e.Digital

=======================================================

Minutes hearing: highlight quotes regarding social hierarchy

MR. HANDAL: Yeah. You know, the term "ordered ranking," the use of the word "ordered ranking" in e.Digital's mind seems to suggest that there is some priority. And it doesn't necessarily need to be a priority.

And that's where this claim is relevant. Because the social hierarchy in this claim talks about different levels of operations, not an ordered ranking of social groups.

And that, perhaps, is our biggest complaint. Because the -- Dropcam's construction is "an ordered ranking of social groups." It's not simply of social groups. There may be operations. There may be a hierarchy of communication protocol. There can be a hierarchy involving how much information, a quantity.So "an ordered ranking of social groups" is too limiting in this particular -- in this particular setting, and that's why we object to it.

And so that's why we think our construction is more appropriate, because it's simply an arrangement of persons, things, information and/or operations in a series of levels.

Because that -- that kind of is a hierarchy. That's where --essentially it comes from the plain English definition of hierarchy. It's not limited to social groups. It's not limited to people. It's not limited to things. It's not limited to conditions, which -- but Dropcam wants to limit it to "an ordered ranking of social groups."

And that's where our strongest objection to their construction lies, because they limit the term to just a particular condition or situation where you have to have it involving social groups.

The term "defined" is not -- it's not used in the context of having -- of having a social hierarchy associated with a social template. Social templates and social hierarchies correspond or they are assigned. You can have several social hierarchies or one social hierarchy with several templates or several social hierarchies with one template.

So adopting the construction that the social hierarchy has to be defined within each social template is contrary to the specifications and would, be inappropriate.

======================

THE COURT: I don't even know why -- this is a sleeping dog that I'm kicking because everyone agrees about "raw data." No one is fighting about "raw data," so why I'm doing this, I'm not even sure. But, okay. That's fine.I have no questions about the thing you just said.

MR. HANDAL: Okay.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. HANDAL: Thank you.

THE COURT: Ms. Shanberg, I think what I want to here mostly about from you is the question of "defined within each social template."I do have trouble imagining that information could be part of a hierarchy. I do have trouble imagining that the word "ordered" not appear somewhere in the Court's construction.

MS. SHANBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: So I don't know that you have to spend a lot of time on that, and I can say that now that I've heard already from e.Digital. But I think Mr. Handle's points about the incongruity of a construction that requires that a social hierarchy be defined within each social template or that it consists of social groups, I think those points are right.Where I am currently is something like, "an arrangement of persons and/or operations in a series of ordered levels." So to the extent that differs from where you think I ought to come out, you should focus your attention there.

=============================================

MR. HANDAL: Well, I guess that's -- the confusion, then, centers around whether or not police, ambulance are within a social circle. And that's the problem. Within social groups, as Dropcam would argue, infuses an element of, well, what is a social group?It can very well be interpreted by a juror that an ambulance service is not part of a social group and would be, therefore, excluded. And that's the problem. You can't adopt their interpretation because you then have to define for the jury what "social group" means.

THE COURT: You heard me say to Ms. Shanberg, I'm likely to do "X" and then I read a proposed construction.

So to you I'll say, I understand your point about this. How much do you care that you're probably not going to get "information" or "things," I think was the other one. And after Ms. Shanberg's presentation, you might not get "operations" either and you will just be stuck with "people." But then you wouldn't -- but you still -- on that proposed construction, you wouldn't still have to worry about associating with the proposed constructions that say "defined within." Ms. Shanberg offered other possibilities. "Social template." Now, if we take social template out of it, but we limit social hierarchy to people, because that's what "social means."

MR. HANDAL: Well, then, I would like to go back to the table that you've seen over and over again. The table, which is the social hierarchy --

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HANDAL: -- has two columns that shows a social hierarchy, levels of people and then levels of information.

THE COURT: Yes. But, but the column is labeled "information." I mean, this -- if I was Ms. Shanberg, I would
be using that table --
MR. HANDAL: Yeah, but --
THE COURT: -- because at the top -- please.
MR. HANDAL: The --
THE COURT: Please.
At the top of the column that says "social hierarchy," the
column consists of people.

MR. HANDAL: All right. But the hierarchy in this example is also levels of information. There are two hierarchies at play here and they interface with another one. The Court did offer its thoughts on the construction to Ms. Shanberg. I didn't quite get it all. So what was the Court's thoughts on that?

THE COURT: (As read) "An arrangement of persons and/or operations in a series of ordered levels." Ms. Shanberg spent some -- spent the majority of her time, I think --

MR. HANDAL: Okay.

THE COURT:-- trying to talk me out of the "operations" part of that.

MR. HANDAL: I kind of like it. Thank you.

THE COURT: You like it?

MR. HANDAL: I...

THE COURT: Well, I think I just explained to that Ms. Shanberg may have made some headway on "operations." You can sit down if you like.

This is one I had a concern for, limiting to social issues only...

Nice to be over that hump!

doni