Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Filing
186
Declaration of Ravind S. Grewal in Support of 183 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Testimony Re Prosecution of '361 Patent filed by Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Related document(s) 183 ) (Grewal, Ravind) (Filed on 7/6/2004)
Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Doc. 186 Att. 2
Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW
Document 186-3
Filed 07/06/2004
Page 1 of 15
EXHIBIT B
Dockets.Justia.com
.,
,. Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW Document 186-3 Filed 07/06/2004 Page 2 of 15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
OVERTURE SERVICES, INC., A
DELAWARE CORPORATION,
PLAINTIFF,
VS.
GOOGLE INC., A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION,
DEFENDANT.
NO. C 02- 01991
JSW ADR
VOLUME I
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF DARREN J. DAVIS
(CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2003
. REPORTED BY:
KAREN E. KAY CSR NO. 3262, RM~, CRR
JOB NO.
29884KEK
10868KLlNG STREET TOLUCA LAKE , CALIFORNIA 91602
800. 540. FAX 818. 508. 6326 e-mail: lois~ludwigklein. corn
0681
~~
80 540. 0 of 1 T LUDWIG KL, Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW REPORTERS 186-3 Document & VIDEO, INC. Filed 07/06/2004 0. Page 3 6815
YES.
IN THIS DEPOSITION I' M SOMETIMES GOING TO
REFER TO THE COMPANY AS OVERTURE AND SOMETIMES AS
09:37:18
09:37:19
09: 37 : 21
GOTO TYPICALLY DEPENDING ON APPROXIMATELY THE TIME
09:37:25
09:37:27 09:37:30
09:37:33
PERIOD I' M TALKING ABOUT.
BUT SINCE IT' S THE SAME
COMPANY WITH JUST A DIFFERENT NAME, I' D LIKE YOU TO
UNDERSTAND THAT I' M REFERRING TO THE COMPANY UNDER
BOTH NAMES WHEN I SAY THAT.
SO WHEN I SAY " GOTO, "
09:37:37
IF YOU HAVE AN ANSWER THAT APPLIES TO OVERTURE, THE
09:37:40
TIME PERIOD WHERE THE COMPANY WAS CALLED OVERTURE,
I'D LIKE YOU TO ANSWER AS TO THAT AS WELL AND VICE
VERSA; IS THAT OKAY?
OKAY.
09:37:41
09:37:43
09:37:46
I'
LL BE
IF I NEED CLARIFICATION,
09:37:49
SPECIFIC ABOUT
IT.
THANKS.
09:37:51
09:37:52 09:37:54
09:37:54
THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
GREAT.
WHEN DID YOU START AT OVERTURE?
IN OCTOBER OF
1998.
09:37:59
WHAT WAS YOUR JOB TITLE AT GOTO ACTUALLY IN
OCTOBER
09:38:04
09:38:07
1998?
PRODUCT MANAGER.
09:38:11
09:38:13
DID YOU HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH THE COMPANY
BEFORE OCTOBER OF 1998?
09:38:15
09:38:17
YES, I DID.
CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT FOR ME?
09:38:19
CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT - VOLUME I
--
-11:25:16
11:25:20
80 540 06 1 Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSWREPORTERS 186-3 Document & VIDEO, INC. Filed 07/06/2004 0. Page. 4 of815 LUDWIG KL' ~
WHAT WERE THOSE VARIOUS TECHNICAL REASONS?
THE ONE THAT I CAN RECALL IS THAT THERE WAS
NOT A MEANS TO RECONCILE THE CLICKS THAT WERE
11:25:25
RECEIVED TO SPECIFIC ADVERTISER ACCOUNTS.
WHO TOLD YOU THAT?
I CAN'T RECALL.
11:25:29
11:25:34
IT.
I JUST
I HEARD
11:25:35
AGAIN, THAT WASN'T THE PART OF THE BUSINESS THAT I
11:25:40
11:25:42
WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH.
DO YOU KNOW WHEN
DO YOU KNOW WHEN
11:25:45
11:25:52
OVERTURE WAS TRYING TO BILL ITS USER BUT WAS UNABLE
TO WHEN THAT HAPPENED?
I BECAME AWARE THAT THERE WAS SOME
11:25:56
11:25:57
SITUATION LIKE THAT WHEN I JOINED THE COMPANY.
DO YOU KNOW WHETHER GOTO HAD BEEN PAID
11:25:59 11:26:03 11:26:07 11:26:10
11: 26: 14
FOR - - BY
ANY OF ITS WEBSITE PROMOTERS FOR ANY OF
THE TRAFFIC THAT OVERTURE DELIVERED AS OF ABOUT
OCTOBER 1998?
I BELIEVE SO, BUT I CAN'T BE ENTIRELY SURE.
AGAIN, I WASN'T PART OF THE COMPANY AT THAT POINT.
11:26:22
11:26:25 11:26:36 11:26:38 11:26:40
11:26:43
WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT?
I'M SORRY.
WHY DO I BELIEVE WHAT?
WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT SOME WEBSITE
PROMOTERS HAD PAID FOR THE TRAFFIC THAT WAS
DELIVERED TO THEM AS OF OR PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1998?
11:26:45
11:26:53
I SEEM TO REMEMBER HEARING THAT WE HAD
CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT - VOLUME I
540 6 15 8 Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW REPORTERS 186-3 Document & VIDEO, INC Filed 07/06/200400.Page.50of81 ~ LUDWIG KI
STARTED TO RECEIVE MONEY, BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER
SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE INSTANCE WAS.
IT WAS JUST
I WAS NEW TO
11:26:56 11:26:59
SOMETHING THAT WAS KIND OF OUT THERE.
11:27:06
11:27:10 11:27:12 11:27:13
THE COMPANY, AND I WAS REALLY JUST TRYING TO LEARN
MY JOB AT THAT POINT.
IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD HAVE HEARD IN A
CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE?
11:27:15
11:27:19 11:27:22
POSSIBLY.
I CAN'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY.
IN PERHAPS AN E- MAIL STATUS REPORT?
DOUBTFUL.
WE WEREN'T BIG ON STATUS REPORTS
11:27:26
11:27:29 11:27:30
11:27:33
BACK THEN.
WAS
THERE AN INTERNAL WEB PAGE YOU COULD
TO FOR NEWS ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE COMPANY?
NOT THAT I WAS AWARE OF, NO.
THERE ANY WAY YOU CAN THINK OF YOU WOULD
11:27:36 11:27:40
HAVE LEARNED ABOUT THIS OTHER THAN A CONVERSATION
WITH SOMEONE?
11:27:42
11:27:43
COULD HAVE JUST HEARD IT AROUND THE WATER
COOLER.
11:27:46 11:27:49
AT THE TIME GOTO WAS IN THE IDEA LAB
THERE WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE AROUND.
BUILDING.
11:27:55 11:27:58
11:28:00
OCCASIONALLY YOU JUST KIND OF HEARD THINGS
PASSING.
YOU COULDN'T NECESSARILY BE SURE WHAT WAS
RIGHT AND WHAT WAS WRONG.
MR . KWUN :
11:28:04
11:28:06
11:28:08
WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE TAPE, SO
WHY DON'T WE TAKE A BREAK HERE. CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT - VOLUME
A
D. 8.
Y
11:54:28
80 540. 0 of 1 LUDWIG KL - ~ Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSWREPORTERS 186-3 Document & VIDEO, INC. Filed 07/06/2004 0. Page 6 6815
THAT WAS MADE AT T.
I DON'T SPECIFICALLY
KNOW THERE WAS A PRESENTATION MADE.
AND YOU DON'T RECALL TELLING ANYONE TO LOOK
11:54:31
11:54:35 11:54:37
11:54:43 11:54:44
FOR DOCUMENTS THAT RELATED TO
NO.
T. E. D.
WHY DIDN'T YOU DO THAT?
BELIEVE THAT FULFILLED MY DUTY TO
11:54:48
DISCLOSE BY DISCLOSING THE INFORMATION THAT I WAS
AWARE OF.
11:54:51
11:54:53
AND TURNING BACK TO EXHIBIT 4, IF YOU COULD
11:55:05
11:55:09
11:55:13
JUST READ THE PARAGRAPH
IT TO YOURSELF
"I HEREBY DECLARE.
OU CAN GO AHEAD AND READ
BOVE YOUR SIGNATURE STARTING WITH
AND WHEN YOU'RE DONE WITH THAT,
11:55:15 11:55:19
JUST LET ME KNOW.
OKAY.
11:55:31
11:55:31
11:55:33
SO YOU READ THAT AND UNDERSTOOD THAT BEFORE
YOU SIGNED THIS DOCUMENT; IS THAT CORRECT?
YES.
AND SO YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT YOU WERE UNDERTAKING A SERIOUS DUTY HERE IN SUBMITTING THIS
PATENT APPLICATION?
11:55:35 11:55:35
11:55:37
11:55:40
YES.
AND YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS INCUMBENT
UPON YOU TO ACT WITH CANDOR IN ALL OF YOUR
11:55:41
11:55:42
11:55:44
11:55:49
101
INTERACTIONS WITH THE PATENT OFFICE?
CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT - VOLUME I
W
P
Y
W S
80 540 0of 1 Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW REPORTERS 186-3 Document & VIDEO, INC Filed 07/06/2004 0. Page. 7 6815 1 LUDWIG KL
YES.
OKAY.
11:55:51
11:55:57
CAN YOU CLARIFY JUST n CANDOR" ?
I'M SORRY.
11:55:59 11:56:01
11:56:04 11:56:04 11:56:07
I'M NOT SURE I'VE SEEN THAT TERM SPECIFICALLY
MENTIONED.
WHAT DID YOU
HAT WERE YOU THINKING OF
WHEN YOU ANSWERED THAT QUESTION?
I KNOW THAT I WAS
ER MY DUTY AND PER
11:56:08
11:56:12
JUST WHO I AM, I WAS AS FORTHCOMING AS I COULD BE
AND WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING THAT I KNEW
11:56:16
11:56:19
ABOUT WAS DISCLOSED AND THAT I COOPERATED WITH THE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE
11:56:22
11:56:24 11:56:27
DURING THE PROSECUTION OF OUR PATENT APPLICATION.
SO YOU NEVER TRIED TO HIDE ANY INFORMATION
THAT YOU HAD?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
11:56:28
11:56:29
OU DIDN'T TRY TO
AND YOU DIDN'T RELY ON
REPLY ON TECHNICALITIES IN TERMS OF
11:56:33
ELL, I
O I CAN SAY
11:56:36 11:56:39
SUPPOSE THIS IS TECHNICALLY TRUE BUT
IT?
NO.
11:56:42
11:56:43
SO YOU TRIED TO BE AS FORTHRIGHT AS
11:56:43 11:56:45 11:56:45
11:56:47
102
POSSIBLE?
.A
ABSOLUTELY.
IF YOU COULD TURN TO EXHIBIT 3, WHICH IS
CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT - VOLUME
80 540. 0 of 15 R Document 186-3 Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW EPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. Filed 07/06/2004 0. Page 8 681 LUDWIG KLT
RECEIVED RETRIEVAL REQUESTS.
HOW ARE YOU ABLE TO
14:52:50 14:52:55
14:53:10
HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT?
I KNOW OF NO OTHER WAY THAT A SITE LIKE
HITS GALORE COULD OFFER THE SERVICES THAT THEY CLAIM
14:53:16 14:53:19
TO OFFER IN EXHIBITS 9 AND 10 WITHOUT RECORDING A
RETRIEVAL REQUEST EVENT.
BUT HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT THEY RECEIVED
RETRIEVAL REQUESTS?
14:53:23 14:53:28
14:53:30
14:53:34
14:53:37
BASED ON THE BELIEF THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO
1 ()
FULFILL THE SERVICE OFFERING THAT THEY MADE, I CAN
THINK OF NO OTHER WAY THAT THEY COULD HAVE PROVIDED
14:53:41
14:53:43
THAT SERVICE WITHOUT RECORDING THOSE RETRIEVAL
REQUESTS.
14:53:46
WHAT ASPECT OF THE HITSGALORE. COM SERVICE
14:53:48 14:53:55
14 : 54 : 00
REQUIRES RECEIVING RETRIEVAL REQUESTS?
I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
WHAT ASPECT?
14:54:02 14:54:03 14:54:07
WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE HITSGALORE. COM SERVICE
THAT THEY OFFER THAT REQUIRES RECEIVING RETRIEVAL
REQUESTS?
14:54:11
I CAN SEE NO OTHER WAY THAT THEY CAN
14:55:13 14:55:16
FULFILL THE CLAIM THAT THEY MADE IN WHAT WE HAVE
LISTED AS EXHIBIT 9 OF EXHIBIT 8 INDICATING THAT
THEY WILL LET ADVERTI SERS, QUOTE, "PAY FOR WHAT THEY
14:55:19
14:55:28 14:55:32
159
GET, " UNQUOTE, "WITHOUT RECORDING A RETRIEVAL
CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT - VOLUME I
80 540 6 15 Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW REPORTERS 186-3 Document & VIDEO, INC Filed 07/06/2004 0.Page.90of81 1 LUDWIG KI
REQUEST EVENT.
14:55:36
14:55:47 14:55:52 14:55:59
SO IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT BECAUSE
HITSGALORE. COM STATES THAT THEY LET ADVERTISERS,
QUOTE, "PAY FOR WHAT THEY GET, " UNQUOTE, THAT
NECESSARILY MEANS THAT HITSGALORE. COM RECEIVES
RETRIEVAL REQUESTS?
14:56:04 14:56:09
14:56:22
I CAN THINK OF NO OTHER WAY THAT THEY COULD FULFILL THAT CLAIM UNLESS THEY RECEIVED AND RECORDED
THOSE RETRIEVAL REQUESTS.
THAT
14:56:25
14:56:27 14:56:36
"YES"?
ANSWER.
IT'S
OR "NO.
IT'S NOT A SPECIFIC "YES"
14:56:51
14: 56: 54
SO IN YOUR RULE 102 DECLARATION, WHEN YOU
14:57:01
14:57:06
STATED THAT HITSGALORE. COM RECEIVES RETRIEVAL
REQUESTS, DID YOU KNOW THAT TO BE TRUE?
I COULD SEE NO OTHER WAY THAT THEY COULD FULFILL ON THEIR SERVICE OFFERING UNLESS THEY DID
14:57:11
14:57:20
14:57:21
14:57:24 14:57:28
14:57:32
THAT, SO I VERY DEFINITELY BELIEVED IT TO BE TRUE.
.Q
DID YOU EXPLAIN THE ASSUMPTION THAT YOU HAD
MADE THAT IT WAS MERELY THAT YOU COULDN'T THINK OF
ANY OTHER WAY TO DO WHAT THEY WERE SAYING THEY DID? DID YOU MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION CLEAR TO THE EXAMINER?
14:57:34 14:57:37
14:57:44
14:57:47
I BELIEVED THAT SOMEONE REASONABLY SKILLED
IN THE ART COULD OBSERVE WHAT HITS GALORE WAS DOING
AND NOTE HOW IT WAS BEING DONE IN THE SAME WAY THAT
14:57:56
160
CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT - VOLUME
540 0 of 15 8 Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW REPORTERS186-3 Filed 07/06/200400.Page .10681 1 Document & VIDEO, INC LUDWIG KL
WHAT WAS IT ABOUT THE WAY THAT
14:59:44 14:59:45
14:59:49
HITSGALORE. COM WAS PROVIDING ITS SERVICE THAT LED
YOU TO BELIEVE THAT IT MUST BE THE CASE THAT
HITSGALORE . COM WAS RECEIVING RETRIEVAL REQUESTS?
14:59:52
I BELIEVE IT WAS THE FACT THAT THEY CLAIMED
15:00:34
TO ONLY ALLOW ADVERTISERS TO GET WHAT THEY PAY FOR
OR - - SORRY - - PAY FOR WHAT THEY GET, TO CITE
15:00:41
15:00:46
15:00:50
EXHIBIT 9.
WHAT IS IT ABOUT HITS GALORE OFFERING A
15:00:52
15:00:57
SERVICE THAT ALLOWED ADVERTISERS TO ONLY PAY FOR
WHAT THEY GET THAT LED YOU TO THE CONCLUSION THAT
HITSGALORE . COM WAS RECEIVING RETRIEVAL REQUESTS?
15:01:01
15:01:06
IN ORDER FOR THEM TO ONLY PROVIDE TO
15:01:32 15:01:36 15:01:48 15:01:56 15:02:06 15:02:12 15:02:19 15:02:25 15:02:30 15:02:34 15:02:40
15:02:43
ADVERTISERS - - LET ME REPHRASE.
IN ORDER FOR THEM
TO SEND TRAFFIC TO ADVERTISERS BASED ON A
SEARCHER'S
THIS CASE, CLICKTHROUGH ON THEIR
SITE,
THEY WOULD HAVE TO RECORD THAT RETRIEVAL IN
ORDER TO BE ABLE TO FULFILL THE SERVICE THAT THEY
OFFERED.
IF YOU CREATE A WEB PAGE AND YOUR WEB PAGE
HAS LINKS TO ANOTHER WEBSITE ON ANOTHER SERVER
SOMEWHERE ELSE AND A USER GOES AND RETRIEVES YOUR
WEB PAGE THAT INCLUDES THESE LINKS TO OTHER SITES
AND THE USER THEN CLICKS ON ONE OF THOSE LINKS TO
ONE OF THE OTHER SITES, DOES YOUR WEB PAGE OR YOUR
CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT - VOLUME I
15:02:46
162
8 Page 11 of 15 ~ LUDWIG KL Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW REPORTERS 186-3 Document & VIDEO, INC Filed 07/06/2004 00. 540. 0681
EXISTED BEFORE
WEBSITE?
THE SYSTEM THAT WAS DESCRIBED BY THE PRIOR
MAY
1998 AT THE GOTO. COM
15:25:20
15:25:26
15:25:31
15:25:38
ART THAT WE HAD PROVIDED TO THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK
OFFICE.
HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT THE PRIOR ART
15:25:41
15:25:45
15:25:50 15:25:53 15:25:59 15:26:02 15:26:09
OKAY.
DESCRIBED ALL THE FEATURES OF THE SYSTEM THAT EXISTED AS OF MAY 28TH, 1998?
I KNEW OF NO FEATURE THAT EXISTED BEFORE
MAY 28TH, 1998 THAT WAS NOT DESCRIBED IN THE PRIOR
ART.
BUT HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT THAT PRIOR
15:26:10
15:26:14
15: 26: 17
ART DESCRIBED ALL OF THE FEATURES OF THE SYSTEM THAT
EXISTED AS OF MAY 28TH, 1998?
COULD YOU SAY YOUR QUESTION ONE MORE TIME.
WELL, LET ME ASK A DIFFERENT QUESTION.
DID YOU KNOW WHAT FEATURES THE GOTO. COM LINE
SYSTEM HAD PRIOR TO MAY 28TH, 1998?
I LEARNED ABOUT WHAT THE SYSTEM CONTAINED
HOW
15:26:37
15:26:45 15:26:48
15:26:53
15:27:07
15:27:13
SUBSEQUENT TO MY JOINING THE COMPANY IN OCTOBER
THROUGH A NUMBER OF VARIOUS MEANS, EXPERIENTIAL
15:27:17 15:27:27
15:27:29
DISCUSSION.
WAS YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT FEATURES THE
GOTO . COM
LINE AD SYSTEM HAD PRIOR TO MAY 28, 1998
15:27:34
BASED AT ALL ON DISCUSSIONS WITH ANY OF YOUR
15:27:41
172
CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT - VOLUME
8 . 540. 0681 Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW REPORTERS186-3 Filed 07/06/2004 00Page 12 of 15 ~ Document & VIDEO, INC LUDWIG KI
COpy OF THE MAY 19TH, 1998 PRESS RELEASE TO PATENT
COUNSEL OR ANYONE ELSE PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE
361 PATENT APPLICATION?
16:13:10
16:13:15
16:13:17
I BELIEVE SO BUT I CAN'T BE CERTAIN.
ON WHAT DO YOU BASE THAT BELIEF?
16:13:35
16:13:37
COULD YOU REPEAT THE PREVIOUS QUESTION ONE
MORE TIME.
CORRECTLY.
16:14:58 16:15:00
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I ANSWERED
16:15:02
16:15:03 16:15:06
'98 PRESS
ON WHAT DO YOU BASE YOUR BELIEF THAT
SOMEONE PROVIDED A COpy
OF THE MAY 19TH,
RELEAS E TO PATENT COUNSEL OR SOMEONE ELSE PRIOR TO
16:15:11
16:15:.
THE FILING OF THE 361 PATENT APPLICATION?
I KNOW THAT THERE WAS AN EXHAUSTIVE PRIOR
16:15:22
ART SEARCH DONE THAT WAS DONE CERTAINLY.
AND IN
16:15:24 16:15:28
16:15:34
CONJUNCTION WITH COUNSEL AS WELL AS THE OTHER
INVENTORS, I WAS CONFIDENT THAT ALL INFORMATION THAT
WAS RELEVANT TO THE APPLICATION HAD BEEN PROVIDED AS
PART OF THE DISCLOSURE PROCESS.
16:15:36
16:15:39
AND THE MAY 19TH, 1998 PRESS RELEASE IS
RELEVANT TO THE 361 PATENT APPLICATION,
16:15:41
16:15:45 16:15:52 16:17:08 16:17:13 16:17:18
16:17:18
187
ISN'T IT?
INASMUCH AS IT DISCUSSES THINGS THAT WERE
AVAILABLE PREVIOUS TO THE INVENTION ITSELF, I'M NOT
SURE WHETHER OR NOT THAT CONSTITUTES RELEVANCE OR
NOT.
BUT YOU AND YOUR COINVENTERS AND THOSE
CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT - VOLUME I
Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW LUDWIG
REPORTERS & aN Document 186-3
VIDEO,
Filed 07/06/2004 800. 5413 0615 Page 0. of 81
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
I, KAREN E. KAY, CSR NO. 3862, A
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER IN AND FOR THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY:
THAT PRIOR TO BEING EXAMINED, THE WITNESS
NAMED IN THE FOREGOING PROCEEDINGS WAS BY ME DULY
SWORN TO TESTIFY TO THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND
NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH;
THAT SAID PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN BY ME IN
SHORTHAND AT THE TIME AND PLACE HEREIN NAMED AND WAS
THEREAFTER TRANSCRIBED INTO TYPEWRITING UNDER MY
DIRECTION, SAID TRANSCRIPT BEING A TRUE AND CORRECT
TRANSCRIPTION OF MY SHORTHAND NOTES.
I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I HAVE NO INTEREST
IN THE OUTCOME OF THIS ACTION.
JUNE
9TH
2003
CSR NO. 3862 -
-0-225
Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW
I'-
121:
J;?tIG & L
Document 186-3
Filed 07/06/2004
312 321 4299
Page 14 of 15
ERRA T A SHEET
CHANGES TO TESTIMONY OF DARREN J. DAVIS
PAGE
12'"
LINE
FROM VIA A PRODUCT CALLED TIMES LINK AT RESULTS , SEARCH USTINGS
VIA A PRODUCT CALLED TThiESLINK AT
RESULTS. COMPONENTS OF
1J
CONTAINfDAN
OVERTURE. COM PAGE
THE DIREct TRAfFIC CENTER
SEARCH USTINGS CONTAINED A GOTO. COMPAGE
30~ 36* 41*
87'"
TIlE DIREC"TRAFF1C CENTER
JAY GAlLINAn)
ERIK HOV ANEC I CAN' T REMEMBER IN THE IDEALAB~ BUILD ING. ERIC, NO. NO. rrWAS IN 2002BUT I DON' T BELIEVE SO. 1 BELIEVE SO.
1519..
J. GALUNA ITI ERIK HOVANIC I COULDN' T REMEMBER IN THE IDEA LAB BUll...DING.
ERIK, YES. 1 BELIEVE SO, YES. BUT I BELIEVE SO. YES M NOT AWARE OF A MEANS THAT COULD SPECIFI CALL Y CONTAIN A SEARCH LISTING INTO SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS LIKE THAT. I CAN' T THINK OF A SPECIFIC WAY. DISCERNIDLE FROM TillS PAGE.
88" 100
113 114 150
3-6
152
DISCERNIBLE FROM TBIS PAGE. IT COULD BE DISCERNED BY' MOUSING OVER OR CLICKING AND HOLDING ONE OF THE
. URLS.
159
168
172
I KNOW OF NO OTHER WAY IRA T A SITE LIKE ANYTHING THAT WASN' DISCLOSED IN THE PRIOR ARTDISCUSSION.
I KNOW iliA T ONE WAY 11IA A SITE LIKE ANYTIllN G ELSE.
DISCUSSION, AND I KNOW WHAT CAME INTO :BEING AFfERI JOINED THE COMPANY. NECESSARILY BEING CORRECTLY RECORDED PRIOR TO MAY 28. MAY HAVE BEEN WJSHFUL THINKING IIYPOTHETICALL Y , IF IT FUNCTIONED THAT WAY
176
NECESSARILY EEING
RECORDED PRIOR TO MA Y 28.
189
MA Y HAVE BEEN IN ERROR
200
IF IT fUNCTIONED TI-IA T WAY
Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW
10: 43 .
BHG&L
312 321 4299
Document 186-3
Filed 07/06/2004
Page 15 of 15
214
244
THAT THE SYSTEM DESCRIBED IN THE MAY 19. 1998 PRESS REillASE HAD NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED NO.
THAT THE SYSTEM DESCRIBED BY CLAIM 1 HAD NOT BEEN
llvt PLEMENTED
286
MR- KWUN: YES. I DON'
BELIEVE TI-lA T
. BUT I KNOW WHAT FEATURES WERE ADDED TO THE SYSTEM AFfER I Sf AR TED WORK AT GaTO-COM IN OCTOBER 1998. MR. KWUN~ YESTHE WITNESS: I DON' BELfEVE THAT
*These changes should be made globally throughout the transcript.
SIGNA OF WITNESS
IqjO
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?