Apple Computer Inc. v. Burst.com, Inc.

Filing 110

Declaration of Ian Crosby in Support of 107 Response Burst.com, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiff Apple Computer, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment on Invalidity Based on Kramer and Kepley Patents filed byBurst.com, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to I. Crosby Declaration# 2 Exhibit 2 to I. Crosby Declaration# 3 Exhibit 3 to I. Crosby Declaration# 4 Exhibit 4 to I. Crosby Declaration)(Related document(s) 107 ) (Crosby, Ian) (Filed on 6/7/2007)

Apple Computer Inc. v. Burst.com, Inc.

Doc. 110 Att. 4

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP
APPLE VS. BURST.COM

Document 110-5
GREG MULLINS

Filed 06/07/2007

Page 1 of 10
FEBRUARY 23, 2007 Page 1

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

APPLE COMPUTER, INC., Plaintiff and Counterdefendant, vs. BURST.COM, INC., Defendant and Counterclaimant, AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. / Case No. 3:06-CV-00019 MHP

DEPOSITION OF GREG MULLINS PAGES 1 to 127 FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2007

REPORTED BY:

LOUISE MARIE SOUSOURES, CSR NO. 3575

GROSSMAN & COTTER

[phone]

07FEB2305

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP
APPLE VS. BURST.COM

Document 110-5
GREG MULLINS

Filed 06/07/2007

Page 2 of 10
FEBRUARY 23, 2007 Page 119

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

only thing I can think of. Q. So you don't know what the reference to

variable rate in this sentence is referring to? A. Q. No. Okay. MR. CROSBY: today. I think that's all I have

Pass the witness. MR. BROWN: All right. I have two or three

questions briefly. EXAMINATION BY MR. BROWN: Q. Mr. Mullins, do you remember you were asked

some questions earlier about the AIFF format? A. Q. A. Q. Yes. Is AIFF a digital format? Yes. So is audio digitized before it can be put

into the AIFF format? A. Q. Yes. Do you consider digitization to be

compression? A. yes. Q. sorry. To your knowledge, is the audio in AIFF To your knowledge, is the video -- I'm I consider it to be a form of compression,

GROSSMAN & COTTER

[phone]

07FEB2305

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP
APPLE VS. BURST.COM

Document 110-5
GREG MULLINS

Filed 06/07/2007

Page 3 of 10
FEBRUARY 23, 2007 Page 120

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

format compressed in any other way besides being digitized? A. Not that I'm aware of. MR. BROWN: That's all I have.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. CROSBY: Q. So just to follow up on that, is it your

understanding that the AIFF process occurs at the time of digitization of audio? A. No. What I'm saying is that -- is it a

compressed format, and differentiation between whether it's a compressed format or not to me is is it smaller than the original asset. By digitizing it, you're actually losing some of the original information. It's similar to YUV, you know, you're dropping components of the video 4:2:2. Q. I guess -- so you said you considered

digitization to be a form of compression, correct? A. Q. Yes. So taking the analog source and converting

it to digital, in your mind, would be a form of compression? A. Q. Just like DV, yes. So in what sense is taking -- in your mind,

is taking analog audio, which has no number of bits

GROSSMAN & COTTER

[phone]

07FEB2305

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP
APPLE VS. BURST.COM

Document 110-5
GREG MULLINS

Filed 06/07/2007

Page 4 of 10
FEBRUARY 23, 2007 Page 121

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

associated with it, and converting it into a digital format that does have some number of bits associated with it? In what sense do you view it as compression? A. There's some information being dropped on

the floor. Q. For example, if you were encoding it at a

high sampling rate and using a Lossless encoding technique you would still view it as being compression because the information in between the sample points is information that's lost; is that correct? A. You're losing information from the original

source, even if it's Lossy or Lossless. Q. So you understand the term compression to be

broader than simply reducing the number of bits to represent something, correct? A. I consider compression to be if any of the

original information is lost, and the resultant is smaller than the original, that is a form of compression. Q. Well, in what sense is a digital

representation of an analog audio source smaller than the original? A. It has less information.

GROSSMAN & COTTER

[phone]

07FEB2305

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP
APPLE VS. BURST.COM

Document 110-5
GREG MULLINS

Filed 06/07/2007

Page 5 of 10
FEBRUARY 23, 2007 Page 122

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q.

Okay.

But you described it as there being

two attributes to compression as you understood it. One is that information is lost and two is it's smaller than the original? A. Then maybe I should retract the smaller than

the original, just dropping information on the floor. So it's not a full representation of the original information. Q. So is it your view, then, a Lossless Is

compression technique would not be compression? Lossless compression an oxymoron in your view? A. Q. A. It is a compression algorithm. But no information is lost?

I think if you were to put -- if you had a

high end audio equipment and played the original in what was on Lossless, you would notice a difference in the quality. Q. A. But the information is not lost, is it? I don't really understand the specifics of

the Lossless compression you might be referring to, but I do know there's a difference in the amount of information between the original and the resultant is different. Q. Well, isn't it true that if I take, say for

example, the Apple Lossless CODEC and I apply it to a

GROSSMAN & COTTER

[phone]

07FEB2305

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP
APPLE VS. BURST.COM

Document 110-5
GREG MULLINS

Filed 06/07/2007

Page 6 of 10
FEBRUARY 23, 2007 Page 123

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

digital audio stream and then I reverse the process, that I'll have a bit-for-bit identical copy of the original audio stream? A. Q. I don't know that. Okay. So you don't know how Lossless

compression works? A. Q. Not specifically. And you don't know whether information is

lost or retained in the process? A. I can't say that I know for sure that it's

lost, but I mean it's not the original content. Q. But you don't know whether that

Losslessly-compressed file contains all the information that was there in the original source? A. Q. I don't know that. And similarly -- and to the -- is it your

testimony that you believe that a digital -- a digitally sampled representation of an analog audio source is a compressed form of that original source; is that correct? A. Well, I was specifically referring to AIFF

and now we've generalized it to be anything. Q. Well, I think that Mr. Brown's first

question to you is whether you viewed digitization as being a form of compression; is that correct?

GROSSMAN & COTTER

[phone]

07FEB2305

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP
APPLE VS. BURST.COM

Document 110-5
GREG MULLINS

Filed 06/07/2007

Page 7 of 10
FEBRUARY 23, 2007 Page 124

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.

It can -- yes, it can be a form of

compression. Q. And your answer was that it can be a form of

compression? A. Yes, but it doesn't mean -- I don't want to

generalize and say anything in that fashion, but I do think in that particular case it is. And the same thing for digitizing video, you're dropping components of the information because it's considered irrelevant, you're not going to be able to distinguish whether color information has been dropped on the floor so why carry it around. Q. But to be clear, your testimony is that

converting analog source to digital format is always compression no matter what digital format it is, because information is lost, correct? A. Q. Yes. And it is in that sense alone that

conversion from analog to digital is compression, correct? A. Q. Yes. Because the digital file is not smaller than

the analog source information, correct? MR. BROWN: THE WITNESS: Objection, vague. I don't know.

GROSSMAN & COTTER

[phone]

07FEB2305

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP
APPLE VS. BURST.COM

Document 110-5
GREG MULLINS

Filed 06/07/2007

Page 8 of 10
FEBRUARY 23, 2007 Page 125

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

BY MR. CROSBY: Q. I mean that's like saying, you know, red is

bigger than round, right? A. Q. I don't know. Analog source information doesn't have a

size, does it? A. Q. I guess not. Okay. So to the extent you understand that

process of digitization of analog source to be compression, you understand it to be that way only in the sense that information is removed, correct? A. Q. Yes. Okay. You don't understand it to be that

way in the sense that any comparable measure of size is reduced, correct? A. Q. Yes. Okay. MR. CROSBY: MR. BROWN: That's all. Okay. I have no questions. This is the end of volume

THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

1 tape number 2 in the deposition of Greg Mullins. The original videotapes will be retained by Dan Mottaz Video Productions, LLC, 182 Second Street, Suite 202, San Francisco, California, 94105, telephone is 415-624-1300.

GROSSMAN & COTTER

[phone]

07FEB2305

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP
APPLE VS. BURST.COM

Document 110-5
GREG MULLINS

Filed 06/07/2007

Page 9 of 10
FEBRUARY 23, 2007 Page 126

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 record.

The time is now 12:06 and we are off the

(Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m. the FEBRUARY 23, 2007 deposition of GREG MULLINS was adjourned.)

GREG MULLINS

GROSSMAN & COTTER

[phone]

07FEB2305

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP
APPLE VS. BURST.COM

Document 110-5
GREG MULLINS

Filed 06/07/2007

Page 10 of 10
FEBRUARY 23, 2007 Page 127

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

I, LOUISE MARIE SOUSOURES, duly authorized to administer oaths pursuant to Section 2093(b) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, do hereby certify: That the witness in the foregoing deposition was by me duly sworn to testify the truth in the within-entitled cause; that said deposition was taken at the time and place therein cited; that the testimony of the said witness was reported by me and was hereafter transcribed under my direction into typewriting; that the foregoing is a complete and accurate record of said testimony; and that the witness was given an opportunity to read and correct said deposition and to subscribe the same. Should the signature of the witness not be affixed to the deposition, the witness shall not have availed himself or herself of the opportunity to sign or the signature has been waived. I further certify that I am not of counsel, nor attorney for any of the parties in the foregoing deposition and caption named, nor in any way interested in the outcome of the cause named in said caption.

DATED:

_________________________, 2007 _______________________________

GROSSMAN & COTTER

[phone]

07FEB2305