Another snippet of Charlie's Feb. Testimony
Here's Charlie testifying that he think Judge Folsom is a moron. Enjoy.
Q NOW, YOU AGREE THAT AFTER THE JURY TRIAL A DESIGN-AROUND
WAS AN OPTION THAT WAS AVAILABLE, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND THAT OPTION WAS ALSO AVAILABLE BEFORE THE JURY TRIAL?
A YES.
Q AND IT WAS YOUR VIEW THAT BY THE TIME WE HAD THE BENCH
TRIAL BEFORE HIS HONOR THAT THE COST OF PATENT LITIGATION WAS
GOING TO BE CERTAINLY IN THE TENS, MULTIPLE TENS OF MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS, CORRECT?
A I DIDN’T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS GOING TO BE, BUT I KNEW
WE HAD SPENT ABOUT THAT MUCH I THINK UP TO THAT POINT.
Q AND YOU DECIDED TO ENGAGE IN LITIGATION THAT WAS GOING TO
COST YOU TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INSTEAD OF DOING A
DESIGN-AROUND. IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. MCELHINNY: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT’S
ARGUMENTATIVE AND ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. WE DIDN’T
BRING THIS LAWSUIT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN REPHRASE IT.
Q (BY MR. CHU
DO YOU HAVE THE QUESTION IN MIND,
SIR?
A NO, I DON’T. CAN YOU PLEASE REPHRASE IT?
Q OKAY.
A OR REITERATE IT.
Q I’LL ASK A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT QUESTION. DO YOU
UNDERSTAND THAT IT’S ECHOSTAR’S CLAIM THAT ITS SUPPOSEDLY
SUCCESSFUL DESIGN-AROUND COST A TOTAL OF $750,000?
A I UNDERSTAND WE SPENT SOME DIRECT COST OF ENGINEERING
TIME, AND THAT AMOUNT HAD OBVIOUSLY COST MORE THAN THAT.
Q ARE YOU AWARE OF THE NUMBER $750,000 BEING PUT FORWARD BY
YOUR COUNSEL AS THE COST?
A I’M AWARE THAT THAT’S THE ENGINEERING TIME THAT WAS SPENT
ON IT.
Q AND YOU DECIDED TO CONTINUE –- WERE YOU INVOLVED IN
DECISION MAKING TO CONTINUE THROUGH THE JURY TRIAL, THE BENCH
TRIAL, THE LITIGATION BEFORE THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, AND THE
LITIGATION UP UNTIL TODAY, WHATEVER THAT COST IS AND HAS BEEN
INSTEAD OF SPENDING THE $750,000 OR MORE TO HAVE DESIGNED
AROUND YEARS EARLIER? DID YOU –-
MR. MCELHINNY: SAME OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q (BY MR. CHU
DID YOU MAKE THAT DECISION?
A CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? I’M CONFUSED NOW.
Q LET ME JUST ASK IT IN A SIMPLER FASHION. THE TOTAL COST
OF THE LITIGATION TO DATE FOR ECHOSTAR ALONE OR TIVO ALONE, SO
FAR AS YOU KNOW, IS FAR IN EXCESS OF WHATEVER THE REDESIGN
COSTS HAVE BEEN FOR THE SUPPOSEDLY SUCCESSFUL REDESIGN. IS
THAT FAIR?
A I THINK ON BALANCE THE LEGAL COSTS HAVE BEEN MORE THAN
THE ENGINEERING COSTS, YES.
Q SIGNIFICANTLY MORE?
A YES.
Q NOW, YOU THINK PRESS RELEASES SHOULD BE ACCURATE IN ALL
RESPECTS, CORRECT?
A I THINK YOU SHOULD ATTEMPT TO HAVE ACCURATE PRESS
RELEASES, YES.
Q THAT’S ESPECIALLY TRUE FOR A PUBLIC COMPANY. IS THAT
CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES IS IF YOU ISSUE PRESS
RELEASES THAT ARE NOT ACCURATE, THE COMPANY, OFFICERS, AND
DIRECTORS MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO A SECURITIES LAWSUIT AS AN
EXAMPLE. IS THAT CORRECT?
A IT’S POSSIBLE.
Q AND YOU HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANT CONTROLS IN PLACE AT THE
ECHOSTAR COMPANIES TO MAKE SURE THAT PRESS RELEASES ARE
CAREFULLY REVIEWED. IS THAT CORRECT?
A WE HAVE A PROCESS, YES.
Q AND THAT’S TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PRESS RELEASES ARE
ACCURATE?
A WE CERTAINLY ATTEMPT TO DO THAT, YES.
Q AND SO FAR AS YOU KNOW, EVERY PRESS RELEASE THAT ECHOSTAR
HAS EVER MADE RELATED TO THE TIVO LAWSUIT HAS BEEN ACCURATE IN
ALL RESPECTS?
A I BELIEVE SO.
Q AND YOU HAVE REVIEWED THOSE PRESS RELEASES. YOU’VE SEEN
THEM. THEY ARE NOT NEW NEWS TO YOU?
A I WOULD HAVE SEEN MOST OF THEM, YES.
Q AND YOU DON’T RECALL DISAGREEING WITH ANY OF THE
STATEMENTS. IS THAT CORRECT?
A NO.
Q SO YOU WOULD AGREE THAT JUDGE FOLSOM, HIS HONOR, QUOTE,
MADE SIGNIFICANT ERRORS IN THE CONDUCT OF THE CASE?
MR. MCELHINNY: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, TO THE
RELEVANCE OF THIS.
MR. CHU: THEY PUT THEM FORWARD IN OTHER WITNESSES AS
SO-CALLED GOOD FAITH WITNESSES. WE WANTED TO EXCLUDE ALL THE
GOOD FAITH TESTIMONY. THAT’S HIS PURPOSE IN TESTIFYING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
A YOU’D HAVE TO GIVE ME THE PARTICULAR PRESS RELEASE AND
THE CONTEXT.
Q YOU CAN’T SAY WHETHER YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH A
STATEMENT IN THE PRESS RELEASE –-
THE COURT: WELL, WHY DON’T YOU SHOW HIM THE PRESS
RELEASE?
MR. CHU: WILL DO. LET’S SHOW 3045, AND IT’S THE
SECOND PAGE.
Q (BY MR. CHU) THIS IS ACTUALLY AN INTERNET PRINTOUT SO
IT’S NOT THE ACTUAL PRESS RELEASE. AND IT’S THE PARAGRAPH
THAT’S JUST TO THE RIGHT OF THE LOVELY ADVERTISING BOX. YOU
SEE THE WORDS “THIS ACTION BY THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT” RIGHT ABOVE
WHERE THE CURSOR IS? OKAY. IF WE CAN BLOW THAT UP. LET ME
READ THAT IN PART.
QUOTE: THIS ACTION BY THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT REINFORCES OUR
BELIEF THAT THE TEXAS COURT MADE SIGNIFICANT ERRORS DURING THE
TRIAL PROCESS AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO COMPLETE VINDICATION OF
OUR POSITION. DO YOU SEE THAT?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT, CORRECT?
A AT THE TIME, YES.
Does anybody like this stuff? I could post more but I don't want to piss anyone off.
If you guys find this offensive let me know and I'll stop. I can PM it instead to anyone that wants to read it.
This stuff gives good insight into how a real lawyer argues his clients case.
