Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.
Filing
153
Exhibits re 147 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Facebook's Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification filed by Facebook Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 46 - Part 3 of 3 (Unredacted), # 2 Exhibit 47 (Redacted), # 3 Exhibit 48 (Unredacted), # 4 Exhibit 49 (Redacted), # 5 Exhibit 50 (Unredacted), # 6 Exhibit 51 (Unredacted), # 7 Exhibit 52 (Unredacted), # 8 Exhibit 53 (Unredacted), # 9 Exhibit 54 (Unredacted), # 10 Exhibit 55 (Unredacted))(Chorba, Christopher) (Filed on 1/16/2016) Modified on 1/20/2016 (vlkS, COURT STAFF).
EXHIBIT 47
REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT(S)
SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
JOSHUA A. JESSEN, SBN 222831
JJessen@gibsondunn.com
JEANA BISNAR MAUTE, SBN 290573
JBisnarMaute@gibsondunn.com
ASHLEY M. ROGERS, SBN 286252
ARogers@gibsondunn.com
1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: (650) 849-5300
Facsimile: (650) 849-5333
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
GAIL E. LEES, SBN 90363
GLees@gibsondunn.com
CHRISTOPHER CHORBA, SBN 216692
CChorba@gibsondunn.com
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
Attorneys for Defendant
FACEBOOK, INC.
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
OAKLAND DIVISON
17
MATTHEW CAMPBELL, MICHAEL
HURLEY, and DAVID SHADPOUR,
18
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION
Plaintiffs,
19
DECLARATION OF ALEX HIMEL
ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
FACEBOOK, INC.
v.
20
FACEBOOK, INC.,
21
Defendant.
22
23
24
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DECLARATION OF ALEX HIMEL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
2
I, Alex Himel, declare as follows:
1.
I have been employed as a software engineer at Facebook since April 2009, and my
3
current title is Engineering Director. From 2009-2014, I worked on Facebook’s Developer Platform,
4
and my work encompassed Facebook’s “Share” button, Facebook’s “Like” button, and the code that
5
keeps track of the “count” features associated with “Share” and “Like.” I have personal knowledge
6
of the matters stated herein and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently thereto. I
7
provide this Declaration to explain certain facts regarding Facebook’s software code as it relates to
8
detecting uniform resource locators (“URLs”) in messages sent and received through the Facebook
9
platform and the relationship of any such URLs to certain social plugins served by Facebook and
10
visible on third-party websites. In particular, I refer below to the count associated with a Facebook
11
“Like” social plugin on third-party websites (the “Like” count). I also explain the termination of
12
related practices in October and December 2012.
13
2.
I understand the purported class in this action to consist of Facebook users located
14
within the United States who have sent or received messages that included URLs in the body of the
15
message from December 30, 2011 until in or around late 2012, when the practice of including URL
16
shares in messages in the count on third-party websites ceased (“the Relevant Period”).
17
Facebook’s Source Code
18
19
3.
internal Facebook system
. These documents,
20
21
Attached as Exhibits A through G are true and correct copies of documents from an
, a description
include the date o
, and the
is on the left, and the relevant
22
. The relevant
is on the right.
23
.
24
25
26
4.
To the extent that the above-mentioned documents contain source code, this code has
been redacted for several reasons.
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
1
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DECLARATION OF ALEX HIMEL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
5.
First, Facebook’s source code is a closely guarded trade secret of enormous economic
2
value. Providing it to outside parties increases the risk of further disclosure and therefore poses a risk
3
of substantial competitive harm. Disclosure of source code outside of Facebook erodes Facebook’s
4
efforts to protect the code in which Facebook has invested significant resources and which comprises
5
a significant part of Facebook’s product offering and competitive advantage. Indeed, the code
6
reflected in
7
that generates Facebook’s proprietary design and functionalities could cause catastrophic competitive
8
harm by allowing others to replicate that design and functionality without making the same
9
investment of time, money, and personnel.
10
6.
is the product of thousands of engineering hours. Revealing the code
Second, disclosing portions of Facebook’s source code would reveal the methods used
11
to protect Facebook’s users and the integrity of the Facebook platform, and could undermine both of
12
these efforts. Facebook’s source code includes complex safety and security features that detect spam,
13
detect and prevent abuse of the system, and protect users from malware, among other things. These
14
features not only provide for a better and more enjoyable product (another competitive advantage for
15
Facebook), but also protect Facebook and its users from harm and loss associated with unsolicited
16
and dangerous content and activities by third parties. The effectiveness of these systems depends in
17
part on their secrecy. Disclosure of Facebook’s security methods would potentially allow hackers
18
and abusers to threaten users and the system.
19
7.
In the context of certain types of litigation (such as patent litigation) where there may
20
be a legitimate need for source code inspection, I am aware that Facebook negotiates specific
21
protections for source code and implements detailed and time-consuming protocols for handling
22
source code, as well as extensive limitations on the use of source code materials, disclosure, and
23
future restrictions on the conduct of individuals exposed to source code materials.
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
8.
In the present case, evidence other than source code is available to demonstrate the
processes and functionality at issue. In particular, the non-code information embodied in
—effectively demonstrates the processes and
functionality at issue. Additionally, the source code for the processes and functionality at issue is not
2
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DECLARATION OF ALEX HIMEL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
limited or contained in any discrete way; that is, it is interconnected with other source code at
2
Facebook. Therefore, if Facebook were required to make source code available in this matter, it
3
would have little choice but to grant access to a significant amount of source code that has nothing to
4
do with the allegations in this case.
5
Share and Like Functionality
6
9.
During the Relevant Period, Facebook offered websites “social plugins,” or units of
7
embeddable code that allow users to share information using Facebook directly from third-party
8
websites. A third-party website may have embedded code for the Facebook “Like” button plugin on
9
its website, enabling Facebook users to directly “Like” the website and to share that action with their
10
Facebook connections (without having to return to https://www.facebook.com or the Facebook
11
mobile app to share the content). The “Like” button plugin also may have displayed an anonymous
12
and aggregate count of all “Likes” for that particular website (the above-referenced “Like” count).
13
Facebook also offered a “Share” button, which also may have displayed an anonymous and aggregate
14
count of all “Shares” for that particular website (the “Share” count).
15
10.
In September 2009, Facebook enabled functionality that would ultimately allow third-
16
party website developers to provide a count associated with a “Share” button on their websites.
17
Attached as Exhibit A is a
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
3
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DECLARATION OF ALEX HIMEL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
Ex. A at 5, 7-8. In addition to
2
the overall “Share count,” third-party website developers also could view the public API statistics
3
indicating how many times a particular URL was shared. The public API statistics did not include
4
statistics indicating (specifically or by inference) how many times a given URL was shared using the
5
“Share” button and choosing “in a private message.”
6
11.
In October 2009, Facebook
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Ex. B at 3-5.
12.
At our F8 Developer Conference on April 21, 2010, Facebook announced the public
15
launch of the “Like” button, which also included a count feature reflecting the number of times a user
16
had clicked or commented on the “Like” button on that third-party website. The
17
18
19
20
21
.
13.
In May 2010, Facebook
Exhibit C is a
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
4
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DECLARATION OF ALEX HIMEL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
. Attached as
1
2
3
4
5
6
Ex. C at 5.
URL Preview
14.
During the Relevant Period, Facebook’s service included a Messages product, which
7
allowed users to exchange messages that could be viewed in the recipient user’s Messages folder.
8
Beginning in August 2010, Facebook’s source code included functionality supporting a feature
9
10
11
12
13
15.
14
15
—including a brief description of the
URL and, if available, a relevant image from the website, as illustrated by the example below:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
16.
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
5
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DECLARATION OF ALEX HIMEL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
EXHIBIT A
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?