12633 1 IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY ----------------------------------------------- 2 JOE COMES; RILEY PAINT, ) 3 INC., an Iowa Corporation;) SKEFFINGTON'S FORMAL ) 4 WEAR OF IOWA, INC., an ) NO. CL82311 Iowa Corporation; and ) 5 PATRICIA ANNE LARSEN; ) ) TRANSCRIPT OF 6 Plaintiffs, ) PROCEEDINGS ) VOLUME XLVI 7 vs. ) ) 8 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ) a Washington Corporation, ) 9 ) Defendant. ) 10 ----------------------------------------------- 11 The above-entitled matter came on for 12 trial before the Honorable Scott D. Rosenberg 13 and a jury commencing at 8:41 a.m., February 7, 14 2007, in Room 302 of the Polk County 15 Courthouse, Des Moines, Iowa. 16 17 18 19 20 HUNEY-VAUGHN COURT REPORTERS, LTD. 21 Suite 307, 604 Locust Street 22 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 23 (515)288-4910 24 25 12634 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 Plaintiffs by: 3 MICHAEL R. CASHMAN Attorney at Law 4 Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette, LLP 5 500 Washington Avenue South Suite 4000 6 Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 339-2020 7 KENT WILLIAMS 8 Attorney at Law Williams Law Firm 9 1632 Homestead Trail Long Lake, MN 55356 10 (612) 940-4452 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12635 1 Defendant by: DAVID B. TULCHIN 2 STEVEN L. HOLLEY SHARON L. NELLES 3 Attorneys at Law Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP 4 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004-2498 5 (212) 558-3749 6 HEIDI B. BRADLEY Attorney at Law 7 Heller Ehrman, LLP 333 South Hope Street 8 Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3043 9 (213) 689-0200 10 DAVID E. JONES Attorney at Law 11 Heller Ehrman, LLP One East Main Street 12 Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703-5118 13 (608) 663-7460 14 BRENT B. GREEN Attorney at Law 15 Duncan, Green, Brown & Langeness, PC 16 Suite 380 400 Locust Street 17 Des Moines, IA 50309 (515) 288-6440 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12636 1 RICHARD J. WALLIS Attorney at Law 2 Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way 3 Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 882-8080 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12637 1 (The following record was made in the 2 presence of the jury at 8:41 a.m.) 3 THE COURT: Everyone else may be 4 seated. 5 Mr. Cashman. 6 MR. CASHMAN: Good morning, Your 7 Honor. 8 Plaintiffs wish to proceed with the 9 videotaped deposition of Philip Barrett taken 10 on May 31, 2002. 11 THE COURT: Very well. 12 (Whereupon, the following video was 13 played to the jury.) 14 Question: All right. When you were 15 at Microsoft, did Microsoft provide the 16 operating system information developers needed 17 to all application developers at the same time 18 and on an equal basis? 19 Answer: Well, by its very nature with 20 the undocumented APIs and the ill behaved or I 21 should say ill characterized APIs that were 22 documented, not all information was made 23 available to all the ISVs at the same time. 24 Question: Were some applications 25 developers favored over others? 12638 1 Answer: Certainly. 2 Question: What were the criteria used 3 by Microsoft to determine which applications 4 developers were provided with favored 5 treatment? 6 Answer: There wasn't really -- I 7 don't think there was any concerted effort. 8 There was no policy. It was fairly ad hoc and 9 typically it boiled down to who you knew. 10 Question: Did Microsoft's own 11 application developers receive favored 12 treatment over independent software vendor 13 application developers? 14 Answer: Certainly. 15 Question: And in what way? 16 Answer: Well, as I testified earlier, 17 particularly the Microsoft Excel group got 18 highly favored because they were local and 19 they'd walk through the building and talk to 20 you, talk to us. 21 Chris Peters was my buddy. He'd come 22 and talk to me in my office, in my developers' 23 offices after hours. 24 Question: And that type of access was 25 not provided to independent software vendors? 12639 1 Answer: Not at all. 2 Question: Do you recall aside from 3 yourself, did Mr. Peters have other contacts or 4 primary contacts within the Windows group? 5 Answer: Yeah, he was fairly close to 6 David Weise. 7 Question: And did he obtain 8 information about Windows from David Weise? 9 Answer: Most assuredly. 10 Question: And what kind of favored 11 treatment did Mr. Peters obtain from Mr. Weise 12 or others? 13 Answer: Well, the access to the 14 information. There may have been bugs that 15 were fixed, perhaps not even going through the 16 bug tracking system, but directly -- in fact, I 17 know that there were several bugs that were 18 fixed that never got into the bug tracking 19 system. 20 Chris would come over and say what's 21 going on here, or one of his developers would 22 call up and look at it and go oh, I can fix 23 that right away. 24 So people like David Weise would do 25 that sort of thing. 12640 1 Question: Do you know whether 2 Mr. Peters was able to obtain early copies of 3 Windows 3.0? 4 Answer: Certainly, yes. 5 Question: And did he receive those, 6 those development -- early development copies 7 of Windows 3.0 before independent software 8 vendors? 9 Answer: Yeah, I'm pretty sure of 10 that, yeah. Certainly well before the 11 majority. 12 He may have received them about the 13 same time that Aldus Corporation received early 14 copies, but that's probably the only one that 15 could possibly have received it before the 16 Excel group did. 17 Question: Do you know if Mr. Weise 18 put specific APIs in Windows at Mr. Peters' 19 request? 20 Answer: Well, I think the answer is 21 yes, but I can't point to a specific one. 22 Question: Do you recall whether 23 Mr. Peters later was responsible for the Word 24 development group? 25 Answer: I believe he was promoted to 12641 1 senior position in the applications division, 2 yes. I believe that Word was under his 3 tutelage. 4 Question: Did Mr. Gates play any role 5 in the -- in promoting the exchange of 6 information between the operating systems and 7 applications groups at Microsoft? 8 Answer: Not a direct role. 9 Question: Some sort of indirect role? 10 Answer: Yeah, he chastised people, 11 groups for not working together, not talking to 12 other groups. He certainly encouraged that. 13 I can't recall a specific instance of 14 talk to Excel or the Word guys, but he was 15 pretty, pretty adamant about us working, all 16 the various groups working together. 17 Question: Let me ask you some more 18 questions about the independent software 19 vendors. 20 Did ISVs whose applications were not 21 in competition with Microsoft's applications 22 receive favored treatment over independent 23 software vendors whose applications did compete 24 with Microsoft's applications? 25 Answer: Well, I can't -- I can't say 12642 1 that there was a policy. However, it is true 2 that the ISVs that did receive favored 3 treatment tended to not be competitive. 4 Aldus Corporation, which made 5 Pagemaker, which was a desktop publishing 6 application. The folks, was it Wall Data that 7 made Rumba, a 3270 terminal emulator that 8 corporations would use. Microsoft had no 9 competing products there and they got 10 reasonably favored treatment, as I recall. 11 Question: Can you give examples of 12 the types of favored treatment that they would 13 receive? 14 Answer: Well, the most, best example 15 is access to developers who understand the 16 code. 17 Certainly meetings with developers and 18 that sort of thing within the Microsoft 19 organization, within the Windows development 20 team. 21 I can't think of anything beyond that. 22 Sometimes interim drops of the operating system 23 between betas, that sort of thing. 24 If there's a bug fix or something like 25 that, they would give -- some ISVs would get 12643 1 copies of an interim build, an interim build of 2 the operating system that would fix problems 3 and hopefully they'd verify that the problem 4 was fixed. 5 Question: And when you refer to a 6 drop, what does that mean? 7 Answer: A delivery. 8 Question: A delivery? 9 Answer: A delivery, yeah. 10 Question: Now, you referred earlier 11 to Aldus. What was the business that Aldus was 12 in? 13 Answer: They were in the desktop 14 publishing business and they made something 15 called Aldus Pagemaker, which ran on the Mac. 16 And they moved over to a Windows sometime 17 before, and so it was a layout application for 18 doing brochures and self publishing, that sort 19 of thing. 20 Question: Did you say earlier that 21 Aldus received some sort of favored treatment 22 over other applications developers? 23 Answer: Absolutely. 24 Question: And what was the reason 25 that Aldus received favored treatment? 12644 1 Answer: There was a guy named Jim 2 O'Neill who is the project lead, and I could 3 not remember his name last time, but it's come 4 to me since. 5 And Jim O'Neill was fairly good 6 friends with David Weise and several other 7 people, including myself, and he was a big 8 supporter of Windows. 9 And so we gave him very, very, very 10 early versions of Windows to port Pagemaker to 11 protected mode. And we went ahead and did that 12 and had Pagemaker running very early on so we 13 could demonstrate another application running 14 in the Windows environment. 15 Question: Did Microsoft have an 16 application that competed with Aldus' desktop 17 publishing software? 18 Answer: No. 19 Question: Was there some reason why 20 it was important for -- to Microsoft that all 21 Aldus quickly be able to develop applications 22 for Windows? 23 Answer: Yeah, probably the biggest 24 reason was that at that point in time desktop 25 publishing was very hot, and it was the domain 12645 1 of the Macintosh. And the Macintosh was viewed 2 as a competitor to Windows in general, although 3 it had low market share relative to the PC 4 world. 5 But the fact that there was a -- what 6 was perceived at the time to be a high-end 7 activity that really could only be done on a 8 Macintosh and not on a PC. 9 So there was a strong desire to move, 10 basically allow the PC to be a desktop 11 publishing environment. 12 So that's why Aldus was very, very 13 important to us at the time. 14 Question: Now, you mentioned earlier 15 that one of the things that is necessary for 16 development of applications is what you called 17 a software development kit? 18 Answer: Yes. 19 Question: And that's known by the 20 acronym SDK? 21 Answer: That's correct. 22 Question: Did Microsoft's own 23 applications development groups have access to 24 the information in the software development 25 kits before the SDKs were published to the 12646 1 independent software vendors? 2 Answer: Yes, I believe so. 3 Question: And how did that occur? 4 Answer: Well, the software 5 development kit is a product, just like Windows 6 is a product, little bit different nature the 7 way it's developed, but, you know, it has a set 8 of components to it. 9 Those components are developed. A 10 document is written, it's proofread. It's -- 11 you know, it's proofed for accuracy, those sort 12 of thing. 13 So early versions of those documents 14 were available within Microsoft prior to the 15 release of the software development kit. 16 The software development kit itself 17 including libraries and various files and that 18 sort of thing that you used to build 19 applications was similar, similar way had to be 20 put together and it had to be burned onto a CD 21 and that sort of thing. 22 So in the process of production that 23 information would be available on servers 24 within Microsoft that anybody could go and get 25 access to. 12647 1 I can't give you a name of a person 2 that went and got an early version, but I can 3 guarantee you that there were many, many 4 developers, application developers that got 5 access to that stuff before it was shipped to 6 the general public. 7 Question: And when you talk about the 8 application developers that got access before 9 it was shipped to the general public, are you 10 talking about application developers internal 11 to Microsoft's applications groups? 12 Answer: Yes, that's correct. 13 Question: What are header files? 14 Answer: That's okay. 15 Header files are special files that 16 include common definitions -- a piece of 17 software, a large piece of software has to be 18 broken up into many, many, many source files. 19 Typical operating system may have a 20 thousand source code files for different parts, 21 different features, et cetera. 22 Oftentimes they're common definitions, 23 you know. I don't know, true is defined as 24 minus one, okay. So you don't have to type, 25 use minus one in a piece of code. You could 12648 1 say if true, then this. 2 So true might be in the header file. 3 The common definition of true might be in a 4 header file that's included by all of those 5 source files. That way the operating system 6 developers can maintain a consistency of all 7 the common definitions that they use. 8 Question: Were header files used to 9 discriminate against competing applications 10 developers? 11 Answer: I have no knowledge of that. 12 I don't see how it's possible. 13 Question: Do you know whether 14 Microsoft's internal application groups 15 received header files in advance of their 16 release to independent software vendors? 17 Answer: Certainly header files are 18 part, typically part of a software development 19 kit. So everything I said about software 20 development kits applies to header files. 21 Question: Was the earlier access to 22 these header files by the internal Microsoft 23 development groups a material advantage for 24 them? 25 Answer: Absolutely. Typically the 12649 1 header files would actually contain the API 2 definitions, what they call a prototype 3 definition, so that the compiler would know how 4 to properly identify a call into the operating 5 system. 6 Question: And do you know whether 7 header files were also provided earlier to 8 applications independent software vendors 9 without competing applications to Microsoft's? 10 Answer: Certainly all those folks got 11 those header files early. 12 Question: Are you familiar with a 13 term, see if I have this right, capability 14 bites or compatibility bits. 15 Answer: Yes, I'm familiar with 16 compatibility bits. 17 Question: Compatibility bits, what is 18 that? 19 Answer: What compatibility bits are 20 or were, particularly I believe it was in 21 Windows 3.1, the idea was that there were bugs 22 or other quirky behavior that the operating 23 system had that ISVs figured out and would do 24 things in a certain way. 25 Like, for example, there was a bug in 12650 1 Windows that sometimes when you sent -- in 2 order to get a window to redisplay, you have to 3 send it an update message and that message 4 would cause the window to redisplay itself. So 5 if you change something in it, you go change, 6 change, change update and it would display 7 itself. So sometimes that update message 8 didn't take for various reasons, it got lost or 9 something, but developers figured out by trial 10 and error that if they sent two update 11 messages, it would update. 12 Unfortunately, we fixed the bug that 13 caused that that would lose one of the update 14 messages and the developers that had figured -- 15 the applications had figured out that you have 16 to send two update messages to cause some 17 flashing. 18 So what we did is we created -- we 19 recognize the applications, we knew which 20 applications it was, the important ones, and we 21 would detect them when loading and we'd set 22 this capability bit, which was essentially, 23 think of it as a flag that says when that type 24 of application is loaded, is running, revert to 25 the old behavior, revert to the quirky 12651 1 behavior. 2 So that's what capability bits are, 3 and I think there were maybe five or six, maybe 4 more than that. But they're a class, a set of 5 applications that required the capability bits 6 in order to operate correctly under 3.1. 7 Question: It's Windows 3.1? 8 Answer: Yes. 9 Question: Did different applications 10 sometimes require different capability bits in 11 order to function properly? 12 Answer: Yes, that's correct. 13 Question: And did Microsoft sometimes 14 refuse to create these capability bits to 15 ameliorate new incompatibilities that affected 16 competing applications? 17 Answer: Runs in my mind that there 18 were companies that wanted us to make some 19 capability bits and we didn't, but I don't 20 recall the specifics. 21 Question: Did you know someone at 22 Microsoft by the name of Martin Dunsmuir? 23 Answer: Yes, I did. 24 Question: And what was his position 25 at Microsoft? 12652 1 Answer: He ran some part of the OS/2 2 group at one point. I think the graphical user 3 interface group, I believe that to be the case. 4 And he did other things. He led the Xenix 5 effort, which was a variant of UNIX that 6 Microsoft had. 7 Question: Did he have any role in 8 working with industry groups in connection with 9 interoperability standards? 10 Answer: I didn't think he was 11 involved with interoperability standards. He 12 was involved with standards groups, but -- 13 Question: What's the difference 14 between regular standards groups and 15 interoperability standards? 16 Answer: Maybe the difference is vague 17 and imprecise. I view a standard as something 18 that people all agree to implement. 19 It doesn't necessarily guarantee 20 interoperability. 21 Interoperability typically means that 22 there's a set of -- there's a set of 23 interoperability tests and there's a set of -- 24 you know, you have to meet certain levels of 25 compliance in order to be interoperable. 12653 1 I believe he was involved in the Posix 2 effort is probably the most significant effort. 3 Question: What is Posix? 4 Answer: Posix was an attempt to 5 create a single standardized interface for 6 UNIX, and most UNIX implementations had 7 different APIs. 8 Question: Now, why was it considered 9 a success for Microsoft's Martin Dunsmuir to 10 drag out the acceptance of industry standards? 11 Answer: Within Microsoft standards 12 were not viewed as helpful to Microsoft's 13 business. 14 Question: Why was that? 15 Answer: Because they allowed other 16 people to implement similar products that would 17 compete. It made it easier for people to 18 compete in a nutshell. 19 (Whereupon, playing of video 20 concluded.) 21 MR. CASHMAN: Your Honor, that 22 concludes the testimony of Philip Barrett. 23 And at this time, Plaintiffs would 24 like to offer Plaintiffs' Exhibit 29, 986, 988, 25 1011, 1067, 3485, 5053, 7510, 9573, 4380A, 12654 1 7569A, and 7595A. 2 And with the Court's permission, I 3 would like to approach and provide the Court 4 with two hard copies of those exhibits and a 5 disk and to provide the same to Microsoft. 6 THE COURT: You may. 7 Thank you, sir. 8 Any objection to the exhibits? 9 MS. NELLES: Your Honor, could I ask 10 the Court's indulgence to have them read one 11 more time? I think I got most but not all of 12 them. 13 THE COURT: 29, 986, 988, 1011, 1067, 14 3485, 5053, 7510, 9573, 4380A, 7569A, 7595A. 15 MR. CASHMAN: Your Honor, I think 16 there was some on the list that may have been 17 overlooked so may I just read those one more 18 time that the Plaintiffs are offering? 19 THE COURT: Oh, did I miss some? 20 MR. CASHMAN: Plaintiffs' Exhibit 29, 21 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 184, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 22 682, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 979, Plaintiffs' 23 Exhibit 986, Plaintiff's Exhibit 988, 24 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1011, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 25 1067, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 3473, Plaintiffs' 12655 1 Exhibit 3485, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 5053, 2 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7510, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 3 8863, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 9573, Plaintiffs' 4 Exhibit 4380A, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7569A, and 5 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7595A. 6 MS. NELLES: No objection to those 7 exhibits with the exception of Exhibit 4380A, 8 7569A, and 8863. Only -- which may be fine but 9 -- which I don't have on my list, and I think 10 it's likely because they've already been 11 admitted by Plaintiffs, but if I could just 12 have a minute to double-check those three. 13 THE COURT: Sure, go ahead. 14 MS. NELLES: And I have -- if I may, 15 Your Honor, Microsoft has three exhibits it 16 would like to move at this time. 17 THE COURT: Let me finish writing all 18 these down. 19 MS. NELLES: Fair enough. 20 THE COURT: Okay. Defendant's 21 exhibits. 22 MS. NELLES: Your Honor, plaintiff -- 23 sorry, Defendant's exhibits. 24 Defendant would like to move 25 Defendant's Exhibits 2639, Defendant's Exhibit 12656 1 2736, and Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4178 at this 2 time. 3 THE COURT: 4178? 4 MS. NELLES: Yes, Plaintiffs' 4178. 5 THE COURT: All right. And did you 6 check on those other ones? 7 MS. NELLES: I have, and I believe 8 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 8863 is already admitted, 9 and I have no objection to the other two coming 10 into evidence at this time. 11 THE COURT: Very well. They're all 12 admitted. 13 Mr. Cashman, any objection to the 14 Defendant's exhibits? 15 MR. CASHMAN: I have no objection, 16 Your Honor, to DX 2639 or DX 2736. 17 If I may have until the next recess, 18 Your Honor, to check on the other one. That's 19 not in my records. 20 THE COURT: That's a Plaintiffs' 21 exhibit. Okay, I'll give you that time so you 22 can check on it. 23 The others are all admitted. 24 MR. CASHMAN: Ms. Nelles, would you 25 kindly repeat the last exhibit number? 12657 1 MS. NELLES: It's your exhibit, 2 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4178. It was played in the 3 most recent deposition of Mr. Barrett and shown 4 to the jury. 5 MR. CASHMAN: Thank you. 6 THE COURT: So you'll check on that? 7 MR. CASHMAN: I'll check on it, yes, 8 Your Honor. 9 MS. NELLES: With the Court's 10 permission, I will give Mr. Cashman a copy of 11 those. 12 THE COURT: Very well. 13 MS. NELLES: And, of course, I will 14 provide Sandy with three copies as well. 15 MR. CASHMAN: Thank you very much. 16 Next, Your Honor, the Plaintiffs would 17 like to call the witness who gave prior 18 testimony. The witness is Andrew Hill who 19 provided testimony before the Federal Trade 20 Commission on May 5th, 1993. 21 Your Honor, this is a reading 22 deposition, and Mr. Williams will play the role 23 of Mr. Hill. 24 THE COURT: May 5, 1993, was the date? 25 MR. CASHMAN: Correct. 12658 1 THE COURT: Very well. 2 Mr. Williams. 3 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, may I just 4 take a moment to introduce myself to the jury? 5 THE COURT: Yes. 6 MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning. My name 7 is Kent Williams and I'm one of the attorneys 8 representing the Plaintiffs class in this 9 matter, and as Mr. Cashman said, I'll be 10 reading the part of Andrew Hill. 11 Thank you, Your Honor. 12 KENT WILLIAMS, 13 was duly sworn by the Court to truly and 14 accurately read the answers from the deposition 15 of Andrew Hill. 16 MR. CASHMAN: Your Honor, there's some 17 portions of testimony that have been designated 18 by Plaintiffs and some designated by Microsoft. 19 Mr. Green will be reading those 20 designations that have been designated by 21 Microsoft. So from time to time I'll stop and 22 Mr. Green will pick up, and then it may come 23 back to me again. So that is why there will be 24 some switching back and forth. 25 MR. GREEN: We get to play several 12659 1 roles because -- it's pretty exciting, Your 2 Honor. 3 THE COURT: Okay. Very good. 4 Dramatic. 5 JUROR [redacted]: Won't be any shooting? 6 (Whereupon, the following deposition 7 was read to the jury.) 8 MR. CASHMAN: Good morning. 9 Question: Will you please state your 10 full name for the record? 11 Answer: Andrew R. Hill. 12 Question: And where are you employed? 13 Answer: Microsoft Corp. 14 Question: And what's your current 15 position with Microsoft? 16 Answer: Program manager. 17 Question: For any specific product or 18 group? 19 Answer: PSG, personal systems group, 20 working on the Chicago project. 21 Question: Okay. How long have you 22 been with Microsoft Corporation? 23 Answer: About two and a half years. 24 Question: How long have you held your 25 current position? 12660 1 Answer: Oh, six months maybe. 2 Question: Okay. Can you recall when 3 you began the position? 4 Answer: You mean with the Chicago 5 project? 6 Let me see. Probably since November, 7 December of '92. 8 Question: Okay. And prior to the 9 program manager in the Chicago project -- for 10 the Chicago project, what was your position at 11 Microsoft? 12 Answer: Program manager on the 13 Windows for Workgroup project. 14 Question: And when did you begin that 15 position? 16 Answer: Probably May of '92. 17 Question: Okay. And prior to that? 18 Answer: Program manager for the 19 Windows 3.1 project. 20 Question: Okay. As program manager 21 for the Windows 3.1 project, who did you report 22 to directly? 23 Answer: David Cole. 24 Question: Okay. And who reported 25 directly to you? 12661 1 Answer: At one point, Janine Harrison 2 reported to me functionally. I think she kind 3 of reported to David Cole as well. It was a 4 little bit blurred. Kala Koch reported to me 5 on a dotted line function. 6 Question: Okay. Janine Harrison, 7 what was her role in the Windows 3.1 project? 8 Answer: She started out running the 9 beta program, 3.1 beta program. I believe she 10 had other duties as well. 11 Question: Okay. Was it part of your 12 responsibilities as program manager for Windows 13 3.1 to be involved in the beta program? 14 Answer: Yes. 15 Question: In what way was that? 16 Answer: I was brought in probably 17 midway through the project to take over the 18 beta program, oversee the entire beta program. 19 Question: Okay. Now, when you took 20 over the running of the beta program from 21 Ms. Harrison, when was that in the Win 3.1 22 development process? 23 Answer: It was probably around late 24 October, early November. 25 Question: Are you familiar with the 12662 1 number of beta testers that were in Win 3.1? 2 Answer: Roughly. 3 Question: At about the time of 4 release candidate one can you estimate -- let 5 me back up a moment. 6 Is beta tester -- are beta tester and 7 beta sites synonymous terms? Is there one 8 tester per beta site? 9 Answer: There may be multiple testers 10 per beta site. 11 Question: Are you familiar with how 12 many beta sites there were at the time of 13 release candidate one? 14 Answer: Probably between 12 and 15 15,000 were sites that had been signed up and 16 shipped beta code at some time. 17 Question: From the home user to 18 corporate user, I believe, were two of the 19 examples. 20 What is the purpose of seeking the 21 broader -- a broad category of users? 22 Answer: Probably twofold. Number one 23 is to increase the number of configurations 24 that we tested on; in other words, different 25 types of machines, from different 12663 1 manufacturers, different types of software they 2 run on those machines, different types of 3 hardware they have connected to the machines, 4 different tape drives and CD-ROM devices and 5 speakers and that type of thing. 6 The other thing is to get test 7 coverage for the type of user, whether it be -- 8 a corporate user has different needs and will 9 exercise the software in a different way than a 10 home user, a secretary will use it differently 11 than an engineer. 12 So we would -- we tried to get as 13 broad a coverage as possible, because Windows 14 sells into a very broad market. 15 Question: Okay. And how -- well, if 16 you can, how would you characterize the beta 17 test group, the beta test sites in terms of 18 sophistication, I guess, in computer use? 19 Let's stick with the release candidate 20 stage to the end. 21 Answer: From the release candidate to 22 the end? 23 Question: Yes. 24 Answer: You would have it from 25 someone who rarely used the computer all the 12664 1 way to someone who was someone who used it all 2 the time, someone who sat in front of the 3 computer all day. 4 Question: Is there a marketing 5 component of beta testing software, generally? 6 Answer: I think it depends on where 7 in the beta cycle you are. There is certainly 8 something that says you want to create momentum 9 for the product by getting -- by being able to 10 say we had 12 or 15,000 people test this 11 product and, you know, I think you'll see in 12 some of the trade press or something will say 13 Microsoft had this huge beta test which is to 14 ensure it was very stable and worked on a wide 15 range of configurations or wide range of users. 16 Question: Okay. In terms of the 17 trade press that were included in the beta test 18 cycle -- 19 Answer: Uh-huh. 20 Question: -- were they also subject 21 to nondisclosure agreements? 22 Answer: Oh, boy. 23 Question: Again, to the best of your 24 knowledge. 25 Answer: To the best of my knowledge, 12665 1 I think, I believe most of them were. 2 Question: One more broad description 3 of your beta testers, if you could, how would 4 you describe the beta testers throughout the 5 Windows 3.1 beta cycle in terms of industry 6 influence? 7 Answer: Define industry influence. 8 In the way software is written? 9 Question: Well, start with -- that's 10 one way to look at it. Maybe this will help. 11 Have you heard of the term key evaluators or 12 key influencers? 13 Answer: Not -- not in the sense of -- 14 I hear it from the marketing guys in the 15 Chicago project more than I maybe heard in the 16 Win 3.1 product. 17 In terms of industry influence, you 18 know, in the beta program, we certainly had 19 people that -- we had editors in there, I think 20 they were probably influential in the industry. 21 We had end users that may -- that were 22 undoubtedly in on the decision process on 23 whether to, you know, adopt or purchase 24 software, so we certainly had that element to 25 the beta test. 12666 1 Question: Okay. Going back to the 2 selection of beta test sites. 3 Answer: Uh-huh. 4 Question: If there is a general 5 criteria -- criterion used to select those 6 sites -- 7 Answer: Uh-huh. 8 Question: -- what might that be? 9 Answer: General criterion? 10 Question: Yes. 11 Answer: For selecting a beta tester. 12 You know, again, it depends on what stage you 13 are in the program. 14 In the beginning, you probably want 15 people that can handle some real flakey 16 software, that are willing to risk their disk, 17 so to speak, risk their data. 18 As you get closer to shipment, you 19 want people that are probably more mainstream 20 users, that are not the dwiddle, the bits type 21 of people. 22 You certainly want to make sure you're 23 covering different classes of users, so you 24 would want to have end users -- make sure 25 you're covering government people, make sure 12667 1 you have a component that covers educational 2 people, you want people in education, in the 3 nonprofit sector. 4 We want to cover people that write 5 software certainly, certainly people that write 6 software to the Windows API. We want to get 7 people that make hardware that works with 8 Windows. 9 Question: Let me ask you directly. 10 Were there key influencers or key evaluators, 11 as you use these terms, in the beta program? 12 Answer: If you define an editor as a 13 key influencer, then, yes, there were. I guess 14 I'm having a hard time with how you define what 15 a key influencer is. 16 Question: Okay. Were there editors 17 of major trade press publications in the beta 18 program? 19 Answer: Yes. 20 Question: Were there software 21 developers from major application vendors 22 involved in the beta program? 23 Answer: Yes. 24 Question: Would you consider them to 25 be industry -- influential members of the 12668 1 industry? 2 Answer: In the sense that if -- I 3 don't know. I don't know if they influence 4 people to buy Windows. 5 Question: Okay. Were there 6 decision-makers from large organizations, 7 whether nonprofit or for profit, as part of the 8 beta test program? 9 Answer: Most likely, yes. 10 Question: Would you consider them to 11 be influential? 12 Answer: Perhaps influential at their 13 company, yes. 14 (Whereupon, Mr. Green read the 15 following.) 16 Question: Was there any effort made 17 to include influential decision-makers in the 18 Microsoft beta program for Windows 3.1, to the 19 best of your knowledge? 20 Mr. Holley says: If you know what he 21 means by influential decision-maker. 22 Answer: I believe the effort was to 23 get broad coverage, broad testing coverage for 24 the software. 25 Okay. Now, we may have picked up 12669 1 people that you define one way or another in 2 doing that. 3 Question: Okay. Was there an effort 4 made specifically to attract editors of trade 5 press to the beta test process? 6 Answer: No. 7 (Whereupon, Mr. Cashman read the 8 following.) 9 Question: Okay. Are there specific 10 rules about who will not be allowed to a beta 11 test site, specifically here with regard to 12 Windows 3.1? 13 Answer: Yes. There were some rules 14 and exceptions we looked for. 15 Question: Were they exceptions or was 16 there a list? 17 Answer: There was a list that said 18 these people should not beta test or we need to 19 -- we need a higher approval to allow them to 20 beta test it. 21 Question: Okay. And the higher 22 approval would have come from where or not come 23 from where? 24 Answer: I would have asked my 25 manager, and he would either answer that or he 12670 1 would ask his manager. 2 Question: Were editors of the trade 3 press treated differently in the program from 4 other testers? 5 Answer: They were certainly given -- 6 we certainly watched what their responses were. 7 If an editor had a problem with 8 something, we would look at it very closely, 9 realizing that it could have an effect on an 10 article they write down the road. 11 Question: And again, you say that you 12 saw names on bug reports. Would you recognize 13 the names of editors of trade press -- 14 Answer: Uh-huh. 15 Question: -- or that sort of person? 16 Answer: Uh-huh. 17 Question: Would that have been your 18 responsibility as a group manager or would that 19 have been the responsibility of somebody else 20 to recognize? 21 Answer: It would have been 22 everybody's responsibility. 23 Question: Going back to this list of 24 individuals or corporations, whatever it was -- 25 Answer: Yes -- 12671 1 Question: -- who either were to be 2 denied access or the decision was to be made 3 higher up, was there some explanation ever 4 given to you for why that list, as a group, was 5 being denied or -- 6 Answer: There were generally specific 7 reasons for each is one. It wasn't a broad -- 8 you know, each one there was a specific reason 9 why that person or corporation wasn't allowed 10 on the beta. 11 Question: As a general matter, there 12 was -- were there any guidelines as to who 13 should be denied, whether or not that 14 individual or organization was on the list? 15 Answer: General guideline. I mean, 16 the list -- are you asking how the list was 17 created? 18 Question: Yes, if you know. 19 Answer: Okay. People and 20 corporations would be on that list for a number 21 of reasons; they may have broken an NDA in the 22 past, they may owe Microsoft money, there may 23 have been problems in the past with another 24 beta test and, again, breaking an NDA or 25 something like that, they have been a 12672 1 competitor that we didn't want to give the beta 2 software to. Those were generally the reasons 3 for doing it. 4 Question: Okay. To get into the meat 5 of the beta testing itself, how are reports 6 from beta testers received at Microsoft? 7 Answer: On Windows 3.1, they could 8 have come over the phone, over the fax, over 9 the U.S. mail, over E-mail, via CompuServe. I 10 think that about covers it. 11 Question: In terms of -- let's winnow 12 out E-mail for the moment. In terms of phone, 13 fax, U.S. mail, and CompuServe, do you have an 14 estimate of the relative magnitude of what beta 15 testers used; in other words, X percent used 16 phone, X percent used fax? 17 Answer: I think -- I don't have an 18 estimate on the magnitude, no. Phone was less, 19 fax was more. More faxes than mail. Probably 20 more CompuServe than faxes. 21 Question: Were CompuServe messages 22 received generally over CompuServe -- was there 23 a specific beta forum? 24 Answer: There was a nonpublic, a 25 private beta forum in CompuServe. 12673 1 Question: And who had access to this 2 beta forum? 3 Answer: Only approved beta testers 4 and Microsoft personnel. 5 Question: Okay. And when I said 6 access, I should have been more clear. 7 Who had access to post messages on 8 this beta forum? 9 Answer: The same. 10 Question: The same? 11 Answer: To post or read you had to be 12 -- you had to be approved by Microsoft. 13 Question: Okay. And were there 14 specific reports that were made that, I guess, 15 would be directed to one of the four, phone, 16 fax, U.S. mail, or CompuServe, means of access 17 to your group versus another; were there 18 specific problems where it was better to call 19 or the tester was invited to pick up the phone 20 and call Microsoft or others where they were 21 told or instructed to use CompuServe? 22 Answer: Generally, we wanted people 23 to use CompuServe. We wanted people to do it 24 electronically. 25 Question: Why was that? 12674 1 Answer: It's much easier for us to 2 handle the information. And ideally, as 3 uploaded message and not as -- uploaded file, 4 excuse me. 5 What we wanted them to do was use a 6 little program that would ask them what their 7 problem was, go up and gather the appropriate 8 information, files, and then packaged into a 9 file they would upload onto CompuServe to a 10 waiting area that our beta personnel would grab 11 and then drop into our databases. 12 (Whereupon, Mr. Green read the 13 following.) 14 Question: Okay. Are beta testers 15 themselves free to discuss issues on the forum? 16 You said there was -- 17 Answer: Yeah, on the forum they were. 18 Question: And were there limits to 19 discussion? 20 Answer: Nothing formal. What would 21 happen is -- again, we were limited to -- I 22 don't know what the message limit was. Let's 23 say it was 2,000 messages. And unfortunately 24 when you just said, yeah, I understand or boy, 25 you're right, that took up one message slot. 12675 1 Sometimes we would go and say can you 2 guys please keep the chatter down because we 3 want to keep the testing -- we want to limit 4 this to testing type stuff. There was 5 invariably a lot of chatter that went on. This 6 was kind of like a party line for all these 7 people. 8 It was free also. CompuServe 9 generally costs about 12 bucks an hour, 24 10 bucks an hour. This was free. For a lot of 11 people, they liked to get up and gab on 12 Microsoft's dime. 13 (Whereupon Mr. Cashman read the 14 following.) 15 Question: Just generally, to the best 16 of your knowledge, is there a problem with 17 something like CompuServe forum with beta 18 testers giving bad information to other beta 19 testers; someone says I have a problem, someone 20 says this is the way you fix it, which is not 21 the way it should be fixed or could be fixed? 22 Answer: That's a problem. That's 23 also an advantage. 24 If someone posts a message that says, 25 oh, this particular build does this on my 12676 1 machine. Another beta tester that may have 2 encountered the same problem says, oh, yeah, I 3 had the same problem, do this. And they fix 4 it. 5 Which is really nice, that means it 6 didn't take any of our resources to do it. 7 There the town meeting actually helped us out. 8 We leveraged our support burden in that sense. 9 Question: Is this leveraging of 10 support burden a reason why you would use the 11 CompuServe beta forum rather than phone lines? 12 Answer: Certainly leveraging support 13 is one of the advantages of using CompuServe. 14 The other reason is that it is -- it's done on 15 noninterrupt basis. 16 So, the telephone is totally interrupt 17 driven. You have to answer the phone right 18 then and there, you have to answer the 19 question. 20 If a message comes through 21 electronically, like electronic mail or 22 CompuServe, you can think about it, formulate 23 the response, do it on a priority basis. You 24 don't have to answer that person right here and 25 now. 12677 1 If someone has a real serious problem, 2 like we just trashed data on their hard disk, 3 we can pick that out and go right to them, 4 instead of them getting a busy signal because 5 we're helping somebody actually figure out how 6 to make their game run faster or something like 7 that. It allows us to prioritize. One of the 8 big advantages is it allows us to prioritize 9 support. 10 (Whereupon, Mr. Green read the 11 following.) 12 Question: Okay. What do you 13 understand a nonfatal error to be? 14 Answer: It doesn't kill you. 15 Probably you know, probably not something to 16 worry about. 17 Question: You said you had seen 18 nonfatal error, you believed, in Windows 3.1. 19 Was that the beta version we're talking about? 20 Answer: Yes. 21 (Whereupon, Mr. Cashman read the 22 following.) 23 Question: Does this look familiar? 24 Answer: Looks like a CompuServe 25 message. 12678 1 MR. CASHMAN: Your Honor, could we 2 take a break at this time? It would be a good 3 time for a recess. 4 THE COURT: Sure. 5 Be a ten-minute recess. Remember the 6 admonition previously given. Leave your 7 notebooks here. 8 All rise. 9 (A recess was taken.) 10 (The following record was made out of 11 the presence of the jury 9:29 a.m.) 12 THE COURT: You may be seated. 13 MS. NELLES: Your Honor, if I could 14 have just a minute. 15 I really hate to be a nudge about 16 this, though I realize I'm introducing new 17 Yiddish into our vocabulary. 18 Back in October in one of our court 19 conferences we established a procedure for this 20 courtroom, and it was made very clear with 21 agreement among the parties and with the Court 22 that it was going to be solely the role of the 23 Court to introduce courtroom procedure to the 24 jury. 25 And I think it's an important rule and 12679 1 a rule that the parties have generally followed 2 quite well. And we reinforced that rule before 3 we began playing Mr. Gates' deposition and I 4 believe we talked about it again before we had 5 the very first deposition read to the jury to 6 explain what was going on. 7 Now, I'm not suggesting for a moment 8 that there's not always going to be a little 9 bit of back and forth among counsel, and I 10 think that's fine, but I do think we get on a 11 dangerous slope when we allow counsel to tell 12 the jury how a courtroom is going to be run, 13 which is exactly what happened before the 14 playing of -- or the reading of Mr. Hill's 15 deposition. 16 And while I don't think there is any 17 particular prejudice in this particular 18 circumstance, what I would ask is that we 19 remain consistent with procedure in this 20 courtroom. 21 And if either side thinks there's a 22 reason to vary and that they should present, 23 their counsel should present a variation in 24 procedure to the jury that they at least ask 25 the Court's permission before going forward. 12680 1 THE COURT: Anything further? 2 MS. NELLES: No. Thank you, Your 3 Honor. 4 THE COURT: Any response by 5 Plaintiffs? 6 MR. CASHMAN: Nothing, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: Very well. We will adopt 8 that procedure. 9 MS. NELLES: Thank you, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: Ten-minute recess. 11 (A recess was taken from 9:31 to 12 9:46 a.m.) 13 (The following record was made in the 14 presence of the jury at 9:46 a.m.) 15 THE COURT: Everyone else may be 16 seated. 17 Mr. Williams. 18 Okay, you may proceed. 19 (Whereupon, the deposition was read 20 with Mr. Cashman questioning.) 21 Question: Mr. Hill, could you read 22 the subject of this message? 23 Answer: DR-DOS test, funny error. 24 Question: Okay. It's addressed to 25 Andy and others. 12681 1 Could that conceivably -- I guess the 2 others could be you. Was this addressed to 3 you, if you know? 4 Answer: It was probably addressed to 5 Andy Thomas. 6 Question: If you'll look down to the 7 second paragraph underneath open quotation 8 mark, could you read those three lines to me 9 starting nonfatal? 10 Answer: Nonfatal error detected: 11 Error number 2726 -- second line -- please 12 contact Windows 3.1 beta support. 13 New line, press enter to cancel or C 14 to continue. 15 Question: Now, you said you believed 16 you had seen some one or two, I think was your 17 testimony, reports of nonfatal errors with 18 Windows 3.1. Is this the type of error you 19 were referring to? 20 Well, type of message and also the 21 type of nonfatal error that you might have been 22 referring to. I don't know, there may be 23 others. 24 Answer: Something would look similar. 25 There would be a message saying -- that said I 12682 1 got a nonfatal error, what do I do, what did it 2 mean. 3 Question: The error states error 4 number 2726. 5 Answer: Yes. 6 Question: Did your beta testers have 7 a list of errors with numbers? 8 Answer: Not that I know of, no. 9 Question: Do you know if there was an 10 internal list at Microsoft that your support 11 people within the beta support group had that 12 would list what this error might be? 13 Answer: I don't think they did. 14 Question: Okay. Are you familiar 15 with what this error might be? 16 Answer: Something like this, I take 17 it this is in March, it could have been for 18 some of this stuff that they had put in to 19 confirm that we had MS-DOS, a copy of MS-DOS 20 running. 21 Question: Okay. When you say, quote, 22 say some of the stuff they put in, closed 23 quote, what are you referring to? 24 Answer: Apparently, there was some 25 code that was put into the betas that looked 12683 1 for -- looked for MS-DOS, Microsoft DOS, or 2 derivative, OEM flavor of DOS. 3 (Whereupon, Mr. Green read the 4 following.) 5 Question: Okay. Do you recall any 6 rationale that was stated to you by Mr. Cole or 7 anybody else, if you recall somebody else, as 8 to why this message, this text itself, was 9 placed in the product? 10 Answer: You mean why we called it 11 nonfatal error? 12 Question: Yes. 13 Answer: I think that they were 14 working out the wording on it. And they 15 essentially put this in because it was beta. 16 They wanted to make sure it was correct. They 17 kind of wanted to test the code. 18 Generally, you know, in betas you put 19 -- error messages will get put in by 20 developers, and then the final wording gets 21 nailed down towards the end, as you get much 22 closer to the end, final wording comes from the 23 user education department. 24 Question: To the best of your 25 knowledge, was what was supposed to eventually 12684 1 replace this going to be an error message? 2 Answer: I don't know if it was going 3 to be an error message. I don't know if it was 4 going to be an informational message. I'm not 5 sure what the final wording was going to be. 6 Question: In your experience in 7 software development, would you use the word 8 quote, error, quote, again this is your 9 experience, to hold the place of an 10 informational message? 11 Answer: Oh, yeah. Yeah. 12 Question: Why? 13 Answer: Again, in beta software, you 14 just put something, your term placeholder is 15 fine, you put things that, you know, that -- in 16 general, you'll put things to hold the place 17 for something that's eventually going to come. 18 Internally they may call it an error; 19 it may actually be an informational type thing, 20 actually may mean they want to branch and do 21 something else later on in the product, may be 22 kind of an interim type thing. It may provide 23 debug output to tell you it made it to this 24 section, made it to this point, that type of 25 thing. 12685 1 Question: Would a beta tester seeing 2 a nonfatal error message such as this one on 3 Exhibit 2 assume that there was an error? 4 Answer: You know, I can't speak for 5 what a beta tester would think or not. 6 I mean, generally, my experience from 7 beta testing software is you'll get all kinds 8 of weird messages that flash up on your screen 9 when you're running beta software. 10 I mean, there have been some real 11 funny ones that have come out of the developers 12 to be used as placeholders. 13 (Whereupon, Mr. Cashman read the 14 following.) 15 Question: Mr. Hill, subsequent to the 16 time you were initially told this code was 17 being added, did anyone later give you a reason 18 as to why they wanted to put the code in the 19 software, the detection code? 20 Answer: It was -- the reason I was 21 given was to look for a Microsoft version of 22 DOS. 23 Question: Did anyone ever tell you 24 why individuals within Microsoft were 25 interested in having the software look for a 12686 1 Microsoft version of DOS? 2 Answer: I don't think anyone ever 3 told me, no, directly. 4 Question: Can you recall if you ever 5 asked why the code was being put into the 6 product? 7 Answer: I think the only question I 8 asked is how do I respond to it. 9 Question: How do you respond to what? 10 What were you anticipating having to respond 11 to? 12 Answer: A message like this. 13 Question: Way back when we were 14 talking about a list of individuals or 15 corporations who were to be denied access to 16 the beta testing process. Is the owner of 17 DR-DOS, whether it was DR-DOS or Novell, after 18 the -- whether Digital Research or Novell, 19 after their acquisition of that company, were 20 they allowed beta access? 21 Answer: No. 22 Question: I should clarify that 23 question. 24 Did the DR-DOS group, the people who 25 develop that product, were they allowed beta 12687 1 access? 2 Answer: No. 3 Question: Was Novell different -- 4 were different parts of Novell, once it 5 acquired Digital Research, were they allowed 6 beta access for Windows 3.1? 7 Answer: I don't know. 8 Question: I was thinking particularly 9 of the NetWare group. 10 Answer: I'm not sure. 11 Question: Okay. What, as the person 12 primarily responsible for the beta program, 13 what, if any, instructions were you given on 14 how to respond to beta testers' questions about 15 the interaction of the Windows 3.1 beta with 16 Digital Research DOS? 17 Answer: I believe the response was it 18 was an unsupported operating system and users 19 used it at their own risk. It was not tested 20 or supported by Microsoft. 21 Question: Okay. From whom -- did you 22 get an instruction or did you know that? 23 Answer: I received that from David 24 Cole. 25 Question: Okay. And who would you 12688 1 have disseminated that information to on your 2 own staff? 3 Answer: The beta technical support 4 team. 5 Question: Was there a policy within 6 the Win 3.1 team that all calls related to Win 7 3.1 went to beta support? 8 All beta calls, that's the question. 9 All calls that came in from a beta tester. 10 Answer: Let me try and answer it this 11 way. 12 The beta testers, when they received 13 the beta software, were given a little kit. It 14 had phone numbers, dedicated phone lines for 15 beta support. They were given here is how you 16 get into the CompuServe forum. If you need to 17 fax us, here is the phone number, and that type 18 of thing. 19 If a call came into one of those 20 lines, it would go to the beta team. The beta 21 team would handle that. If a beta tester 22 called somebody else at a different phone 23 number, I don't know what happened. 24 Question: Okay. If someone -- if a 25 legitimate beta tester called Microsoft product 12689 1 support, what would be the procedure there? 2 Answer: If a beta tester called our 3 product support that does retail products; is 4 that your question? 5 Question: That's correct. 6 Answer: And asked them a question 7 about the Win 3.1 beta? 8 Question: Yes. 9 Answer: My guess -- I mean, my guess 10 is product support would say that's a beta 11 question. You need to contact the beta team 12 for support. 13 Question: Now, the message that 14 Mr. Cole instructed you to either give out to 15 beta testers who asked questions about DR-DOS 16 or to have your team give out to beta testers 17 who asked about DR-DOS, do you recall about 18 what time that that discussion you had with 19 Mr. Cole was? 20 Answer: It was sometime during the 21 beta program. 22 Question: Okay. I would like to have 23 marked as Hill Exhibit Number 3 a Microsoft 24 document. The first page is numbered X 594614 25 and runs through 594622. Its first message, 12690 1 it's E-mail, is dated October 31st, 1991. 2 Okay. We'll take them one at a time. 3 The first message on the first page, 4 Microsoft pagination, number 594614. Do you 5 see that? 6 Answer: Yes. 7 Question: The first message states 8 from David Cole, c-o-l. Who would that be? 9 Answer: That would be David Cole, the 10 person I reported to. 11 Question: The to is Andyhi. 12 Answer: That would be me, Andy Hill. 13 Question: And the date on this, for 14 the record, is October 31st, 1991; is that 15 correct? 16 I realize there are two days on there. 17 Answer: Okay. That must have been 18 the date it was printed. So yep, October 31st. 19 Question: Could you read the 20 paragraph from Mr. Cole to yourself? 21 Answer: DR-DOS is an untested and, 22 therefore, unsupported operating system. 23 MS-DOS (or OEM versions of it) is required for 24 Windows. 25 Question: There is a second message 12691 1 below that, also from David Cole to Andyhi, 2 which appears to follow about a minute after 3 the first one. 4 Would you agree with that? 5 Answer: Uh-huh. 6 Question: Could you read the text of 7 that message? 8 Answer: Should have added that using 9 DR-DOS with Microsoft Windows is at the sole 10 risk of the user. We don't support it. 11 Question: Is this the message you 12 were referring to earlier in your testimony as 13 that which you disseminated down to your staff? 14 Answer: Correct. I believe that 15 piece of mail follows. Yep. 16 Question: We'll go down to the third 17 piece of mail, which is from Andyhi -- 18 Answer: Yes. 19 Question: -- to betaw31. 20 Answer: Yes. 21 Question: Who would betaw31 be? 22 Answer: That's the beta support team. 23 Question: Okay. 24 Answer: And cc Bradc would be who? 25 Brad Chase. 12692 1 Question: And Janineh? 2 Answer: Janine Harrison. 3 Question: Who was Brad Chase? 4 Answer: Brad Chase is -- I don't know 5 what he was at that time. He's now the general 6 manager of the MS-DOS business unit. 7 Question: Do you recall why you cc'd 8 Mr. Chase? 9 Answer: Probably as an FYI. 10 Question: And Janineh? 11 Answer: Because she was working with 12 me on the technical team at that time. 13 Question: Okay. She was on the 14 technical team? 15 Answer: She was managing the 16 technical team. She worked with me. It was 17 FYI. 18 I think she was the one that actually 19 surfaced the first question, so she was 20 included on it so she would see what the 21 response was. 22 Question: Okay. In terms of how the 23 question arose in your message of Thursday, 24 October 31st, time 13:37:18, there is a dashed 25 line underneath what appears to be the text of 12693 1 the message. 2 First, would you -- are the words for 3 beta testers that report problems with DR-DOS 4 and 3.1, DR-DOS is an untested and, therefore, 5 unsupported operating system. MS-DOS (or OEM 6 versions of it) is required for Windows. 7 Using DR-DOS with Microsoft Windows is 8 at the sole risk of the user. We don't support 9 it. 10 Is that the message you reported to 11 betaw31 and Brad Chase and Janine Harrison? 12 Answer: Yes. 13 Question: Underneath that text I just 14 read there is a dashed line. What does that 15 signify, vertical line, the vertical line on 16 the left? 17 Answer: The vertical line on the left 18 indicates a previous thread; in other words, 19 this was a reply to a previous message. 20 Question: And the message, the first 21 message there from Janineh to Andyhi, what is 22 that message, if anything? 23 Answer: Looks like Janine had 24 forwarded a message from Andy Thomas to her to 25 me. 12694 1 Question: Okay. And a-andyt is Andy 2 Thomas? 3 Answer: Correct. 4 Question: Okay. And is that message, 5 quote, what should I tell these DR-DOS people, 6 if anything, closed quote? 7 Answer: Correct. 8 Question: Okay. And you saw that and 9 then you did what with her message? 10 Answer: I sent it up the line to 11 David Cole and asked him how to respond to it. 12 Question: Okay. And then the first 13 message we read on page 1 of Exhibit 3, that 14 was his response to you? 15 Answer: Correct. 16 Question: The first half of his 17 response? There are two messages from Cole 18 back to Andy Hill. 19 Were those two messages responding to 20 the same query? 21 Answer: Yes. 22 Question: Okay. And in your message 23 to betaw31, Brad Chase and Janine Harrison, did 24 you combine both parts of Mr. Cole's message? 25 Answer: Yes, I did. 12695 1 Question: So, in late October 1991, 2 this question was asked of David Cole was the 3 Windows 3.1 beta in process at that time? 4 Answer: Yes. 5 Question: To the best of your 6 recollection, is this the first time you were 7 asked for what response should be given to 8 people with DR-DOS questions, people being your 9 beta testers? 10 Answer: As best as I can recall, yes. 11 Question: Okay. Do you recall if 12 before October 31st, 1991, beta testers had 13 questions about the way Windows 3.1 operated 14 with or loaded on DR-DOS? 15 Answer: To the best of my 16 recollection, I don't remember. I mean, I 17 don't recall that ever coming up. 18 Question: Okay. If you can move 19 forward in this document to page -- internal 20 Microsoft pagination 594617. 21 Answer: Okay. 22 Question: The question in this 23 message is -- and I'll read it. Quote, do you 24 want me to go ahead and post this as a general 25 message up on the forum? Thanks, closed quote. 12696 1 What does this refer to? 2 Answer: This would refer to the 3 message that I sent to betaw31 and Bradc and 4 Janineh saying, quote, DR-DOS is an untested 5 and, therefore, unsupported operating system. 6 MS-DOS (or OEM versions of it) is required for 7 Windows. Using DR-DOS with Microsoft Windows 8 is at the sole risk of the user, closed quote. 9 And Tom was asking me if he should 10 post that as a general message on the forum. 11 Question: Okay. What was your 12 response, if you recall? 13 Answer: My response was, no, only 14 post it privately. 15 Question: Okay. And why was that? 16 Answer: I believe I also asked David 17 Cole about that. 18 Question: Do you recall if he gave a 19 reason for that answer, rationale? 20 Answer: I don't recall. 21 Question: So your response to 22 Mr. Thomas is someone -- did you, if you can 23 recall, was it an E-mail conversation between 24 yourself and David Cole as to whether or not 25 this should be posted as a public message? 12697 1 Answer: Yes, I'm pretty sure. I 2 definitely remember saying only post it 3 private. I'm pretty sure that I went up and 4 got the okay from David Cole on that. 5 (Whereupon, Mr. Green read the 6 following.) 7 Question: Okay. Why would you, you 8 being Microsoft here, want to post this 9 privately to people who asked rather than 10 publicly, if you have an opinion? 11 Answer: I don't think it's something 12 we want to make a big deal of. 13 Question: What do you mean by make a 14 big deal out of? 15 Answer: The -- it's something that, 16 you know, looks like one user had this problem. 17 No need to post it publicly. 18 (Whereupon, Mr. Cashman read the 19 following.) 20 Question: Okay. Were there any PR 21 reasons, public relations reasons, that would 22 go into whether or not you would want to post a 23 message publicly, generally, not this specific 24 message? 25 Answer: That may be one thing you 12698 1 consider. 2 Question: With respect to this 3 specific message, would that be a 4 consideration? 5 Answer: It could have been a 6 consideration. It might be a consideration. 7 I'm not sure. 8 Question: If you could please turn to 9 page number 594619. 10 Answer: Got it. 11 Question: And you'll note that we've 12 jumped considerable in time here. 13 The message is from David Cole to 14 Bradsi. Bradsi is whom? 15 Answer: Bradsi, perhaps? 16 Question: Yes. 17 Answer: Brad Silverberg. 18 Question: The date on this is January 19 17, 1992. Previous messages we were discussing 20 were in October of 1991. On the CC list for 21 that message, you are listed. 22 Answer: Uh-huh. 23 Question: And who is w-clair1? 24 Answer: Claire something or other. 25 She was a member of our PR team or she worked 12699 1 for Wagner Instrument. 2 Question: Is that what the w- stands 3 for? 4 Answer: Generally. 5 Question: If you could read for me 6 the -- well, do you recall seeing this message? 7 Answer: Yep. Now I do. 8 Question: What was this message 9 concerning? You can avoid reading a page into 10 the record. 11 Answer: Let's see. I believe this 12 was -- I believe this was a response that we 13 wanted to post to explain the nonfatal error 14 message you are seeing. 15 Question: When you say we, yourself 16 and someone else, Microsoft generally? 17 Answer: When I say we, I mean this is 18 probably the way Microsoft wants to respond, 19 wants to tell people. 20 Question: Now, down at the bottom of 21 the page, there is a horizontal line and then a 22 caret states, quote, from Andy Hill to David 23 Cole, closed quote. 24 Is the message above, that from David 25 Cole to Brad Silverberg, a response to your 12700 1 message to David Cole? 2 What's the relationship between these 3 two messages, if you can tell me? 4 Answer: Well, they don't have the 5 same title line, so it's not a guarantee. 6 Generally if it's the same thread, it has the 7 same title line. 8 Let's see what the dates are. 9 Actually, the caret might imply that it's all 10 part of the same message. 11 Question: So would this have been 12 forwarded with David Cole's message to Brad 13 Silverberg? 14 Answer: Yes, yes. 15 Question: Now, the text of your 16 message, if I could read it since it's one 17 line, quote, David, here's the first time a 18 tester has outright asked us this question. 19 How do we respond? Closed quote. 20 What question were you referring to 21 there? 22 Answer: Asked us this question. It 23 looks like it's referring to a beta tester that 24 got a nonfatal error or got nonfatal error 25 messages. 12701 1 Question: And from what products did 2 that tester -- what components of Windows did 3 that beta tester get nonfatal errors? 4 Answer: Smart drive and Windows, he 5 says here. 6 Question: And who is Matt Sk? 7 Answer: Matt Sk is one of the beta 8 technical support people. 9 Question: What's his last name? 10 Answer: Skinner, Matt Skinner. 11 Question: If you could go back to 12 Mr. Cole's message to Mr. Silverberg. 13 Answer: Uh-huh. 14 Question: The fourth paragraph 15 states, I'll read out loud, so that our Windows 16 customers are fully aware of the hazards of 17 running Windows on a nonsupported operating 18 system, Windows detects for the presence of 19 MS-DOS and warns the user if it is not found, 20 closed quote. 21 Now, we were speaking earlier about 22 some string of code that would detect the 23 presence of Microsoft DOS or, I don't recall 24 the exact words, I assume licensed versions of 25 Microsoft DOS. 12702 1 Is that the code you were talking 2 about going back an hour or so? 3 Remember earlier we were talking about 4 some code that was to be placed within the 5 Windows 3.1 beta that would detect for the 6 presence of MS-DOS or, I take it to mean, OEM 7 versions of MS-DOS? 8 Is the code that's discussed in this 9 message from David Cole to Brad Silverberg the 10 code that you were speaking of earlier? 11 Answer: As best as I can tell. I 12 don't know. I never saw the code. I never 13 knew where it went. So, the best I can tell, 14 that's what they're referring to. 15 (Whereupon, Mr. Green read the 16 following.) 17 Question: If I can continue, quote, 18 the final beta includes this detection code and 19 the nonfatal error message you are seeing. The 20 final product will produce a more complete 21 warning message, and as with the final beta, 22 the user will be allowed to continue using 23 Windows, end of quote. 24 Was this message -- and I realize I 25 did not read it in its entirety -- ever posted? 12703 1 Answer: Not to my knowledge, no. 2 Question: Do you recall whether any 3 message was posted on CompuServe? 4 Answer: I don't think there was. 5 Question: Do you recall why? 6 Answer: I believe this was a proposed 7 response from David Cole. He was kind of 8 proposing it to Brad Silverberg, but I don't 9 think it ever got approved and I think we kind 10 of put the whole thing on hold. 11 Question: Do you recall if a DR-DOS 12 user who was also a beta tester of Windows 3.1 13 asked about these nonfatal error messages, did 14 that user get a response at this time period, 15 January 1992? 16 Answer: From January on, I don't know 17 what kind of response they got. 18 At one point, we were asking them for 19 a boot disk and some other information, but I 20 don't believe they ever got a response giving 21 them an explanation or anything like that. 22 Question: Do you recall why you were 23 asking for a boot disk? Is that standard 24 operating procedure? 25 Answer: It was for this, to make sure 12704 1 we weren't getting a false positive. 2 Question: And a false positive would 3 be what? 4 Answer: It would be that we said we 5 found -- we've detected a non -- it would be 6 that Windows detection. It would be that 7 someone is using MS-DOS, but we said they're 8 not. 9 So the user would have a version of 10 MS-DOS on the machine, and we'd run through it 11 and we would say you don't, and that would be 12 incorrect. So we wanted to confirm this code 13 was operating properly. 14 Question: Did you hear of any 15 discussion about these nonfatal error messages 16 in terms of the volume that were coming in? 17 Answer: No. 18 Question: Do you have any idea what 19 volume came in? 20 Answer: Very low. 21 Question: What would very low be? 22 Answer: A handful, five, maybe. 23 (Whereupon, Mr. Cashman read the 24 following.) 25 Question: I'd like to have marked as 12705 1 Hill Exhibit Number 4 a Microsoft document 2 numbered 5923570 through 571. In the upper 3 left hand corner, it's identified as bug number 4 12594. 5 Can you identify what this is for us? 6 Answer: This looks like a bug from 7 one of our bug databases, RAID database. 8 Question: It looks like one. Is this 9 the standard format you would find in the RAID 10 database? 11 Answer: If I were looking at the RAID 12 database on the screen, there would be another 13 screen with a lot of summary information on it. 14 Question: So we're lacking the 15 summary information? 16 Answer: Yes, but you got the body of 17 the report. 18 Question: Now, at the top of this, to 19 find out if this is one discrete document, on 20 the top it says, quote, copied from 21 dwsq12:winbeta 1-19-92, old bug number 2101, 22 related bug number 2180, closed quote. 23 Is that language related to the rest 24 of the document? 25 Answer: Yes. 12706 1 Question: And in what way are they 2 related? 3 Answer: That tells me that originally 4 this bug was in the beta database; in other 5 words, something that may have been downloaded 6 from CompuServe or came in over the phone or 7 the fax and it has been transferred into the 8 development database. 9 Question: Just briefly, if you could 10 go down to Item 5, it says, quote, I don't know 11 if this is related to the problem above, but 12 the following nonfatal errors occur every time 13 I run Windows, closed quote. 14 Then there's some discussion or some 15 reporting of nonfatal error number 1891 and 16 nonfatal error number 2726. 17 If you could just explain to me what 18 the -- it says, quote, OS version: DOS 6.0, 19 closed quote, and there's a line underneath 20 that with, quote, Andyhi, closed quote, and I 21 assume that's you -- 22 Answer: Yes. 23 Question: -- and the term active. 24 Answer: Yes. 25 Question: What does that signify? 12707 1 Answer: That means I took no action 2 on the bug. I only made an annotation on it. 3 Question: Active means you took no 4 action? 5 Answer: Yes. 6 Question: What would signify if you 7 took action? 8 Answer: If that said resolved or 9 closed. 10 Question: And resolved and closed are 11 not necessarily the same thing? 12 Answer: Correct. 13 Question: Closed being -- 14 Answer: Resolved -- active just means 15 you made an annotation or review, sent it off 16 to somebody else. 17 Resolved means that you've decided to 18 take action on it. It may be to change the 19 code. It may be you've decided to do nothing. 20 It may be that you've already seen this bug, 21 it's a duplicate. 22 Closed is when somebody from testing 23 goes through and says, okay, I'm okay with 24 this. It's essentially a quality assurance 25 measure. 12708 1 Question: Now, under the active line, 2 is that text yours, line starting, quote, this 3 is DR-DOS 6.0? 4 Answer: Yes. 5 Question: Could you read that, 6 please? 7 Answer: This is DR-DOS 6.0 problem. 8 Need to have the user send us a boot disk (see 9 E-mail from Janine on this). Other than that, 10 he needs to test under MS-DOS. DR-DOS is 11 unsupported/untested. 12 (Whereupon, Mr. Green read the 13 following.) 14 Question: The line other than that he 15 needs to test under MS-DOS, is that something 16 -- is that a note to yourself or is that a note 17 to have something said to a user, the user in 18 this instance? 19 Answer: I think it's more an FYI. 20 Question: So the person who would be 21 responsible for talking to this user, would 22 that person have been instructed to tell the 23 user -- 24 Answer: This isn't something that 25 says go tell the user he needs to test under 12709 1 MS-DOS. I'm making a comment. I'm saying -- 2 I'm just saying they've got to test it under 3 MS-DOS. Kind of making a general statement, 4 DR-DOS is unsupported, untested. 5 It's also for a -- it's an FYI for the 6 person who opened this bug so in the future 7 they'll know. It's a refresher, that type of 8 thing. 9 (Whereupon, Mr. Cashman read the 10 following.) 11 Question: Mr. Hill, you mentioned 12 something earlier as a release candidate. 13 Answer: Yes. 14 Question: How does the release 15 candidate differ from a beta? 16 Answer: A release candidate is a 17 beta. It's just a different name. It means 18 we're getting very close to shipping. 19 (Whereupon, Mr. Green read the 20 following.) 21 Question: Mr. Hill, did you ever 22 instruct the people who worked on Windows 3.1 23 beta support team to attempt to persuade beta 24 users -- beta testers who reported difficulty 25 running Windows 3.1 on top of DR-DOS that they 12710 1 ought to purchase MS-DOS instead? 2 Answer: No. 3 Question: Did you ever instruct 4 anyone on the Windows 3.1 beta support team to 5 advise beta testers who reported difficulties 6 running Windows 3.1 on top of DR-DOS to say 7 disparaging things about DR-DOS? 8 Answer: No. 9 (Whereupon, Mr. Cashman read the 10 following.) 11 Question: Did you ever instruct your 12 beta technical support staff to offer users of 13 DR-DOS who were having difficulties with the 14 Windows 3.1 beta copies of MS-DOS? 15 Answer: There may have been a 16 discussion of it. I don't know if it ever came 17 to fruition. 18 (Whereupon, Mr. Green read the 19 following.) 20 Question: Did you ever offer anybody, 21 any user of DR-DOS that was having difficulty 22 with Windows 3.1 beta, a free copy of MS-DOS? 23 Answer: No, I didn't. 24 MR. CASHMAN: That concludes the 25 testimony of Andrew Hill, Your Honor. 12711 1 THE COURT: Thank you. You may step 2 down. 3 At this time, Plaintiffs would like to 4 offer Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1055 and 1179. 5 And with the Court's permission, I'd 6 like to approach, provide the Court with a CD 7 of those exhibits and two hard copies and to 8 provide a copy to Microsoft. 9 THE COURT: Very well. 10 MR. GREEN: We have no objection, Your 11 Honor, to PX 1055 and also no objection to the 12 admission of PX 1179, with the understanding 13 that it's being offered for the limited purpose 14 of notice. 15 THE COURT: Very well. 4178, was that 16 offered? 17 MR. CASHMAN: Not with Mr. Hill, Your 18 Honor. 19 THE COURT: That was offered with 20 Mr. Barrett? 21 MR. CASHMAN: I will have to go back 22 and check my records, Your Honor. 23 MS. NELLES: Your Honor, I believe I 24 offered that exhibit. 25 THE COURT: You offered it and they 12712 1 were going to check on it. Sorry about that. 2 Okay. Call your next. 3 MR. CASHMAN: The two exhibits, are 4 they admitted? 5 THE COURT: They are admitted. I'm 6 sorry. 7 MR. CASHMAN: Okay. Thank you, Your 8 Honor. 9 Next, the Plaintiffs will be calling 10 Linnet Harlan. 11 I have a copy for the court reporter, 12 Your Honor. 13 MS. NELLES: With the Court's 14 permission, I'm going to hand off duties to 15 Mr. Green at this time. 16 THE COURT: Very well. 17 MR. CASHMAN: I have a copy for the 18 Court and a copy for Microsoft's counsel. 19 THE COURT: Very well. Thank you, 20 sir. 21 You may proceed. 22 What was the date of this deposition? 23 MR. CASHMAN: This testimony, Your 24 Honor -- 25 THE COURT: My copy says December 2nd, 12713 1 1998. Does that sound correct? 2 MR. CASHMAN: That is correct, Your 3 Honor. Taken in the Caldera action. 4 THE COURT: Very well. 5 (Whereupon, the following video was 6 played to the jury.) 7 Question: Would you please state your 8 full name for the record? 9 Answer: Linnet Cochran Harlan. 10 Question: What is your current 11 employment? 12 Answer: I'm a lawyer and a writer. 13 Question: Are you self-employed or 14 are you employed by any organization? 15 Answer: I'm self-employed. 16 Question: Do you have any, as a 17 lawyer, any current consulting or retainer 18 arrangements with anyone? 19 Answer: I had one this year with 20 Caldera. 21 Question: When did it -- do you 22 recall when that agreement with Caldera was 23 first formed? 24 Answer: Maybe August, maybe 25 September. Sometime around there. 12714 1 Question: Of this year? 2 Answer: Yes. 3 Question: Can you describe what 4 services you provided to Caldera? 5 Answer: Legal services. 6 Question: And by that, do you mean 7 you rendered legal advice or did you provide 8 historical background of the work you did while 9 you were employed by DRI and Novell? 10 Answer: I worked with them on the 11 case. 12 Question: Okay. 13 Would you describe the work you did 14 for them as providing facts to them based on 15 your experience? 16 Answer: I think it's very hard to 17 isolate what I did. 18 Question: Instead of my -- can you 19 tell me generally the kinds of services you 20 provided to them? 21 Answer: I talked with them about 22 legal strategies for the case. 23 Question: Did you provide any written 24 documents for them? 25 Answer: No. Oh, I did provide one 12715 1 document. 2 It was a document regarding strategy. 3 Question: How many hours did you 4 spend or devote to providing services to 5 Caldera under that agreement? 6 Answer: Oh, approximately 80, 7 roughly, ballpark. 8 Question: Did you review documents in 9 connection with that work? 10 Answer: Yes. 11 Question: Was your agreement with 12 Caldera in writing? 13 Answer: Yes. 14 Question: And it was with Caldera or 15 one of Caldera's law firms? 16 Answer: Actually, I think it may have 17 been with the Summit Law Group. 18 Question: At what rate were you 19 compensated under that agreement? 20 Answer: $300 an hour. 21 Question: During the time that you 22 were counsel for DRI and/or Novell, did you 23 assist in the preparation of any declarations 24 submitted to any governmental agency? 25 Answer: Yes. 12716 1 Question: Do you recall whose 2 declarations you assisted in the preparation 3 of? 4 Answer: I probably made comments on 5 most of the declarations that DRI submitted and 6 that Novell submitted. I can't say blanket 7 every one, but commented probably on most of 8 them. 9 Question: Does your agreement with 10 the Summit Law Group you described earlier 11 include compensating or reimbursing you for 12 your time today? 13 Answer: No. Well, it specifically 14 says I won't be compensated for my time today. 15 Question: Can you describe for me 16 your education? 17 Answer: I went to undergraduate 18 school at Grinnell College in Grinnell Iowa. I 19 went to law school at Northeastern School of 20 Law in Boston. I have taken some special 21 courses at Harvard Law School and at Stanford 22 Business School. 23 Question: Beginning with your 24 graduation from Northeastern School of Law, 25 could you describe for me your employment 12717 1 history? 2 Answer: Yes. 3 I first was an attorney at a law firm 4 in Santa Clara, California. 5 Then I was -- 6 Question: Let me ask you, it would be 7 helpful if you could give me the name and the 8 dates that you were there. 9 Answer: Oh, okay. I passed -- well, 10 actually I started working with them before I 11 passed the bar April -- no, February 1979. 12 My graduation from Northeastern was a 13 little unusual in that I completed all my 14 coursework in '78, but you can't graduate 15 except in January and June, so my degree says 16 '79, but I was actually working with Skjerven, 17 Morrill earlier than that. 18 And so I was there in, I'd say, 19 February or March of '79 and I left in October 20 of 1984. 21 Question: And what was your next 22 employment? 23 Answer: I was an attorney for NEC 24 Electronics. 25 Question: When did you leave NEC? 12718 1 Answer: I think it was early January 2 1990. 3 Question: What was the reason for 4 your leaving NEC? 5 Answer: I took a job with Digital 6 Research. 7 Question: To whom did you report? 8 Answer: At Digital Research? 9 Question: Yes. 10 Answer: Dick Williams. 11 Question: And were you general 12 counsel at DRI? 13 Answer: Yes. 14 Question: Did your title change at 15 all between the time you were hired in January 16 of 1990 up to the time of the merger with 17 Novell? 18 Answer: No. 19 Question: After the merger with 20 Novell, did your title change? 21 Answer: But anyway, I was no longer 22 general counsel of Digital Research. I became 23 senior corporate counsel of Novell. 24 Question: After the merger, to whom 25 did you report? 12719 1 Answer: David Bradford. 2 Question: For how long were you 3 employed by Novell? 4 Answer: I was an employee of Novell 5 until about November of 1993. 6 Question: What was the reason for 7 your leaving Novell? 8 Answer: Novell was having layoffs and 9 I was one of the people laid off. 10 Question: While you were employed by 11 DRI prior to the merger with Novell, were you a 12 member of any management committee? 13 Answer: Okay. So while I was at DRI 14 -- during the DRI period, was I a member of any 15 management committees? 16 Yes. I was a member of the executive 17 committee. And I think I was a member of 18 something called -- something like pricing 19 committee or something, and there may have been 20 other committees, too. 21 Those are the two I remember right 22 now. 23 Question: Did you belong to any 24 industry groups while you were employed by DRI? 25 Answer: Well, what industry? 12720 1 Question: I mean, the computer 2 industry groups of legal counsel focusing on 3 industrywide issues. 4 Answer: Oh, well, I was a member of 5 the Peninsula Association of General Counsel, 6 and I was a member of the executive committee 7 of the international law section of the 8 California state bar, and an officer in it, and 9 I did some work with the Business Software 10 Alliance. 11 That's all I can think of right now. 12 Question: Did you ever belong to or 13 attend any meetings sponsored by industry 14 groups to address the issue of piracy? 15 Answer: Well, the Business Software 16 Alliance had that as a primary focus. I don't 17 remember going to anything else that I can 18 think of right now. 19 Question: Would the meetings that you 20 attended or participated in of the Business 21 Software Al