12937 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 XLVII 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 8:30 a.m., February 8, 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 12938 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 Plaintiffs by: BRADLEY M. BEAMAN 3 Attorney at Law Roxanne Conlin & Associates, PC 4 Suite 600 319 Seventh Street 5 Des Moines, IA 50309 (515) 283-1111 6 MICHAEL R. CASHMAN 7 Attorney at Law Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, 8 Mason & Gette, LLP 500 Washington Avenue South 9 Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55415 10 (612) 339-2020 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12939 1 Defendant by: DAVID B. TULCHIN 2 Attorney at Law Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP 3 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004-2498 4 (212) 558-3749 5 BRENT B. GREEN Attorney at Law 6 Duncan, Green, Brown & Langeness, PC 7 Suite 380 400 Locust Street 8 Des Moines, IA 50309 (515) 288-6440 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12940 1 (The following record was made in the 2 presence of the jury at 8:34 a.m.) 3 THE COURT: Everyone else may be 4 seated. 5 Before you begin the next deposition, 6 it's my understanding that Exhibit 10066, page 7 6 was admitted, but now you have no objection 8 to the entire document; right? 9 MR. TULCHIN: Correct, Your Honor. 10 Thank you. 11 THE COURT: All right. It's admitted. 12 You may proceed. 13 MR. CASHMAN: Your Honor, before we 14 proceed with the next witness, Plaintiffs would 15 like to offer Plaintiffs' Exhibit 5355B. 16 THE COURT: Hold it. Let me get my 17 chart. Sorry. 18 MR. CASHMAN: While the Court is doing 19 that, if I may approach. 20 THE COURT: Sure. 21 MR. CASHMAN: I'm approaching with 22 three hard copies of these exhibits and a CD, 23 and I'm providing a CD and a hard copy to 24 Microsoft as well. 25 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. 12941 1 Okay. I found my place. 2 MR. CASHMAN: These exhibits are being 3 offered in connection with the testimony 4 provided by Mr. Dixon. 5 The exhibits are Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6 5355B, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 5421A, and 7 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 5263A. 8 MR. GREEN: No objection, Your Honor. 9 THE COURT: They are all admitted. 10 MR. GREEN: Your Honor, in connection 11 with the Dixon deposition, Defendant would like 12 to offer DX 230, PX 33, and DX 45A. 13 I have copies. Three of that one. 14 THE COURT: Thank you. I've got three 15 copies of the exhibits. Okay. 16 These are all Defendant's exhibits? 17 MR. GREEN: One of them is a PX, Your 18 Honor. 19 THE COURT: Oh, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 20 33; is that right? 21 MR. GREEN: That's correct, Your 22 Honor. 23 MR. CASHMAN: No objection, Your 24 Honor. 25 THE COURT: Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33, 12942 1 Defendant's Exhibits 230 and 45A are admitted. 2 MR. GREEN: And, Your Honor, in 3 connection with the Linnet Harlan deposition, I 4 think these are admitted, but we would just ask 5 the Jury to consider Plaintiffs' Exhibits 5128, 6 6476, and 5165 in connection -- 7 THE COURT: Those were all previously 8 admitted? 9 MR. GREEN: Yeah. I just wanted to 10 let the Jury know that we'd like to have those 11 considered in connection with that deposition. 12 THE COURT: Very well. 13 MR. GREEN: Do you want those numbers 14 again? 15 5128, 6476, and 5165. Those are all 16 Plaintiffs' exhibits. 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 MR. GREEN: Thank you. 19 THE COURT: Any other exhibits? 20 MR. CASHMAN: Not at this time, Your 21 Honor. 22 THE COURT: Very well. 23 Are you ready to proceed? 24 MR. CASHMAN: Plaintiffs would next 25 like to call Glenn, that's G-l-e-n-n, Stephens, 12943 1 S-t-e-p-h-e-n-s, who provided testimony in 2 Caldera versus Microsoft on July 21st, 1998. 3 THE COURT: You may proceed. 4 MR. CASHMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. 5 (Whereupon, the following video was 6 played to the jury.) 7 Question: Would you please state your 8 name for the record. 9 Answer: Glenn Stephens. 10 Question: Where do you live, 11 Mr. Stephens? 12 Answer: Hungerford, Berkshire. 13 Question: Prior to today, have you 14 met with any of the lawyers for Caldera in this 15 case? 16 Answer: Yes, I have. 17 Question: And who have you met with? 18 Answer: Ralph Palumbo and Steve Hill. 19 Question: And when did you meet with 20 either Mr. Palumbo or Mr. Hill? 21 Answer: On several occasions over the 22 last few years. 23 Question: Where are you now employed? 24 Answer: I run my own company. 25 Question: And what is the name of 12944 1 that company? 2 Answer: Centennial. 3 Question: No. I want to know 4 basically what Centennial does. 5 Answer: We have a software product 6 for year 2000. 7 Question: What DOS-related products 8 did you have any responsibilities for while at 9 either DRI or Novell? 10 Answer: I was product development 11 manager for Novell DOS 7. Prior to that, I was 12 product development manager for multiuser DOS 13 and Concurrent DOS. 14 Question: And what is a product 15 development manager? 16 Answer: Manages the engineering team 17 for development on the product. 18 Question: And did you write any code 19 or perform any tasks related to the 3 version 20 of DR-DOS? 21 Answer: For 3? No. I was actually 22 working on Concurrent DOS at that time. 23 Question: What about 4 or 5? Did you 24 have any responsibilities for DR-DOS 5? 25 Answer: DR-DOS 5, I had some line 12945 1 item responsibilities. Some of the engineers 2 reported to me. 3 Question: For 6, what were your 4 duties, DR-DOS 6? 5 Answer: Again, I had line management 6 responsibility for some of the engineers 7 working on the DR-DOS 6. 8 Question: With respect to 7, who 9 reported to you? 10 Answer: Basically, all the 11 engineering team that worked on Novell DOS 7 12 reported to me. 13 Question: At the time that you were 14 involved with Novell DOS 7, did you have any 15 other engineering duties? 16 Answer: No. I think during that time 17 our whole focus was on Novell DOS 7. 18 Question: And -- 19 Answer: Sorry. We actually started 20 working on -- we took responsibility for 21 Personal NetWare as well. 22 Question: Do you recall the time 23 frame that the Personal NetWare product was 24 being manned and managed from Hungerford? 25 Answer: It was -- we had more and 12946 1 more engineers working on parts of it during 2 the whole 12-month period. We actually managed 3 it out of Hungerford, I think, from October of 4 that year. 5 I am not sure what the year was -- 6 actually, it could have been sooner. 7 September/October of the year that it was 8 actually shipped. It was shipped in December, 9 I believe. 10 Question: You don't recall which year 11 that was? 12 Answer: No. It was the year before 13 Novell DOS 7 was actually launched. Novell DOS 14 7 was launched in January. Personal NetWare 15 was launched in the previous December or 16 November. 17 Question: So if Novell DOS 7 came out 18 in January 1994, Personal NetWare would have 19 come out in December of 1993? 20 Answer: Correct. 21 Question: Okay. After Novell DOS 7 22 was released, what were your continuing 23 responsibilities? 24 Answer: We actually moved on to 25 looking at a new product to do with mobile 12947 1 computing. 2 Question: How long did you remain 3 with Novell? 4 Answer: Until November last year. 5 Question: And what was the 6 circumstances of your departure from Novell? 7 Answer: They moved all the 8 engineering back to Utah in November of last 9 year. 10 Question: So that's November of 1997? 11 Answer: Yes. 12 Question: And did they ask you to 13 come to Utah? 14 Answer: Yes, they did. 15 Question: And you declined? 16 Answer: I like England. 17 Question: I want to go back to before 18 you ever joined DRI or Novell. 19 Where were you educated, sir? 20 Answer: Swansea University. 21 Question: What degree did you receive 22 after Swansea University? 23 Answer: BA honors in geography. 24 Question: After that, what did you 25 do? 12948 1 Answer: I worked for a company called 2 Monotype on computer systems for the printing 3 industry. 4 Question: What year did you graduate 5 from college, from Swansea? 6 Answer: 1978, I think. 7 Question: How long were you with 8 Monotype? 9 Answer: I don't know. A couple of 10 years. 11 Question: Is that where you first 12 learned anything about computers -- 13 Answer: Yes. 14 Question: -- or did you learn 15 anything before? 16 Answer: We did a bit in university, 17 but not a lot. 18 Question: Had you ever designed 19 software before? 20 Answer: A bit at university, but not 21 much. 22 Question: How many courses did you 23 take in computer engineering? 24 Answer: It was part of our geography 25 course. There wasn't a computer course in 12949 1 those days. 2 Question: Was it one course, two 3 courses, three? 4 Answer: I can't remember. 5 Question: What type of software did 6 you develop at Monotype? 7 Answer: At Monotype we were working 8 on mini computers using assembler code for -- 9 they had laser typesetting equipment. We were 10 writing the software for driving these laser 11 typesetters. 12 Question: And did you have 13 responsibility for writing code during that 14 time? 15 Answer: Yes. 16 Question: How long were you with 17 Monotype? 18 Answer: A couple of years, I think. 19 Question: After Monotype, where did 20 you go? 21 Answer: I worked for a company called 22 ABS Computers. 23 Question: And what does ABS do? 24 Answer: They actually manufactured 25 mini computers and then they started developing 12950 1 a range of PCs. 2 Question: Did this job involve any 3 writing of software code? 4 Answer: Yes. 100 percent. 5 Question: What type of code would you 6 be writing? For applications, operating 7 systems? 8 Answer: No. It was low-level 9 operating systems, hardware driver code. 10 Question: And how many years were you 11 with ABS? 12 Answer: Again, I can't remember. 13 Maybe a couple of years. 14 Question: And was your next job after 15 those two working at Digital Research? 16 Answer: I was contracting for 17 probably eight months between ABS and Digital 18 Research. 19 Question: So while at ABS, you were 20 also doing contract work for Digital Research? 21 Answer: No, I left ABS. Then I was 22 contracting for another company. 23 Self-employed. 24 Question: Okay. And how did you 25 learn about a job opportunity with Digital 12951 1 Research? 2 Answer: I was actually -- when I was 3 at ABS and when I was contracting, one of the 4 jobs I was doing was implementing Digital 5 Research products on different hardware 6 platforms. 7 Question: Was it CP/M? 8 Answer: No. It was Concurrent DOS. 9 Question: Do you recall what year you 10 joined Digital Research? 11 Answer: It was about 12 and a half 12 years ago. So whenever that was. Somebody can 13 do the math. 14 Question: 1986, 1985? 15 Answer: Sounds about right. 16 Question: And what were your initial 17 responsibilities at Digital Research when you 18 arrived? 19 Answer: I was taken on as an OEM 20 consultant to work on a project for Phillips in 21 Vienna to implement DOS plus on a new PC 22 Phillips were developing. 23 Question: Can you tell me what DOS 24 plus is? 25 Answer: DOS plus is an operating 12952 1 system that was a combination of DOS 2 compatibility and CP/M compatibility so you 3 could run both DOS applications and CP/M 4 applications on the same machine. 5 Question: Can you tell me from what 6 piece of preexisting code the DR-DOS products 7 were developed from? 8 Answer: DOS plus was the product 9 before DR-DOS. 10 Question: And was the DOS plus used 11 as a basis to create the DR-DOS product? 12 Answer: It was -- parts of it were. 13 Question: Was DOS plus its own 14 operating system? 15 Answer: Yes. 16 Question: Okay. And what class of 17 microprocessors did it work with? 18 Answer: Intel. 19 Question: It would run applications 20 both that were DOS applications and CP/M 21 applications? 22 Answer: Yes. 23 Question: And was the basis for the 24 DOS plus product, was it -- did it find its 25 roots in CP/M or was it written from scratch? 12953 1 Answer: It found its roots in both 2 CP/M and Concurrent DOS. 3 Question: At some point, DOS plus 4 ceased to exist, correct? 5 Answer: DOS plus became DR-DOS. It 6 ceased to exist as a product by that name. 7 Question: Do you recall how much time 8 it took to convert the DOS plus product into 9 DR-DOS, the first released version of DR-DOS? 10 Answer: No, I don't remember. 11 Question: Was it a matter of months, 12 weeks? 13 Answer: No. Much longer than that. 14 Question: Much longer than months? 15 Answer: From the Amstrad release of 16 DOS plus to DR-DOS would have been at least a 17 year, I think. I can't remember exactly. 18 Question: How did you go about 19 identifying the API set that would be involved 20 in the DOS plus product? 21 Answer: Initially, most of the API 22 set are pretty well the same as CP/M, since 23 that is where DOS came from. 24 Question: And was new functionality 25 -- was there any new functionality contained in 12954 1 DOS at that time, in the Microsoft DOS 2 products? 3 Answer: New compared to what? 4 Question: Compared to CP/M. 5 Answer: I believe. They actually 6 changed some of the function numbers and the 7 registers used were different. 8 Question: Was the CP/M -- CP/M was 9 designed for Intel-based chips, correct? 10 Answer: Yes. 11 Question: Was it for the 8086? 12 Answer: I don't know which version it 13 was first designed for. It worked on the 8086, 14 Intel family. 15 Question: And to mimic DOS 16 functionality, did DR-DOS -- did DRI acquire 17 MS-DOS operating system products to see how 18 those operating system products worked? 19 Answer: We looked to see how the 20 applications worked on an operating system. 21 Question: Did DRI acquire Microsoft 22 operating system products to see how those 23 products worked? 24 Answer: We had versions of MS-DOS, 25 yes. 12955 1 Question: Was there disassembly of 2 MS-DOS? 3 Answer: No. 4 Question: Were you present at any 5 discussions where it was discussed to reverse 6 engineer the MS-DOS product? 7 Answer: No. 8 Question: Do you recall being present 9 in any conversation where there was a 10 discussion of the legality of reverse 11 engineering any MS-DOS product? 12 Answer: No. 13 Question: Are you familiar with the 14 term clean room in connection with software 15 development? 16 Answer: Yes. 17 Question: Can you describe that for 18 me? 19 Answer: My understanding of it is 20 basically you get a group of people to actually 21 understand another product. And that 22 information is passed to another group of 23 people not so much as information, but more as 24 a -- what is the word I am looking for -- a 25 development plan sort of thing. 12956 1 Question: I am showing you a document 2 that we've marked as Exhibit 1003. 3 Have you ever seen the Leopard 4 engineering specification before? 5 Answer: Yes. 6 Question: Do you know who -- well, 7 strike that. 8 Did you have any involvement in 9 drafting any portion of this? 10 Answer: Not the actual writing of it, 11 no. 12 Question: May I get you to look at 13 page 2 of Exhibit 1003. 14 It says page 2 on the upper right-hand 15 side. 16 Looking at performance, the heading, 17 this indicates, quote, the performance goal of 18 this release of DR-DOS is to get within 10 19 percent of the times achieved by a similarly 20 configured copy of Compaq MS-DOS 3.31. 21 Do you recall, was that the 22 performance goal for the DR-DOS 5 product? 23 Answer: I don't recall apart from 24 seeing it in here. 25 Question: Do you recall participating 12957 1 in any discussions where performance parameters 2 were discussed for the DR-DOS 5 product? 3 Answer: No. 4 Question: Can you tell me what 5 different elements of a computer might affect 6 an operating system's ability to run different 7 types of applications? 8 Answer: What elements of a computer? 9 Question: Right. 10 Answer: Hardware. You mean? 11 Question: Hardware, software. 12 Answer: From a hardware point of 13 view, different types of hardware, the drivers 14 that are used to drive the hardware can affect 15 the way things work. 16 Question: How? 17 Answer: Interactions between all the 18 various layers, basically. 19 Question: So different printers, 20 different disk drives, different floppies? 21 Answer: To a degree. It's more -- 22 fortunately, with a PC you have a fairly 23 standard set of hardware goods in there. But 24 it's more something obscure like a tape drive 25 or something like that. 12958 1 Question: Let me get you to look at 2 page 6 of this document. 3 In the engineering specification at 4 the bottom of page 6, there is an 5 identification of there being a disk cache. 6 Do you know if a disk cache was 7 implemented in DR-DOS 5? 8 Answer: Yes. I see now actually that 9 must have been our own disk cache in DR-DOS 5, 10 and then we used a third-party one in DR-DOS 6. 11 Question: Do you know why there was a 12 change from the disk cache in 5 to a 13 third-party's software in 6? 14 Answer: Feature improvements. We 15 were always continually improving the product. 16 Question: Did Digital Research have 17 any difficulties with its own disk cache and 18 thereby had to use the disk cache offered by a 19 third-party vendor? 20 Answer: No. It was just they had 21 more features. It was a different cache and 22 then we decided to work in that direction, 23 instead of enhancing our own cache. 24 Question: Why was that? 25 Answer: A tighter market. 12959 1 Question: Were you involved in the 2 selection of beta testers? 3 Answer: Yes, to a degree. I would 4 actually see lists and say this would be a good 5 beta tester. 6 If somebody proposed a beta site, I 7 would actually sort of also decide to select 8 the beta site. Again, this was for Novell DOS 9 7. 10 Question: Would it be important, 11 then, to have a sampling of different hardware 12 configurations as part of the beta testing 13 sample? 14 Answer: Yes, to a degree. 15 Question: Why to a degree? 16 Answer: You want to actually get a 17 sort of reasonable sample across the world. On 18 the other hand, when you are actually choosing 19 a beta program as well, the key factor in 20 actually choosing the beta site is to actually 21 get somebody who will give you very good 22 feedback. 23 Question: That means a continuous 24 source of feedback about the product? 25 Answer: Yes. The fact they will 12960 1 actually test the product as well. 2 It is one thing to say I have 40 beta 3 sites, but if they don't actually test the 4 product, then all you are doing is fooling 5 yourself. 6 Question: Other than the importance 7 of a beta test actually responding, actually 8 testing the software and responding, what is 9 the next most important item you believe is 10 appropriate for selecting a beta test site? 11 Answer: That is the fundamental 12 important one. If they don't test it, there is 13 no point anyway. 14 The fundamental one is making sure 15 they are actually going to test that product. 16 Just giving a version out to somebody who is 17 not going to test it is a waste of time, your 18 time, their time. And it kids you because you 19 have lots of numbers. 20 Question: What was done to ensure 21 that the beta testers actually tested the 22 product? 23 Answer: We would actually -- over the 24 years, again, I am referring to Novell DOS 7. 25 Over the years, we actually built up a 12961 1 good core of dedicated customers who were very 2 good at doing beta testing. They would always 3 be your primary target as a new beta site 4 because you know they are going to give you the 5 feedback. 6 You would actually keep in 7 communication with that beta site and even give 8 them updates in between major beta releases as 9 well. 10 Question: Would beta testers test on 11 multiple different computers, or would it just 12 be more computer at that beta site that would 13 be tested? 14 Answer: They would test on multiple 15 computers, good beta sites. 16 Question: Was there some requirement 17 that you had that they -- that you had that the 18 beta testers install on a certain number of 19 computers at their -- you know, within their 20 company? 21 Answer: Obviously, we would encourage 22 them to install it on as many PCs as they could 23 in their company. 24 But, obviously, as with any beta 25 software, you are not going to put it on all 12962 1 your main production machines. 2 Question: Why is that? 3 Answer: No beta site would do that 4 for any beta product realistically. 5 Question: Is that to do with the 6 stability of the beta product? 7 Answer: Not so much -- you actually 8 -- the reason for the beta product it is not a 9 final release code. You should not actually 10 put it out throughout your organization anyway. 11 Question: Were you presented with 12 identifications of the types of hardware 13 configurations that the beta sites had in order 14 to make a selection of whether or not that beta 15 site was a good beta test site? 16 Answer: We wouldn't make the 17 selection based on the hardware they had. They 18 would actually report back what hardware they 19 had at their sites. 20 Question: I'm sorry. I didn't 21 understand that. 22 Answer: We wouldn't make the 23 selection based on the hardware they had. They 24 would report back the hardware they had at the 25 sites. What they installed it on is useful 12963 1 information for us. 2 A PC is a PC at the end of the day. 3 Novell DOS 7 was released four or five years 4 ago. Most PCs were fairly standard by that 5 time. 6 Question: And did you regard Apple as 7 being in your same industry? 8 Answer: In the computer industry? 9 Question: More in connection with the 10 operating system industry. 11 Answer: No. 12 Question: Why is that? 13 Answer: It's a different platform. 14 It's on the Motorola platform, not the Intel 15 platform. 16 We were purely focused on the Intel 17 platform. 18 Question: Do you recall any 19 discussion about the third sentence of this 20 paragraph on clones, quote, pressure from users 21 and indirectly from IBM to force clone OEMs to 22 bundle Microsoft OS. 23 Do you recall a discussion about that? 24 Answer: I don't recall a discussion, 25 no. 12964 1 Question: Do you know what this is 2 referring to? 3 Answer: Again, I can only speculate 4 at this point that it was referring to probably 5 prior to this date manufacturers didn't have to 6 ship an operating system with their PCs. I 7 can't remember what time. 8 There was a period where PC 9 manufacturers were forced more and more to ship 10 an operating system with a PC. Prior to the 11 whatever time that was, particularly clone 12 manufacturers didn't actually ship operating 13 systems. They could just ship the PC. 14 Question: Do you know what is meant 15 here by the statement loss of revenue over 16 DR-DOS could force legal action buy-out or 17 lock-out by combining Windows and DOS in one? 18 Answer: Basically, that is a 19 reflection saying if Microsoft wanted to try 20 and compete against DR-DOS, these are some of 21 the options they could take. 22 Question: What was the concern that 23 Microsoft could combine Windows and DOS in one? 24 Answer: Basically, what they 25 eventually did. 12965 1 Question: Why was that a concern to 2 Digital Research? 3 Answer: Trying to actually force OEMs 4 to actually buy their Windows/DOS. 5 If you didn't buy their DOS, then you 6 couldn't get Windows. Therefore, you actually 7 kill the DOS market. 8 Question: And was this a concern that 9 you had in 1990? 10 Answer: Obviously it was, yes. 11 Question: Do you recall discussions 12 about competing against a combination of 13 Windows and DOS? 14 Answer: I don't recall any specific 15 conversations as such, no. 16 Question: What about general 17 conversations? 18 Answer: I mean, general, yes. I was 19 obviously -- it was obviously a concern for us 20 over a period of time that Microsoft would 21 actually at some point try and combine those 22 together, not necessarily technically, but 23 basically what they were doing with OEMs in 24 Taiwan, forcing them to actually buy the DOS; 25 otherwise, they wouldn't get Windows. 12966 1 Question: And do you have any 2 personal knowledge of any tying between DOS and 3 Windows in Taiwan? 4 Answer: Any personal knowledge? 5 Question: Yes. 6 Answer: No. Only what I heard 7 through our sales force. 8 Question: Do you recall talking to 9 any Microsoft employees where they indicated 10 they would not sell DOS without Windows or 11 Windows without DOS? 12 Answer: I didn't, no. 13 Question: So all your information 14 about any tie-in would have come second or 15 thirdhand from the sales force within Digital 16 Research? 17 Answer: Yes. 18 Question: In your career, have you 19 had any conversations with anyone from 20 Microsoft ever? 21 Answer: Yes, yes. 22 Question: On what subject matters 23 would you converse with individuals from 24 Microsoft? 25 Answer: They tried to recruit me to 12967 1 go and work for Microsoft in Seattle. 2 Question: When did they recruit you 3 to work at Microsoft? 4 Answer: They tried to recruit me in 5 -- I think it was 1990. 6 Question: And did you contact them 7 initially, or did they contact you initially? 8 Answer: No. They cold called my home 9 phone number. 10 Question: And how long was your 11 conversation with them? 12 Answer: I had a couple of 13 conversations with the personnel lady, and I 14 had one conversation on the telephone again 15 with Gordon Letwin. 16 Question: Was the first contact with 17 Mr. Letwin? 18 Answer: No. Personnel. 19 Question: And who was the personnel 20 person? 21 Answer: Susan somebody. I can't 22 remember. Voeller? It could have been 23 Voeller, Susan Voeller. 24 Question: And what was the length of 25 this conversation? 12968 1 Answer: I can't remember. Quarter of 2 an hour, half an hour. 3 With the personnel person? 4 Question: Yes. 5 Answer: There was a couple of 6 conversations with her. Probably quarter of an 7 hour, half an hour at the time. 8 Question: All total? 9 Answer: Possibly. Each one could 10 have been half an hour. I don't know. 11 Question: What do you recall about 12 those conversations? 13 Answer: Basically, they wanted to 14 recruit a team to build the next version of 15 MS-DOS. 16 Question: And this would be -- do you 17 know how they obtained your name? 18 Answer: I have no idea. 19 Question: And what was discussed 20 other than them recruiting a team to work on 21 the next version of MS-DOS? 22 Answer: They -- the conversation 23 regarding Gordon Letwin I remember more so than 24 the one with Susan. 25 Question: Let me ask. Did you 12969 1 express interest? Is that how you got to talk 2 to Mr. Letwin? 3 Answer: They asked whether I was 4 interested in actually working for Microsoft. 5 I said, well, I am always interested 6 in talking, what are you offering kind of 7 thing. 8 Question: Right. 9 Answer: She said the best thing you 10 can do is have a conversation with Gordon 11 Letwin. She set up the conference call for 12 Gordon Letwin to call me, and he did. 13 Question: How long did you and 14 Mr. Letwin talk? 15 Answer: Again, somewhere between a 16 half hour to an hour. Probably an hour. 17 Question: Had you ever talked to 18 Mr. Letwin before? 19 Answer: No. 20 Question: What did you and Mr. Letwin 21 discuss? 22 Answer: He basically did most of the 23 talking and tried to sell me on the position 24 that they were recruiting engineers in 25 particular in to work on the next version of 12970 1 DOS, which was going to be an all-singing, 2 all-dancing version of DOS. 3 He was basically recruiting a team to 4 do that. He did not have a team at that point 5 in time and was recruiting it. Obviously, he 6 was looking for some good people. 7 Question: Do you know when this was? 8 Answer: It was April 1990, I think. 9 Question: And what was your reaction 10 to Mr. Letwin's call? 11 Answer: I was very surprised. 12 Question: Why? 13 Answer: The fact they didn't have a 14 team to actually already work on it, for one 15 thing. 16 Question: On which version was he 17 talking about? 18 Answer: He didn't mention a version. 19 He said a future version of MS-DOS, the next 20 version. 21 Question: Did he indicate to you that 22 they didn't have a team at that time? 23 Answer: Yes. He was actually 24 building a team. 25 Question: What version had been 12971 1 released by this point in time? 2 Answer: Of? 3 Question: Of MS-DOS. 4 Answer: I think the last one that 5 Microsoft released at that point was MS-DOS 4, 6 which was several years before that. 7 Question: And in this conversation, 8 you mentioned the all-singing, all-dancing 9 version of MS-DOS. 10 Did he describe what features would be 11 contained in this? 12 Answer: The only thing I can remember 13 offhand is he mentioned sort of improving the 14 file system. 15 Question: Do you have any notes of 16 your conversation with Mr. Letwin? 17 Answer: Yes. 18 Question: Did you take notes? 19 Answer: Yes. 20 Question: And in preparing for 21 today's deposition, did you review those notes? 22 Answer: Yes. 23 Question: Do you know if those notes 24 -- were those your own personal notes? 25 Answer: Yes. 12972 1 Question: Did Mr. Letwin tell you 2 that any of the information he was going to 3 reveal was confidential? 4 Answer: No. 5 Question: At this point in time had 6 you seen anything about what Microsoft might do 7 in the next version of MS-DOS? 8 Answer: I am not sure. I might have. 9 Question: Do you have other documents 10 related to the development of DR-DOS in your 11 home among your personal effects? 12 Answer: No. 13 Question: These are the only notes 14 you have? 15 Answer: This is a personal note. I 16 actually sent my CV over with this. I sent my 17 curriculum vitae. 18 Question: Yes. 19 Answer: Resume, sorry. 20 Question: And to whom did you send 21 it? 22 Answer: Susan Voeller. That is 23 actually the copy of the fax that went over. 24 Question: Okay. At the end of your 25 conversation, were you still considering 12973 1 working for Microsoft? 2 Answer: No. I was considering 3 actually flying to Seattle because they were 4 willing to pay for me to fly over there. 5 Question: And did you, in fact, fly 6 over to Seattle? 7 Answer: No. 8 Question: Why not? 9 Answer: I decided not. 10 Question: Why is that? 11 Answer: I decided I didn't want the 12 job, and I had better things to do with my 13 time. 14 Question: Why didn't you want the 15 job? 16 Answer: I had a very good job as it 17 was. 18 They were offering an engineering 19 position. I wasn't doing engineering at that 20 time. I was actually managing product 21 development. He was looking for engineers to 22 code. That was very clear. 23 Question: Do you know who Mike 24 Dryfoos is? 25 Answer: No. I don't remember. 12974 1 Question: And did Mr. Letwin tell you 2 how he came upon you? 3 Answer: No. 4 Question: Do you recall -- what is 5 the next -- did he indicate which other 6 engineers he had recruited, the names of any of 7 them? 8 Answer: No. I didn't ask. 9 Question: What was discussed about 10 Microsoft's commitment to DOS for the future? 11 Answer: That was a statement he was 12 making. Obviously, he was trying to sell me 13 his position. He was saying we are very 14 serious about commitment to DOS for the future. 15 Question: Did you have any doubt that 16 Microsoft was committed to DOS at that point in 17 time? 18 Answer: I thought it was a very 19 strange conversation. Since they hadn't done 20 anything with DOS for many years, having a 21 conversation with this, with Gordon Letwin was 22 very strange. 23 Question: Do you recall what was said 24 about the embedded market? 25 Answer: Not really. Only that this 12975 1 was -- basically these points here were some of 2 the comments he made. 3 We are looking at the embedded market, 4 we are looking at the Japanese market, we are 5 looking to remove the old BDOS, BIOS interface 6 and go direct to ROM BIOS. I think at that 7 time he was probably talking about performance. 8 He went on to redo the file system, 9 speed it up. Obviously having to maintain 10 compatibility being a key factor. Looking at 11 redoing the redirector code. 12 Again, he was very much saying the 13 performance issue, wanted to improve 14 performance on the older version of DOS. 15 Then he mentioned actually doing 16 memory management features, which currently 17 weren't in MS-DOS at that point in time. But 18 they were in DR-DOS. 19 Question: Which feature of DR-DOS 20 related to the memory management? 21 Answer: Which feature? 22 Question: Yes. 23 Answer: That was one of the key 24 factors of DR-DOS 5. All the memory management 25 features were in there. That is why DR-DOS 5 12976 1 was so successful. 2 Question: At that point in time, 3 DR-DOS 5 had not come out, correct? 4 Answer: It was either shipping or was 5 about to ship. It was around that time was 6 actually going to be released. 7 Question: By April 1990, had there 8 been any announcement of what feature set would 9 be in DR-DOS 5? 10 Answer: I would think so. I don't 11 know exactly without actually looking through 12 records. 13 Question: Was DR-DOS shown at a 14 European expo in March 1990? 15 Answer: I don't recall. 16 Question: Did you report your 17 conversation with Mr. Letwin back to anybody at 18 Digital Research? 19 Answer: Yes. 20 Question: To whom did you report it? 21 Answer: Steve Tucker. 22 Question: What did you and Mr. Tucker 23 discuss? 24 Answer: We discussed the possibility 25 of me going out there for the interview, was I 12977 1 interested. 2 Question: Why did you have that 3 conversation with Mr. Tucker? 4 Answer: Because we were friends as 5 well as colleagues. 6 Question: And do you recall what you 7 and Mr. Tucker discussed? 8 Answer: Not much more than basically 9 I went through what they had actually said to 10 us, what Gordon Letwin had said. 11 Question: Prior to that time, did you 12 know that Microsoft was interested in the 13 embedded market? 14 Answer: I can't remember. 15 Question: Prior to this time, did you 16 know that Microsoft was interested in the 17 Japanese market? 18 Answer: I imagine. They sell product 19 in the Japanese market. I didn't see the 20 relevance of the Japanese statement. 21 Question: At this point in time, was 22 the Japanese market something that Digital 23 Research was interested in? 24 Answer: We were interested in all 25 markets. 12978 1 Question: At this point in time, did 2 Digital Research have any customers in Japan? 3 Answer: I am not in a position to 4 know. Possibly. 5 Question: Did you reveal any 6 confidential information of DRI to Mr. Letwin 7 during your conversation? 8 Answer: No. 9 Question: And were you careful not 10 to? 11 Answer: He did most of the talking. 12 He was trying to sell the position to me. I 13 listened. 14 Question: But were you careful not to 15 reveal any confidential information of DRI 16 during the conversation? 17 Answer: Absolutely. I would never. 18 Question: Did you have any further 19 contact with Mr. Letwin or anyone from 20 Microsoft about declining their offer to have 21 you visit Seattle? 22 Answer: I believe I had one more 23 conversation with Susan Voeller and told her I 24 wasn't interested. 25 Question: Is that set of 12979 1 conversations the only conversations you have 2 ever had with anyone from Microsoft? 3 Answer: As I said to you before, as 4 far as I can remember, yes. 5 Question: Looking at the last 6 sentence on this page where it says, selling 7 against the Windows 3/DOS? Combination to 8 major vendors will continue to be very 9 difficult on standard 386 PCs. Do you recall 10 what was said about this? 11 Answer: Again, no, I don't recall any 12 of the specifics. 13 Question: Do you recall generally the 14 subject matter? 15 Answer: Again, as I said to you 16 before, we had general discussions about the 17 combination of DOS and Windows and the fact 18 that, if they put those together, it would be a 19 very serious threat to DOS. 20 Question: Do you recall what was 21 discussed about how Digital Research would 22 respond if Microsoft combined DOS and Windows 23 into one product? 24 Answer: I don't remember any of the 25 outcomes of the actual discussion. I can't 12980 1 remember any specific discussion, to be honest. 2 It was more general. 3 Question: Did you think it important 4 that Digital Research develop a strategy to 5 respond if Microsoft were to combine DOS and 6 Windows? 7 Answer: Yes. My personal feeling is 8 it would be important to have a strategy, yes. 9 Question: Did you have a personal 10 strategy in mind that you discussed to others 11 at Digital Research about what ought to be done 12 in the event or in anticipation of Microsoft 13 combining DOS and Windows into one product? 14 Answer: Basically, my personal 15 feeling is it was going to kill the DOS market. 16 Question: Why is that? 17 Answer: DOS unless you bought 18 Windows. Combining them was actually going to 19 kill DOS because people were saying they had to 20 have Windows as well. 21 The only way you could get Windows was 22 combining them. How can you sell another DOS 23 in the marketplace? It is very difficult. 24 Question: Was it a concern that DOS 25 itself lacked demand without a graphically user 12981 1 interface? 2 Answer: No. I think there was a 3 market there for DOS for some time in the 4 future. DOS is still being used very heavily 5 today. 6 Question: So the death of the DOS 7 market was more the death of growth, any future 8 growth in the DOS market? 9 Answer: No. Basically, PC 10 manufacturers were forced to supply an 11 operating system with a PC. A lot of PC 12 manufacturers would have supplied any operating 13 system that met the criteria. They didn't 14 necessarily have to have DOS and Windows. They 15 would be quite happy to carry on supplying DOS. 16 There was a huge market for that. 17 Question: I am showing you a document 18 that has been previously marked as Exhibit 630. 19 Do you recall if DR-DOS 5 was released 20 in July of 1990? 21 Answer: I don't remember the dates. 22 Question: If DR-DOS 5 was released in 23 July of 1990, would there be information 24 available, public information, in April of 1990 25 about what feature set it had? 12982 1 Answer: We had a lot of beta product 2 out there. So as I say, I don't know from the 3 marketing side what had been announced. 4 From the engineering side, I know the 5 beta program had gone out there. There was a 6 lot of beta copies out there. The features 7 would have been fairly wide known at that 8 point. 9 Question: Were beta site required in 10 signing nondisclosure agreements? 11 Answer: Yes. 12 Question: Those nondisclosure 13 agreements would prohibit someone from 14 indicating what feature sets were within the 15 beta product? 16 Answer: Yes. 17 Question: Was it your understanding 18 that most beta sites honored the nondisclosure 19 statements? 20 Answer: Put it this way. Information 21 seemed to be fairly freely available in the 22 marketplace. Where it came from, I don't know. 23 Question: Looking at document Exhibit 24 630, do you recall -- you are an addressee of 25 this document, correct? 12983 1 Answer: Yes. 2 Question: This is a DR-DOS product 3 planning meeting summary. Do you recall 4 participating in a DR-DOS product planning 5 meeting? 6 Answer: Not this specific one, no. 7 Question: Do you know why you were a 8 participant in the DR-DOS product planning 9 meeting if you were not at that time assigned? 10 Answer: Actually, this is the one -- 11 yes, I do recall this meeting. I am sorry. I 12 have just seen who was actually at the meeting. 13 I do recall this meeting. 14 Question: This is in October 1990? 15 Answer: Again, yes. It says on here. 16 Question: And this, to your 17 knowledge, would follow -- I'm sorry. 18 I guess, the memo date is October 19 1990. It looks like there was a Tuesday, 20 September 25th, a Wednesday, September 26th, 21 and Thursday, September also 26th. I guess 22 that's the 27th. 23 Was this a three-day meeting, to your 24 knowledge? 25 Answer: It looks like, yes. 12984 1 Question: And do you know what was 2 the purpose of your attendance at this 3 three-day meeting? 4 Answer: I was one of the senior 5 engineering staff, manager in the development 6 center. We were basically involved in the 7 planning meetings at that point. 8 Question: What do you recall being 9 discussed about the timing of the introduction 10 of DR-DOS 6? 11 Answer: Nothing specific. 12 Question: Do you recall any 13 discussion of it being introduced at or around 14 the same time as Microsoft DOS 5 would be 15 released? 16 Answer: It sounds like a good idea. 17 Question: And do you recall if that 18 was the strategy that was adopted? 19 Answer: I don't recall offhand, no. 20 Question: Do you recall if it was 21 discussed to have a DOS 6 beta available for 22 demo at the same time as Microsoft launched 23 MS-DOS 5.0? 24 Answer: Again, I don't recall a 25 specific conversation. But that sounds like a 12985 1 good strategy. 2 Question: Okay. Why don't you look 3 at page 2 of this document. 4 And under the DR-DOS 6.0 development 5 strategy, the last two bullet points, the 6 second to the last bullet point says, introduce 7 MS 5.0 parity simultaneous to MS launch; i.e., 8 February 1991. 9 Do you recall what was said about 10 that? 11 Answer: Not specifically, no. 12 Question: And do you recall that it 13 was thought in September 1990 that Microsoft 14 DOS 5 would be released in February 1991? 15 Answer: Again, I don't recall the 16 dates, no. 17 Question: What do you recall being 18 discussed about this bullet point or the 19 subject matter described in this bullet point? 20 Answer: Sorry? Which one? 21 Question: The second to the last, 22 introduce MS 5.0 parity simultaneous to MS 23 launch. 24 Answer: I don't recall a lot about it 25 really apart from what it actually says. 12986 1 Basically, if we don't bring out a new 2 version of DR-DOS 6, we won't gain parity with 3 MS-DOS 5. 4 Question: I am sorry? 5 Answer: If we were bringing out 6 DR-DOS 6, we won't gain parity with MS-DOS 5. 7 Question: And why was that important? 8 Answer: Basically, I mean, I was 9 thinking it was something we had actually moved 10 DOS forward with DR-DOS 5. 11 Microsoft had woken up and decided to 12 copy a lot of what we had done and put a few of 13 their other little features in themselves. 14 Basically, we needed to actually get 15 our parity back and basically move the 16 goalposts forward again. 17 Question: Was the purpose of 18 introducing DR-DOS 6 to obtain parity with 19 MS-DOS 5? 20 Answer: No. It was to actually take 21 the DOS project further forward. 22 Even if MS-DOS 5 hadn't been there, we 23 would have done DR-DOS 6 anyway. We had a lot 24 of features that we didn't put into DR-DOS 5 25 that we still wanted to develop, a lot of 12987 1 ideas. 2 Question: What would be the purpose 3 of having the DR-DOS 6 beta available at the 4 same time as the Microsoft launch? 5 Answer: Good marketing strategy. 6 Question: Why? 7 Answer: Basically, you can talk about 8 it with OEMs and say, here is another product 9 that is going into the product, DR-DOS 6, and 10 its features. 11 Question: Do you think it's fair and 12 a good way to sell product to show an OEM a 13 beta version of your product in order to 14 persuade the OEM that they ought to license 15 your product as opposed to the released product 16 of a competitor? 17 Answer: I think showing our OEMs, our 18 customers, our future technology when it was 19 available in a demonstrable form was a good 20 thing to do. 21 Question: Do you think there is 22 anything wrong about that? 23 Answer: Not necessarily, no. 24 Question: Is that a standard industry 25 practice to show OEMs a demonstrable beta 12988 1 version of your product in order to attempt to 2 persuade that particular OEM to license your 3 product? 4 Answer: OEMs are typically asking 5 what you are developing futurewise. They are 6 very keen to know where you are going with your 7 future strategy. 8 As in any normal customer relation, 9 you would actually be presenting that future 10 strategy, and actually showing demonstrable 11 product is part of what they are actually 12 demanding from you. 13 Question: Why is it? 14 Answer: They want to know what your 15 future strategy is. 16 Question: Why is that important to 17 them? 18 Answer: Basically, they are 19 committing to actually stay with your product. 20 Then, obviously, it is important. 21 Question: For an operating system, is 22 it more important that the OEMs be kept advised 23 about your future development so they can 24 develop their hardware so it will operate with 25 the operating system? 12989 1 Answer: Not necessarily, no. 2 Question: Generally? 3 Answer: It might be a case where an 4 OEM might actually ask an operating system 5 vendor to develop PCs to actually take 6 advantage of any hardware they might be 7 developing. 8 From their point of view, it is 9 beneficial to have a good working relationship. 10 Question: The information flow, is it 11 important for an operating system developer to 12 tell the OEM what drivers, for example, it's 13 going to include in its next operating system 14 so that the OEM can include those new devices 15 in its next round of products? 16 Answer: I think it's more the other 17 way around. If they have a new device, they 18 would want the operating system developer to 19 include the driver. 20 Question: So, for example -- 21 Answer: Or be able to support that 22 driver. 23 To actually to be honest, in reality, 24 there is a standard interface for drivers. In 25 most cases, the manufacturers of specific 12990 1 hardware would write the driver that would work 2 with that interface. 3 Question: Well, during this time, 4 weren't there a number of different interfaces 5 that were being developed that didn't have 6 standard drivers in the 1990 through 1995 time 7 period? 8 Answer: Possibly. I can't remember. 9 Question: What about CD-ROMs, for 10 example? 11 Answer: Yes. That would be in that 12 period, yes. 13 Question: And was that an example of 14 a hardware device that didn't necessarily have 15 a series of drivers already assigned to it but 16 that software companies were having to write 17 for? 18 Answer: Yes. 19 Question: What about different types 20 of floppy drives? 21 Answer: No. That would really being 22 handled by the BIOS. It would be handled by 23 the PC manufacturer. It was hidden from the 24 operating system in most cases. You would have 25 to do something, maybe a format program. 12991 1 Question: What did you understand was 2 going to be the task switcher that was going to 3 be contained in the Microsoft DOS 5 product? 4 Answer: What did I understand then or 5 now? 6 Question: Then. 7 Answer: I can't remember what I 8 understood then, but I can tell you what I 9 understand now. 10 Question: I am more curious what you 11 understood then about the task switching 12 product. 13 Answer: A task switcher is fairly 14 obvious what it does. It switches one task to 15 another. It would be a static switch of that 16 task. 17 Question: A static switch? 18 Answer: Static switching as opposed 19 to multitasking, which is truly keeping 20 multiple tasks running. 21 Question: What was the load high 22 compatible with Windows feature that was being 23 referenced in this document? 24 Answer: I can't remember 25 specifically. We had already done a lot of 12992 1 memory management features in DR-DOS 5 to 2 moving stuff into high memory. We basically 3 pioneered that. 4 From what I remember, there was some 5 extra feature on top of that that Microsoft 6 tried to add to improve loading things high 7 under Windows. 8 Question: Was that to run Windows out 9 of the upper memory? 10 Answer: No. I think it was -- I 11 believe this is actually referring to being 12 able to load certain drivers high, not Windows 13 itself. 14 Question: And by loading the drivers 15 high, you would have more space in the lower 16 memory for applications to be run? 17 Answer: That is basically the 18 technology we developed in DR-DOS 5. We 19 pioneered that technology. 20 Question: And who -- does any other 21 product other than DR-DOS have that technology? 22 Answer: Does any in the market today? 23 Question: Yes. 24 Answer: In the market today, yes. 25 Question: Prior to the time that 12993 1 DR-DOS 5 came out, was that feature in the 2 marketplace? 3 Answer: I am not sure, to be honest. 4 I am not sure. We were certainly the first to 5 put it in the operating system. 6 Question: And extended memory was a 7 separate set of chips that the operating system 8 would access through a layer of the upper 9 memory? 10 Answer: Yes. It is extra memory that 11 the operating system can access. Basically, we 12 were actually using the similar technique in 13 Concurrent DOS prior to using the same 14 technique in DR-DOS 5. 15 Question: Looking at the feature 16 candidates for matching on page 2 of this 17 document, there is a notation 2.88 MBFDD 18 support. 19 Can you tell me what that is? 20 Answer: 2.88 megabyte floppy disk 21 drive. 22 Question: And was that a feature that 23 Microsoft 5 was to have? 24 Answer: It was a new floppy disk 25 drive that IBM had brought out in some of their 12994 1 newer PCs. It needed supporting. 2 Question: And was that to be a 3 feature in DR-DOS 5? 4 Answer: DR-DOS 5 or 6. I can't 5 remember the timing. 6 Question: I am sorry. 6? 7 Answer: It was a new piece of 8 hardware that IBM was shipping in their PCs. 9 Therefore, there would be a requirement for us 10 to support it. 11 Question: Was that an announced piece 12 of hardware that was going to be available, or 13 was it actually shipping at the time of this 14 conversation? 15 Answer: I can't remember dates. We 16 would have had that sort of information 17 available to us anyway. 18 Question: Looking further down on the 19 list, there is a reference to -- is that 20 greater than two hard disk drives? 21 Answer: Yes. 22 Question: And was that a feature to 23 be supported in DR-DOS 6? 24 Answer: It looks like. Obviously, 25 again, I guess around that time some of the 12995 1 manufacturers were starting to add more than 2 two hard disk drives into the machines as an 3 option. 4 Again, it was sort of specifications 5 in the PC World were moving forward. That is 6 the sort of thing that happens in every release 7 of every operating system. There are certain 8 things you have to keep moving forward. That 9 is what we did. 10 Question: Mr. Stephens, the meetings 11 that are described in Exhibit 630, was that the 12 first meeting about what products, what 13 utilities and features would be in DR-DOS 6? 14 Answer: What is the date of this one? 15 October? 16 No, I doubt whether that would have 17 been the first meeting. There would have been 18 marketing prior to that within engineering and 19 marketing. 20 Question: Were you present at any of 21 those other meetings? 22 Answer: Yes. Basically, I say there 23 would have been. I don't know exactly dates or 24 meetings. 25 Question: Do you have a specific 12996 1 recollection of any DOS 6, DR-DOS 6, planning 2 that preceded this? 3 Answer: Not specific, no. 4 Question: But do you have a general 5 recollection of some discussions about what the 6 feature sets would be in -- 7 Answer: Basically, the way we 8 actually develop product, you are continually 9 discussing feature sets from one product 10 release to another. 11 It's not we are going to sit down and 12 define a product. It's an ongoing process. It 13 is happening every day of your working life, 14 practically. 15 Question: Would you consider this to 16 be the first formalized discussion of what 17 features would go into the next DR-DOS 18 operations? 19 Answer: Again, I don't know whether 20 it would have been the first formalized. There 21 might have been one prior to this. This was a 22 formalized meeting about the DR-DOS 6. 23 Question: What is a LIM emulator 24 then? 25 Answer: Basically, LIM stands for -- 12997 1 I can't remember. Basically, LIM is an acronym 2 for the interface that was used for accessing 3 extended memory. 4 You could actually -- as we discussed 5 earlier, you can see a special chip set on the 6 286 for doing that. 7 Basically, when the 386 processor came 8 out, some applications, the way they would 9 access extended memory, was through this LIM 10 interface. 11 But you could emulate that on a 386 by 12 providing the same interface, the applications. 13 Question: Is that comparable to the 14 way memory management was undertaken on the 15 DR-DOS 5 product? 16 Answer: Your question is not very 17 specific. 18 Question: I am just trying to figure 19 out if the way in which the LIM emulator worked 20 was the way in which the DR-DOS 5 access to 21 extended or expanded memory worked? 22 Answer: If I can explain a bit more, 23 you might understand what you are trying to ask 24 me. 25 Question: Please do. 12998 1 Answer: I am not sure what you are 2 asking. 3 Basically, the LIM emulator, LIM was 4 an interface, an application. There were 5 function calls it could make. Through that, 6 they could access this extended memory. 7 Question: This is on a separate chip, 8 correct? 9 Answer: Sorry? 10 The application didn't know where the 11 memory was, didn't care. Through this 12 interface, it was hidden from it all. 13 Originally, it was provided by a device driver 14 back on the 386. 15 You had a device driver which did the 16 mapping of the memory. It made an interface 17 available to applications so they didn't have 18 to know about how to access the memory. They 19 could go through this interface. Any 20 application could work with that interface. It 21 was generic. 22 When we went to the 386, basically all 23 you do is provide that same interface, but at 24 the back end using the 386 processor for 25 accessing the extended memory. That is what 12999 1 the LIM emulator would have done. 2 Question: Is LIM an acronym for 3 Lotus, Intel and Microsoft? 4 Answer: Possibly. I can't remember. 5 Question: Do you know if any of the 6 Microsoft operating systems were able to use a 7 LIM emulator to access extended memory prior to 8 the introduction of DR-DOS 5? 9 Answer: Microsoft operating systems? 10 No. Certainly DOS wasn't, no. 11 (Whereupon, playing of the video 12 adjourned.) 13 MR. CASHMAN: Your Honor, this would 14 be a good time for the morning break. 15 THE COURT: Okay. We'll take a 16 ten-minute recess. 17 Remember the admonition previously 18 given. Leave your notebooks here. 19 Thank you. 20 (A recess was taken from 9:36 a.m. 21 to 9:53 a.m.) 22 THE COURT: Everyone else may be 23 seated. 24 Continuing with the deposition of 25 Mr. Stephens. 13000 1 MR. CASHMAN: Yes, Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: Very well. 3 (Whereupon, the following video was 4 played to the jury.) 5 Question: Do you recall there being a 6 discussion to add new features that weren't 7 present in MS-DOS 5.0 so that it would hinder 8 direct comparisons between the two products? 9 Answer: Not that -- we will be adding 10 new features in the product, as I said earlier. 11 Basically, we had lots of ideas for 12 the product anyway, regardless of whether 13 MS-DOS 5 had been there or not. We were going 14 to be putting out a new version of the DR-DOS 15 with new features in. 16 Question: Do you recall whether or 17 not this was discussed -- 18 Answer: I do not recall. 19 Question: -- in order to have a 20 direct comparison between the Microsoft product 21 and the Digital Research product? 22 Answer: No, I don't recall that. 23 Question: Do you recall this being 24 discussed at all during these meetings in 25 September of 1990? 13001 1 Answer: I recall basically we would 2 actually be putting new features into the 3 product. That was the whole purpose of the 4 meeting. 5 Question: Do you recall it being a 6 motivation to add features to the products in 7 order to hinder direct comparison between 8 Microsoft's operating system and Digital 9 Research? 10 Answer: We would be putting new 11 features in the product to be better than 12 MS-DOS 5. 13 Question: Is this document incorrect 14 in that there wasn't a conversation about 15 adding features to DR-DOS so it would hinder 16 direct comparisons to MS-DOS? 17 Answer: It's my recollection we were 18 adding new features to actually have a better 19 product. 20 Question: This is inaccurate? This 21 document expressing the views at the meeting is 22 inaccurate? Is it inaccurate? 23 Answer: As far as my recollection is 24 concerned, we were actually discussing putting 25 new features in DR-DOS to have a better product 13002 1 than MS-DOS. That is fairly clear to me. 2 Question: Did you write these words, 3 sir? 4 Answer: No. 5 Question: Is this an incorrect 6 summation of why features were added to the 7 product? 8 Answer: In my understanding, yes. 9 Question: So this is an incorrect 10 discussion in this document? 11 Answer: Yes. 12 Question: Looking at next in the 13 development plan, it indicates, add tasks which 14 are to ViewMax. Do not change main dock. 15 What does that mean? Do you recall 16 any discussions about that? 17 Answer: The first part of it is 18 fairly obvious. We were going to extend 19 ViewMax to add the tasks which functionality is 20 part of the ViewMax feature. 21 Do not change main dock means it is 22 actually less work. If we do it that way, we 23 don't have to have new documentation written 24 for a new utility, part of ViewMax with some 25 added features in it. That is my understanding 13003 1 of the line. 2 Question: Do you recall discussions 3 about that, or is that just your understanding 4 now? 5 Answer: The first idea, yes. I do 6 remember a discussion about putting task switch 7 in the ViewMax. The documentation bit is 8 fairly trivial, to be honest. 9 Question: Is fairly? 10 Answer: Trivial. 11 Question: Further down you have add 12 Windows XVD support on priority. Do you know 13 what that stands for? 14 Answer: I think that might be a typo. 15 That might be VxD. 16 Question: That is what I -- 17 Answer: I haven't got a clue what XVD 18 means. I think it might mean VxD. 19 Question: VxD is a virtual device 20 driver? 21 Answer: Yes. 22 Question: Go to the next page. 23 In the low end systems breakout, there 24 is an indication of task switching, improved 25 ViewMax. What is A1 front end? It is in the 13004 1 low end systems category. 2 Answer: Usually it means artificial 3 intelligence. It's possibly what we were 4 talking about. We had some pretty whacky 5 conversations. 6 Question: Then looking further down 7 on this same page, page 3 of this document, 8 there is a discussion of load high compatible 9 with Windows in DR-DOS 5.0X. 10 First of all, what was the reference 11 to the DR-DOS 5.0 X? 12 Answer: That is fairly 13 straightforward. DR-DOS 5. 14 Question: Was there some other 15 version planned after 5? 16 Answer: Sticking an X on the end just 17 meant anything to do with 5. 18 Question: Okay. Was there already a 19 load high compatibility with Windows in 5.0? 20 Answer: I can't remember. 21 Question: What is meant by load high 22 compatible with Windows? Is that putting 23 Windows up in the upper extended or expanded 24 memory? 25 Answer: I seem to remember -- I don't 13005 1 know exactly, but we were able to actually load 2 things high. 3 There were some things we weren't able 4 to load high if Windows was loaded as well when 5 Windows was running. 6 I think we put some features in to 7 allow you to continue to load these things high 8 even if Windows was there. I think that is the 9 discussion here. 10 Question: Do you know what XWin 11 refers to? Is that the X Windows -- kind of in 12 a comparable way to the X Windows offered by 13 Sun? 14 Answer: I don't know what it is 15 referring to in that context. 16 Question: Does that refer to 17 something else in a different context 18 generally? 19 Answer: Actually, I think what you 20 actually have there, I think a lot of this 21 information in here was actually written down 22 off various flip charts we had pinned up around 23 the room. I think you are going to get a lot 24 of typos. That might just be a single typo. 25 The fact he's put a question mark by it tells 13006 1 me he didn't know what was actually said. 2 Question: At this conference, people 3 would write down on boards of some variety 4 their ideas and whoever was drafting this 5 document was trying to reproduce what had been 6 written down on those boards around the room? 7 Answer: Yes. 8 Question: Turning to the next page, C 9 0011724, there is a reference with respect to 10 the high end systems. 11 What is a high end system? 12 Answer: In this context, it could 13 probably mean the machines and upwards. 14 Question: There is a discussion in 15 the second bullet point of a Windows clone. 16 Do you see that? 17 Answer: Yes. 18 Question: Do you recall what was 19 discussed with respect to a Windows clone at 20 this meeting in September 1990? 21 Answer: I don't recall, no. 22 Question: Do you recall considering 23 creating a Windows clone at Digital Research at 24 this time? 25 Answer: At this time? 13007 1 Question: Yes. 2 Answer: It was something that was 3 discussed between engineers at various points 4 in time, not necessarily at this time. 5 Question: Do you recall Mr. Constant 6 working on a project called project snowman 7 which would estimate how much time it would 8 take to clone a version of Windows? 9 Answer: Not Mr. Constant, no. 10 Question: Do you recall somebody else 11 working on something like that? 12 Answer: Yes. 13 Question: Who is that? 14 Answer: I believe it was Andy 15 Wightman. 16 Question: Do you recall the project 17 name for that? 18 Answer: No, I don't. 19 Question: Cutlass? 20 Answer: Yes. 21 Question: Were you at all involved in 22 project Cutlass? 23 Answer: No. 24 Question: Did you ever see any of the 25 product specs for project Cutlass? 13008 1 Answer: I can't remember. I am not 2 sure. I might have done. 3 Question: Who was the leader on 4 project Cutlass? 5 Answer: It was really would have been 6 done by Andy Wightman, from my recollection. 7 Question: Do you recall when project 8 Cutlass was commenced? 9 Answer: No, I don't. 10 Question: What was the purpose of 11 project Cutlass? 12 Answer: Basically, to try and put 13 some idea of time scales about how long it 14 would take to build a Windows-type application. 15 Question: And did you have 16 discussions with Mr. Wightman about why it 17 might be a good idea for DRI to make a 18 Windows-type product? 19 Answer: Not specifically with Andy 20 Wightman. As I said before, it was a 21 discussion topic that people would have around 22 the whole of the engineering. 23 Question: And do you recall the 24 specifics of any of those conversations? 25 Answer: Not really, no. It was more 13009 1 sort of wouldn't it be nice to. 2 Question: And was there a reason that 3 it would be nice to have a Windows application 4 product? 5 Answer: Yes. From a business 6 perspective, yes. We already had a product 7 prior to Windows coming out called GEM. 8 Basically, that was in the market 9 before Windows was in the market. We actually 10 sort of used that code base to do something 11 that could run Windows applications. It was a 12 very attractive idea. 13 We could have used that code base I 14 said. 15 Question: Did GEM launch other 16 applications? 17 Answer: Yes. 18 Question: And were applications 19 written for GEM? 20 Answer: Yes. 21 Question: By whom? 22 Answer: Third-party companies. 23 Question: Do you recall which 24 third-party companies? 25 Answer: Ventura. 13010 1 Question: And what did Ventura 2 produce for GEM? 3 Answer: Ventura Publisher. 4 Question: And did you publish any API 5 set for GEM? 6 Answer: Yes. It was in the market 7 for a long time. 8 Question: How many years? 9 Answer: Probably about ten years. 10 Question: When was GEM first 11 introduced? 12 Answer: Not long after I joined 13 Digital Research. So it would be about ten 14 years ago, 12 years ago. 15 Question: And at the point in time 16 when Digital Research introduced GEM, was there 17 any other graphical user interface technology 18 in existence? 19 Answer: There was the Xerox. 20 Question: And the Xerox Star? 21 Answer: Yes. I can't remember what 22 it was called. That was well before my time. 23 Question: And was there also Apple's 24 graphical user interface by this point in time? 25 Answer: Yes. 13011 1 Question: I am handing you a 2 document, which has been marked as Exhibit 3 1006. 4 Do you recall having seen this 5 document before? 6 Answer: Vaguely. 7 Question: Your name is on the second 8 page of that, correct? 9 Answer: Yes. 10 Question: Does this mean this was 11 your copy or that you wrote it? 12 Answer: This would have been my copy. 13 Copy number 11 of 15 for Glenn Stephens. 14 Question: And do you know who 15 actually wrote this document, if anyone in 16 particular? 17 Answer: I don't know. 18 Question: Do you know why Panther and 19 Buxton were combined in this product 20 requirement document? 21 Answer: No idea. I don't even know 22 what the document is at the moment. I don't 23 know. 24 Question: Are product requirement 25 documents at Digital Research the document that 13012 1 emerges from the marketing group to be provided 2 to the engineering group to allow the engineers 3 to actually design the product? 4 Answer: Yes. Typically, yes. 5 Although this one does seem to be a bit of a 6 strange one since it has both Panther and 7 Buxton on it. I am not sure what it is. 8 Question: Well, does this continue on 9 the notion discussed in the October -- or in 10 the September meeting of having a parity 11 product and then a product that comes beyond 12 that to exceed the next Microsoft product? 13 Answer: It might do. 14 Question: Going to the next page, 15 this document describes a strategic marketing 16 objective for DR-DOS. 17 Do you see that? 18 Answer: Uh-huh. Yes. 19 Question: It says to clone a flagship 20 OEM account. 21 Answer: Yes. 22 Question: Do you know what was meant 23 by that? 24 Answer: My interpretation of the word 25 flagship there would be a tier one OEM, 13013 1 top-level OEM. 2 Question: And why was that important? 3 Answer: Basically, a key OEM as one 4 of our customers was very important. 5 Question: But why? 6 Answer: To have a key name using 7 DR-DOS in the marketplace. 8 Question: And before that time, 9 DR-DOS did not have any flagship OEM accounts, 10 correct? 11 Answer: We didn't have Compaq. 12 Question: Or IBM or Dell? 13 Answer: No. 14 Question: Was DRI ever able to obtain 15 any flagship OEM account? 16 Answer: Novell. 17 Question: Was Novell an OEM? 18 Answer: No. They bought the company. 19 Question: What I am asking, was 20 Novell or Digital Research ever able to obtain 21 a flagship OEM account? 22 Answer: I don't recall, no. 23 Question: Looking at page 5, the 24 fifth paragraph down on that page, it says, 25 market intelligence indicates that Microsoft 13014 1 will launch their competing product MS-DOS 5.0 2 within the first six months of 1991. 3 Do you see that? 4 Answer: Uh-huh. 5 Question: Was that your understanding 6 as of November 1990 about when Microsoft would 7 be offering its MS-DOS product? 8 Answer: I don't recall particularly. 9 But if it is stated there, it must have been 10 what we discussed at the time. So, yes. 11 Question: Were these product 12 requirement documents, were they fairly well 13 researched at Digital Research? 14 Answer: Yes. 15 Question: And people spent a great 16 deal of time in making sure they were accurate 17 and true and correct? 18 Answer: As I said, depends which 19 draft version this would be. I don't know. 20 But there would be various iterations of any 21 document. They are all living documents 22 basically. 23 Question: But -- 24 Answer: People would review them and 25 actually correct them. There would be another 13015 1 draft come out. 2 Question: And the final version of 3 it, whichever one stopped the versioning, would 4 have reflected the views of the people as of 5 the date it is written? 6 Answer: Yes. 7 Question: Looking at the next 8 paragraph, it states, as such, the product road 9 map for DR-DOS calls for the launch of the 10 MS-DOS 5.0 parity product code-named Buxton. 11 Do you recall any discussions about 12 Buxton being an MS-DOS 5.0 parity product? 13 Answer: Yes, I do remember it being 14 discussed. But I can't remember for how long 15 we stayed with that strategy. 16 Question: Do you recall abandoning 17 that strategy? 18 Answer: As I said, I don't recall how 19 long we discussed it and stayed with it. So I 20 don't recall when we abandoned it either. 21 Question: Okay. Looking at the next 22 paragraph, which indicates, the Buxton product 23 should be available for consumer shipment 24 immediately following the release of MS-DOS 25 5.0, was that your recollection of how the 13016 1 product release was to be handled? 2 Answer: That was one of the criteria. 3 Obviously, another criteria is actually the 4 features we were developing for the product. 5 Question: But in terms of the timing, 6 was it envisioned with the Digital Research 7 engineering and marketing group that it would 8 be helpful to launch this as close of time as 9 possible to the launch of MS-DOS? 10 Answer: Yes. 11 Question: Why is that? 12 Answer: To basically make a big 13 marketing splash about DR-DOS at the same time. 14 Question: And was it important that 15 the product be introduced at the same time to 16 make the greatest possible marketing splash, to 17 use your words? 18 Answer: It is a factor. 19 Question: Well, was it a significant 20 factor? 21 Answer: You probably need to talk to 22 the marketing people to get a better 23 understanding than myself. 24 Question: But as it was expressed to 25 you in this process, you understood it as being 13017 1 important to get the product to market as 2 quickly as possible in time with the 3 introduction of MS-DOS so that there would be a 4 competing parity product of DRI available at 5 that time, correct? 6 Answer: There was a competing product 7 with DRI anyway because the DR-DOS 5 was 8 already in the market. To have another new 9 competing product is obviously another benefit. 10 Obviously, getting a product out in 11 that time frame would be a good thing to try 12 and achieve. It was a good goal. 13 Question: Hadn't sales of DR-DOS 5.0 14 slowed at this point in time? 15 Answer: I don't recall. 16 Question: Do you recall that there 17 was a great deal of market anticipation of when 18 Microsoft would be offering its MS-DOS 5.0 19 product? 20 Answer: I recall there was a lot of 21 hype around. 22 Question: And do you recall that 23 people were actually waiting for Microsoft to 24 introduce its MS-DOS 5.0 product in terms of -- 25 OEMs were waiting in terms of making their 13018 1 purchasing decisions? 2 Answer: I heard a lot of rumor and 3 read things in the press when Microsoft were 4 talking about a to-be-launched MS-DOS 5 5 product. 6 Question: A what? 7 Answer: A to-be-launched MS-DOS 5 8 product. 9 Question: Which was, in fact, 10 launched? 11 Answer: Eventually. 12 Question: And was there a concern at 13 Digital Research that if they didn't launch 14 6.0, DR-DOS 6.0, close in time to the launch of 15 MS-DOS 5.0, that a great deal of the demand 16 would be taken care of by Microsoft as opposed 17 to Digital Research? 18 Answer: Microsoft would actually 19 steal market share away from us by releasing 20 MS-DOS 5. If we can bring out DR-DOS 6 at the 21 same time, obviously, we would actually 22 maintain market share. 23 Question: Looking at the next 24 paragraph, it says, in order to maintain and to 25 extend the existing technical lead over 13019 1 Microsoft, it is recommended that an interim 2 version of DR-DOS be released. 3 Do you recall, was that the rationale 4 of Buxton, that it be an interim version? 5 Answer: As I said, I think we did 6 have discussions about doing this interim 7 release and then actually doing what became DR 8 6. 9 At some point that was scrapped. I 10 can't remember how long it was on for or when 11 it was scrapped. 12 Question: Looking at the last bullet 13 point on this page, add additional 14 functionalities to support product 15 differentiation. 16 Do you know what that references? 17 Answer: New features. 18 Question: Do you recall -- do you 19 know if that had anything to do with the 20 notation in Exhibit 630 which was that summary 21 of the September meeting to add new features 22 not in MS-DOS to hinder direct comparisons 23 between the two products? 24 Answer: It was to add new features. 25 As I said to you before, we were constantly 13020 1 adding new features to the product. 2 Question: Does the word product 3 differentiation mean anything to you in that 4 context? 5 Answer: To add new features so you 6 can say your product is better. 7 Question: Turning to the next page. 8 Do you know what is referenced by the 9 statement parity features for Buxton? 10 Answer: This would be parity with the 11 feature set in MS-DOS 5. 12 Question: Okay. And look at the 13 second feature, the ability to load high with 14 Windows 3. 15 Answer: Uh-huh. 16 Question: This indicates ability to 17 load DOS kernel, TSRs and device drivers into 18 upper memory when Windows 3 is in enhanced 19 mode. 20 Do you know what that reference is? 21 Answer: This is getting back to what 22 we discussed a minute ago. 23 We had the ability in DR-DOS 5 to load 24 certain things high. It wasn't possible when 25 Windows was in enhanced mode to actually do 13021 1 that. That was a feature we wanted added to 2 the next product. 3 Question: What was desirable of 4 having Windows be able to operate in enhanced 5 mode? Was there a product benefit for the 6 application that was running on top of Windows? 7 Answer: Yes, I believe so. I think 8 it could actually access more memory quicker. 9 Question: Right. Did it make the 10 program operate with more speed than it would 11 in real mode? 12 Answer: Yes. 13 Question: And that was a benefit to 14 the ultimate application running on top of 15 Windows because it meant that the application 16 would operate faster, correct? 17 Answer: Yes. 18 Question: And that speed was not 19 available if Windows was operating in standard 20 mode as opposed to enhanced mode? 21 Answer: Yes. 22 Question: Do you know if DR-DOS 5.0 23 was able to -- I'm sorry, do you know if DR-DOS 24 6 was ultimately able to allow Windows 3 to 25 operate in enhanced mode? 13022 1 Answer: Yes, I believe it was. 2 It could operate in enhanced mode 3 anyway. It's just we weren't able to load some 4 things high when we were running enhanced mode. 5 That is what this is referring to. 6 Question: And the reason why you want 7 to load those device drivers and TSRs was to 8 make more memory available, correct? 9 Answer: More conventional memory. 10 Question: Conventional memory? 11 Answer: Yes. 12 Question: And if you allowed more 13 conventional memory to be present, that in turn 14 allowed for the application to operate quicker, 15 correct? 16 Answer: It meant there would be more 17 conventional memory available for you to load 18 various device drivers, TSRs. 19 Question: But having freed the device 20 drivers and the TSRs to the upper memory, what 21 was the benefit to the application of allowing 22 that application to run with the full 23 conventional memory -- with as much 24 conventional memory available to it? 25 Answer: It could actually run 13023 1 quicker. 2 Question: Do you know if in the 6.0 3 version -- if I have asked the same question, 4 please tell me. 5 Was 6.0 able to load the DOS kernel, 6 TSRs and device drivers into the upper memory 7 and allow Windows to operate in enhanced mode? 8 Answer: I believe it was, yes. 9 Question: Was it an important 10 feature? 11 Answer: I wouldn't say it was 12 priority one, no. 13 Question: How would you evaluate it 14 among the new features to be included in 6.0, 15 its importance? 16 Answer: My personal recollection on 17 this sort of feature is John Constant was the 18 developer, so he was deciding the priorities. 19 But I wouldn't have said it was one of 20 the highest features. 21 Question: What features -- I am 22 sorry. 23 Answer: For DR-DOS 6. 24 Question: What would you say is a 25 higher priority feature? 13024 1 Answer: Disk compression. 2 Question: Any others? 3 Answer: That is the one that comes to 4 mind most at the moment. 5 Question: Why was that a high 6 priority? 7 Answer: It was a major new feature 8 for the product, major new feature for the 9 customers. 10 Question: At the time, were disk 11 compression facilities -- at this point in 12 time, November 1990, were disk compression 13 programs available by third-party vendors? 14 Answer: Yes. 15 Question: And can you identify for me 16 the third-party vendors that had disk 17 compression programs available at that point in 18 time? 19 Answer: The two I recollect is Stack 20 and Addstor. 21 Question: And both of those offered 22 -- they were both available in the marketplace 23 in this period of time? 24 Answer: Yes, I believe so. 25 Question: Looking at the next page, 13025 1 we talked a little bit about it before, support 2 for the 2.88 megabyte fixed disk drive. I'm 3 sorry, floppy disk drive. 4 Do you recall this being an important 5 feature for this product? 6 Answer: Again, it was a feature. 7 Technology moved. It was something that had to 8 be done. No big deal. 9 Question: It was no big deal? 10 Answer: Not really. 11 Question: Why would this, the user 12 benefit, why would it reduce the material cost 13 for the OEM? 14 Answer: They could presumably -- I am 15 speculating here back into recollection. 16 They could ship products on 2.88 Meg 17 floppy disks. They could save a number of 18 diskettes if they were shipping it. 19 Question: At this time, OEMs were 20 still sending out diskettes when one purchased 21 a computer? 22 Answer: Yes. 23 Question: Look at page 31. 24 There is a reference to dynamic file 25 compression and decompression. 13026 1 Is that the compression you were 2 talking about a moment ago, disk compression? 3 Answer: Yes, it looks like it. 4 Question: Was it the thought at this 5 point in time for Digital Research to write its 6 own code for disk compression? 7 Answer: We looked at all 8 possibilities. 9 Question: And was there any effort -- 10 well, was there actually any development time 11 spent trying to develop a disk compression 12 facility? 13 Answer: Yes. 14 Question: And who was in charge of 15 that? 16 Answer: I don't know who actually 17 started working on it. Ian Jack would have 18 done some. I think Roger Gross did some. 19 Question: And was it determined 20 ultimately that Digital Research development 21 time would be better spent by licensing from a 22 third party? 23 Answer: Yes. 24 Question: And do you recall what 25 reasons were given for selecting a third party 13027 1 as opposed to Digital Research to write this 2 piece of software? 3 Answer: Time to market. It was 4 already there. The technology was already 5 working. You could see it working. 6 Question: ViewMax was a part of the 7 GEM product, correct? 8 Answer: ViewMax was not part of the 9 GEM product. ViewMax was actually developed 10 from some of the GEM source code. 11 Question: And what were the features 12 of ViewMax? 13 Answer: I think basically it was a 14 graphical interface for the desktop. 15 Question: And was the thought to have 16 ViewMax in Panther originally and not Buxton? 17 Answer: I am not sure. It was 18 eventually shipped in DR-DOS 6, I believe. 19 Question: Looking at this document, 20 this follows on -- looking on page 33, this 21 mentions -- well, strike that. 22 Was ViewMax meant to compete with 23 Windows 3.0? 24 Answer: No. ViewMax was just, as I 25 said, it was a graphical user interface for 13028 1 basically a desktop. It wasn't going to be a 2 straight competitor with Windows. It didn't 3 run any Windows applications. 4 It was basically a way for you to 5 manage your desktop through a graphical 6 interface. 7 Question: And so you would be able to 8 see files, file structures? 9 Answer: Yes. 10 Question: Would you be able to delete 11 files and file structures through ViewMax 12 itself? 13 Answer: Yes. 14 Question: Would there be any other 15 functionality associated with the graphical 16 interface? 17 Answer: I can't remember exactly. 18 But there were other sort of features around 19 it. 20 It was all about managing the actual 21 desktop as opposed to providing an interface 22 for applications to run on top of. 23 This was a graphical interface for you 24 to run on the applications you already had, not 25 for applications to work with. 13029 1 Question: Was there a comparable 2 feature in the Windows 3.0 product that was out 3 at that time? 4 Answer: No. They were very 5 different. 6 Question: Well, could you -- in the 7 Windows 3.0 product, could you view your file 8 structures?