decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


To read comments to this article, go here
Oracle America's complaint against Google, as text - Updated 3Xs
Monday, August 16 2010 @ 06:56 AM EDT

Here's the Oracle complaint [PDF] against Google, as text. More accurately, it's Oracle America v. Google. That is what Oracle has named Sun Microsystems now that it's a subsidiary, Oracle America, the company formerly known as Sun. So it's Sun that is being made to be the plaintiff. It's Sun's patents and copyrights, so that makes sense, but it gives me an icky feeling. All the Sun people who'd never do this in a million years either wouldn't go to work for Oracle or left promptly, so here we are, Oracle America.

Doing documents as text is very helpful, because it forces me to notice such details. Here is what else I'm noticing so far.

There are eight claims, seven on patents, one for copyright infringement. Let's break this down a bit. First the patents, which you can find here. The key to the patent claims would have to be this sentence in each:

Google's acts of infringement have been and continue to be willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard of Oracle America's patent rights.
If you compare that strong language with IBM's counterclaims for patent infringement against SCO Group in 2003, for example, claims it later dropped for fear it would be stuck in that stupid litigation forever with a party that had no money to pay in the end for any infringement anyway, you'll see that IBM didn't use that language. My point is that it's language that indicates Oracle is going for treble damages. And sure enough, at the end, in the relief section, Oracle America does ask for that. And it also means they likely have something quite fact-based and specific in mind that they think can be pinned on Google. I wonder if any of the patents are necessarily going to survive post-Bilski, but the language used does indicate that Oracle thinks it has a case beyond just a simple goof on Google's part. It isn't just Dalvik, either. More than once, they mention "Dalvik VM and the Android software development kit" as being implicated in the patent infringement. Here's the Android page for developers and here's the What Is Android? page in that developers section.

I notice that James Gosling is quoted as saying that talks have been going on between the two companies for a while, since 2009:

James Gosling, the creator of Java, told Reuters in an interview that Oracle's lawsuit was filed only after the failure of protracted technology licensing negotiations with Google that began long before Sun sold itself to Oracle for $5.6 billion in January.
That's informative too, in that it could indicate Google thinks, after listening to all that Oracle had to say, that it's not liable for any infringement or that Oracle can't prove any or that Oracle was demanding more than Google could accept. Otherwise, if it entered talks, would it not have just paid for a license? It would have been cheaper than litigation. At some point, Google decided to take its chances, I gather. If Google thought Oracle could prevail, it likely wouldn't be putting on its armor now, ready to step onto the field of battle.

On the why of it, Carlo Daffara says that Oracle doesn't care a bit about anger from the community. He suggests two possible motives for Oracle bringing this action:

Why oracle sued? The blogosphere is exploding with possible answers; my own two hypothesis are:

* Oracle found a substantial technology it acquired (Java) losing value in what is the hottest tech market today, namely mobile systems. Sun had no credible plan to update JavaME, no credible alternative, and thus Android (that is loosely java based) is at the same time a threat to an acquired asset and (from their point of view) a stolen technology. Since anyone can follow the same path, Oracle wants to make sure that no one else would try to leverage Java to create an unlicensed (and uncontrolled) copy.

* Oracle wants a piece of the mobile enterprise market, and the alternatives are unavailable (Apple does not want anything to do with Java, Blackberry is a JavaME licensee, Windows Mobile is backed by arch-rival Microsoft). Android is working well, grows incredibly fast, and Oracle wants a piece of it; Google probably rebuffed initial contacts, and now Oracle is showing the guns to make Google obey. I am skeptical, however, that Google would back down on what is becoming its most important growth path. The lawsuit itself is quite weak, and Google would risk too much by licensing the TCK from Oracle; they would basically destroy their opportunity for independent development. It is never a good idea to corner someone – if you leave no alternative, fight is the only answer.

He thinks the first is the more likely. But the truly interesting question isn't why Oracle sued Google. It's why Google let themselves be sued, and in that context, the second makes the most sense. Java is a control freaky thing, and it always was, because it was made in Sun's image. But from Google's perspective, if you can't independently develop the way you want to, it's worth going through litigation to establish your right to do so. And knowing Google, by the time the litigation is finally resolved, they'll have invented some new way to do everything that's needed and they will leave Java behind, choking on their dust.

The copyright claim is a little weird to me. It seems vague. There is a claim for infringement, as well as accusing Google of inducing copyright infringement. It doesn't say what copyrights are being infringed in the complaint, although it does say it has attached an Exhibit H, which we don't yet have. PACER doesn't have this case in its list yet, so we'll have to wait and see what copyrights are involved. I did check the Copyright Office database, and Sun, as opposed to Oracle America, has multiple copyrights listed, not just on Java but on books about Java. If you look at the IBM document again, you'll see it lists the registration number of each copyright it claims is infringed by SCO, the registration date, and the title of each registered copyrighted work. That's in IBM's Eighth Counterclaim. Presumably that will turn up in Exhibit H, but so far all we know is what Oracle America says here:

38. The Java platform contains a substantial amount of original material (including without limitation code, specifications, documentation and other materials) that is copyrightable subject matter under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
One Gartner analyst says Google used clean room development:
When Google developed Android, it included a Java compatible technology called Dalvik with the phone OS. Dalvik was developed as a "clean room" version of Java, meaning Google built it from the ground up without using any Sun technology or intellectual property, said Gartner analyst Ken Dulaney.
I expect Google would say Dalvik was an alternative to Java, not a version of it. If indeed none of the Sun employees that ended up at Google worked on this, and it's built from the ground up without any Sun technology or IP, on what basis can Oracle prevail? Perhaps Oracle figures no room at Google is clean enough. And of course clean room means nothing when it comes to patents.

Oracle America asks as part of its relief for an injunction and seizing all infringing materials, including advertising materials. Say, what? Yes:

45. Oracle America is entitled to an injunction restraining Google from engaging in any further such acts in violation of the United States copyright laws. Unless Google is enjoined and prohibited from infringing Oracle America's copyrights, inducing others to infringe Oracle America's copyrights, and unless all infringing products and advertising materials are seized, Google will continue to intentionally infringe and induce infringement of Oracle America's registered copyrights.
How in the world can ads infringe Oracle's copyrights? They ask that all copies be impounded or otherwise disposed of. Ads? Impounded ads?

All right. Who has kidnapped Michael A. Jacobs and what have you done with him? Actually, it's signed by another Morrison & Foerster lawyer, so he probably wrote it, despite Jacobs and David Boies being listed also.

Again, more seriously, this probably should tell us that Oracle has something specific in mind. Unless that language was a mistake, copied and pasted in from another document. But if not, then there must be advertising that Oracle has seen.

Or it might mean the lawyers were told to throw the book at Google with all their might. When I see this kind of language, I'm thinking, "They want a quick settlement. As big as possible." As in, "Or I'll blow your house down".

They are asking for statutory damages on the copyright infringement but then add: "and damages subject to proof resulting from Google's infringement of the patents and copyrights at issue". Here's what the Copyright Office says about damages:

§ 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

(a) In General. — Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either —

(1) the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or

(2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c).

(b) Actual Damages and Profits. — The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.

(c) Statutory Damages. —

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.

When you consider the popularity of Android, we're talking real money. Here's the essence of the copyright claim:
39. Without consent, authorization, approval, or license, Google knowingly, willingly, and unlawfully copied, prepared, published, and distributed Oracle America's copyrighted work, portions thereof, or derivative works and continues to do so. Google's Android infringes Oracle America's copyrights in Java and Google is not licensed to do so.

40. On information and belief, users of Android, including device manufacturers, must obtain and use copyrightable portions of the Java platform or works derived therefrom to manufacture and use functioning Android devices. Such use is not licensed. Google has thus induced, caused, and materially contributed to the infringing acts of others by encouraging, inducing, allowing and assisting others to use, copy, and distribute Oracle America's copyrightable works, and works derived therefrom.

I guess it depends on what they mean by derivative works. I get it that they view anyone using an Android as a copyright infringer. But contrast that claim with what this longtime Java developer, Charles Nutter, explains about what Google did and why he thinks it did it and what might result:
Third, the Java language and environment has stagnated. Given years of declining fortunes at Sun Microsystems, disagreement among JCP members about the direction the platform should go, and a year of uncertainty triggered by Sun's collapse and rescue at the hands of Oracle, it's surprising anything's managed to get done at all. Java 7 is now many years overdue; they were talking about it when I joined Sun in 2006, and hoped to have preview releases within a year. For both technical and political reasons, it's taken a long time to bring the platform to the next level, and as a result many of the truly excellent improvements have remained on the shelf (much to my dismay...we really could use them in JRuby). For fast-moving technology hipsters, that's as good as dying on the vine; you need to shift paradigms on a regular schedule or you're yesterday's news.

It's because of these and similar reasons that folks like Google finally said "enough is enough," and opted to start doing their own things. ...

Google decided to take the hard route: they'd fund development of a new platform, building it entirely from open-source components, and leveraging two of the best platform technologies available: Linux, for the kernel, and Java, for the runtime environment. However there was a problem with Java: it was encumbered by all sorts of patents and copyrights and specifications and restrictions....even OpenJDK itself, the most complete and competitive OSS implementation of Java, could not be customized and shipped in binary-only form by hardware manufacturers and service providers due to it being GPL. So the answer was to build a new VM, use unencumbered versions of the core Java class libraries, and basically remake the world in a new, copyright and patent-free image. Android was born.

There's many parts to Android, several of which I'm not really qualified to talk about. But the application environment that runs atop the Dalvik VM needs some explanation.

First, there's the VM. Dalvik is *not* a JVM. It doesn't run JVM bytecode, and you can't ship JVM bytecode expecting it to work on Dalvik. You must recompile it to Dalvik's own bytecode using one of the provided translation tools. This is similar to how IKVM gets Java code to run on .NET: you're not actually running a JVM, you're transforming your code into a different form so it will run on someone else's VM. So it bears repeating, lest anyone get confused: Dalvik is not a JVM...it just plays one on TV.

Second, there's the core Java class libraries. Android supports a rough (but large) subset of the Java 1.5 class libraries. That subset is large enough that projects as complicated as JRuby can basically run unmodified on Android, with very few restrictions (a notable one is the fact that since we can't generate JVM bytecode, we can't reoptimize Ruby code at runtime right now). In order to do this without licensing Sun's class libraries (as most other mainstream Java runtimes like JRockit and J9 do), Google opted to go with the not-quite-complete-but-pretty-close Apache Harmony class libraries, which had for years been developed independent of Sun or OpenJDK but never really tested against the Java compatibility kits (and there's a long and storied history behind this situation).

So by building their own non-JVM VM and using translated versions of non-Sun, non-encumbered class libraries, Google hoped to avoid (or at least blunt) the possibility that their "unofficial", "unlicensed" mobile Java platform might face a legal test. In short, they hoped to build the open mobile Java platform developers wanted without the legal and financial encumbrances of Java ME....

As the Apache Harmony folks know all too well, it's really hard to build a clean-room implementation of Java and expect to get the "spec compliance patent grant" if you don't actually have the tools necessary to show spec compliance. Tossing the code over to Sun to run compliance testing is a nonstarter; the actual test kit is enormous and requires a huge time investment to set up and run (and Sun/Oracle have better things to do with their time than help out a competing OSS Java implementation). If the test kit had been open-sourced before Sun foundered, there would be no problem; everyone that wanted to make an open-source java would just aim for 100% compliance with the spec and all would be well. As it stands, independently implemented (i.e. non-OpenJDK) open-source Java is a really hard thing to create, especially if you have to clean-room implement all the class libraries yourself. Android has neatly dodged this issue by letting Android just be what it is: a subset of a Java-like platform that doesn't actually run Java bytecode and doesn't use any code from OpenJDK.

So just taking a license from Sun in no way gets Google where it wants to be. Not even technically. By the way, the GPL worries are inside their head. It's a bigco thing to imagine that secret code is the Holy Grail. But the problem is in the mobile space, even the GPL'd code isn't plain GPL. OpenJDK is GPL+CPE and not GPL only, as I understand it. Nutter goes on to take a look at the patents, and some of it made me laugh. Even if there were no Bilski, what is Oracle thinking?
I'll again reiterate that I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a Java developer with a logical mind and a penchant for debunking myths about the Java platform.

The collection of patents specified by the suit seems pretty laughable to me. If I were Google, I wouldn't be particularly worried about showing prior art for the patents in question or demonstrating how Android/Dalvik don't actually violate them. Some, like the "mixed mode" patent, don't actually seem to apply at all. It feels very much like a bunch of Sun engineers got together in a room with a bunch of lawyers and started digging for patents that Google might have violated without actually knowing much about Android or Dalvik to begin with.

But does the suit have merit? It depends if you consider baseless or over-general patents to have merit. The most substantial patent listed here is the "mixed mode" patent, and unless I'm wrong that one doesn't apply. The others are all variations on prior art, usually specialized for a Java runtime environment (and therefore with some question as to whether they can apply to a non-Java runtime environment that happens to have a translator from Java code). Having read through the suit and scanned the patents, I have to say I'm not particularly worried. But then again, I don't know what sort of magic David Boies and company might be able to pull off.

Magic? He's worrying about the wrong law firm, I'd say, when it comes to patents. It's MOFO you need to worry about. Boies Schiller are more like the trainees when it comes to patents and IP law. Their specialties, as far as I can see, are more making the absurd sound at least not actionably frivolous and using administrative tricks to drag things out forever and a day, in that they never give up and never give in. And it's the meanest law firm I've ever seen in action. But then, some people want exactly that. It might be viewed as a compliment by them. By the way, you may find the comments on that article of interest too.

Over time, it will all become clearer, this litigation, and the claims. Here, in the meantime, is the section on impounding infringing articles from the Copyright Office, and here is Android.com. I've given up trying to figure out the copyright claim until we have Exhibit H to provide a map or at least a star to guide me.

I can't imagine anyone donating code to Oracle after this. Maybe they don't care about developers, developers, developers, but there are some valuable lessons to learn. And if this lawsuit helps people to see that software patents are a drag on innovation and the economy, and if it helps them to realize that open core is a trap, and that the license you use matters, good. This is the perfect answer to all the apologists who have insisted for years that we don't have to worry about patents. We do. Oracle has shut those mouths with a bang. And now, hopefully, when considering a license, people will be asking, what might happen down the road if a Neanderthal IP-oriented, flesh-eating, blood-sucking interloper company were to get ownership of this community code? Would the license protect the code from their predatory, old-fashioned proprietary ways? Ah! The GPL stars in this context, does it not?

If I were a shareholder, I'd be asking Google why it doesn't choose a license that provides more protection from lawsuits like this one, and I'd be wanting them to fight software patents mightily to the death. But then, that's me. My cross to bear is that I can't invest in any tech companies I write about, which is hard, in that I know a lot about them and could probably do really well, so I'm not a shareholder and I can't tell Google or anybody what to do. It feels, though, like years ago when a boyfriend took me to the track, and I was kind of bored so I was asking an old guy sitting next to us how he picked horses. So he showed me the stats in the paper and explained about mud and age of horse, that sort of thing, and which category the horse was in. So I sat there and spent time figuring out who would win the big race that day. And it did, to everyone's surprise. I picked an obscure horse that I was sure was going to win. It did. But I didn't, and don't, believe in gambling, so I hadn't placed a bet. If I had, I'd have won a ton of money. My boyfriend and our elderly neighbor hadn't trusted my judgment, natch, being "just a girl" and all, so he was furious, and we broke up eventually. Anyway, to me money isn't the most important thing. Which is the difference between me and Oracle, I deduce.

Actually, Java is worse than open core, now that I think of it. Oracle America seems to believe you can't even clean room a Java replacement, and you can't fork it. You are tethered to Oracle, no matter which way you try to twist or turn. Now we know, without footnotes, that Java is, in the mobile space particularly, proprietary, according to its new owner. So the lesson here is: If you want to develop FOSS, it turns out you need to use FOSS tools and FOSS languages. Google will either need to win, hands down, or lose developers who care about FOSS. Because if they just pay Oracle off, everyone will be watching.

What does that leave? Pay Oracle or use something else entirely. If those are the only two choices, guess what will happen with FOSS developers? Who will work on it voluntarily now? Companies can strap their own programmers to the oars and make them row, of course, but no one who is watching this play out will want to volunteer on these terms or can miss the message.

Update: Lamlaw now reminds us of what litigation between two companies is always about:

Oracle can change the old SUN policies. But, Google can use a number of possible defenses against Oracle based upon SUN conduct. So we really have to wait and see before jumping in on the details of the patents themselves.

While it may be true that JAVA does depend upon each of those patents (I make a simple assumption here), it is not true that only a JAVA implementation might do so. It would appear that one or more of those patents could be used against almost any compiler or development system JAVA-like or not. I think that is important to keep in mind.

This is a simple patent enforcement litigation. Albeit software patents. And maybe it will be a good test case to invalidate software patents altogether. Or, substantially change their validity.

But, you have to keep in mind that litigation is always about the money. And that means that a settlement is always on tap.

When I say litigation is always about the money that is true for litigation between companies. If the DOJ or a non profit is involved it might be about politics or sometimes about the principals. But, that is rarely the case between two companies. And most lawyers will argue any side to any case.

Sigh. Splash of cold water.

Update 2: I thought I'd mention a document that we can't find any more on Oracle's website. Perhaps they moved it, but Wayback can't even find it where it was. It's an Oracle white paper dated February of this year, titled "Berkeley DB Java Edition on Android," which was a PDF originally, but if you search for it now, instead of giving you the PDF, it directs you to an Oracle page that doesn't have that paper, not that I can find. But if you search for this:

http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/berkeley-db/pdf/bdb-je-android.pdf

you will find it, and click on Quick View to read it. Here's a snip from the white paper, whose purpose seems to be to extol the virtues of Java on Android:
Recently, Oracle certified JE on the Android platform for devices like the Motorola Droid and HTC Eris smartphones. Android breaks new ground in the device category because it is a Java 2 Standard Edition (J2SE) platform, whereas the previous generations of Java-based devices are predominantly Java Micro Edition (Java ME) based. There are significant differences between J2SE and Java ME in terms richness of libraries and APIs and this creates a big opportunity for improved application capabilities. Most notable are the full-featured Java 5 language support, libraries likejava.util.*and collections, and full multi-threaded support built on the Android Linux kernel.

This paper highlights some of the features and benefits JE offers to the Android application programmer, including performance, scalability, indexing, concurrency control, transactions, and a many- to-many transaction-to-thread model....

Conclusion

Android has created the next generation of mobile device technology by implementing a J2SE stack capable of supporting sophisticated multi- threaded database applications. In turn, Berkeley DB Java Edition and its Direct Persistence Layer provide scalable, transactional data management to the new breed of Android applications and services.

For more information, see:

Oracle Berkeley DB Java Edition
(http://www.oracle.com/database/berkeley-db/je/index.html)

Oracle Berkeley DB Product Family
(http://www.oracle.com/database/berkeley-db/index.html)

Oracle Berkeley DB Blog
(http://blogs.oracle.com/berkeleydb/)

Charles Lamb’s Blog
(http://blogs.oracle.com/charlesLamb/

I wanted to highlight it just in case it has any legal value. It's possible, as I say, that it's somewhere else on Oracle's web site, but I am used to SCO, where important documents kept disappearing.

Update 3: A reader has found it [PDF], on Oracle's website, so it just moved. If you recall, they did a web redesign not long ago, and a lot of things moved.

Here it is, as text then, the complaint, and when Google files its answer, we'll do a chart.

***********************

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664) [email] MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725)[email] [address, phone, fax]

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
DAVID BOIES (Pro Hac Vice Pending)[email]
[address, phone, fax] STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)[email]
[address, phone, fax]

ORACLE CORPORATION
DORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049)[email]
DEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527)[email]
MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600)[email]
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

_____________________________

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

Plaintiff,

v.

GOOGLE, INC.

Defendant.

___________________

Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT AND
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1 Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc., by and through its attorneys, alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. Oracle America, Inc. ("Oracle America") is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, California 94065. Oracle America does business in the Northern District of California.

2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Google, Inc. ("Google") is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California 94043. Google does business in the Northern District of California.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This is an action for patent and copyright infringement arising under the patent and copyright laws of the United States, Titles 35 and 17, United States Code. Jurisdiction as to these claims is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

4. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Google. Google has conducted and does conduct business within the State of California and within this judicial district.

6. Google, directly or through intermediaries, makes, distributes, offers for sale or license, sells or licenses, and advertises its products and services in the United States, the State of California, and the Northern District of California.

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

7. This is an Intellectual Property Action to be assigned on a district-wide basis pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-2(c).

BACKGROUND

8. Oracle Corporation ("Oracle") is one of the world's leading technology companies, providing complete, open, and integrated business software and hardware systems. On January 27, 2010, Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun"). Sun is now Oracle America, a

1

subsidiary of Oracle. Oracle America continues to hold all of Sun's interest, rights, and title to the patents and copyrights at issue in this litigation.

9. One of the most important technologies Oracle acquired with Sun was the Java platform. The Java platform, which includes code and other documentation and materials, was developed by Sun and first released in 1995. The Java platform is a bundle of related programs, specifications, reference implementations, and developer tools and resources that allow a user to deploy applications written in the Java programming language on servers, desktops, mobile devices, and other devices. The Java platform is especially useful in that it insulates applications from dependencies on particular processors or operating systems. To date, the Java platform has attracted more than 6.5 million software developers. It is used in every major industry segment and has a ubiquitous presence in a wide range of computers, networks, and devices, including cellular telephones and other mobile devices. Sun's development of the Java platform resulted in many computing innovations and the issuance to Sun of a substantial number of important patents.

10. Oracle America is the owner by assignment of United States Patents 16 Nos. 6,125,447; 6,192,476; 5,966,702; 7,426,720; RE38,104; 6,910,205; and 6,061,520, originally issued to Sun. True and correct copies of the patents at issue in this litigation are included as Exhibits A-G.

11. Oracle America owns copyrights in the code, documentation, specifications, libraries, and other materials that comprise the Java platform. Oracle America's Java-related copyrights are registered with the United States Copyright Office, including those attached as Exhibit H.

12. Google's Android competes with Oracle America's Java as an operating system software platform for cellular telephones and other mobile devices. The Android operating system software "stack" consists of Java applications running on a Java-based object-oriented application framework, and core libraries running on a "Dalvik" virtual machine (VM) that features just-in-time (JIT) compilation. Google actively distributes Android (including without

2

limitation the Dalvik VM and the Android software development kit) and promotes its use by manufacturers of products and applications.

13. Android (including without limitation the Dalvik VM and the Android software development kit) and devices that operate Android infringe one or more claims of each of United States Patents Nos. 6,125,447; 6,192,476; 5,966,702; 7,426,720; RE38,104; 6,910,205; and 6,061,520.

14. On information and belief, Google has been aware of Sun's patent portfolio, including the patents at issue, since the middle of this decade, when Google hired certain former Sun Java engineers.

15. On information and belief, Google has purposefully, actively, and voluntarily distributed Android and related applications, devices, platforms, and services with the expectation that they will be purchased, used, or licensed by consumers in the Northern District of California. Android has been and continues to be purchased, used, and licensed by consumers in the Northern District of California. Google has thus committed acts of patent infringement within the State of California and, particularly, within the Northern District of California. By purposefully and voluntarily distributing one or more of its infringing products and services, Google has injured Oracle America and is thus liable to Oracle America for infringement of the patents at issue in this litigation pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

COUNT I

(Infringement of the '447 Patent)

16. Oracle America hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 above and incorporates them by reference.

17. On September, 26, 2000, United States Patent No. 6,125,447, ("the '447 patent") entitled "Protection Domains To Provide Security In A Computer System" was duly and legally issued to Sun by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Oracle America is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the '447 patent. A true and correct copy of the '447 patent is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.

3

18. Google actively and knowingly has infringed and is infringing the '447 patent with knowledge of Oracle America's patent rights and without reasonable basis for believing that Google's conduct is lawful. Google has also induced and contributed to the infringement of the '447 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android, and is continuing to induce and contribute to the infringement of the '447 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android. Google's acts of infringement have been and continue to be willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard of Oracle America's patent rights. Google is thus liable to Oracle America for infringement of the '447 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

COUNT II

(Infringement of the '476 Patent)

19. Oracle America hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 above and incorporates them by reference.

20. On February 20, 2000, United States Patent No. 6,192,476, ("the '476 patent") entitled "Controlling Access To A Resource" was duly and legally issued to Sun by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Oracle America is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the '476 patent. A true and correct copy of the '476 patent is attached as Exhibit B to this Complaint.

21. Google actively and knowingly has infringed and is infringing the '476 patent with knowledge of Oracle America's patent rights and without reasonable basis for believing that Google's conduct is lawful. Google has also induced and contributed to the infringement of the '476 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android, and is continuing to induce and contribute to the infringement of the '476 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android. Google's acts of infringement have been and continue to be willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard of Oracle America's patent rights. Google is thus liable to Oracle America for infringement of the '476 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

4

COUNT III

(Infringement of the '702 Patent)

22. Oracle America hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 above and incorporates them by reference.

23. On October 12, 1999, United States Patent No. 5,966,702, ( ("the '702 patent") entitled "Method And Apparatus For Preprocessing And Packaging Class Files" was duly and legally issued to Sun by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Oracle America is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the '702 patent. A true and correct copy of the '702 patent is attached as Exhibit C to this Complaint.

24. Google actively and knowingly has infringed and is infringing the '702 patent with knowledge of Oracle America's patent rights and without reasonable basis for believing that Google's conduct is lawful. Google has also induced and contributed to the infringement of the '702 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android, and is continuing to induce and contribute to the infringement of the '702 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android. Google's acts of infringement have been and continue to be willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard of Oracle America's patent rights. Google is thus liable to Oracle America for infringement of the '702 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

COUNT IV

(Infringement of the '720 Patent)

25. Oracle America hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 above and incorporates them by reference.

26. On September 16, 2008, United States Patent No. 7,426,720, ("the '720 patent") entitled "System And Method For Dynamic Preloading Of Classes Through Memory Space Cloning Of A Master Runtime System Process" was duly and legally issued to Sun by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Oracle America is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the '720 patent. A true and correct copy of the '720 patent is attached as Exhibit D to this Complaint.

5

27. Google actively and knowingly has infringed and is infringing the '720 patent with knowledge of Oracle America's patent rights and without reasonable basis for believing that Google's conduct is lawful. Google has also induced and contributed to the infringement of the '720 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android, and is continuing to induce and contribute to the infringement of the '720 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android. Google's acts of infringement have been and continue to be willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard of Oracle America's patent rights. Google is thus liable to Oracle America for infringement of the '720 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

COUNT V

(Infringement of the '104 Patent)

28. Oracle America hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 above and incorporates them by reference.

29. On April 29, 2003, United States Patent No. RE38,104, ("the '104 patent") entitled "Method And Apparatus For Resolving Data References In Generate Code" was duly and legally issued to Sun by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Oracle America is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the '104 patent. A true and correct copy of the '104 patent is attached as Exhibit E to this Complaint.

30. Google actively and knowingly has infringed and is infringing the '104 patent with knowledge of Oracle America's patent rights and without reasonable basis for believing that Google's conduct is lawful. Google has also induced and contributed to the infringement of the '104 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android, and is continuing to induce and contribute to the infringement of the '104 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android. Google's acts of infringement have been and continue to be willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard of Oracle America's patent rights. Google is thus liable to Oracle America for infringement of the '104 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C.§ 271.

6

COUNT VI

(Infringement of the '205 Patent)

31. Oracle America hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 above and incorporates them by reference.

32. On June 21, 2005, United States Patent No. 6,910,205, ("the '205 patent") entitled "Interpreting Functions Utilizing A Hybrid Of Virtual And Native Machine Instructions" was duly and legally issued to Sun by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Oracle America is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the '205 patent. A true and correct copy of the '205 patent is attached as Exhibit F to this Complaint.

33. Google actively and knowingly has infringed and is infringing the '205 patent with knowledge of Oracle America's patent rights and without reasonable basis for believing that Google's conduct is lawful. Google has also induced and contributed to the infringement of the '205 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android, and is continuing to induce and contribute to the infringement of the '205 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android. Google's acts of infringement have been and continue to be willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard of Oracle America's patent rights. Google is thus liable to Oracle America for infringement of the '205 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

COUNT VII

(Infringement of the '520 Patent)

34. Oracle America hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 above and incorporates them by reference.

35. On May 9, 2000, United States Patent No. 6,061,520, ("the '520 patent") entitled "Method And System for Performing Static Initialization" was duly and legally issued to Sun by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Oracle America is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the '520 patent. A true and correct copy of the '520 patent is attached as Exhibit G to this Complaint.

36. Google actively and knowingly has infringed and is infringing the '520 patent with knowledge of Oracle America's patent rights and without reasonable basis for believing that

7

Google's conduct is lawful. Google has also induced and contributed to the infringement of the '520 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android, and is continuing to induce and contribute to the infringement of the '520 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android. Google's acts of infringement have been and continue to be willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard of Oracle America's patent rights. Google is thus liable to Oracle America for infringement of the '520 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

COUNT VIII

(Copyright Infringement)

37. Oracle America hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 above and incorporates them by reference.

38. The Java platform contains a substantial amount of original material (including without limitation code, specifications, documentation and other materials) that is copyrightable subject matter under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.

39. Without consent, authorization, approval, or license, Google knowingly, willingly, and unlawfully copied, prepared, published, and distributed Oracle America's copyrighted work, portions thereof, or derivative works and continues to do so. Google's Android infringes Oracle America's copyrights in Java and Google is not licensed to do so.

40. On information and belief, users of Android, including device manufacturers, must obtain and use copyrightable portions of the Java platform or works derived therefrom to manufacture and use functioning Android devices. Such use is not licensed. Google has thus induced, caused, and materially contributed to the infringing acts of others by encouraging, inducing, allowing and assisting others to use, copy, and distribute Oracle America's copyrightable works, and works derived therefrom.

41. On information and belief, Google's direct and induced infringements are and have been knowing and willful.

42. By this unlawful copying, use, and distribution, Google has violated Oracle America's exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106.

8

43. Google has realized unjust profits, gains and advantages as a proximate result of its infringement.

44. Google will continue to realize unjust profits, gains and advantages as a proximate result of its infringement as long as such infringement is permitted to continue.

45. Oracle America is entitled to an injunction restraining Google from engaging in any further such acts in violation of the United States copyright laws. Unless Google is enjoined and prohibited from infringing Oracle America's copyrights, inducing others to infringe Oracle America's copyrights, and unless all infringing products and advertising materials are seized, Google will continue to intentionally infringe and induce infringement of Oracle America's registered copyrights.

46. As a direct and proximate result of Google's direct and indirect willful copyright infringement, Oracle America has suffered, and will continue to suffer, monetary loss to its business, reputation, and goodwill. Oracle America is entitled to recover from Google, in amounts to be determined at trial, the damages sustained and will sustain, and any gains, profits, and advantages obtained by Google as a result of Google's acts of infringement and Google's use and publication of the copied materials.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Oracle America prays for judgment as follows:

A. Entry of judgment holding Google liable for infringement of the patents and copyrights at issue in this litigation;

B. An order permanently enjoining Google, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and affiliated companies, its assigns and successors in interest, and those persons in active concert or participation with it, from continued acts of infringement of the patents and copyrights at issue in this litigation;

C. An order that all copies made or used in violation of Oracle America's copyrights, and all means by which such copies may be reproduced, be impounded and destroyed or otherwise reasonably disposed of;

D. An order awarding Oracle America statutory damages and damages according to

9

proof resulting from Google's infringement of the patents and copyrights at issue in this litigation, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest;

E. Trebling of damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 in view of the willful and deliberate nature of Google's infringement of the patents at issue in this litigation;

F. An order awarding Oracle America its costs and attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and 17 U.S.C. § 505; and

G. Any and all other legal and equitable relief as may be available under law and which the court may deem proper.

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

Oracle America demands a jury trial for all issues so triable. 21

10

Dated: August 12, 2010

By: [signature of Marc David Peters]

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664) [email]
MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725) [email]
[address, phone, fax]

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
DAVID BOIES (Pro Hac Vice Pending) [email]
[address, phone, fax]
STEPHEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)[email]
[address, phone, fax]

ORACLE CORPORATION
MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600) [email]
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.


  View Printable Version


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 )