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 - Day 3 Filings ~mw
Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 09:10 AM EDT

Since the trial is now underway the filings in the case are far more sparse, but that doesn't mean they are unimportant. Yesterday, Judge Alsup ruled on Oracle's motion to deem certain issues as undisputed. (938 [PDF; Text]) While Judge Alsup denied two of the requests, he is allowing several important ones.

For example:

  • that "[t]he Java APIs as a whole meet the low threshold for originality required by the Constitution.”
  • that “Sun released the specifications for Sun’s Java platform, including Sun’s Java virtual machine, under a free-of-charge license that allowed developers to create “clean room” implementations of Sun’s Java specifications. If those implementations demonstrate compatibility with the Java specification, then Sun would provide a license for any of its intellectual property needed to practice the specification, including patent rights and copyrights. The only way to demonstrate compatibility with the Java specification is by meeting all of the requirements of Sun’s Technology Compatibility Kit (“TCK”) for a particular edition of Sun’s Java. Importantly, however, TCKs were only available from Sun, initially were not available as open source, were provided solely at Sun’s discretion, and included several restrictions, such as additional licensing terms and fees. In essence, although developers were free to develop a competing Java virtual machine, they could not openly obtain an important component needed to freely benefit from Sun’s purported open-sourcing of Java.”
  • that “[a]lthough Sun eventually offered to open source the TCK for Java SE, Sun included field of use restrictions that limited the circumstances under which Apache Harmony users could use the software that the Apache Software Foundation created, such as preventing the TCK from being executed on mobile devices.”

Note, however, while these admissions will be read by the Court to the jury once, and only once, the jury will also be instructed that the admissions are not conclusive. In any case, these instructions make Google's task just a little tougher, although not impossible.

In a separate notice filing Judge Alsup reminds the parties of their obligation to put exhibits into evidence before introducing deposition testimony that refers to those exhibits. (940 [PDF; Text]) At least once or twice on Wednesday Oracle's counsel utilized video of depositions in which the deponent was referring to a document but the document had not be introduced into evidence at trial. This led to some confusion as to what document the deponent was referring.

Finally, the Oracle witness list is again updated. (941 [PDF]) New witnesses on the list are:

John Bornstein
Rafael Carmargo
John Mitchell
Andy Rubin

So among the next ten witnesses on the list are both Tim Lindholm and Andy Rubin. That doesn't mean that they will be among the next ten called to the witness box, but they are likely to be called within the next few days.

Note: Because of an urgent matter that our in-courtroom reporter had to attend to following yesterday's session we will be a little late posting our report on yesterday's courtroom activity.


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

Docket

04/18/2012 - 938 - ORDER GRANTING IN PART ORACLE'S MOTION TO DEEM ISSUES UNDISPUTED AND DENYING RELIEF REGARDING STATEMENT TO JURY by Hon. William Alsup granting in part and denying in part 908 Motion.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2012) (Entered: 04/18/2012)

04/18/2012 - 939 - Minute Entry: Jury Trial held on 4/18/2012 before William Alsup (Date Filed: 4/18/2012). Witnesses called. Further Jury Trial 4/19/2012 7:30 AM. (Court Reporter Kathy Sullivan; Debra Pas.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/18/2012) (Entered: 04/18/2012)

04/18/2012 - 940 - NOTICE RE DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 4/18/2012. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2012) (Entered: 04/18/2012)

04/18/2012 - 941 - Witness List by Oracle America, Inc. Rolling List of Next Ten Witnesses. (Muino, Daniel) (Filed on 4/18/2012) (Entered: 04/18/2012)

04/18/2012 – 942 - Transcript of Proceedings held on 4/16/12, before Judge William H. Alsup. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Powell Sullivan and Debra L. Pas, Official Reporters, Telephone number 415-794-6659/Katherine_Sullivan@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Redaction Request due 5/9/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/21/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/17/2012. (Sullivan, Katherine) (Filed on 4/18/2012) (Entered: 04/18/2012)

04/18/2012 – 943 - Transcript of Proceedings held on 4/17/12, before Judge William H. Alsup. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Powell Sullivan and Debra L. Pas, Official Reporters, Telephone number 415-794-6659Katherine_Sullivan@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Redaction Request due 5/9/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/21/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/17/2012. (Sullivan, Katherine) (Filed on 4/18/2012) (Entered: 04/18/2012)


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

Documents

938

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 GRANTING IN PART
ORACLE’S MOTION TO DEEM
ISSUES UNDISPUTED AND
DENYING RELIEF REGARDING
STATEMENT TO JURY

Oracle moves to deem issues undisputed (Dkt. No. 908) and for relief regarding statement to jury (Dkt. No. 909). Google opposes. After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the following will be told to the jury:

1) “The Java APIs as a whole meet the low threshold for originality required by the Constitution.” This instruction reflects Google’s admission in its March 23 brief (Dkt. No. 823 at 9) and April 13 brief (Dkt. No. 914).

2) “Sun released the specifications for Sun’s Java platform, including Sun’s Java virtual machine, under a free-of-charge license that allowed developers to create “clean room” implementations of Sun’s Java specifications. If those implementations demonstrate compatibility with the Java specification, then Sun would provide a license for any of its intellectual property needed to practice the specification, including patent rights and copyrights. The only way to demonstrate compatibility with the Java specification is by meeting all of the requirements of Sun’s Technology Compatibility Kit (“TCK”) for a particular edition of Sun’s Java. Importantly, however, TCKs were only available from Sun, initially were not available as open source, were provided solely at Sun’s


discretion, and included several restrictions, such as additional licensing terms and fees. In essence, although developers were free to develop a competing Java virtual machine, they could not openly obtain an important component needed to freely benefit from Sun’s purported open-sourcing of Java.” This instruction reflects Google’s admission in its Answer to Oracle’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 51) and its April 13 brief. The Court will read this statement in its entirety. Oracle’s requested excerpts standing alone and out of context would be confusing.

3) “Although Sun eventually offered to open source the TCK for Java SE, Sun included field of use restrictions that limited the circumstances under which Apache Harmony users could use the software that the Apache Software Foundation created, such as preventing the TCK from being executed on mobile devices.” This instruction reflects Google’s admission in its Answer and its April 13 brief.

Oracle’s second request to deem undisputed, that “Google has admitted that the Java programming language is distinct from the Java APIs and class libraries,” is DENIED. Google did not make such an unequivocal admission in its pleadings.

With respect to Dkt. No. 896, Oracle’s motion for modification is DENIED. The point about the structure, sequence, and organization will be appropriately addressed in other instructions.

The Court will read each statement to the jury at the time Oracle wishes but only once. The Court will advice the jury that the admission has been made, and that they may consider the admission as evidence along with all other evidence at trial. The jury will be told that the admissions are not conclusive. These same will apply to the prior order on Google’s request to deem undisputed (Dkt. No. 896).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2012.

/s/ William Alsup
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2



940

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

NOTICE RE DEPOSITION
DESIGNATIONS

In connection with deposition designations, be mindful that no deposition testimony should be offered on an exhibit unless the exhibit is already in evidence. On the designations of Mr. Rizvi, for example, it is impossible for the judge to know what email is being discussed and whether it will already be in evidence by the time the deposition is read or played to the jury. The marginal notes indicating the rulings attempt to say this. In the future, please let the judge know whether the exhibit will come into evidence. Nothing further need be done on the designations of Messrs. Gupta and Rizvi. The rulings will be available on Thursday at 7:30 a.m.

Dated: April 18, 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 )