throbber
SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`EXHIBIT 2374
`CBM2013-00023 (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 interesting, I thought it
`
`w

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket