a lot of materials were designated as confidential of the asked a member of material designated as confidential including details was respect to some of these algorithms and  inquire of counsel the extent to which we are very constrained in terms of our discussion here in court and in terms of any opinion that we may run iraq right we didn't designate a microsoft did but i shed some light on every player thank you i appreciate the opportunity the identity of which is used in which product is confidential the details of the hashes aren't necessarily i mean that the thing we should be clear is an empty five judge is used in let's say product x and sh a dash one is used in product y and we won't know the brief tells you which is which is our expert declaration to seven eight nine at eight to seven eight nine you were fide that i don't have to read it but you will find that indeed he says that they're on both sides and they are in the complete it well significantly if we go to a one one eight that's the declaration of their own person m and if you look at paragraph twenty five he spells it out in spades that they are on both sides of the equation so to speak and  construction errors by the district court which if corrected would plainly require a firm and so the non infringement summary judgment writes rest i don't agree with this claim construction errors and factual question which is whether you dispute that their systems use no information that personal to the lace in c as opposed to the platform the computer  about the claim construction and alleges an error in one claim construction having to do with unique identification respecting the licensee and complains that the construction was incomplete or misleading or at least ambiguous in not distinguishing sharply enough between whether the information is associated with the user's machine or the user as a person and microsoft claims that it's undisputed that its systems use no personal information no social security number no credit card number no telephone number no residence address etc or any other type of personal information i'm just trying to find out from you whether you agree that the microsoft this and don't use personal information as i have just i do not agree i do not agree with at all what to me i'm defining personally to mean something like a credit card or a social security number or a residence address or a telephone number or something like that that could be said to be even uniquely with the person of the user in it and it might i agree that they don't use for example social security numbers then they use anything else that would fit the definition i just you absolutely and absolutely they use the number that is provided on the desk so all the individual who buys that desk which is personal to him why is that personal to him if i buy a disc and i give it to judge clevenger but this has the same number on it that it had when i bought it well that's not what when you buy the desk that this is personal to you and the point is you can't give it the judge because the whole idea here is a fact that's casual copying that we're talking about yet we submitted a host of microsoft document saying i think we're i think what we're disagreeing about is entirely semantic you want to call that personal information and i'm defining it is not personal information so i'm not going to get anywhere because we're using different definitions right if you're contemporaneous documents identifying that number up on the desk as personal to you as a microsoft that claim construction that microsoft posed was almost go into the patent and take a look at what numbers are used to do this magic so to speak to one of the examples in the patent is using indeed the number on the list of pat disclosures that for one of the exact same purpose for which microsoft uses it and so what we do is how it works you take the number on the desk and that's something that that we say is personal but we say it is provided to judge when will search out his computer and it has different little components here there and everywhere that have serial numbers on them head it takes that number it takes a whole bunch of these combines the mail together and then combines it with a serial number on the box and the reason this is all about is i mean interested in this opinion the judge talks about that question to eight two six three four zero eight two six three seven eight two six three eight mr hayes i'm a little bit surprised at your response to construction was correct and it was correct but the question i was answering directly he was asking me directly on definitions are different things and personal information i just want to make sure that that was so maybe your german president that your argument is that  spec so i meant and the next thing that from the some from my point of view in the sun in the sense of we deserve a try at least is they not only have  what they call you know requests for up material just undisputed questions of fact i'm disputing questions of fact fifteen to twenty state and asked us to not dispute that indeed these at the registration sorry he says i looked at the report pages ninety two to one zero seven we didn't cite to the report and he said we cited to that we didn't cite the report page ninety two of the one o expert report is that it's replicate the point is the quote went to the wrong spot some of finally what i would like to argue i can't get into all these alternative theories of flame construction i can tell you they represented to the court they were very happy with the claimed destruction now apparently they're not happy given the fact we've got the the evidence of record out of on the table with respect to the issue of accuser that we brought up because we have to same i was turned off that if you that i am not going to tell that this judge is not going to let me tell him what we can use as a clerk and if i want to get rid of the clerk because he's hooked up with microsoft i got to go we choose the judge  cites is really sort of beside the point the district court did make that small error in a spigot the question is whether it matters and the answer is no it doesn't this this is a case where as you know from our briefs the approach pursu unless we adopt one of your alternative grounds of a firm that is all your honor then you better plain why even though he's right actually some are judgement on that ground was never the less correct goes is not clear to me why that go let me do that there are a number of reasons the first is that the even if you focus on the hashes being used on both sides they have to produce a life so unique id which has to be associated with a life c there's no question that that's a really comes back to the same argument of what the word associated means that have to include personal information or because it can include only other sorts of information like some number on a product you can view them as two sides of the same coin or with respect i actually think they are different inquiries whether or not the the license hash has information that is personal to a licensee and by the way there is no argument that it does we're talking about a mathematical transformation of a number which represents a license there is an n because of course it's a hash it's impossible by definition to get from the hash back to any of the constituent components so even if you know a lot argues that the product id is personal to the user it's not but let's let's assume that they get the benefit of the doubt you can't get back to that piece of information from the hash the hash is absolutely has nothing to do with a particular user and in fact they said in their brief that it serves an entirely different purpose and it does it's designed to ensure the integrity of the data during information i understand though the technology to hash produces the license digest is is it is unique to that white since yes he is in that license based on the inputting of the product key in conjunction with hardware information about the q computer it's working on a license yes but not the license hash but the license digest is simply a symbolic number that represents this license and only this license which does contain that information so perhaps i don't understand the technology fully i'm not sure why don't you help me out because the like and here's the difference that the license is composed of a product id a hardware id and a license id if you were looking at that entity one could take apart the license and figure out what the pieces that are ar when attached that goes away the hash is a is a and obituary number large number that is a that is designed by its very nature it is designed to prevent you from understanding or ever getting back to the pieces that go into it so they're in a situation of trying to persuade this court because they never made the argument by the way to judge smith that the license hash was associated with the licensee they're trying to persuade you that it isn't the whole point is generating something that is associated uniquely with someone who is authorized but it's never associated with licensee so that's the problem your honor that the hash is not it's not stored at the clearinghouse it's not the user has no idea what it is it's not stored locally on the user's machine it is only used to ensure the integrity of the transport of the license data from the clearinghouse to the user's machine and this is it's actually that it does so based on the fact that it is a number uniquely generated as reflective of someone who's authorize it i won't quarrel with the uniqueness part but there's there's nothing connecting a particular half to a particular licensee with them then how is it useful as a security to your co useful because if it's used in security for a completely different purpose it doesn't have anything to do with authorizing the use of the software it is used to ensure that the license that comes back to the user's computer in fact came from microsoft and the way i know that is i take that license hash i take the same data on the computer side which i add by of the product id the hardware id i run it through the same hash and see if that hashes match and if they match then i know that i've got legitimate place to stay that set me but there's no us there's no that's not because all i know this happens associated with some user as it has nothing to do with that it what i was going to say is it's ironic actually  anything to someone who's not using authorized software that ultimately what's being sent to you is coming from microsoft so it's both hashed and encrypted to be very sure that what the user is getting back comes from microsoft it's not to would this not to ensure that there is some linkage between between what's coming from microsoft in the user of that machine and look at the supposed result of the algorithms that were identical on both sides was to actually send the license and then there's some sort of line by line comparison number by number element by element of the actual licenses as opposed to the matching of these two numbers the hash while the license you agreed contained all the information we talked about product key hardware information about computers that right yes ok so it was the license and that was the product of an algorithm the creation of this license that existed on both you know it was have them simultaneously so the only issue i'm worried about is is that license  unique product identifier then where would that qualify you told me to assume you know not not to get to your to do your unique argument about the unique license i got for not being personal not that exclude that assume that you were moving on that with that license never associates a license with a licensee the user's machine never associates a license with a licensee the pieces of this license are hardware there's a product key which is transformed into a product id there is a hardware id with just the right of me not only number on the back correct and why isn't that associated with the licensee since i assume that microsoft would say the only person authorized to use that number on the back of the box is a month and treaty microsoft doesn't do that and in fact the record is undisputed on this the clearinghouse stores the product id and the hardware id and they are they are linked to the hardware there is but microsoft has absolutely no idea who the licensee is we don't know who buys the software and in fact this is this is not accidental this is by design we deliberately do not take any identifying information from users and the fact that microsoft was in a lawsuit over this at one point it's illegal in europe to do that for example so there's lots of reasons microsoft says we don't want it we don't  use the only thing we know is a piece of software is either authorized to be used on a machine or it's not to get back to judge michel's example you give your software to judge clevenger if that software you're going to judge you can judge by manager can use it happy day there's absolutely no problem with that from microsoft's perspective and we don't know who's used it everyone on the court could use it it's completely irrelevant we have no visibility into the licensee so there is no association and why the third time to try to get to this point it's ironic that they are now so focused on the license hash because even their own expert never said that that hash was associated with the licensee if you look at this record you can look hash a candidate licensee unique id it's no it's not surprising at all so when you read his opinion and he says well the only things that could possibly qualify based on what what you know what his even are you are the product id because they have this argument that the product key can be associated with the user we think that's ridiculous judge within by either but he sees the argument so he notes it in the opinion and then he says well and then they have this argument that the computer can somehow be associated with the user and so the hardware id which is derived from the computer well maybe that's a candidate license unique id also nothing about to happen and that's not an error it was a deliberate decision stored a person's hardware id in association with their personal information that might be true we don't do that and we go out of our way not to do that and not if microsoft took the person's personal information like credit card and or all this other stuff and transcribe it into some magic number that was unique to them that number doesn't convey to anyone the actual underlying information that form the basis of that number but nonetheless this unique respect i mean it has to be associated with a licensee what i mean that has been said numerous that could that number possibly be associated with anyone else sure well in microsoft's system could that number be associated with anyone else wouldn't the baby when the basis for inputs are entirely the product key and the hardware information in that person's computer will the first of all we're talking about it with all due respect a hypothetical in that microsoft's system is we don't take any user information of any kind and do anything with it right so we but in your hypothetical if somebody were to take somebody other than microsoft were to take this information and create a hash of it or or whatever some other some other number association is is is something that's created because there is a there is a link between information a and information b or entity b places social security number associated with you because the government still has a database that says you know two nine five four seven six three nine is judge moore's social security number that's why there's an association not because in somebodies mind somewhere they could make an argument that that you could argue that's associated with it and it knows it is the serial number on my computer it's somehow associated with me doesn't that have certain attributes of identifying i mean again i it really comes back to from whom spam frame of reference we're referring to the patent is about a remote location and a central location or microsoft's case it's called the clearinghouse what we're talking about commercial software distributing software what matters is what does the the copyright owner know about where that software is and who is using its software so again to get back here software is used on that computer that's on but if it's used on some some other computer that's going to raise a red flag that maybe that's not authorize exactly and that's exactly the way the microsoft system works without any regard to  computer it is who's using it whether they've paid for it no idea i mean it's so long it is it is completely different than the patent system which in which the patent system you don't have the rights to use the software in till you've paid your money to her activation process or or validation process in the patent is designed to be a roadblock to you getting full rights to the software you can't print you can't save you can't do all these things microsoft doesn't computer you can use the software you can choose to register or not completely separate process optional process alternate process if you wet your stir you can choose to give microsoft your name and your email address and they'll send you product updates and that sort of thing has nothing to do with product activation completely separate process then at some point down the road you choose to activate and that's what this case is about is the activation part so if you look at them from if you look at the system sort of from the top down and what they're doing they could be really could not be more different if i could just get to the two to the claim construction issue i've got three seconds i'll talk really fast the  show your question about was the claim instruction that we think it was we think the judgement can and should be affirmed based on the on the record that was in front of the judge because there's no showing of an association between the hash and place c but if nothing else this claim has to require at least some personal information and you add a serial number from the platform and some in body mints sure can you at a hardware id that's based on the actual components of a user's computer and you add that sure you can combine other things with it but ultimately the uniqueness of the licensee unique id that phrase has to derive in part from personal information it's what this patent is at its core that's what this patent i have thirty forty nine seconds i guess i should ask if i have any other questions i don't intend to address recusal unless the court has any questions about that the court applied the proper standard there are let me just say this on there are one for claim twelve years this is the requirement that the inputs to the system come from an intended that licensee of the system ok this goes back to at what point in microsoft's system is the person actually licensed as opposed to what point do they activate and the the so if that's an independent basis that way and claim twelve we win as a temporal issue the temporal issue absolutely and by the way on that one day they really have they really had no response  their reply brief to two to that and indeed it's hard to see how they could because the facts supporting it are drawn straight from mr klausner zone tutorial it's not disputed what part at what point in the system a person becomes a licensed c m claim nineteen there is  this means plus function issue which we think is dispositive in again as to which they have very little response in their reply brief the claim is means plus function the structure has to be a summer or the equivalent and in their brief they contemporaneous documents characterizing this number as a fingerprint of the custom as characterizing this is information regarding the custom of a way to identify the custom one hundred two of my brother just so we that appears at dinner i don't mean on the record but in what sort of documents those characterizations appear these are microsoft generated documents of the distributed describing the product the sales fields litter box sales and technical literature is not just