decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Barnes & Noble hires David Boies
Wednesday, November 30 2011 @ 11:57 PM EST

Barnes & Noble has hired [PDF] David Boies and Boies Schiller & Flexner to represent it before the ITC.

Here are some recent filings since we last looked in on the Barnes & Noble ITC story that you might find of interest:

11/17/2011 - 464588 - Order Granting Non-Party Amazon.Com., Inc.'s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to and/or Move to Quash Respondents' Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum

11/17/2011 - 464590 - Order Granting Non-Party SalesForce.Com., Inc.'s Fourth Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to and/or Move to Quash Respondents' Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum

11/17/2011 - 464607 - Letter to Secretary James R. Holbein Regarding Motion No. 769-035

11/18-2011 - 464741 - Agreement to be Bound by the Protective Order of Daniella L. Esses

11/18/2011 - 464837 - Agreement to be Bound by the Protective Order of Jamie K. Israelow, Susan Magee, Patricia M. Carruthers and Peter Cooper

11/21/2011 - 464969 - Non-Party Google Inc.'s Opposition to Complainant Microsoft Corporation's Motion to Certify to the Commission a Request for Judicial Enforcement of Subpoenas (Motion No. 769-029)

11/21/2011 - 464991 - Commission Investigative Staff's Response to the Joint Motion of Complainant Microsoft and Respondents Hon Hai and Foxconn for Partial Termination of the Investigation Based on Withdrawal of the Amended Complaint as to the Foxconn/Hon Hai Respondents

11/23/2011 - 465242 - Non-Party InterDigital Inc.'s Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond and/or Move to Quash Microsoft Corp.'s Subpoenas Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum

11/25/2011 - 465262 - Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of Nokia, Inc.'s Motion to Limit or Quash Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnesandnoble.com's Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum to Third Party Nokia Inc.

11/28/2011 - 465326 - Initial Determination Granting Joint Motion of Complainant Microsoft Corporation and Respondents Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd

11/28/2011 - 465364 - Microsoft's Motion to Strike Portions of Barnes & Noble's Expert Report of Dr. Gregory K. Leonard

11/28/2011 - 465367 - Respondents Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s, Barnesandnoble.com LLC's and Inventec Corp.'s Response to Microsoft's Motion for Leave to Submit a Supplemental Expert Report for Seth T. Kaplan, Ph.D

11/29/2011 - 465392 - MOSAID's Motion for Leave to File Reply to Barnes and Noble's Opposition to MOSAID's Motion to Quash and/or Limit Barnes and Noble's Third-Party Subpoenas Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum

11/29/2011 - 465500 - Respondents Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s, Barnesandnoble.com LLC's and Inventec Corporation's Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Notice of Prior Art

11/30/2011 - 465509 - Agreement to be Bound by the Protective Order of David Boies

11/30/2011 - 465508 - Notice of Appearance of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP on Behalf of Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com LLC

Here's the letter from Boies Schiller's David Boies to the ITC, as text:
[Boies Schiller letterhead]

November 29, 2011

VIA ELECTRONIC FILING

Honorable James R. Holbein
Acting Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
[address]

Certain Handheld Electronic Computing Devices
Related Software and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-769

Dear Secretary Holbein:

Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP represents Respondents Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com LLC in the above-referenced proceeding. Please be advised that David Boies has read the Protective Order (Order No. 1) issued by Administrative Law Judge Theodore R. Essex in this investigation and, in accordance with that Order, hereby agrees:

(1) To be bound by the terms of the Protective Order;

(2) Not to reveal confidential business information under the Protective Order to anyone other than another person designated in paragraph 3; and

(3) To use such confidential business information solely for purposes of this investigation.

Respectfully submitted,

[signature]
David Boies
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
[address, phone, fax, email]

Google's filing is eye-opening. It seems Microsoft is trying to compel Google to respond to a very broad subpoena. Google is not a party to this ITC matter or the litigation. Microsoft's motion "goes far beyond the threshold for reasonable third-party discovery in Section 337 investigations," Google says. What is it that Microsoft is asking for? -- information concerning Google's "strategies for responding to Microsoft's patents and patent infringement claims."

Despite the lack of any reasonable explanation of relevance, Microsoft's subpoenas broadly seek information regarding Google's privileged legal and highly confidential strategies related to Android, including: (1) Google's strategy concerning the "actual or potential impact on Android distribution of patents held by Microsoft;" (2) Google's strategy concerning "patent infringement lawsuits by Microsoft related to Android" and "public claims by Microsoft or Microsoft executives or employees that Android infringes Microsoft patents"; and (3) "strategy discussions ... of competing mobile operating systems from Microsoft." Notably, the subpoena application is signed by the same Microsoft attorneys that are pursuing parallel patent litigation against other Android handset providers.
A footnote references the lawyers in the Microsoft case against Motorola. What Google has agreed to provide is pretty broad as well, although Google mentions certain restrictions that Microsoft agreed to. Here's what Google agreed to provide:
Subject to certain limitations agreed to by Microsoft, Google agreed to produce documents responsive to the majority of Microsoft's Requests (and a witness to testify regarding corresponding Topics), including:
Request for Production No. 1: All documents reflecting or relating to communications with Barnes & Noble regarding the Microsoft Patents or Other Identified Patents.

Request for Production No. 2: All documents reflecting or relating to communications with Barnes & Noble regarding license negotiations between Barnes & Noble and Microsoft.

Request for Production No. 3: All agreements between Google and Barnes & Noble relating to Android, and all documents reflecting or relating to communications with Barnes & Noble regarding Android distribution or licenses.

Request for Production No. 7: All documents reflecting or relating to business discussions with Barnes & Noble regarding the actual or potential impact, on Android distribution, of actual, potential, or threatened patent infringement lawsuits.

Request for Production No. 9: All documents reflecting or relating to Google's contemplation of, or business discussions with Barnes & Noble concerning, indemnification for patent infringement claims related to deployment of Android by Barnes & Noble.

Request for Production No. 10: All documents reflecting or relating to Google's contemplation of, or business discussions with device manufacturers concerning, indemnification for patent infringement claims related to deployment of Android by device manufacturers.

Request for Production No. 11: All documents reflecting or relating to Google's contemplation of, or business discussions with Barnes & Noble concerning, designing, redesigning, altering, withholding, or removing Android features to avoid infringing patents, respond to patent infringement claims or assertions, or respond to negotiations over patent licenses.

Request for Production No. 12: All documents reflecting or relating to Google's contemplation of, or business discussions with device manufacturers concerning, designing, redesigning, altering, withholding, or removing Android features to avoid infringing patents, respond to patent infringement claims or assertions, or respond to negotiations over patent licenses.

Request for Production No. 17: All documents reflecting or relating to historical and projected unit shipments, for the United States and worldwide, for Android or other operating systems.

That sounds like a lot, but I think there is a clue to why Google might not mind agreeing to the list -- Barnes & Noble, Google mentions early in the filing, "has not entered into any licensing or distribution agreements with Google." And device manufacturers, Google explains, "are free to use Android and change it as they see fit, without Google's knowledge or approval". That might indicate that many of the documents Microsoft is seeking simply don't exist.

But the demands for Google to supply what Google views as irrelevant information -- that's what Google is asking the court to block. Irrelevant, how?

Instead of seeking information that might demonstrate or refute an anti-competitive effect on a relevant market, Microsoft generally seeks Google's subjective opinions and responses to Microsoft's actions, or Google's analysis of Microsoft's own products. Microsoft has not even limited its Requests and Topics to the patents asserted in this investigation; instead it seeks discovery on Google's analysis of its entire patent portfolio. The Requests and Topics bear no reasonable relationship to Microsoft's purported justification for subpoenaing Google....

Microsoft's Requests and Topics call for documents and testimony related to any of Microsoft's thousands of patents....Other Requests and Topics call for information related to potential lawsuits related to Android that Microsoft could bring on any of those thousands of patents....

Many of the disputed Requests and Topics improperly seek information related to Google's subjective opinions. For example, Requests and Topics 4, 5, and 6 seek Google's "assessments" and "strategy" of how Microsoft's patents, patent litigation, and threats of patent litigation impact Android distribution. Request and Topic 16 seek Google's analysis of Microsoft's mobile operating system. Google's subjective assessment and strategy is not relevant to whether Microsoft has misused its patents....

Microsoft's subpoenas are an attempt to peer into Google's operations; they are not an attempt to obtain evidence related to anticompetitive effects.... Based on the scope of Microsoft's Requests and Topics, and the custodians identified, Microsoft is attempting to use this investigation to review Google's sensitive business documents rather than seek evidence related to Barnes & Noble's patent-misuse defense....

Several of Microsoft's Requests and Topics call for wholesale production of documents and information related to Google's legal strategy. For example, Requests and Topcis 4, 5 and 6 call for Google's "assessments, strategy discussions, or analyses of" Microsoft's patents, patent litigation, and claims of patent infringement. These Requests and Topics seek information on Google's analysis of quintessentially legal subjects.

Google asks that Microsoft's motion be denied.

So, how spooked does Microsoft sound to you? It sounds to me like open source gives Microsoft deep anxiety.


  


Barnes & Noble hires David Boies | 89 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 01:11 AM EST
If any.

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 01:12 AM EST
Please make any links clickable.

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks commentary here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 01:14 AM EST
Please provide a link to the news article being referenced as they will roll off of the main page over time.

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes notes here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 01:15 AM EST


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Saturated insider's knowledge?
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 01:18 AM EST
How many cases can you have for either side in cases like there before you can
be considered to have saturated your quota of insider's knowledge? Or is it up
to the parties to realize who is who in these games?

Boies seems to have worked for everyone and therefore must have an enormous
amount of knowledge and overview of this sector. What is required to have him
dismissed from a case, no matter how good he is, because he was a mercenary once
too much?

Are there any formal rules regulating this?


---
______
IMANAL


.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Message from alien intelligence here
Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 01:24 AM EST
They're here!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dr. Gregory K. Leonard yet again
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 01:41 AM EST
Gee, Oracle does not like him,
and neither does Microsoft.

What a coincidence!


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft wants to draw Google into this case too
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 01:57 AM EST
Link

Another discovered document in Barnes & Noble's antitrust claims against Microsoft made to the Department of Justice has found that Microsoft is trying to build a defense by making Google provide details of its strategy.

Link

I believe it is safe to conclude that Google blew off Microsoft and is willing to see them in court.

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Boies - yuk :-(
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 02:59 AM EST
So no prisoners will be taken...

oh well it is ms...


---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Boies - yea - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 05:28 AM EST
  • Actually... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 07:25 AM EST
    • Actually... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 08:02 AM EST
    • Actually... - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 11:16 AM EST
  • I dunno - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 02 2011 @ 06:02 PM EST
    • I dunno - Authored by: PJ on Friday, December 02 2011 @ 09:26 PM EST
US v Microsoft
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 03:24 AM EST
I suppose Barnes & Noble is trying to pull in many of the people that were
involved in US v Microsoft?

I do wonder how this works out considering that Boies was involved with SCO v
IBM, and one of the allegations do refer to that case?

[ Reply to This | # ]

"without Google's knowledge or approval"
Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 03:25 AM EST
Dah...
The kernel is under GPL and the user space programs are
under ASL (Apache Software License).

Is Microsoft really that ignorant about GPL and ASL?
What hope does Microsoft have to win against an enemy that
it just can't understand?

Amazing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Discovery
Authored by: kattemann on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 03:40 AM EST
That might indicate that many of the documents Microsoft is seeking simply don't exist.
yabut will they accept that they don't? I have a feeling that they are just too paranoid to understand.
How does this discovery work anyway, how can Google show that they are in complete compliance?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Barnes & Noble hires David Boies
Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 04:23 AM EST
Does this mean B&N will become a burned out bankrupt
rudderless shell spewing law suits?

[ Reply to This | # ]

How about "fearful for their patents"
Authored by: jesse on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 05:39 AM EST
MS could be afraid of some attack against their patents that may show them to be
no better than tissue paper.

And the subjects of those patents could be found to be non-patentable?

Which, in turn, would make all of their android contracts with vendors worthless
and show MS to have been lying all along.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Barnes & Noble hires David Boies
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 08:28 AM EST
A couple thoughts. 1) It is probably good for B&N to hire
the most viscous and tenaceous attorney they can find to
handle their dealings with M$. 2) I'm not sure why Google is involved with all
this, but I get the impression that M$
is really wants to dig into Google perhaps to find spurious
emails such as appeared in the Oracle v Google case. I'm
guessing M$ wants to put Google on a double defensive
rather than have Google dispense with Oracle and then start
going after M$ at some point.

One thing that does concern me is how much governmental
influence M$ has. Considering the Judge Mott situation
in Novell v M$ and all that government investigation about
Google being an unfair monopoly, I have to wonder.

I think M$ is really concerned about its future. If B&N
sucessfully expose M$'s extortion game, M$ will have no
one to sue to for fun and profit. Considering their base
product line is approaching the desireability of cow pies,
M$ may well be finished. It would be nice to see balmer
up on RICO charges.

[ Reply to This | # ]

B&N is doomed...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 10:04 AM EST
Boies and company did such a knock up job on Gore v. Bush and SCO v. everybody,
they are worth their weight in lead.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Definitely a mixed bag
Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 10:24 AM EST
Some see an advantage to BS&F's ability to spin a case out of
nothing, but in the end they did not win.

Boies himself mishandled Bush v. Gore.

His ethics and those of his firm are questionable.

This doesn't make me feel good for B&N. It reminds me of an
old saying, "When you lie down with dogs you get up with
fleas."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Non-Party Google Inc
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 10:59 AM EST
Now that Microsoft has attempted to drag Google into the proceedings, how will
this relate to any future Microsoft v Google legal action, as in why don't MS
sue Google directly instead of going after Android users. What if any, are the
contractual arrangements between B&N and Google, none as far as I can see.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fishing trip? - n/t
Authored by: Tufty on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 11:51 AM EST
Tufty


---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Barnes & Noble hires David Boies
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 01 2011 @ 01:10 PM EST
After reading the next article "Oracle v. Google - Proof of
Patent Marking", I am beginning to wonder if this might be
part of coordinated plan by Ballmer and Elison to try to
severly damage Google and Android. Oracle sues Google and
starts to look like SCO with no real case because Oracle
can't seem to make up its mind about Java using any of the
patents, but still keeping Google in court. Now M$ wants
to have discovery against Google, but since Google is not
being sued by M$, Google can't use discovery on M$. B&N
will use discovery on M$, but that may not help Google.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not Open Source - Free Software
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 03 2011 @ 07:36 PM EST

Microsoft is willing to put up with Open Source of the BSD type. It is the
GPL type of license they do not like.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

Barnes & Noble hires David Boies
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 04 2011 @ 01:27 PM EST
Uhhhhh ... is there not a conflict of interest between Boies and Microsoft that
should disqualify Boies from taking the case?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )