Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 507

RESPONSE in Opposition re 460 MOTION in Limine Number 1 (Uncharted Prior Art References): Motion to Preclude Defendants' Reliance on or Reference to Uncharted Prior Art References (EZ Reader Manual and CBR Express Manuals) and Hearsay MOTION in Limine Number 1 (Uncharted Prior Art References): Motion to Preclude Defendants' Reliance on or Reference to Uncharted Prior Art References (EZ Reader Manual and CBR Express Manuals) and Hearsay MOTION in Limine Number 1 (Uncharted Prior Art References): Motion to Preclude Defendants' Reliance on or Reference to Uncharted Prior Art References (EZ Reader Manual and CBR Express Manuals) and Hearsay filed by AOL, LLC., Google Inc., Yahoo!, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Sistos Decl. ISO Defendants' Response, # 2 Branting Decl ISO Defendants' Response, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit)(Sistos, Antonio)

Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Doc. 507 Att. 22

EXHIBIT R

Dockets.Justia.com

BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC v. GOOGLE INC.
Page 2

JAMES CHARLES WILLIAMS July 15, 2010
Page 4

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) vs. ) ) ) GOOGLE INC., et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) ---------------------------) BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC,

No. 2:07-cv-371-CE

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JAMES CHARLES WILLIAMS

Taken on behalf of the Plaintiff Bright Response, LLC, at Ralph Rosenberg Court Reporters, Inc., 75-170 Hualalai Road, Number D, Suite 212, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, commencing at 9:34 a.m., on Thursday, July 15, 2010, pursuant to Notice.

BEFORE:

SHARON H. COSKEY, CSR NO. 359 Certified Shorthand Reporter

1 INDEX 2 EXAMINATION BY: PAGE 3 MR. THOMPSON ............................. 6 4 5 6 -o0o7 8 9 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 10 PAGE 11 Exhibit 1: Subpoena, Six Pages 10 12 Exhibit 2: 3/29/96 Email, RICE001471 43 13 through RICE001472 57 14 Exhibit 3: 6/12/97 Email Chain, Three Pages 15 Exhibit 4: 3/28/96 Email Chain, Two Pages 80 16 Exhibit 5: CBR2 User's Guide 121 17 Exhibit 6: 7/2/10 Email, One Page 129 18 Exhibit 7: 7/7/10 Correspondence, 133 19 GOOG1691549 through GOOG1691550 20 21 22 23 24 25 -o0oPage 5

Page 3 09:34

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:

For Plaintiff Bright Response: STANLEY H. THOMPSON, JR., ESQ. Russ August & Kabat 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 [phone] [e-mail] For Defendant Yahoo!: BRIAN A.E. SMITH, ESQ. Howrey, LLP 525 Market Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, California 94105 [phone] [e-mail] For Defendant Google: TODD KENNEDY, ESQ. Quinn Emanuel 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94114 [phone] [e-mail] Also Present: Derek Bryant, Videographer

-o0o-

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

KAILUA-KONA, HAWAII THURSDAY, JULY 15, 2010 9:34 A.M. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the deposition of Chuck Williams in the matter of Bright Response versus Google. We are located at Ralph Rosenberg Court Reporters, 75-170 Hualalai Road, Number D, Suite 212, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. My name is Derek Bryant, certified legal video specialist. Will counsel please state your names. MR. THOMPSON: Stanley Thompson for the plaintiff Bright Response, LLC. MR. SMITH: Brian Smith from Howrey, representing Yahoo!. MR. KENNEDY: Todd Kennedy from Quinn Emanuel, representing Google. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Today is July 15, 2010. We are now on the record. It is 9:34 a.m. Will the court reporter please swear in the deponent. THE REPORTER: Sir, raise your right hand for me, please. Do you swear the testimony you're about to offer will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Min-U-Script®

Barkley Court Reporters

(1) Page 2 - Page 5

BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC v. GOOGLE INC.
10:31-10:32 Page 42 10:34-10:36

JAMES CHARLES WILLIAMS July 15, 2010
Page 44

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

Q. Do you have an under-- do you have an understanding of during the development process whether or not there's a point at which EZ Reader was being tested? First of all, just I'll end the question there. Do you have an understanding that there was a point at which it was just being tested and not being utilized for actual responses to customers? A. Yes, I do recall that. Q. And is it your understanding that there was a time when it was, during its testing period, that it was utilized to create answers to customer emails but not actually send them back to the customer that sent them? A. I don't specifically recall that, but it was our normal practice. So I certainly expect that that is true. Q. And can you elaborate on that a bit? Is it -- you're saying it was Brightware's normal practice to, to test the system by -- I guess is it -- would you consider it being as close to a real-world case as possible without actually taking the last step of providing the final output to the original -A. Yes, that is correct. And that, that dates

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

recognize this, this document? MR. SMITH: Mr. Thompson, is it your representation this is from Mr. Williams' documents? MR. THOMPSON: That was my -MR. SMITH: -- got -MR. THOMPSON: Wait. It's got a Rice, sorry, it's got a Rice Bates number on it. Just a second, please. MR. SMITH: Has this document even been produced in the litigation? MR. THOMPSON: It's my understanding that it has. MR. SMITH: Okay. BY MR. THOMPSON: Q. Let me ask you this, Mr. Williams. Are you -- do you have an understanding of who Michael Mazza is? A. Not specifically, no. Q. Do you recognize the name Rosanna Piccolo? A. I do, yes. Q. What is your understanding of who she is? A. She was one of the people associated with this project at Chase. I think -- I can't remember if she was under Anthony Angotti or if she was representing a different Chase organization. But I
Page 45

10:33-10:34

Page 43 10:36-10:38

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

back to Inference in 1985. It was whenever we build AI applications, we would generally run them in a way where people could just see what they were doing before the companies trusted them to act autonomously and actually make decisions or communicate with customers as, as a part of the testing. That was our standard methodology to do that. Q. And do you have a recollection about when EZ Reader was deployed to act autonomously, excuse me, autonomously and interact with customers of Chase? A. I have reason to believe it was near the end of March of 1996. Q. And do you recall the basis for that, that recollection? A. It was various emails that were sent to me by people on the project. MR. THOMPSON: Mark this as two, please. (Deposition Exhibit 2 marked.) BY MR. THOMPSON: Q. Mr. Williams, I will represent to you that this was a document that was produced from the electronic documents you gathered in response to the subpoena. I want to first ask you whether or not you

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

associate her name with Anthony Angotti's name. Q. Do you recognize Thomas Keely? A. I do not. Q. How about the person that it appears that this email is from, [e-mail] or Amy Rice? A. Yes, I do. Q. I believe you mentioned her name earlier? A. I did. Q. I'd like to refer you to the first sentence of this document after the salutation "Rosanna, Tom and Mike." It states, "As your stragegic knowledge-based technology partners, Brightware is pleased that EZ Reader is now approved for production installation at Chase." Let me ask you if around this time frame, March 29, 1996, you recall having any communications with anyone at Brightware regarding the, the product production installation of EZ Reader? A. Yes, I do. Q. Is it your understanding that the approval for the production installation occurred around that time, excuse me, occurred around March 29, 2000 -1996? A. That is my understanding, yes.

Min-U-Script®

Barkley Court Reporters

(11) Page 42 - Page 45

JAMES CHARLES WILLIAMS July 15, 2010
10:38-10:39 Page 46 10:41-10:42

BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC v. GOOGLE INC.
Page 48

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

Q. What is it -- what is your understanding, if you have one, of what "production installation" means? A. My understanding is around that time at the end of March, as I stated previously, they actually turned it on to process live Chase emails. Q. Do you recall a specific communication from anyone at Brightware that, that informed you that it had gone live; that Bright -- that EZ Reader was being used to respond to outside customers? A. I do not require (sic) a specific communication after it had gone live. I do recall a specific communication informing me that it was going to go live within a day or two. Q. And do you recall when that communication was? A. Right around the same time frame as the message you handed me. It was right around the end of March. I do not recall the specific date. Q. Do you believe it was before March 29, 1996? A. Possibly. My recollection is that it was going to go live on a weekend. So if you could tell me the day of the week that March 29, 1996 was, I could probably refresh my recollection.

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

But what I'm trying to understand is whether you have a specific memory of whether it was on March 30 or March 31 of 1996 or whether it was the following weekend or the weekend after that? MR. KENNEDY: Objection to form. A. I have a specific recollection, refreshed by reviewing recent emails from the time, that I was informed on either the 28th or 29th, maybe the 27th, 28th or 29th, probably one of those three days towards the end of that week, taking your representation that the 29th was a Friday. I was, I was informed on the, one of those days that it would go live on that coming weekend. Not a later weekend, but that weekend. BY MR. THOMPSON: Q. But you don't recall receiving any confirmation that that actually happened as was predicted? A. I don't recall receiving a confirmation that it precisely happened on that day. I also do not recall receiving anything that it didn't. And I know that both I did and others in Brightware did, referred to it after that date as a deployed application. THE REPORTER: As a what application?
Page 49

10:39-10:40

Page 47 10:42-10:44

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

Q. I, I haven't looked it up to verify, but the, this Exhibit 1 appears to indicate that March 29, 1996 was a Friday. A. So my understanding is it probably then went to production on March 30th, 1996. Q. That's based on your recollection of a communication that it was going live around that time frame? A. Correct. Q. And also based on your recollection that it was going to go live on a weekend? A. Correct. Q. Do you recall any, receiving any confirmation that it had gone live? A. I do not. Q. Do you know whether or not it had gone live the following weekend after March 30 instead, as opposed to the first Saturday in April? A. I'm sorry, I don't think your question was -- I don't understand the "opposed to." Q. Sure. Do you have any -- do you have -- if I understand correctly, you have a belief that it was, that the release of EZ Reader or the activation of it to respond to live customers occurred on a weekend around March 29.

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

THE WITNESS: A deployed application. BY MR. THOMPSON: Q. Do you recall the first time after March 29, 1996, that you referred to EZ Reader as a deployed application? A. Not specifically, no. Q. Is it your recollection that as of the point you received the communication that you referred to in which it was communicated to you that EZ Reader was about to go live within a couple of days, the next weekend following that communication -- sorry. I think you indicated that you believed that a communication was on March, around March 27 or March 28, 1996? A. Correct. Q. So it is also your understanding that the, that EZ Reader did not go live prior to that communication? A. Based on that communication, that is correct. I should, I should qualify that a little bit, depending on I, you know, exactly what you mean by "go live." Q. Let's refer -- by "going live" we're referring to deploying the application to interact

Page 46 - Page 49 (12)

Barkley Court Reporters

Min-U-Script®

BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC v. GOOGLE INC.
13:34-13:36 Page 98 13:38-13:39

JAMES CHARLES WILLIAMS July 15, 2010
Page 100

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

ART-IM include a case-based reasoning engine? A. I don't believe the case-based reasoning engine was added until 1989, as I recall. Q. Was the case-based reasoning module that was added to ART-IM in 1989 the same case-based reasoning engine that was later used in ART*Enterprise? A. The same in the, in the sense I used that term earlier. It was the continuous line of code. There was ongoing development to it, but, yes, it was the same code line. And I guess I should say by "line of code" there I mean line of code development, not a single line of -Q. Yeah, I was -A. -- source code, just to be, just to be clear. Q. Right. And -A. In other words, we developed a code base for ART-IM that was a CBR kernel and then we continued making various enhancements to that over time, but it was that same code base that went into ART*Enterprise and to CBR Express. Q. And at that point development had, the development language had switched over to a

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

A. -- for this, for this purpose. So for this purpose then, yes, it's my understanding that the primary difference between CBR Express and Casepoint, one of the primary differences, excuse me, there were several, one of the primary differences was that CBR Express contained an authoring environment for creating cases, whereas Casepoint was simply a platform for using case bases after they were created and, and retrieving those cases. Q. And Casepoint could not actually create cases? A. Casepoint did not have an authoring environment in it to create cases. It did, I believe, have some facilities to create rules, but it did not have the case-based authoring environment. Q. What were the other differences that you, you noted or you mentioned? A. One of the big differences at the time was that the user interface for CBR Express was written using a third-party, high-level tool. It was originally written in response to some customer requests and it was written pretty quickly, and the developers of the CBR technology didn't like that tool, and so when they -- one of the reasons they created Casepoint as a separate product
Page 101

13:36-13:38

Page 99 13:39-13:41

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

C-environment as opposed to a Lisp environment, correct? A. Correct. Q. Did CBR Express include a functionality to allow for the searching of cases? A. Yes, it did. Q. Is it your understanding that the difference between Casepoint and CBR Express is that Casepoint could solely search for cases? MR. KENNEDY: Objection to form. A. Let me answer the question, but I also want to, want to backtrack a little bit, because I'm not quite sure how you're using the term "search" here. Case -- CBR Express and Casepoint contained technology to do what I described earlier, was in a CBR technology engine, where it would present features and use a partial matching process to find the best matching cases and, and present them. And, and I'm not sure I would call that search, so that's the -- but, so. BY MR. THOMPSON: Q. What's another shorthand we can use to refer to that? A. Just say retrieving cases -Q. Okay.

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

was because they wrote in native C-based user interface, and that enabled it to be much smaller and faster. And if you look at some of our literature at the time talking about Casepoint, you'll see a lot of references to it being a small, fast, lightweight case-retrieval engine. And CBR Express was a much heftier and, on the hardware of the day, more sluggish kind of product. So there was significant performance and size differences between the two. Q. Would you describe Casepoint as a runtime version of CBR Express? A. I think that's a fair general characterization. Q. Besides the fact that Casepoint could not, did not have an authoring capability to create new cases and that it was, also had the, developed with a language that allowed it to be, I guess allowed it to run faster on the technology at the time, are there any other differences between CBR Express and Casepoint that you recall? A. I believe there were over time, and there were for the reasons I stated earlier, that the development team strongly preferred the Casepoint product over the CBR Express product.

Min-U-Script®

Barkley Court Reporters

(25) Page 98 - Page 101

JAMES CHARLES WILLIAMS July 15, 2010
14:06-14:07 Page 118 14:10-14:11

BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC v. GOOGLE INC.
Page 120

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

then ask you questions to confirm, to try to confirm a single final answer for you. The customer -- a lot of times the question that the customer asked already had the answers to many of those questions in it, and so Casepoint had a rule engine that would allow it to recognize certain, certain elements of the natural language text and automatically answer questions for you. So you wouldn't say something like, you know, my, my, my printer is putting out pages that are covered with white streaks and then have it come back and ask you are there white streaks on your page? Right? So it's trying to avoid that kind of thing; automatically answer questions for you. So that -- even Casepoint had a rule engine for that specific purpose. There were other applications of ART*Enterprise where both rules and cases were used. I, I believe examples of those were a couple that I cited earlier, Canon SAMS and the Nippon Steel custom steel process planning application. It was an application Nippon Steel used to respond to customer requests for specialized steel products and, and, you know, come up with a way in which they could deliver those products.

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

it's kind of -- at one point in time we stopped calling it ART-IM and started calling it ART*Enterprise. It was all one line, code-based development line. So, you know, it gets a little fuzzy. Like if you ask me exactly when did we announce ART*Enterprise as the successor product to ART-IM, I couldn't probably tell you the exact day, although I might be able to get close. But I know applications that date all the way back to -- when would it have been? Well, certainly the original AT&T application, I believe it was AT&T where we built the first call center application for, that utilized case-based reasoning technology. That was when we built case-based reasoning for the first time. That was kind of the predecessor of CBR Express and Casepoint. It was an ART-IM application, if I, as I recall, and it used case-based reasoning technology and I believe it also used rule-based reasoning technology. And then there were ART*Enterprise, ART-IM and ART*Enterprise applications, you know, all throughout the early '90s. There were lots -- there were many applications of those products, and the case-based
Page 121

14:08-14:10

Page 119 14:11-14:14

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

And then, of course, there were, there was the other, the Brightware products I referred to earlier, like Brightware Answer Agent, Brightware Advice Agent, and Brightware Context Center. Those all used both cases and rules. Those are all deployed applications. Q. In the context of a case retrieval process, is, is normalization a necessary component in case retrieval? MR. SMITH: Object to form. A. I guess there's a question about what specifically you mean by "normalization." The -- certainly some form of normalization was a common process in case retrieval applications. Whether or not it is strictly necessary, I guess I would say probably not. BY MR. THOMPSON: Q. I think I forgot to ask when you were discussing the ART*Enterprise applications that, that utilized both a rule-based and a case-based knowledge engine, whether you recalled when the applications you mentioned were deployed? A. Well, there were ART-IM applications. Q. I'm sorry, ART-IM. A. Well, ART-IM and ART*Enterprise. I mean,

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

reasoning and rule-based reasoning kernels were available to all of those applications. Exactly which ones used which features, I can't tell you specifically, but I believe there were numerous applications of ART-IM and ART*Enterprise that used both the case-based reasoning and the rule-based engines. I do hope we're not going through each and every one of those documents. Q. Not page by page. A. Oh, thanks. MR. THOMPSON: This is number five, I believe. (Deposition Exhibit 5 marked.) BY MR. THOMPSON: Q. Mr. Williams, you've been handed what has been marked as Exhibit 5. Do you have an understanding of what Exhibit 5 is? A. I do. Q. And what is your understanding? A. Well, as it says on the cover page, it's the User's Guide to CBR Express 2.0 for Windows, and I suspect -- I'm not sure if that's, if there's not more behind it, but it's at least that. I've not had a chance to look through all

Page 118 - Page 121 (30)

Barkley Court Reporters

Min-U-Script®

BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC v. GOOGLE INC.
14:14-14:15 Page 122 14:16-14:18

JAMES CHARLES WILLIAMS July 15, 2010
Page 124

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

the pages here. It looks like it's dominantly the User's Guide for CBR, excuse me, CBR Express Version 2.0 for Windows. Q. Is it also your understanding that this was an Inference product, as indicated on the -A. Yes, it is. Q. -- first page? Now, you refer to it being a, the User Guide for CBR Express Version 2.0. What was the basis for that, for that understanding? A. Well, it says right on here. You see this looks like, you know, a copied, an optically-copied version of the physical manual. The title page says CBR Express 2.0 for Windows. The notices, rights, notices and such on the inside talk about CBR 2, which was our general name for that, for the family of products that would have included CBR Express 2.0 and Casepoint, and Casepoint 2.0. It, it, it, you know, everything I'm looking at, I'm just skimming pages quickly, everything I'm looking at is, is consistent with, with it being what it says it is. Q. And I believe you're referring to the reference to CBR Express 2.0 on the second page of the document which bears the production number

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

the new version of the product. Q. Are there any other differences that you can recall? A. I, I would need more time and more prompting, I think, but those are the salient ones that come to my mind right now. Q. Were there any differences -- I believe you said there was a difference relating to matching features? Were you referring to retrieval? A. A difference related to matching features? Can you read back what I said? Q. Actually, if it's not too far back, maybe our reporter can read back what you said. A. And what, the difference between what and what? Q. Between CBR 2 and CBR 1, because I asked you whether -A. Oh, oh, yes. I, I -- okay. Now I recall what I said and, and I recall what I meant. I believe there were differences in the kinds of case-based matching features you could use, the kinds of questions and such that you could use that would have come from normal enhancements. We work, we work in -- this was a major product line for the company. We were continuing to
Page 125

14:15-14:16

Page 123 14:18-14:33

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

YAH0021146 -A. Correct. Q. -- is that correct? Mr. Williams, was there a previous version of CBR Express before 2.0? A. I believe there was, yes. Q. And were you familiar with that previous version? A. Yes. Q. Do you have any understanding about whether there were differences between -- can we call it CBR Version 1 and CBR 2.0? A. I'm sure there were differences. I mean, we were continuing to develop the product. I think, but it's not a specific recollection, I think CBR 2 family, when we came out with CBR Express 2.0, was probably the same time we came out with Casepoint. That's probably -- probably the addition of Casepoint was one of the major reasons it went from 1.0 to 2.0. And along with that would have come some new authoring features and various new case matching features from feedback we had received from customers and based on applications to that, up to that point, where we would have included normal enhancements in

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

develop and improve it through new versions. So each version would have had enhancements throughout most of the functions, and a major release change like CBR 1 to CBR 2 probably would have had a major new function like, for example, the introduction of Casepoint. Q. And other than what you've already testified to, do you recall the details of any other differences between CBR 2 and CBR 1? A. Not at the level of these specific details that we're talking about now. I would have to refer to the materials to, to, to get those details. MR. THOMPSON: Okay. Would you like to take a break? THE WITNESS: Love to. Love to stand up. Thank you. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record. It's 2:19. (Break in proceedings from 2:19 p.m. to 2:33 p.m.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record. It is 2:33 p.m. BY MR. THOMPSON: Q. Mr. Williams, do you recall ever hearing of an article entitled "Compaq Quick Source Providing the Consumer with the Power of AI"?

Min-U-Script®

Barkley Court Reporters

(31) Page 122 - Page 125

JAMES CHARLES WILLIAMS July 15, 2010
14:34-14:35 Page 126 14:36-14:37

BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC v. GOOGLE INC.
Page 128

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

A. I, I believe I know what that title is referring to. I, I couldn't tell you that was the exact title, but I believe I know the application and that there were articles written about it. Q. What's your understanding of the application that it related to? A. An application that Inference did for Compaq specifically related to, as I recall, I think their, their -- which products was it? Oh, God, it's coming back to me. It was a, it was a, I think, a CBR Express application, I could be wrong, but I believe it was a CBR Express application and it pertained to automating certain customer service inquiries for Compaq. I guess what I do recall, at one point in time we had discussions with them about shipping a version on board new Compaq computers, and I believe for a while they did, but that may have been before or after the article. Q. And you referred to it as a CBR Express application, so do you know whether it contained a case-based reasoning engine? A. I, I believe it did. It certainly did if it was a CBR Express application. There's a

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

Q. Do you know if that's one of the documents that you produced or turned over to counsel? A. I believe so. I know it's a document I've reviewed in connection with this matter, and I believe it is a document I produced and turned over to counsel. Q. Similarly with regard to the Chief Executive's magazine article that you referred to earlier, was that a document that you located in connection with reviewing documents in response to the subpoena to you in this matter? A. It was the same document, and I, I recall, I don't believe it was on the document, I recall that it was published in those two locations. Q. So what you located was a draft of what became the, an article published in both the San Francisco Chronicle and Chief Executive's magazine? A. Correct. I located a computer file containing the text of the article. Whether or not it was the final published form in either, in either publication, I can't say for certain, but I believe it was either the final published form or close to the final published form. Q. And do you recall what it was, what was written in the computer file that you found that
Page 129

14:35-14:36

Page 127 14:38-14:39

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

possibility it was an ART-IM or ART*Enterprise application, but I think it was CBR Express. Q. But either way -A. And it was, it was a case-based application, yes. Q. And, either way, it would be the same case-based reasoning application, because I believe you've testified that they were, they had them in common? A. It would be the same CBR kernel technology, yes. Q. Earlier I believe you referred to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle that you wrote? A. Correct. Q. Do you recall if you located it during your search for documents in response to the subpoena in this matter? A. I believe we -- I believe I located a, drafts of the article. I don't think there was any published form of the article. In other words, I, I believe I located computer files that contained the article and probably did not contain information about where it was published.

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

leads you to believe, to believe that the EZ Reader application was deployed in, well, before March 31, 1996? MR. SMITH: Object to form. A. I don't believe that's quite what I said. I said I, I, it was an article that I wrote after March 31, 1996, that referred to it as a deployed application. So that would tell me that it was deployed prior to the article. I don't remember the specific date of the article, although I'm guessing it was maybe -- I'm not certain. I think it was April or May of '96, but I'm not certain. And I don't believe the article specifically referenced the deployment date of EZ Reader. But if I saw the article, that would help my recollection. MR. THOMPSON: This is six. (Deposition Exhibit 6 marked.) BY MR. THOMPSON: Q. Mr. Williams, you've been handed what's been marked as Exhibits 6? A. Yes. Q. And do you recognize this document? A. I do.

Page 126 - Page 129 (32)

Barkley Court Reporters

Min-U-Script®