JUDGE: We'll mark that.

DISTASO: I've provided copies of most of this, I think all of this information except maybe a couple of slides have already been provided. The data has already been provided.

JUDGE: There's stuff in the binder has already been provided to Mr. Geragos?

DISTASO: Yes, a copy.

JUDGE: We'll mark it People's No. 1 for pretrial motions.

DISTASO: Dr. Loomis, would you tell me where are you currently employed?

LOOMIS: I'm employed at Trimble Navigation. I work at Trimble Navigation (inaudible) –

Court Reporter: I'm sorry. What,

DISTASO: And briefly –

Court Reporter: Excuse me. Excuse me. I'm having trouble hearing.

JUDGE: The reporter is having trouble hearing. Would you pull the microphone closer.

LOOMIS: I'm sorry. I work at Trimble Navigation Component Technologies Division.

Court Reporter: Thank you.

DISTASO: And, just briefly, what type of company is that?

LOOMIS: Our primary business is to produce GPS receivers, and my particular division makes GPS receivers for in-vehicle navigation and OEM.

DISTASO: Okay. And just for the record, what does GPS stand for?

LOOMIS: Global Positioning System.

DISTASO: And what is your title there at Trimble Navigation?

LOOMIS: I'm a staff scientist. My title is Fellow.

DISTASO: And what are your, could you in kind of a nutshell give us what your duties are.

LOOMIS: My duties are to develop, primarily for application purposes, also to, to help customers with difficult data sets, and provide leadership, science leadership to the group in general.

DISTASO: And when you say a, provide assistance to customers with difficult data sets, do you mean data sets related to GPS data?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: And you said something also, OEM navigation, I think. What is that?

LOOMIS: OEM Stands for Original Equipment Manufacturer, and it's a general term that we use. We sell GPS components to people that bundle them into systems and sell those systems. So we don't sell them directly to the end customer.

DISTASO: Okay. So, for example, Trimble Navigation doesn’t sell a GPS tracking system to the Modesto Police Department?

LOOMIS: No, they do not.

DISTASO: Does Trimble Navigation sell a GPS receiver to Orion Electronics which then bundles it into tracking system to then sell to end-user customers?

LOOMIS: I don't know where their current customers are.

GERAGOS: Objection. Calls for speculation.

JUDGE: Sustained.

DISTASO: Well, let me ask you, do you know if Orion sells those type of products to police departments?

GERAGOS: Objection. Calls for speculation. No foundation.

JUDGE: If he knows. Do you know?

LOOMIS: I don't know first hand, no.

JUDGE: All right.

DISTASO: Okay. And when you told us about your duties, what, well, actually, let me go to this first. Can you tell the court what's your educational background.

LOOMIS: I have a bachelor in mathematics and, from UC Davis, a Masters from Berkeley, and a Ph.D in mathematics from UC Davis.

DISTASO: And what year did you receive your Ph.D?

LOOMIS: 1980.

DISTASO: And when did you first start working with electronic navigation systems?

LOOMIS: In 1980 I started working for Lockheed, and I was doing inertial navigation systems. I worked there about four years.

DISTASO: And Lockheed, just for the record, is, is a defense-type contractor?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: And inertial, just briefly, what are inertial navigational systems?

LOOMIS: Inertial navigational systems measure basically heading rate and acceleration and (inaudible.)

Court Reporter: I'm sorry, what?

DISTASO: The acoustics are difficult.

LOOMIS: Inertial,

JUDGE: Maybe we can adjust the microphone. It's got a lot of bass in it. I think that might be the problem. Try it now.

LOOMIS: Okay. Is this, is this better?

JUDGE: It sounds better to me.

DISTASO: That's fine.

LOOMIS: If I leave it off to the side there, perhaps I can talk to you directly.

DISTASO: Anyway, go ahead. You were, just give me again the nutshell of what inertial navigation systems,

LOOMIS: Inertial navigation systems just measure the motion of the system, both in acceleration and heading and try to determine the position of the, of the system from there.

DISTASO: Okay.

LOOMIS: So there's no external sources like satellite transmissions. It's all internal.

DISTASO: Okay. And GPS navigational systems are satellite based; is that right?

LOOMIS: That is correct.

DISTASO: Okay. The, and so you worked at Lockheed you said for four years, correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: And then when did you start working for Trimble Navigation?

LOOMIS: I, I started working in 1984 for a company called TAU, which was involved in commercial GPS. And my area of TAU was bought by Trimble in 1988.

DISTASO: Okay. So basically 1988, more or less?

LOOMIS: I landed on campus, but I've been working with Trimble GPS almost exclusively since 1984, 85.

DISTASO: Okay. And that was almost my next question. When you started working with GPS systems fairly exclusively, that would have been around 1985?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: And can you just take me briefly, and you don't have to go into any great detail, but just briefly through what you've done at Trimble Navigation from 1985 to the present regarding GPS systems?

LOOMIS: Between 1985 and 1991 I was a company expert in differential GPS, which is the stuff where we were getting GPS down to one meter level. In about ninety-ninety,

DISTASO: Okay. I'm sorry. Let me stop you. When you say get it down to one meter level, you're talking about the location that the GPS provides down to within an accuracy of one meter?

LOOMIS: One meter, yes.

DISTASO: Okay.

LOOMIS: In about 1992 I transferred over to the component technologies division.

DISTASO: Okay. Go ahead. Tell,

LOOMIS: Which concentrates on the least expensive type of GPS receivers. Mainly mass volumes and off limit sale.

DISTASO: All right. And the, have you authored any patents for GPS products for Trimble Navigation?

LOOMIS: Yes, I have about 20 patents on which I'm the author or co-author for Trimble Navigation.

DISTASO: Okay. Do those patents deal exclusively, when I say "exclusively" do they deal with GPS information?

LOOMIS: Almost every one deals with GPS information, yes.

GERAGOS: Dr. Loomis, the training that you received on, specifically in regards to GPS technology, where was that?

LOOMIS: It was on the job at TAU Corporation and Trimble.

GERAGOS: And what year was that?

LOOMIS: I started in 1985, was my first exposure with design in GPS.

GERAGOS: When you started there, have you published in the field on GPS?

LOOMIS: In 1985 I did publish a paper with NASA Ames on differential GPS used for helicopter landings.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that was in what journal?

LOOMIS: That was in the Journal of Navigation.

GERAGOS: Okay. And was that a peer-reviewed article?

LOOMIS: No, it was not a peer-reviewed article. I have not published peer-reviewed articles.

GERAGOS: Okay. So over the last you've been involved in various, variants, if you will, of this area in the last 20 years and you have not published any peer-reviewed articles in regards to GPS; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Excuse me, let me, let me think. I believe the Journal of Navigation, I have been a peer reviewer of the Journal of Navigation later. It didn't announce that it was peer-reviewed. So I believe that that article was peer-reviewed.

GERAGOS: But. As you sit here today, you're not sure?

LOOMIS: I'm not sure. Based upon a later experience where I was peer- reviewed later, a few years later, I assumed that was peer-reviewed.

GERAGOS: But as you sit here, since 1985 you don't have any other article that you published that you're aware of; is that correct?

LOOMIS: That was peer-reviewed, no.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you publish any other articles, whether peer-reviewed or not?

LOOMIS: I published probably ten to thirteen articles up until I joined the OEM division. That would be up until about 92.

GERAGOS: Okay. And those articles, they deal with GPS?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, in the, how many times have you qualified as an expert on GPS technology?

LOOMIS: This is my first.

GERAGOS: Okay. So prior to today, 2000 and 4, you've never qualified as an expert on GPS technology; is that a fair statement?

LOOMIS: In a courtroom; that is correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, in addition to that, do you have a CV?

LOOMIS: I don't have a CV with me right here. I've provided one to the,

GERAGOS: Is it something, may I approach?

LOOMIS: A very brief CV, yes.

JUDGE: Want to mark that? Mark Geragos Well, I don't necessarily want to mark it until I find out if this is what he's referring to.

JUDGE: Has the prosecutor seen it?

DISTASO: Yes, I gave it to him.

GERAGOS: He gave it to me.

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. So I'll mark this as Defense A, if that's acceptable to the court.

JUDGE: All right. Defendant's pretrial Exhibit A. You want to describe it for the record, please.

GERAGOS: Yes, your Honor. It's got a Bates number stamped on the lower right hand corner, 35655. On the top upper left-hand corner it says "Education," got about ten lines on it.

JUDGE: Okay. (Defense Pretrial Exhibit A marked for identification)

GERAGOS: Dr. Loomis, that is, what I just showed you that's been marked now as defense pretrial Exhibit A, that's the CV that you provided to the provision in this case?

LOOMIS: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, you have worked for Trimble for approximately how long?

LOOMIS: I've been on, I've worked directly for Trimble since December of 1988, so 14, 15 years.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the 20 patents that you say, you own those individually?

LOOMIS: No, I was coauthor on many of them and I was single author on some of them.

GERAGOS: Okay. Do those patents produce an income stream?

LOOMIS: I believe out of those about two out of the 20 produce an income stream.

GERAGOS: Okay. Do sales of GPS increase the income stream to those patents?

LOOMIS: Yes. Could you, could you clarify the question?

GERAGOS: If GPS, if there are more, Trimble produces receivers; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: If more receivers are sold, your income goes up off of the patents; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: Oh, my personal income?

GERAGOS: Yes.

LOOMIS: I have no personal income from the patents.

GERAGOS: Well, do the income stream, where does that go to?

LOOMIS: It goes to Trimble.

GERAGOS: Okay. Does Trimble provide you with some kind of a stock option?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Do you have a profit participation plan there?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Is it safe to say that if, more GPS receivers are sold by, Trimble that your personal income will go up?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Is it fair to say that that gives you a financial motive or bias in your opinion to promote the GPS technology?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the device that you, or what Mr. Distaso was asking you about today, the specific GPS device, you said from 85 to 91 you worked on differential GPS; is that correct?

LOOMIS: That is correct.

GERAGOS: Now, the differential GPS, is that something that is used now in the marketplace in the year 2000 and 4?

LOOMIS: Yes, it is. Mark Geregos: Okay. And has the work that you have done since 91, has that, somebody else at Trimble followed up on that work and been working on your findings or doing some other kinds of research in regards to differential GPS since 1991?

LOOMIS: Yes. That has continued at Trimble, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And you do not have, is it safe to say that that's not your role at Trimble since 1991?

LOOMIS: My area, the receivers that we sell primarily go into the market where that market is not interested in differential GPS, so I have not been heavily involved in differential GPS since 1991.

GERAGOS: Okay. What have you been involved with since 1991 at Trimble?

LOOMIS: I've been involved in, let's see. Clarification there; until about 1993 I was involved trying to start a market in differential GPS inexpensive receivers.

GERAGOS: Let's take this one at a time.

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: You say you were trying to start a market,

LOOMIS: Well, I,

GERAGOS: Well, let me just break it down for you. You were researching or you were,

LOOMIS: Developing.

GERAGOS: involved in the development up until 91 of a, some kind of a scientific wherewithal, if you will, or technology, that could develop or pinpoint locations via global positioning; is that correct?

LOOMIS: To a high accuracy level, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then in 91 at that point there was not a, or at that point you moved into a different area; is that correct?

LOOMIS: That is correct. I moved to the component technologies division, or what it was named at that time.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the component technologies division did not, did not directly oversee the differential GPS division, did it?

LOOMIS: The differential GPS is a technology. When I moved to the Components Technology Division, my first job there was to adapt the inexpensive receivers to differential GPS for the purposes of creating maps accurately, and post-processing, what we call it.

GERAGOS: And that was to obviously increase sales of the Trimble technology; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: And basically what you're trying to do, in laymen's terms, is you're trying to take a technology and see if you could make it more inexpensive, or at least introduce it into a consumer marketplace at a level whereby it could be used wide-spread so that Trimble could make a lot of sales; is that correct?

LOOMIS: That is correct, yes.

GERAGOS: In doing that, there was not a great deal of interest in the kinds of precision that we talk about, when you're talking about differential GPS, you're talking about precise areas; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: I'd use "accuracy" instead of "precise."

GERAGOS: Okay. Accuracy in terms of a location. You weren't interested in that; that was not the primary motivation; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: Again, please, the question.

GERAGOS: Okay.

LOOMIS: The original question.

GERAGOS: When you, when you go over to what you call the components division.

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: That is more of a marketing division, isn't it?

LOOMIS: No, no, it develops and markets inexpensive receivers.

GERAGOS: Well, which is different than the differential work than you were doing before, correct?

LOOMIS: Previously the differential receivers were on the high end; so high value receivers, yes.

GERAGOS: So now you've moved into a role or function there that had a component market, correct?

LOOMIS: It had a component and marketing also. The way that Trimble is organized, the marketing and engineering are closely bound.

GERAGOS: Marketing and what?

LOOMIS: Marketing and engineering.

GERAGOS: Engineering?

LOOMIS: Are closely bound.

GERAGOS: Okay. So that when you're doing any kind of research or when you're doing any kind of development, you always have an eye towards marketing the product; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, marketing the product in this case would be, or give you an incentive to have this kind of technology accepted in the marketplace or sanctioned by a court; isn't that correct? I would assume, let me rephrase it. I would assume you want the judge to rule that that is admissible so that you can sell more GPS receivers to companies like Orion; isn't that a fair statement?

LOOMIS: That's not my purpose here. My purpose is to, is to describe the validity of the data under normal circumstances.

GERAGOS: I'm not asking what your purpose is.

LOOMIS: Yes, I understand. Would it benefit me.

GERAGOS: Yeah. Would it benefit you?

LOOMIS: I, I'd have to say yes to that. If this data were, were declared invalid or inappropriate, it,

GERAGOS: It would, it would be, if it, if the judge ruled that it was not coming in here, into a, into this case, you've got worldwide media here, and that gets reported, and it gets reported that you're from Trimble Technologies, and the Trimble Technologies GPS receivers are ruled by Judge Delucchi to not come into play, that would be a detriment to Trimble, wouldn't it?

LOOMIS: It would not be detrimental to my immediate market area, but Trimble would lose some sales, I imagine.

GERAGOS: Okay. And we, part of the, part of the marketing side of you, obviously, would not be very happy with it?

DISTASO: Objection. Relevance.

JUDGE: Sustained.

GERAGOS: Now, the research that you've done post 1991, what area specifically of research have you done with regards to GPS?

LOOMIS: In 1991 to 1993 I was bringing differential GPS into the inexpensive GPS receiver marketplace to provide a differential GPS component that could be used by people developing systems. That failed to catch on in the marketplace. In about 1995 I actually began to develop the application layer of a GPS receiver.

GERAGOS: Well, let me just break that down for a second. When you say first, from 91 to 93 you were trying to get it for map applications, basically?

LOOMIS: Yeah. In fact, it did actually stretch into 94 and 95, and, and continued to develop to create a component that could be used by what's called the GIS industry. Geographic information.

GERAGOS: So is it a fair statement that what you were doing between 91 and 94, or 93, was basically trying to take a application and market it for consumers?

LOOMIS: I was taking an existing, an existing technology and creating an application, and I was working with the marketers to make sure that was an appropriate product for the marketplace, but I did not actively market that product.

GERAGOS: Okay. You were working with the marketers?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: But what I'm trying to get at is you were not doing any kind of at that point active development or research in regards to moving forward, if you will, GPS technology?

LOOMIS: Not at that time, no.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then when you leave that area, the component, the, what you label as the component division, you went into what?

LOOMIS: When that project ended in the Component Technologies Division, I began to develop the receivers themselves.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when you developed the receivers themselves, was there an eye towards what they were going to be used for, what their application was going to be used for?

LOOMIS: The first receivers I developed were for this differential GPS market- place that never really took off.

GERAGOS: Let me just, that's the, we're talking post 93?

LOOMIS: Yes. It would be, that phase was 1995 approximately. The year 1995.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when you're talking about this differential GPS receiver that never really took off, what was the actual application?

LOOMIS: The application was a PCMCIA card, was going to, the receiver was going into a laptop, collect data out in the field. At the time there was something called selective availability that could affect the accuracy seriously to a matter of 15 to a hundred meters. The data collected out in the field in real time would not be of sufficient accuracy for the purposes of, say, the insurance companies that wanted to use it. The data could be brought back and could be post-processed against the data that had actually measured the selected availability at that time, and those effects could be taken out. The net effect would be to have the post-process position that was accurate to one meter, and that would be sufficient for that community.

GERAGOS: That, you then had problems with that application because it was not accurate; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: No. No, it was,

GERAGOS: Close?

LOOMIS: that application as, as was developed was accurate. The problem was that we were trying to sell components to a market that was going to compete with Trimble's own, own established market. In other words,

GERAGOS: So Trimble was going to end up selling to other people who were going to have a financial impact or take away market share from Trimble?

LOOMIS: Trimble was, my area of Trimble, which makes GPS components, was trying to sell to people that make GPS systems. Trimble also made a GPS system that addressed that market. So we were trying to sell to our own competitors.

GERAGOS: Which would have reduced your market share and that would be,

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: undesirable?

LOOMIS: What we found was competitors never could establish a competitive advantage against Trimble's own operation that sold similar systems.

GERAGOS: Now, what years were that that you,

LOOMIS: Um.

GERAGOS: were trying to develop the system there?

LOOMIS: As I mentioned, 91 to 93. That work did continue into, you know, a small developments, 94 and 95. The actual PCMCIA card I also worked on. That was my first working receivers. Very quickly at the end of 95 we determined,

GERAGOS: Hold on.

LOOMIS: Sure.

GERAGOS: The PCMCIA card was after you left the component division,

LOOMIS: No.

GERAGOS: correct?

LOOMIS: No, I had been at the Component Technologies Division since 91. I'm pretty sure it's been 91.

GERAGOS: Okay. When you, when did you actually move out of there and go into another division?

LOOMIS: I have been there since 1991.

GERAGOS: Okay. The application that started with the PCMCIAs lasted you think, your best guess, is 94 to 95?

LOOMIS: Boy, this is long time ago. I'm trying to think here. In, I was doing that work, I know in 1995 I was developing GPS receivers.

GERAGOS: Well, let me just,

LOOMIS: But, but it lasted between about 91, 92 and 95, so I was developing differential GPS capabilities. Again, this was the technology that I had previously developed through research and I was adapting it to a lower cost environment. Go ahead.

GERAGOS: So the low cost environment you were adapting it to after the PCMCIA cards was what? Did you then move into another area where you tried to apply this technology?

LOOMIS: No, no, I stopped working in differential technology essentially in 1995.

GERAGOS: Where did you move from there?

LOOMIS: That, I stayed in the same division,

GERAGOS: The component?

LOOMIS: and, the component division.

GERAGOS: Okay.

LOOMIS: Based upon the work that I had done in developing the PCMCIA card receiver, I began to develop and service GPS receivers of similar design.

GERAGOS: But for what marketing application?

LOOMIS: We have two major marketing applications for, actually three for that particular receiver design.

GERAGOS: Is that something that was developed in 95? Or did you just move out, did you go on with this little foray?

JUDGE: That's two questions, Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS: I'll withdraw the first. Did you leave the one, you stayed within the same division. You tried to get this application done and it didn't work, it didn't catch on. Did you then stay in the same division and try to apply this technology to some other use for the consumer?

LOOMIS: The differential GPS, excuse me, I stayed in the component technologies. I have been there ever since.

GERAGOS: Okay.

LOOMIS: The project in component technologies with the differential GPS as, as a component for, say, insurance companies, where people were developing software for insurance companies, did or was ended that, that marketing effort was ended in late 95, early 96.

GERAGOS: Then where did you, the next question is what did you do after 95?

LOOMIS: And I stayed in the Component Technologies Division. I continued to develop the GPS receivers that were being sold there. Three basic markets. One market is we supply GPS receivers for automotive manufacturers.

JUDGE: If I went out and bought a Honda, would your GPS receiver have a navigational,

LOOMIS: No, it would not be a Honda.

JUDGE: How about Toyota or any vehicle?

LOOMIS: Japanese, no.

JUDGE: How about American cars?

LOOMIS: We supplied On-Star for many years. We've been supplying BMW continuously since the mid-nineties. We supplied Porsche. We supply Mercedes. So we have a large market in the vehicle navigation system. And these, in particular, are navigation systems with the screens and the road maps, et cetera.

JUDGE: Go ahead.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, is that what you moved into specifically? I'm not asking about Trimble, I'm trying to focus on what you were dealing with specifically,

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: after 95.

LOOMIS: That was one of my, after 95 for a short period of time I moved out of engineering development and I was in, what, a marketing role.

GERAGOS: Okay.

LOOMIS: And I assumed for myself the term, title of Applications Engineer.

GERAGOS: Applications Engineer?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Which made you sound like a scientist but you were really doing marketing?

LOOMIS: I was, in that role I was trying to develop a system in, in, at Trimble at the time so that customers with problems with their receivers could get them addressed very quickly by the actual software development people.

GERAGOS: Which would have been who?

LOOMIS: There was a software group that was actually developing software at that time.

GERAGOS: Now, that role, so you went from 91, roughly, to 95, I'm just trying to get, 91 to 95 trying to develop this, this use for consumers. 95 through what year did you assume this marketing role that you coined the phrase an Applications Engineer?

LOOMIS: That started in about 19, early 1996,

GERAGOS: Okay.

LOOMIS: that I moved into marketing, and it lasted until, I believe, 1998. And so in this role,

GERAGOS: It was more consumer service, or trying to develop a consumer service?

LOOMIS: You know, "consumer service" is not really the right term. Basically this involved a lot of GPS testing, looking at test data, deciding how our receiver reacted in a particular situation, finding out why it reacted that way, and making sure the developers corrected the problem.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then when you left that role, you said that it's accurate to characterize it, and you characterized it, as more of a marketing role; that was 96 through 98?

LOOMIS: Through 98, yes.

GERAGOS: Now, in 98 did you change your title?

LOOMIS: I believe in 98 my title was changed to Staff Scientist,

GERAGOS: And,

LOOMIS: at that time.

GERAGOS: as Staff Scientist, did you stay within the Component Technologies Division?

LOOMIS: Yes, I did.

GERAGOS: And as you stayed in the Component Technologies Division, did your job change from a marketing role to some other role?

LOOMIS: It changed...

GERAGOS: Let me ask you an easier question. Could the, did you remain in a role that was primarily marketing after the 98 change of title?

LOOMIS: Primarily I was in development, and so I was assisting software people in development in GPS-related areas. Our software people are primarily knowledgeable about software. And so as far as GPS functions and how they would be reflected as it came out of the receiver, that was my primary focus.

GERAGOS: Was that, did you consider that to be a marketing role?

LOOMIS: No. That was engineering. I was supporting the engineers at that time.

GERAGOS: And that's from 98 to what year?

LOOMIS: That would be until the present.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the role that you, you would talk to the people who were developing the software, and then you tried to figure out or troubleshoot, if you will, the GPS applications to the software?

LOOMIS: Yes. And, actually, for the past three years I've had a second major role, and that's doing development for what's called a dead-reckoning GPS system. Which is what goes into car navigation systems. But I still have a, that's my primary role. I have a secondary role of supporting all the engineers for the GPS function in component technologies.

GERAGOS: Now, at Trimble is there a division that does the actual, for lack of a better word, nuts and bolts type research or development of the GPS technology?

LOOMIS: Yes. Trimble has an organization, which we loosely call the labs. I believe it's called the, Advanced Development, I don't know what the title is at this time, at this year, but it's loosely called the labs. They'll,

GERAGOS: L-A-B?

LOOMIS: Hmm?

GERAGOS: L-A-B-S?

LOOMIS: Labs as in laboratories.

GERAGOS: Right.

LOOMIS: They develop core technologies or, and,

GERAGOS: And specifically who mans the labs that does the actual research and everyday dealing with, and scientific research in regards to GPS technology?

DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. I'm sorry. Relevance.

GERAGOS: I think that goes specifically as to whether or not he's the most qualified,

JUDGE: He can answer, if he has any supervision.

GERAGOS: Right. I was going to get to that. I want to see if he's in that unit as well.

JUDGE: You may answer.

GERAGOS: Are you in that unit?

LOOMIS: No, I'm not in that unit.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that unit is, specifically do you interface with them on a daily basis?

LOOMIS: I have in the past. We do not interface with them anymore because we're doing our own development inside of our CT now.

GERAGOS: Is it fair to say that that's the unit that does the heavy, cutting-edge work in GPS technology?

LOOMIS: Yes. In the core GPS function, again, if I can take a minute. The particular GPS technology that we're working with right now that's at issue in this case was developed in the Trimble labs. And so as that core technology moved into our, moved into product division, it's not a product as it comes out of the labs, it's technology; and as it becomes a product, I did interface with those people on a daily basis, yes.

GERAGOS: Now, when was it, you were not involved in the development of the technology that's here at issue in this case in your capacity; is that correct?

LOOMIS: The GPS core function has a long history at Trimble. At times I've participated in the development of that. The major part of the development was done by other people.

GERAGOS: The first,

LOOMIS: It dates back to the 1980s.

GERAGOS: I understand that, and there's always going to be, in any kind of science or technology there's some kind of lineage.

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about, I think you know what I'm specifically asking you.

LOOMIS: Yeah.

GERAGOS: You are not, for what we're dealing with here today, that was not what you developed. You would not, you're not going to take a proprietary interest in the technology that we're talking about here today; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: I did not develop it, but I believe, of the people that are still at Trimble, I understand it better than anybody else. I've read through more of the code; I've seen more of the actions of how it reacts with the environment. And so that's why I'm here today.

GERAGOS: Well, when you say the people still at Trimble, the answer for the question I'm asking you is specifically you were not the one who developed this; is that correct?

LOOMIS: I was not the one that developed it. I added small parts of the code, but in general the code came in a package to us packaged by somebody else.

GERAGOS: Who would you say were the person or persons that developed this technology?

LOOMIS: I can name two people that I would consider to be the developers.

GERAGOS: And who are they?

LOOMIS: Ardalan Heshmati. Want me to spell that? A-R-D-A-L-A-N, first name. Last name is H-E-S-H-M-A-T-I. And the second name would be Dominic Farmer. D-O-M-I-N-I-C. And Farmer. They were the two people that were in charge of putting together the software as a package and delivering it to organizations like my own that would productize it and test it as product. Now, even though they are the developers, I would say that my group has exercised it in more environments than they have as developers. And we've made small changes in it that were necessary for our environment. So I would say that in among my group I understand what had happened better than anybody else. So I would still hold myself to be the expert on how this device reacts, even though I did not develop it.

GERAGOS: Thank you, your Honor. I have no further questions on that. However,

JUDGE: Dr. Loomis, Mr. Geragos asked you if this was the first time you have qualified as an expert in the field of GPS and you started to say yes in court. Have you qualified as experts in any other field, not any other field, but any other forum as an expert in GPS?

LOOMIS: You know, I'm recognized in the GPS community as somebody that has had considerable expertise in differential GPS. So, you know, when you ask for expert, yes. You know, in the company I'm in, you know, when a difficult question of GPS comes up they do refer to me. And I consider this, myself to be one of the experts as Trimble in GPS. And specifically for low volume, or for low cost, high volume application like we're talking about right now, I consider myself to be the expert on GPS at Trimble. So, "expert" comes naturally.

GERAGOS: No, your Honor. I do want to be heard, if I could.

JUDGE: Do you have any redirect?

DISTASO: I really don't, your Honor.

JUDGE: What's your position?

GERAGOS: The, the financial motive of bias, based upon his own company and his, I think, candid admissions here, clearly for a Kelly-Frye hearing is inappropriate. The case law, and we went through this, Mr. Distaso and I, in the context of the mitochondrial DNA. And the argument there has been, or was, that you could have a laboratory that an FBI person, law enforcement, who has some kind of a inherent identification with, if you will. That, I think, is separate and apart from what the problem is here. Here we have a for profit corporation where the, as, as Dr. Loomis candidly admitted, if it has technology is accepted by this court and deemed to be admissible, he's going to seek, or not going to seek, but there's going to be financial advantages to him. That is hardly the kind of expert for the technology to, in terms of a Kelly-Daubert type analysis that I think would be sanctioned either by a state or a federal court. The kind of expert that they want to see is general acceptance in the scientific community,

JUDGE: We haven't gotten to that yet.

GERAGOS: I understand, but when we're talking about an expert whose going to be here and presumably is going to be leading us through the technology, and you have somebody whose got that inherent bias or motive, and that's been talked about in the case law repeatedly when you're doing these kinds of hearings, I don't think that this, this is the person that the prosecution can call in this instance. There's an inherent flaw that you can't get over in that they're always going to be pushing for that profit motive, as well they should; it's a capitalist society and a capitalistic system. The problem with it is in a capital case we shouldn't have capitalistic overtones as to whether or not something's going to come in here and be admissible or not admissible. There are, and I'm not going to do the prosecution's job for them, but I'm sure your Honor can think of three or four different categories of people that should be called, or could be called in this instance, to testify in order to try and get this done and not somebody who's intimately involved in the profit participation if this is admitted. Beyond that, and I could go on and ask the court, if it hasn't been amply demonstrated that that's a significant problem and issue that they can't overcome, I would ask to reopen the voir dire to get into some other areas that I consider to be also significant problems here in the, and it will become apparent as we get down the line based upon the discovery that's been provided. This machine specifically at every point was fatally flawed or there was some kind of a breakdown. So we also have the, the additional problem that,

JUDGE: Well, that's over and above whether or not he's qualified as an expert.

GERAGOS: Right; I understand.

JUDGE: And all they have to show is that the generic methodology is generally accepted and fundamentally valid. So the court has to be concerned in that regard. Whether or not it was done properly is an issue for a jury to decide when the time is appropriate. Do you want to respond to his argument that this man should be disqualified because he has a profit motive?

DISTASO: Well, I mean, your Honor, I'm going to keep it very brief. I mean without, quite frankly, that's a silly argument. In fact, I could, I could pay some professor from a university to come in and talk about GPS. But what better person to, to come in than the person who actually was involved in building the particular GPS receiver used in this case. So, you know, if the court needs me to go on more, I mean certainly he can bring that up, I guess, in front of the jury if he wants about Dr. Loomis's internal bias to their product, but the fact is I don't think anyone can dispute that I've met the burden of proof that Dr. Loomis is an expert in GPS technology.

GERAGOS: I would like to proceed further.

JUDGE: Okay.

GERAGOS: Dr. Loomis, the technology that you're here to testify about today, have you reviewed the items in connection with the actual application in this case?

LOOMIS: I have reviewed data sets that have been given to me by the prosecution in this case, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And the data sets are contained in the package that you have got also, I think, on the slide there to show?

LOOMIS: I, I'd have to rely that the copies are the same on the, on the prosecution.

DISTASO: You can ask him about the exhibit in front of him.

GERAGOS: And the, the items, do you have the exhibit in front of you, or Exhibit 1?

LOOMIS: Yeah.

GERAGOS: Are those the only data sets that you have relied on?

LOOMIS: I haven't checked through to see that these, these are, that these include all the data sets that I've looked at.

GERAGOS: Have you reviewed documentation from Orion Electronics Limited?

DISTASO: Your Honor, I'm going to object. This is,

JUDGE: We're getting beyond the scope, this goes, this goes to the question of his opinion on whether or not proper procedure was used in this case. This goes beyond qualifying him as an expert whether or not he's qualified to give an opinion.

GERAGOS: I understand,

JUDGE: I think it goes beyond that.

GERAGOS: if I was going to, I'm only trying to find out if in fact there's a, if he's reviewed the Orion stuff, not for the purposes of whether or not it was applied appropriately in this case, by the way.

JUDGE: Well, I don't think he has to testify he's reviewed the Orion stuff. The only thing he has to, right now I have to decide whether or not he's an expert in his field and if he's qualified to give testimony that the GPS system is reliable and generally accepted. That's all I want right now. Certainly you can cross-examine later on as to his opinion and whether or not the, the correct scientific procedures were used in this case. As I pointed out, we're only testing the fundamental validity of the methodology and not whether the, professionalism was applied, which is something, if we got to a jury, the jury would have to decide.

GERAGOS: Thank you. The, the documents that you brought to court today, specifically the, the exhibits that you brought, were those all provided by the prosecution?

LOOMIS: Yes. I didn't bring anything today. This was provided to me a few minutes ago.

GERAGOS: And the, the various applications of GPS you've been involved in since 1991 have been primarily for low cost consumer use; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: The various applications that GPS has been used by Trimble in terms of marketing function have always, post 91, been for low cost consumer use; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: Absolutely not. The major part of our, Trimble's revenue is adopted from the high value receivers.

GERAGOS: And who, who is the market for high value receivers?

LOOMIS: Primarily survey. So we're talking about professional electronic equipment that can measure positions within a few centimeters or less.

GERAGOS: And that type of technology is not what we're talking about here today,

LOOMIS: No.

GERAGOS: in the application; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: That is correct.

GERAGOS: And how much of your expertise or time post 1991 has been involved in the high value receiver area?

LOOMIS: Post 1991, I would say none.

GERAGOS: So post 19, would you also would it be your opinion that that is the more accurate of the technologies that Trimble produces?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: The high value?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Thank you. I have no further questions.

LOOMIS: Excuse me. The high volume. High value.

GERAGOS: High value.

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Yes, that's what I said.

GERAGOS: I have no further questions. I still do not think that, based upon the financial motive or bias that's inherent in this testimony, that having somebody testify that the technology of a company where he's a profit participant in it is, whether that's generally accepted I think is inherently flawed.

JUDGE: I think you've got to make the distinction then, Mr. Geragos, between his qualifications as an expert and what his motivations might be to testify. I think that's something you can pursue in front of the jury if the time comes that that's appropriate.

GERAGOS: I think the case, I think the case law,

JUDGE: I think it goes to the weight that the court wants to put on it. It may be you can disqualify all kinds of people for profit if they came in and testified as an expert in some field. The DNA, for example.

GERAGOS: Well, except that I think that the, I agree with you, you could disqualify virtually any witness on the basis of financial motive or bias,

JUDGE: Maybe he's getting paid to come here today for his time. You could make another argument that because of that he should be disqualified.

JUDGE: Submitted?

DISTASO: Dr. Loomis, can you tell us when did the GPS system come into existence?

LOOMIS: The GPS system came into existence in the late 1970s. It was beginning to be used commercially in the mid 1980s.

DISTASO: And if, just, I guess, brief background; it was originally designed for military purposes?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: And then you said what, in the, in the early or late 80s?

LOOMIS: In the mid 1980s the commercial GPS receivers were developed for the first time, and they were used primarily by long distance surveyors.

DISTASO: And when would you say that the GPS usage became very widespread?

LOOMIS: In the early 1990s the GPS constellation was completed, so it really did give 24 hour coverage worldwide.

DISTASO: Okay. When you stay the GPS constellation, are you talking about the constellation of satellites that are the backbone of this system?

LOOMIS: Yes. There were, that minimum number changed over the years, but right now we have about 27, 28 GPS satellites up. Even with just a few satellites up, some commercial operations found it useful to use GPS in the mid 1980s. In the early 1990s all satellites were up, and we got worldwide coverage for the first time, and it really began to take off at that time.

DISTASO: And can you briefly just take us through the GPS system. There's three kinds of components, or segments they talk about, correct?

LOOMIS: Right. There's the, the space segment is the actual satellite vehicles. And there's the control segment, and the control segment controls the satellite vehicles, controls their messages and maintains the operation. And control segment is operated by the Department of the Defense. And lastly, there's the user segment, and there's military users and non-military users. And these are basically the people that have their handheld GPS receivers.

DISTASO: Okay. The control segment that's controlled by the Department of Defense, are you aware of what their directives are regarding maintaining the system for civilian use?

LOOMIS: The, some time ago President Reagan did declare the system would be available for civilian use. There was a mandamus that was basically designed towards air safety at the time. I think it was after the Korean Airlines disaster. Since then, a lot of pressure has come to bear and it was decided some years ago and there was a presidential directive that the selective availability that was preventing users from getting full accuracy would eventually be removed when it was thought to be safe militarily.

DISTASO: And has that selected availability since been removed?

LOOMIS: It was removed in the year 2000. Now, the selective availability capability is still on the GPS satellite. So it can be turned on in case of national or international emergency.

DISTASO: Okay. So,

LOOMIS: But it has not been done since the year 2000.

GERAGOS: Objection. No foundation. Move to strike.

JUDGE: Sustained.

DISTASO: And you're aware of that, correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: All right. The, so in 2000 and 3, let me ask you your opinion. In 2000 and 3 was selective availability a problem for GPS receivers?

LOOMIS: Selective availability was off in 2003, so the accuracy was normal system accuracy.

GERAGOS: Objection. No foundation. Motion to strike.

JUDGE: I don't think so. That's an expert opinion. Overruled.

DISTASO: And can you take, just take us through how, let me ask you this, can you put a GPS receiver in a handheld device?

LOOMIS: Yes. GPS receivers have got quite small. Current state of the art for the low cost is about one square inch of electronics and a very small antenna, the size of perhaps a dollar.

DISTASO: So could I take my handheld device, walk outside the courtroom here, turn it on and get an accurate location of where I'm standing?

LOOMIS: Yes. Yes.

DISTASO: Okay.

LOOMIS: If you have a clear view of the sky.

DISTASO: Okay. That's what I wanted to get to. Can you tell me how the GPS system is providing me an accurate location as I'm standing, you know, outside the courthouse here?

LOOMIS: Yeah. The GPS satellites put out timing signals, and basically every millisecond it puts out a little timing signal. When a receiver receives multiple signals on these, usually it's four satellites or more, it will take one of the satellites, I'll simplify it. It will take one of the satellites to set the GPS receiver's time very, very accurately. And then, using the other time signals, it will measure the distance from the other satellites to the GPS receiver. Basically taking the time of transit of that signal, dividing by the speed of light, or multiplying by the speed of light, and you get the number of meters to the satellite. Part of the information that the satellite passes down to the GPS receiver is where it is. So if you know where your satellites are, you know the distance from your GPS receiver to that satellite, you can calculate the GPS receiver's position. Very simply.

DISTASO: Can those, can those units or receivers be produced so that they can record position information?

LOOMIS: Yes. We do have receivers that actually just record it and it can be downloaded at later times.

DISTASO: And can it do, or receiver, do products exist that allow you to not just record it but also look at like, like a screen, like a live track, I guess, of yourself, and you can kind of walk around and see where you're going, produce a track?

LOOMIS: Yes. So you actually have what we call a managing interface, a display and buttons. You can make a receiver like that. You can also make a receiver that's just attached to a communication device and just communicates where that is to some central tracking station, for instance. Those are our major business areas.

DISTASO: Okay. And Trimble produces those types of units?

LOOMIS: We, we produce the GPS units for system integrators to build the systems like this.

DISTASO: Okay.

LOOMIS: Other areas of the company also build complete systems that would include displays, buttons, tracking systems.

DISTASO: Let me ask you this: Can GPS units be placed in airplanes?

LOOMIS: Yes. There are many airplanes with GPS units in them currently.

DISTASO: Can they be placed in ships?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: Automobiles?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: We talked about handheld devices. And let me just run through a list of things and just tell me if you agree that, that, is GPS used throughout the world for military purposes?

LOOMIS: Yes, it is.

DISTASO: Just briefly, don't go into any great detail, but what types of things would the military use it,

LOOMIS: The military uses it to locate, so that soldiers can locate themselves on the field, and to locate the soldiers on the field. It uses it to guide bombs. It uses it in guide aircraft. Guide ships. It's generally anytime you want a position in the military, you pretty much use GPS.

DISTASO: And what about for aviation, navigation?

LOOMIS: Aviation GPS is used as a, as a, as one of the many components of, of positioning for an aircraft. It's not used as a single, what they call single source navigation.

DISTASO: Okay. And aircraft also uses radar and navigational,

LOOMIS: Landing systems, yes.

DISTASO: Okay. What about ships, do how do ships use GPS?

LOOMIS: The ships use GPS primarily for harbor entrance, for determining where they are, coming near shoals. So it's where they're interested in, in accurate distance relative to some, some feature. It's also used for fishing boats, to make sure that they're fishing right inside or outside the international boundaries.

DISTASO: What about, or do, is GPS used for agriculture purposes? And if so, how?

LOOMIS: That's a booming market for GPS right now. GPS is used to, to monitor the yields of fields. It's used to spread chemicals. It's used to actually control machine devices as they move through the fields.

DISTASO: And what about, well, you talked about surveying already. It's used for accurate surveying purposes?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: And what about just general recreation? Hikers, hunters, backpackers, that kind of thing?

LOOMIS: Yeah. There's a fair market right now for handheld GPS for people in the outdoors. Also for, you know, just as an add-on to a vehicle so that you can track, track a vehicle's progress.

DISTASO: I was going to ask you; that was my final one. Then, you also kind of already covered it a little bit, but GPS units are used in automobiles to, for what types of purposes?

LOOMIS: Well, some automobiles come with a navigation display where it actually displays the, the automobile's position on the map. And also can find routes. So you put in where you want to go and it will figure out a route for you. Typically the GPS in these systems is, is augmented by a map system and also by what's called a dead-reckoning system. So that most, yeah, I would say most systems actually have a small gyro in them. They're also attached to your speedometer. So if the GPS happens to go out, you can dead-reckoning using the instruments and continue to get positioning updates.

DISTASO: Okay. Regarding the, how does, how does the GPS receiver record position data?

LOOMIS: The GPS measures the range to the satellites. Then there's a navigation computer that, that converts these ranges through a mathematical process into a position on the earth's surface.

DISTASO: Is that displayed in latitude, longitude?

LOOMIS: And it can, it can be displayed either in latitude or longitude or a Cartesian X, Y, Z coordinate system. Latitude, longitude and altitude is the preferred.

DISTASO: Okay. And are there products available to take the latitude/longitude location and plot it on a map so you're not seeing your latitude and longitude, you're actually seeing where are you on the map?

LOOMIS: Yes, there are.

DISTASO: Okay. As a final question, just kind of on the basics, is it fair to say that GPS is used in pretty much any application where accurate positioning data is required?

LOOMIS: Yes. I will say that inside buildings, however, the GPS is just beginning to function inside buildings because the GPS signal is blocked by the satellites,

DISTASO: Okay.

LOOMIS:, and, as far as accuracy does get very shaky inside buildings.

DISTASO: And the reason for that is because the, the antenna of the GPS unit has to be able to see sky to pick the satellites out?

LOOMIS: It doesn't, it doesn't have to be able to see the sky. It's just like a cell phone antenna doesn't have to be able to see the cell phone tower, but put the signal is attenuated. In other words, the signal gets much lower so it requires much more processing to get the signal accurately.

DISTASO: Okay.

LOOMIS: Okay.

DISTASO: Would, would you consider GPS technology to be a new or novel type of scientific technology?

LOOMIS: I would not. I would consider it to be an accepted commercial technology at this time.

DISTASO: And do you have, what would you, at this point in time is there any kind of common product that you can compare it to?

LOOMIS: I'd like to compare it to the cell phone, actually. It's, it's gained acceptance in much the same rate as the cell phone has, and both of them are radio receivers. The cell phone is also a radio transmitter, which makes it one step up. But I would say that as far as its applicability, its known qualities, it's about the same as a cell phone.

DISTASO: And is GPS technology a, generally accepted in, in pretty much almost, well, not only accepted; is it accepted in all scientific communities?

GERAGOS: There would be an objection. There's no foundation. He's rendered an opinion.

JUDGE: Right. He's given his opinion as an expert.

LOOMIS: I would say that, that GPS is very well characterized and its, its known qualities or its qualities are known in all scientific communities. And it's an accepted method of positioning in scientific communities. Most scientific communities that require positioning in remote areas of the world will use GPS.

DISTASO: Is, is it accepted in, in pretty much, or are there any communities that don't accept GPS technology as a way to accurately position yourself on the earth?

LOOMIS: You know, it's interesting that there is one or two. In fact, one that I specifically know of. GPS not only gives positioning but it also gives accurate timing, and one of our markets is for GPS timing of cell phone towers. And there is one market that's very suspicious of the use of GPS, and that is a, markets in communist regimes are very distrustful of the Department of Defense in controlling the GPS. But that's the only, that's the only resistance in any market that I've seen in using GPS.

DISTASO: And is that resistance due to the technology? Or is it due to the Department of Defense controlling the technology?

LOOMIS: The latter.

GERAGOS: Objection. Calls for speculation.

JUDGE: Sustained. Sustained.

GERAGOS: Motion to strike.

JUDGE: Stricken.

DISTASO: Well, do you, do you have any,

LOOMIS: Actual,

GERAGOS: There's an objection.

JUDGE: I didn't hear.

DISTASO: Okay. Your Honor, that's fine. Your Honor, I could, I could keep going on. I'm going to, I'm, now intend to get into the applications of this particular case, so I want to make sure that we,

JUDGE: Mr. Geragos, you want to cross-examine now on the general acceptability of this GPS? Or do you want to wait until he testifies,

GERAGOS: I would rather wait and do my cross-examination all in one fell swoop.

JUDGE: All right. Go ahead, get into whether or not the correct acceptability of GPS,

DISTASO: Thank you, your Honor.

JUDGE:, present case.

DISTASO: Dr. Loomis, did you, were you provided some GPS track and data from Detective Skultety from the Modesto Police Department and Investigator Hatcher from the Santa Clara County District Attorney's office?

LOOMIS: Yes, I was.

DISTASO: And did you review that data?

LOOMIS: Yes, I did.

DISTASO: Let's, I think the easiest way to go through, if you go through, and I can't remember what we marked that binder as.

JUDGE: That was People's number 1 as a pretrial exhibit.

DISTASO: People's number 1. If you could just kind of hold that in front of you, we're going to display the slides on the screen so the judge can take a look at them. And they're in order of the binder that you have. So if we can just take a look at the first slide. Is that a, is that labeled under the S 10 tab in your binder?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: Okay. And if that screen's not perfectly clear, you can look at the one in front of you. Is that, that data depicted on the map, is that, well, can you describe for us what it is?

LOOMIS: This data seems to be the track of a GPS receiver. It seems to be continuous because the points are so close together.

DISTASO: And is this consistent with the type of data you see from a GPS track of an automobile?

LOOMIS: Yes, it is. Barring a couple of, couple of areas in this.

DISTASO: Okay. There's two points in this particular track that, that you found some issue with?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: And we'll get to them in a minute. Can you just point them out just for the court so the court knows the areas you're looking at?

JUDGE: I think, Dr. Loomis, there's a pointer there.

DISTASO: I'll get it for him.

LOOMIS: Thank you. In this area right here we found a sudden jump of the points exactly one degree west.

JUDGE: Can you describe that for the record, from where to where. Can you do that?

LOOMIS: There was at one section inside the town of Modesto, or City of Modesto, there was a jump of exactly one degree west for I believe in this file about, I'm not sure about this file. I think it was about six minutes, or a few seconds. And then it jumped back to where it had been.

DISTASO: Okay.

LOOMIS: That's this area right here.

GERAGOS: Judge, could I have just one moment? Because the exhibit I have is slightly different. As you can see on the screen, it looks like the portion that I have has been redacted when it's on the screen.

DISTASO: And –

JUDGE: You want to check with the DA?

GERAGOS: Yes. Could I have one moment to do that?

JUDGE: See if you guys are on the same page.

DISTASO: We are, your Honor. I can just tell the court; what happened when that went into the computer to get printed, for some reason it took out the lines. The one that the doctor has in front of him actually has data and stuff on it. This is just to show the court, really.

JUDGE: All right.

DISTASO: So –

GERAGOS: But that's not, here, I'll show you. Take a look. That's not all that's inaccurate.

DISTASO: Come over here.

GERAGOS: Well, I'll show you from here. Take a look. You've got this, which is redacted. You've got this, which is redacted. Then you've got the 1-8, 2003, which is not even in there. And he's talking about the jump, and it's –

JUDGE: That's not on your copy, Mr. Geragos?

GERAGOS: No. You can, if the court –

JUDGE: I'll take your word for it.

GERAGOS: Okay. I'll just tell you this portion right here (speaking behind the reporter to the audiovisual representative) –

JUDGE: Mr. Geragos, let me interrupt. Do you have a copy of this particular overlay?

DISTASO: I do, your Honor.

JUDGE: Can you let Mr. Geragos, or, Mr. Geragos, maybe make a copy of it for him.

GERAGOS: His has got the exact same problem. What's showing on the screen is different from what he's got and what I have.

JUDGE: Well, then, Mr. Distaso, maybe you can account for it through this witness.

DISTASO: I can, your Honor.

JUDGE: All right.

DISTASO: It's not a big deal.

JUDGE: Then account for it through this witness so we don't have Mr. Geragos confused. We don't want that to happen. Go ahead.

LOOMIS: I'm working off the same copy here.

DISTASO: You can, just taking a look at the binder in front of you, that, the jump that you have described, the one degree offset that's on the screen, is that covered up by the one oh eight two zero zero three?

LOOMIS: 55955 P M L --

DISTASO: Okay.

LOOMIS: minus eight point oh.

DISTASO: Okay. So in People's 1, the jump you're describing is actually underneath that particular entry?

LOOMIS: It's next to it.

JUDGE: Mr. Distaso, the binder is marked People's number one so we're going to get lost. Can you mark this as a different exhibit, like 1 A, 1 B, 1 C?

Because otherwise I just marked the binder and its contents as People's No. 1.

DISTASO: Oh, I think that's, that would be fine, your Honor.

GERAGOS: That's the problem.

JUDGE: Huh?

GERAGOS: That's the problem. We're referring to the binder, and what's up on the screen is not what's in the binder.

JUDGE: I know that. You made that clear, Mr. Geragos. So that's why he's going to have to clear that up with this witness, and I hope that clears it up for you. All I'm saying, so there's no confusion, if we're going to use this device here, we have to have it marked, whatever we're referring to, like 1 A, what it purports to represent, 1 B, what it purports to represent, 1 C.

DISTASO: That's fine, your Honor. I would like to. That's fine.

JUDGE: All right.

DISTASO: We can mark them that way right now.

JUDGE: No, when you use them we'll mark it. Yes, Mr. Geragos?

GERAGOS: I hate to be the fly in the ointment here.

JUDGE: That's okay, be the fly.

GERAGOS: They don't have that item reduced to something we can mark as an exhibit. It's just being shown up on the screen. That's the problem.

JUDGE: You're saying it's not in the binder.

GERAGOS: It's not in the binder.

DISTASO: Right.

GERAGOS: It's not in his binder. It's nowhere except on the screen.

JUDGE: Okay. Here's what we can do with this. Does this purport to be in the 1 A in your binder?

DISTASO: It does. And the, other than what I've had the witness describe, the abnormality, only one abnormality, it's very easily describable; other than that issue, it's the exact same.

GERAGOS: Except the very thing that he's talking about, the first question he asked and the exhibit that we have is a one degree jump, which indicates --

JUDGE: Okay. That's –

GERAGOS: , apparently is the problem. We don't have anything that shows that. Nothing.

JUDGE: Okay. I know that, but that's why we're having this witness, you're going to cross-examine him about that. But what he's holding in his hand, Mr. Geragos, so we'll be referring to it, is something we're going to be talking about called 1 A in the book. It's clear that 1 A does not accurately reflect what's up on the board, but that's the closest thing to it, and he's supposed to clear that up, and you can cross-examine him.

GERAGOS: But the problem is, Judge, we don't, we were talking about a virtual exhibit. As soon as he turns it off, there he goes. It's done. He –

DISTASO: Well, I'll –

GERAGOS: , turns it off, puts it away.

DISTASO: Well, it --

GERAGOS: Now it's back. It's a virtual exhibit.

DISTASO: If we can stop for one second, I'm going to fix the entire problem.

JUDGE: Okay.

DISTASO: I'm going to just turn the computer off and I'll display the binder sheets on the screen. So I'm going to display directly from the binder.

JUDGE: All right.

GERAGOS: The binder sheet, he still doesn't get it. The binder sheet does not have the area he's pointing to that shows the one degree jump. You can't talk about

something that's not on any exhibit.

JUDGE: Can I interrupt you guys for a second and ask you this: Is that particular item that you displayed on the board, can that be copied in some way?

Audiovisual Representative: I think what Mr. Distaso is saying is that we have an arm on the projector; we'll just project the binder in and of itself and forego the presentation with the electronic slides.

GERAGOS: Let me just explain –

DISTASO: Actually, Mr. Geragos, I understand the problem. If I can just fix this, Judge, I'll be able to work it –

GERAGOS: I'll be, I'll be --

JUDGE: Okay. I'll give you a recess and you fix it.

DISTASO: Okay.

JUDGE: All right.

DISTASO: All I need is two minutes.

JUDGE: Okay. Well, you can take five.

DISTASO: Okay. Dr. Loomis, if you take a look here, this is People's 1 A. Is this basically the same screen shot that you were reviewing earlier, correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: Okay. Except for it has some labels on there showing some time and, well, location information?

LOOMIS: Oh, yes. This, yes, this is the same screen shot I was looking at before.

DISTASO: Okay. If you look up there where we had the problem before we broke, there's a one degree offset, and that's actually covered by one of the labels showing the time of that incident; is that right?

LOOMIS: Yes. A small area dated in Modesto had an offset of one degree for a certain period of time, and then a return.

DISTASO: Okay.

LOOMIS: And that

Court Reporter: I'm sorry, what?

LOOMIS: That was the first problem.

DISTASO: And then the second problem that you identified on this particular track was what?

LOOMIS: In this area, which is just north of Fresno, the GPS actually was giving incorrect positions for a period of time.

JUDGE: Giving correct or incorrect?

LOOMIS: Incorrect positions.

JUDGE: Incorrect. And where was that on the diagram?

LOOMIS: There's an eastward travel here and then a southward travel of a few tens of miles.

JUDGE: And it's in what, I see it on the diagram. Can you pinpoint it by a city or town or something?

LOOMIS: Yes. It starts just north of Fresno.

JUDGE: Okay. That's what I mean.

DISTASO: And how long was the one degree offset? How long did that problem take to correct itself?

LOOMIS: On this particular, you know, I'm not sure on this particular.

DISTASO: Okay.

LOOMIS: I'd have to see a detail.

DISTASO: Let me show you People's 1 QQ.

LOOMIS: Let me see the tag here.

DISTASO: That's on 1 QQ.

LOOMIS: Okay. These are the same tags. On this particular section it took about six minutes to return to accurate reporting of the positioning.

DISTASO: And, okay. So in this particular track on, on this, this was on 1-8, according to the diagram. On 1-8 there there was a one degree offset of, of location information that took about six minutes to correct itself?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: And do you know why the unit caused this one degree of offset for six minutes?

LOOMIS: I've talked to the representative at Orion and I've looked at the data, and, and the Orion representative mentioned that,

GERAGOS: There would be an objection.

JUDGE: That would be hearsay. Based upon your investigation?

LOOMIS: Based upon my investigation.

JUDGE: Opinion of what caused that aberration or whatever?

LOOMIS: Yes. I can say that at the beginning of this aberration our receiver put out an unusual position. The message that was being used at this time was degrees and minutes. This particular receiver has a behavior that's since been changed. But if it's just below an even degree, in this case it was within a few feet of the longitude line of a hundred and 21, it will put out a rather unusual message. So instead of putting out 121 and zero minutes, it will put out 120 and 60 minutes. And this only happens within about three meet feet of the longitude line.

DISTASO: And this problem has since been corrected in subsequent use?

LOOMIS: Our receivers, our receivers no longer put out messages like that, and that message occurred right at the start here, as I noticed it was at an even longitude line.

DISTASO: So in this particular instance for this thing, it, it gave an incorrect position data for six minutes?

LOOMIS: The output of the,

GERAGOS: Objection. That's leading and suggestive, and it assumes facts not in evidence.

JUDGE: Well, I think he just testified it was incorrect for six minutes. Isn't that what you just said?

LOOMIS: Yes.

JUDGE: Okay. Overruled.

DISTASO: And after, after the six minute period, what happened?

LOOMIS: After the six minute period, it returned to a location in Modesto that looked like a reasonable location. It was on a city street and was consistent with all the other data.

DISTASO: And when you were reviewing these tracks, what kind of, what kinds of things do you look for to determine a track's accuracy?

LOOMIS: To determine a track's accuracy I'm looking for consistency with other data. So given any one point, I'm looking at consistency before that, consistency after that, and consistency with the location on a map.

DISTASO: Okay. So in this particular instance did you see consistency prior to this one degree offset?

LOOMIS: In the points recorded before this point? Yes, there was consistency there.

DISTASO: And in the points recorded after this six minute period did you see consistency?

LOOMIS: After this point where we returned to Modesto there was consistency again.

DISTASO: Was there anything about this one degree offset problem for six minutes that leads you to, that, or what is your opinion as to how this six minute problem impacts the entire track for that particular day?

LOOMIS: I, on the strictest terms I would not use this data right here, because I feel it's not an accurate representation of the position fix that was generated inside the receiver. In other words, that position fix was not communicated properly to the recording device.

DISTASO: Okay. So for six minutes the data was inaccurate?

GERAGOS: Objection. Misstates the evidence.

JUDGE: I think he just said that.

LOOMIS: I said inaccurate.

DISTASO: Okay. And, but if you, if you remove that six minute piece of the data, what is your opinion as to the remainder of the data, other than the Fresno problem which we'll talk about next?

LOOMIS: I've examined the remainder of the data in the Modesto area, and it was consistent with itself both before, points before and after each point, and also consistent with the street map. So I would say that it's accurate.

DISTASO: Did you examine the data from this particular, from this particular track that went to a location at the Berkeley Marina?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: Okay. I'll show you a slide there for that. And this is People's, let me...People's 1 M?

JUDGE: 1 M. Okay.

DISTASO: Do you, do you see the date, data, did you review the data that's presented there in People's 1 M?

LOOMIS: Yes, I have reviewed this data.

DISTASO: And what is your opinion regarding the validity of this particular data at the Berkeley Marina?

LOOMIS: My opinion is that this data is valid and was an accurate set of GPS positions.

DISTASO: Okay. Just so the court's aware of what the little, what are the little dots mean, the little red dots?

LOOMIS: The little dots are a position fix that's communicated from the receiver to the tracking device or tracking station. The GPS receiver actually generates a fix every second. However, the system can be set up to only report those every four or five seconds, or ten seconds. That's a choice that the user has. Internally, however, a fix is generated every second, if the GPS is available.

DISTASO: Let me show you just quickly 1 Q. The, is that, this, is this a photograph basically of half of the Berkeley Marina that we just saw in People's 1 M?

LOOMIS: I've been told this.

DISTASO: Oh, okay. Well, let me, yeah, don't worry about the location then. Is this, is the data projected, the GPS data projected on People's 1 Q, is that, do you believe that data is accurate?

LOOMIS: I believe the data is accurate, yes.

DISTASO: Okay. And again, let me show you, whoops. Thanks. People's 1 S. Is that, is this data that's projected in People's 1 S, don't worry about the location again, in your opinion is that data accurate?

GERAGOS: Objection. There's no foundation if he's told not to worry about the location.

DISTASO:: Well, did you review the data,

JUDGE: Let me rule on it. Sustained.

DISTASO: I'm sorry. Did you review the data for the, a track from Modesto to the Berkeley Marina on January 9 of 2003?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: And is this the data that you reviewed?

LOOMIS: And this is the data that I reviewed.

DISTASO: And in your opinion was that data accurate?

LOOMIS: That data was accurate in this particular area, yes.

DISTASO: Okay.

JUDGE: Dr. Loomis, in examining all these records, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the correct scientific procedures were used in this case?

LOOMIS: Yes, I do. I think correct scientific procedures were used in this case and the devices were used to their full capability.

JUDGE: Okay.

DISTASO: Just, I'm going to go through just very quickly, Doctor. Let me just show you, this is one of the areas where you talked about in Fresno that there was a particular problem. Can you just briefly tell the court about that and what your opinion is as to that problem?

LOOMIS: Yes, I can. When I first saw this problem I was a little bit, a little bit amazed. And I haven't seen a problem like this in about ten or 11 years. What happened here is, is there was very clear consistency with the data, the maps, GPS data before and after and until a certain point here. And at that point the data became inconsistency with the maps, inconsistency with the vehicle's ability. It was obviously moving much too fast.

JUDGE: Okay. Just for the record, what's the number of that?

GERAGOS: 1 double E.

JUDGE: What is it?

GERAGOS: 1 double E.

DISTASO: Double E.

JUDGE: Double E.

LOOMIS: 1 EE.

DISTASO: And so,

JUDGE: Read the answer back because I missed it. (The record was read back by the reporter)

JUDGE: What was moving much too fast?

LOOMIS: The GPS position phases were moving too fast for the vehicle.

DISTASO: So that in your opinion so that, this data that we're seeing on 1 double E where it spikes down into a V is not accurate GPS data? Peter Loomis That is correct.

DISTASO: And how long did this particular behavior or problem manifest itself?

LOOMIS: It, the behavior started at a certain period of time, and there's a filter here, so the filter responds to that data in rather slow motion. And the, the problem, the effect on the GPS receiver was clearly ended at about this point where it moved to the south, and it also slowly recovered.

JUDGE: When you say "this point" can you identify it, Mr. Distaso?

LOOMIS: This point is the southernmost point of the, southernmost point of the excursion.

JUDGE: All right. And that's identified by the red dots?

LOOMIS: Identified by the red dots. Actually in terms of the GPS receiver I think it would last about one second more.

JUDGE: Okay.

LOOMIS: I looked at it closely; it seemed like it lasted about one second beyond that, because remember, the GPS position is being updated every second, even if it's not being communicated. Once a problem like that happens, and the unit returns to normal, the signal problem is removed, it, it does not return very quickly. And so this data was damaged for a considerable period of time after that. So I believe the outage here is fairly well described. Yes. 1:30:26 is when I decided that it, it started, and I probably would not use the data for, trying to think here. Somewhere around 200 seconds after that.

DISTASO: Okay. So,

LOOMIS: For an error this size, that error would, would be mitigated by the filtering process within about 200 seconds to about the accuracy of the system.

DISTASO: Okay. So for this particular event, you would say the data, you would not rely on the GPS data from 1:30:26 p.m. and then for 200 seconds thereafter?

LOOMIS: 200 seconds after this peak right here.

DISTASO: Okay.

LOOMIS: In other words, after the, after the problem was removed. The problem occurred in GPS at this time. The problem was removed; it took a very long time to settle back, so 200 seconds after the problem was removed.

DISTASO: Okay. So of this event we're talking a total time frame of, how, how long was the data inaccurate, in your opinion?

LOOMIS: I believe it was, it was inaccurate in my opinion for about 80 seconds before and about a hundred seconds after. But I still would not use the data for another hundred seconds, to allow the effects to settle down.

DISTASO: Okay. So we're talking about a total of maybe 300 seconds or so. Five minutes, I guess?

LOOMIS: Yeah

DISTASO: And again, if you, if you just take that piece of data out and remove it, what is your opinion regarding the remainder of the data for that particular track?

LOOMIS: The remainder of the data on this particular track, again, is very consistent with the GPS, GPS before, GPS after. It's very consistent with the roads, it's consistent with vehicle dynamics. I would say it's very valid. It's valid, period.

DISTASO: Okay. Let me show you another, another track on the 26th. And the, did you review,

JUDGE: What's the number?

DISTASO: This is 1 UU.

JUDGE: 1 UU. Okay.

DISTASO: And is this a track, Dr. Loomis, that you reviewed?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: And is this, in your opinion was this particular track, does this have valid data?

LOOMIS: I believe this track is valid data. No, it, there was one other track that had one other point that was, that was bad in it.

DISTASO: Okay. Let me, I'll get to that in a minute.

LOOMIS: But that's not this one. The reason I mention it is because it's such a small point that it's very hard to see.

DISTASO: Okay. I'll show you that particular point in a minute.

LOOMIS: Yes. This particular plot is completely validated.

DISTASO: And, again, this is 1 BBB.

JUDGE: Triple B?

DISTASO: Triple B. And this is a blow-up of the track we just looked at. If you look at this data, Dr. Loomis, of the Berkeley Marina there, do you, does that show valid GPS data, in your opinion?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: Okay. Okay. Let me show you 1 Triple J. And you were talking about one additional track you looked at with a point that also had an offset problem. Do you see it there on 1 Triple J?

LOOMIS: Yes. This one's clearly marked here.

DISTASO: Okay.

LOOMIS: Again, when I analyzed this data very carefully, I found that the, that there was points in Modesto, it jumped to a point exactly one degree west of Modesto, and at the time it jumped, again we were exactly on the longitude line of 121 degrees zero minutes.

DISTASO: And how long did it take for the unit to correct itself on this particular problem?

LOOMIS: This was just a very few seconds. Just a handful of seconds.

DISTASO: So of the tracks we've talked about where the unit had some issues, it corrected itself in six minutes on the first offset; is that right?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: And then approximately five minutes on the second offset? Or the Fresno, I'm sorry, the Fresno --

LOOMIS: Oh, yes.

DISTASO: , track?

LOOMIS: On the Fresno, where the GPS fixed itself, was inaccurate about five minutes.

DISTASO: Okay. And then on this particular one we're looking at now, which is 1 Triple J, this is just a few seconds?

LOOMIS: A few seconds.

DISTASO: Other than this one offset on 1 Triple J, was the rest of the information in this particular track valid GPS data?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: Okay. Showing you 1 TTT,

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: Showing you 1 TTT of that, it's a blow-up of the Berkeley Marina area, do you see the GPS track on that exhibit?

LOOMIS: Yes. It's a little hard to see because the red dots are overlaid on the red freeway. I can see them clearly. I can see the red dots in detail here.

DISTASO: Okay. Was that, was this portion of the track accurate data?

LOOMIS: Yes, it was.

DISTASO: Okay. Okay, Doctor. Thank you. You can take your seat again. I have just a couple more questions. The, regarding GPS and its, and its, the data and how it works, let me briefly for the court, can you tell the court just what are some issues that can cause some of these problems that we've talked about this morning?

LOOMIS: Yeah. GPS has a few issues. One is that when you can't see the satellites you can't make a fix. The GPS signals is pretty much you have to be able to see the satellite. It can go through trees. The signal's weakened slightly going through trees. However, a signal cannot go through a building. And in urban areas, and so in urban areas we have what we call an urban canyon environment, or multi-path environment. It's difficult to work in because the signal, as it's received by the antenna, doesn't necessarily come through the building but is bounced off a series of buildings that come between the antennae. Every time it gets bounced off it gets weakened a little bit, but we can still receive it. The difficulty is that we're measuring the range to the satellite, and the range is actually not a direct range anymore. It's one that's been bounced off, and it adds quite a few meters to the range. So when we're driving in areas like Montgomery Street in San Francisco, or Market near the Emporium, between the Emporium and the Ferry Building, we have very high buildings, we'll actually get GPS fixes in that area but they can be many hundreds of meters off. And that's one of the things that I look for is whether you're going through urban areas of that type.

DISTASO: And the, when you looked at the marina areas on these particular maps, did you see any of those issues that you've talked about?

LOOMIS: No, I didn't. And occasionally you'll find buildings in that area, say in Emeryville there's some tall buildings, but in this particular case the vehicle moved past them very quickly. And a vehicle in motion tends actually to be more accurate in GPS than a vehicle that's standing. So these multi-path problems, if they're not persistent, tend to disappear very quickly out of the system.

DISTASO: Is the accuracy of the maps that you're plotting the data on important?

LOOMIS: Yes. And, in fact, that's a major problem is here I'm looking for consistency of the GPS with the maps. GPS, as a matter of fact, differential GPS is being used to update maps continuously. And some of the maps that are currently out in public right now are old and are not really calibrated with, with the World Datum Standard. And as the maps are being renewed, they're being brought into line with GPS. GPS is the standard for making maps today.

DISTASO: When, when you plot some of this data on the, like some of the exhibits that I showed you on the over, aerial photography, does that help confirm the, the accuracy of the data in your opinion?

LOOMIS: Yes. Well, it depends upon the quality of the aerial photography data. If that data has been properly calibrated to the World Datum, that's our latitude and longitude coordinate system, the datum, then it, it, again, my, my point is that we have to, that there can be a quality issue also with the area of programetry. Your question again? I'm sorry.

DISTASO: No, no, no. No problem. So basically the accuracy of the plots are, are, or the accuracy of the, of the data is dependent on the accuracy of the maps and/or the instrument you're going to put the data on?

LOOMIS: If the, the raw data coming out of the GPS fix is accurate, to, to the system level, which is a few meters, when we put it down on the map, you can't see the consistency of those GPS fixes with the streets unless the map is also accurate. So if you're trying to say he was on a certain street, the map better be accurate to GPS quality also.

DISTASO: And I can't remember if you've answered this, just tell me, but did I, did I have you explain what your opinion was regarding the one degree of offset problem, to your satisfaction?

LOOMIS: I, what I described it was, was the trigger that caused the problem. In other words, the known behavior of my receiver that caused the problem, as described in, in my conversation with Orion, but I would have to leave the, the problem description to Orion because it did not, it is not something that came out of my receiver directly.

DISTASO: And finally, the, are you familiar with the Trimble Lassen S K 2, I think it's S K 2, yes, the S K 2 receiver?

LOOMIS: I'm very familiar with that problem.

DISTASO: In fact, you are I think involved in its manufacture?

LOOMIS: Not manufacture. Development.

DISTASO: Okay. And is that a, a small GPS receiver that's designed for automobile use?

LOOMIS: Exactly. It's designed for automobile use. It's also sold out on the market for people that want a receiver that performs like that.

GERAGOS: If I could ask Doctor Loomis, the GPS materials that you have in front of you which were in the Exhibit Book 1, do you still have that in front of you? Do you know where these materials came from?

LOOMIS: I have been told that they have been generated by a device made by Orion.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you, you were told that by Mr. Distaso; is that correct?

LOOMIS: And Orion also.

GERAGOS: Who did you talk to at Orion?

LOOMIS: I don't have my notes with me. There were three people on the phone call.

GERAGOS: Who was on the telephone call?

LOOMIS: I,

GERAGOS: Do you know a gentleman, if I would tell you there is a gentleman at Orion by name of Michael Peach, would that be one of the people?

LOOMIS: Yes. Michael Peach was on the phone call. And this was also at the same phone call Mr. Distaso was on it. Mr. Hatcher. And we phoned Orion, who is on the east coast. Michael Peach was there.

GERAGOS: When was the phone call made?

LOOMIS: I can't recall the exact date. It was a couple of months ago, I believe.

GERAGOS: And the subject matter of the phone call?

LOOMIS: The subject matter of the phone call was these particular data sets.

GERAGOS: When you say these particular data sets, were you talking about a generation of material for one specific day, or a succession of days?

LOOMIS: There were, in fact, in one of the data sets this morning, we talked about two specific behaviors of the system. Two specific anomalies from the data. And we discussed those two particular anomalies with Orion in detail.

GERAGOS: Now, when you are talking about these two specific anomalies, what you are talking about is that there is information that was generated that didn't make sense when you looked at it; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: You would see a car or a tracking device, but it's one location, and then within seconds, it's, you said one degree, how far?

LOOMIS: 60 miles.

GERAGOS: 60 some odd miles is what one degree represents, isn't it?

LOOMIS: Yes, approximately.

GERAGOS: You would see a jumping of approximately 60 miles in a matter of seconds; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, on 1-A, you have that in front of you?

LOOMIS: Yes, I do.

GERAGOS: Now, you were told that this material was produced by Orion, but this is not something that you are familiar with; is that correct? You have never, before you testified today, this is not a document, nor is it a tracking type device, or a product of a tracking type device that you or your company, Trimble, produces; is that correct?

DISTASO: Objection, your Honor, it's compound.

GERAGOS: I'll clean it up.  Does Trimble produce this kind of material that you are looking at in 1-A?

LOOMIS: We do produce this kind of material, yes, from some of our tracking devices.

GERAGOS: Is this yours?

LOOMIS: This is not ours.

GERAGOS: And the method by which the tracking, which tracking device was actually used in this specific case of the material that was generated in 1-A?

LOOMIS: Okay. The tracking device, the tracking system was an Orion system. I have been told by the Orion people that that particular system uses a GPS component made by my division called the Lassen SK8 II.

GERAGOS: Did you have a discussion as to how the device was installed?

LOOMIS: No.

GERAGOS: Did you have a discussion as to where the device was installed?

LOOMIS: Just that it was in a, was not, the antenna was not necessarily in clear view of the sky. That was all that I knew.

GERAGOS: Okay. When you say the antenna was not in clear view of the sky means it was not traditionally where you would consider to be the optimum place to place the antenna; is that correct?

LOOMIS: That's correct, yes.

GERAGOS: And the reason that you want an antenna to be placed in clear view of the sky is because the antenna and the signal are trying to capture at intervals satellites as they are circling the earth; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Well, the tracking is done continuously. The tracking is done continuously. If the antenna is in clear view of the sky, it gets the strongest possible signal. So as you go underneath the trees, for instance, because the trees weaken the signal also, you still have enough signal to do a track.

GERAGOS: Well, the signal moves from one satellite to another; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: No. No. All satellites are broadcasting simultaneously. So we simultaneously track all the satellites.

GERAGOS: Let's ask it a different way. The tracking device tries to capture from various satellites, does it not, various satellite signals in sequential order, or in some kind of sequential order; is that correct?

LOOMIS: It's not sequential. It's parallel.

GERAGOS: Doesn't it, parallel order. It's still capturing from various satellites; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: Well, it's, yes, but it's, there is nothing sequential about it. It actually captures all the satellites at once.

GERAGOS: Well, if it has all of the satellites at once, what happens to a satellite that's no longer within clear view of the horizon?

LOOMIS: All the satellites that are in clear view. Yes, I understand.

GERAGOS: So that's how many satellites. What is there, about 16 satellites that are used for GPS purposes?

LOOMIS: There is about 28 satellites up right now. The number goes up or down, as a satellite dies, has to be replaced.

GERAGOS: For this particular device that was used, the one that you just described by Orion, what satellite does it lock on to? What satellites?

LOOMIS: Okay. That's a good question. And so at any one time, our device calculates which,

GERAGOS: I'm not talking about your device. I'm asking about Orion's device.

LOOMIS: Orion uses our device. Orion GPS function is our board, so I can describe the GPS function of that system.

GERAGOS: Do you know if the Sky Track system that is used by DOJ is also a Trimble produced device?

LOOMIS: No, at this moment I don't.

GERAGOS: You do not know?

LOOMIS: I do not know.

GERAGOS: Now, the device that you say that Orion uses, does that have, that's produced exclusively by Trimble?

LOOMIS: The Lassen SK8 II is a Trimble brand name. It's produced by Trimble.

GERAGOS: Now, when you talked to Michael Peach, when were you aware of a document that I'd like to mark, if I could, defense,

JUDGE: Defendant's B.

GERAGOS: B, Pretrial Exhibit B, which I had already attached to the motion itself, your Honor, for convenience sake. I'd like to just show it to the to the witness.

JUDGE: You can lodge it with the Court. You just pull it off of your, I said if you are going to lodge it with the court as an exhibit, maybe detach it from that so she can log it.

GERAGOS: I did that.

JUDGE: You can just hand it.

GERAGOS: I'll have her mark it. Ask you to take a look at that. Have you seen this letter?

LOOMIS: We'll say I have seen two letters from Orion. I just wanted to make sure this is the one I have seen.

GERAGOS: I'm familiar with the same two letters. One is by Michael Peach, the other by a supervisor?

LOOMIS: Okay. This letter looks very familiar, so I would say I have seen this.

GERAGOS: I have got another letter I'm going to ask the Court to mark.

JUDGE: Next in order. That's C.

GERAGOS: I'm going to show you what I have marked as C. Do you recognize that?

LOOMIS: Yes, I do. And can I go back do a previous question? You asked what date the telephone conversation was.

GERAGOS: Sure.

LOOMIS: This letter was written after our telephone conversation took place.

JUDGE: Is that B or C?

LOOMIS: Excuse me. C refers to our telephone conversation of January 12th 2004. So that would be the date that I talked with Orion.

GERAGOS: Now, in these two letters, it is your understanding that there was a problem or problems that had arisen with, in regards to the GPS data that had been, the data sets that had been produced by the tracker in this case?

LOOMIS: There were two issues that we discussed. One issue was this one degree offset, and that's not typical of any GPS function I know of. So I believe that is a mistranslation of the outputs of the, of our receiver. And I mention that there is a trigger event, one particular event when you are within three feet of a longitude line, we put out an odd message which is not being translated by Orion.

GERAGOS: Well, if I could just break that down for a second.

LOOMIS: That is the first one. The second,

GERAGOS: Just one at a time. The first one you said that there was something that you had not, you hadn't seen it before; is that correct? Not seen this anomaly, this, whatever it was that the tracking device was doing?

LOOMIS: Okay. The first issue, and I'd have to see exactly what the reference was that I made.

GERAGOS: Well, if,

JUDGE: Can we read it back? There were two issues that would be discussed.

GERAGOS: Does that refresh your recollection?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: I'm talking about this one degree, 60 or 69 mile movement that took place in some of the data sets. You have got that in your mind?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, that is something that you have not seen before; is that correct?

LOOMIS: This is the first time I had seen it.

GERAGOS: Is it also a fair statement that that V-shaped item that was on the, by the Fresno location, which was either 1-QQ or 1-MM, that you also stated you hadn't seen anything like that in 10 or 11 years; is that correct?

LOOMIS: That's right.

GERAGOS: Now, the, when Orion was trying to investigate what was going on with these tracking devices, they characterized them that the, that they found that the GPS data, or these anomalies are typical of that taken from a vehicle with a hidden GPS antenna; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: That's what they said.

GERAGOS: And they said, unfortunately, that creates concerns regarding some strange occurrences with the GPS data on some selected tracks; isn't that what they say also?

LOOMIS: That was in the letter, yes.

GERAGOS: Do you agree with the fact that the hidden GPS antenna will produce strange occurrences?

LOOMIS: Yes, it can produce strange occurrences.

GERAGOS: In fact, Orion, who is the ultimate retailer of this product, that was their opinion as of July 9th of 2003 as to a possible explanation for why there were strange occurrences in the data set; isn't that right?

LOOMIS: You know, I would believe the only strange occurrence, you are asking for my interpretation. I didn't receive the letter.

GERAGOS: Okay. Let me, just so we don't go too far afield, I'm trying to read you directly from the letter.

LOOMIS: Okay.

GERAGOS: As to what,

JUDGE: C document?

GERAGOS: I'm looking right now at B, which is the first letter, which was,

LOOMIS: I don't have a copy of B, but I remember,

JUDGE: He doesn't have a copy.

GERAGOS: July 9th, which was the first letter which was authored by Michael Peach. It was Orion, as a result of Orion's investigation, they believe these strange occurrences were a result of the hidden GPS antenna. Isn't that a fair statement?

LOOMIS: You know, I'd have to see the context. I'm just thinking about my interpretation of the facts right now. There is one strange occurrence that may be due,

JUDGE: Excuse me, doctor. I think he's asking what you, what the position was Orion, what Orion's position is.

GERAGOS: Orion you were on a phone call with?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: With two people there Orion, one of whom was Michael Peach, correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: The other would have been Hugh Roddis was the,

LOOMIS: Telephone call, yes.

GERAGOS: You know Hugh Roddis; is that correct?

LOOMIS: I have talked to him on the phone.

GERAGOS: You recognize the voice, you knew it to be Hugh Roddis?

LOOMIS: He said he was Hugh Roddis.

GERAGOS: Talking to him on the phone call, he said this is Hugh Roddis?

LOOMIS: I don't think you would want,

GERAGOS: One of the reasons for the telephone call is to discuss what was perceived as strange occurrences from the data regarding the GPS tracking device?

LOOMIS: Yes, that's true.

GERAGOS: And they said, and I quote, we feel that some of these occurrences could have been related to GPS antenna placement or interference, correct?

DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. That misstates the context of the conversation. If counsel's question is did they write this letter and said that, I'd have no objection. But that misstates the context of the conversation.

JUDGE: Are you saying maybe that wasn't part of the conversation, it was part of the,

DISTASO: That's correct.

JUDGE: Do you recall what Mr. Geragos asked, that was part of your conversation with representatives from Orion where they gave an explanation as to this aberration, whatever you call it, abnormality?

JUDGE: Do you recall that at all, doctor, or not?

LOOMIS: You know, I'd have to say I don't accurately recall that they, again, stated this during the telephone call.

GERAGOS: Well, do you remember the, did I show you C?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Which is a letter addressed to Mr. Distaso, and it says with reference to our telephone conversation of January 12th, and the letter written to Rudy Skultety on July 9th, since we have written, we have undertaken further investigations; does that refresh your recollection as to what it was?

LOOMIS: Yes. This is a reference to the conversation that I had with them.

GERAGOS: Doesn't this letter, which is C, which is January of this year, is it not?

LOOMIS: Un-hun.

GERAGOS: You have to say yes or no.

LOOMIS: Oh, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Doesn't that reference the July 9th letter, and doesn't it reference the fact that they are going back over the same strange occurrences in trying to come up with an explanation for what happened?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And their reference is the same, I'll get you the other letters as well. It's the same set, or data sets, that are being referenced, and basically they are trying to figure out, we're trying to come up with explanations as to what happened; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: I mean, then there is something that says Bitmap 1 Track Name, right?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Bitmap 3 Track Name?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: S-10? Bitmap 2 Track Name: Rover, and Bitmap 4, Bitmap 4 Track Name: S-10, correct?

LOOMIS: Okay. Mind if I take a look at this for a second?

GERAGOS: Sure. And I would assume that when they are saying bitmap, and there is an appellation right next to it, Rover, would refer to the kind of car, Dakota would refer to the kind of car, S-10 would refer to the type of car, correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: So the two letters both reference these same bitmap sets, data sets, and an ongoing discussion between Orion, the DA's office, and others, eventually leading you to what was going on with these data sets?

LOOMIS: My problem with trying to resolve this is seeing that creates some concern is the strange occurrences when the GPS indicated on selected tracks, and you ascribe all of those strange occurrences to the location of the antenna, I believe one, only one of these occurrences could be ascribed to the location of the antenna. If we,

GERAGOS: Hold on, let's break that down.

DISTASO: Objection, your Honor.

JUDGE: Let him finish his answer, then you can ask another question.

LOOMIS: If we look at the second, which is after I have discussed the issues with them, and they have, you know, we have clarified some issues. There are two issues here which is the one degree jump which they do ascribe to that antenna location. Answering your question, did the vehicle have good antenna location, and possible problems. Another one they said that the track is not on the road because the maps are bad. And, again, we have talked about that this morning. The fourth one, period of just over two minutes where the track diverged creates also long diversions from the actual track. And that, yes, I can ascribe to position, the antenna location.

GERAGOS: The placement?

LOOMIS: The placement of the antenna, yes.

GERAGOS: And the fact of the matter is, is that when they first were directed to these data sets, and the strange occurrences of the data sets, their primary explanation for why this was occurring was the covert placement of the antenna; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: That's what I read. That letter from July, which was before I got involved, yes.

GERAGOS: There is a phone call where you are involved, and you are trying to give your input as to what the issues are. And what's your position, explanations aren't that correct?

LOOMIS: That is correct.

GERAGOS: Now, they also said that, on the other hand, that they thought originally, at least in July of 2003, that this is a problem that is occasionally seen, and is worse in over-the-air downloads; is that correct?

LOOMIS: They have made that statement, yes.

GERAGOS: What is an over-the-air download?

LOOMIS: I can give you the information that's been given to me by Orion. They have two modes of recording data. One is to record the data and store it in the device, in RAM inside the device. And then later on the device is recovered, and it's downloaded into a computer. The second method which is not used on most, or all, of these tracks is to attach the device directly to a communication system and communicate in real time that data to a tracking station.

GERAGOS: Now, in this case, did they use the first method or the second method?

LOOMIS: My understanding is, in most or all of these tracks, they used the second method, which would be the over-the-air download.

GERAGOS: Right. And if there is an over-the-air download, they said that when crossing, their initial explanation is that when you cross a line of latitude or longitude, the GPS receiver occasionally does not update all decimal places of the longitude, correct? That's what they said?

LOOMIS: That's what they said, yes.

GERAGOS: You disagree with that?

LOOMIS: I disagree with --

GERAGOS: Excuse me again. One more time. Does not update all the decimal places of the longitude?

LOOMIS: I would disagree. We do put out,

GERAGOS: Let me read the next sentence. I think that will give it more context. If the timing is such that this happens when a fix is taken, one fix exactly one degree off. And you disagree with that analysis of what happened; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: Our GPS fix that we put out is not one degree off. However, it's being interpreted by Orion as being one degree off.

GERAGOS: Right. They have interpreted it, in your opinion, Orion is interpreting that information incorrectly.

LOOMIS: Yes. But we're putting, on that particular receiver, there was a behavior where we put out this information in a non-standard form. And so the question

is, can I expect Orion to translate that? And I would hope they could. We didn't indicate we were testing our device. They are,

GERAGOS: It was a flaw in the device that wasn't caught either by Trimble or by Orion; is that right?

LOOMIS: It was a behavior. As a matter of fact, they point out that thus on the air it is completely recoverable when it's actually stored in RAM. It's just the, on-the-air they are having difficulty recovering the data properly.

GERAGOS: In this case, they never, this wasn't recovered?

LOOMIS: In this case, the data set as they have shown it did not recover.

GERAGOS: It did not recover it. So the previous explanation you gave was not, is not actually correct as to what happened in this case, is it?

LOOMIS: Okay. In this particular case, the data was not recovered, and it was registered incorrectly.

GERAGOS: Right. And they said for the,

DISTASO: Your Honor, can I object? Can I give a copy of the Orion letters to the doctor so,

JUDGE: You have one?

DISTASO: I do. When they are being read he can follow along.

JUDGE: Of course. I didn't think he had one due to cross examination.

GERAGOS: I don't know why he needs a copy unless he asks for it. If he asks for it, I'll give it to you. But I don't feel that in my cross examination Mr. Distaso needs to jump in the middle of it.

Judger Delucchi: Well,

LOOMIS: Could I have a copy?

JUDGE: Ask the doctor. He should have those letters from front of him.

LOOMIS: It prevents you from having to come up here and show it to me.

GERAGOS: For the most part our units are designed to ignore this data. That's out of the July 9th letter. That's not an accurate statement, is it, by Orion?

LOOMIS: I don't know. Again, this is Orion software. We put out a fix every five seconds. And how Orion handles that fix, they are the experts on that, however. I do know, I do know that the particular behavior of a receiver that triggers this was exhibited in two or three places in the data sets, and these are the ones we're talking about. In other words, the initial bad position is triggered by this event that we're within three feet to the east, let me think for a second here, three feet to the east of a longitude line.

GERAGOS: Yeah. But their position was these, for the most part our units are designed to ignore this data, but sometimes the bad data gets recorded. You would disagree with that, wouldn't you?

LOOMIS: I don't know. I don't know what Orion is ignoring. And I don't know what they are recording. This is an Orion expertise that I don't have.

GERAGOS: How about the next sentence. Normally the parts of degrees are only sent when a major change occurs. You believe that's an accurate statement about your device?

LOOMIS: No. Our device sends everything every second.

GERAGOS: So what are they talking about when they say that? Are they basically incorrect?

LOOMIS: No, they are correct. But remember that I'm talking only a GPS function, and they have a communication board inside there that takes the information from our GPS receiver and packages it into data that's sent over the air.

GERAGOS: Well, the next sentence, therefore some records which follow will also be wrong until the compression engine resets and, parentheses, upon a change in latitude, longitude, for example, it crosses back, or when the time changes increments such that the minute value changes. Do you agree with that?

LOOMIS: That's minute value. That's a time minute.

GERAGOS: Do you agree with that?

LOOMIS: This is outside my expertise.

GERAGOS: Excuse me?

LOOMIS: This is outside my expertise. This has to do with Orion's method of compressing the data, sending it over the air, and decompressing it. I can't comment on this.

GERAGOS: You were analyzing or interpreting for Mr. Distaso this morning this set of data that is marked in the binder that was shown you. All of that is Orion's data, isn't it?

LOOMIS: That is Orion's data. In other words, Orion's data has come out of our receiver. According to Orion, they have put their hands on it, so to speak, and they have rearranged it, and they have sent it out. So you are right, this is Orion's data.

GERAGOS: This is all Orion's data. When you were doing your interpretations for his Honor this morning about the data, isn't it a fair statement that much of what is produced is Orion's data which is outside of your area of expertise as you have just stated?

LOOMIS: If they have decompressed data properly, it's in my area of expertise.

GERAGOS: And isn't that what they said they did?

LOOMIS: Actually I said they decompressed it improperly in this one little paragraph.

GERAGOS: So they are saying decompressed, they did not compress properly. And so your interpretation assumes that they had done it properly; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: What they are saying here is that when they are near a longitude line, sometimes they will get into a situation where the total points will be compressed and decompressed improperly and that it will recover. I have seen that.

GERAGOS: Didn't they also say that this type of thing can happen with poor GPS antenna placement, although may not be exactly one degree?

LOOMIS: Actually they say that on July 9th. I see that sentence.

GERAGOS: You don't agree with that. You disagree with that. You think they are just plain wrong?

LOOMIS: I think in this particular case that they have misstated it, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. The next sentence is, due to the covertness of this device, the GPS antenna often cannot be put in an optimal position for the GPS satellites to see 100 percent of the time. You disagree with that?

LOOMIS: I agree with that.

GERAGOS: Okay. So is it a fair statement that both you and Orion at least agree the covertness, or we don't even have to say covertness, the placement of the antenna has a large part of, plays a material part in the accuracy of the device?

LOOMIS: Well, the primary reason to place the antenna in full view is to get more points. In some situations it can affect the accuracy.

GERAGOS: And you will agree with the statement that because of the covertness of the device, the GPS antenna often cannot be put in an optimal position, correct?

LOOMIS: That is true. And, in fact, in this particular, in these particular instances, the antennas were not put in optimal positions for GPS reception.

GERAGOS: Do you know where the antennas were placed?

LOOMIS: No, I do not. I have just been told that they were not on top of the vehicle, which is where I would like to see them.

GERAGOS: So is it a fair statement that the optimal place for a GPS device to be installed is on the top of a vehicle with no obstructions?

LOOMIS: Yes. That's the optimal place. And I wish my customers would all do that. I'm still arguing with BMW about that.

GERAGOS: It says the records which have been thrown off are one degree of latitude or longitude from where it should be. Do you agree with that statement?

LOOMIS: Okay. Let me,

GERAGOS: That's the last sentence of the second large paragraph.

LOOMIS: I agree with that. Remember that this refers to the two tracks, Bitmap 1, Bitmap 3. And I agree with that statement.

GERAGOS: Okay. They also talk about, or they have another explanation for why there are problems here, and they related to data which the U.S. Census Bureau receives from the County of Modesto; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Bitmap 2, Track, that's the second paragraph, yes.

GERAGOS: And that's the January, what date is that, January 26th date?

LOOMIS: Let me just take a look to see.

GERAGOS: Bitmap 2 has a reference. Starts off with Rover, 03 Jan 26-1418. Is it a safe statement that that is a reference to a January 26th of 2003 data set?

LOOMIS: Yes, it is.

GERAGOS: And above where it says Bitmap 3, S-10, 03 Jan 09, is it a safe or accurate statement that refers to the January 9 data set that we were talking about, you were talking about with Mr. Distaso this morning?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: And the same for the track name of the Dakota, January 28, 03, did that one refer to the 03 January 28th data set that had been produced?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: This other analysis, or suggestion, or opinion by Orion was that there is the problem with the data comes about because of the maps from the County of Modesto or the US Census information from Modesto is inaccurate. Do you agree with that statement?

LOOMIS: No, I don't agree with the statement. I think the data is accurate. Just when we tried to lay them on the maps they didn't match the maps, because the maps were inaccurate.

GERAGOS: When you say Modesto County seems to have a problem where the data towards the center of the county gets skewed up and to the left from where it should be. You disagree with that as well?

LOOMIS: No, I don't.

GERAGOS: You don't agree?

LOOMIS: What I'm saying, the data as recorded gives me latitude, longitude, in this case latitude, longitude, and time. That data is a set of numbers that are beside the point of where I try to put them on a Triple A map or U.S. topo map, or Modesto County TIGER map. So that data is not in error for this reason.

GERAGOS: So you would disagree with Mr. Peach's analysis?

LOOMIS: He has actually made one statement in here that I think is imprecise where he actually says the data has an error. He says the error in the data increases the further away you get from their chosen datum. I think that's imprecise. The data is not in error.

GERAGOS: I'm going to lead you through,

LOOMIS: Okay, fine.

GERAGOS: He says the error in the data increases the further away you get from the chosen data. You disagree with that. You don't think it's the data that's in error. You think that's when you do the overlay of the data on the map; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: Any time you put data on a map, you have to find out what datum the map has used, and you have to transfer that data from the GPS coordinate system datum, and you have to translate that to the local datum, which may be a Triple A map, it may be, you know, the Europeans are a few meters off, the Japanese are a couple hundred meters off from the worldwide datum. GPS describes things in the worldwide datum. When we actually put a point on a map, we have to find out what datum that map is in. Now, most software programs, you know, in this case they had a problem with the Modesto County datum. They didn't know the datum that the map was put in, so they had a translation rotation problem.

GERAGOS: Can you, they interpreted it not as a translation problem. They interpreted it as data being wrong with the input, or when the data was being generated; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: No. I can't tell how they interpreted it. I can say that their statement here is probably, it's imprecise.

GERAGOS: When you say imprecise, wrong is what you are saying. This is a customer. You don't want to say they are wrong?

LOOMIS: Yes. I think,

GERAGOS: Isn't that a fair statement?

JUDGE: Wait, wait, wait. You both are going to have to let the witness answer the question. Court reporter can't report you guys at the same time.

GERAGOS: I apologize, your Honor, especially to the court reporter.

JUDGE: You can answer the next question.

LOOMIS: I can say for record this data increase is inaccurate.

GERAGOS: Then next sentence is, towards the western edge of the county, the error is much less. That's just, in your opinion, nonsense, isn't it? I guess nonsense is, it's true, this is a customer?

LOOMIS: I would use offset instead of error.

GERAGOS: If you look carefully around the edges of the county, you will find roads which don't line up when they cross the county line. Is there any way that you can tell me that's not just pure nonsense?

LOOMIS: No. When you look at a map, and the map, remember, is just a set of mathematical latitudes and longitudes that have been stored in a database. There are certain areas that numbers have been calculated according to one datum. In another area they have been calculated according to another datum. Where they change datums they will not match up. I see it,

GERAGOS: But that has nothing to do, if I understand what your opinion is, that has nothing to do with the data. That has to do with the translation of the data to the map?

LOOMIS: Yes. And I'm using the term datum to describe the coordinate system of the map. Okay?

GERAGOS: Right. But I'm asking you, if I understand your position, that the, we're not talking about errors in the data. That's generated by the GPS device?

LOOMIS: That's correct.

GERAGOS: And they are ascribing the errors to the GPS device. Isn't that a fair statement of the two positions? You believe that the GPS data is accurate, and that it's this translation problem, if you will, when you overlay the data to the map. Their position is that the GPS data is inaccurate because it gets skewed at certain points of the county. Isn't that what they have written there?

LOOMIS: I don't see mention of GPS. Where, in this paragraph?

GERAGOS: Well, tell me something. What is the data that they are talking about?

JUDGE: Are you referring to Defendant's B?

GERAGOS: Yes, I am. Defendant's B. And I think the same paragraph, I assume you are talking about the paragraph that starts off with the Topological Integrated Geographical Encoding, TIGER data?

LOOMIS: Yes. You know, they are using data, looks like two different ones. One is GPS data, the other is the TIGER data.

GERAGOS: That what I'm asking you, though. Let me just ask the question first. They are specifically saying that there is an error in the data; isn't that correct? That's what you disagree with?

LOOMIS: You know, as I read it here, they are talking about two kinds of data, GPS data or tracking data, and the TIGER data. And that's two different kinds of data. As I read it, they do a reference to TIGER data at the very start of this paragraph. And if I interpret all references to data below that, or most of that, where it says error in data, if I refer to TIGER data then, yes, I would have to read that TIGER data is in error if it's assumed to be in the, you know, WHS data.

GERAGOS: Referring to GPS data, you don't agree with it at all?

LOOMIS: They are referring to GPS data. I do not agree with it.

GERAGOS: They go on to talk about Bitmap 4, which has a Track Name of S-10 03 January 09, which I assume, once again, refers to an S-10 truck for January 9th of 2003. Is that how you interpret that?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, that data set they also recognize, or there is perceived to be problems with that as well; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, that data set is also some of the data that Mr. Distaso was showing you this morning that he had mapped out, correct?

LOOMIS: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Is that the map you had?

LOOMIS: That's correct.

GERAGOS: They had an explanation for this. They said that is an example either the GPS receiver making a poor satellite choice or some form of radio, parentheses, radar interference. Isn't that their analysis?

LOOMIS: That is what they say here, yes.

GERAGOS: You didn't agree, don't you?

LOOMIS: No.

GERAGOS: So you would agree that the GPS receiver can make poor satellite choices?

LOOMIS: Oh, no.

GERAGOS: That would seem to, I'm not mistaken,

JUDGE: Wait. Wait. Did you finish your answer, doctor?

LOOMIS: Well, there is an either/or here. And if I were going to list my prime suspicions in this particular, on this anomaly here, I could guess it's a radar, that they passed by a radar, it pulled the GPS off temporarily. But that's, I can't, that's just a guess.

GERAGOS: You had no idea?

LOOMIS: I have no idea.

GERAGOS: Why the GPS receiver was acting in a way that you have never seen before, at least in a decade?

LOOMIS: Not in a decade, yes. No, I can't say for certain. And to say that it's an example of one of those two, I think I'd have to disagree, because there may be other. However, they have named my prime suspect here, which is a reference to an airport radar.

GERAGOS: What about poor satellite choices?

LOOMIS: Poor satellite choices will not give errors of that size. That will give errors of the order of maybe a hundred meters or so in certain cases.

GERAGOS: What's the error in this particular instance?

LOOMIS: You don't mind if I use meters? About a yard.

GERAGOS: Not at all.

LOOMIS: An error I believe was on the order of 10 to 20,000 meters. It's many miles.

GERAGOS: Now, they went on to say that the error is primarily dependent on the geometry or angle of the satellite in the sky. Do you agree with that?

LOOMIS: That has a multiplicative effect, yes.

GERAGOS: The multiplicative effect can give you exponentially errors that can get multiplied exponentially?

LOOMIS: Not exponentially. Well, multiplicative effects to around a factor of 10 or 15. That's one of the resets in our receivers.

GERAGOS: Or 15 times?

LOOMIS: 10 or 15 times. In other words, if you have a range of error of ten meters, then our multiplicative effect multiplied by 10, 15 times maximum.

GERAGOS: If it was 1,000 meters, could you get a spike of 10,000 to 15,000 meters like you just described?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: And then the next statement was that satellites too close together will result in calculation errors, error in this case not meaning right or wrong, but meaning not as accurate, as precise as it could be, as will satellites too far apart, or those about to disappear over the horizon. Do you agree with that statement?

LOOMIS: This refers to the multiplicative effect that we're talking about at this moment, yes. This all comes into play if it's multiplicative effect.

GERAGOS: Mr. Peach goes on to write that he believes that some form of inadvertent jamming or interference can mimic this problem. He's referring to the multiplicative effects?

LOOMIS: No. Well, he may be referring to the multiplicative effect. I think this is a secondary effect. This is equal weight.

GERAGOS: The second effect, that's what?

LOOMIS: It's a, can mimic this problem. Let me see what he's referring to as far as problem.

GERAGOS: Didn't,

DISTASO: Objection. If he can finish his answer.

JUDGE: Let's him finish his answer.

LOOMIS: I believe this mimics this problem. He's actually referring to the initial problem without regard to the multiplicative effect.

GERAGOS: It wouldn't make sense in the context of what he's writing otherwise, would it?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: What he's saying, it's either poor satellite choice or radio interference, correct ?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: And so when he's talking about poor satellite choice, he gives an explanation as to satellites too close together resulting in calculation errors; and when he talks about radio effects, he's talking about this interference, or inadvertent jamming which you ascribe to radar, correct?

LOOMIS: Yes. Uh-huh, yes.

GERAGOS: Now, he suspects that in this particular case, with this bitmap, that what happened was that the device held on to the satellite too long, and he ascribes that also to antenna placement, doesn't he?

LOOMIS: He makes that statement. I disagree with that statement.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, what he is saying, or the statement that he's making is that because the antenna has been placed, presumably this is referred to before in a covert position, is in some kind of a hidden or secret location, that that would, his suspicion is that's why it held on too long with the satellite, or made a poor satellite choice; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: He makes that statement, yes.

GERAGOS: You disagree with that?

LOOMIS: I disagree. Our receiver cannot track satellites that go over the horizon. We have, we have a protection against that.

GERAGOS: Now, this Orion is the retailer for the devices you manufacture; is that correct?

LOOMIS: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Orion, presumably you give instructions, or you give some kind of, you, meaning Trimble, give some kind of information downloaded to Orion in order for them to understand what the device does, correct?

LOOMIS: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Part of what that instruction is the mechanics of it, the internal logic of the device; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Setting by which you can control the receiver.

GERAGOS: Is it a safe statement that the assertions by Mr. Peach that the antenna placement resulted in locking on to a satellite that went over the horizon just would never happen, based upon your understanding of the manufacturer's design of your device?

LOOMIS: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Is it also a fair statement that you would never tell Orion that the receiver can lock onto a satellite and follow it over the horizon? Do you know of anybody at Trimble that's passing along that information?

LOOMIS: There are some Trimble receivers that can track a satellite below the horizon. Ours can not. This particular device can not.

GERAGOS: This particular device, which is one of the, what did you call it?

LOOMIS: Lassen SK8 II. Low cost, high volume.

GERAGOS: The low cost, high volume devices, distinguished from what you call the high value device?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: And the high value device has a much more significant, or a much more sensitive ability and accuracy; is that correct?

LOOMIS: It has better signal tracking capabilities. And I would say that it has better signal tracking capabilities. Far better.

GERAGOS: Now, Michael Peach, as has been explained to you, is Orion's Technical Support Supervisor; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: That's his title listed here, yes.

GERAGOS: As far as your understanding is, he's the person who is in charge of all of the tech support at Orion; is that correct?

LOOMIS: He's the supervisor. We assumed that, yes.

GERAGOS: He's the one who was on the phone with the president of Orion with you in January; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, the next statement by Mr. Peach is it his belief that due to the antenna placement, that when the satellite went over the horizon, and the resulting calculation got pulled over by the GPS receiver's averaging program, parentheses, designed to reject transient spikes. Do you agree with that statement?

LOOMIS: I agree that a signal anomaly occurred, and that the resulting calculation got pulled over by the GPS receiver's averaging program designed to reject transient spikes. The first part of the statement I don't necessarily agree with. However, we do have an averaging or a filtering function, and it is designed to reject transient spikes. And if an error does get into this system, it will take some time to filter out. And we see that on the plots.

GERAGOS: Is it fair to say that that's some kind of a self-correcting mechanism that's built into the device?

LOOMIS: Oh, it's designed to remove the noisiness of the GPS signal in general.

GERAGOS: And what is supposed to trigger that?

LOOMIS: It's on constantly. It's a very complicated device.

GERAGOS: Is it a fair statement that when Michael Peach, when he, at least in your opinion, what he's, when he's talking about the averaging program, that that's correct, there is an averaging program, but the premise for what triggered the averaging program you disagree with.

LOOMIS: Let me see exactly, in this case I suspect that it held on too long to a satellite, perhaps due to the antenna placement, which just went over the horizon. And that is what, I don't mean that would be, I don't believe that would be possible in that particular instance.

GERAGOS: Is it a fair statement that it's just, with this particular device, with what Mr. Peach writes in his letter is just plain impossible?

LOOMIS: This first half of the statement I believe is just plain impossible, yes.

GERAGOS: Just plain impossible. Now, the next sentence is, once some better choice of satellites was available, it acquired another one and started to correct itself. Do you believe that that's possible, that that's what happened?

LOOMIS: No, I don't believe that's what happened. I believe that whatever signal intervenes, again this is a guess, as I believe it's a signal interference problem. Whatever the anomaly that was happening that one time, when it ended, the receiver recovered naturally.

GERAGOS: Now, when he writes once a better choice of satellite was available, you would disagree with that idea that the receiver is choosing satellites, wouldn't you?

LOOMIS: I don't see any evidence that the choice of satellites changed here. On some of, on our tracking devices, sometimes we record when satellite choices are changed. On the Orion, they do not record when the satellite choices changed. And I don't see any evidence that it was changed at this time, so I can't say.

GERAGOS: Well, you can't say, because there is no evidence whatsoever to support the statement that the better choice of satellites was made because the device does not have that ability to produce that data?

LOOMIS: The Orion device does not record and transmit that data. Other devices put it out, but Orion does not record or transmit it.

GERAGOS: Now, the next sentence says, due do the covertness of this device, it cannot, it often cannot be put in an optimal position to see the GPS satellites. Do you agree with that?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, does that mean that the antenna, that the placement, is that because of the device itself, or because of the antenna placement?

LOOMIS: The antenna is the important part. That's where the signal is being registered, so it all depends upon where the antenna is. Antenna can be placed even 15, 20 feet away from the electronics.

GERAGOS: So I want to make clear that, at least when he says, Mr. Peach writes, due to the covertness of the device, in actuality, in your opinion, it's not the device itself in covertness, it's where the antenna is, because the antenna acts as the conduit, if you will, to the satellite?

LOOMIS: Exactly.

GERAGOS: And so the antenna choice, the placement of the antenna is what will either negate, or affirm, or give you the ability do communicate with the satellite?

LOOMIS: It will affect your signal reception.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the last sentence is, depending on the antenna location in the vehicle and the surrounding topology of building density, it may be very hard for the receiver to get signals 100 percent of the time. Would you agree with that?

LOOMIS: Absolutely.

GERAGOS: Before you got on to the conference call of January 12th, had you read this letter that we just went through, the July 9th letter which was marked as Defendant's Pretrial Exhibit B?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: So you were familiar with at least their interpretation of the track or the bitmap track information or data sets?

LOOMIS: Yes. I had read the letter, and I also looked at the data itself.

GERAGOS: The raw data?

LOOMIS: The raw data. Well, the recorded data.

GERAGOS: Well, it was, the recorded data was that data that had already been filtered through the Orion software program?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Something that you were seeing had already, we're not looking at what you would, for lack of a better term, always use raw data. You were looking at data that had been filtered through their software program?

LOOMIS: I guess you could use the term filtered. Filtered usually means you remove data. That's not what they are doing. They are just compressing the, decompressing it to translate it, perhaps, or transmit it. If they refer it to as filtered, fine.

GERAGOS: Okay. And at the very least, they refer to it as compression or decompression; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: And you understand compression of data to mean what?

LOOMIS: The compression of data is that there is a lot of repeated information, and so you remove the repeated information, and you can reduce the amount of information that's transmitted.

GERAGOS: For the, if you were to get readings one time a second for 30 seconds, instead of seeing 30 readings, if you compress the data, you would take it once every three seconds, gets 10 for the same time?

LOOMIS: That's not what they are doing here. What they are doing is every, and, again, I'm not the expert on this, but this is my impression over the telephone conversation, is they, about every 30 seconds or every minute, they grab that position, and then they, and they transmit that position. And then in the following seconds they transmit the changes in that position, or Delta position, we call it. And so the changes are going to be very small numbers, because the large position is going to be, you know, it's going to be as big as the earth, so to speak. But the latter ones are only going to be a few hundred meters. They are going to be as fast as an automobile or airplane can travel. So by doing that, they can get one large message and a sequence of very small messages, and they update the large message at regular intervals.

GERAGOS: You had indicated you didn't consider yourself to be an expert in this particular area; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Again, this is my interpretation of what I have heard.

GERAGOS: And you consider yourself to be, your area of expertise to be grounded in the technology itself, as opposed to how it's translated into a particular device?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: And then, is that a fair statement?

LOOMIS: My expertise is GPS function. The information that the GPS receives.

GERAGOS: Is it also a fair statement that your expertise is better suited to an analysis of the high value GPS devices, as opposed to the low cost?

LOOMIS: Oh, oh, no. Absolutely. My current knowledge is the low cost receivers. I haven't worked in high value receivers since 1991. And, to tell you the truth, with the way that GPS costs are going, our low cost GPS receivers are almost the same quality as the ones we were selling as high value receivers back in the late 80s.

GERAGOS: What would the particular device that was involved in transmitting the Bitmap Track Data here sell for?

JUDGE: Wholesale or retail?

GERAGOS: How much do you sell it for?

DISTASO: Objection. Irrelevant.

JUDGE: Sustained.

GERAGOS: The second letter that Orion wrote references the telephone conversation, and says that they have undertaken further investigation at Orion. Do you have that in front of you, marked as C?

LOOMIS: C, January 13th, yes.

GERAGOS: And they start off, once again, with talking about the Bitmap 1 and Bitmap 3, correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Was that your recollection of what was transpiring in the telephone conversation?

LOOMIS: Yes. We discussed these four data sets.

GERAGOS: Okay. And was there a discussion of the one degree jump in the longitude?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: And did you have an explanation, this was later shown to be caused by the GPS receiver which was manufactured by Trimble Navigation, is that correct?

LOOMIS: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Now, they got that story from you as what he states in the letter, correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: There are some design defects in the device itself you had discovered at that point?

LOOMIS: He calls it an error. You call it defects. I call it a behavior. Because the data really, although it's hard to interpret the data, it was changed in a later firmware version.

GERAGOS: It's been changed since January of 2003?

LOOMIS: No. It was changed back in 1998 or 9 when it was discovered.

GERAGOS: Was this device an older device?

LOOMIS: Yes. This device was, had been around for, I'm not sure exactly when they bought it, how long it laid on the shelf.

GERAGOS: Do you know what, when this device was manufactured?

LOOMIS: The SK8 II, it may still be manufactured today.

GERAGOS: Do you know when this particular device –

LOOMIS: No, I do not.

GERAGOS: This model number, are you able to determine that just by looking at the identification number that's on the unit?

LOOMIS: They identified the numbers. This is Orion identification numbers. If I had access to the board, it would have our ID numbers on it, I could identify exactly how it was produced, when it was produced, but not from these numbers right here.

GERAGOS: Now, the Bitmap 2, they came up with a new explanation at Orion at this point, and said that the errors were caused when the track was not shown to be on the road and they changed to better maps; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Yes. They removed the TIGER data error factor.

GERAGOS: And Bitmap 4, they characterized the error as consistent with periods of just over two minutes where the track diverged widely; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: And the speeds that were reported during this period were far in excess of those possible for any vehicle; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: They make that statement, yes. The change in position. We'll call it speed for these purposes.

GERAGOS: You don't agree with that literally, as he wrote it to you?

LOOMIS: You know, it's a very technical issue here. But we put out speed as well as position. And sometimes our changes in position don't exactly match our speed, and there is reasons for that. Sometimes we adjust our position due to better GPS, for instance. But our speed may still be, you know, speed is measured through a separate process. When they say speed here, they talk about differences in position. I mean that's why I was hesitating a little bit. But I think what they are saying is, you know, for our purposes speed is a good word here.

GERAGOS: They come to the conclusion that they can't, they don't understand, or they are not sure of the real cause of what the problem is here. But the presence of a nearby airport leads them to suspect equipment may have contributed to the problem. Do you agree with that?

LOOMIS: I agree with this whole paragraph, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. And is it safe to think that's what you told them on the conference call, that they have incorporated in large part with your analysis went into this particular letter?

LOOMIS: I can't recall mentioning airports to them. I may have, because we did discover that this particular anomaly was along the flightpath of, along the line of an airport runway. But other than that, I think this is their own experience speaking here, not mine.

GERAGOS: Well, the only, the only changes here were to take out the TIGER data for Bitmap 2, to posit the idea of an airport causing radio interference for Bitmap 4, and the one degree of longitude jump which they attribute to you characterizing it as a manufacturing defect, or you used some other word?

LOOMIS: Behavior.

GERAGOS: Which doesn't sound consumer friendly. Does the, is there anything here in this letter of January 13th which is new to you, that you did not suggest to them?

LOOMIS: There is nothing new here that we did not discuss on the telephone conversation. When I look at the two letters, there are some things that they have eliminated based upon our telephone conversation. One thing in particular.

GERAGOS: What was the one thing in particular that was eliminated from the telephone conversation?

LOOMIS: Multiplicative factor. Also, in fact, there is two things. Second thing is in Bitmap 1, Bitmap 3, regarding this one degree, I made it very clear to them, behavior of the receiver. And in light of their software, they understood exactly how it triggered the one degree offset in the reported latitudes and longitudes.

GERAGOS: So, in other words, with more information, this narrowed down the choices to this is what happened when you explained to them what you thought that the origination for the error in Bitmap 1 was?

LOOMIS: This is Bitmap 1 and 3?

GERAGOS: 1 and 3.

LOOMIS: Yes. I described to you how the receiver would act when it rounded up the longitude, which would have been within three degrees of the longitude line. When I described that process to them, they felt that that identified the replicates, that they felt that that identified the problem.

GERAGOS: Now, I showed you before we took the break some of the printouts from the Sky Track device. Are you familiar with that?

LOOMIS: No, I'm not.

GERAGOS: Do you know, did you manufacture that device?

LOOMIS: I don't know.

GERAGOS: What have you reviewed prior to coming to court today, other than the little slides or sheets that are contained in People's Exhibit 1?

LOOMIS: Okay. I have, my complete list of documents before coming into court today were these two letters right here.

JUDGE: Identify them.

LOOMIS: From Orion, this is Exhibit B and Exhibit C. Right now I also have the phone conversation with Orion. I looked at a number of data sets that were generated, or that were, allegedly came from an Orion device. And let's see what else. And then, just at the break, I looked at some pages that you had shown me.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you have the Exhibit 1 in front of you, the binder?

LOOMIS: Yes, I do.

GERAGOS: Now, there is a sheet in there that has the file name S-10, which I think is Bitmap 1.

LOOMIS: S-10. Bitmap 1. Okay.

GERAGOS: Let me just turn so you can find it.

LOOMIS: Okay. Why don't I hold this for a second. There are a number of maps that have been taken out and put into here.

<recess>

GERAGOS: Now, there is some, contained with People's 1, there is a set of data that follows up. Some of these maps, for instance, you have 1-B, and then behind 1-B appears a series of entries. Are you familiar with this document? I'm specifically showing you 1-D.

LOOMIS: I have reviewed these data sets in Excel spreadsheet format. I'm familiar with this data as printed here.

GERAGOS: Is the data that's printed here in 1-D, is this produced by your software program?

LOOMIS: My impression, would have been explained to me, yes, the Orion software has an encrypted compressed data file. And there is a decryption process that prints out this data set.

GERAGOS: Now, as we go across on the columns, it's got a date that's downloaded at the top, which appears to be January 9th of 2003, correct?

LOOMIS: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Then there are a series of positions and times where, dates and times, I should say, one column which lists all of January 9th, correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Then a series of times starting at about 7:00 a.m.?

LOOMIS: Yes.

Mark Geragos" Then the next column, one that reads GPS fix. Does It always read GPS fix?

LOOMIS: It will sometimes read power up, so when the device is powered up, there is a power cycle, there will be a line recording that.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then the next column stands for what?

LOOMIS: That next column is latitude.

GERAGOS: And the next column?

LOOMIS: The longitude.

GERAGOS: Next column?

LOOMIS: The next column is a speed notation.

GERAGOS: Okay. Next, last column is a motion detector?

LOOMIS: I don't know. It says motion or no motion.

GERAGOS: Now, you have reviewed the columns here for the data download on January 9th as portrayed in 1-D. Is it a safe statement that the last two columns here don't make much sense in the miles per hour, and then the motion detector?

LOOMIS: If I can restate, I would –

JUDGE: You can give him an answer, then you can explain.

LOOMIS: Okay. I notice many cases here where, of course, as we expect little or no speed, and no motion was reported; but there are other cases where there is substantial speed. I see one here, 24 miles per hour 30 miles per hour, and the no motion is also indicated.

GERAGOS: So there would be a, what appears to be a longitude and latitude, 24 miles per hour, yet it says there is no motion whatsoever; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: That's what it says.

GERAGOS: And you can see that repeatedly in these columns whereby the motion detector appears to indicate no motion, yet the speed appears to be, in many cases, as high as 24 miles per hour with no motion, 18 miles per hour with no motion, et cetera?

LOOMIS: Yes. And these speeds here are, again, something that comes out of the Orion software, so I can't –

GERAGOS: Is it a fair statement that if this were, if this receiver or device was your device, that you could produce information that would be more accurate, meaning Trimble?

LOOMIS: We produce a GPS speed that's much more accurate than this.

GERAGOS: How is that calculated?

LOOMIS: The GPS speed is derived directly from the satellite signals and from what's called the Doppler effect of the satellites. So we look at the frequencies. And if the frequencies are too high or too low beyond what we compute, we attribute that to a difference in the user velocity.

GERAGOS: And then is there a motion component or a no-motion, motion sensor component in the Trimble device?

LOOMIS: There is a device that we have developed and is about to ship that has a motion sensor in it. No, in general, not. We just report the velocity.

GERAGOS: The velocity as it's reported, at least in the Trimble device, you indicate will be more accurate than here; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: And when I say here, we're talking about the printouts that were produced by the Orion device?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, I had picked 1-D. If we go to the next portion of this, 1-G, which appears also to be 1-9, and another series of entries. It also appears that we have got the same issue here where there is speeds and indication of no motion, 51 miles an hour, 25 miles an hour, 31 miles an hour, that shows no motion on that column, yet the speed being, probably on surface streets, of a substantial amount of speed; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: These are what these data sets show, yes.

GERAGOS: Have you inquired as to either, on either the telephone call or by e-mail, or in any other way with Orion, as to why it is that they are showing substantial speeds on the tracking device, yet no motion on the motion detector?

LOOMIS: I can't remember whether it was discussed on the telephone call. And I really don't feel like I know what they have done here. There is various ways to do it. I would guess how they could do it, but I'm not certain.

GERAGOS: Okay. Let's see if we can find for 1-9, see if you can find the printout for 1-9, approximately starting with the 1:30 p.m.

LOOMIS: Do you know, I think of them in terms of locations.

GERAGOS: Okay. Let me see very quickly.

DISTASO: Mr. Geragos, look under the tab on Fresno.

LOOMIS: Is it Fresno? Okay, here we have the Fresno one here. Let me see. Look at the map real quickly as it is in a detail.

GERAGOS: Sure.

LOOMIS: Yes, there is.

GERAGOS: Now, we have a, this is 1, looks like GG?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, we have got some speeds here that start off at 62 miles an hour and go up to 2,164 miles per hour.

LOOMIS: Is that the –

GERAGOS: The spike?

LOOMIS: 2000 miles per hour, approximately.

GERAGOS: Then decreases back down to 654 miles per hour, 225 miles per hour; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, we also show that at 489 miles per hour, on 1 double G, there is no motion?

LOOMIS: That's what it reads, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. 1-JJ also we have as the same issue here with a spike, as you called it, I think, or a V-shape, where the miles or the speed is going up. We also have the situation where it's indicating no motion on 1 double J?

LOOMIS: That's correct.

GERAGOS: And clearly that something is wrong with the device?

LOOMIS: This is an Orion function, and I can't interpret. All I can see is the data that they have produced here. But this speed and this motion indicator is an Orion function, not a GPS function.

GERAGOS: Or an Orion malfunction?

LOOMIS: Is that a question?

GERAGOS: Yes.

LOOMIS: Is that an Orion malfunction? It's baffling to me.

GERAGOS: Once again, 1 double M is the same situation where we have the speeds going up, the motion, no logical relationship between the speed and the motion detector; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Yes. Again, it's an Orion function. I don't have a lot of expertise in this.

GERAGOS: Now, 1 double P. You see these entries. This is also January 9th. Now we're talking about much later in the afternoon, approximately after 5:52 p.m. Is that correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: There appears to be some problems there as well; is that not correct? We have one 38,000 miles per hour; is that correct?

LOOMIS: This is interesting. This could indicate what Orion is actually doing here. This particular instance is an instance where it is just exactly one degree longitude. If Orion is calculating their speeds by a change in position over those five seconds, it went, oh, 60 miles or so over five seconds. And that very well might be 38,000 miles per hour. If they have a separate motion detector in the device, that's an actual electronic little accelerometer, tells whether they are moving or not. That would have a no motion flag attached to it. So if that's what they are doing, this line would makes sense.

GERAGOS: If what they are doing is that their software program is trying to interpret what the design defect, or you call it aberrant behavior of the device was?

LOOMIS: It isn't aberrant behavior. That's not the issue here. They are just taking the last position, the current position, figuring out what the distance between them is, dividing by the time to get the speed. So in this particular case, it was this one degree jump that caused a very large indicated speed here.

GERAGOS: Well, you had indicated when Mr. Distaso was asking you questions that the machine had, you thought had corrected itself, and you talked about two hundred seconds?

LOOMIS: Six minutes, I believe for this, well, let me see here. This one could have been a six minute –

GERAGOS: Okay.

LOOMIS: , incident.

GERAGOS: Is it fair to say that still at 5:55 we're getting something such as 29 miles per hour, no motion.

JUDGE: Talking about 1-QQ is six minutes return, correct?

GERAGOS: I think 1-PP.

LOOMIS: 1-PP we're looking at right now.

GERAGOS: 1-PP which is the one where you told the judge, I think, that there was a hundred seconds, 180 seconds. You weren't comfortable for 200 seconds; is that correct?

LOOMIS: No. No. That's a Fresno, which was back here. These were the ones that we were talking about before.

JUDGE: Used 1 double E.

LOOMIS: 2000 miles per hour and there is, not use data for about 200 seconds.

GERAGOS: Now, the –

LOOMIS: Okay. Here is the six-minute.

GERAGOS: This is the six-minute one. And if you go back to 1 double T, once again we have got another on, this is on January 8th, another one of those situations where puts out 38,000 miles per hour and no motion again.

LOOMIS: Yes. If this is derived from the positions, then that's the arithmetic number you come up with. No motion comes from a separate sensor. This might make sense to me, depending upon Orion's design which, again, I have little expertise.

GERAGOS: At this point you don't know how to read that, subject to talking to somebody at Orion?

LOOMIS: I would say, yes.

GERAGOS: You still have the same problem up here, though, at 5:57, we have got 22 miles per hour. It shows no motion in a series of other locations here. I wouldn't go through all of them. A series of locations which says no motion when clearly the car is moving at least according to their speed printout.

LOOMIS: It could be that one or two miles per hour is below their level of motion detection.

GERAGOS: But 22 would not be?

LOOMIS: I would say no.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, 1 double X. You have same situation. This is on the 24th. You have got 40 miles per hour. It shows no motion, 53 miles per hour, no motion. And on, I mean literally it appears on 1 double X that almost every single one of these is wrong; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: I see consistent speed here, consistent velocity. And some of them are tagged motion, some of them no motion.

GERAGOS: As high as, right here, as 6:00 o'clock, it shows 70 miles per hour, no motion. 66 miles per hour, no motion. And there is seven readings in a row in excess of 25 miles per hour, as high as 57, where there is no motion; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: Again, as an Orion function, I can't understand this.

GERAGOS: 1 double Y, or, I'm sorry, 1 triple A, we have a series of entries, and here we have got the opposite. We have got, right after the power up and the GPS fix, it shows zero miles per hour, motion; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Yes, it does. And here, again, maybe an indicator of what Orion is doing might be is that if they have no previous position difference, again they put zero miles per hour.

GERAGOS: It also –

LOOMIS: Impossible design.

GERAGOS: Are you aware of how the unit powers up?

LOOMIS: I do not know their power up sequence. I know our unit will start producing messages within a certain number of seconds.

GERAGOS: Is that when the engine is linked to the ignition?

LOOMIS: I do not know.

GERAGOS: Do you know if your device has power all the time?

LOOMIS: No, I do not.

GERAGOS: Do you know if Orion's device has power all the time?

LOOMIS: No, I do not.

GERAGOS: Do you know how, what the function is of the device if the car is turned off, if it's not started?

LOOMIS: I don't know whether the device is operating or not.

GERAGOS: If the, does the device have a self-contained power pack?

LOOMIS: You know, I haven't seen the device. I don't think, I have actually seen the device. I think it does have a self-contained power pack. But, again, I don't know how it was installed, whether that has an option for car power. I'm not really conversant with the implementation of our GPS function.

GERAGOS: What is it that Trimble actually sells to Orion? What is the specific unit that they sell?

LOOMIS: We sell a GPS receiver, and also probably an antenna. There are antennas available on the open market. They probably use one of ours.

GERAGOS: And that receiver, have you ever seen that installed into the finished device that Orion produces and markets?

LOOMIS: You know, I saw an example of the device in January. And, again, I don't know all the options that are available to it.

GERAGOS: Have you ever seen it installed on a car?

LOOMIS: No, I have not.

GERAGOS: Have you ever tested it yourself while it's installed in the car?

LOOMIS: Not the Orion device, no.

GERAGOS: Have you ever tested the Orion device on an, are you aware of any study where the Orion device has been tested in the field?

LOOMIS: A control test?

GERAGOS: A control test. Thank you.

LOOMIS: No, I don't have, I haven't seen a study of that type.

GERAGOS: When you discovered or posited the idea that the one degree jump was a function of a longitude, crossing the longitude within, what you say, within three degrees of it, or within a meter, did you go into the field, or have somebody do a controlled test with the device, seeing if, in fact, that was what was causing this problem?

LOOMIS: I did not have, I don't have an Orion device, so I did not have the ability to do anything in the field.

GERAGOS: Do you know if anybody, after this discussion started between the July 9th, 2003, and the January, 2004, letter, who actually went out and tested this device on a car, on an automobile or on a truck, and to find out whether or not it could mimic the effect of this one degree jump between the three feet on either side of the longitudinal position?

LOOMIS: I have not heard of such a test being completed.

GERAGOS: Did anybody at Orion on that telephone call tell you that they had tested that thesis out and they had proved it?

LOOMIS: Yes, I'd have to say that they did. They lived nearby a line of longitude or latitude, and they maintained that they had tested this.

GERAGOS: Was that Mr. Peach?

LOOMIS: I can't say which of the two gentlemen it was.

GERAGOS: Now, there are also, were you aware that the Modesto Police Department had done their own testing of the device, to the receiver, and specifically had used the Berkeley Marina as one of the test locations?

LOOMIS: Nothing of that sort was ever described to me as a test.

GERAGOS: Would it give you pause as to whether or not the machine was operating properly, the technology was implemented correctly, if I were to tell you that the Modesto Police had actually done a real life test, and it had failed in a number of these controlled situations,

DISTASO: Objection, your Honor.

GERAGOS: , the device had failed?

DISTASO: I object. The question –

GERAGOS: If it would surprise him, based upon a controlled experiment situation.

DISTASO: The objection is there is not a good faith basis for that question. It's not correct information.

JUDGE: Well, either it is or it isn't.

GERAGOS: It is correct information. And I am –

JUDGE: I'll accept your representation. Go ahead, you can answer.

LOOMIS: I would be surprised. I have to see the test myself, what the criterion for the failure was, and test results before I would be surprised.

GERAGOS: Did anybody tell you that Modesto PD, Police Department had done an experiment with the device in the car in regards to the Berkeley Marina?

LOOMIS: No.

GERAGOS: Did you, did anybody tell you whether or not they had tried any device, any tracking device installed in any automobile by Modesto PD to test the GPS function?

LOOMIS: I was not informed of any test of the GPS in an automobile, no. That wasn't discussed.

GERAGOS: Now, the, how large is the device that you saw in January of this year?

LOOMIS: Oh, it's larger than the device that we're putting out right now. Gosh, you know, it's,

GERAGOS: Big as this water?

LOOMIS: I'd like to describe GPS receivers as paperback book size, or smaller.

JUDGE: Bigger than a cigarette pack?

LOOMIS: Bigger than a cigarette pack. It's smaller than a, a law book.

JUDGE: Paperback book?

LOOMIS: Law.

JUDGE: Law books are larger than a paperback book?

LOOMIS: Probably was not smaller than –

JUDGE: Approximately, dimensions. Give us the approximate dimensions.

LOOMIS: Of that particular device, you know, I don't really remember it, except that it was larger than a small paperback book.

JUDGE: Okay.

GERAGOS: Show you a page which has a Bates stamp on the top of 16853, and on the bottom of 16906. Are you, has a printout of some information and locations. Is that a format that you recognize?

LOOMIS: It's not a format that I've seen before today, this particular format. I see a time tag, a latitude, longitude, and some information about the location.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that, to the best of your knowledge, is not an Orion printout, Orion function that you have ever seen?

LOOMIS: Again, what I have seen is data in Excel spreadsheets, a generic format. I have not seen an output like that, that's been called an Orion output.

GERAGOS: Now, the, if I were to tell you that when an experiment was done with the Orion tracking unit in the Berkeley Marina, that they also did a, they viewed the location, and that at one point when they were turning, that the status showed it was not connected, and that it was posited that there was not a current connection with the unit, what would that mean to you?

LOOMIS: That's an Orion function, so I can't really say. May mean that it wasn't talking to the GPS receiver. May mean the com unit was not communicating, no connection. There is many connections inside that box.

GERAGOS: Does the Trimble Company provide any kind of followup, quality control function when it sells to somebody like Orion?

LOOMIS: We do not test the customer's product after the company builds them. We do provide an integrated manual that describes the interface to the board, and expect the performance. But, no, no, we do not test the customer's device in general after.

GERAGOS: So is it also a fair statement that you have developed, or you, meaning Trimble, has developed a GPS receiver, but in terms of how that receiver is actually implemented in the device, what the device actually does, you leave that to the particular end user?

LOOMIS: That's the best of, not the best of my particular end of the company, because we sell GPS components to system integrators. And Orion would be a system integrator, somebody that creates a package out of it, that makes the GPS do something of interest. They sell it to end users

GERAGOS: Does the, when you were trying to, would you characterize the January phone call that you had as kind of a troubleshooting conference call?

LOOMIS: I think troubleshoot is a generic term that's good. That kind of thing, it's an interplay between the customer and Trimble, where we discuss behavior of the receivers, the behaviors of the system, try to resolve them, yes.

GERAGOS: Have they called you prior to that?

LOOMIS: I have not been in a troubleshooting loop for a couple of years, so I can't testify to that.

GERAGOS: Are you aware of anything that shows that they recognize there was some kind of a problem with the equipment and they contacted anybody at Trimble?

LOOMIS: I don't have any record of that, no. I have no knowledge.

GERAGOS: Did you endeavor to find out, when you got on that conference call, if there was anybody in the company who knew whether they had, they, Orion, had contacted Trimble to find out what the problems were with the unit?

LOOMIS: I can't recall whether I did. I may have.

GERAGOS: As you sit here today, you have no memory of anybody telling that you they had ever been contacted by Orion with regards to malfunctions on unit; is that correct?

LOOMIS: I have no memory of where a conversation took place after the phone call.

GERAGOS: Okay.

LOOMIS: No certain memory.

GERAGOS: And is it a fair statement that if somebody had contacted you, for your company, from Orion, that you would be the natural person for them to talk to at Trimble?

LOOMIS: Not any more, no. It would have been handled by somebody else at the

company.

GERAGOS: And then what was your involvement? Why were you involved in January?

LOOMIS: My involvement in January, specifically because there was some questions about the data. Well, because the fellow that normally handles the calls, or the people that normally handle the calls, if there is very difficult calls, they will be passed on to me. Most difficult calls end up on my desk.

GERAGOS: Is this, did you characterize this as one of the most difficult calls?

LOOMIS: No. Actually I wouldn't go, as far as the jumping is concerned, one degree jump.

GERAGOS: When you say the most difficult calls are sent over to you, am I interpreting correctly, when you say most difficult, you mean in terms of the complexity of what the nature of the troubleshooting problem is?

LOOMIS: From Orion?

GERAGOS: Yes.

LOOMIS: If I don't know who called on these, probably would not have come to my desk, no.

GERAGOS: If they had called?

LOOMIS: If Orion had called Trimble and they had gone through the process, it probably would have been resolved by somebody else before it got to my desk.

GERAGOS: Did anybody from Orion tell you they contacted Trimble before and received, hadn't gotten any information?

LOOMIS: I have no memory of that, no.

GERAGOS: Do you have any memory on the January call that, anybody mentioning that they had been in contact from Orion with Trimble prior to that date?

DISTASO: Objection. Asked and answered.

JUDGE: Sustained.

LOOMIS: I do not –

JUDGE: You don't have to answer. Next question.

GERAGOS: The specific units that you described in the laundry list of applications for GPS technology to Mr. Distaso this morning, one of the terms you used was dead reckoning?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Could you explain what the dead reckoning is?

LOOMIS: Dead reckoning is an addition of a couple of sensors to calculate positions when the GPS is not available. The most common dead reckoning sensors, very common among automobile manufacturers, is a unit that measures the reading of the car's speedometer reading. As we get to our next position, the process continues until we get another GPS fix and fix ourselves.

GERAGOS: To the best of your knowledge, does the Orion device that we're talking about here have any components that you would characterize as dead reckoning that's associated with it?

LOOMIS: To the best of my knowledge, no.

GERAGOS: Does any tracking device that's out there on the market today that you are aware of have a dead reckoning component?

LOOMIS: Not that I'm aware of.

GERAGOS: Isn't it a fact a dead reckoning device is added into a GPS type devices, I think you said it was used primarily for soldiers in the field; is that correct?

LOOMIS: No. Excuse me. I'd like to take that back. Trimble has manufactured a vehicle tracking device with dead reckoning since the early 1990s. Manufactured and sold.

GERAGOS: Has manufactured and sold. But that is not something that is a component of the Orion device?

LOOMIS: No.

GERAGOS: Dead reckoning component is not part of the Orion device?

LOOMIS: No.

GERAGOS: Is that correct?

LOOMIS: I'll have to say I don't think so, but I don't know for certain.

GERAGOS: Is the reason that Trimble adds the component of a dead reckoning device, for lack of a better word, because of some of the inherent limitations of GPS?

LOOMIS: Yes. It's to provide positions when GPS cannot see the sky. For instance, in urban canyons, the parking lot, situations like that.

GERAGOS: Or when the antenna is covertly placed?

LOOMIS: I don't think that would be a purpose for DR. Although it could be.

GERAGOS: You certainly did, you had a problem that was inherent to the device, meaning that the antenna was in a, was covertly placed, wouldn't DR, as you call the dead reckoning, short as DR; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Wouldn't a DR function make all the sense in the world to have covert placement of an antenna?

LOOMIS: It would improve the performance of the device in the sense that a missing, a position that would be missing, say, in the urban canyon, deep city, would be available. However, it would also increase the cost and complexity of installation attaching that device to the speedometer. It is not an easy task.

GERAGOS: When Mr. Distaso asked you if GPS technology was generally accepted, I think your answer was that it's a generally accepted commercial technology. Was that a fair characterization?

LOOMIS: It's graduated from a scientific technology to a commercial technology, the way I like to think of it.

GERAGOS: Do you have any knowledge of the scientific community as to whether or not GPS devices such as Orion's are generally accepted for forensic purposes?

LOOMIS: I do not have any knowledge.

GERAGOS: Now, do you, you have talked about some of the GPS situations that are similar, thought it reached a point where it is similar to a cell phone; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, is that just in terms of uses that, how you are comparing it, similar in terms of the prevalence, if you will, of the cell phone?

LOOMIS: Obviously cell phones or GPS receivers, in terms of usability, it's very easy for somebody to use a cellphone. Very easy to use a GPS receiver. They are stand alone devices. They are similar price levels, except for monthly fees.

GERAGOS: You also indicated that your company, Trimble, provides GPS technology to, I think, BMW, Porsche, On-Star?

LOOMIS: We have at one time or another in the past.

GERAGOS: Do those GPS navigation devices also contain a DR, or dead reckoning component?

LOOMIS: Most of them do, if not all.

GERAGOS: You believe that to be state of the art to have a dead reckoning component to the navigational system as you market it; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: Yeah. But, remember, this is using it for navigation, not tracking. There is a difference in navigation. Second, you are trying to determine with high confidence where you are so that you can know what kinds of turns to make in the future to get where you are going. That's the purpose of a navigation system. In tracking, we have, with a little bit of a less, we have got a little bit more information available to us, because we not only have seen where we are in terms of GPS, but we also know where we will be in GPS, because we can look at each point in the context of both what happened before and what happened after. I mentioned –

GERAGOS: Couldn't you still do that if you had, strike that. Didn't you say that Trimble has a tracking device, or developed tracking devices that has DR components?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Didn't Trimble develop that DR component to the tracking device precisely because they thought it was more accurate?

LOOMIS: Yes. And to describe that tracking device, it was designed to track in real time, ambulances, trucks, et cetera, commercial vehicles as they went through heavy urban areas.

GERAGOS: Are you aware that in this case the tracking devices were used to track in real time? That's the, that was the practical application of the tracking device in this case?

LOOMIS: Well, the data was downloaded in real time. I believe, yes, I am aware that it was used for tracking in real time.

GERAGOS: We're saying, are you aware it was used to track in real time. We're talking about pinging the mechanism to get a specific location so they could determine where the car or truck was at any one time, somebody, wherever the unit was that was actually receiving the information. Do you understand that that's what was going on in this case?

LOOMIS: I was told that as positions were being generated they were being immediately downloaded, and they were observed by somebody. So that's real time tracking.

GERAGOS: Real time tracking. Isn't it a fair statement that it would have been more scientifically acceptable if there had been a dead reckoning component to the tracking device, such as the one that Trimble has developed and used for how many years?

LOOMIS: Ten years. I would say they are both scientifically acceptable. One gives improved performance. The DR system will have perhaps slightly better accuracy, especially in urban areas. It will have better yields, which means you see more points, you won't lose track of the person as often.

GERAGOS: Presumably.

LOOMIS: They are both scientifically, I mean there is the best science, and there is acceptable science. I think they are both acceptable scientifically.

GERAGOS: As you indicated before, you don't have any expertise as, to make a judgment as to whether or not it's generally accepted in the scientific community for forensic purposes; isn't that a fair statement?

LOOMIS: Not for forensic purposes, no.

GERAGOS: Thank you. Thank you. Now, the Trimble device, has that been, the one with the DR component, has that been sold to law enforcement?

LOOMIS: It's been sold there. I don't know. I know markets, that it was being marketed to include public safety, ambulances, include such things as fire, ambulance, police. But I don't know if any one of those actually bought a GPS DR tracking device.

GERAGOS: Now, you said there was also, that the GPS technology is used in aviation navigation; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Is it used without any other components to navigate, to rely solely on GPS in airplanes?

LOOMIS: In aviation navigation, very safety sensitive application, and so they do use auxiliary sensors to augment the GPS.

GERAGOS: Auxiliary sensors?

LOOMIS: In fact, yes.

GERAGOS: Isn't it true also that we have talked about the GPS being used in boating, for use in boating, that it also was not used solely, but there are auxiliary measures of navigation again that are used in conjunction with GPS?

LOOMIS: When you are talking about Merchant Marine, I'm not actually, how it's used on the bridge, I'm saying bridge would include radar, identify other ships, as well as fixed objects.

GERAGOS: Are you aware of any field where GPS is used without any other auxiliary measurements or measuring device?

LOOMIS: On a number of them, yes.

GERAGOS: Can you name one?

LOOMIS: The whole, the whole industry of map making where you go out and collect data of various items, very often used as just high quality GPS receivers.

GERAGOS: Is that for land survey or planning?

LOOMIS: For mapping, yes, where you are trying to get sub-meter mapping data, a lot of those applications use GPS only.

GERAGOS: When you are doing a map survey, that doesn't involve anything that's actually moving, does it?

LOOMIS: Yes. It is possible to have one of the receivers moving. Land survey usually uses two receivers, and one of the receivers certainly can be moving. If it's moving, the accuracy will not be quite as good as the stationary one.

GERAGOS: That's one of the reasons why, in virtually every field where GPS technology is used, actually measure, is used in conjunction with; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: Again, please. I didn't hear.

GERAGOS: Isn't it true in virtually every field where GPS is used, that it has an auxiliary survey component to it?

LOOMIS: No. No. I disagree with that strongly. There is a lot of vehicle tracking that's done with GPS only in the com unit. I mean just bundle a GPS unit and the communication unit together, and you report the GPS position of the vehicle. Sometimes you lose positions. It's not, like I say, the product can be improved by adding DR. Also becomes much more expensive and difficult to install.

GERAGOS: What are the, what improvements does the DR give you, other than the ones we have already talked about?

DISTASO: Objection, your Honor. Relevance.

JUDGE: Sustained. We're talking about GPS in this particular case.

DISTASO: A bit of follow up. In regards to the last questions asked by counsel, are you aware of then using GPS to track things other than automobiles?

LOOMIS: Oh, GPS has been used to track wild animals, where, for instance, GPS receiver will be attached to a bear collar and left out for many, many months. And it will track the location of the bear over that time. That's, there is a wide variety of GPS applications that, where GPS only is used.

DISTASO: Let me ask you this. Counsel asked you a question, is it accepted in the scientific community for forensic purposes. That's kind of two-part thing. Forensic purposes, of course, in the dictionary means to be used in court. That's the judge's call. Are you comfortable saying that GPS as a technology as a reliable and accurate position locator is accepted in the scientific community for that purpose?

GERAGOS: Objection.

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Objection. Argumentative.

JUDGE: Objection overruled. That's the issue.

LOOMIS: The fact of the matter is, GPS right now is creating the maps that we are using in California. And if maps are forensic evidence, of course the GPS is.

DISTASO: Okay. So when we, when we use some of those exhibits in People's 1 up there that show a map, those very maps that we were introducing in court could have been produced by GPS technology?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: And all of these issues that we have talked about over the last couple of hours on cross examination here were, all of that time was only spent on these three discrete areas that we talked about earlier; is that right?

GERAGOS: Objection. Vague, unintelligible.

JUDGE: What do you mean by,

DISTASO: The three areas we're talking about, the one offset, the one six-minute offset; is that right?

LOOMIS: Yeah.

GERAGOS: Objection. Misstates the evidence.

JUDGE: No, I think that's granted. Overruled.

DISTASO: Isn't that, well, when you were talking about problems and anomalies and things with Mr. Geragos, you were referring to the one six-minute, one-degree offset.

JUDGE: That's one question.

DISTASO: That's right. Is that right, doctor?

LOOMIS: As far as GPS problems, yes.

DISTASO: And then as far as there was another GPS problem when there was a one- degree offset of a couple of seconds. You referred to that as well?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: And regarding the final GPS problem that we have been talking about here today was the Fresno kind of V-shaped spike. And we have dealt with that issue as well.

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: I believe you testified that that produced inaccurate data for about five minutes?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: Okay. And you did look at all three of these kinds of tracks which really comprise hours of data; is that right?

LOOMIS: Correct.

DISTASO: So of that hours of data, we're talking about one six-minute block, a couple second block, and a five-minute block where you did not believe the data was accurate?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: For the remainder of the data, you were comfortable, and you testified here today, that that data, in your opinion, was accurate?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: And regarding the data set,

GERAGOS: Objection. That misstates the evidence. There was voluminous cross on the other items that he said were baffling to him.

JUDGE: No. He said in 1-Q, 1-S, 1-W, 1 triple B, 1 triple P, the data was accurate and validated.

DISTASO: I'll ask you, doctor. Regarding the data sets, the actual numbers that are referred to in People's 1 and I'll pull up what counsel talked to you about. Well, for example, let's just, 1-C here, you have reviewed the particular GPS data which is the actual location data; is that right?

LOOMIS: The time tag and the latitude and longitude, that's GPS data.

DISTASO: Right. That's the actual location data. That's where, that's where the point is on earth at that particular location?

LOOMIS: Yes. I have reviewed all that data.

DISTASO: Were you comfortable, other than the issues we have just talked about, you were comfortable with that location data?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: All right. The motion detector which is, I guess, another component of the unit from Orion, and the speed, that's not your, I mean that's not your unit?

LOOMIS: It's outside of my expertise.

DISTASO: Okay. And but as far as the location of where your unit, your GPS units was, saying that was, other than those areas we talked about, you were comfortable that that was accurate data?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: Okay. And than after each of those problems that we have discussed today, the only one that you believe might be related do an antenna location in the vehicle was the one in Fresno; is that right?

GERAGOS: Objection. Misstates the evidence.

JUDGE: No. That's the question. Overruled. Was that your testimony?

LOOMIS: Yes, that is.

DISTASO: And, but the location of the device you said was not your first choice as to what could have caused that problem.

LOOMIS: I believe that may have been a contributing factor if, indeed, there was interference. It's possible that had the signal been stronger, it could have read the signal over an interfering signal.

DISTASO: So just so we're all clear about this, we're talking about the V-shaped peak from Fresno?

LOOMIS: Yes.

DISTASO: And if the antenna is in a place where it's receiving a very strong GPS signal, if another radar or something was interfering with it, perhaps the signal would have been strong enough, and it would have either ignored or overridden that radar interferance?

LOOMIS: It's possible.

DISTASO: All right. But the location of the antenna, by itself, you don't believe caused that particular problem.

LOOMIS: No.

DISTASO: You believe there was some other type interference, or some other issue for about a five-minute block of time that caused that problem?

LOOMIS: I think it is, in my opinion, the actual interference lasted about 80 seconds. However, that, because of the filter, time to filter out of the system, I would take out some of the, I believe I had said five minutes on that.

GERAGOS: Do you have any information as to problems with the tracking device that was installed on the Rover? Did anybody bring that to your attention during this exact same time period, first week of January, through the three week period of January? Did anybody ever talk to you about that?

LOOMIS: You know, I can't recall.

GERAGOS: Let me show you an item which is numbered 4044. Take look. Seems there is narrative, three paragraphs.

LOOMIS: Okay. I believe I have heard mention of a problem. I don't know if it was that exact problem. And I have seen sporadic data sets.

GERAGOS: The problem was that the tracking device was installed on the Rover. And if I say, the Rover is one of the bitmaps that's on there, is it not?

LOOMIS: Let's see. I have S-10, Dakota, and I have a Rover.

GERAGOS: Right. Did anybody bother to give you all of the information that we, did you take a look at all the tracking information from start to finish that was provided by the tracking devices?

LOOMIS: I have a set of data that was provided to me by Mr. Distaso. And I'm not sure whether there is any data further than that.

GERAGOS: Well, what if I were to tell you that there was, you just read the narrative that said that there was a three-week period of time when there was a complete, what appeared to be a complete malfunction of the Rover's device. You read that?

LOOMIS: It said malfunction. Specifically, we were unable to track or retrieve data track information. Unable to, from January 3rd to January, week of January 21st. That would be a complete malfunction.

GERAGOS: Could that not be,

LOOMIS: It states that there were sporadic. That would be one issue. If there were complete, unable to get any data, that would be another issue.

GERAGOS: We were unable to maintain a track or retrieve data track information.

LOOMIS: So they got some, but they could not maintain.

GERAGOS: But what does that tell you?

LOOMIS: It's possible that there was a poor antenna installation. It's possible that the cell phone transmission was poor.

GERAGOS: Did anybody give you that information, that tracking information, so that you could take a look at it to do an analysis?

LOOMIS: I have seen some tracking data. I believe it's beyond what's in here. Is that true?

GERAGOS: You are asking Mr. Distaso, waiting for his response?

LOOMIS: I have some data tracks from inside of Modesto only.

GERAGOS: I'm asking you, did you review, there is at least 400 pages worth of data track type information. Did you review all of the information from the tracking devices, or did Mr. Distaso just cherry pick items and give you those to render an opinion on?

LOOMIS: I got my data from Mr. Distaso. I don't know if it's all the data. I trust him to tell me whether it's all the data.

GERAGOS: I showed you data from another tracking device starting in January on these same cars. And you, at one of the breaks, and you said that you weren't familiar with, you hadn't seen it; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: That was not one of the an Orion tracking devices, or was it? Have I seen,

GERAGOS: I'm asking you, you hadn't seen it; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: I had not seen that tracking data.

GERAGOS: Now, the tracking data on the Rover was an Orion tracking device, was it not?

LOOMIS: There was an Orion tracking device put on the Rover, yes.

GERAGOS: And the narrative says here on page 4044 that was an Orion GPS system was installed in the vehicle, correct?

LOOMIS: Correct.

GERAGOS: It says the tracking device was installed and released to Scott Peterson. After the vehicle was released, it was found we were unable to maintain a track or retrieve data track information. Could you please point to where in that book of information that Mr. Distaso provided to you there is any indication that the machine or the device failed?

LOOMIS: Okay. I have a Rover from 1-26 here, which is the last listed on the sheets. There is three other Rover files. And I don't see them in this book.

GERAGOS: So aren't you at least a bit troubled that you are giving an opinion what the devices were doing when, in fact, you got something there that appears to show that the device installed in the car during this very same month had failed?

LOOMIS: As to the accuracy, quality and validity of the GPS positions that are actually contained in this file, no. In these files --

GERAGOS: Don't you have a problem with that, where they install one Orion device, we install another Orion device, they give you one piece of information, and out of the four pieces of information, the bitmap tracks that they give you there is three problems contained out of those four?

JUDGE: Argumentative.

GERAGOS: Did you have any, wouldn't you, as, you are here to render an opinion as an expert, is that correct?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: As an expert wouldn't you rather had more information than less?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Wouldn't you want to know why it is that the tracking device that was installed on that Rover failed showing throughout, during the exact same time period, overlapping the exact same time period that you have been testifying to all day?

LOOMIS: You know, my first inclination is to say, I'm not worried about a device that fails and is pulled out and replaced with a device that works. I don't think that indicates a systematic problem that would negate the quality or validity of a device that is working. That's my first.

GERAGOS: What's your second reaction?

LOOMIS: As a commercial producer, I would hate to be selling devices that have a rate of failure of that type. I would like to see why those devices failed so I could ship devices that worked when they were installed. But we're talking about two different items, you know.

GERAGOS: How about, just as an expert who is sitting here testifying about the technology, who is saying that you disagree with a substantial part of the analysis that was done by your end user as to what the problems were, that you have been given only a discrete portion of information that apparently you were not told about the failure of one of these very same units on one of these cars, and that you have never seen one of these blips or unusual situations in ten years, and you didn't know, or apparently just discovered that there was a longitudinal blip that would cause a 60 mile change in direction, when you are talking about getting those kinds of pieces of information, wouldn't you want more information rather than less?

LOOMIS: Yes. Well, let's go through those points one-by-one. There are a few points there. Number one, if the device failed, where it's putting out position fixes of poor quality, I would certainly demand to see those. Okay? In this instance, it was putting out no position fixes, as far as that letter, as far as I can see from the letter that you gave me.

GERAGOS: Wait a minute. Can we just take that point?

LOOMIS: Let's take that point.

GERAGOS: You told me you were not accepting of that. When I said that it was a complete malfunction, you said they could have one getting some, and you just don't know. So as we sit here today, neither you nor I know what it is they got, because nobody bothered to provide that to you.

LOOMIS: But there is, that's right.

GERAGOS: Okay.

LOOMIS: But there is no mention of the bad position fixes.

GERAGOS: If I understand your,

LOOMIS: Position fix quality would be key. There is bad position fix quality. And I don't know, because I don't know exactly what those data sets are. They are not in this binder right here. Okay?

GERAGOS: I'll assume we are going to recess until Tuesday, at which point they are going to have Orion. I would ask not to excuse him, provide him with those data sets so he can take a look, and so he can render an informed opinion.

JUDGE: Well, except he's the prosecution witness. If you would like to call him as your witness and provide him with that, put him under,

GERAGOS: Exactly.

DISTASO: He has been provided with data sets. On redirect, I was going to remind him of, I mean he's seen all the data sets. We can hand him that.

JUDGE: We'll take a recess, and you can talk to your witness. If you want to put on that information, we'll permit it. And Mr. Geragos can cross examine him on it. Is there anything you want to cover now? He'll have to come back, obviously.

GERAGOS: Good afternoon.

LOOMIS: Hi.

GERAGOS: Since were you last here last, anybody told you where they placed the antenna?

LOOMIS: No. The GPS antenna?

GERAGOS: The GPS antenna.

LOOMIS: No.

GERAGOS: There is another, there is a wireless antenna as well on the device, is there?

LOOMIS: I didn't realize, wireless, you mean communication?

GERAGOS: Yes.

LOOMIS: Yes, there is.

GERAGOS: Can you, just show you something, see if you recognize,

JUDGE: Has that been marked or,

GERAGOS:: If he recognizes it, I'll mark it. If I could ask him first. Do you recognize what I'm showing you?

LOOMIS: No, I haven't seen this sheet before.

GERAGOS: Okay. Do you know what an Informer ST600 is?

LOOMIS: I haven't heard that term before, no.

GERAGOS: Now, have you looked at, I think when we had left off last week, you were, said you'd not seen one of these units or devices that was used in this particular case?

LOOMIS: I said one had been shown to me. I didn't remember exactly what it looked like. Just a black box of a certain size.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, is it a fair statement that the, well, let me take you back. Do you know whether or not the, do you recall, for lack of a better word, the device that you supplied Orion?

LOOMIS: It's a GPS board, if you would like to call it that.

GERAGOS: Do you know if that board is a code or a carrier phase unit?

LOOMIS: Actually does both.

GERAGOS: And do you know if their software interfaces with both phases, or if it just does an interface with one or the,

LOOMIS: Just interfaces with the, what we call carrier smoothed code.

GERAGOS: Okay. And do you know if the, have you looked at any of the data sets, done any homework, if you will, since you were last here testifying?

LOOMIS: No, I have not looked at any of the data.

GERAGOS: Okay. Have you talked to any of the people at Trimble since you were last here regarding any of the issues?

LOOMIS: No.

GERAGOS: Now, the, specifically, on the, well, let me just start with this. Do you know what the term PDOP is?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: And is that Positional Dilution,

LOOMIS: Of Precision, yes.

GERAGOS: And would you say that it's a fair statement that bad PDOP effects of the accuracy of the device or the instrument?

LOOMIS: Relates to the multiplicative effect on the ranging measurements.

GERAGOS: Okay. We had talked about the multiplicative effect the last time we where here. Do you remember that?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: You had said that sometimes that can range up to 10 or 15 times?

LOOMIS: It's a user setting. I assume that most of our users use a setting of about, I believe, a 12 for their maximum. That's standard out of the factory.

GERAGOS: That means if you are a hundred meters off, that the multiplicative effects would equal what?

LOOMIS: When your range is a hundred meters off it can result in a position that's ten times that, yes.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the does a bad PDOP, can that be a product of an, or can it be ascertained or linked to the placement of the antenna on the automobile?

LOOMIS: Can it be linked to,

GERAGOS: It does affect the antenna placement?

LOOMIS: Fewer satellites you have, the more likely your PDOP will be larger, and it will have larger multiplicative effect.

GERAGOS: What kinds of safeguards does the, if any, does the Trimble unit have built into it to correct for PDOP?

LOOMIS: You don't correct for PDOP. It's the nature of the data that you get.

GERAGOS: So if somebody were to tell you that there was a kind of self-correcting mechanism built into your device that deals with PDOP, that would not be a correct statement?

LOOMIS: Oh, gosh, you know, self-correcting might not be the right term. However, we do have filters, and so the filters, as you go from good PDOP to a, if you don't mind if I can change it to P-DOP (phonetic) That's industry name, okay P-DOP (phonetic).

GERAGOS: PDOP is P-DOP (phonetic).

LOOMIS: That's the way it's imprinted in my brain. I'm sorry.

GERAGOS: Got it.

JUDGE: We'll use that.

GERAGOS: We'll use that term.

LOOMIS: As you go from a time of good P-DOP to a time of bad P-DOP, The filter equipment remembers the fact that your position was quite good in the previous few seconds, and so a short excursion into a bad P-DOP would be propagated with a velocity, and the velocity is very precise compared to the position, so you will maintain position accuracy for quite some time.

GERAGOS: And so the notion, if you will, that somehow the device is correcting for bad P-DOP is not correct. What actually is happening is you are recording the data, and part of what the device does is to, I guess, to the grade it, if you will, or at least it's calibrated, or the remembers what's good data versus bad data?

LOOMIS: No, I wouldn't say so, because we only put out the data. And the P-DOP, quite frankly, is a rather old measure of accuracy. And with the advent of positional velocity filters, as they became common ten years ago, began to make P-DOP a little bit of an antiquated notion.

GERAGOS: Wasn't that the case, though, when you have a situation of optimal placement of antennas and everything else, don't you have a P-DOP still, as I'll use your term P-DOP as a phenomena that occurs now because of the specific situation of when you put this in a covert situation?

LOOMIS: Yes. There is a good chance that because you don't see a certain satellite, that your satellite geometry will not be good enough to give you a good P-DOP. And the best P-DOPs are going to be running about two or three. Currently with an eight charge receiver, we do allow them to go out to about 10 or 12.

GERAGOS: And is it, and is the, so that I have it clear, when you talk about the geometry, what you are trying to do is get a situation where you can get at least one satellite in each quadrant, ideally; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Well, actually, no. It's more complicated than that. But there are some simple geometric rules. Typically, if satellites all lie in a circle, even if it's an great circle going through the sky, if you can imagine the satellites going in a great circle in the sky, that wouldn't give you much information outside of that plane. You could sort of wiggle is the ranges, and the, you know, they wouldn't be fixed. But if you have the satellites in sort of a more random portion, you can imagine the ranges as being strings, the strings are much more fixed to that location, so the P-DOP certainly gives you the rigidity of the geometry, so to speak.

GERAGOS: Now, does the, do you know if the particular device in this case can actually output the P-DOP number off the SV numbers on the satellite?

LOOMIS: The way, and our GPS board is capable doing that. I do not know if the Orion includes that in its data.

GERAGOS: When you say it's capable of doing that, you are saying that the technology is there, and you built it into the board; is that correct?

LOOMIS: I'm saying as it is shipped in its standard configuration, it puts it out.

GERAGOS: And if I were to tell I that Orion says that it does not register that, would that make sense to you?

LOOMIS: Yeah, that would make sense to me. That was their choice in designing this product.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, by doing that, does that decrease your ability to pick up one of those whether there is bad P-DOP or not?

LOOMIS: Exactly. You won't, given any one position, you won't be able to judge whether that P-DOP will be a very good one, like I say, or a bad one, which would be, the factory configuration has that, I believe, about 10 or 12, so about three or four times larger. However, can be adjusted by the user, so that would be a choice of the Orion whether they change that or not.

GERAGOS: You no that. So we talked about the bad geometry, the problem with bad geometry. And that can be a function of the placement of the antenna, correct?

LOOMIS: Yeah. Yes.

GERAGOS: The antenna is in such a spot where it cannot meet the satellite in the sky, that presents a problem, correct?

LOOMIS: Again, please.

GERAGOS: I'll let you answer it. If you covertly place the antenna, why does that cause a bad geometry, geometrical problem?

JUDGE: I don't think he necessarily, does it depend where it's placed?

LOOMIS: Very often you can find that your covert antenna will pick up a lot of good satellites, and you will have good geometry. Occasionally it will not have good geometry. And typically when you don't have good geometry, as the vehicle is heading in the same direction, you will lose, or you will have a series of points that will a have roughly the same geometry, because they will be sitting in the same satellites over that period. As the car turns, you are going to be picking up other satellites. Your geometry changes as the car turns through the geography.

GERAGOS: Now, that also is the other problem for GPS signal, the multipath,

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: issue?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: And why is that a problem?

LOOMIS: Well, if the multipath, the, remember that the GPS receiver is measuring the time it takes for the signal to get from the satellite to the receiver's antenna. And if that signal has bounced off of a reflective surfaces, in getting there, that will lengthen that distance. It can lengthen it by quite a few meters.

GERAGOS: By doing that, that would give you a variation of the accuracy?

LOOMIS: Right now multipath specifically is where you have both the direct signal, you can see the direct signal, and you have a reflected signal along with it. And the reflected signal tends to, it muddies up the direct signal a little bit. If you are stationary, if you are not moving, it will have a larger effect. It tends to have a smaller effect when you are moving, and that's because the multipath effect, it's a very odd thing about GPS, but it goes negative, positive, negative, positive, and with the filters we have, when we filter through that, it averages these negatives and positives together. So a moving automobile actually has less multipath if it has a direct signal, typically.

GERAGOS: Now, the, you are familiar with the term pseudorange?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: And part of what is being measured in the GPS equipment is pseudorange?

LOOMIS: I use range for multiplicity, but actually it is pseudorange.

GERAGOS: Is one of the problems with measuring that, what you just described as you get this reflection of the signal of buildings, you are getting a longer pseudorange, therefore that equates into a miscalculation of the accuracy of the location?

LOOMIS: Not a miscalculation of the accuracy of the location. Well, yes, it does, as a matter of fact. It results in an inaccurate position, as well as an inaccuracy if you have accuracy measures along with it.

GERAGOS: Now, is there a way, or does that happen, this idea of where it's a multipath bouncing off, or bad readings of the pseudorange, what you call range, is that something that is an, does that phenomenon occur more often when you have a covertly placed device?

LOOMIS: Let me think about that for a second, if I can imagine the situations here.

GERAGOS: Could I give you an example? If you had an antenna that was in plane view on top of the car roof, would that not be the optimum place?

LOOMIS: You would get more direct signal. So if a multipath signal did come in, it would be weaker compared to the direct signal, a lot weaker. Multipath would veer the pseudorange off less. So, in that sense, the multipath effects would be stronger with antenna that couldn't directly see the sky.

GERAGOS: Could not, directly?

LOOMIS: Yes, could not, yes.

GERAGOS: So I guess what I'm getting to, if you have an antenna that's not placed in the optimum position, which I assume would be the top of the roof of the car?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: That would enhance, or would increase the likelihood of a multipath problem?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Now, is there, is the data that's generated by your receiver or your card, that's then put out to aftermarket, is all of that data generally, or are you aware that data is retained in the software that's overlaid by Orion?

LOOMIS: No, I do not.

GERAGOS: Are you aware of whether or not there is any other, strike that.

 Who, in your location or your shop, actually did the interface with Orion for the device that was used in the particular case?

LOOMIS: We have three different standard interfaces that can be used by our customers, and Orion was using one of them.

GERAGOS: And is that similar to, do you know what the, you made a distinction last week between the high-value and low-cost?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Is there a significant difference from the accuracy between the high-value and low-cost?

LOOMIS: The high-value and high-volume I think, I think were the terms I used. And, yes, there is a difference in accuracy between those.

GERAGOS: And is it a significant difference in accuracy?

LOOMIS: It depends upon your application. Typically, in vehicle situations, when you get into a deep urban area, there won't be too much difference between the two. The higher value receivers have, they are less susceptible to multipath. In other words, given multipath signal will have less effect on the pseudorange. And, in general, the higher quality or high-value receiver is just going to be, you know, more accurate all over. Typically,

GERAGOS: We talked last week about the,

DISTASO: Objection. I think the witness was still answering.

JUDGE: Yes. Go ahead finish your answer.

LOOMIS: Just want to mention the typical accuracy that we see in clear view, the high-value receivers will be, say, five to ten times more accurate than the low-value or the high-volume receivers will be.

GERAGOS: High volume, AKA low-cost?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: You want to a provide that low-cost?

LOOMIS: Low-cost is fine.

GERAGOS: Now, the situation that we talked about last week with the one degree shift, that occurred on one of these data sets. Do you remember that?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: Did anybody with your shop, with Trimble actually, go out and try to recreate that situation in a real-life setting?

LOOMIS: Not in my shop, no.

GERAGOS: Are you aware of Orion doing it?

LOOMIS: I believe that Orion mentioned that there was a line of latitude or longitude near their shop there in telephone conversation I had with them in January, and that they had seen it there. And that's the extent of my knowledge.

GERAGOS: Now, the other situation that we talked about last week, which was the spike that occurred around Fresno, where there was some speculation, I think you had said, you only seen it once in ten or eleven years?

LOOMIS: I said I hadn't seen it in ten or eleven years. I have seen it a handful of times in the early nineties.

GERAGOS: And in those other occasions where you saw that spike, was it in the vicinity of an airport?

LOOMIS: When I saw those before, they were antennas in clear view from top of our roof where I work at Trimble, and we are in the landing pattern of Moffett Naval Air Station. And I had a funny feeling those two were connected.

GERAGOS: You say there was antennas that were clear view on top of the roof of your location?

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: As opposed to the situation that we're assuming is here, a covert placement of the antenna?

LOOMIS: That's correct.

GERAGOS: Now, the covert placement of the antenna, is there a specified way or manner in which that should be done to maximize the receiver's efficacy, and minimize the susceptibility to multipath or other problems?

LOOMIS: There are some better ways to do it. If you happen to have a piece of metal behind the antenna, that helps the signal somewhat.

GERAGOS: When you say a piece of middle behind,

LOOMIS: The antennas are not very large. They are, I think, four centimeters or so. I'm not sure exactly what type I have.

JUDGE: Big as,

LOOMIS: Do you have a paper cup? Paper cup. The older ones are a little bit smaller than the open mouth of this cup. If you can get some idea of the size. The smaller ones now we are selling are about that size.

GERAGOS: What's the width?

LOOMIS: About two inches. The newer ones. I'm not sure which ones Orion was using at the time. So I gather, if you get a piece of metal, they are magnetic antennas, and the, and if you attach them to a piece of metal, you will get a better signal.

GERAGOS: Is that a, in terms of the technology, is that a recommended usage if you are going to do it covertly? LOOMIS: I don't know if it's in the materials industry, to the customers or not.

GERAGOS: But I'm asking you, I mean,

LOOMIS: Yes.

GERAGOS: You want to maximize the ability to minimize multipath and other potential problems, giving you bad pseudorange, wouldn't you want to place it next to the metal?

LOOMIS: Yes, if I were doing it, I would want to place it so that the base of the antenna is fairly close to a piece of metal, if possible.

GERAGOS: And what other problems occur by the covert placement of the antenna?

LOOMIS: I don't know about covert placement. But we have found problems in automobiles before. For instance, if we place them about five or six centimeters away from a metal reflecting surface we end up with very little signal, now by which you end up with very little signal, the chances are you are not going to get any position fix at all for a good portion of the time. That was typically what we found. We found very poor fix yields, as we say.

GERAGOS: And when the, would you be able to tell that from the data set, for the lack of, or the lack of data reflected in the data set as to whether or not there was a poor placement or a good placement?

LOOMIS: Yes, I feel I would be able to do that.

GERAGOS: Okay. And, in this case, I think we talked about a problem with one of the receivers from January 3rd and January 21st. Nobody has shown you the data set that was either produced or not produced in relation to that receiver; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: Actually I did look at a series of data sets that were not in this book. In the book I had.

GERAGOS: That's the same book?

LOOMIS: It's a big book with a lot of data in it. And there was a series of data that I have from January 4th and January 6th in the City of Modesto. And so I did look at, and I understand that was tested. I looked at the e-mail that accompanied the test data.

GERAGOS: Is that something you have done since you testified last week?

LOOMIS: I retrieved it, and I did look at the data, yes.

GERAGOS: When you looked at that data, what did, what did you perceive the problem to be?

LOOMIS: Well, it is a little bit odd, because, as I mentioned before, if it had been a GPS problem, I would have sensed as the car was heading in one direction, to finds a complete, more or less complete outage. And that's not really what I saw. What I saw was that going along a street for a while, then begin losing points.

GERAGOS: Begin to,

LOOMIS: Begin to lose points. Lose points. In other words, yields would be would decrease.

GERAGOS: Is that something that you would only see with a multipath situation, or where the signal would get weaker?

LOOMIS: You know, not in, I know that area of Modesto a little bit, and I would not expect that. What I would expect serious multipath problems be coming in the more urban cities where you have narrow streets and three or four story buildings.

GERAGOS: You are saying that because, when you say you know that area of Modesto because it's not densely, or not an urban area?

LOOMIS: It's not densely urban. That's correct.

GERAGOS: You would not expect a multipath problem for a weaker signal there, because it's mostly one-story structures, more rural?

LOOMIS: Multipath does occur. It gets filtered out by our filtering systems, so it, you may see a tiny blip. In fact, very often with multipath, you wouldn't see the tiny blip, and it just passes, cancels out. Because, as I say, with the motion of the car, now with a stationary receiver, you will see multipath effect much more. But with a moving car, basically just filters right out.

GERAGOS: On the data sets that you looked at from January 4th and 6th, it was because you know that area, and you did not, I assume you did not expect to see what you were seeing in the data set; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Well, the accompanying e-mail said there was a problem with the communications antenna, and that they were dropping points. And so my comment to that is, yes, this looks more like a communications problem than a GPS problem. GPS looks very accurate. It's consistent with the streets and roads. And, in addition, it doesn't tend to drop out completely when you are traveling in one direction.

GERAGOS: Now, when you stay it's a communications problem, what do you mean by that?

LOOMIS: The communication between the receiver, the on-the-air download between the GPS receiver, the Orion device, and the tracking station.

GERAGOS: Okay. Are you aware of where the tracking station was in this case?

LOOMIS: No, I'm not.

GERAGOS: Are you aware of where the on-air download took place?

LOOMIS: No, I am not.

GERAGOS: Are you aware of what Orion's, you said you have seen the device, you have seen the complete from start to finish device, antenna, and plain unit?

LOOMIS: No, I have not.

GERAGOS: Now, if you say it's a communications problem, is it a fair statement that the use or deployment of this receiving unit, essential to that is the communications component of the system?

LOOMIS: Well, there are a couple of ways to deploy this with the GPS, is that you can store the GPS positions in on-board memory, or you can download them off the air. If you are going to download them off the air, and you have a damaged communications link, it can damage the ability to determine when GPS positions are downloaded.

GERAGOS: So we're clear, is it a fair statement that by storing it in the unit and not having an on-air download, that you can't get real time coordinates?

LOOMIS: By storing it in the unit, I don't know how the Orion device is configured. It might be only one or the other. You may be able to do both. I'm not sure.

GERAGOS: Okay. As you sit here today, is there a way to determine whether or not these data sets were produced by an on-air download?

LOOMIS: No, I cannot determine that from these data sets.

GERAGOS: And the device that was used in this case, I guess data sets that you took a look at on the 4th or the 6th, did somebody, in response to that, explain what they thought the problem was?

LOOMIS: In the e-mail they said that a communication antenna problem had been found with that receiver and had been fixed afterwards, after they gave me the data just to take a look at. And even without looking at the e-mail, I looked at the data first. They said this doesn't look like a GPS problem, as the GPS looks accurate. And it doesn't have the total outage that I would expect from a visibility problem.

GERAGOS: Is there always going to be a communications component to any kind of a GPS receiver when it's utilized in a covert situation?

LOOMIS: Oh, absolutely not. You can put GPS receivers on without, with an active wireless, and sneak up and download the memory. That's a possibility.

GERAGOS: But that, as far as you know, was not done in this case; isn't that correct?

LOOMIS: I haven't heard them saying that. Most of what I have been, most of what I have seen they have, as far as I know, it was all downloaded on the air.

GERAGOS: Okay. And your, and your, Trimble does not produce the communications components of these devices; is that correct?

LOOMIS: Not for Orion. GERAGOS: Okay. And do you know who uses the, or who produces the communications component of the device for Orion?

LOOMIS: I don't know, no.

GERAGOS: What is the methodology that's used for the communication device? I guess it's situations, you could provide that to end users; is that correct?

LOOMIS: There is a variety of different telephone methods that we have. We can use short message service. We have ones that relay information over the ELPS telephone network which is gradually going down, or gradually being un-deployed. CDPD. Basically we used cell phone towers, because they cover so much of the landscape. So that's the primary method of communication at this point.

GERAGOS: When you do that, you run into some other problems obviously when you are switching or transitioning from one tower to another?

LOOMIS: I haven't heard of any such problems, no.

GERAGOS: In terms of the communications of the on-air downloads?

LOOMIS: I haven't heard of any such problems.

GERAGOS: And in this case,

LOOMIS: Excuse me just a second. I do know that for instance on Short Message Service, when we go from one network to another, it's possible that the phone, that the network that you are not paying money directly to can sometimes take a little bit longer than the one that you are. But I don't know if that's what you are addressing at this point.

GERAGOS: In part. The specific data set that you were sent regarding this device which you said January 4th, January 6th, do you know what the date of that e-mail was?

LOOMIS: No, I don't. I believe it was in late January.

GERAGOS: Do you know if the fix that was done in response to the e-mail from you was walked through by you, or by one of your Technical Support people?

LOOMIS: No. The communications antenna had no bearing on the Trimble device at all, so we did not support that.

GERAGOS: And did you have the, was e-mail sent to you, or was it your interpretation of the e-mail that was sent to you prior to the fixing occurring, or after the fix was occurring?

LOOMIS: Oh, I got this in January of 2004, and the device was broken in January of 2003.

GERAGOS: So,

LOOMIS: Is that clear?

GERAGOS: Yes. So nobody, as far as you are aware, had contacted the company, Trimble or Orion, in January contemporaneous, January of 2003 contemporaneous to the problem being recognized?

LOOMIS: I don't know. Somebody may have contacted Trimble. May have been handled on a different desk. And I don't know at all if they contacted Orion.

DISTASO: Mr. Loomis, just, if you could, what's the accuracy, can you give me accuracy, like meters, or centimeters of the high-value receivers?

LOOMIS: High-value receivers are almost always used in pairs, and so what we're looking at is the difference between them. And they, that class, that's called submeter. And so the accuracy is well under submeter. So depending upon the actual application, they can be centimeters level, decimeter level, which is about four inches, which is typical for moving carrier-phase-based systems. JGIS systems will be on an order of a foot or two.

DISTASO: And what is the high-volume or low-cost, what would be their accuracy?

LOOMIS: We're at the, we're at the same accuracy as, say, as a handheld. So we're at the mercy of things like atmospheric effects, and et cetera. Our quoted accuracy, I believe, are about five to nine meters. And I think that's about fifty to ninety percent of the time. That's a clear view accuracy.