would that play out within Apple?
`
`A. If there was a significant technology that I
`
`considered to be substantial and relevant to the
`
`company's interests, there would be advocacy on my part
`
`within the company to other individuals, you know,
`
`starting probably with my manager and with other
`
`individuals at the company. There would be meetings set
`
`up between the third-party developer and other
`
`interested or relevant parties within Apple to discuss
`
`specifics of the technology at hand.
`
`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
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 13
`
`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
`
`Q. Would those meetings ever include Steve Jobs?
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. What would happen within Apple before meeting
`
`with a particular third party?
`
`A. Could you be more specific, please?
`
`Q. Sure, I can rephrase. How did a decision get
`
`made about what third parties to meet with?
`
`A. That was mostly my own initiative in my
`
`analysis of whether the developer or the technology at
`
`hand -- how relevant it was to the platform and the
`
`company's business.
`
`Q. Did you get inquiries from third parties
`
`directly?
`
`A. What kind of inquiries?
`
`Q. Any kind. A letter, an e-mail, a phone call.
`
`A. I would get inquiries from third-party
`
`developers to meet frequently.
`
`Q. Was that how -- was that the primary way of
`
`you meeting with these third-party developers?
`
`A. It was one of the ways. Other ways would be
`
`reading about them in industry trade publications or
`
`referrals from other individuals in the industry or
`
`within the company.
`
`Q. Did Steve Jobs ever ask you to meet with any
`
`third party?
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000015
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 14
`
`A. Not in this iteration of my evangelism
`
`position.
`
`Q. How are you dividing up this iteration of your
`
`evangelism?
`
`A. I was an evangelist responsible for games
`
`prior to becoming the full-time audio technologies
`
`evangelist.
`
`Q. Okay. So as an audio technologies evangelist,
`
`Steve Jobs never directed you to meet with a particular
`
`third party?
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. Did he ever indirectly, that you know of,
`
`suggest a third party for you to meet with?
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. Have you heard of a company called SightSound?
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. Have you heard of Scott Sander?
`
`A. Doesn't ring a bell.
`
`Q. Have you heard of Art Hair?
`
`A. Doesn't ring a bell.
`
`Q. Okay. You signed a declaration regarding --
`
`let me provide that to you. Would you like to refer to
`
`that?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: If you're going to ask him
`
`about 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 000016
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 15
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Yeah, absolutely.
`
` THE WITNESS: My only recollection was --
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: There's no question.
`
` THE WITNESS: Okay.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Why don't we just mark it.
`
`This is Exhibit 1 and 2. We can have Exhibit 1 be from
`
`the 4257 exhibit, which is from the 20, the CBM2013-20.
`
`And then we can have Exhibit 2 be Apple Exhibit 4415,
`
`which is from the CBM2013-23.
`
` (Whereupon Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 were
`
` marked for identification.)
`
` MS. LANSBERY: I also provide Exhibit 3, which
`
`is a '99 letter from SightSound to Apple.
`
` (Whereupon Exhibit 3 was marked for
`
` identification.)
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Feel free to take a look at
`
`that. And I have a blow-up of that page, but we can
`
`just focus on the first page. Let me just give him the
`
`blow-up. This is a blow-up of page 2 of the letter I
`
`just provided.
`
` (Whereupon Exhibit 4 was marked for
`
` identification.)
`
` (Pause.)
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. And you can refer to those
`
`as we ask questions. Have you ever seen this letter
`
`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
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 16
`
`before?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Which letter?
`
` MS. LANSBERY: The January -- it's the same
`
`document. It's one letter. It was a letter from
`
`SightSound to Steve Jobs sent January 15, 1999. The
`
`second exhibit is simply a blow-up of that attached
`
`page.
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: So you're referring to
`
`Exhibit 3?
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Yes.
`
` THE WITNESS: No.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Would you have any
`
`understanding or expectation of whether Steve Jobs would
`
`have reviewed that letter?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection; calls for
`
`speculation.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. You can still answer.
`
`A. I would have no knowledge of that.
`
`Q. Sure. Would you expect that Steve Jobs would
`
`have received the letter given that his name is -- was
`
`directed to him?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection; calls for
`
`speculation.
`
` THE WITNESS: I doubt it.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Why is that?
`
`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
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 17
`
`A. Lots of people send things to the CEO, and he
`
`doesn't read every single one of them.
`
`Q. Sure. Would the attention to Andrea Nordemann
`
`change whether or not he might be more likely to have
`
`seen the letter?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection; calls for
`
`speculation, lacks foundation.
`
` THE WITNESS: I wouldn't know.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Okay. Do you have any
`
`reason to believe that Steve Jobs did not read the
`
`letter?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Same objections.
`
` THE WITNESS: No knowledge.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Okay. Are you aware of any
`
`discussions involving Steve Jobs and SightSound apart
`
`from this letter?
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. Are you aware of any discussions involving
`
`anyone at Apple regarding SightSound?
`
`A. Other than Tom Weyer, who was with me at the
`
`meeting, at the SDMI meeting, and was at the meeting
`
`with SightSound, no.
`
`Q. What do you understand the letter to be
`
`saying?
`
`A. It appears to be a request from a third-party
`
`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
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 18
`
`developer to work with Apple to develop an open platform
`
`audio player.
`
`Q. And it states that SightSound is selling music
`
`over the Internet currently, correct?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection; the document
`
`speaks for itself.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. It's --
`
`A. That's what it says right there.
`
`Q. Right. And the schematic, it details how
`
`SightSound sells music to those customers over the
`
`Internet, correct?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection; the document
`
`speaks for itself. He's never seen this before. It's a
`
`waste of time.
`
` THE WITNESS: It's a graphic. I don't know
`
`how accurate or relevant it is. I had never heard of
`
`anybody selling music over the Internet at that time.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Okay. Were you aware if
`
`Apple in 1999 had plans to sell music over the Internet?
`
`A. I was aware of no plans.
`
`Q. And why would you not have been aware of such
`
`plans if they existed?
`
`A. Well, Apple could be very compartmentalized
`
`when it came to certain developments, and I was not made
`
`aware of any plans to sell music.
`
`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
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 19
`
`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
`
`Q. Okay. Do you have any -- going back to the
`
`letter --
`
`A. Exhibit 3?
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Exhibit 3, yes.
`
`Q. It was proposing that there was specific
`
`functionality that SightSound proposed to have added to
`
`the Mac operating system; is that right?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection; the document
`
`speaks for itself. The witness has never seen this
`
`letter before.
`
` THE WITNESS: Would you restate the question?
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Yes, sure. It was just
`
`to -- I think I said that SightSound was suggesting a
`
`specific functionality to add to the Mac operating
`
`system, correct?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Same objections.
`
` THE WITNESS: That's what it says in the
`
`letter here.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. And do you understand that
`
`to be a digital rights management system?
`
`A. I do not.
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Same objections.
`
` THE WITNESS: I do not.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. And why is that?
`
`A. I don't see that listed here anywhere.
`
`(800) 869-9132
`
`Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`
`
`PAGE 000021
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 20
`
`Q. It doesn't -- the letter doesn't say "digital
`
`rights management." It refers to software that would be
`
`required to sell music over the Internet.
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Is there a question?
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Yes. Would you understand
`
`that to be digital rights management software?
`
`A. No.
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Same objections. Give me a
`
`chance to object before you answer.
`
` THE WITNESS: Okay. Sorry.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Another document.
`
` (Whereupon Exhibit 5 was marked for
`
` identification.)
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. This is a letter from Apple
`
`to Scott Sander dated February 3, 1999. It's
`
`Exhibit 2118. Have you seen this letter before?
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. Have you seen non-confidential agreements like
`
`this before from Apple?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection; vague.
`
` THE WITNESS: I have not seen these types of
`
`letters before, no.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. So when you were getting
`
`ready to meet with a third party, would you not send a
`
`letter like this?
`
`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
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 21
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. Why would Apple use such a letter like this?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection; lacks foundation,
`
`calls for speculation.
`
` THE WITNESS: I wouldn't know.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Did you participate in a
`
`meeting with SightSound in 1999?
`
`A. I don't recall that specific meeting.
`
`Q. Do you -- strike that.
`
` What would you -- so none of these documents
`
`help refresh your memory about a meeting with SightSound
`
`in 1999?
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. I'm going to give you Scott Sander's
`
`declaration. It's Exhibit 2110.
`
` (Whereupon Exhibit 6 was marked for
`
` identification.)
`
` THE WITNESS: Should I read this?
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Yes, please. Particularly
`
`refer to paragraphs 8 to 10.
`
` (Pause.)
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Does that help refresh your
`
`memory at all of meeting with SightSound?
`
`A. It does not.
`
`Q. Had you seen the document before?
`
`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 000023
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 22
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. Could that be an accurate description of a
`
`meeting you would have attended with SightSound in 1999?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. So then you don't disagree specifically about
`
`anything that Mr. Sander recollected?
`
`A. I did not read the entire document.
`
`Q. Sure. Between paragraphs 8 and 10.
`
`A. Paragraph 8 refers to Exhibit 3, which I had
`
`never seen before. Paragraph 9 refers to Exhibit 5,
`
`which I had never seen before. Paragraph 10 describes
`
`me as a part -- as partnership manager when I was a
`
`partnership manager, one of many in that department.
`
`And paragraph 10 describes a meeting, and that seems
`
`like it could have happened that way, but again, I have
`
`no specific recollection of this meeting.
`
`Q. Is it possible that you don't remember the
`
`documents just as a part of not remembering the meeting?
`
`A. Which documents are you referring to?
`
`Q. Exhibit 3 and 2.
`
`A. No, I never saw Exhibit 3, and I never saw
`
`Exhibit 5 before today.
`
`Q. Have you seen Exhibit 4 before today?
`
`A. I don't recall ever seeing Exhibit 4.
`
`Q. Would you typically have taken notes after a
`
`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
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 23
`
`meeting with a third party?
`
`A. No. I would take notes during the meeting.
`
`Q. Okay. And would you have reported back to
`
`anyone after that meeting?
`
`A. If the topic was relevant to business issues,
`
`yes.
`
`Q. And can you imagine in 1999 why you didn't
`
`think that the SightSound meeting would have been
`
`relevant to business issues?
`
`A. Apple was not in the business of selling
`
`digital content over the Internet, and the request made
`
`in paragraph 10 is beyond what Apple would do for a
`
`third-party developer that did not have something that
`
`was of specific interest to the company.
`
`Q. And can you be specific about what in
`
`paragraph 10 you're referring to; what request?
`
`A. Notably, that they manufacture a handheld
`
`portable player. Apple had no business creating a
`
`portable media player at the time. Rearchitecting their
`
`operating system is an outrageous request of a -- from a
`
`small company to a large company.
`
`Q. Would you have known in 1999, when meeting
`
`with SightSound, whether or not this request would
`
`require a rewrite of the Mac operating system?
`
`A. I would have had a pretty good idea of the
`
`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
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 24
`
`significance of the engineering required to adopt such
`
`technology, yes.
`
`Q. Okay. Would you ever report back in your
`
`duties as a music -- sorry -- as an evangelist for
`
`audio? Is that right?
`
`A. Mm-hmm.
`
`Q. Would you have reported back to anyone
`
`involved in the iTunes Music Store development?
`
`A. There was no such thing as the iTunes Music
`
`Store.
`
`Q. Okay. Was Steve Jobs the person who conceived
`
`of the iTunes Music Store?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Objection; lacks foundation,
`
`calls for speculation.
`
` THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge of that.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. Would Steve Jobs have been
`
`one of the people who implemented the iTunes Music
`
`Store?
`
` MR. BATCHELDER: Same objections.
`
` THE WITNESS: As the CEO, he implemented lots
`
`of things.
`
` MS. LANSBERY: Q. So do you have any direct
`
`knowledge of whether he did or did not?
`
`A. I do not.
`
`Q. Okay. Could you describe a meeting with a
`
`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
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 25
`
`third party that you found more impressive and memorable
`
`than you did the meeting with SightSound?
`
`A. Yes. Digidesign was the developer of the
`
`market leading application for audio recording at a
`
`professional studio level. They wanted to know about
`
`the next generation of the Mac OS operating system and
`
`how they -- their software would interact with it.
`
`Digital audio recording of huge amounts of information
`
`requires specific access to task scheduling in the
`
`kernel of the operating system, and they needed to know
`
`if that would be possible in the next generation of the
`
`operating system. So I called a meeting between members
`
`of the OS engineering team, the hardware team, and
`
`Digidesign engineers to discuss those issues and see how
`
`difficult it would be to accommodate their requests.
`
`Q. And that required several meetings?
`
`A. It was one big meeting, as I recall.
`
`Q. And who would have been involved in that?
`
`A. I don't remember specific names, but it was
`
`members of the OS engineering team, the low-level audio
`
`drivers, and Digidesign engineers.
`
`Q. You mentioned that you were one of many
`
`partnership managers?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Can you remember who the other partnership
`
`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
`
`MARCO MAZZONI - 3/31/2014
`
`Page 26
`
`managers were in 1999?
`
`A. Tim Holmes was involved with general Mac OS
`
`evangelism. I don't recall the name of the person, but
`
`there was someone devoted specifically to Adobe as --
`
`for graphical programs, like Illustrator, PageMaker.
`
`"Desktop publishing" was the term at the time. There
`
`was an education evangelist, Cindy Lawrence. There was
`
`a Java evangelist. There was networking, and I believe
`
`that was Tom Weyer's position. He was a networking
`
`evangelist.
`
`Q. And when you met with a third party, would you
`
`often talk to those other partnership managers about
`
`what the technology was?
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. How would you decide whether or not a
`
`particular third party was worth meeting with again?
`
`A.
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
