|
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:
Oracle
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
Google
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.
***************
Docket
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)
***************
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Monday, April 16 2012 @ 11:59 PM EDT |
For all posts that are not on topic. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Copyright on languages, APIs would be a VERY BAD THING - Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 06:24 AM EDT
- Lumia “not good enough” - Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 06:54 AM EDT
- Quantum Computer - Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 07:30 AM EDT
- If I copyright the stub function - Authored by: MadTom1999 on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 08:44 AM EDT
- Google Says It Didn’t Need License to Use Java in Android - Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 12:29 PM EDT
- FUD - Authored by: MDT on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 01:24 PM EDT
- Google: Oracle sued us for Android only after failing to build own smartphone - Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 12:39 PM EDT
- European carriers: Nokia's Lumia smartphone "would be much easier to sell" if it ran Android - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 01:27 PM EDT
- Microsoft exec takes over Mali - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 01:47 PM EDT
- Contradicting a Federal Judge, FCC Clears Google in Wi-Fi Sniffing Debacle - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 05:59 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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?
---
______
IMANAL
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 05:05 AM EDT |
http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1592541.pdf
Interesting they make a big media spectacle out of this. I thought the judge
warned them not to.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Oracle publishes opening slides - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 05:29 AM EDT
- Oracle publishes opening slides - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 08:05 AM EDT
- Is Slide 5 is an untruth? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 08:23 AM EDT
- Slide 19, Google decide to build Android WITH java - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 08:27 AM EDT
- Oracle publishes opening slides - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 08:51 AM EDT
- Oracle publishes opening slides - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 09:03 AM EDT
- Does contempt of court apply? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 09:34 AM EDT
- Slide 21 - One of the emails not entered into evidence? - Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 10:07 AM EDT
- Weasly interpretation of "must" - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 02:29 PM EDT
- Oracle publishes opening slides - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 12:33 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 07:21 AM EDT |
Link [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
anything?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 03:21 PM EDT |
Link
"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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|