Compatible Computers New and Used Sales and

New and Used Sales and FULL Service

233 East Main Street Torrington, CT. 06790 Phone: (860) 626-8486 Fax: (860) 626-0091 Email: kent@compx2.com

June 10, 2009

Re: Microsoft v. Johnson 3:08CV1602 RNC

After you have reviewed those limitations please reflect on how it refers to my answers to your requests for disclosure of April 9, 2009. Then, as I reiterate for the fifth time, if you have any specific questions about those answers please don’t hesitate to ask. Without more direction as to what, specifically, you find to be insufficient in my responses, this is the best I can do to help you.

1. 
   You have supplied a “Stipulated Protective Order” and implied that signing this order will somehow aid in my receipt of the answers to my questions pursuant to discovery. However despite asking directly three times (now four) you have failed to clearly say that signing that document will aid somehow in my receipt of answers to my questions pursuant to Discovery. Please so state if this is your reason for this “Stipulated Protective Order” and if signing such will bring complete responses to my questions of March 5, 2009 and April 26, 2009, and if so, how?
   
2. 
   As I asked in the letter to which you are responding, the letter of June 6, 2009, please list any concerns you have about my publicizing any and all communications between the Microsoft Corporation and me concerning this case. 
   
3. 
   As I asked in the June 6 letter, in the meeting mentioned above it was represented that a minimum penalty for non-willful copyright and trademark infringement was $750.  I believe figure is $200.  Please direct me to how you found the $750 figure.
   
4. 
   As I asked in the letter, in the meeting mentioned above it was represented that if a defendant is found to have engaged in non-willful copyright and/or trademark infringement it is common that court costs will be awarded to the plaintiff.  I have found several cases that suggest such awards are not commonly made.  Please provide support for your assertions to the contrary.
   
5. 
   As I asked in the June 6 letter provide all information pertaining to the two complaints you have received from customers about copyright infringement from me and my company.
   
6. 
   
   

7. 
   As I asked in the June 6 letter provide all information about the Microsoft employee you called “another investigator” in your April 9 email , the employee who came to my business to retrieve the items Microsoft purchased on July 14, 2008. Please identify this Microsoft employee and provide any notes or comments by that employee about that purchase.
   
8. 
   If it is your position that this Microsoft employee did not retrieve software you purchased, please state so clearly and provide details about my business’s handling of our neglect in this regard.
   
9. 
   Pursuant to Rule 34 Discovery please provide all personnel records pursuant to the two Microsoft employees, Patricia Urban and the one you identified as “another investigator” in the April 9 communication who contacted my place of business, especially regarding general behavior and job performance reviews.
   
10. 
    Please provide all information about reports of me and my business given you through your Anti-piracy Hotline and any other reports of wrong-doing Microsoft Corporation considers concerning me, my business and this case.
    
11. 
    On April 20, 2009 I asked: “Are there other actions of mine which you will be dealing with in this case?” You responded that the purchase of two computers by your investigator was the only issue, unless you find more issues during Discovery. Is that a fair characterization of the information you have provided so far concerning your accusations against me?
    

As you see, I respond completely and quickly to all of your requests, and you respond with evasive, misleading answers and by comparison with my responses, not in a way anyone would characterize as quickly.