|
|
| Oracle v. Google Trial Date Vacated; Oracle Plans to File 2 SJ Motions; Joint Exhibit List Filed - ~pj -Updated |
 |
|
Thursday, October 20 2011 @ 12:37 AM EDT
|
The trial date in Oracle v. Google, previously set for October 31, has been vacated. No new date has been set. The judge's
order [PDF] is short:
Due to a lengthy criminal trial set to begin on October 24, 2011, the final pretrial conference set for October 24 and the jury trial set to begin on October 31 are both VACATED. Dates for the final pretrial conference and trial will be re-set in due course.
What's interesting to contemplate is that the reexaminations of Oracle's patents will proceed in the interim. And
Oracle filed a
Case Management Statement [PDF], in preparation for the case management conference that was held on Wednesday, saying that if the trial date was postponed, which it now has been, it planned on filing two summary judgment motions, regarding Oracle's copyright claims and four of Google's defenses. So we can expect that to happen at some point. Also filed since we last wrote about the case is the
joint exhibit list [PDF - 166 pages] for use at trial, whenever it happens. [Update: Groklaw is on the list, #3263.]
The Lindholm email is on the list for use by Oracle, but that is pending a ruling on Google's objections, arguing it is privileged. You'll see on the chart the objections each side has to the other side's exhibits, and that's how you can tell who plans on using each exhibit. Oracle's exhibits appear to be the first 49 pages of the chart, and Google's follow. It's a 166-page PDF, as noted, so fair warning.
The docket:
543 -
Filed & Entered: 10/18/2011
Exhibit List
Docket Text: Exhibit List Joint Submission of Exhibit List and Parties' Objections by Google Inc., Oracle America, Inc... (Peters, Marc) (Filed on 10/18/2011)
544 -
Filed & Entered: 10/18/2011
Docket Text: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Oracle Statement For 10-19-2011 Case Management Conference filed by Oracle America, Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 10/18/2011)
545 -
Filed & Entered: 10/19/2011
Order
Docket Text: ORDER VACATING DATES FOR FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND JURY TRIAL. Signed by Judge Alsup on October 19, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2011)
The judge had asked the parties to address three issues, which Oracle addresses in its Statement: 1) how much time would be needed by the Rule 706 expert to finish his work, 2) whether it would be a good idea to split up the copyright and patent claims into two trials, and doing the easier and quicker copyright claim first, and 3) whether it would be wise to postpone the trial in general and what they each would suggest in the way of motion practice.
The judge also said he was considering if he might transfer the case to another judge, saying the case needed someone who had more time to focus on it, and with all the budget cuts, he's under so much time pressure, he just can't give it the time it deserves, as Reuters reports: Alsup ... said he has not been so overworked in 37 years of professional life.
"Your case is huge and needs the attention of somebody who can give it more time than I can," Alsup said. Oracle responds by saying it definitely doesn't want two trials. Its witnesses would then have to show up twice, since they are witnesses for both kinds of alleged infringement, which it says overlap, and the same folks at Google infringed in both ways at the same time, and Oracle wants the jury to feel the full import of the "willfulness", I gather: For the jury to fully appreciate the
scope of Google's willful copyright infringement, it must be permitted to consider the
overlapping evidence of willful patent infringement. The two motions for summary judgment Oracle wants to file are, first, regarding "the copyrightability of the selection and arrangement of names in the API design specifications at issue". Second, it wants to file a motion for summary judgment regarding "Google's four equitable defenses -- laches, equitable estoppel, implied license and waiver" and Google agrees that it can be decided as a matter of law. This has to do with Google's arguments that nobody on Sun objected and in fact praised Android.
And here's Oracle's Case Management Statement [PDF] as text:
************************
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664)
[email]
MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725)
[email]
DANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624)
[email]
[address, phone, fax]
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[email]
[address, phone fax]
STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)
[email]
[address, phone fax]
ORACLE CORPORATION
DORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049)
[email]
DEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527)
[email]
MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600)
[email]
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
__________________
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.
Defendant.
_________________
Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA
ORACLE'S CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT
Date: October 19, 2011
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept.: Courtroom 9, 19th Floor
Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup
The Court's order of October 12, 2011, directed the parties to be prepared to address three
issues at the case management conference on October 19, 2011:
(1) How much time the Rule 706 expert will require to complete his work, including the
time needed to complete an independent damages study as opposed to only critiquing the studies
provided by the parties' damages experts.
(2) The possibility of severing the copyright claim from the patent claims and first
conducting a shorter trial on the copyright claim.
(3) The possibility of general postponement and how best to use any intervening time, for
example with respect to motion practice.
Oracle briefly addresses each of these points below.
1. Time Required by Rule 706 Expert
Oracle assumes that this first question is addressed to counsel for Dr. Kearl.
2. Oracle's Copyright Claim Should Be Tried With The Patent Claims
Oracle is opposed to severing the copyright claim from the patent claims and trying it
separately. The copyright and patent claims should be tried together for at least two reasons:
First, the copyright and patent claims significantly overlap, and trying the claims
separately would result in great redundancy in trial presentation. Nearly every witness on
Oracle's list possesses information relevant to both the copyright and patent claims. For example:
testimony regarding (1) the background of the Java platform, its development, and innovative
features (Mark Reinhold, James Gosling, Guy Steele); (2) the development of Android, including
the code and features copied from Java (Andy Rubin, Joshua Bloch, Bob Lee, Daniel Bornstein,
Andy McFadden, Brian Swetland); (3) Google's direct infringement of Oracle's copyrights and
patents through its use of Android devices for testing and other purposes (Dan Morrill, Patrick
Brady); (4) Google's willful infringement of Oracle's intellectual property rights, the evidence of
which will be much the same for copyrights and patents (Tim Lindholm, Andy Rubin, Joshua
Bloch, Bob Lee, Brian Swetland); (5) the licensing negotiations between Google and Sun/Oracle
for rights to use the copyrighted and patented features of Java in Android (Vineet Gupta, Param
Singh, Larry Ellison, Thomas Kurian, Larry Page, Eric Schmidt, Andy Rubin); and (6) the harm
2
caused by Android to Java (Larry Ellison, Jeet Kaul, Thomas Kurian, Hasan Rizvi, Edward
Screven).
As it will not be possible to isolate the copyright and patent-related testimony of these
witnesses, trying the claims separately will result in the witnesses testifying twice on the same
subjects, greatly lengthening the necessary trial time. Similarly, the documentary evidence on
these subjects (including e-mails and presentations reflecting Android's development, Google's
willful infringement, and the licensing negotiations) will substantially overlap, requiring the jury
to view them twice.
Second, separating Oracle's copyright and patent claims would prejudice Oracle's case on
both sets of claims, as Google's copyright infringement is inextricably intertwined with its
infringement of Oracle's patents. Google chose to incorporate Java virtual machine technology
into Android, allowing Android to run applications written in Java with the speed and memory
efficiency of a Java virtual machine. In doing so, Google also chose to copy the core Java API
specifications and class libraries which platform vendors must license in order to support Java
applications, and to incorporate the patented virtual machine features into Android's Dalvik
virtual machine and related software components. The story of this infringement is not divisible.
The copying of the core Java API specifications and the inclusion of the patented features in
Android were carried out by the same team of Google engineers and done for the same reason --
to provide Android with the advantages of Java, including speed, efficiency, and a wide
community of developers. For the '476 patent in particular, the conduct that led to infringement
of that patent (Google's inclusion of the java.security API packages in Android) is the same
activity that infringes Oracle's copyrights in those packages. For the jury to fully appreciate the
scope of Google's willful copyright infringement, it must be permitted to consider the
overlapping evidence of willful patent infringement.
Additionally, if the copyright and patent claims are tried to different juries, there is
significant risk that the second jury would be required to re-examine a factual issue determined by
the first, in violation of the Seventh Amendment's Re-examination Clause. See, e.g., Gasoline
Products Co. v. Champlin Refining Co., 283 U.S. 494, 500-01 (1931) (under Re-examination
3
Clause, reversing judgment where successive juries might have been required to decide same
facts); United Airlines, Inc. v. Weiner, 286 F.2d 302, 306 (9th Cir. 1961) (reversing where
successive juries were used and issues of liability and damages were "so interwoven" that "the
former cannot be submitted to the jury independently of the latter"). On willfulness, indirect
patent infringement, and contributory copyright infringement, for instance, each jury would
consider much of the same evidence in deciding whether Google's conduct was knowing and
willful. If the claims were tried separately to separate juries, the second jury would almost
inevitably revisit facts decided by the first. Even if a single jury were used, the parties will adjust
their presentations the second time around, with the prospect that a single jury would return
inconsistent verdicts.
Even if that risk could be avoided, holding separate trials on Oracle's copyright and patent
claims would lengthen the overall trial of this case, not shorten it, and would severely prejudice
Oracle's ability to fairly present the intertwined facts of this case for adjudication. For these
reasons, Oracle's copyright and patent claims should be tried together.
3. General Postponement and Motion Practice
In the event that the trial is postponed, Oracle proposes to file two motions for summary
judgment to narrow the issues in the case for trial.
First, Oracle proposes to file a motion for summary judgment of the copyrightability of
the selection and arrangement of names in the 37 API design specifications at issue. In its
summary judgment order, the Court left open this question, stating that
In finding that the names of the various items appearing in the disputed API
package specifications are not protected by copyright, this order does not foreclose
the possibility that the selection or arrangement of those names is subject to
copyright protection. See Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Seattle Lighting Fixture Co., 345
F.3d 1140, 1147 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[A] combination of unprotectable elements is
eligible for copyright protection only if those elements are numerous enough and
their selection and arrangement original enough that their combination constitutes
an original work of authorship.")
(ECF No. 433, Order Partially Granting and Partially Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment on Copyright Claim, at 8 (emphasis supplied in order).)
4
Under copyright law, there is a "minimal amount of creativity required to satisfy the low
threshold for demonstrating originality," and when appropriate, originality may be determined by
the Court on summary judgment. See Jacobs v. Katzer, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115204, at *9-10
(N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2009) (granting summary judgment of originality and copyrightability of
plaintiff's selection and arrangement of "Decoder Definition Text Files" reflecting decoder
information from model railroad manufacturers). The selection and arrangement of the nearly
names found in the APIs readily surpasses this standard and originality can be determined as
a matter of law.
Second, Oracle proposes to file a motion for summary judgment on Google's four
equitable defenses laches, equitable estoppel, implied license and waiver. The parties agree that
these four equitable defenses are for the Court to decide. (ECF No. 525, Parties' Joint Proposed
Pretrial Order, at 9-10, 12). Moreover, all four defenses arise out of the same general set of facts
Google's allegations concerning statements and actions, or inaction, by Sun and Oracle relating
to the enforcement of the patents and copyrights at issue Google has in fact grouped laches,
estoppel and waiver under the same heading in its affirmative defenses. (See ECF No. 51,
Google Inc's Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for Patent and Copyright Infringement
and Amended Counterclaims, at , - (Third, Eleventh and Eighteenth Defenses). Oracle
believes these defenses can be decided against Google as a matter of law as well.
Dated: October 18, 2011
MICHAEL A. JACOBS
MARC DAVID PETERS
DANIEL P. MUINO
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By: /s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
5
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, October 20 2011 @ 12:55 AM EDT |
So they can be fixed
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2011 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, October 20 2011 @ 12:57 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2011 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, October 20 2011 @ 12:58 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2011 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, October 20 2011 @ 01:01 AM EDT |
Thank you for your assistance
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2011 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: complex_number on Thursday, October 20 2011 @ 01:13 AM EDT |
The seemingly never ending stream of motions and counter motions will continue
unabated.
These will all divert the attention of the Judge from the criminal trial.
Has there ever been a case where the Judge has said
'Enough already'
Food for thought...
---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IANALitj on Thursday, October 20 2011 @ 09:51 AM EDT |
If Oracle moves for summary judgment on Google's four equitable defenses, there
is a distinct possibility that Oracle will lose much or all of its case without
a trial.
PJ says (and I haven't chased this down) that Google agrees that such a motion
can be decided as a matter of law. This does not mean that the judge will
agree, even if both parties assert this. What frequently happens is that both
parties assert that a matter is ripe for summary judgment, but they turn out to
disagree as to what the "undisputed facts" are, on which such a
determination would be based. In that case, there would have to be a trial to
determine the facts.
If, however, the facts really are undisputed, Oracle might lose on either the
copyright side or the patent side (or, of course, in both respects) on the
grounds of laches, estoppel or waiver. Oracle risks losing its case; Google
only risks having these defenses stricken.
If Oracle does risk such a summary judgment motion, it will have the first crack
at specifying its version of the facts. I predict that Google will then add a
great many more details that support its claims of laches, estoppel and waiver.
Moreover, I predict that Google [i.e. its lawyers] will enjoy enumerating
Oracle's omissions, and that I will enjoy reading those submissions.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 20 2011 @ 10:03 AM EDT |
Overall very good news for Google, the Judge is defacto throwing
in the towel.
I already wrote a few weeks ago, about how I wondered how he can
possibly manage his Radarscreen, given the Size and scope of this
case. Now there is a possibility of getting a Judge onto this who
is highly specialized in Patent and Copyright law (hopefully) and
sufficiently ambitious to give this case the special attention for
all its very technical details that it deserves, because the
outcome will be precedent setting, imo. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SLi on Thursday, October 20 2011 @ 12:22 PM EDT |
Here's a list of entries from the exhibit list that stuck me
as interesting
in one way or another.
(I considered obfuscating the email addresses, but
decided
that would remove important information - there's usually EITHER
name
OR email address there - while really doing nothing to
hinder spammers, as it's
just as easy for their robots to harvest
them from the searchable
PDF.)
Even Groklaw is mentioned (in #3263).
Oracle's
exhibits:
- #104: Issue 1168987 Remove j‐word from
Everywhere
- #182: Email from Andy McFadden to android‐p4@google.com
re
[main] Change 70451: Reduce use of the J‐word in the VM
core. Part of
#1168987
- #233: Email from Bornstein to Wilson re How aggressive do we
scrub
the J word?
- #271: Email from jasonchen to jasonchen@google.com,
ericchu@google.com and android‐bugs@google.com re
[Android‐bugs]
[Issue 907928] Need to remove all references to Java. Onlu
exception is Java
programming language
- #309: Email from Lindholm to Minar et al. re: Should we
contribute to Harmony?
- #330: Email from Lindholm to Frantz re: fwd: Java is
free
:‐)
- #333: Email from Pablo Bellver to Brian Grant and
cgd@google.com re java api usage
- #406: Email from Eric Schmidt to Brett
Slatkin re: How about
we buy Java from Sun?
- #643:
http://www.oracle.com/us/038563.pdf (FAQ about
Oracle's acquisition of Sun;
2010)
- #660: PATENT FEATURES ARE NECESSARY FOR ANDROID TO
DELIVER
SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE AND SECURITY PX339 ["page 34 from Podium
Book", whatever that is]
- #662: Anti‐Fragmentation Agreement between
Google Inc.
and
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
- #742: “Tested: iPhone 4 (iOS
4.2.1 vs. 4.3) and Android
phones,” available
at
http://news.cnet.com/8301‐17938_105‐20041273‐1.
html
- #7
74: Android Openness Withering As Google Withholds
Honeycomb Code
- #792: D.
Goodin, “2 out of 3 Android apps use private data
‘suspiciously’ Google
protections ‘insufficient’,” posted Sept.
30, 2010, available at
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/30/suspicious_android_apps/
- #851: The
Java Tutorials Lesson: Introduction to Collections,
available
at
http://download.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/collections/intro/inde
x.html
-
#858: Google Engineering: Java Alternatives "All Suck",
Android "Needs
to
Negotiate a License", available
at
http://obamapacman.com/2011/07/google‐engineer‐java&#
8208;al
ternatives‐
all‐suck‐android‐needs‐to‐negoti
ate
‐license/
- #870: CNN Money, "Android less about money, more about
iPhone
disruption", 8/17/2010, available
at
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/08/17/android‐less‐a
bout‐
money‐
more‐about‐iphone‐disruption/
- #871: Jonathan
Schwartz blog: "I Believe in IP",
2004‐09‐30,
available
at
http://web.archive.org/web/20070810191300/http://blogs.sun.com/jo
nathan/entr
y/i_believe_in_ip
- #892:
https://android.git.kernel.org/?
p=platform%2Fdalvik.git;a=commit;h=59
a434629ba
06d4decf7bc88a62ae370a1935f0e
- #896: JDK 5 Class Library Files Decompiled by
Marc Visnick
Using JAD
Decompiler
- #923: Physical Evidence: BeagleBoard
test board manufactured
by Texas Instrument
- #924: Physical
Evidence: BlackBerry Bold 9780 Phone (IMEI:
354259044101263)
- #925: Physical
Evidence: Dell Inspiron laptop and its
contents used by John
Mitchel in
support of his expert report regarding patent
infringement
- #926: Physical
Evidence: Google Nexus One Phone (IMEI:
354957034886724)
- #927: Physical
Evidence: Google Nexus S Phone (UPC: 8
806071 432908;
X0005M3P5B;
GT*355266/04/139490/7*)
- #928-945: lots of Android phones by Google, HTC,
Samsung,
Motorola; many of them Google Nexus Ones
- #946: Physical
Evidence: Tegra 2 test board manufactured by
NVIDIA
- #989: W. Enck et al.,
“TaintDroid: An Information‐Flow
Tracking System for
Realtime Privacy
Monitoring on Smartphones,” 9th USENIX Symposium
on Operating Systems Design and
Implementation (OSDI’10), p. 9,
available at
http://appanalysis.org/tdroid10.pdf
- #1004: Google Inc. Acquisition of
Android, Inc.. Closing
Purchase Price
Calculation and
Allocation
Google's exhibits:
- #2009:
E‐mail ; Dated: March 17, 2007; From: Vineet
Gupta ‐
vineet.gupta@sun.com ; To: Leo Cizek ‐ leo.cizek@sun.com
;
Re: Re: Google phone ‐ it’s for real
- #2013: Monetization
Proposal ‐ Sun & Google jointly
developing open handset ;
Sun: Java
CDC machine, class librarys, MIDP‐stack and
JSRs;
Google: OS, system
framework, graphics, telephony, basic apps,
data manager, codecs,
protocol stacks, native tool chain
- #2025: E‐mail:; Dated: May 13,
2008; From: Lance
Andersen ;
To: Lino Persi ; Re: Re: Google looking to
license the Servlet
standalone TCK and needs a sales rep to engage
- #2032:
E‐mail; Dated: April 29, 2009; From: Leo
Cizek ‐
leo.cizek@sun.com ; To: Vineet
Gupta ‐ vineet.gupta@sun.com
; Tom Harris ‐ tom.harris@sun.com ;
Re: M Bucchotz at
Google‐
“Android did not use Java in developing
Dalvik, only Java
specifications”
- #2048: Oracle Corporation Patent Policy,
Software Patent
Hearings; Dated: January 26‐27, 1994
- #2060:
E‐mail; Dated: December 17. 2008; From: Craig
Gering ‐ craig.gering@sun.com ; To: Eric Klein; Re: Re:
Sundroid
Project
- #2062: E‐mail; Dated: January 22, 2009; From: Craig
Gering ‐
craig.gering@sun.com ; To: Erav Davidov
Omer Pomerantz, Yaniv
Shani ; Re: i know you guys … ( have
reservations about us (sun) providing java
vm for all of android)
- #2069: SUN Blog, Jonathan’s Blog Entry: ;
Title: Congratulations Google, Red
Hate and the Java Community
Link:
http:/fblogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/congratulations....google
- #2072:
E‐mail; Dated: May 8, 2006; From: Vineet
Gupta ‐
vineet.gupta@sun.com ; To: Rich
Green ‐ rich.green@sun.com
, Alan Brenner ‐ alan.brenner@sun.com
, Jonathan
Schwartz ‐
jonathan.schwartz@sun.com , Joe
Heel ‐ joe.heel@sun.com ;
Re: Re:
Hi Jonathan ! ‐ Google GC
advising to hold off meetings
until
patent issues resolved
- #2073: Q&A
re Sun & Google Android (and Java)
- #2089: E‐mail; Dated: June 1,
2007; From: Don Deutsch
;
To: Edward Screven ;
Re: Proposed straw‐man
latter to Sun supporting an
unencumbered
SE license for Apache;
Attach: Apache Letter to Jonathan v2.doc,
oracle_sig_logo.gif
- #2090:
E‐mail; Dated: June 4, 2007; From: Peter
Lord ‐
peter.lord@oracle.com ;
To: Greg Stein ‐ gstein@google.com
, Chris
DiBona ‐
cdibona@google.com ; Re: Apache/Java
Advocacy ‐ Private
Letter to
Sun; Attach: Apache Letter to
Jonathanv2.doc
- #2094: E‐mail; Dated: June 5, 2007; From: Peter
Lord ‐
peter.lord@oracle.com; To: Waye
Carr ‐ wayne.car@intel.com
Steven Chin ‐ steven.chin@intel.com ;
Re: Re:
Oracle‐Intel
Discussions re: Apache‐Sun
Dispute
- #2108: E‐mail; Dated: March 29, 2010; From: Steven
Harris ‐;
To: mohammad.afshar@oracle.com ; Re: Re: New OSS positioning
check?; Attach: Oracle Open Source.ppt; PowerPoint: Insights
Into Oracle and
Open Source; Author: Wim Coekaerts, VP,
Engineering; Monica Kumar, Sr. Dir.,
Product Marketing
- #2125: Source Code:
V:DS0000005006hotspot_1.BarchivefcsewssrcCPUi486VmtemP
lateTable_i486.cPP
- #
2126-2134: other source code snippets
- #2157: WebBLOG Entry: Stefano’s
Linotype; Dated: November
12, 2007; Title: Dalvik: how Google routed around
Sun’s‐IP
based
licensing restrictions on Java ME
- #2170: Technology
License and Distribution Agreement;
Dated: March 30, 1997; Parties: Sun
Microsystems, Inc (Sun),
Nokia Corporation
- #2171: SUN Community Source
License Agreement; Parties: SUN
Microsystems, Inc., Motorola, Inc
- #2195:
E‐mail: (one return) Dated: March 4, 2008;
From: Jonathan
Schwartz ‐ jis@sun.com ; To: John
Fowler ‐
jfowler@sun.com;
Re: Re: Google Summer of Code 2008
- #2202: [INFORMATION REDACTED PENDING
RESOLUTION OF DISPUTE]
- #2225: E‐mail; Dated: March 19,2 010;
From: Jeet
Kaul ‐
jeet.kaul sun.com ; To: Hasan
Rizvi ‐ hasan.rizvi@oracle.com ;
Re: analysis ‐ hotspot and
dalvik ; Attach: VM
comparison.docx
- #2226: Report:; Title: Comparing Java
Platforms and
Android/Dalvik
- #2227: PowerPoint:; Author: Oracle; Title:
Java vs Android
- #2252: E‐mail; Dated: November 30, 2007; From: Don
Deutsch ‐
; To: Edward Screven, Craig Stephen ‐ ;
Re: [Fwd:[Fwd:
Google’s Android As Currently Define Is a Fork of the Java ME
Platform ]]; Attach: [boardandofficers] Google’s Android As
Currently Defined
Is a Fork of the Java ME Platform (1).msg
- #2292: Journal Article
titled: “Efficient Implementation of
the SmallTalk‐80 System”
(1983)
- #2325: AT&T: The Design of the UNIX Operating System;
Author: Maurice J Bauch, 1986
- #2340: Press Release; Dated: May 16, 2006;
Source: CNET
News; Author: Joris Evers; Title: Sun promises to
open‐source
Java
- #2421: “Clint: A RISC Interpreter for the C
Programming
Language”; Author: Jack W Davidson
- #2422: Dynamic
Linking ‐ System V references
- #2434: E‐mail; From: Elliott
Hughes; To: Elliott
Hughes
cc: Jesse Wilson Dated 01/07/2011; Re: Change in
platform/libcore(dalvik‐dev): Retire SecurityManager
- #2455: Web
Article; Dated: August 2004; Author: Simon Phipps;
Title: The Subscription
Model: A Necessary Trend for Open Source
Deployers
- #2456: “On the Record”,
Oracle Blog; Dated: February 27,
2008; Author: Molini; Title: Open Standards,
Open Source, Open
Access to IP and Open Dialog
- #2484: Torvolds, L., “Linux:
A Portable Operating System,”
1997
- #2499: Smith, J., “Effects of
Copy‐on‐Write
Memory Management
on the Response Time of UNIX Fork
Operations,” 1988
- #2502: “Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria
(Orange
Book),” Department of Defense, 1985
- #2515: “History of LISP”
(http://www‐
formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/lisp/lisp.html),
1979
- #2519: “gzip” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gzip), 2011
- #2521: “IBM
System/360 Operating System,
Sort/Merge”
(http://www.prycroft6.com.au/misc/download/GC28‐6543‐
5
OS360 Sort Merge Nov68OCR.pdf), 1968
- #2535: Daley, R., Virtual Memory,
processes, and Sharing in
MULTICS, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 11, No. 5,
May 1968
- #2538: PowerPoint; Date: May 18, 2001; Author: Craig
Gering, VP
Java Development; Title: ME7 and Android ‐
Comparisons
- #2556:
Srinivasan, S., Advanced Perl Programming, O’Reiley &
Assoc., 1997 (Expert
Report Of Dennis Allison Regarding
Invalidity Of U.S. Patent No.
7,426,720 ‐ Ex H)
- #2566: Proebsting, T., Krakatoa: Decompilation in
Java (Does
Bytecode Reveal Source?), Proc. of Third USENIX Conf. on
Obj.‐
Oriented Techn. and Sys., June 1997 (Expert Report of Dr. Robert
B.K. Dewar Regarding Invalidity of U.S.
Patent No. 6,061,520 ‐ Attached
to Report)
- #2610: Best of Interface Age: Volume 1: Software in BASIC,
Dilithium Press, Interface Age, 1979
- #2651: iOS Overview, Web page, Apple
Inc., 2010;
(Expert Report of Dr. David L. August, Ph.D. Regarding the
Non‐
Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,910,205 ‐ EX AM)
- #2691:
Wikipedia ‐ “List of Open Source Android
Applications”, Aug. 22, 2011
(Expert Report of Terence Parr,
Ph.D. Regarding Non‐Infringement of U.S.
Patent No.
5,966,702 ‐ EX
M)
- #2704: Email; Dated: September 22,
2010; From: Guy Steele;
To: Kath Knobe; Re: Re: Java Creator James Gosling:
Why I Quit
Oracle
- #2705: Email; Dated: December 13, 2009; From: James
Gosling; To: Lawrence Ellison; Re: Re: Your acquisition of Sun:
a disaster
in the making
- #2709: Presentation; Author: Hinkmond Wong, Snr. Staff
Engineer, SUN; Dated: 2008 JavaOne Conference Title: How to Port
phoneME
Advanced Software to Google Android, iPhone, OpenMoko,
LiMO and More
- #2721:
Presentation entitled “Compatibility is Optional”
stating Sun cites to Android
as an EX of “incompatible
implementation” that Sun was unwilling to enforce
legal rights
against” (ORACLE: Document cannot be identified; objections
reserved)
- #2726: Raytheon Android Tactical System
- #2732: Total
worldwide installations of Android applications
- #2886: Excerpts from July
22, 2011 Order Granting in Part
Motion to Strike Damage Report of Plaintiff
Expert Iain Cockburn
– Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (Docket No.
230)
- #2897: May 27, 1999 Opening Brief of Appellant Connectix
Corporation,
Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., et al. v. Conectix
Corporation (Case No.
99015852)
- #2901: July 30, 2009 Oracle/Sun Form CO relating to the
notification of a concentration under Council Regulation (EC)
No.
139/2004
- #2907: January 23, 2001 Microsoft press release entitled
“Microsoft Reaches Agreement to Settle Contract Dispute with Sun
Microsystems”, printed from
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2001/jan01/01‐
23sunpr.mspx on
June 14, 2011
- #2916: Forum.Nokia Discussion Board re “j2me compatibility
between different
manufacturers” thread, printed
from
http://discussion.forum.nokia.com/forum/showthread.php?
11133‐j2me
208;
compatibility‐between‐different‐manufacturers
- #2920:
October 19, 2007 article entitled “Sun starts bidding
adieu to
mobile‐
specific Java” printed from
http://news.cnet.com/8301‐13580_3‐
9800679‐39.html?
part=rss&
amp;subj=news&tag=2547‐1_3‐0‐20
- #2921: ACM Digital
Library article description of “Android
vs. Windows Mobile
ME: a comparative
study of mobile development environments”,
PETRA’10 Proceedings of the 3rd
Int’l. Conference on Pervasive
Technologies Related to Assistive Environments
printed from
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1839348
- #2961: October
25, 2009 Email string from Brian A. Kowal to
Florian Tournier, Tajore
Ravishankar, and Calinel Pasteanu re:
Gemalto – 2010‐10‐25 0
Gemalto Files Patent
Infringement Lawsuit
Over Android
- #2963: October 7
Article: How can JavaME and Android
co‐exist
on a mobile device by Omer
Pomerantz and Roy Ben Hayun
- #2964: December 13, 2009 Email string from
Lawrence Ellison
to James Gosling re: Your acquisition of Sun: a disaster in
the
making
- #2965: December 13, 2009 Email string from Charles Phillips
to
Larry Ellison and James Gosling re: Your acquisition of Sun: a
disaster in the
making
- #2967: January 27, 2009 Email from David Bryant to Craig
Gering,
Nachi Periakaruppan, and David Bryant re: Sundroid notes
from our meeting
today
- #2985: Jack Dennis, “Programming semantics
for multiprogrammed
computations” in the Communications of the
ACM. 9:3 (March 1966) (Cited in
Allison re 720 8/8/2011)
- #2992: John McCarthy, “The Linking Segment
Subprogram
Language and Linking Loader” Communications of the ACM in July
1963
(Cited in Allison re 104 8/8/2011)
- #2996: Brooks, Frederick “The Mythical
Man‐Month,”
Anniversary Edition (1995) (Cited in Astrachan
8/19/2011)
- #3002: Kernighan & Ritchie “The C Programming
Language”
(Cited in Astrachan 8/12/2011)
- #3004: Monoproject – available at
http://www.monoproject.com
(Cited in Astrachan 8/12/2011)
- #3005: “Mono” –
available at http://www.mono‐
project.com/FAQ:_Licensing (Cited in
Astrachan 8/12/2011)
- #3006: Wikipedia “ Application programming interface,”
–
available at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Application_programming_interface&
;oldid=437864024
(Cited in Astrachan 7/29/2011)
- #3026: Thompson, Ken
“Programming Techniques: Regular
expression search algorithm,” Communications
of the ACM, Vol.
11, Issue 6, June 1968 (Cited in Astrachan
7/29/2011)
- #3068: Geir’s Blog “If Sun really only uses patents for
defensive reasons…”
- #3078: Complier Overview – available
at
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/CompilerToo
ls/Conceptu
al/LLVMCompilerOverview/index.html
- #3095: Harrison, Glenn and Rutström,
Elisabet “Experimental
Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value
Elicitation Methods,” in Handbook of Experimental Economics
Results, Volume 1,
2008.
- #3104: James Gosling Rant on Google Android – available
at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thsklMITu0I
- #3106: March 09, 2002
Complaint, Sun Microsystems, Inc v.
Microsoft Corporation
- #3107: April 2,
2004 “Microsoft and Sun Microsystems Enter
Broad Cooperation Agreement; Settle
Outstanding Litigation,”
Microsoft News Center
- #3149: December 22, 2008
Binary License and Redistribution
Agreement between Sun Microsystems and HTC
Corp.
- #3167: Linux Kernal, Wikipedia – available
at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel
- #3256: InfoWorld.com; Oracle:
Java’s worst enemy; by Neil
McAllister; Aug. 4, 2011
- #3258: Oracle Blog;
John Rose’s weblog at Oracle; “with
Android and Dalvik at Google I/O; May 31,
2008;
- #3261: Weblog; May 14, 2007; Are Software Patents Useful?
- #3262:
Weblog: Greg Matter; February 7, 2005; My Views on
open Source
- #3263:
Weblog: Groklaw; August 11, 2011; Oracle v.
Google ‐
Look What The cat
Dragged In (to Oracle)
- #3374: abs ‐ C/C++ FunctionReference
at
http://www.cprogramming.com/fod/abs.html
- #3384: Math.Abs Method at
http://msdn.microsoft.com
- #3406: string::append ‐ C++ Reference
at
http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/string/string/append
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AMackenzie on Thursday, October 20 2011 @ 01:30 PM EDT |
These 161 pages (disregarding names and addresses) list 4035 items. Some of
these are themselves lengthy books. If every last minute of a three week trial
was spent considering these exhibits, there'd be a mere 1 minute 48 seconds for
each.
How does a team of tip-top lawyers keep on top of such a collection? I suppose
they manage it by excellent skills and good organisation, somehow, and maybe
they inflate the list to bemuse the opposition.
But what are the judge and court officials, to say nothing of a jury, supposed
to make of all this bumf? How much time are they supposed to spend reading it?
I'm not just being polemic here. Even a list of 161 items would tax me, never
mind 161 pages. What does the court do with this list?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
