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 - Day 1 Filings
Monday, April 16 2012 @ 11:45 PM EDT

While the first day in court featured jury selection and Oracle's opening statement, there were a number of filings occurring at the same time. First, there were three orders from the court. The first (927 [PDF])changes the stipulated trial procedures to require more lead time when a party files a motion involving sealed material. This change was necessary to accommodate the clerk's office.

The second order (928 [PDF]) grants Oracle's very late and very untimely request to augment its exhibit list. Clearly Oracle is gaming the system here, but the Court is going to allow both sides some latitude at this early stage of the trial.

The third order (929 [PDF]) denies (without prejudice) the motions in limine of both parties. Google's motion (921 [PDF]) sought to preclude the presentation of all financial evidence regarding Android and Java. Oracle's (922 [PDF]) sought to preclude evidence regarding equitable defenses. As Google had suggested, the Court concurred that Oracle's motion resembled a partial motion for summary judgment that grossly overreached.

Tuesday will start off with Google's opening statement. Then the parties will begin putting on evidence. At this juncture the initial witness lists of the respective parties are:


1. Bloch, Joshua
2. Ellison, Larry
3. Kurian, Thomas
4. Lee, Bob
5. Lindholm, Tim
6. Miner, Rich (by video)
7. Page, Larry (live and by video)
8. Reinhold, Mark
9. Screven, Edward
10. Swetland, Brian


1. Josh Bloch
2. Dan Bornstein
3. Craig Gering
4. Vineet Gupta (by video)
5. Bob Lee
6. Hiroshi Lockheimer
7. Hasan Rizvi (by video)
8. Andrew Rubin
9. Eric Schmidt
10. Param Singh (by video)

Given that Oracle has already brought up the Lindholm email in its opening statement, it's not surprising to see Tim Lindholm among the earliest witnesses to be called by Oracle.

Finally, each of the parties has filed a statement of position with respect to the issues they have requested be deemed undisputed at trial. Google (933 [PDF]), which has already received a concurrence from the Court on two of its three requests, says at least they stuck with items which are truly undisputed unlike Oracle which is trying to suggest that items truly in dispute are not, such as Sun requiring field-of-use restrictions on the Apache Harmony License. Oracle, of course, says not so (934 [PDF]), that it is only identifying as undisputed that which Google has already admitted in other pleadings. Of course, we are talking about Oracle's interpretation of what Google "admitted." More fun for Judge Alsup.

Now for Day Two.



04/16/2012 - 927 - ORDER AMENDING STIPULATED TRIAL PROCEDURES re 890 Order on Stipulation. Signed by Judge Alsup on April 16, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2012) (Entered: 04/16/2012)

04/16/2012 - 928 - ORDER GRANTING ORACLE'S MOTION TO AUGMENT EXHIBIT LIST by Hon. William Alsup granting 907 Motion augment exhibit list.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2012) (Entered: 04/16/2012)

04/16/2012 - 929 - ORDER REGARDING APRIL 16 MOTIONS IN LIMINE by Hon. William Alsup denying without prejudice 921 922 .(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2012) (Entered: 04/16/2012)

04/16/2012 - 930 - Minute Entry: Jury Trial began on 4/16/2012 before William Alsup (Date Filed: 4/16/2012), Jury Selection held on 4/16/2012 before William Alsup (Date Filed: 4/16/2012). (Court Reporter Kathy Sullivan; Debra Pas.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/16/2012) (Entered: 04/16/2012)

04/16/2012 - 931 - Witness List by Google Inc. Rolling List of Next Ten Witnesses. (Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 4/16/2012) (Entered: 04/16/2012)

04/16/2012 - 932 - Witness List by Oracle America, Inc. Rolling List of Next Ten Witnesses. (Muino, Daniel) (Filed on 4/16/2012) (Entered: 04/16/2012)

04/16/2012 - 933 - Statement RE THE IMPORT OF FACTS DEEMED UNDISPUTED FOR TRIAL by Google Inc.. (Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 4/16/2012) (Entered: 04/16/2012)

04/16/2012 - 934 - Statement ORACLES STATEMENT REGARDING MOTIONS TO DEEM ISSUES UNDISPUTED by Oracle America, Inc.. (Holtzman, Steven) (Filed on 4/16/2012) (Entered: 04/16/2012)



Oracle v. Google - Day 1 Filings | 153 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Authored by: Kilz on Monday, April 16 2012 @ 11:58 PM EDT
Please list the mistake in the title of your post.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic
Authored by: Kilz on Monday, April 16 2012 @ 11:59 PM EDT
For all posts that are not on topic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 12:00 AM EDT
Please mention the name of the news story in the title of
your post. You may want to include a link to the story in
case it gets bumped off the home page.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 12:02 AM EDT
Please leave all transcriptions of Comes exhibits here for
PJ. Please post them as HTML in plain text for easy copying.

[ Reply to This | # ]

augmentable but not admissable?
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 01:37 AM EDT
The second order is apparently augmentable but not
necessarily admissable?

"Oracle’s motion to augment its trial exhibits (Dkt. No.
907) is GRANTED. [...] This augmentation does not mean that
the exhibits are admissible."

What does admissable mean here?



[ Reply to This | # ]

ORACLE will put Tim on the stand?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 03:05 AM EDT
Oh well, as they have read the email into evidence, they might have to. Still,
unless he has become an Oracle stool in the meantime, I can't see it going well
for them - "I'm not a lawyer" and "I was examining technical, not
legal, issues", and the impact of the email disappears.
Even if he has changed camps to Oracle, well placed objections and a barely
competent cross will achieve the same thing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle publishes opening slides
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 05:05 AM EDT

Interesting they make a big media spectacle out of this. I thought the judge
warned them not to.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Article on "The Register"
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 07:21 AM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Day 1 Filings
Authored by: kuroshima on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 10:58 AM EDT
Does anyone know if any helpful volunteer managed to get in
today? While Oracle's opening statements got covered
yesterday, I would really get a chance to see Google's

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle's slides answers some questions
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 11:26 AM EDT
Some tidbits from the slides that I found interesting after some questions that
were raised in the comments to yesterday's article:

Michael Jacob's reference to going with Microsoft or using Java without a
license as the alternatives if a license with Sun didn't work out. People here
asked Microsoft? Huh?

The slide shows that Microsoft's CLM, the runtime environment for C#, was on the
list of alternatives considered instead of the Java Platform. That would have
been pretty close to going with Mono, in effect.

We can see from the slides how Jacobs handled the fact that the Lindholm email
was so late in the process: "Years later, Google still needs Java
technology and a Java license".

This feels really slimy to me. Everything he says as if it is evidence against
big bad Google can be boiled down to simply - Google wanted to take an easy
route of licensing all of Java at once from Sun so there would be no problem
with using the trademarked name Java, logos, they would not have to pay
attention to any copyrights or patents, and they would have a business partner.
Yes, they knew and wanted a license to pursue that. They didn't get one and had
to settle for an alternative that would not require a license, using just
uncopyrightable aspects of Java, making sure that they did not call anything
"Java" (scrubbing the J word), all to avoid having to get a license.
And not telling Sun about what they were doing because Sun would get upset over
Google working around the requirement for a license. Then Oracle threatened to
sue and a Google engineer said that he would rather keep using Java and just pay
them off if that what it would take to stay out of court. Is that evidence of

[ Reply to This | # ]

Twitter updates
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 11:33 AM EDT
Here are some twitter users who are doing live tweets from the trial:

James Niccolai Link
Dan Levine Link
Brandon Bailey Link
Ginny LaRoe Link

Here's an interesting tweet that just popped up:
Dan Levine ‏ @FedcourtJunkie
And we have a prop! Van Nest brings out an actual metal filing cabinet to demonstrate how Java, source code, APIs all fit together

[ Reply to This | # ]

Larry plays with Footgun
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 03:21 PM EDT

"I had an idea for building a Java phone and we explored it and we decided it would be a bad idea".

In addition to exploring the idea internally, Ellison said Tuesday that Oracle explored the idea of buying a phone maker, either Palm or Blackberry-maker RIM, to acquire technical expertise in the field. He also confirmed under cross-examination that he spoke with top Google executives about working together on a phone that would incorporate Oracle's version of Java software with Google's Android operating system.

So what really happened Larry?


You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ 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 )