Joint Appendix One

I Case 2:10-cv-O7678-JFW-DTB Document 57-15 Filed 09/28/11 Page 1 of 1
#: 1059
I FUTURELOGIC Inc. r
I
TO: James Co.
Davis, The Coca-Cola
Simi Ahluwalia, The Coca-Cola Co.
Ken Weinaug, The Coca-Cola Co.
I Jodi Hildenbrand, The Coca-Cola Co.
CC: Dave Uland, Interleave Systems
Linda Brass, Voxcom
I DT: 05/18199
RE: Finalized cost reductions and clarification_ _ _ ._
Thank you all for your patience while we reviewe( reviewed the _e valious various asl: aspects e of )f tthe
proposed
I printer. I have summarized our cost reduction fin_ findings Lgs below, ant and iin addition, Idit I am
providing clarification on several of the points thai that were ere ddiscussed scussed iin the_ nmeeting
and in the
earlier submitted quotation.
I As
As
a
first
first
point
point
of
of
clarification,
clarification,
I
would
would
like
like
to
to
point
point out
Jttha'
that
the
the
apl:
approach
r( [th
that we took in
complying with section 9.4.3, of the CCUSA Coui Coupon 1Prin Printer er Spec Specification, fi )n, was to provide a
removable/reusable packaging that would provide the necessary cushioning for each
I removable/reusable printer while in transit. packaging Once at that the installation would provide sit site, le the theneq_ssary,'L c_shionin!l cushioning would)nin ld Ibe
removed, the
printer installed, and the replaced printer outfitted outfitted, with rith th._ the same _;t cushion, )n, for the return trip.
The benefits ofthis of this approach are a reduced cost burden rden inn the prin printer (already aln accounted
I
• for in existing quotation) and the ability to meet the size constraints of section 9.1.4. This
" for in existing quotation) and the ability to meet th size c _nstrainls ec
assumed solution has also been factored into the option )tion list show shown1 below, Iw, and would
impact both size and cost in a negative way if the approach )proa :h was ¢e deemed;d iinadequate.
I Another point of clarification that I think needs mentioning is the ppapedmedia a me width. At the
beginning of the discussions, the paper width started at 60mm (as noted in the
specification) and gravitated to 66mm (dollar bill size). While the electric clltter cutter width at the
I 60mm level is not an issue, it becomes an issue at the 66ram 66mm level :ion. c
(see op options 2 & 3). We
were able to source a smaller variant of the 80mm printer mechanism, nee needed led for printing
66mm media, but the availability of smaller cutters is a problem. A manual cutJ cut/tear
I
approach
approach
licensing
is possible though
is possible though
fee in the reduction
we will need to research
we will need to research
shown.
existing
existing
patents
patents
and have assumed
and lav(
a
The final points of clarification are in the areas of NRE and schedule and their relationships
I The to the thefinal options points shown. of clarification The cost costare reductions in the areas outlined of NRE are, and for schedule purposes and of dis discussion, tt cus_ eir u a
comparison of the effects of design choices on the pricing of a production I._vel level product.
The NREs provided in the quotation are for a single set of design objective objectives _an and are
I
reflected in the specified scheduling
reflected in the specified scheduling
commencement would have varying
time-line. A change of direction
time-line. A change of direction
degrees of cost and scheduling
after project
after I_roj_
impa¢ impact [ de dependent
upon the change of scope, and the amount of worlVtesting already performed.
I Please review the listed options and let me know if there the re are any other question questions - I will be
happy to provide any help or additional clarification as necessary. Thank you.
I 425 E,-C-£)LORADO ST., STE 670, GLENDALE, CA 91205 ......
I
818,244.4700 Fax 818,244.4764
CONFIDENTIAL 00140
Nanoptix' Summary Judgment Exhibit No. 13
.........
-A0279-
Page ID
FL0020983