"The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation"

Filing 757

RESPONSE (re 751 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and to Exclude Expert Testimony of Roger G. Noll; Plaintiffs' Responsive Separate Statement in Support of ) filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amir Q. Amiri in Support of Apple's Response to Plaintiffs' Admin. Motion to File Under Seal, # 2 Proposed Order by Apple Granting Plaintiffs' Admin. Motion to File Under Seal, # 3 Exhibit - Apple's (Proposed) Redactions to Plaintiffs' Exhibit Nos. 1-3, and 54, # 4 Exhibit - Apple's (Proposed) Excerpt to Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 22, # 5 Exhibit - Apple's (Proposed) Redactions to Plaintiffs' Exhibit Nos. 9-11; 14; 48; 50-53; and 62, # 6 Apple's (Proposed) Redactions to Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of its Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, etc., # 7 Apple's (Proposed) Redactions to Plaintiffs' Responsive Separate Statement in Support of its Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, etc.)(Amiri, Amir) (Filed on 1/21/2014)

EXHIBIT 22
[Filed Under Seal]

STEVE JOBS - Volume I
April 12, 2011
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
1

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
THE APPLE iPOD iTUNES
ANTI-TRUST LITIGATION.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lead Case No.
C-05-00037-JW (HRL)

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
STEVE JOBS
VOLUME I
April 12, 2011
10:03 a.m.
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, California
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Ana M. Dub, RMR, CRR, CSR 7445

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

INDEX OF EXAMINATION
WITNESS: STEVE JOBS
EXAMINATION
By Ms. Sweeney

2
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

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
For the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
BONNY E. SWEENEY, ESQ.
ALEXANDRA S. BERNAY, ESQ.
CARMEN A. MEDICI, ESQ.
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, California 92101
619.231.1058
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

PAGE
7

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

INDEX TO EXHIBITS
Description
Page
E-mail Chain, Top E-mail
Dated July 23, 2004 to
Jeff Robbin from Eddy Cue,
Production Nos. Apple_AIIA
00090405-07
Exhibit 2
E-mail Dated July 24, 2004
to Eddy Cue, et al., from
Katie Cotton, Production
No. Apple_AIIA01384973
Exhibit
Exhibit 1

9

14

8

Exhibit 3

E-mail Chain, Top E-mail
Dated July 25, 2004 to Philip
Schiller from Eddy Cue,
Production Nos. Apple_AIIA
00090429-31

Exhibit 4

E-mail Chain, Top E-mail
25
Dated July 26, 2004 to Philip
Schiller, et al., from Steve
Jobs, Production Nos. Apple_AIIA
00093875-76

Exhibit 5

E-mail Chain, Top E-mail
Dated July 26, 2004 to Steve
Jobs from Zach Horowitz,
Production Nos. Apple_AIIA
01384975-76

9
10

14

11

For the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs:
ZELDES & HAEGGQUIST, LLP
AARON M. OLSEN, ESQ.
625 Broadway, Suite 905
San Diego, California 92101
619.342.8000
[e-mail]

12
13
14
15
16

For the Defendant Apple, Inc., and the Deponent:
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
GEORGE A. RILEY, ESQ.
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-3823
415.984-8700
[e-mail]

27

17

Exhibit 6

July 29, 2004 Press Release

Exhibit 7

CNETNews.com Article

32

18

28

19

Exhibit 8
20
21

Exhibit 9

The Wall Street Journal
Article
Chicago Tribune Binary Beat
Column

43
6

22

Also Present:
MATTHEW COPE, VIDEOGRAPHER

23
24
25

Exhibit 10 Redacted E-mail Chain, Top
E-mail Dated August 17, 2004,
Production Nos. Apple_AIIA
00920838-43

52

STEVE JOBS - Volume I
April 12, 2011
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
21

23
I object to this. This was a document

10:24:26

1

A. I don't remember -- I remember maybe

10:27:35

1

10:24:28

2

reading some press articles where they might say

10:27:36

2

that was in front of Judge Lloyd. He said you could

10:24:31

3

that. They never said that to us.

10:27:39

3

not question about this issue. It's outside the

10:24:40

4

10:27:43

4

three topics.

10:24:42

5

Exhibit 3, about two-thirds of the way down the page

10:27:45

5

10:24:51

6

it says:

10:27:49

6

goes to Apple's response to the July 26 announcement

10:24:53

7

10:27:52

7

by RealNetworks.

10:24:55

8

10:27:54

8

10:24:56

9

A. I'm sorry. Exhibit 3?

10:27:57

9

10:24:58

10

Q. Yeah.

10:27:59

10

10:24:59

11

A. Okay. On page what?

10:28:01

11

10:25:01

12

Q. Page 2.

10:28:03

12

background for the events that occurred between June

10:25:01

13

A. Okay. Sorry. Yeah. Yeah.

10:28:08

13

and October of 2004.

10:25:05

14

Q. It's about two-thirds of the way down the

10:28:11

14

10:25:06

15

10:28:12

15

background about this as it relates to the previous

10:25:07

16

"In April, Apple chairman

10:28:15

16

document, but I think this is clearly outside the

10:25:09

17

Steve Jobs rebuffed Glaser's

10:28:19

17

scope.

10:25:12

18

request for a meeting to discuss

10:28:21

18

10:25:13

19

an alliance between the

10:28:22

19

10:25:14

20

companies . . . ."

10:28:22

20

10:25:16

21

Do you see that?

10:28:24

21

10:25:17

22

A. Mm-hmm.

10:28:26

22

10:25:19

23

Q. Did you rebuff a request from Mr. Glaser

10:28:28

23

10:25:23

24

in April of 2004 to license FairPlay to

10:28:29

24

Q. Is that the e-mail that you use at Apple?

10:25:29

25

RealNetworks?

10:28:33

25

A. Yes, it is.

Q. If you could turn to the second page of

"In April, Apple chairman
Steve Jobs" --

page. It says:

MS. SWEENEY: Well, I disagree because it

MR. RILEY: It's hard to see that. This
isn't part of a response. This is a letter that
occurred a couple of months before that time.
MS. SWEENEY: Yes, but it establishes the

MR. RILEY: I will let you ask some

MS. SWEENEY: Your objection is noted.
BY MS. SWEENEY:
Q. Mr. Jobs, do you recall the question? Did
you receive this e-mail from Mr. Glaser?
A. I don't remember receiving it, but I might
have.

22
A. I don't remember that. I might have. I

10:25:30

1

10:25:33

2

10:25:37

3

10:25:42

4

10:25:44

5

10:26:03

6

10:26:05

7

10:26:07

8

10:26:09

9

10:26:11

10

04:48:10

11

04:48:10

12

10:26:12

13

10:26:14

14

10:26:15

15

10:26:24

16

A. Are you done with 3?

10:26:25

17

10:26:26

18

10:27:02

19

10:27:05

20

10:27:22

21

10:27:22

22

Q. Okay. Mr. Jobs, this is an e-mail from

10:27:25

23

10:27:32

24

10:27:34

25

24
Q. Is there any reason to believe you didn't

10:28:34

1

10:28:35

2

10:28:37

3

10:28:41

4

A. I don't recall any specific discussions.

10:28:47

5

I'm sorry I don't remember more of this

10:28:53

6

that Apple license RealNetworks' access to FairPlay

for you, but there's been a lot of water under that

10:28:58

7

on the iPod?

bridge in seven years. So . . .

10:28:59

8

10:29:01

9

don't really remember.
Q. Do you recall discussions with Mr. Glaser
at any time during 2004?

MS. SWEENEY: I understand. I've been
reading these documents, so it's different.

receive this e-mail?
A. I don't know. I just don't remember
receiving it.
Q. Did you respond to Mr. Glaser's request

A. I don't remember doing so, no, because I
don't even remember this e-mail.
Q. Is it possible that you spoke with

10:29:05

10

(Whereupon, Deposition Exhibit 11 was

10:29:07

11

Mr. Glaser about his proposal after he sent you this

marked for identification.)

10:29:11

12

e-mail on April 9, 2004?

10:29:14

13

Q. Okay. I'm going to ask the court reporter

10:29:17

14

to hand you what's been marked as Jobs Exhibit 11.

10:29:20

15

Q. Do you recall Mr. Glaser telling you that

10:29:24

16

RealNetworks was working on a product that could

Q. Yes.

10:29:26

17

make its music interoperable with iPods?

A. Thank you.

10:29:32

18

(Witness reviews document.)

10:29:33

19

THE WITNESS: Okay. I've read it.

10:29:35

20

10:29:37

21

10:29:39

22

Rob Glaser to you dated April 9th, 2004. Did you

10:29:40

23

discussion. I just don't remember.

receive this e-mail?

10:29:47

24

BY MS. SWEENEY:

10:29:48

25

BY MS. SWEENEY:

BY MS. SWEENEY:

MR. RILEY: Hold on.

A. It's possible. I don't remember doing so,
but it's possible.

A. I don't recall that, no.
Q. Is it possible that you had that
discussion?
MR. RILEY: Object to the form.
THE WITNESS: It's possible I had any

Q. If you could look at the next to last