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