RICHARDSON, III
`Reexam of Pat. No. 5,490,216
`Control No. 90/010,831
`
`Exhibit A
`
`Joint Appendix Excerpts
`A2210-A2270
`
`A2425 —A243 1
`
`A2690-A2745
`
`A3297—A3298
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2914.001REXO
`
`1
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 1
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 1
`
`
`Reexam of Pat. No. 5,490,216
`Control No. 90/010,831
`
`Exhibit A
`
`Joint Appendix Excerpts
`A2210-A2270
`
`A2425 —A243 1
`
`A2690-A2745
`
`A3297—A3298
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2914.001REXO
`
`1
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 1
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 1
`
`
`
`to provide any opinions on infringement; is that true?
`
`A. That's correct.
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`Q. Sojust at a very base level, do you have an
`
`understanding of the problem that the '216 patent
`
`solves?
`
`A. My understanding is that it solves the problem of
`
`casual copying.
`
`Q. What is "casual copying," Mr. Gemini?
`
`A. The way i see casual coping is if i bought one
`
`license of Office and I installed it on all of my
`
`employees machines that same copy, that is my
`
`understanding 0 casual copying.
`
`Q. Would that be an example of one form?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`
`
`0. Looking at the time of the hypothetical
`
`negotiation in this case, which I believe you said is
`
`March of 2001, what, if any, concern did Microsoft have
`
`with casual copying?
`
`A. Microsoft from what I've seen had a huge concern
`
`with casual copying. Microsoft had indicated in some
`
`documents that anti-piracy was a $7 billion a year
`
`problem and casual copying was half of that problem, or -
`
`$3.5 billion a year, according to Microsoft.
`
`Q. How did Microsoft address this problem, if at all?
`
`A. Well, they implemented Microsoft Product
`
`Uniloc/ Microsoft
`
`A 2211
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 2
`
`Page 27
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 2
`
`
`
`Activation, a system of Product Activation.
`
`Q. Now in your role as an expert, Mr. Gemini, what is
`
`your understanding, if any, of how Product Activation
`
`relates to this case?
`
`A. My understanding is that's what's being accused, a
`
`Microsoft Product Activation system as is used by
`
`Microsoft is accused of infringing the '216 patent.
`
`Q. As a damages expert, what, if anything, are you
`
`required to assume about Product Activation?
`
`A. As we said, that it infringed based on what's
`
`being accused.
`
`Q. Now, did the Product Activation system, did it
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`work?
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`A. From Microsoft information, it did, yes.
`
`Q. Okay. So again, at the time of the hypothetical
`
`negotiation, in what products was Microsoft planning to
`
`use Product Activation, if any?
`
`A. Microsoft was planning to use it in what they
`
`would call their crown jewel products, which are Office
`
`20
`
`and Windows.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`0. Now, you say crown jewels. Please tell us how big
`
`these products were to Microsoft in terms of revenues.
`
`gross revenues at the time of the hypothetical
`
`negotiation.
`
`A. The revenues for those products were in the
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`
`
`Uniloc / Microsoft
`
`A 2212
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 3
`
`Page 28
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 3
`
`
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`billions of dollars a year.
`
`2
`
`Q. What's the basis for you to say that they're in
`
`the billions?
`
`A.
`
`I've seen information from their annual reports
`
`and documents produced in the case.
`
`Q. And would all of this information about Product
`
`Activation success and Microsoft's revenues be known to
`
`Uniloc at the time of this hypothetical negotiation?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And why is that?
`
` 1
`
`A. Under the idea, again, of perfect knowledge.
`
`Q. And what, if any. effect does this have on the
`
`reasonable royalty that's being negotiated at the time
`
`between Uniloc and Microsoft?
`
`A. Well. based on this information, in my opinion, it
`
`would be a benefit to Uniloc.
`
`Q. Why is that?
`
`A. Well, you could see that Microsoft had a major
`
`financial problem with casual copying. And Uniloc had
`
`a patent that would assist to reduce casual copying.
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini, in the group of factors that we looked
`
`at, we're doing Group N, so let's round this out and
`
`talk about Factor 14.
`
`I believe you touched on it.
`
`Would you please briefly explain what that
`
`means, Factor 14.
`
`Uniloc l Microsoft
`
`Page 29
`
`A 2213
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 4
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 4
`
`
`
`A. Generally, that's the opinions of qualified
`
`experts, such as myself, or any other qualified experts
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`in the case.
`
`Q. Let's move on now, Mr. Gemini, to Group I. And
`
`would you please tell us just a bit about this group.
`
`A. This group deals with licenses and licensing
`
`policies of the parties, generally. Parties meaning
`
`Uniloc and Microsoft.
`
`Q. What, if any, evidence have you seen that relates
`
`to these factors?
`
`A.
`
`I've seen license agreements produced by both
`
`parties.
`
`0. So Uniloc and Microsoft have produced licenses in
`
`this case?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`
`
`Q. Let's take a look at Uniloc's first.
`
`MR. SCHERKENBACH: There's no objection to any
`
`of these, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini, I'm going to hand you what's been
`
`marked as PX 625, 626 and 627.
`
`Would you take just a few minutes to look at
`
`them. Just briefly review those. Let me know when
`
`you're done.
`
`A. Okay.
`
`Uniloc I Microsoft
`
`Page 30
`
`A 2214
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 5
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 5
`
`
`
`Q. Do you recognize what I've handed to you as 625,
`
`626 and 627?
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Would you please tell the jury what they are.
`
`A. These are licenses of Uniloc entered into for
`
`anti-piracy technology.
`
`Q. And have you reviewed and considered these in
`
`forming your opinion in this case?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Would you please tell me what, if any, technology
`
`or patents did these license agreements relate to?
`
`A. They relate to anti-piracy technology, and one of
`
`them includes the '216 patent at issue in this case.
`
`0. Which one is that, Mr. Gemini?
`
`A. That would be Exhibit 625, the license agreement
`
`between Uniloc Corporation and XtreamLok.
`
`Q. So the XtreamLok license is a license to the '216
`
`
`
`patent?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And are the other two agreements licenses to
`
`Uniloc's technology?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And based on your review of these agreements,
`
`Mr. Gemini, please tell the jury what, if any, payment
`
`terms they contain.
`
`Uniloc / Microsoft
`
`Page 31
`
`A 2215
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 6
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 6
`
`
`
`A. They contain payment terms under a running
`
`royalty. And a running royalty, basically, means that
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`as the user or the person licensing the technology
`
`sells something, Uniloc gets paid a royalty based on
`
`that sale, each and every sale they get a royalty,
`
`whether it be a percentage or a per unit dollar amount
`
`per sale, that's how Uniloc entered into these
`
`agreements.
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini, if you could look at PX-626, which I
`
`believe is the license to Curious Software. Do you see
`
`that?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Would you please tell us what specific payment
`
`terms it contains, if any.
`
`A. Well, according to Exhibit B of the license
`
`agreement, Uniloc agreed to a royalty with Curious of
`
`3% on products with the list price in excess of $900
`
`and 5% on products with a list price of less than $900.
`
`Q. So for products that are priced less than $900,
`
`this license gives Uniloc a 5% running royalty?
`
`A. Yes. And, additionally, it says:
`
`In no event
`
`should it be less than one dollar, just to be clear.
`
`Q. So Mr. Gemini, all three of these licenses of
`
`Uniloc were all running royalty licenses?
`
`Uniloc/ Microsoft
`
`Page 32
`
`A 2216
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 7
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 7
`
`
`
`Q. And they all related to anti-piracy technology or
`
`the '216 patent?
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. What, if anything, does that tell us or tell you
`
`about Uniloc's licensing practices?
`
`A. That Uniloc enters into agreements based on a
`
`running royalty for their anti-piracy technology.
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini, I'm going to hand you PX-458. 459, 462
`
`and 463.
`
`MR. SCHERKENBACH: There's no objection to any
`
`
`
`of these, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Thank you..
`
`(Plaintift’s Exhibits 458, 459, 462 and 463
`
`admitted in full.)
`
`Q. Have you had a chance to look through them,
`
`Mr. Gemini?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And do you recognize them?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Have you reviewed them in this case? '
`
`A. Yes, I have.
`
`Q. Could you please tell the jury what they are.
`
`A. These are license agreements entered into by
`
`Microsoft where they're licensing somebody else's
`
`technology related, again, to anti-piracy technology.
`
`Uniloc/ Microsoft
`
`Page 33
`
`A 2217 Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 8
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 8
`
`
`
`Q. So these four Microsoft license agreements relate
`
`to anti-piracy technology?
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Could you tell the jury what, if any, payment
`
`terms these Microsoft licenses contain.
`
`A. These, again, are licenses based on a running
`
`royalty rate.
`
`Q. 80 based on this, Mr. Gemini, what does it tell us
`
`about Microsoft's licensing practices when it comes to
`
`anti-piracy technology?
`
`A. Again, based on this information, Microsoft enters
`
`into agreements based upon a running royalty for
`
`anti-piracy technology.
`
`Q. Now, based on Microsoft's and Uniloc's licenses,
`
`the licenses that you've just discussed with the jury
`
`or shown to the jury, in your view, what type of
`
`license would Microsoft and Uniloc entered into at the
`
`
`
`time of the hypothetical negotiation?
`
`A. A running royalty based on, as I showed you on the
`
`slide of summarizing my calculation based on each
`
`license issued.
`
`Q. Now, the licenses that we just looked at, both
`
`Uniloc and Microsoft, were they exclusive or
`
`non-exclusive?
`
`A. They were non-exclusive.
`
`Uniloc / Microsoft
`
`Page 34
`
`A 2218
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 9
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 9
`
`
`
`Q.
`
`I believe you mentioned thatjust briefly when you
`
`were going through the factors, but tell the jury a bit
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`about what the difference is between exclusive and
`
`non-exclusive, if you will.
`
`A. An exclusive license would mean you're only going
`
`to license one party to use your patent. So you're not
`
`going to license it to anybody else.
`
`Non—exclusive means you're open to license it to
`
`whoever you want. And, normally, an exclusive license
`
`because you're focusing just on one party would call
`
`for a higher royalty because you're not able to license
`
`other people in the industry.
`
`So I've assumed in this case that a license
`
`would be non-exclusive because that's the policy at
`
`least of what I've seen of these licenses that we just
`
`looked, they're non-exclusive, which tends to favor
`
`Microsoft because it would be a higher royalty if it
`
`were exclusive, normally.
`
`Q. So in considering, I belive, Factor 3, exclusive
`
`or non-exclusive, your opinion is that factor favors
`
`Microsoft?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`
`
`Q. And, Mr. Gemini, do Uniloc and Microsoft compete?
`
`A. No, they do not.
`
`Q. Can you explain to the jury a bit about what that
`
`Uniloc / Microsoft
`
`‘
`
`Page 35
`
`A 2219
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 10
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 10
`
`
`
`means and its relation to the Georgia-Pacific factors.
`
`A. Well, sometimes you have situations where you have
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`a patent owner who actually makes a product and sells
`
`it in competition with the accused infringer.
`
`So when they're making a product that is in
`
`direct competition with the accused infringer's
`
`product, the patent owner might be less likely to want
`
`to license because they want to keep the patent to
`
`themselves so they can make their own product and make
`
`their own profit.
`
`This not the situation here. Uniloc does not
`
`compete in the same area of business as Microsoft. So
`
`in my opinion, it's a non-competitive situation, which,
`
`again, would tend to favor Microsoft in a hypothetical
`
`negotiation.
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini, when did the '216 patent issue, if you
`
`
`
`know?
`
`A.
`
`i believe November of 1996.
`
`Q. And do you know when it expires?
`
`A.
`
`In 2013.
`
`Q. How does that evidence or those facts relate to
`
`the Georgia-Pacific factors, if at all?
`
`A. Well, Factor 7 deals with the life of the patent.
`
`And what you want to do is consider what life would be
`
`remaining at the time of the hypothetical negotiation.
`
`Uniloc / Microsoft
`
`Page 36
`
`A 2220
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 11
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 11
`
`
`
`And since the negotiation occurs in 2001, the patent
`
`would have had a good dozen years or so left on its
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`life.
`
`Now, the technology industry is somewhat fluid.
`
`Technology changes pretty quickly, and I don't think
`
`the duration of the patent is very significant in this
`
`situation. So I didn't give it any weight, meaning I
`
`didn't say it favored Microsoft and I didn't say it
`
`favored Uniloc, because I just don't believe, in my
`
`opinion, it has any effect on the negotiation.
`
`0. Mr. Gemini, let's now turn to Group II. Please
`
`tell us about Factors 9 and 10, briefly.
`
`A. Factors 9 and 10 generally deal with the
`
`advantages of the patent and how it's used.
`
`Q. What, if any, evidence have you seen that relates
`
`to Factors 9 or 10?
`
`A.
`
`I've seen evidence indicating that it's a
`
`break-through technology, this technology of the '216
`
`patent.
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini, l'm handing you what's been marked as
`
`PX-251.
`
`
`
`MR. SCHERKENBACH: No objection.
`
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`
`(Plaintiff‘s Exhibit 251 admitted in full.)
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini, are you familiar with this document?
`
`Uniloc I Microsoft
`
`_
`
`Page 37
`
`A 2221
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 12
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 12
`
`
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And have you seen it and reviewed it in
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`consideration in forming your opinion in this case?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Please tell us what it is.
`
`A. This is an internal-use document of Microsoft.
`
`It's entitled "Product Activation - Frequently Asked
`
`Questions - lnternal Use Only."
`
`0.. Do you see on the first page it says: What is
`
`Product Activation?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`
`
`Q. What, if anything, does it say about Product
`
`Activation right under that heading?
`
`A.
`
`It says: Product Activation is new anti-piracy
`
`technology that has been tested in seven countries and
`
`Office 2000's Office Registration Wizard.
`
`0. Mr. Gemini, what else does this document indicate,
`
`if anything, about Factors 9 and 10?
`
`A.
`
`If you turn to page three, the first question
`
`there, it states: Hasn't this kind of anti-piracy
`
`technology been tried before and failed.
`
`Then it states: Activation technologies that
`
`have been used in the past have not been'easy for
`
`customers and were generally viewed as unacceptable by
`
`customers in the industry.
`
`Uniloc/ Microsott
`
`Page 38
`
`A 2222
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 13
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 13
`
`
`
`And it says a couple lines later: Product
`
`Activation is a break-through technology that makes
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`activating a natural part of using the software and
`
`avoids the pitfalls of anti-piracy methods used in the
`
`early days of the PC industry.
`
`So this indicates to me that the accused
`
`Microsoft Product Activation is a break-through
`
`technology that is an advantage over older
`
`technologies.
`
`Q. What, if any, effect would this have on the
`
`hypothetical negotiation and the royalty rate that's
`
`being negotiated between Microsoft and Uniloc?
`
`A.
`
`In my opinion. this factor would favor Uniloc.
`
`
`
`0. Mr. Gemini, is that because you have to assume
`
`that the patent infringes?
`
`A. Yes. You assume that, as I said at the beginning,
`
`I'm assuming there's infringement and that the Product
`
`Activation is the infringing act.
`
`Q. Okay. Mr. Gemini, let's turn to Group III, which
`
`is, I believe, our last group of the Georgia-Pacific
`
`factors.
`
`Would you tell us briefly about this grouping of
`
`the factors.
`
`A. This grouping generally deals with the
`
`profitability of the products made using the patent or
`
`Uniloc/ Microsoft
`
`Page 39
`
`A 2223 Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 14
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 14
`
`
`
`implementing the patent and the extent of use by
`
`Microsoft of those products and the patents.
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`Q. Let's touch on Factor 6 just briefly. What, if
`
`any, evidence have you seen in this case that relates
`
`to Factor 6?
`
`A.
`
`I_ haven't seen anything to indicate that by using
`
`Product Activation Microsoft is able to sell, like I
`
`said earlier, stuff like X—Box or unrelated products to
`
`Office or Windows. 80 at this point, I don't consider
`
`that factor relevant.
`
`Q. Let's look at Factor 13, cost. Please tell us
`
`about cost.
`
`
`
`A. Microsoft has indicated that they spend
`
`approximately $65 million a year to facilitate Product
`
`Activation; 55 million, roughly, is based on -- or is
`
`the cost to facilitate a phone facility for people who
`
`call in to activate, and then $10 million is related to
`
`the Internet portion of their activations.
`
`So I've considered that, that Microsoft spends
`
`money to -- spends a significant amount of money to
`
`keep this Microsoft Product Activation working.
`
`Q. So on a yearly basis, Microsoft spends
`
`approximately $65 million just to keep Product
`
`Activation in service?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Uniloc / Microsoft
`
`Page 40
`
`A 2224
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 15
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 15
`
`
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`1
`
`Q. What, if anything, does that telling you about the
`
`value or benefit of Product Activation to Microsoft?
`
`A.
`
`it tells me that it's important to them to spend
`
`that much money to keep maintaining that type of
`
`service.
`
`Q. We're going to turn now to Factors 8 and 11. Let
`
`I ask you, Mr. Gemini, what, if any, evidence have you
`
`seen that relates to these factors?
`
`A. Well, l've seen a number of documents indicating
`
`that Microsoft - as we've said earlier, Microsoft had
`
`a problem with casual copying and that to solve this
`
`problem they wanted to implement Product Activation.
`
`And as a result of implementing Product Activation,
`
`they've seen an increase in sales.
`
`Q. Let's take a look at some of the documents you've
`
`seen.
`
`Mr. Gemini, I'm going to hand you a group of
`
`documents and ask you to review them briefly. PX—374,
`
`238, 71, 375, 415, 631, and 148.
`
`MR. SCHERKENBACH: There's no objection.
`
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`
`(Plaintiff's Exhibits 374, 238, 71, 375, 415,
`
`631 and 148 were admitted in full.)
`
`0. Mr. Gemini, have you had a chance to flip through
`
`the documents that I've handed you?
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Uniloc / Microsoft
`
`A 2225
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 16
`
`Page 41
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 16
`
`
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Do you recognize them?
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Have you reviewed and considered them in forming
`
`your opinion in this case?
`
`A. Yes, I have.
`
`Q. Please tell us what they are.
`
`
`
`A. They're. basically, internal Microsoft documents
`
`that talk about Microsoft Product Activation and the
`
`problem they were having with Product Activation and
`
`certain other situations related to Product Activation.
`
`Q. Okay. Mr. Gemini, would you please find PX-238,
`
`which is probably the second document in that package.
`
`A. Okay.
`
`Q. So you reviewed this document, Mr. Gemini?
`
`A.. Yes.
`
`0. Please tell us what it is.
`
`A.
`
`It's an internal Microsoft document entitled
`
`"Office XP Product Activation Review" dated February
`
`21st, 2001.
`
`And this document would have been right at the
`
`time -- it's timely because it was right at the time of
`
`the hypothetical. You remember I talked about March
`
`2001 being the first infringement that would have been
`
`the time of the hypothetical, so this is right around
`
`Uniloc l Microsoft
`
`Page 42
`
`A 2226
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 17
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 17
`
`
`
`that timeframe.
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini, would you please the tell the jury
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`what, if anything, this document indicates about
`
`Microsoft's concerns with casual copying.
`
`A. On the, I think, the third page in it talks about
`
`the piracy situation. You recall what I stated earlier
`
`about the 7 billion and 3-and-a-half billion.
`
`It
`
`states" MS pirate market share is huge. Over $7
`
`billion a year in apps. Apps are Office and Windows.
`
`And 50% of losses are due to casual copying.
`
`It also says: Microsoft Product Activation
`
`reduces casual copying by limiting installs on diverse
`
`HW, or hardware. Product Activation will force
`
`counterfeiters to use non-retail master media.
`
`So that's kind of the information I considered.
`
`Q. Have you also reviewed the deposition testimony of
`
`Mr. Nieman?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. What, if anything, did he say about the problem
`
`with casual copying?
`
`A. He agreed with the statement about the
`
`quantification of those numbers.
`
`Q. And Mr. Gemini, could you find PX-71 in that
`
`
`
`group.
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Uniloc / Microsoft
`
`Page 43
`
`A 2227patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 18
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 18
`
`
`
`Q. Have you reviewed and considered this document in
`
`forming your opinions in this case?
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Please tell the jury what it is.
`
`A.
`
`It's a Microsoft document, and it indicates
`
`that — you can see in the heading there, Windows
`
`Product Activation, the key to increasing sales and
`
`reducing software piracy. Then it goes on to say, you
`
`can see the highlighted -- do you want me to read that
`
`in?
`
`Q. Sure. The first paragraph.
`
`will solve that.
`
`A.
`
`(Reading:) Some of the toughest competition you
`
`will face in your business comes from software pirates.
`
`Thirty-seven percent of all software world-wide was
`
`pirated in 2000. Software piracy means lower sales and
`
`less need for customers to have new systems configured.
`
`But now with Microsoft Windows XP, there's a way to
`
`fight back.
`
`And then it talks in the next paragraph about
`
`Windows Product Activation's new anti-piracy technology
`
`that has been integrated into each unit of Microsoft
`
`Windows.
`
`So it kind of talks about the problem with
`
`piracy or casual copying and how Product Activation
`
`Uniloc / Microsoft
`
`Page 44
`
`A 2228
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 19
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 19
`
`
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini, do the other documents in that bundle
`
`also address the issue of casual copying?
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. To save us all some time, we won't go through them
`
`all. We have other documents to move on to.
`
`Now, in the document we just discussed, which
`
`was PX-71, I believe it said that the key to increasing
`
`sales and reducing software piracy, have you seen any
`
`other documents indicating that Product Activation
`
`increases sales or reduces piracy?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini, I'm going to hand you another package
`
`of documents, PX-391, 72, 494, 423, 238, 71 is also in
`
`A. Yes.
`
`there, we already looked at that, 238 and 434.
`
`MR. SCHERKENBACH: There's no objection.
`
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`
`(Plaintiff's Exhibits 391 , 72, 494, 423, 238 and
`
`434 were admitted in full.)
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini, after you've had a moment to look
`
`through those, please let me know.
`
`A. Okay.
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini. are those all Microsoft documents?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And you recognize them?
`
`Uniloc / Microsoft
`
`Page 45
`
`A 2229
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 20
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 20
`
`
`
`Q. And you've reviewed and considered them in forming
`
`your opinion in this case?
`
`Tn'al Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`A. Yes, I have.
`
`Q. Please tell us, generally, what those documents
`
`address.
`
`A. They address Microsoft discussions of a casual
`
`copying problem and that Microsoft Product Activation
`
`is a solution to that problem.
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini, let's take a look at PX-391. Would
`
`you please tell us what this document is.
`
`A. This is entitled "Microsoft Product Activation
`
`Facts Shee " and it's dated January of 2001. Again,
`
`right at the at the time of the hypothetical
`
`negotiation.
`
`Q. What, if anything, does this document indicate
`
`about Product Activation and casual copying?
`
`A.
`
`It says in the first paragraph, last sentence:
`
`Microsoft Product Activation is designed to reduce
`
`casual copying.
`
`Q. Would you please take a look at PX-494. Have you
`
`
`
`seen this document?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Please tell us what it is.
`
`A.
`
`lt's an activation update dated July 7, 2003.
`
`Q. What, if anything, does this document indicate
`
`Uniloc / Microsoft
`
`Page 46
`
`A 2230
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 21
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 21
`
`
`
`about Product Activation and casual copying?
`
`A. This goes to the extent of use and the results.
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`And if you look at page six, it asks the question:
`
`Does our current activation approach, and if you look
`
`at the fourth column there, reduce casual copying. And
`
`you can see for retail and emerging market system
`
`builder and OEM, it's all yes.
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini, would you please now take a look at
`
`PX-423. Please tell us what this document is.
`
`A. This is another Microsoft document entitled
`
`"Windows Product Activation Overview."
`
`Q. What, if anything, does it indicate about Product
`
`Activation and casual copying?
`
`A.
`
`It says in the first paragraph: Windows Product
`
`Activation reduces the amount of illegal software
`
`copying of Windows, which hurts consumers,
`
`manufacturers and software publishers alike.
`
`
`
`Incomplete software and documentation packages and lack
`
`of customer support hurts consumers and the lost
`
`revenue is damaging to manufacturers and publishers.
`
`Again, it tells me that Windows -- or Microsoft
`
`is trying to use Product Activation to increase revenue
`
`and reduce usual copying.
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini, do you have PX-238?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Uniloc I Microsoft
`
`A 2231
`
`Page 47
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 22
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 22
`
`
`
`Q. Okay.
`
`I believe we took a look at this already.
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Trial Transcript- Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`Q. Could you please tell us - I believe the page is
`
`116 - and what. if anything, it indicates there about
`
`Product Activation and casual copying.
`
`A. This page talks about Product Activation
`
`effectiveness. And if you see in the second bullet
`
`point, it talks about quantified evidence of
`
`effectiveness. And it says: SORG revenue growth 35%
`
`to 48%. Now, SORG is small organizations, which is
`
`part of what Microsoft is targeting with Microsoft
`
`Product Activation. So this is indicating, at least at
`
`that point, they were experiencing revenue growth of
`
`35% to 48% as a result of Product Activation.
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini, have you seen the deposition testimony
`
`of Mr. Nieman in relation to this document?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. What, if anything, did Mr. Nieman have to say
`
`about the word "quantified" as shown on the ELMO in
`
`this document?
`
`A. He indicated that it meant "measured."
`
`Q. He meant measured?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini, if you could look at PX-72.
`
`Uniloc I Microsoft
`
`Page 48
`
`A 2232
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 23
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 23
`
`
`
`Q. Would you please tell us what this document is.
`
`A.
`
`It's a Microsoft document.
`
`It's titled “Piracy
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`Basics, Microsoft Product Activation."
`
`Q.. What, if anything, does this document indicate
`
`about casual copying and Product Activation?
`
`A. Do you want me to read all that? I can.
`
`THE COURT: No.
`
`I don't think that's necessary.
`
`A. Okay.
`
`I'll just summarize.
`
`It says, essentially,
`
`Microsoft is committed to protection of intellectual
`
`property rights and to reduction of software piracy
`
`world-wide.
`
`It goes on to say that the goal of Product
`
`Activation is to reduce a form of piracy known as
`
`casual copying.
`
`So again, this is an indication of what the goal
`
`and what Microsoft was using Product Activation to do.
`
`Q. Now, Mr. Gemini, we've seen some documents
`
`indicating Microsoft's concern with product casual
`
`copying, is that -- withdrawn.
`
`We've seen some documents indicating Microsoft's
`
`concerns with casual copying; is that true?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And we've seen some documents indicating how
`
`Microsoft was to go about to solve the problem; is that
`
`
`
`true?
`
`Uniloc/ Microsoft
`
`Page 49
`
`A 2233
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 24
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 24
`
`
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Have you also seen documents that speak to what,
`
`Trial Transcript — Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`if any, success Microsoft was having with Product
`
`Activation in solving this problem?
`
`A. Yes, I have.
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini, I'm going to hand you a bundle of
`
`documents, and we're not going to go through them
`
`all — I think we'd be here for a long time -- PX-424,
`
`433, 435,440, 436, 238, 445, 446, 447, 248, 629, 240,
`
`261, 434, 441, and 427.
`
`MR. SCHERKENBACH: No objection to any of those.
`
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`
`(Plaintiff's Exhibits 424, 433, 435, 440, 436,
`
`238,445,446, 447, 248, 629, 240, 261, 434,441, and
`
`427 were admitted in full.)
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini, I think | forgot to give you a couple.
`
`A. Okay.
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini, have you had a chance to thumb through
`
`
`
`those documents? if you do, let me know.
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Do you recognize those documents?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`I considered all of these documents.
`
`Q. Okay. They're Microsoft documents?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And you've reviewed them and made them part of the
`
`Uniloc / Microsoft
`
`A 2234
`
`Page 50
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 25
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 25
`
`
`
`opinion you're giving in this case?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`Q. Please tell us, generally, what these documents
`
`show.
`
`A. These documents generally discuss how Microsoft's
`
`Product Activation has been successful at increasing
`
`revenues or sales.
`
`Q. Let's just take a look at a few of them. And the
`
`first document we'll look at is PX-424.
`
`
`
`A. Okay.
`
`Q. Can you please tell the jury what this document
`
`is.
`
`A. This is a Microsoft document entitled,
`
`"Anti-piracy and Licensing Technology Update,“ dated
`
`October 12th, 2000.
`
`Q. What, if any, significance does the date have in
`
`this document?
`
`A. Again, this was prior or right around the time of
`
`the hypothetical. You have to understand, also, that
`
`Microsoft was testing Product Activation in other
`
`countries prior to the infringement date that I've used
`
`of March 2001. That's why you'll see a document like
`
`this, at least my understanding is why you'll see a
`
`document like this.
`
`it's talking about Product
`
`Activation prior to the date of first infringement.
`
`Uniloc/Microsoft
`
`Page 51
`
`A 2235
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 26
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 26
`
`
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`
`
`1
`
`Q. Okay. Would you please tell the jury what, if
`
`anything, this document says about the benefit of
`
`Product Activation.
`
`A. This talks about on page 21 -- it's labeled "OAW
`
`Experience to Date." And I understand that OAW is
`
`Office Activation Wizard, which I also understand is a
`
`pre-name of Product Activation. And it talks about
`
`highlights in the middle of the page there. And the
`
`second bullet says: Revenue increases in all subs in
`
`FY '00, fiscal year '00, I assume, means for that
`
`fiscal year in China Office 140% revenue growth. Okay?
`
`It also says: All pilot countries SORG revenue growth
`
`73% due to OAW.
`
`So again, it shows me Microsoft was experiencing
`
`increased sales as a result of Product Activation in
`
`those countries.
`
`Q. This would have been just before the time of the
`
`hypothetical negotiation?
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`A. Yes.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini, if you'd please take a look at --
`
`actually, let's look at that document one more time.
`
`Please tell the jury what "FPP" and "open" mean?
`
`A. FPP is full package product, which is -- my
`
`understanding is what you go into the store and buy.
`
`Q. Okay. Now, let's take a look at PX-433. And
`
`Uniloc / Microsoft
`
`A 2236
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 27
`
`Page 52
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 27
`
`
`
`you've seen this document before?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`Q.
`
`It's a Microsoft internal e-mail?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And it's dated around the same time as that
`
`document we just saw?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`
`
`Q. Please tell us what, if anything, it says about
`
`the benefit of Product Activation.
`
`A. Well, it says in the first paragraph: Windows
`
`Product Activation is an anti-piracy measure intended -
`
`to recapture Windows revenues lost to casual copying,
`
`especially in the retail and system builder channels.
`
`So again, showing me that Windows was intending
`
`to capture additional revenues through Product
`
`Activation.
`
`Q. Mr. Gemini, the next document we'll look at is
`
`PX-435, if you could take that, please. You've seen
`
`this document?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And you've considered it in forming your opinion?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Let's -- if you turn to page -- it ends with 770
`
`at the bottom and continues to the next page. Tell the
`
`jury what, if anything, this document tells you about
`
`Uniloc / Microsoft
`
`A 2237
`
`Page 53
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 28
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 Page 28
`
`
`
`the benefit of Product Activation.
`
`A. Well, if you turn to 771, it states at the top:
`
`Trial Transcript - Day 5 3/27/2009 9:00:00 AM
`
`I Casual copying or soft lifting accounts for the
`
`majority of software revenue lost
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
