decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

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
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:


MICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664)
MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725)
DANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624)
[address, phone, fax]

DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[address, phone fax]
STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)
[address, phone fax]

DORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049)
DEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527)
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Plaintiff









Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA


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


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 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


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).)


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


By: /s/ Michael A. Jacobs

Attorneys for Plaintiff



Oracle v. Google Trial Date Vacated; Oracle Plans to File 2 SJ Motions; Joint Exhibit List Filed - ~pj -Updated | 59 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, October 20 2011 @ 12:55 AM EDT
So they can be fixed

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 | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, October 20 2011 @ 12:57 AM EDT
Please make links clickable

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 | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, October 20 2011 @ 12:58 AM EDT
Please make links clickable

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 | # ]

Comes Thread
Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, October 20 2011 @ 01:01 AM EDT
Thank you for your assistance

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 | # ]

Motion Sickness?
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
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 | # ]

Google agrees that it can be decided as a matter of law
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 | # ]

Oracle v. Google Trial Date Vacated; Oracle Plans to File 2 SJ Motions; Joint Exhibit List Filed - ~pj
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 | # ]

Some interesting entries from the exhibit list
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‐ 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, and android‐ 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 re java api usage
  • #406: Email from Eric Schmidt to Brett Slatkin re: How about we buy Java from Sun?
  • #643: (FAQ about Oracle's acquisition of Sun; 2010)
  • #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‐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
  • #851: The Java Tutorials Lesson: Introduction to Collections, available at x.html
  • #858: Google Engineering: Java Alternatives "All Suck", Android "Needs to Negotiate a License", available at‐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‐less‐a bout‐ money‐ more‐about‐iphone‐disruption/
  • #871: Jonathan Schwartz blog: "I Believe in IP", 2004‐09‐30, available at nathan/entr y/i_believe_in_ip
  • #892: 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
  • #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 ‐ ; To:  Leo Cizek ‐ ; 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 ‐ ; To: Vineet Gupta ‐ ;   Tom Harris ‐ ; 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 ‐ ; To:  Eric Klein; Re:  Re: Sundroid Project
  • #2062: E‐mail; Dated:  January 22, 2009; From:  Craig Gering ‐ ; 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:/
  • #2072: E‐mail; Dated:  May 8, 2006; From:  Vineet Gupta ‐ ; To:  Rich Green ‐ , Alan Brenner ‐ , Jonathan Schwartz ‐ , Joe Heel ‐ ; 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 ‐ ; To:  Greg Stein ‐ ,   Chris DiBona ‐ ; Re: Apache/Java Advocacy ‐ Private Letter to Sun; Attach:  Apache Letter to Jonathanv2.doc
  • #2094: E‐mail; Dated:  June 5, 2007; From:  Peter Lord ‐; To:  Waye Carr ‐   Steven Chin ‐ ; Re:  Re: Oracle‐Intel Discussions re: Apache‐Sun Dispute
  • #2108: E‐mail; Dated:  March 29, 2010; From:  Steven Harris ‐; To: ; 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 ‐ ; To:  John Fowler ‐; Re:  Re: Google Summer of Code 2008
  • #2225: E‐mail; Dated:  March 19,2 010; From:  Jeet Kaul ‐  jeet.kaul ; To: Hasan Rizvi ‐ ; 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‐, 1979
  • #2519: “gzip” (, 2011
  • #2521: “IBM System/360 Operating System, Sort/Merge” (‐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‐ 23sunpr.mspx on June 14, 2011
  • #2916: Forum.Nokia Discussion Board re “j2me compatibility between different manufacturers” thread, printed from 11133‐j2me 208; compatibility‐between‐different‐manufacturers
  • #2920: October 19, 2007 article entitled “Sun starts bidding adieu to mobile‐ specific Java” printed from‐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
  • #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 (Cited in Astrachan 8/12/2011)
  • #3005: “Mono” – available at  http://www.mono‐ (Cited in Astrachan 8/12/2011)
  • #3006: Wikipedia “ Application programming interface,” – available at 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 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
  • #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
  • #3256:; 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
  • #3384: Math.Abs Method at
  • #3406: string::append ‐ C++ Reference at

[ Reply to This | # ]

What use is this exhibit list; I mean, how can anybody cope with its size?
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

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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )