`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 1
` IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________________
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORP., )
`TD AMERITRADE, INC., and )
`TD AMERITRADE ONLINE ) Case No. CBM2014-
`HOLDINGS CORP., ) 00131 and
` )
` Petitioners, ) CMB2014-00137
` v. )
` )
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES )
`INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`_______________________________)
`
` DEPOSITION OF HAROLD ABILOCK
` Friday, April 24, 2015
`
`Reported by: Lori J. Goodin, RPR, CLR, CRR
` Realtime Systems Administrator
`
`---------------------------------------------------
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1726 M Street NW, Suite 1010
` Washington, DC 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`TDA 1050
`TD Ameritrade v. TT
`CBM2014-00131
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 2
` The deposition of HAROLD ABILOCK was
`convened on Friday, April 24, 2015, commencing at
`9:02 a.m., at the offices of
`
` Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
` Garrett & Dunner, LLP
` 901 New York Avenue, Northwest
` Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
`
`Before Lori J. Goodin, Registered Professional
`Reporter, Certified LiveNote Reporter, Certified
`Realtime Reporter, Realtime Systems Administrator
`and Notary Public in and for the District of
`Columbia.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4 5 6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 3
`
` APPEARANCES
`
`For Petitioners:
` JONATHAN M. STRANG, Esquire
` RICHARD M. BEMBEN, Esquire
` STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX
` 1100 New York Avenue
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` 202-371-2600
` jstrang@skgf.com
` rbemben@skgf.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
` JOSHUA L. GOLDBERG, Esquire
` FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT &
` DUNNER, LLP,
` 901 New York Avenue, Northwest
` Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
` 202-408-4000
` Joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
` APPEARANCES CONTINUED
`
`Page 4
`
` KEVIN D. RODKEY, Esquire
` FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT &
` DUNNER, LLP,
` 3500 Suntrust Plaza
` 303 Peachtree Street, Northeast
` Atlanta, Georgia 30308
` 404-653-6400
` kevin.rodkey@finnegan.com
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 5
`
` CONTENTS
`EXAMINATION BY PAGE
`Mr. Strang 6
`
` EXHIBITS
`ABILOCK
`EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
` 1 Article from New York Times, 33
` 11/3/1995
`
` PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
`
` FIRST REFERRAL
`EXHIBIT NO. PAGE
`Trading Tech 2097 Declaration of Harold 13
` Abilock for Cases
` CBM2014-00131 and 00137
`
`TDA 1007, DX 179 Previously translated 47
` document
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` HAROLD ABILOCK,
`a witness called for examination, having been
`first duly sworn, was examined and testified as
`follows:
`EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS
`BY MR. STRANG:
` Q. Good morning, Mr. Abilock. Thank
`you for travelling down from Vermont. Could you
`please state your full name for the record,
`please.
` A. Harold Abilock.
` Q. And before we begin I would like to
`cover the ground rules of a deposition. Have you
`been deposed before?
` A. No, I haven't.
` Q. And you have attended a deposition
`before, that's correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. In addition to the depositions of
`the TransPerfect Translators we had a month or so
`back, have you attended any other depositions?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. No, I haven't.
` Q. And, you do understand you are
`testifying under oath?
` A. I do.
` Q. And do you understand that as part
`of your oath you must testify fully and
`accurately to the best of your knowledge?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And in this deposition, I'm going
`to ask the questions and then you are going to
`answer.
` This will be recorded by the court
`reporter, and so you need to speak and as you
`have done so far answer all questions verbally.
`A nod of the head or an uh-uh, will not come
`across in the transcript. Especially the uh-huh,
`we all tend to do it and it is uh-huh, uh-uh,
`they look the same, I'm making it hard for the
`court reporter by doing that now.
` And if you don't understand a
`question, please let me know.
` A. I certainly will.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. And I may try to restate the
`question, is that acceptable?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And, we will usually take a break
`whenever we need to change the, if we need to
`change the tape if this was video. But, we will
`take a break about every 60 or 90 minutes. And
`if you need a break before then, let your
`attorney know and we will finish the line of
`questioning and take a break. Is that fine?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is there any reason you cannot give
`full and accurate testimony today?
` A. No.
` Q. So, do you work for a translation
`company, Mr. Abilock?
` A. I own a translation company.
` Q. And what is the name of that
`translation company?
` A. JapanLink Translations.
` Q. Does it have a website?
` A. No, it doesn't.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. And how do you typically market
`JapanLink?
` A. I have a number of clients that have
`been with me for many years. And pretty much I
`go through word of mouth.
` Q. Through word of mouth?
` A. Yes. Word of mouth marketing. My
`clients recommend me to other clients. And I am
`basically full up, so I don't need a website.
` Q. I understand completely. And that
`is a good place to be.
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. Now, can you name any of those
`clients? I don't want you to disclose any
`confidentialities. But could you give us an idea
`of the types of clients you have?
` A. I have -- all of my clients are
`either law firms in the United States, Europe or
`Japan.
` And, or a high tech companies,
`principally the intellectual property departments
`in high tech companies both in Japan and the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`United States and Europe.
` Q. So, you said law firms and high tech
`companies for IP work; is that correct?
` A. No. For translation work.
` Q. But translation work for
`intellectual property cases or tasks, generally?
` A. I principally translate in the field
`of intellectual property, yes.
` Q. What is your mix between -- or,
`strike that.
` Do you know what patent prosecution
`is?
` MR. RODKEY: Objection, relevance.
` THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
`BY MR. STRANG:
` Q. Can you explain to me what patent
`prosecution is?
` MR. RODKEY: Objection, relevance.
` THE WITNESS: Patent prosecution
` involves the process in which generally a
` patent attorney files a patent application
` and the prosecution starts at that point and
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 11
` is finished when the patent is either granted
` or the final rejection is given.
`BY MR. STRANG:
` Q. Okay. And that is different than
`litigation, correct?
` MR. RODKEY: Objection. Relevance.
` Scope.
` THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
`BY MR. STRANG:
` Q. Do you have any idea how much the
`break between your work is between litigation and
`patent prosecution?
` MR. RODKEY: Objection, relevance.
` THE WITNESS: I don't understand the
` question.
`BY MR. STRANG:
` Q. The percentage of the work that you
`do for law firms and high tech companies, do you
`have a guess of the percentage that is for
`prosecution and the percentage that is for
`litigation?
` MR. RODKEY: Same objection.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 12
` THE WITNESS: Well, the, it varies
` over time very greatly, from 0 to 100.
`BY MR. STRANG:
` Q. Okay. So sometimes it is all
`prosecution and sometimes it is all inter partes
`matters like this one today?
` A. Whatever comes my way.
` Q. Do you have any other employees at
`JapanLink?
` MR. RODKEY: Objection, relevance.
` THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
`BY MR. STRANG:
` Q. And what are the, what types of
`employees, what are the job descriptions of the
`various employees you have at JapanLink?
` MR. RODKEY: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: They are both editors.
`BY MR. STRANG:
` Q. So, you have two employees; is that
`correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And what are the job qualifications
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`of the editors?
` MR. RODKEY: Objection, relevance.
` Scope.
` THE WITNESS: That they have good
` editing skills.
`BY MR. STRANG:
` Q. Do your editors speak Japanese?
` MR. RODKEY: Objection, relevance.
` Scope.
` THE WITNESS: No, they don't.
` (Previously Marked Exhibit
` Trading Tech Number 2097
` first referral.)
`BY MR. STRANG:
` Q. I would like the record to show this
`has been previously marked as Exhibit Trading
`Tech Exhibit 2097 in the proceeding CBM
`2014-00137. And on the face it states that it is
`the declaration of Harold Abilock for cases CBM
`2014-00131 and CBM 2014-00137.
` Counsel, can we just save sometime
`by stipulating that the 00137 and the 00131
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`exhibits are identical?
` MR. RODKEY: Yes, we can.
`BY MR. STRANG:
` Q. Perfect. Do you recognize this
`exhibit, Mr. Abilock?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And what is this exhibit?
` A. This is my declaration in these
`proceedings.
` Q. And you made this declaration under
`oath, correct?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. I see you are looking through the
`declaration. I will give you some time. Let me
`know when you are ready to go. There is no
`hurry.
` A. Okay. I am good.
` Q. Thank you. Can you turn to
`Paragraph 7? It is on Page 3. It is labeled at
`the bottom Page 3 of 106 and Paragraph 7 is about
`a quarter of the way down.
` A. Yes.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 15
` Q. Now in that paragraph you state in
`the last, next to the last sentence, the last
`clause, "JapanLink specializes in high quality
`translation for patent, for patent prosecution
`and cross border IP litigation cases."
` What do you mean by high quality
`translation?
` A. One of the selling points of
`JapanLink translations to its clients is that we
`provide high quality work product. The
`translations we provide undergo a quality
`assurance check where we perform all manner of
`checks. And that is what I mean by high quality.
` Q. Okay. So by high quality you mean
`there are quality assurance checks?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. How do you --
` A. And, therefore, we endeavor to
`deliver translations that are accurate and
`complete.
` Q. You state accurate and complete.
` Accurate compared to what?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Accurate doesn't mean compared to
`anything.
` Accurate means that the meaning of
`the translation text comports with the meaning of
`the source text.
` Q. So, that it conveys, so you are
`saying that the source, it conveys the same
`meaning as the source text, no more and no less,
`correct?
` A. That is the general meaning of
`accuracy.
` Q. Is there a more specific meaning you
`would like to give us?
` A. I think that is the standard bearer
`for accuracy.
` Q. Perfect. Thank you. You also state
`that the high quality translations for patent
`prosecution and cross border IP litigations
`cases.
` Now when we were talking earlier
`about patent prosecution, you meant the same
`thing here as you did then?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. That is correct.
` Q. And cross border IP litigations,
`what did you mean by that phrase?
` A. Well, I don't get involves in
`domestic IP litigation cases in my JapanLink
`translations business.
` So, generally speaking, as a
`Japanese English translator, I will be engaged as
`a Japanese English translator when litigation
`involves a Japanese company, where the language
`is Japanese, and a country where the English,
`where English is the language.
` So, for example, if there was a
`litigation between an American company and a
`Japanese company, a Japanese English translator
`will naturally be needed. And that is where I
`get involved in cross border IP litigation cases.
` Q. This current proceeding, would you
`consider this a cross border IP litigation case?
` A. No. But, I guess you could say this
`is rather an exception. But, nonetheless it
`involves Japanese in litigation. The languages
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`of Japanese and English in litigation.
` Q. Do you know which patents are
`involved in this proceeding?
` A. I believe they are written on the
`cover page of my declaration. But that is about
`all I know.
` Q. So you have never seen the two
`patents that are listed on the cover page?
` A. No, I haven't.
` Q. Do you know who owns the two patents
`on the cover page?
` A. No, I don't.
` Q. Have you worked on any other
`litigations between two domestic companies that
`involve translation from Japanese to English?
` MR. RODKEY: Objection, scope.
` Relevance.
` THE WITNESS: Yes, I have.
`BY MR. STRANG:
` Q. Without betraying any confidences,
`can you name those cases?
` MR. RODKEY: Objection, scope,
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` relevance.
` THE WITNESS: Gee, I think I still
` have the confidentiality agreements with
` regard to that.
`BY MR. STRANG:
` Q. That is fine. Now you state that
`JapanLink specializes in "high quality
`translation for patent prosecution and cross
`border IP litigation cases."
` Over the last, say, three years, do
`you have any idea what the balance between
`prosecution and litigation was?
` MR. RODKEY: Objection, scope and
` relevance.
` THE WITNESS: The past three years.
` Okay.
`BY MR. STRANG:
` Q. Or the past year. If, whatever time
`frame that you might know.
` A. Sure, sure. 90/10, 90 patent
`prosecution and 10 cross border IP litigation.
` And by the way, it would be clearer
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`to say that I am involved in translation for
`intellectual property.
` So, some of my translation doesn't
`really involve the translation of patents, for
`patent prosecutions, some of them are for
`information only, that kind of thing.
` Q. Of course.
` A. But, generally it is patent. So it
`is a little wider than patent prosecution.
` Q. But you said that you are booked
`solid, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So, even though 10 percent is a
`small number, you have experience in litigation,
`correct?
` A. I have experience in translating on
`cases involving litigation.
` Q. In Paragraph 8 you state, "Using a
`unique and comprehensive quality assurance
`process, our editors check every translation for
`accuracy and so forth."
` What -- can you describe JapanLink's
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`unique and comprehensive quality assurance
`process?
` A. This is going to take some time. It
`is very involved.
` Q. Well, let's start at the beginning.
`Who translates, who does the initial translation?
` A. I do the initial translation.
` Q. Now, do you have any other
`translators?
` A. I do engage other translators on a
`case-by-case basis.
` Q. For sort of a surge volume then?
` A. A surge volume or a specialized
`case. So, for example, if the subject matter is
`beyond my expertise.
` Q. Now, at the back of this declaration
`there is a translation of Chapter 7 from the TSE
`document. Did you do the initial translation of
`that document?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. Now, after either you or someone you
`have brought in, a specialist or someone for a
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 22
`surge volume that does the initial translation,
`what happens next?
` MR. RODKEY: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Okay. So, this is
` going to be a long answer.
`BY MR. STRANG:
` Q. That is fine. We have plenty of
`time.
` A. All right. I have developed a
`proprietary in-house software to pre-analyze the
`text that I translate. And when I translate I
`use the output of that pre-analyzer. Therefore,
`I dictate into dictation recorder and after I
`have finished my translation through dictation,
`it goes to a transcriber. The transcriber uses
`part of this software system to transcribe my
`dictation which is done in a way that ensures
`quality because it disallows a typo.
` So, the system is structured such
`that the transcriber cannot transcribe anything
`but what is spoken. If something is transcribed
`that is not spoken, the monitoring software that
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 23
`the transcriber uses flags it, highlights it in
`red. So that is part of the quality control
`system.
` Q. Okay. Let's --
` A. Then it goes to an editor.
` Q. Okay.
` A. And the editor has access to other
`software that correlates the text to the figures
`in the drawings in a very error free way.
` And another analyzer analyzes the
`text to ensure that there is a proper
`correspondence between the reference numerals in
`the text and the symbols on the drawings and any
`discrepancies are flagged.
` The editor checks the text,
`examining closely situations where errors were
`flagged and ensures that all text in the
`specification is in proper English from the
`perspectives listed in my Paragraph 8: Style,
`grammar, spelling, and readability, and these are
`very experienced editors.
` And also checks for consistency
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 24
`between the text and the drawings very carefully.
` I receive a red lined copy. I go
`over the red lines and then I go through a second
`editor where we go over sentence by sentence and
`review the work of the first editor carefully
`checking the translation text against the source
`text for each sentence.
` Then we have a final check, which we
`have a checklist extending over the length of a
`page. And we verify each point in that
`checklist. And that is how we have a unique
`quality assurance process that sets us apart from
`my peers.
` Q. Now, you said there was an initial
`pre-analyzer. Is that initial pre-analyzer a
`translation memory product?
` A. No, it is not.
` Q. What type of pre-analysis does it
`do?
` A. It is based on a computational
`linguistic algorithm that analyzes the text.
` Q. So it is a machine translation?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 25
` A. No, it is not. So to say, but it is
`what is known as a translation tool, or a
`machine-assisted translation tool.
` So, the difference between machine
`translation and machine-assisted translation is
`quite defined. A machine translation program
`actually translates. A machine-assisted
`translation software, as what I have developed,
`simply assists a human translator in the
`translation process. Such as, for example,
`flagging the discrepancies between the reference
`numerals in the document and the symbols on the
`drawings.
` But it does no translation.
` Q. How is that different than a
`computer-aided translation tool using a
`translation memory like Trados or one of the
`other big vendors.
` MR. RODKEY: Objection. Foundation.
` THE WITNESS: So, a translation
` memory tool actually translates. My tool
` does no translation. It only flags.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`BY MR. STRANG:
` Q. So, it doesn't, it doesn't suggest,
`your tool does not suggest any words?
` A. No. But it does ensure that I
`consistently translate every term. The first
`time a term is translated in a certain way, it
`ensures that it is consistently translated that
`way.
` Q. And then you said it goes from your
`translation to a transcriber. Is that
`transcriber a human?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. If you would turn to the next page
`to Paragraph 10, please. You state, the first
`sentence you say, "In the course of my career as
`a translator, I have translated numerous
`documents in the field of computer software."
` What did you mean by the word
`numerous?
` A. Many.
` Q. Can you put a number on that?
` A. No. As you know I have been a
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`translator for nearly 30 years; they would be
`many.
` Q. So, thousands?
` A. I don't know if there is thousands.
`That would be a high number. But, certainly well
`over hundreds. After all I might work on a
`document for a week or two. So, a thousand would
`be a little on the high side. Besides, I have
`translated many subjects.
` Q. Well documents is kind of a tricky
`term, too, because there could be 15 chapters in
`a book. So that is not really fair.
` A. I might translate a 350 page manual.
` Q. Exactly. Or a 337 page manual.
` You state later in that same
`paragraph, "Further in the course of my career as
`a computer engineer, I have personally designed
`and implemented a variety of GUI's, graphical
`user interfaces, and am knowledgeable about the
`constituent elements operation of typical GUIs."
`That is G-U-I.
` Can you describe the graphical user
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`interfaces that you have designed and
`implemented?
` A. Well, beginning in a career as a
`computer engineer, I was a systems analyst at
`Brookhaven National Laboratories, from 1974 to
`1979. During that time I developed GUIs for a
`large scale energy analysis system.
` Q. And for that system, what was the
`operating system?
` MR. RODKEY: Objection, relevance.
` THE WITNESS: A star operating
` system on the CDC 7600s.
`BY MR. STRANG:
` Q. And the programming language?
` MR. RODKEY: Objection, relevance.
` THE WITNESS: There were several
` programming languages in the development of
` MARKAL, back then in the old days. It was
` FORTRAN, PL/1, MAGEN, and a variety of other
` software packages employed in the Macow
` System.
`BY MR. STRANG:
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. I have only coded in two of those
`languages, FORTRAN and PL/1.
` But, I don't recall designing any
`graphical user interfaces in those languages.
` Did you use any third generation
`tools to help you develop the dialogues and
`pop-up boxes?
` A. No, I didn't.
` Q. Were there dialogues and pop-up
`boxes?
` A. Yes, there were. That was early day
`stuff. And that was the beginning, of course.
`Into the '80s when I worked as a computer
`consultant in Japan, I developed GUIs for clients
`that I was a consultant to.
` And, at Ishida Scales, where I
`worked in Japan, I introduced a computer system
`which I developed GUIs for, and lastly, at
`ipCapital Group I included software that included
`GUIs.
` And of course, I have also mentioned
`to you that I have built in-house software that
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 30
`contains an extensive set of menu systems, very
`extensive, in fact.
` Q. On Paragraph 11 you say that you
`worked full-time for seven months as a Japanese
`English translator on United States of America
`versus the Daiwa Bank Limited.
` Did I pronounce Daiwa correctly?
` A. You did.
` Q. Well, that was lucky. You state
`that the principal subject matter of the
`translation was the trading of bonds and
`derivatives. What was the United States of
`America versus Daiwa Bank about?
` MR. RODKEY: I just want to caution
` the witness. To the extent that this is a
` litigation, not to reveal anything that might
` be under protective order in that litigation.
` THE WITNESS: Sure. Basically it
` was about a rogue trader.
`BY MR. STRANG:
` Q. You said rogue, R-O-G-U-E?
` A. Correct.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/24/2015
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Harold Abilock
`
`Page 31
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. And what was at stake in that
`litigation?
` MR. RODKEY: Same caution for the
` witness.
` THE WITNESS: The rogue trader,
` Iguchi, had absconded, well not absconded,
` had basically misappropriated over a billion
` dollars in treasury bonds, treasury notes, in
` the trading. And had hidden that, those
` losses for a period of nearly a dozen years
` until it was discovered. And the case was
` about the United States prosecuting Daiwa
` Bank for concealing the fact that they had
` discovered the misappropri