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 v. Google - Copyright Infringement Assertions and Trial Dates
Thursday, April 05 2012 @ 08:35 AM EDT

The Court and the parties are now moving into final trial preparations. A conference call was held yesterday ( [PDF; Text]). One of the items covered on the call was the trial schedule, which is now firmed up. The trial will now commence on April 16, and the Court has specified the other days that will initially be allocated to the trial (see listing below; also the judge's schedule is here).

What else the Court and the parties discussed on that call we do not know because an order issuing from that call has been sealed. (Dkt. 857)

The Court did issue an order (854 [PDF; Text]) with respect to the copyright issues seeking to clarify what does and does not stand accused of copyright infringement. The Court wishes to provide this information to the jury following the respective opening statements of the parties at the commencement of Phase I (copyright infringement liability) of the trial. The Court has asked the parties to confer and critique the following list:

What stands accused are:

  • The 12 Android files of source code (copied from 11 Java files), including rangeCheck. Please identify which files only contained copied English comments that were not compiled. Please identify which files were part of the 37 API implementation.
  • Plain English descriptions in the user manual, sometimes called the API “specifications” (right column). Please identify the number of lines of such items.
  • The 37 APIs but only as to their specific selection, structure, and organization, it being conceded that the implementing code is different. Please identify the media of fixation for the selection, structure, and organization.
  • Android’s entire source code and object code as derivative works of the 37 Java APIs.

What is not accused:

  • Android’s use of the Java programming language (other than any direct copying of source code).
  • The titles and names of APIs, including all package and class names and definitions, fields, methods and method signatures (names in the left column of specifications).
  • The idea of APIs.
  • The Dalvik virtual machine.
One thing I note on that list is the exception of the Java language source code from things not accused. If the Java language is available under the GNU General Public License, then that source code should not be excepted in this instance.

Here are the dates presently reserved for the trial:

Week One
4/17/2012 (Tuesday)
4/18/2012
4/19/2012
4/20/2012

Week Two
4/23/2012
4/24/2012
4/25/2012
4/26/2012
4/27/2012

Week Three
4/30/2012
5/1/2012
5/2/2012
5/3/2012
5/4/2012

Week Four
5/7/2012
5/8/2012
5/9/2012
5/10/2012
5/11/2012

Week Five
5/14/2012
5/15/2012
5/16/2012
5/17/2012
5/18/2012

Week Six
5/21/2012
5/22/2012
5/23/2012
5/24/2012
5/25/2012

Week Seven
5/28/2012
5/29/2012
5/30/2012
5/31/2012
6/1/2012

We note that the Court has scheduled a session on Memorial Day, a federal holiday (5/28/2012). Also, the Court has only scheduled seven weeks for the trial instead of the originally anticipated eight weeks.


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

Docket

04/04/2012 - 854 - REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF ISSUES RE COPYRIGHT. Signed by Judge Alsup on April 4, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2012) (Entered: 04/04/2012)

04/04/2012 - 855 - Letter from John L. Cooper to Judge Alsup regarding Dr. Kearl. (Cooper, John) (Filed on 4/4/2012) (Entered: 04/04/2012)

04/04/2012 - 856 - ORDER SETTING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE FOR 3:00 APRIL 4, 2012. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 4/4/2012. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2012) (Entered: 04/04/2012)

04/04/2012 - TELEPHONE CONFERENCE FOR 3:00 P.M. ON 4/3/2012. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 4/4/2012. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2012) (Entered: 04/04/2012)

04/04/2012 - Set/Reset Hearings: Jury Trial set for 4/17/2012 4/18/2012 4/19/2012 07 4/20/2012 4/23/2012 4/24/2012 4/25/2012 4/26/2012 4/27/2012 4/30/2012 5/1/2012 5/2/2012 5/3/2012 5/4/2012 5/7/2012 5/8/2012 5/9/2012 5/10/2012 5/11/2012 5/14/2012 5/15/2012 5/16/2012 5/17/2012 5/18/2012 5/21/2012 5/22/2012 5/23/2012 5/24/2012 5/25/2012 5/28/2012 5/29/2012 5/30/2012 6/1/2012 07:30 AM before Hon. William Alsup. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2012) . (Entered: 04/04/2012)

04/04/2012 - Set/Reset Hearings: Jury Trial set for 5/31/2012 07:30 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2012). (Entered: 04/04/2012)

04/04/2012 - 857 - ORDER Regarding Telephone Call. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 4/4/2012. FILED UNDER SEAL.(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2012) (Entered: 04/04/2012)


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

Documents

854

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

REQUEST FOR STATEMENT
OF ISSUES RE COPYRIGHT

In connection with the opening statements (and eventually the special verdict form at the end of Phase One), the Court will want the jury to be clearly told what specifically stands accused of copyright infringement (and what is not accused). The Court is considering making its own statement to the jury in this regard after the opening statements so as to frame for the jury the Phase One issues in play. To do so, the Court asks counsel to meet and confer and to revise the following summary. The summary of what the Court understands is as follows:

What stands accused are:

  • The 12 Android files of source code (copied from 11 Java files), including rangeCheck. Please identify which files only contained copied English comments that were not compiled. Please identify which files were part of the 37 API implementation.
  • Plain English descriptions in the user manual, sometimes called the API “specifications” (right column). Please identify the number of lines of such items.


  • The 37 APIs but only as to their specific selection, structure, and organization, it being conceded that the implementing code is different. Please identify the media of fixation for the selection, structure, and organization.
  • Android’s entire source code and object code as derivative works of the 37 Java APIs.

What is not accused:

  • Android’s use of the Java programming language (other than any direct copying of source code).
  • The titles and names of APIs, including all package and class names and definitions, fields, methods and method signatures (names in the left column of specifications).
  • The idea of APIs.
  • The Dalvik virtual machine.

Counsel should at least be able to agree on how we will describe the items in play in Phase One. By THURSDAY, APRIL 12 AT NOON, both sides shall please file a statement along the lines of the above with appropriate revisions.

The Court will not rule on the copyrightability issues until all of the Phase One evidence is in the trial record and counsel are reminded again of the need to place in the record all evidence on which they will rely for their respective positions, both as to copyrightability and infringement and defenses. Before Phase One closing argument, the Court will decide whether to ask for an advisory verdict on issues. (As already clear, damages evidence, including copyright damages evidence, will be reserved to Phase Three).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2012.

/s/ William Alsup
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2


855

FARELLA BRAIN + MARTEL LLP [letterhead]

April 4, 2012

The Honorable William H. Alsup
United States District Judge
U.S. District Court
Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
Courtroom 9, 19th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 3:10-CV-03561-WHA (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Judge Alsup:

I write on behalf of Rule 706 expert Dr. James R. Kearl to address the scheduling issue of the amount of time to be allocated in trial to his direct examination. At the hearing on March 28, 2012, the Court indicated that as much as two hours could be allocated to the direct examination of Dr. Kearl, which time would not be counted against trial time allocated to either party. (See transcript pages 142 — 143.) I have consulted with Daniel Purcell, counsel for Google, and Steven Holtzman, counsel for Oracle, who have indicated that they have no objection to two hours being allocated to direct examination of Dr. Kearl provided his direct examination is not charged against the trial time of either party. Accordingly, Dr. Kearl requests that he be allocated two hours for his direct examination at trial.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ John L. Cooper
John L. Cooper


856

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 SETTING
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

The undersigned judge will have a telephone conference with counsel at 3:00 P.M. TODAY. Please call 415-522-3684 beforehand to leave your telephone number to be contacted. Only one representative per side is required.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2012.

/s/ William Alsup
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


  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 )