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 7 Filings ~mw
Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 09:00 AM EDT

Google has updated its witness list (969 [PDF], and instead of starting off tomorrow with Josh Block they are going with Owen Astrachan, the computer science professor from Duke University who has served as the technical expert witness for Google. It looks like they want to continue to draw the distinction between the 37 APIs in Android versus those in Java. Google has also added Eric Schmidt in the number 9 slot.

In the only other filing of the day Judge Alsup issued an order regarding proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to be resolved by the judge at the end of Phase I (copyright infringement) of the trial. (968 [PDF; Text])


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

Docket

04/24/2012 - 967 - Transcript of Proceedings held on 4/20/12, before Judge William H. Alsup. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Powell Sullivan and Debra L. Pas, OfficialReporters, 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 5/15/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/25/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/23/2012. (Sullivan, Katherine) (Filed on 4/24/2012) (Entered: 04/24/2012)

04/24/2012 - 968 - ORDER REGARDING FORMAT OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Signed by Judge Alsup on April 24, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2012) (Entered: 04/24/2012)

04/24/2012 - 969 - Witness List by Google Inc. Google Inc.'s Rolling List of Next Ten Witnesses. (Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 4/24/2012) (Entered: 04/24/2012)


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

Documents

968

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 REGARDING
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE
ALL ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW
THAT MUST BE RESOLVED BY
THE JUDGE, INCLUDING SCOPE
OF PROTECTION OF THE
COPYRIGHTS

By NOON ON THE SECOND BUSINESS DAY following the close of evidence in Phase One, both sides shall file proposed findings of fact, each identified by number as to any issue of fact that is for the judge to resolve. Each proposed finding should be concise and limited to one or two or (at most) three lines of text (exclusive of any block quotes from trial exhibits) followed by exact trial record cites fully supporting the proposed finding. The proposals should be at a level of specificity/generality so as to fit within the page limit set forth below. As a rule of thumb, less controverted subjects may be captured in more generalized proposed findings; more controversial subjects, however, usually require greater specificity and more proposed findings. Block quotes and record cites may be single-spaced (and indented) but otherwise the proposals should be double-spaced. Example:

1. When defendant went through the intersection of

Hayes and Gough, the light was red in his direction.

Jones at RT 97:13
Young at RT 15:1112

The same submission should also set forth each proposed conclusion of law. Each proposed conclusion of law must briefly identify the proposed findings of fact supporting the conclusion and the legal authority therefor (quoting the key language of said authority). The overall length of the submission must be 35 pages or less.

By NOON THREE CALENDAR DAYS LATER, the opposing side must file and serve a response. The response must state, separately as to each proposed finding, whether the responding party agrees with the proposed finding and if not in full agreement, then the full extent to which, considering the duty of good faith and candor, the responding party admits the proposed finding. To the extent that the responding side objects in any respect to the proposed finding, it must state (i) the extent to which the opposition is based on a failure of the record cites to support the proposal (explaining why they do not support it) and (ii) the extent to which the objection is based on contrary evidence (citing the contrary evidence) or lack of credibility (citing relevant evidence). Example:

1. Agree that the light was red but the light had just

changed a split second before.

Mack RT 42:1718
The submission shall similarly state the extent to which the responding party agrees with each conclusion of law proposed by the other side. If there is any disagreement, the responding side must state (i) the extent to which the disagreement is based on a failure of the supporting findings, (ii) the extent to which the disagreement is based on a failure of the cited authorities to support the conclusion, and (iii) the extent to which contrary authorities contradict the legal basis for the proposed conclusion.

The responding submission should reproduce each original finding or conclusion and then, immediately after each, supply the responsive information. It may not exceed twice the overall number of pages used by the submission to which it responds.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2012.

/s/William Alsup WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2



  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 )