Q. So, do you think this statement to be accurate and to avoid any future misunderstanding should have said that EIA requires the early, mandatory disclosure?
MR. OLIVER: Objection, Your Honor, calls for --
JUDGE McGUIRE: I'm sorry, let him finish, and then you can object. Go ahead.
Q. -- if patents, patent applications, intentions to file amended patent applications and the belief that your company owned certain features?
MR. OLIVER: Objection, Your Honor, calls for speculation.
MR. PERRY: I don't think it calls for speculation. It calls for his belief at the time.
JUDGE McGUIRE: Overruled. I'll entertain the question and the answer on that.
THE WITNESS: This wording that is written, I'm not sure where the wording of the memo came from. I assume that Mr. Bart is the one who wrote the other one, and so in response to your question, as you said, I'm not an attorney, sir. What I'm telling you is my opinion -- excuse me, what I'm telling you is my understanding of the policy and how it applied to the work that was going on inside JEDEC. I'm not sure I can give you an exact language that would satisfy you. The language that we have is the one that we used in the committee to satisfy the engineers that were involved in the standard-setting process.
Q. Now, the memo, RX-742, is addressed to Jim Townsend. Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you described him yesterday as having a passion for the patent policy. Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. Now, do you remember back in July '96, August '96 or anytime in '96 there being some big ruckus because Mr. Townsend had gotten a memo saying that disclosure was voluntary and encouraged?
A. Well, no, sir, not about the particular language, I do not.
Q. All right. Well, let's look, if we could, at the Federal Trade Commission Secretary's response to the letter from the EIA and TIA. That's RX-740.
MR. OLIVER: Thank you.
MR. PERRY: May I?
JUDGE McGUIRE: Go ahead.
MR. PERRY: I am going to forget, and I'm sorry if I forget.
Q. Now, this is dated July 10, '96. Do you see that's the same as the date on the memo to the JEDEC Council? Have you had a chance to read the letter?
A. Yes.
Q. My question to you was, do you see that this letter from the Federal Trade Commission to Mr. Bart is dated the same day as the memo we were just looking at
from Mr. McGhee to the JEDEC Council, July 10, 1996?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And do you see that the letter is cc'd or copied to Mr. Kelly, the EIA general counsel?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. You read to yourself the third paragraph of this letter from the Federal Trade Commission?
A. I did.
Q. And it says, "EIA and TIA, following ANSI procedures, encourage the early, voluntary disclosure of patents, but do not require a certification by participating companies regarding potentially conflicting patent interests."
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Now, was it your understanding, as of July 1996, that the EIA policy encouraged the voluntary disclosure of patents but did not require participating companies to certify about whether or not they had any potentially conflicting patent interests?
A. I believe you're asking to make a judgment in terms of the legal aspects, and I'm not sure I'm either qualified or prepared to do that. What I can give you as an answer is that in the functioning of the JEDEC committees, inside of EIA, with the patent policies
that were in place at the time, that were reiterated at every single meeting, that you were obligated to disclose if you had IP that you felt was relevant and should do so. |
