Interserve, Inc. et al v. Fusion Garage PTE. LTD
Filing
179
Memorandum in Opposition re 164 MOTION to Compel Withheld Information and Documents filed byFusion Garage PTE. LTD. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Joshua L. Sohn, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(Pennypacker, Evette) (Filed on 9/23/2010)
Interserve, Inc. et al v. Fusion Garage PTE. LTD
Doc. 179 Att. 5
EXHIBIT D
Dockets.Justia.com
Michael Arrington
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION INTERSERVE, INC., dba )
TECHCRUNCH, a Delaware corporation, and CRUNCHPAD, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs, Vs. FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD, a Singapore company,
) ) ) ) ) )No. 09-CV-5812 RS
Defendant.
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF INTERSERVE, INC. dba TECHCRUNCH
MICHAEL ARRINGTON Redwood Shores, California Tuesday, April 20, 2010
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
REPORTED BY:
JAY W. HARBIDGE, CSR NO. 4090
U.S. Legal Support 888-575-3376
Michael Arrington
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1 2 3
4
BY MR. STERN:
Q.
Does the JooJoo solve the core CPU issue
that you identified?
MR. BRIDGES: Objection, lacks
5
foundation and competence and vague and ambiguous. THE WITNESS: I haven't held a JooJoo.
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
I don't know.
BY MR. STERN: Q. Does the JooJoo solve the capacitance
touch issue which you mentioned? MR. BRIDGES: THE WITNESS: Same objections. I'm not aware because I
haven't had the product. If you have one and want to give me some time with it, I would be happy to answer those questions. BY MR. STERN: Q. Does the JooJoo satisfy or solve the
Flash issue that you mentioned? MR. BRIDGES: THE WITNESS: product. I don't know. Same objections. I have not held the
BY MR. STERN: Q. Can you tell me who is the supplier, who
is the manufacturer of the JooJoo?
MR. BRIDGES: Objection, lacks
107
U.S. Legal Support 888-575-3376
Michael'Arrington Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
Q.
In general, no. So let me just make
sure we're clear about this. Can you tell me -- I keep asking, but can you identify -- well, let me change the question. Please identify every contribution that someone from TechCrunch or CrunchPad but not Fusion Garage made to the hardware/software design or other aspects of the CrunchPad. MR. BRIDGES: Objection, it's asked and
10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22
answered earlier today, compound, vague and ambiguous. BY MR. STERN: Q. morning. A. You testified about some things this The high-level things. It's virtually impossible to answer the
question because it was a collaborative process. We were all working together. Q. that fair? MR. BRIDGES: Objection, the question And that's the best you can give me; is
earlier was asked and answered. It's now -- we're now six hours into the deposition. He's answering questions you've asked him before. I'm going to object on the grounds of argumentative, vague and ambiguous. 337
23 24 25
U.S. Legal Support 888-575-3376
Michael Arrington Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
BY MR. STERN:
Q.
You can answer the question. Is that
the best you can give me, that it's virtually impossible to answer it? A. Q. That's my answer, yes. Okay. Can you tell me what
contributions anyone from TechCrunch or CrunchPad but not Fusion Garage made to the source code that existed at any point in time for either the
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CrunchPad or the JooJoo? MR. BRIDGES: Objection, compound, lacks
foundation with respect to the JooJoo, vague and ambiguous, and also to a certain extent asked and answered. But go ahead. THE WITNESS: One part of that I can
answer directly easily is the first prototype of the CrunchPad was designed entirely by Nik on the software side -- hardware with a little bit of help. But, you know, that was the -- I believe a mostly commercial installation of Linux with some customizing. That was entirely, though, Nik. I believe with prototype B where Louis was involved as well, that's when we moved to mostly Fusion Garage software. At that point they were 338
U.S. Legal Support 888-575-3376
Michael Arrington
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
taking over.
The actual coding was done by Fusion
Garage employees.
BY MR. STERN:
Q.
Can you tell me any architectural
feature of the JooJoo software product that was contributed by anybody associated with TechCrunch or CrunchPad but not Fusion Garage? MR. BRIDGES: Objection, vague and
ambiguous, lacks foundation.
10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE WITNESS: by "architectural." mean -BY MR. STERN:
I'm not sure what you mean
Do you mean design? Do you
Q. A.
Yes, yes. Again, I point back to my original post
which talked about booting immediately to the browser. But things like single buttons; camera
facing the front. When you turn the device, it flips the aspect, so you can turn it this way, turn it that way and see differently. The fact that when you're outside of typing a URL or something else, you don't see the chrome of the browser was something earlier on that we had together agreed was a really good idea. There are examples like that, again, we
339
U.S. Legal Support 888-575-3376
Michael Arrington
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1 2 3 4
5
MR. BRIDGES:
Objection.
That's
entirely hypothetical, speculative, assumes facts not in evidence, calls for a legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS:
Yes, I don't know the
answer to that because I don't know much about the JooJoo. But I wish that were the case.
6
BY MR. STERN:
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q.
You wish that it was the case that you
would be responsible for a patent infringement claim that was received by my client; is that right? A. I wish it was the case that we were a
single team working on the project trying to change the world as we originally talked about and worked on for almost a year, yes, and that means sharing the good times and the bad. Q. So just so that we're clear, it's your
understanding that under the partnership arrangement you had with my client, you would also be liable for patent infringement; is that correct?
MR. BRIDGES: Objection, calls for
speculation, it's hypothetical, speculative, assumes facts not in evidence, vague and ambiguous, argumentative. THE WITNESS: That's a big stretch. Our
assumption would be that we merged the entities by
370
U.S. Legal Support 888-575-3376
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?