`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., INSTAGRAM, LLC, AND WHATSAPP INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KEITH MOORE
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`001
`
`
`
`
`I, Keith Moore, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Keith Moore. I have been retained as an expert witness by
`
`Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC, and Whatsapp Inc. (the “Petitioners”) in
`
`connection with the above-captioned IPR proceeding. I have written this
`
`Declaration at the request of the Petitioners to provide my expert opinion regarding
`
`the authenticity and public availability of four Usenet messages.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my time spent working on this matter at
`
`my normal consulting rate of $250 per hour, plus reimbursement for any additional
`
`reasonable expenses. My compensation is not in any way tied to the content of this
`
`Declaration, the substance of my opinions, or the outcome of this IPR proceeding.
`
`I have no other interests in this proceeding or with any of the parties.
`
`3.
`
`All of the materials that I considered and relied upon are discussed
`
`explicitly in this Declaration.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
`4.
`
`from Tennessee Technological University in 1984, and a Master of Science degree
`
`in Computer Science from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville in 1996. My
`
`Master’s thesis was entitled “Design and Evaluation of a Multiprotocol Electronic
`
`Mail Switching System,” and related to the switching of electronic mail between
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`002
`
`
`
`
`dissimilar environments.
`
`5.
`
`From October 1985 to December 1986, I was employed as a Senior
`
`Engineer at Philips Subsystems and Peripherals, Knoxville, Tennessee, working on
`
`the implementation of firmware, device drivers, and diagnostic software for SCSI
`
`CD-ROM drives.
`
`6.
`
`From April 1987 to December 1990, I was a Graduate Research
`
`Assistant in the Computer Science Department, University of Tennessee,
`
`Knoxville, and from September 1991 to February 2007, I was a Research
`
`Associate
`
`in
`
`the
`
`Innovative Computing Laboratory, Computer Science
`
`Department, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. While at the University of
`
`Tennessee, I worked on a number of projects in different fields, including
`
`computer networking, distributed storage, management of distributed software
`
`repositories, cataloging of Internet resources, and parallel computing.
`
`7.
`
`Between March 2007 and May 2017, I was self-employed, consulting
`
`in
`
`technical fields
`
`including computer networking, security, and system
`
`administration.
`
`8.
`
`Between May 2017 and October 2018, I was employed as a software
`
`engineer by Windrock, Inc., in Knoxville, TN, applying my expertise in network
`
`protocols, cryptography, and communications security to development of industrial
`
`monitoring products.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`003
`
`
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Since November 2018 I have been self-employed, consulting in the
`
`areas of software development, network communications and network security,
`
`assisting with development of industrial automation and flight training products,
`
`and assisting with another inter partes review patent case.
`
`10.
`
`I have been involved with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
`
`since 1990. The IETF is responsible for publishing technical standards and
`
`recommendations for Internet technologies. For example, I participated in IETF
`
`standardization working groups to define the Multipurpose Internet Mail
`
`Extensions (MIME) format for electronic mail messages, extensions to the Simple
`
`Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) for negotiation of the message size and for
`
`delivery reporting options, definition of a standard format for reporting electronic
`
`mail delivery successes and failures (delivery status notifications or DSNs),
`
`definition and resolution mechanisms for Uniform Resource Names (URNs),
`
`transition mechanisms for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6), email authentication,
`
`and DNS internationalization, and recommendations for encryption of electronic
`
`mail communications between a user’s electronic mail reading application, and the
`
`user’s electronic mail service provider.
`
`11. Within IETF, I served on the Internet Engineering Steering Group
`
`(IESG) for four years (1996-2000) as one of two Area Directors for the
`
`Applications Area. This included co-management of approximately twenty-six
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`004
`
`
`
`
`working groups; reviewing and commenting on drafts of IETF protocol standards
`
`and informational documents from all areas of IETF; assisting in the forming and
`
`chartering of new working groups; and arranging collaboration within IETF areas,
`
`between working groups, and between IETF and other standards-making
`
`organizations. I also served as IESG’s liaison to the Internet Architecture Board
`
`(IAB) for approximately three years. I contributed to several workshops on areas of
`
`concern for Internet architecture, including security, routing, addressing, and
`
`mobility. Prior to serving on IESG, I served as Chair of the IETF DRUMS
`
`working group tasked with revising the Internet electronic mail protocol
`
`specifications. I was an invited panel speaker at the FTC/NIST Email
`
`Authentication Summit, November 2004, on the topic of the utility of email
`
`authentication as an anti-spam measure.
`
`12.
`
`I have been familiar with Usenet since about 1984. I used Usenet
`
`from approximately 1988 until May 2002. I subscribed to several newsgroups in
`
`technical areas close to my research interests (e.g., computer networking, operating
`
`systems, programming languages, encryption). I regularly read articles (also called
`
`“messages”) from those newsgroups. Many of those newsgroups and articles were
`
`in the same technical fields as the references at issue in this declaration, namely,
`
`network communications, including applications of cryptography. I relied on
`
`Usenet as a significant and timely source of information to follow developments in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`005
`
`
`
`
`those technical fields.
`
`13.
`
`In the 1993–2000 time frame, I was also intimately familiar with the
`
`operation of Usenet nodes. While employed as a Graduate Research Assistant with
`
`the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Computer Science Department from
`
`1987–1990, I was one of a handful of people (initially only three) maintaining the
`
`department’s local Usenet node. In addition, during that same time period, I did
`
`software development work relating to Usenet. For example, I wrote a computer
`
`program to recognize and remove early versions of “spam” that were then
`
`beginning to circulate within Usenet. The program automatically removed spam
`
`articles from a Usenet node, and propagated the removal to other nodes on the
`
`network. In order to write that program, I had to study in detail the standards
`
`governing the operation of the Usenet network, and the standards specifying the
`
`format of Usenet messages. My experiences and familiarity with Usenet included
`
`the time frame between 1993 and 2000, the relevant time frame for the articles at
`
`issue herein.
`
`14. A complete curriculum vitae, including a list of my publications, is
`
`attached hereto as Appendix A.
`
`15. The testimony I provide in this Declaration is based on my personal
`
`knowledge of the relevant facts. The materials that I reviewed in preparation for
`
`this Declaration are cited or referred to in this Declaration.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`006
`
`
`
`
`III. PRELIMINARIES
`Scope of Declaration and Legal Standards
`A.
`16.
`I am not an attorney and will not offer opinions on the law. I am
`
`informed by counsel that a document qualifies as a publicly accessible printed
`
`publication if it was disseminated or otherwise made available such that a person
`
`interested in and ordinarily skilled in the relevant subject matter could locate it
`
`through the exercise of ordinary diligence. I also understand that a printed
`
`publication need not be easily searchable after publication if it was sufficiently
`
`disseminated at the time of its publication. I understand that the determination of
`
`public accessibility under the foregoing standard rests on a case-by-case analysis.
`
`B.
`17.
`
`Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I am told by counsel that the subject matter of this proceeding
`
`generally relates to cryptographic algorithms.
`
`18.
`
`I am informed by counsel that a “person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the inventions” is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be familiar
`
`with the relevant field and its literature at the time of the inventions. This
`
`hypothetical person
`
`is also a person of ordinary creativity, capable of
`
`understanding the scientific principles applicable to the pertinent field.
`
`19.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel to assume the following formulation
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art: someone who possessed at least a bachelor’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`007
`
`
`
`
`degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering with at
`
`least two years of experience in cryptography (or equivalent degree or experience).
`
`I have been further informed by counsel that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have been familiar with and able to understand the information known in the
`
`art relating to these fields, including the publications discussed in this declaration.
`
`C.
`20.
`
`Summary of Opinions
`I have been asked to provide my opinion regarding the authenticity
`
`and public accessibility of the following four Usenet articles:
`
`● Greg Rose, “Re: ‘Card-shuffling’ algorithms” (March 10, 1993) (the
`
`“Rose
`
`Reference”),
`
`[Ex.
`
`1006]
`
`(printed
`
`from
`
`https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=sci.crypt/3/26/20
`
`19 T0C1hfhbI_w/7DwT2RE6eFQJ);
`
`● Steve Brecher, “Re: How can I generate random numbers?” (October
`
`12, 1996) (the “Brecher I Reference”), [Ex. 1009] (printed from
`
`https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=comp.lang.c%2B
`
`%2B/8r3bZMKac94/FhpAzOPclFYJ);
`
`● Steve Brecher, “Re: Help: Random numbers” (November 13, 1996)
`
`(the
`
`“Brecher
`
`II Reference”),
`
`[Ex. 1010]
`
`(printed
`
`from
`
`https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=comp.lang.c%2B
`
`%2B.moderated/iRzJ-k1IesY/tKciSCk7_UgJ);
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`008
`
`
`
`
`
`● Trevor L. Jackson, III, “Re: Random Generator” (April 7, 2000) (the
`
`“Jackson
`
`Reference”),
`
`[Ex.
`
`1011]
`
`(printed
`
`from
`
`https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=comp.lang.c%2B
`
`%2B/cgJ3TXQOBUA/fbzJa4p7sPsJ;
`
`21.
`
`It is my opinion that Ex. 1006 is a true and correct copy of an article
`
`originally posted to Usenet by its author with the exception of minor modifications
`
`to email addresses in the article. It is my opinion that each of the other three
`
`documents represents a true and correct copy of the articles as originally posted to
`
`Usenet by their respective authors, with the exception of minor modifications to
`
`the header fields made by the entity that archived the message, and minor
`
`modifications to email addresses intended to discourage harvesting of electronic
`
`mail addresses.
`
`22. The Rose Reference, Brecher I Reference, Brecher II Reference, and
`
`the Jackson Reference are Usenet articles, and they are dated March 10, 1993;
`
`October 12, 1996; November 13, 1996; and April 7, 2000, respectively.
`
`23.
`
`I am informed by counsel that in a concurrent litigation, the Patent
`
`Owner has contended that the priority date for the patent-at-issue is December 27,
`
`2000. It is my opinion all four of the Usenet articles listed above were publicly
`
`accessible prior to December 27, 2000. It is also my opinion that the Rose
`
`Reference, the Brecher I Reference, and the Brecher II Reference were publicly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`009
`
`
`
`
`accessible prior to December 27, 1999.
`
`II. Usenet Message Background
`24. As previously discussed, I am fully familiar with the format and
`
`dissemination of messages on Usenet in the relevant 1993 to 2000 time frame. I
`
`am also familiar with the access, storage and retrieval of those messages through
`
`Google Groups.
`
`A. Usenet
`In the 1993 to 2000 relevant time frame, Usenet was a network of
`25.
`
`computers, or “nodes,” that individuals could use to send and receive “articles”
`
`covering a variety of subjects. Articles were grouped into “newsgroups,” each
`
`newsgroup covering a specific topic (both technical and non-technical). Usenet
`
`nodes automatically communicated among themselves to propagate articles to the
`
`entire network, which included many thousands of nodes worldwide. As the name
`
`“newsgroup” implies, news (i.e., articles) were delivered, or “pushed” to Usenet
`
`nodes all over the world, from which they could be read by users with access to
`
`those nodes. Usenet articles were originally distributed using UUCP, a networking
`
`technology associated with the UNIX operating system. UUCP had the ability to
`
`transfer files from one computer to another over ordinary telephone lines. Later
`
`versions of Usenet software also had the capability to relay messages from one
`
`node to another using the Internet.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`010
`
`
`
`
`
`26. Newsgroups are organized hierarchically based on their name, with
`
`the name, often indicating the subject matter of the group. For example, “sci”
`
`referred to scientific topics. The “sci.crypt” group refers to cryptography, while
`
`the sci.math” group refers to math topics. The hierarchy may continue. For
`
`example, “sci.crypt.research” refers to research topics within cryptography.
`
`27.
`
`In the relevant time frame, researchers regularly wrote Usenet articles
`
`to disseminate new ideas, and to comment on others’ articles. University computer
`
`science departments were among the early adopters of Usenet, and Usenet was
`
`heavily used within the scientific and computer science communities. Usenet was
`
`therefore a natural forum to discuss computer science and scientific topics such as
`
`random number generation and cryptography.
`
`B. Usenet Message Format
`28. Usenet messages are plain text files that are similar in appearance to
`
`email messages. Usenet messages during the relevant time frame adhered to the
`
`format specified in Request for Comments (RFC) 1036 [Ex. 1021], which was
`
`published in December 1987. Each Usenet article begins with a “header”,
`
`followed by a blank line, followed by the “body”, or article content. RFC1036
`
`provides the following example of a Usenet article to illustrate the various fields:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`011
`
`
`
`
`
`
`From: jerry@eagle.ATT.COM (Jerry Schwarz)
`Path: cbosgd!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!jerry
`Newsgroups: news.announce
`Subject: Usenet Etiquette -- Please Read
`Message-ID: <642@eagle.ATT.COM>
`Date: Fri, 19 Nov 82 16:14:55 GMT
`Followup-To: news.misc
`Expires: Sat, 1 Jan 83 00:00:00 -0500
`Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
`
`The body of the message comes here, after a blank line.
`(RFC1036, [Ex. 1021], p.2.) As shown, the header contains several fields that
`
`describe the origins of the article. The header fields required by RFC1036 include
`
`“From”, “Date”, “Newsgroups”, “Subject” “Message-ID”, and “Path”. I will
`
`describe each in turn.
`
`29. The “From” field indicates the e-mail address of the person who sent
`
`the article, and may also optionally include the real name of the person, either
`
`before or after the email address.
`
`30. The “Date” field indicates the date and time the message was
`
`originally posted to Usenet. (RFC1036, [Ex. 1021], §2.1.2, p.4.) The field must
`
`remain unchanged as the message propagates through the network. (Id.) RFC1036
`
`also specifies the acceptable formats for the Date field. The date and time
`
`information presented in the Date field are derived from the posting system’s clock
`
`at the time the message is posted to the Usenet network.
`
`31. The “Newsgroups” field lists the one or more newsgroups to which
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`012
`
`
`
`
`the article was being posted. The Newsgroups line, like the “From” and “Date”
`
`lines above, is not changed by a node, as it passes the article to the next node.
`
`32. The “Subject” field describes the subject matter of the message. For a
`
`new message, the Subject is chosen by the author. If the message is in response to
`
`another message, the “Subject” field conventionally defaults to “Re: ”, followed by
`
`the subject of the message being replied to.
`
`33. The “Message-ID” field specifies a unique identifier for each
`
`message. This field is used for various purposes, including recognizing references
`
`by one message to another (indicated by the “References” header field), allowing a
`
`Usenet node to avoid storing multiple copies of the same message, and allowing
`
`Usenet nodes to avoid transmitting a message to another Usenet node that already
`
`had a copy of that message. The exact format of the Message-IDs generated for
`
`new messages was not specified by RFC1036, and thus, different formats were
`
`used by different Usenet software implementations. To be compatible with the
`
`older RFC822 standard for electronic mail messages, RFC1036 requires that the
`
`Message-ID have the format “unique@full_domain_name”. (RFC1036, [Ex.
`
`1021], §2.1.5, pp.5-6.) The “full_domain_name” must be the full domain name of
`
`the Usenet node at which the message entered the network, which is a globally
`
`unique name. The format of the “unique” part of the Message-ID was not
`
`explicitly specified, but must be unique for the amount of time the message could
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`013
`
`
`
`
`be in circulation. By 1993, it was common for Usenet posting software to generate
`
`Message-IDs that were designed to be globally unique for all time. RFC does
`
`suggest two formats for the unique portion of the Message-ID: (1) using an integer
`
`representing the sequence number for messages posted (e.g., the node’s nth Usenet
`
`message), or (2) a string derived from the date and time the message was created.
`
`(RFC1036, [Ex. 1021], §2.1.5, p.6.) Many software implementations used the
`
`strategy of combining a compact alphanumeric representation of the date and time,
`
`a process identifier, an “@” character, and a globally-unique name for the posting
`
`computer.
`
`34. The “Path” field shows the route the message took to reach the system
`
`from which the message was read. (RFC1036, Ex. 1021, §2.1.6, p.6.) When a
`
`node in the Usenet forwards the message, it should add its own name to the list of
`
`systems in the “Path” line. (Id.)
`
`35. There are also various optional header fields that may be displayed
`
`with a Usenet message. I describe a few of these optional fields that are of
`
`relevance here.
`
`36. The “References” header field lists the Message-ID’s of messages to
`
`which the current message is responding. It is required when a message is being
`
`posted as a reply to other messages, but is not used when a message on a new
`
`subject is posted. (RFC1036, [Ex. 1021], §2.2.5, p.9.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`014
`
`
`
`
`
`37. The “Xref” field contains the name of the computer on which the
`
`message is being viewed (with domains omitted), followed by a list of newsgroup
`
`names and message numbers. (RFC1036, Ex. 1021, §2.2.13, p.11.) For example,
`
`the example given
`
`in RFC 1036
`
`is “Xref:
`
`seismo news.lists:461
`
`news.groups:6378”. (Id.) In this example, the name of the computer is “seismo”,
`
`the message is message number 461 on the news.list newsgroup, and the message
`
`is message number 6378 in the news.groups newsgroup. Unlike the other fields,
`
`the Xref field should not be included when the message is transmitted to other
`
`Usenet nodes. (Id.)
`
`38. Except for the Subject and Xref fields, the header fields were
`
`automatically generated by the Usenet software when the message was posted to
`
`Usenet. In addition, a node name was added to the “Path” field each time a
`
`message was relayed from node-to-node in the Usenet network.
`
`C. Usenet Messages on Google Groups
`39. Today, Google Groups is a method commonly used to access
`
`historical Usenet messages, and to post new messages. Google Groups originated
`
`in 2001. (See, e.g., http://googlepress.blogspot.com/2001/02/google-acquires-
`
`usenet-discussion.html.) Usenet message prior to 2001 were acquired by Google
`
`Groups from other sources that preserved the articles in various ways.
`
`40. Usenet messages from the period 1981-2000 were preserved by
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`015
`
`
`
`
`various means, roughly depending on the date when the message was originally
`
`posted. Messages posted on or before mid-1991 that are still available were,
`
`generally speaking, preserved on magnetic backup tapes made by various Usenet
`
`sites at or near the time of initial posting of those messages. One well known
`
`archivist was Henry Spencer, who archived Usenet postings from 1981 to 1991.
`
`(See, e.g., Katharine Mieszkowski, The Geeks Who Saved Usenet, January 8, 2002,
`
`published on https://www.salon.com/2002/01/07/saving_usenet/, [Ex. 1022], p.3).
`
`Mr. Spencer’s archive was therefore limited to messages posted prior to the four
`
`Usenet articles at issue here. Subsequent to Mr. Spencer’s archiving activities,
`
`other organizations archived articles posted to Usenet.
`
`41.
`
`In the 1992-1993 time frame, the company Sterling Software archived
`
`Usenet posts and sold subscriptions to CD-ROMs which were published each
`
`month, and contained copies of all of the previous month’s Usenet articles. (See,
`
`e.g., id., pp.6-7.) Kent Landfield was well known as an individual at Sterling
`
`Software that produced these CD-ROMs. On Dec 11, 2001 Google announced that
`
`it had acquired access to earlier archives from various sources and also made those
`
`accessible via the Google Groups interface, listing Kent Landfield of Sterling
`
`Software as among the contributors. (See, e.g., 20 Year Usenet Archive Now
`
`Available
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20011212191924/http://www.google.com/googlegrou
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`016
`
`
`
`
`ps/archive_announce_20.html, [Ex. 1023] (dated Dec. 11, 2001, archived by
`
`Internet Archive on Dec. 12, 2001).)
`
`42.
`
`In March 1995, a company called Deja News began to offer a
`
`comprehensive publicly-accessible and searchable Usenet archive for messages
`
`posted after it began operation.
`
`43. Based on examination of several articles that were once archived on
`
`DejaNews, it appears that DejaNews altered the Date field in each of those articles
`
`to be of the form year/month/day, e.g. 2000/07/04. This date format is different
`
`from the date format used by most Usenet software, yet dates in this form
`
`consistently appear in Usenet articles formerly archived on DejaNews and now
`
`available from Google Groups. Another indication that an article was formerly
`
`archived on DejaNews is the appearance of an X-Deja-AN field in the article’s
`
`header. DejaNews also deleted any Path header fields in the messages that it
`
`archived. The Deja News service ceased operation around 2001.
`
`44.
`
`In February 2001 Google acquired the DejaNews Usenet archive, and
`
`launched the Google Groups web site, at groups.google.com, to offer access to the
`
`Deja News archive and as an interface to Usenet news groups. (See, e.g.,
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20010216202357/http://www.google.com/press/pressr
`
`el/pressrelease48.html (press release announcing Google acquisition of Deja.com
`
`Usenet archive, and the plan to make the entire Deja Usenet archive searchable at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`017
`
`
`
`
`groups.google.com);
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20010217005302/http://groups.google.com:80/
`
`(February 17, 2001 archive.org version of Google Groups, showing February 2001
`
`access to Deja archives).
`
`45. By May 2001, the entire Deja News archive was available at Google
`
`Groups.
`
`
`
`(See.,
`
`e.g.,
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20010512173704/http://groups.google.com:80/
`
`(May
`
`12,
`
`2001
`
`version
`
`of Google Groups
`
`linking
`
`to
`
`press
`
`release);
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20010507171811/http://groups.google.com/googlegro
`
`ups/archive_announce.html (press release announcing full integration of Deja.com
`
`messages into Google Groups).
`
`46. On December 11, 2001 Google announced that they had acquired
`
`access to earlier archives from various sources and also made those accessible via
`
`the Google Groups interface. ([Ex. 1023].) Google’s announcement included
`
`acknowledgements to Kent Landfield of Sterling Software, among others, as
`
`contributors
`
`to
`
`Google’s
`
`archive.
`
`
`
`(See,
`
`id.;
`
`see
`
`also
`
`https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/news.admin.misc/1GuWaOCDgMc/x7
`
`PnQ5BQ7G0J (posting from Google confirming Landfield’s ‘Usenet on CDs’ were
`
`uploaded to Google Groups).)
`
`47. At some point within the past few years, Google Groups started
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`018
`
`
`
`
`modifying some of the content of Usenet articles when displayed or downloaded
`
`from its archive, in an apparent attempt to thwart attempts at harvesting e-mail
`
`addresses. Electronic mail addresses in the article header and body text are now
`
`altered by replacing some number of characters preceding the “@” sign with three
`
`“.” characters. For example, “henry@example.com” might be altered to
`
`“he...@example.com”. This replacement of characters is a common method to
`
`deter harvesting of electronic mail addresses. The same modification is also made
`
`to sequences of characters that resemble electronic mail addresses. However,
`
`when viewed from Google Group’s web interface, a human who is logged into a
`
`Google account can “click” onto the modified address to view the address in
`
`original form, after demonstrating to Google’s satisfaction that he or she is not a
`
`robot.
`
`IV. PUBLICATIONS IN THIS PROCEEDING
`A. Rose
`48. The Rose Reference [Ex. 1006] is a typical Usenet article from the
`
`1993 time period. It was dated March 10, 1993, at or around 2:41 AM GMT
`
`(Greenwich Mean Time), and addressed to newsgroups “sci.crypt” (a discussion of
`
`cryptography) and “sci.math” (a discussion of mathematics).
`
`49. The “From” field indicates that the author was Greg Rose. The
`
`author’s email address has been altered by Google Groups, but clicking on the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`019
`
`
`
`
`altered email address within the Google Groups web site indicates that the email
`
`address associated with this post (to which a reader could send private replies) was
`
`ggr@koonda.acci.com.au.
`
`50. The “Subject” field indicates the subject matter of the article, namely,
`
`an algorithm for “card-shuffling”. The “Re” prefix of the subject is a widely-used
`
`convention that indicates that this article is a reply to a previous message. The
`
`“References” field indicates that this message was a reply to two earlier messages
`
`with
`
`message-IDs
`
`“9306312.14290@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU”
`
`and
`
`“1578@eouk5.eoe.co.uk”. By expanding each post in Google Groups, each of the
`
`previous and subsequent posts in the topic that included the Rose Reference can be
`
`seen. (Card-shuffling algorithms thread, [Ex. 1024].)
`
`51. Because the “Date” header field in the Rose Reference is in the
`
`correct and typical format, there is no reason to suspect that the “Date” header field
`
`in the Rose Reference has been altered. The “Date” field indicates that the article
`
`was posted to Usenet on March 10, 1993 at approximately 2:41 GMT. Usenet
`
`articles propagate from one node to a next. By 1993, most nodes listed in the Path
`
`field of the Rose message (listed below) would have had full-time Internet
`
`connections, and likely relayed the message immediately.
`
`52. The “Message-ID” field in the Rose Reference uses a typical format
`
`for message-ids generated from dates. The initial digits “93” in the message-ID of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`020
`
`
`
`
`the Rose Reference appear to be the year; two-digit year representation was still
`
`common in 1993. The next few digits, “069”, appear to correspond to the day of
`
`the year, a common way of representing the date. In Rose, 069 thus appear to
`
`correspond to the 69th day of the year, March 10. It was common to also include
`
`digits in the “Message-ID” field derived from the time when the message was
`
`posted. The remaining two digits of the “Message-ID” field in the Rose Reference,
`
`“12”, appear to be the hour that the message was posted in Sydney’s local
`
`timezone. According to a timezone database, 1993-03-10 2:41 GMT was
`
`apparently equivalent to 1993-03-10 12:41 Sydney time. My evaluation of the
`
`“Message-ID” field format was confirmed by my analysis of every other message
`
`posted by Greg Rose to sci.crypt during 1993. All but one of those messages had a
`
`Message-ID in the same format as the Rose Reference, and yielded a date and time
`
`consistent with the date and time in the “Date” field of that message. The other
`
`message was posted from the United States using a different computer; its
`
`Message-ID was in a different format. Based on the consistency of the relationship
`
`between Message-IDs and Date fields in these messages, I am confident that these
`
`message-IDs confirm the correct year, month, and day of the message posting, and
`
`approximate time of message posting, thus providing additional assurance of the
`
`correctness of the “Date” field of the Rose Reference.
`
`53. The “Path” header field of the Rose Reference indicates the path of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`021
`
`
`
`
`Usenet nodes that the message traversed from origin (the node used by the poster)
`
`to destination (the node from which the post was eventually archived). The Rose
`
`Reference originated with user “ggr” on a node known as “koonda.acci.com.au”. I
`
`understand that Mr. Greg Rose was employed at the ACCI company in 1993. The
`
`Path in the Rose Reference indicates that the message was forwarded from the
`
`ACCI node through “cs.mu.OZ.AU” , “munnari.oz.au” (University of Melbourne,
`
`Australia), “sgiblab” (Silicon Graphics, Mountain View, CA), “darwin.sura.net”
`
`(SURAnet was an NSFnet regional network serving academic institutions in the
`
`southeast US),
`
`“zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu”
`
`(Ohio
`
`State University),
`
`“howland.reston.ans.net” (ANS was a network service provider), “gatech”
`
`(Georgia Tech University), “destroyer” (University of Michigan), “uunet” (a US
`
`network service provider known for providing UUCP network access, among other
`
`things), and finally to a node named “sparky”.1) UUCP node adjacency
`
`
`1 I identified the providers of these nodes based on my knowledge, as well as
`
`examination of posts to the Usenet newsgroup “comp.mail.maps” from March-
`
`April 1993, which describe Usenet nodes in a particular US state or Australian
`
`territory, and provided mapping of node name (e.g., “destroyer”) to the provider of
`
`the
`
`node
`
`(University
`
`of
`
`Michigan).
`
`UUCP
`
`maps
`
`at
`
`https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.mail.maps/m63SDwEecp4/D_tH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1031
`022
`
`
`
`
`information posted to the Usenet newsgroup “comp.mail.maps” shows that a node
`
`name “sparky” was operated by Sterling Software, that it exchanged UUCP traffic
`
`with “uunet” (among other nodes) and the adjacency information for “sparky” was
`
`provided by Kent Landfield of Sterling Software. (See, UUCP map, April 8, 1993,
`
`published
`
`on
`
`https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.mail.maps/m63SDwEecp4/D_tH
`
`H9cF_y4J.) Thus, the Rose Reference header indicates that the message, as
`
`retrieved from Google Groups, travelled from Mr. Rose’s employer to the server
`
`(“sparky”) at Sterling Software. The “Xref” field also indicates a computer name
`
`of “sparky”, indicating the computer from which this message was being accessed
`
`when it was archived.
`
`54. As explained earlier, Sterling Software archived Usenet messages.
`
`The header information therefore provides a clear path for how the Rose ref
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
