Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 877

Declaration of Tharan Gregory Lanier in Support of 876 Reply in Support filed by SAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13)(Related document(s) 876 ) (Froyd, Jane) (Filed on 9/16/2010) Modified on 9/17/2010 (vlk, COURT STAFF).

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 877 Att. 4

EXHIBIT 4

Dockets.Justia.com

EXHIBIT 4

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY DONALD REIFER - 6/18/2010

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 DONALD REIFER _____________________________ JUNE 18, 2010

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

REPORTED BY:

SARAH LUCIA BRANN, CSR 3887

(#427125)

Merrill Corporation - San Francisco 800-869-9132 www.merrillcorp.com/law

c6aec883-84b4-427a-acd6-d5f1439dbb74

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY DONALD REIFER - 6/18/2010
Page 88

TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT TO MOTION

11:43:15 11:43:19 11:43:22 11:43:24 11:43:26 11:43:34 11:43:40 11:43:46 11:43:53 11:43:58 11:44:06 11:44:12 11:44:18 11:44:21 11:44:23

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q.

When did you do your COCOMO II analyses

that are contained in your report here? A. Q. A. Throughout my engagement. Starting when? Probably in -- starting in February. I

tried to reconstruct Mr. Pinto's analysis and found that when I ran the models the answers were different. And then I started to look for why. And

I ran a number of analyses with other versions of COCOMO, and basically ones that we have no longer support at USC, and found that he did run the 1997 model, and confirmed his numbers in his runs by running the 1997 version of the model. And then I started looking at what would happen if we ran the 2000 version of the model,

Merrill Corporation - San Francisco www.merrillcorp.com/law 800-869-9132

c6aec883-84b4-427a-acd6-d5f1439dbb74

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY DONALD REIFER - 6/18/2010
Page 89
11:44:26 11:44:31 11:44:35 1 2 3

which is the current and supported version, and basically looked at the differences and then looked at his ratings and started doing my analysis.

TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT TO MOTION

Merrill Corporation - San Francisco www.merrillcorp.com/law 800-869-9132

c6aec883-84b4-427a-acd6-d5f1439dbb74

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY DONALD REIFER - 6/18/2010
Page 101

TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT TO MOTION

12:00:52 12:00:56 12:01:00 12:01:09 12:01:10 12:01:14 12:01:15 12:01:21 12:01:22 12:01:24 12:01:26 12:01:31

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Q.

How many times have you run a COCOMO II

cost estimate? A. Q. II '97? A. Q. A. Hundreds. And COCOMO II.2000? Oh, '97, none. Sorry. My apologies. Let Hundreds. It's just -- a lot of times.

How many times have you run it with COCOMO

me correct that answer. 1997 -- I have never developed an estimate for a client with 1997. COCOMO 2000.
TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT TO MOTION

Hundreds of times with

Merrill Corporation - San Francisco www.merrillcorp.com/law 800-869-9132

c6aec883-84b4-427a-acd6-d5f1439dbb74

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY DONALD REIFER - 6/18/2010
Page 110

TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT TO MOTION

12:12:41 12:12:46 12:12:48 12:12:49 12:12:55 12:12:59 12:13:07 12:13:11

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Q.

And you haven't used COCOMO II.1997 in

order to develop an estimate and then deliver on that; correct? A. The 1992 -- 1997 model is an antiquated

model that has been basically put on the shelf, put on the shelf for history purposes that, of the 43 firms that are in the USC affiliates, no one uses 1997. I checked that.

TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT TO MOTION

Merrill Corporation - San Francisco www.merrillcorp.com/law 800-869-9132

c6aec883-84b4-427a-acd6-d5f1439dbb74

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY DONALD REIFER - 6/18/2010
Page 157
TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT TO MOTION

14:15:46 14:15:47 14:15:50 14:15:54 14:15:55 14:15:56 14:15:59 14:16:01 14:16:02 14:16:06 14:16:10 14:16:16 14:16:19 14:16:19 14:16:26 14:16:29 14:16:29 14:16:32 14:16:35 14:16:37

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

Q.

I believe you referenced this earlier in But this is the "Notes re Response

the deposition.

to Rebuttal report of Donald J. Reifer." Do you see that? A. Q. Yes, I see that. And these are the Pinto notes that we were

talking about earlier; correct? A. Q. Yes, I see those. And then on page three of these notes at

the top there's the comparison between the custom-built replicas, the USC code counter, and Mr. Pinto's actual code counters? A. Q. I see that. You see that Mr. Pinto's code counters

are -- end up being the most conservative of the three? A. I have no confidence at all in Mr. Pinto's

code counters until I have them in hand and can execute them. Q. You have them in hand.

Merrill Corporation - San Francisco www.merrillcorp.com/law 800-869-9132

c6aec883-84b4-427a-acd6-d5f1439dbb74

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY DONALD REIFER - 6/18/2010
Page 158
14:16:39 14:16:40 14:16:42 14:16:46 14:16:50 14:16:53 14:16:56 14:17:00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

A. Q.

Until I can execute them. Right. And you never asked anyone for

help to get -- in executing them; correct? A. If a PhD student and a 40-year veteran

can't get them to work in a period of two weeks, it's going to take more than two weeks to get them to work. help. So the answer is no, we have not asked for

TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT TO MOTION

Merrill Corporation - San Francisco www.merrillcorp.com/law 800-869-9132

c6aec883-84b4-427a-acd6-d5f1439dbb74

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY DONALD REIFER - 6/18/2010
Page 192
TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT TO MOTION
15:22:17 15:22:19 15:22:21 15:22:22 15:22:27 15:22:32 15:22:36 15:22:39 15:22:41 15:22:43 15:22:46 15:22:47 15:22:49 15:22:53 15:22:55 15:22:56 15:22:56 15:22:58 15:23:01 15:23:07 15:23:13 15:23:18 15:23:24 15:23:34 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.

And which model are you talking about, the

2000 or the 1997? Q. A. Is there a difference? Yes, major difference. The 1997 is an

outdated and inaccurate model that we no longer provide support and no one that I know uses. Q. A. Q. We are talking about the SPR tables, sir. Well, you were talking about -Is there a difference with respect to

those two models with respect to the SPR tables that we were talking about? MR. BUTLER: Had you finished your answer

before you were cut off by the attorney for Oracle? THE WITNESS: MR. BUTLER: answer? THE WITNESS: Well, yes, I would. Yes, I had not finished. Do you want to finish your

So if one looks at the 1997 version, the 1997 version of COCOMO is a much less accurate model. And in my report I put the accuracy that has And it inflates costs upward.

been -- pertained.

And no one uses it, including the people I have contacted in India, which are Infosys and Taca, and the people that train in India, QAI.

Merrill Corporation - San Francisco www.merrillcorp.com/law 800-869-9132

c6aec883-84b4-427a-acd6-d5f1439dbb74