Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 834

Declaration of Joshua L. Fuchs in Support of 833 Memorandum in Opposition, filed bySAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T)(Related document(s) 833 ) (Froyd, Jane) (Filed on 9/9/2010)

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 834 Att. 13

EXHIBIT M

Dockets.Justia.com

DOUGLAS LICHTMAN April 20, 2010 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION --oOo-ORACLE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, ORACLE USA, INC., a Colorado corporation, and ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a California corporation, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) SAP AG, a German corporation, ) SAP AMERICA, INC., a Delaware ) corporation, TOMORROWNOW, ) INC., a Texas corporation, and ) DOES 1-50, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________)

07-CV-1658 (PJH)

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF DOUGLAS LICHTMAN _____________________________ APRIL 20, 2010

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

REPORTED BY:

SARAH LUCIA BRANN, CSR 3887

(#427358)

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

98289f9f-0b7f-46bb-b4e4-676674a5acfd

DOUGLAS LICHTMAN April 20, 2010 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 88

TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT TO MOTION

10:58:55 10:58:57

24 25

Q.

So the opinions you express in your report

you believe are not controversial; they are

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

98289f9f-0b7f-46bb-b4e4-676674a5acfd

DOUGLAS LICHTMAN April 20, 2010 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 89
10:58:59 10:59:02 10:59:04 10:59:07 10:59:09 10:59:12 10:59:16 10:59:17 10:59:20 10:59:22 10:59:25 10:59:30 10:59:33 10:59:34 10:59:36 10:59:39 10:59:42 10:59:44 10:59:47 10:59:52 10:59:56 11:00:00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

supported by the case law? MR. FALZONE: question is vague. THE WITNESS: I think the opinions in my Objection to the form. The

report are supported by economic and public policy analysis. It is also true that cases often echo

these points. I just want to make sure we have cause and effect right. The cases talk about these things

because they are adopting the economic and public policy rationales that have developed organically from cases and scholarship in all these years of evolution. I am not leaning on a specific case report for what I say in this report. I point you to some

examples, for instance, just to show places where these things have come up. I think the basis for my views is much more broad than just looking at what the cases have explicitly said, but instead is leaning on this wealth of scholarship, which things I have been a part of for well over a decade.

TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT TO MOTION

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

98289f9f-0b7f-46bb-b4e4-676674a5acfd

DOUGLAS LICHTMAN April 20, 2010 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 189

TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT TO MOTION

14:11:43 14:11:46 14:11:49 14:11:54 14:11:57

21 22 23 24 25

In drawing your conclusion that Mr. Clarke is wrong in this respect, can you pinpoint and recite to us now any specific source on which you relied and which supports your view? A. Sure. So, again, I think there are

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

98289f9f-0b7f-46bb-b4e4-676674a5acfd

DOUGLAS LICHTMAN April 20, 2010 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 190
14:12:01 14:12:03 14:12:05 14:12:09 14:12:11 14:12:14 14:12:17 14:12:21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

countless sources, in the sense that this is very standard analysis. Actually, I think you find the

seeds planted everywhere, from Feist on down. But, for instance, I am sure that Landes and Posner talk about this in their economics of copyright article, again reflecting what is now their consensus views of how to think about these issues.

TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT TO MOTION

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

98289f9f-0b7f-46bb-b4e4-676674a5acfd

DOUGLAS LICHTMAN April 20, 2010 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 210

TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT TO MOTION

14:38:51 14:38:53 14:38:55 14:38:58

22 23 24 25

Q. role.

No, I understand you don't think it's your I am asking -- I am trying to figure out what Is it just in the brain

the basis is for saying it.

of Professor Douglas Lichtman, or do you find that

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

98289f9f-0b7f-46bb-b4e4-676674a5acfd

DOUGLAS LICHTMAN April 20, 2010 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 211
14:39:03 14:39:06 14:39:11 14:39:11 14:39:11 14:39:15 14:39:19 14:39:22 14:39:23 14:39:25 14:39:26 14:39:28 14:39:31 14:39:36 14:39:39 14:39:40 14:39:43 14:39:44 14:39:49 14:39:51 14:39:53 14:39:56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

also in this treatise or that book or this case? Where did you find the basis to draw that conclusion? A. Again, I rely for our conversation on my

report, and my report in turn relies on this whole world you reference. And you don't need to point to I believe almost

a single treatise or reference. all of them would.

So if you look at the scholars we have identified, for instance, all of them, when they write about the topic of the economics of copyright, the economics of the damages regime, the policy motivations, I would be quite surprised if we didn't see that repeatedly throughout that literature. And it is that learning over the many years of my own development as an academic and researching and writing in this area that I in turn rely upon for my report, not explicitly pointing to a specific quote in a specific article each time. My views are built together from all of that, consistent with all of that, and in that sense based on all of that.
TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT TO MOTION

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

98289f9f-0b7f-46bb-b4e4-676674a5acfd

DOUGLAS LICHTMAN April 20, 2010 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 304

TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT TO MOTION

16:44:48 16:44:50 16:44:52 16:44:53 16:44:54 16:44:56 16:44:57 16:45:00 16:45:02

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q.

So when you looked at some of the code --

you said you looked at code excerpts? A. Q. A. Q. A. Yes. How many excerpts did you look at? I don't know the precise number. Approximately. Yeah, something in the ballpark of a

dozen, I would guess, during each of these calls. Q. And what is a snippet, code snippet you

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

98289f9f-0b7f-46bb-b4e4-676674a5acfd

DOUGLAS LICHTMAN April 20, 2010 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 305
16:45:05 16:45:08 16:45:10 16:45:11 16:45:15 16:45:17 16:45:20 16:45:23 16:45:26 16:45:29 16:45:35 16:45:35 16:45:37 16:45:39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

refer to? A.

What is a code snippet? A section of code, rather than the

entirety of code. Q. written? A. I don't explicitly remember. I do In what languages were the code snippets

remember that all of the code shown on my system was written in languages that I could translate roughly, to know what it is the code was doing and what it is I was seeing. languages. Q. snippet? A. I don't remember exactly. How many lines of code were in each But I don't remember specific

TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT TO MOTION

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

98289f9f-0b7f-46bb-b4e4-676674a5acfd