Gordon’s testimony regarding the facts, circumstances, and events surrounding the negotiation of the 1994 agreements would have been assistance to the Court in evaluating the objectives of the parties at that time. However, Gordon refused to testify on that subject during his deposition because he supposedly could not separate what he knows based on his own recollection from what he learned from counsel. Gordon’s counsel therefore asserted the attorney/client privilege and instructed Gordon not to answer any questions on the subject. The Court takes a dim view of this conduct and questions whether the assertion of the privilege was proper. Moreover, the assertion of the privilege does have a consequence: having now reached a decision the record before it, the Court will not during the remainder of this case receive any evidence from Gordon that attempts to contradict any aspect of this Court’s ruling on the copyright issues under discussion.