|
|
| Oracle v. Google - Judge Orders Oracle to Cough Up Engineers |
 |
|
Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 03:15 PM EST
|
That didn't take long. Less than 24 hours after receiving the joint letter from the parties with regard to witnesses relied upon by Dr. Cockburn in preparing the third version of his damages report (711 [PDF; Text]), Judge Alsup has ordered (712 [PDF; Text]) Oracle to produce all five of the engineers referenced in the report for deposition by Google. We had anticipated that he would allow Google to depose Dr. Reinhold and perhaps two of the other four engineers, but Judge Alsup told Oracle to serve them all up. And not for a mere two hours apiece but for a total of 14 hours over two days, the time to be allocated by Google as it desires.
Given the speed and extent of this order, two things are clear. First, Judge Alsup has no intent of letting this trial schedule slip further. As additional evidence of this he issued a second supplemental order (713 [PDF; Text]) telling Google that these depositions must fit in with the schedule already established. In other words, Google must complete these depositions in the next few days.
Second, Judge Alsup is sticking with his word with respect to this third version of Cockburn's damages report. That is, he is going to give Google wide latitude to challenge it and the facts upon which Cockburn relies.
*************
Docket
712 - Filed and Effective: 02/09/2012
ORDER
Document Text: ORDER
REGARDING FEBRUARY 8 JOINT LETTER re 711 Letter filed by Google Inc..
Signed by Judge Alsup on February 9, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF)
713 - Filed and Effective: 02/09/2012
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
Document Text: SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REGARDING ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS re 712 Order. Signed
by Judge Alsup on February 9, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF)
*************
712
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.
No. C 10-03561 WHA
ORDER REGARDING
FEBRUARY 8 JOINT LETTER
________________________________________
The parties have a discovery dispute arising from Dr. Ian Cockburn’s third damages
report. In his report, Dr. Cockburn stated that he “consulted with Dr. Mark Reinhold . . . and with
other Java engineers employed by Sun and now Oracle” in order to rank the importance of the
intellectual property in the 2006 license bundle. Dr. Cockburn named four individuals as the
“other Java engineers” in his report.
Google seeks to depose these “other Java engineers.” Oracle opposes and argues that only
Dr. Reinhold should be deposed. Oracle explains that only Dr. Reinhold provided information to
Dr. Cockburn and the “consulted with . . . other Java engineers” phrase was unfortunately the
result of a “drafting error.” Oracle explains that these other engineers only assisted Dr. Reinhold,
did not directly speak with Dr. Cockburn, and are not expected to testify at trial.
Google is hereby allowed to depose (and Oracle must make available without subpoena)
Dr. Reinhold and the four “other Java engineers” for a total of 14 hours of “airtime,” i.e., not
counting breaks, all depositions to occur over the course of two days unless counsel agree
otherwise. Oracle must produce at the depositions any materials used by the deponent in
supplying information to the expert or to Dr. Reinhold on the subjects at issue. Google may
allocate the 14 hours as it wishes among the five deponents, in any sequence Google wishes, and
may choose to eliminate one or more deponents without prejudice to its full 14 hours of “air
time.”
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 9, 2012.
/s/ William Alsup
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
713
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.
No. C 10-03561 WHA
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
REGARDING ADDITIONAL
DEPOSITIONS
______________________________________
All of the depositions authorized today must fit within the existing schedule.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 9, 2012.
/s/ Williams Alsup
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: jesse on Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 03:21 PM EST |
| Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 03:21 PM EST |
| Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 03:22 PM EST |
| Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 03:23 PM EST |
| Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 03:33 PM EST |
| .. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: OmniGeek on Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 03:35 PM EST |
I can see all kinds of possible shenanigans by BSF, based on the stuff (to be
euphemistic) that went down in the SCO vs world case. Delays in scheduling the
availability of the engineers, delays or <oops! left that at the office>
omissions in providing the supporting documents, coached obtuseness or slowness
of response on the part of the deponents, frequent time-burning objections by
Oracle counsel; in short, any and all sorts of brinkmanship could be tried in
order to deprive Google of the opportunity to do a thorough job in deposing
these folks.
I wonder how it will actually go, and when?
---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on
espresso.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BJ on Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 05:09 PM EST |
Oracle engineer Hinkmond Wong's blog.
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 05:30 PM EST |
You know what they say about giving enough slack ...
Well, I'd say that the slack is all used up. I hope Oracle
enjoys the noose.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 05:50 PM EST |
| This looks like a big one, all claims found to be invalid. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- EOLAS verdict in - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 06:00 PM EST
- EOLAS verdict in - Authored by: red floyd on Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 06:35 PM EST
- EOLAS verdict in - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 08:26 PM EST
- EOLAS verdict in - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 08:31 PM EST
- EOLAS verdict in - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 08:31 PM EST
- Eolala! - Authored by: webster on Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 08:55 PM EST
- Eolala! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 09:45 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 06:47 PM EST |
Google gets their wish.
Oracle must give the Five.
Soon the questions burn.
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 08:29 PM EST |
Which nickname should the judge get? Or is normal speed. The only other case I
have been 3rd part two read about was the SCOX against World.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Friday, February 10 2012 @ 12:07 AM EST |
| Keyboard alert!
News pick: Hinkmond
Wong's Weblog: Android not based on Java:
For the other
commenter who thinks Android is "based on Java", you are incorrect. While it is
true that the programming language for Android is the Java programming language,
the Android platform itself uses the Dalvik virtual machine and processes Dalvik
bytecode, not Java bytecode, so the Android platform is NOT based specifically
on Java ME technology.
PJ's comment:
This is one of
the engineers who works for Oracle and who contributed to Oracle expert Dr.
Cockburn's damages report, and who the judge just ordered Oracle to produce so
he can be deposed by Google, as Google's requested.
I was
wondering why Oracle was fighting so hard over these depositions. If Oracle was
telling the full story then these deposition wouldn't give Google anything
useful. Sure "Java ME" is not exactly the same thing as "Java", but oh my
goodness, IMO this beats the Lindholm email by a hundred miles. If Oracle's
precious Java technology is required for making Android perform well as a mobile
platform, why didn't Oracle include that same technology in their Java ME?
ISTM this eviscerates the heart of Oracle's case. I really don't think a
jury can follow the tech well enough to determine for themselves if code X
practices patent Y. When Oracle's own Java engineering expert says Android is
clean, how can the jury not believe him?
---
Shirky Principle:
Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 10 2012 @ 05:38 AM EST |
One of the engineers, John Rose, did write a somewhat technical analysis on the
differences between Java and Android after visiting a Google conference:
http://blogs.oracle.com/jrose/entry/with_android_and_dalvik_at[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
