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 - Google Slides and Day 2 Filings
Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 09:20 AM EDT

If you've read the Day 2 story already and the excellent coverage provided by mirror_slap, you know that Mr. Van Nest, Google's lead counsel, gave Larry Ellison a bit of a hard time on the stand. It appears that Mr. Ellison wanted to give different (more evasive) answers on the stand than he gave during deposition. That should not have played well with the jury, and it certainly opens to question whether anything Ellison said on the stand is credible.

But before Ellison was called as Oracle's first witness, Mr. Van Nest presented Google's opening statement. Here are the Google slides [PDF] used by Mr. Van Nest. Worth a look.

Not much in the way of filings for the day. The Court ruled on requests from both parties to seal some documents. (935 [PDF]) It's certainly been fun watching Judge Alsup insist that this trial remain open to the public unlike a lot of infringement actions.

Here is the updated witness list from Oracle (937 [PDF]):

1. Bloch, Joshua
2. Cizek, Leo
3. Gupta, Vineet (by video)
4. Lee, Bob
5. Lindholm, Tim
6. Miner, Rich (by video)
7. Morrill, Dan
8. Reinhold, Mark
9. Screven, Edward
10. Swetland, Brian

The direct examinations of Mssrs. Ellison, Page, and Kurian are complete, and Oracle has now added Mssrs. Cizek, Gupta, and Morrill.

On to Day Three.



04/17/2012 - 935 - ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge William Alsup [denying 844 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 849 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 866 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 870 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2012) (Entered: 04/17/2012)

04/17/2012 - 936 - Minute Entry: Jury Trial held on 4/17/2012 before William Alsup (Date Filed: 4/17/2012). Witnesses called. Further Jury Trial 4/18/2012 7:30 AM. (Court Reporter Kathy Sullivan; Debra Pas.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/17/2012) (Entered: 04/17/2012)

04/17/2012 - 937 - Witness List by Oracle America, Inc. Rolling List of Next Ten Witnesses. (Muino, Daniel) (Filed on 4/17/2012) (Entered: 04/17/2012)


Oracle v. Google - Google Slides and Day 2 Filings | 61 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Thread
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 09:23 AM EDT
Please summarize in the Title box error->correction or s/error/correction/ to
make it easy to for Mark or PJ to see what needs to be corrected and for readers
to see what errors have already been found.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic threads
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 09:25 AM EDT
Please stay off topic in these threads. Clicky links and entertaining comments
are fine as long as they are off topic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Thread
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 09:28 AM EDT
Pick your News here. Please put the title of the News Picks article in the Title
box of your comment and include a clickable link to the article posted in HTML
Formatted mode for the convenience of readers after the article has scrolled off
the sidebar.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes transcripts here
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 09:30 AM EDT
Please post Comes exhibit transcriptions here using full HTML markup but posted
in Plain Old Text mode so PJ can easily copy and paste it

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Alsup insist that this trial remain open to the public unlike a lot of infringement action
Authored by: Yossarian on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 09:32 AM EDT
IANAL so the question may be a little naive.

If a trial is not open to the public, how can the public know
if justice is done? How can "we" judge the quality of the
court if "we" can not see *all* the material that the court
has used in order to reach a verdict?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge A:-I need answers...regarding the "Declaration of API elements". What is this?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 09:47 AM EDT

I can feel the razor blade shredding what little remains of Oracles copyright
case already.

Was it the filing cabinet demo what done it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A good Juror?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 10:35 AM EDT

As the Jury gets to take their own notes, it dawns on me that a good process for a Juror to follow would be:

    1: Take notes in your words of what the Side wants to prove. This can be found in the points that are made during the opening statement.
    2: Make a check list of those notes.
    3: As the Side makes it's case, add notes with regards what evidence is presented for each point.
    4: As the opposing side does it's cross - verify if the evidence presented is established (such as when Larry decided to answer I-dunno when his video deposition meant Yes).
If you follow that process, while paying attention (I personally don't do well with regards being able to think about what's being presented while I'm taking notes), I think you'd have quite the score board to add up at the end.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Witness 1: Joshua Bloch
Authored by: indyandy on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 11:18 AM EDT
He was referred to laterally in this thread yesterday.

He was credited in this email as being the author of some code (') submitted by Google that contained the rangeCheck function.

The link in the email gives a 404 but further down the thread someone gives this link to it. (rangeCheck is at the bottom)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Slide 13: Mark Reinhold
Authored by: hAckz0r on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 11:29 AM EDT
Mr Reinhold apparently doesn't know the Java Language very well. He stated:
you could do computations on numbers and strings and generate them, but you wouldn't be able to do anything with them"

In reality, its kind of hard to create a String or a Number without an API, when both String and Number ( AtomicInteger, AtomicLong, BigDecimal, BigInteger, Byte, Double, Float, Integer, Long, Short) are a both subclass of Object, and thus they all have an API such that all construction and manipulation depend on operator() methods of the class. Without a constructor you could never even create them, and could never manipulate them in any way, since the code to do so is part of the Class objects API library.

Ok, so you could create a character array such as "static char[] = {'a','b',c'};" but then you would have fun trying to change it, or do anything with it without first converting it to type String. So much for Oracles expertise on Java.

See both Number and String classes for details.

DRM - As a "solution", it solves the wrong problem; As a "technology" its only 'logically' infeasible.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google's opening slides explain very well how ridiculous this case is
Authored by: TiddlyPom on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 11:54 AM EDT
If you had to LICENSE the use of simple programming language APIs (for which you
have been GIVEN the source code) - how could you possibly police this! It is
not as if the libraries are closed source libraries (a-la-Microsoft or Apple) -
they are open source for all to see.

Existing cases of black box reverse engineering treat the APIs as the boundaries
of the system which is being examined and infer behavior based on observed
inputs and outputs. As more than one news article notes, trying to somehow
'protect' simple method calls (aka function call) would make using these
libraries (aka APIs) too dangerous for programmers to use. People would write
their own (as has happened - like using Apache's Standard Windowing Toolkit
instead of the Abstract Window Toolkit (AWT) or Swing). These are APIs as well
of course - as are any LIBRARY calls. Oracle is talking about forcing Google to
pay for using the STANDARD JAVA LIBRARIES when the entire set of libraries are
published as open source software under the GNU Public License!

The whole point of open source software is that people use it in interesting and
novel ways that the inventor (perhaps) never thought of. That's called
innovation and is supposed to be part of the great 'American Way' (or at least I
assume it is being British and not part of the USA system?). It is this ability
to take any piece of open source software as a building block and combine it
with any other which is the basis behind open source development.

What a monstrous basis for a court case!

Support Software Freedom - use GPL licenced software like Linux and LibreOffice
instead of proprietary software like Microsoft Windows/Office or Apple OS/X

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google even humiliates Larry Egoson and Oracle en passant
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 12:22 PM EDT
Google carefully selected the API implementation comparison to sure that
Oracle's (Sun's) implementation not only differs from Google's but Google's
implementation is much more concise, shorter. To add even more insult, Google
shows that the concise implementation is common knowledge (Knuth) and freely
available. Talk about the high effort spent by Oracle in implementation. Ouch. I
doubt that Larry Egoson or one of its lawyers even detects how much fun Google
makes of them. If you thought the Nazgul is terrible, then Google is even

[ Reply to This | # ]

Updated list of twitter users
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 01:13 PM EDT
Here are the twitter users live tweeting today (that I could find):

Brandon Bailey Link
Dan Levine Link
James Niccolai Link
Ginny LaRoe Link
Caleb Garling Link
James Temple Link

And some interesting tweets:
BrandonBailey - Judge warns attys he still doesn't know if some sw elements in dispute are in fact covered by copyright. It's a tuff case..
Dan Levine - Larry Page has been called, but he's in the restroom.
James Niccolai - Judge has complained reporters typing too loudly, a few of us were told to shut our PCs yesterday. 10 nervous reporters tying quietly today
Caleb Garling - Curious to know how many of the lawyers have ever really coded before. My guess is that it's a very round number.
Caleb Garling - Correction: The Google attorney rebutting Oracle's claims about definitions in programming language has definitely coded before
James Temple - Boies tries to get a new document submitted into evidence during Page's testimony, judge shuts it down
Caleb Garling - Alleged email to Google upper management being denied into evidence because Larry Page can't ID it. Oracle counsel not happy
Caleb Garling - "You're leading this witness up and down," Alsup to Oracle re: Screven.
Caleb Garling - "The $7.4 billion dollar number has nothing to with this case" -Alsup to jury. This was Oracle's previous damage assessment

[ Reply to This | # ]

My favourite Google slide -- p.61
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 04:14 PM EDT
Quoting Larry Ellison:
Sun, has done a fantastic job, uh, invent-inventing Java, uh, expanding Java, opening up Java, giving Java to the world...

[ 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 )