throbber
Case 1:03-cv—00440—WY-DLM Document 381 Filed 06/09/09 Page 1 of 198 PagelD #: 6273
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
`
`‘I’
`
`1'
`
`*
`
`*
`
`‘k
`
`‘i’
`
`*
`
`‘A’
`
`*
`
`‘k
`
`‘R
`
`‘A’
`
`UNILOC, USA,
`ET AL
`
`INC.,
`
`03-440-S
`
`VS.
`
`* MARCH 24, 2009
`VOLUME 2
`
`MICROSOFT CORP.,
`ET AL
`11'
`‘A’
`*
`‘k
`‘k
`
`1':
`
`it
`
`1'
`
`* PROVIDENCE, RI
`
`HEARD BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM E. SMITH
`
`DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`(JURY TRIAL)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANT:
`
`Court Reporters:
`
`DEAN G. BOSTOCK, ESQ.,
`and PAUL J. HAYES, ESQ.
`M1ntz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris
`G1ovsky & Popeo
`One F1nanc1a1 Center
`
`02111
`Boston, MA
`(617) 542-6000
`
`FRANK E. SCHERKENBACH, ESQ.,
`and KURT GLITZENSTEIN, ESQ.
`Fish & RTchardson, P.C.
`225 Frank1Tn Street
`
`02110-2804
`Boston, MA
`(617) 542-5070
`
`Anne M. C1ayton, RPR
`and Debra D. Lajoie, FCRR
`One Exchange Terrace
`ProvTdence. RI
`02903
`
`Proceeding reported and produced by computer—aTded
`stenography
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1032 Page 1
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440~WY—DLM Document 381 Filed 06/09/09 Page 2 of 198 PageID #: 6274
`2
`
`WITNESS
`
`MICHAEL NEGRIN (By video deposition):
`
`RIC RICHARDSON (By video deposition):
`
`ALLEN NIEMAN (By video deposition):
`
`DAVID KLAUSNER
`
`Direct Examination by Mr. Hayes:
`
`Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Hayes:
`
`Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Giitzenstein:
`
`PLAINTIFF EXHIBITS
`
`IQ
`
`132
`
`133
`
`-
`
`-
`
`367, 368, 625 & 721
`
`-
`
`134, 808, 810, 811, 259,
`254, 815, 823, 824, 116 & 238
`
`612
`
`97 & 98
`
`-
`
`-
`
`DEFENDANT EXHIBITS
`
`L—6, X—6, E-7, Q-6, T-6, O-6,
`H-2
`-
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1032 Page 2
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440~WY-DLM Document 381 Filed 06/09/09 Page 172 of 198 Page-ID #: 6444
`172
`
`A.
`
`Yes. with an additionaT expianation that the MD5
`
`and the SHA are routine impTementation detaiis.
`
`They
`
`are, at this point
`
`in time and were for years past,
`
`in
`
`the Tibrary,
`
`then they cou1d be invoked and puTTed out
`
`to operate any time.
`
`And in fact, Microsoft makes
`
`avaiiabie Tibrary functions for MD5 and SHA for not
`
`on1y its own programmers interna11y but for everyone
`
`who programs in this Tanguage.
`
`So if somebody wants to actualiy do an MD5
`
`caicuiation,
`
`they don't have to rewrite aTT of the
`
`steps.
`
`They just invoke that function, and it performs
`
`it and takes the output and provides it back to the
`
`program.
`
`MR. HAYES: Your Honor, we'd offer that that
`
`drawing is estabiished.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Do you want
`
`to voir dire the
`
`witness?
`
`MR. GLITZENSTEIN:
`
`I wouTd, your Honor.
`
`VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. GLITZENSTEIN
`
`Good afternoon, Mr. K1ausner.
`
`Good afternoon.
`
`Mr. Kiausner, 1et's get
`
`some of the basics out of
`
`the way about what
`
`things are not discussed in your
`
`expert report. Let's starts with SHA—1.
`
`You don't
`
`have any discussion of SHA—1,
`
`SHA—1
`
`in your reports,
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1032 Page 3
`
`

`
`Case 1:03—cv—00440—WY-DLM Document 381 Filed 06/09/09 Page 173 of 198 Page|D #: 6445
`173
`
`true?
`
`Untrue.
`
`I disagree.
`
`You do?
`
`Yes.
`
`Counsei didn't direct you to that?
`
`MR. HAYES:
`
`I can do that if you'd iike,
`
`Counsei.
`
`He indicated he had it.
`
`For
`
`the sake of
`
`brevity, we just taiked about SHA—1 first.
`
`If you want
`
`me
`
`to --
`
`THE COURT:
`
`I don't
`
`think it's necessary at
`
`the
`
`moment.
`
`It's undisputed that the aigorithm that
`
`is
`
`used as refiected in this drawing is the M05, and it's
`
`used on both sides when we're talking about Office XP
`
`at ieast, right?
`
`MR. GLITZENSTEIN: That's correct, your Honor.
`
`I'11 focus on MD5,
`
`then.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`A11 right.
`
`Q.
`
`Mr. Kiausner, your report does not discuss what
`
`the characteristics of a summation aigorithm are, do
`
`they?
`
`A.
`
`It's inherent.
`
`No,
`
`they don't, but it is inherent
`
`in an MD5 as to what it does.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Your report doesn't have that
`
`in it, sir?
`
`I don't describe M05 as an aigorithm that does
`
`summations.
`
`It's we11—known in the business.
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1032 Page 4
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 381 Fiied 06/09/09 Page 174 of 198 PageID #: 6446
`174
`
`
`
`in,
`
`true?
`
` And you aiso don't say in your reports in this
` Q.
`
`case that with a hash function you get out Tess than
` what you put
`
`
`A.
`I don't.
`I didn't think it was necessary.
`It's
`
` you drive a car, you end up with less gas in the tank
` than when you don't drive it.
`
`so understood.
`
`It's as understood as knowing that when
`
`
`a
`
`Q.
`
`And you don't say anywhere in your report that
`
`hash is a summation,
`
`true?
`
`
`
`
`
`aIgorithms, and anyone of ordinary skiii wouid know
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Litera11y,
`
`those words don't appear, but
`
`in terms
`
`of the testimony that
`
`what
`
`they are.
`
`I provide,
`
`I point
`
`to these hash
`
`Q.
`
`But you actuaiiy don't say that
`
`in your report.
`
`You never offered the opinion in your report that
`
`hashing is a summation or its equivaient,
`
`true?
`
`
`MR. HAYES: Objection.
`
`Does he mean
`
`specificaiiy say that?
`
`
`
`THE COURT:
`
`If you're going to object, stand up.
`
`MR. HAYES:
`
`Sorry.
`
`1'11 object, your Honor.
`
`
`
`
`he exciuding his report, which is an opinion?
`
`
`
`asking for the words?
`
`THE COURT:
`
`The report speaks for itself.
`
`So if
`
`it's in there, it's in there.
`
`If it's not -- I mean,
`
`I
`
`
`understand your argument.
`You don't need to be
`
`
`
`Is
`Is he
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1032 Page 5
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 381 Filed 06/09/09 Page 175 of 198 Pagelli) #: 6447
`175
`
`defensive about your report.
`
`THE WITNESS:
`
`Sure.
`
`I just don't
`
`remember if I
`
`actua11y said "summarize," your Honor.
`
`But 1et's say I
`
`didn't for the sake of argument.
`
`Q.
`
`So you're agreeing that you do not offer the
`
`opinions in your expert report that any hashes, any MD5
`
`hash is the same as or equiva1ent
`
`to a summer or a
`
`summation a1gorithm,
`
`true?
`
`A.
`
`That's not
`
`true.
`
`I
`
`think your question was did I
`
`Iiteraiiy say that M05 is a summation aigorithm.
`
`I
`
`don't know that
`
`I did that.
`
`But
`
`the answer to your
`
`Iast question is yes.
`
`0.
`
`A.
`
`So you say in your report --
`
`I mean,
`
`the answer to your Iast question is that
`
`I
`
`identified M05 as the corresponding e1ement
`
`to the
`
`Court's construction of a Iicensee —- a unique Iicensee
`
`generating means,
`
`licensee ID generating means.
`
`.0.
`
`You rendered your expert report
`
`in this case
`
`before the Court construed that c1aim term,
`
`true?
`
`A.
`
`That's correct.
`
`And at
`
`the same time,
`
`I was
`
`consistent with what
`
`I understood the p1aintiff's
`
`construction was.
`
`Q.
`
`In your reports in this case,
`
`it is true,
`
`is it
`
`not,
`
`that you do not say in words or in substance that
`
`the MD5 hashing a1gorithm is the same as or equiva1ent
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1032 Page 6
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440—WY—DLM Document 381 Filed 06/09/09 Page 176 of 198 Page!D #: 6448
`176
`
`to a summer or a summation aigorithm, correct?
`
`A.
`
`I don't
`
`think that's true. Because when I
`
`identify the eiement that meets the requirement, even
`
`though I wrote the report before the Court's
`
`construction,
`
`I use —-
`
`I point
`
`to the MD5 hash as
`
`corresponding to that eiement.
`
`So I
`
`think it would
`
`unfair to say that
`
`I haven't
`
`identified the MD5 as
`
`corresponding to that eiement.
`
`Q.
`
`That reaiiy wasn't my question.
`
`My question
`
`reaiiy comes down to whether you say anywhere in your
`
`report,
`
`in words or in substance,
`
`that the MD5
`
`substance is the same as or equivaient
`
`to a summation
`
`aigorithm or a summer?
`
`MR. HAYES: Objection. Asked and answered three
`
`THE COURT:
`
`I
`
`think that
`
`I understand the
`
`witness's testimony, and I
`
`think I understand your
`
`arguments.
`
`So I understand what's in the report.
`
`You
`
`can argue about what that shows or doesn't show. what
`
`I'd be interested to know is whether you take issue
`
`with the descriptions here and with the witness's
`
`expression of his opinion that it is fundamentaiiy
`
`understood that the MD5
`
`is a summation aigorithm.
`
`Now,
`
`if you can point out
`
`to me with your
`
`questions that what he has stated here is incorrect for
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1032 Page 7
`
`

`
`Case 1:O3—cv~0O440-WY-DLM Document 381 Fiied 06109/09 Page 177 of 198 Page|D #: 6449
`177
`
`whatever reason, I'd be interested to know that.
`
`Q.
`
`Let me start out with the basis for that
`
`assertion, Mr. K1ausner,
`
`that a summation --
`
`that
`
`a
`
`hash is a summation aigorithm.
`
`I don't think you were
`
`is the basis
`
`for that?
`
`A.
`
`There are two things.
`
`One is that a hash —-
`
`there
`
`are various types of hashes ranging from simpie
`
`checksums to very compticated hashes such as the MD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`asked that question by Mr. Hayes, so what
`
`
`
`
`
`series, Message Digest series and the SHA series.
`
`
`
`There's a1so the DES,
`
`the Government~sanctioned
`
`
`
`
`a1gorithm that was found to be not unique enough and
`
`was u1timate1y withdrawn.
`
`And for a whiie, we actua11y
`
`had some of the aigorithms that were found by the
`
`Commerce Department as not being exportabie because of
`
`nationa1 security reasons.
`
`But a11 of the hashing a1gorithms have been
`
`known forever to be summaries,
`
`to be summations.
`
`There
`
`is no hashing aigorithm that
`
`I know of that fai1s to do
`
`summarizing and addition, and that's been true for a
`
`1ong time.
`
`Q.
`
`Is it your testimony in this case or your opinion
`
`in this case, Mr. Kiausner,
`
`that a hash function is a
`
`summarizing function or that it is a summation
`
`aigorithm?
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1032 Page 8
`
`

`
`Case 1:O3—cv-O0440—WY-DLM Document 381 Filed 06109/09 Page 178 of 198 PagelD #: 6450
`178
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Both.
`
`And is it your opinion that it's a summation
`
`aTgorithm mereiy because it inciudes an addition sign?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`At Ieast for that reason, aiso.
`
`Now,
`
`that rationale that you just provided,
`
`that's
`
`not
`
`in your expert report,
`
`true?
`
`A.
`
`Once again, your Honor,
`
`it depends on
`
`interpretation.
`
`I understood that, by saying MD5,
`
`I
`
`was identifying a particuiar means.
`
`Now,
`
`I may not
`
`have said that
`
`in the report, Iiteraiiy,
`
`that MD5 was a
`
`summation aigorithm.
`
`And maybe you're right, but
`
`I
`
`didn't think it was necessary.
`
`I'm taiking to other
`
`experts.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`I understand.
`
`Q.
`
`Your expert report aiso doesn't discuss what your
`
`personal experience was with regard to hashing
`
`aIgorithms, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Right.
`
`And it aIso doesn't discuss what your personal
`
`experience was with summation aigorithms, right?
`
`A.
`
`Right.
`
`And I have considerable experience with
`
`summation aigorithms.
`
`Q.
`
`And your expert report aiso doesn't discuss the
`
`detaiis that you took the Court
`
`through with regard to
`
`how an MD5 hash works,
`
`true?
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1032 Page 9
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 381 Filed 06/09/09 Page 197 of 198 PagelD #: 6469
`197
`
`C E R T I F I C A T I O N
`
`I, Anne M. Ciayton, RPR, do hereby certify
`
`that
`
`the foregoing pages are a true and accurate
`
`transcription of my stenographic notes in the
`
`above—entit1ed case.
`
`Isl Anne M. Ciayton
`
`Anne M. Ciayton, RPR
`
`Apri1 28, 2009
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1032 Page 10
`
`

`
`Case 1:03-cv-00440-WY-DLM Document 381 Filed 06/09/09 Page 198 of 198 Page|D #: 6470
`198
`
`C E R T I F I C A T I 0 N
`
`I, Debra D. Lajoie, RPR—FCRR—CRI~RMR, do
`
`hereby certify that the foregoing pages are a true and
`
`accurate transcription of my stenographic notes in the
`
`above—ent1t1ed case.
`
`Isl Debra D. Lajoie
`
`Apr11 28, 2009
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1032 Page 11

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket