CNG Financial Corporation v. Google Inc

Filing 74

RESPONSE in Opposition re 69 MOTION to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Michael Mazis filed by Plaintiff CNG Financial Corporation, Counter Defendant CNG Financial Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit /Declaration of Hunter in support of CNG Opposition to Motion# 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Attachment# 3 Exhibit Exhibit B to Attachment to Opposition# 4 Exhibit Exhibit C to Attachment to Opposition# 5 Exhibit Exhibit D to Attachment to Opposition# 6 Exhibit Exhibit D - Part B to Attachment to Opposition# 7 Exhibit Exhibit E to Attachment to Opposition to Motion to Exclude) (Hunter, Barry)

Download PDF
CNG Financial Corporation v. Google Inc Doc. 74 Att. 2 CCase1:06-cv-00040-SSB-TSB ase 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 74-3 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 1 of 2 Document 265 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 2 of 21 Page 1 .', .~i". ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 "-',-::. ~~;.-:( -:':f-¡.':":' NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ." ..'~I 4 GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, ) ) ) ) 5 '¡,iiiit :,';:ii¡E :".,', ":':.~ .'::~:i! .~~::',;'i :Y:;;~ '~!;,-' 6 va. Plaintiff(a) , ) Case No. ) 7 AMERICAN BLIND & WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC., a Delaware ) C 03-5340-JF (RSj ) ) ) ) 8 corporation d/b/a 9 DOES 1 through 100, 10 11 decora tedtoday. com, Inc., and .:;. inclusive, ) ) ) ) Defendant (s) . 12 AMERICA BLIND & WALLPAPER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) :d:. ':r: .......;, ;.'~~.:~~ 13 corporation d/b/a decorated FACTORY, INC., a Delaware 14 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive today . com, Inc., and 15 Counter- Plaintiff, 16 va. 17 corporation, 18 Counter-Defendant. 19 GOLE INC., a Delaware ) ) ) ) ) ) 20 21 DEPOSITION OF DR. ITAM SIMONSON Held at Howrey 525 Market Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, California Friday, December 15, 2006, 9:51 a.m. 22 23 24 25 REPORTED BY: James Beasley, CSR No. 12807 EXHIBIT DR. rrAMAR SIMONSON j S A Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Case 1:06-cv-00040-SSB-TSBumeDocument 74-3 Doc nt 265 1 Filed 01/26/2007 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 2 of 2 Page 128 Page 14 of 24 ~ )~; .,'.::,: 2 If they Just put in bl/nds? 2 A. I don't know. I don't thInk that that 3 would be a concern. I'm not sure how many 4 consumers have some theories about the algorIthm 5 that generates organic results or In the context of 6 the survey that would be a sIgnifcant factor, that 7 search result that the consumer would expect to get 1 Pag 126 :;./:i :::t!:j~ :..,r.f~, .~ ...l :':':':i:; . :.'.'. ;.~ 3 Q. And that's why rIght now the sponsored lisIngs are either at the top of the organic listings or directly to the right of the top of the organIc listngs, correct? 4 5 6 7 ~\*l , A. Yes. Q. And so If you assume -- If you just accept my representation that the manner in whIch the listIngs are presented in response to a search term ii¡~ 8 9 10 11 American Blinds. 9 brand or thInk, Is there AmerIcan Blinds, which 11 sounds like a perfectly legitImate organic result. 12 somehow they would analyze and say, well, here Is 8 h:/; !, :~~?) Let's assume that they know to research a 10 In the trademark Is part of the problem, would It .. '.:::~'i :: -;'-,':: ,: ~::::¿ be an acceptable control to just move the sponsored listings down to the bottom and put a disclaimer up? A. No. Q. And why not? 12 13 './) .':: :-~, ~~;~L' I mean, there are blinds that are made and sold in 13 America. So there Is nothIng unusual there. 14 14 &ë; s;?l,;~ ",;'~,;" 15 Q. Okay. So have you any other suggestIons 15 t§:! 16 17 18 19 for what a proper control would be? 16 so obvIous. I haven't thought about others. 18 A. No. I mean, I don't thInk that's the quesion. The queston Is whether -- I forget how 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~.~ n24 Q Uh-huh. A. This was an espeCially easy survey for 2 A. I mean, you could have asked about a 20 Q. Okay. 19 P~e 127 A. You know, I haven't thought -- that seems 17 tAAW Mr. Oslp defined his mandate, but I believe he said, whether consumers who enter the search term amerIcan blinds in the Google search engine are ::'. .~. ',: ~~::,:3 ~f~J ~.t1~ ~:l :'¡""~~.'¿ different brand. That would be another control. 21 mIsled by their results by the sponsored links LIke, would you find -- I don't know, name another 22 appearing on the web results. That's the Question. So the Question is, in other words, you have to enter the terms '~~\l:' .i":.... :~.)~. 1 2 Q. Okay. 1 A. That could be another control. 25 american blinds and then you are misled by the links. It doesn't say are misled because the links -- the sponsored links appear one inch from Pa¡¡ 129 ::.;;.i~ .~/0 3 4 5 6 7 which to find a control. 3 Q. Would changing the appearance of the way 4 the top as opposed to four and a half inches from the top. I just dIdn't see that in his objective t~ ~. the listngs come back be a proper control, In 5 other words, movIng the sponsored listings down to 6 the bottom and putting a disclaimer saying that 7 for the survey. So therefore that would not be my con trol. Q. Okay. But if it was his control, why wouldn't that have been acceptable, what would your 8 9 10 11 12 thes listngs aren't related to the search term? 8 A. I don't know. Now you -- that's an 9 open -- there are Infinite poSSibilties about 10 moving It two Inches down or an Inch and a half up. 1 1 criticism be? A. Because It would have the same problems that we talked about. 13 14 Q. I don't understand. What would the same I don't see any need for that. 12 problems be? I mean, the key here is whether the 13 A. Well, because It stil would not show In consumers are misled after entering the term 14 15 16 17 18 19 american blinds by the sponsored links that appear. 15 any way that the beliefs or the answers had the positionIng. 17 I undersand the complaint Is not saying, 18 how come the sponsored links appear two Inches to 19 So I think that's really the question, not exactly 16 anything to do wIth entering the key words, american blinds. Q. Well, but you undersand that the infringement is not the fact that people type in american blinds, or the alleged infringement is not type in american blinds, it's what comes back In response to that? A. Yeah, that's my undersanding. Q. SO if you were to compare what's currently the fact people 20 21 22 23 the rIght or whatever. My undersandIng, that's 20 not the basis for the allegations here, 21 Q. Well, I think you're mistaken on that. 22 You're aware that the ordering of listings can have 23 24 an Impact on the click-through rate, right? 24 25 ."', "., ",~".., ",,' _..h'.~'._. .". '....,A.,..',,. -"~' .. _. "'T'-"~."" "..,_ ,~, "_ . .,.. T", _, "'_n_.."'"..,' -n-.' ., ".' .. . '.-" ......... '. ,,-..~. ,.. .,---. --"' .... "''''~-' "'''.-'''.. ..-..-.....".._.,. - ".,..,. A. Yes. 25 coming back versus, you know, rearranging it in some way and you didn't have -- and you didn't have .. . ...,-".,.... . '. "'-""'..~",.._. ,.,,- .....-. I 33 (Pages 126 to 129) DR. rrAMAR SIMONSON

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?