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
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
The Oracle v. Google Trial Exhibits - Can You Help List Them? ~pj
Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 02:07 PM EDT

I'm so excited to tell you that we have all the publicly available trial exhibits from the Oracle v. Google trial. We should thank this judge, the Hon. William Alsup, because he is the one insisting on keeping the trial as public as possible. I know you join me in saying thank you for this treasure.

Now, logistics: there are a lot of them, and I could use your help.

They are grouped by trial date, so eventually, I want to post them to the article covering that day of the trial. [ Update: Actually, looking closer, they are not matching trial dates. Some are entered on a Saturday, for example. So, we'll list them here, and you'll have to check as you read in reports about an exhibit and try to match up. Once we have the court transcripts word for word matching will make that easier.] First, though, I'd like help making a list for each day of what the exhibits are. Currently they are listed by number only. So we need to do some matching.

I have them listed by date, one by one, so you can download them one at a time. If you can help, leave a comment stating which date you will do, or download a date-then-individual-numbered PDF and just tell in the comment what it is, so we don't duplicate effort. There are a couple of exhibits that we already have, because they are briefs. We don't need to do those again, just supply a link. The following lists are all done by hand, so if you spot an error or an omission, please let me know.

I am puzzled that no one in the regular media has done this. The exhibits are made available by the court. And they are tweeting about nothing happening and who wore what and ignoring these exhibits. Well, that's what Groklaw is for.

So here we are. I know some of you technical experts may notice something that the lawyers missed, so have at them, by all means. If you spot something that proves points that came up in the trial, say so, and then if you or someone can do those as text, even better. These exhibits are in the record, so they are all usable in any appeal, so this is not wasted effort by any means.

The dates are:

[2012-04-18, 2012-04-20, 2012-04-23, 2012-04-24, 2012-04-25, 2012-04-26
2012-04-27, 2012-04-30, 2012-05-09, 2012-05-10, 2012-05-15, Unlabeled 1, Unlabeled 2 ]


  • 0001.pdf [Powerpoint "Android GPS: Key strategic decisions around Open Source"]
  • 0002.pdf [Email from Andy Rubin, "Fwd: GPS Notes (Android) 07.26.05"]
  • 0006.pdf [Email from Andy Rubin, "Android GPS Notes", 9/6/05, with large attachments.]
  • 0007.pdf [Email from Tracey Cole, "RE: Sun meeting." 10/11/05.]
  • 0401.pdf [Email from Nick Sears, "Mobile Strategy Meeting Notes." 11/7/06.]
  • 0450.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "Java Development Kit Version 1.0 alpha 2" Dec 24 1997]
  • 0451.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "Java Development Kit Version 1.1.3" May 7 1998]
  • 0452.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "Java 2 Standard Edition Version 1.3 (Microsoft Windows Edition)" Aug 03 2000]
  • 0453.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "Java 2 Standard Edition Version 1.3 (Solaris for SPARC Edition)" Dec 14 2000]
  • 0454.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "Java 2 Standard Edition Version 1.3 (Linux Edition)" Dec. 14 2000]
  • 0455.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "Java 2 Standard Edition Version 1.3 (Solaris for Intel/x86 Edition)" Dec 14 2000]
  • 0460.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "Java 2 Standard Edition Version 1.2 (Solaris for Intel/x86 Edition)" Mar 20 2001]
  • 0461.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "Java 2 Standard Edition Version 1.2 (Linux Edition)" Mar 20 2001]
  • 0462.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "Java 2 Standard Edition Version 1.2 (Solaris for SPARC Edition)" Mar 20 2001]
  • 0463.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "Java 2 Standard Edition Version 1.2 (Microsoft Windows Edition)" Mar 20 2001]
  • 0464.pdf[Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "Java 2 Standard Edition Version 1.4" April 20 2005]
  • 0475.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "Java 2 Standard Edition Version 5 0" Dec 20 2004]
  • 0476.pdf [Certificate of Registration (Supplemental), US Copyright Office, "Java 2 Standard Edition Version 5 0" Feb 2 2005]
  • 0509.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "Java Development Kit Version 1.2 beta 2" Mar 17 1998]
  • 0510.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "The Java Language Specification" 11/22/96]
  • 0511.pdf [Certificate of Registration (Supplemental), US Copyright Office, "The Java Language Specification" May 12 1998]
  • 0513.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "Java Development Kit Version 1.0 alpha" Jun 23 1998]
  • 0518.pdf [Certificate of Registration (Supplemental), US Copyright Office, "Java Development Kit Version 1.0 alpha 2" Feb 24 1999]
  • 0520.pdf [Certificate of Registration (Supplemental), US Copyright Office, "Java Development Kit Version 1.0.2" May 12 1998]
  • 0521.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "Java Development Kit Version 1.0.2" Dec 24 1997]
  • 0523.pdf [Certificate of Registration (Supplemental), US Copyright Office, "Java Development Kit Version 1.1" May 7 1998]
  • 0524.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "Java Development Kit Version 1.1" Dec 24 1997]
  • 0526.pdf [Certificate of Registration (Supplemental), US Copyright Office, "Java Development Kit Version 1.2 beta 2" March 24 1999]
  • 0595.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "The Java Virtual Machine Specification" Dec 16 1996]
  • 0596.pdf [Certificate of Registration (Supplemental), US Copyright Office, "The Java Programming Language" Mar 20 1998]
  • 0597.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "The Java Programming Language" 5/30/96]
  • 0598.pdf [Certificate of Registration (Supplemental), US Copyright Office, "The Java Application Programming Interface, Volume 1: CORE PACKAGES" Mar 20 1998]
  • 0599.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "The Java Application Programming Interface, Volume 1: CORE PACKAGES" 6/28/96]
  • 0601.pdf [Certificate of Registration (Supplemental), US Copyright Office, "The Java Application Programming Interface, Volume 2: Window Toolkit and Applets" Mar 20 1998]
  • 0602.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "The Java Application Programming Interface, Volume 2: Window Toolkit and Applets" 6/28/96]
  • 0603.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "Java Development Kit Version 1.0" Jun 23 1998]
  • 0659.pdf [Certificate of Registration, US Copyright Office, "Java Standard Edition 6" May 20 2008]
  • 0984.pdf [The Java Language Specification, Third Edition]
  • 1028.pdf [Chart "The Java Class Libraries"]
  • 1041.pdf [Transcript of Larry Page's Deposition. (Excerpts)]
  • 2347.pdf [Joint letter to Jonathan Schwartz from several JCP Members.]
  • Revised demonstratives for Mark Reinhold PrintV2.pdf


  • 0013.pdf Email from Brian Swetland to Mathias Agopian, Jan. 3, 2006, re new java world, saying Google is "pretty much set on" shifting to Java APIs.
  • 0023.pdf [Email from Brian Swetland to fadden@google, ficus@google,, Re: feedback welcome, dated 8/16/2006. Design Manifesto, includes "Java not Sun."]
  • 0045.001.pdf Eclair version of Dalvik source code (Apache licensed) for java.util.TimSort - contains rangeCheck code
  • 0045.002.pdf Eclair version of Dalvik source code (Apache licensed) for java.util.ComparableTimSort - contains rangeCheck code
  • 0045.003.pdf Eclair version of Dalvik source code (Apache licensed) for
  • 0046.020.pdf Froyo version of Dalvik source code (Apache licensed) for
  • 0046.021.pdf Dalvik source code (Apache licensed) for java.nio.Buffer
  • 0046.022.pdf Dalvik source code (Apache licensed) for java.nio.IntBuffer (subclass of java.nio.Buffer)
  • 0046.023.pdf Dalvik source code (Apache licensed) for javax.crypto.CipherInputStream
  • 0046.024.pdf Dalvik source code (Apache licensed) for
  • 0046.025.pdf Dalvik source code (Apache licensed) for java.util.StringTokenizer
  • 0046.026.pdf Dalvik source code (Apache licensed) for
  • 0046.027.pdf Froyo version of Dalvik source code (Apache licensed) for java.util.TimSort - contains rangeCheck code
  • 0046.028.pdf Froyo version of Dalvik source code (Apache licensed) for java.util.ComparableTimSort - contains rangeCheck code
  • 0149.pdf [Email from Brian Swetland, date 5/31/2006, to Andy Rubin and, Subject: interesting.]
    From Brian Swetland. Sent: 5/31/2006 5:19 AM

    Subject: interesting


    So here's a technology that takes java class files and converts them to another format (javascript) and I don't see Sun screaming bloody murder over this. Including, even, "JRE Emulation Library (java.lang and java.util". Whatever happened to their "we own copyright on the method signatures" bullshit argument?


  • 0245.pdf [Discussion about a CNET article by Stephen Shankland re how much of Android was open sourced, and what to do about perceived inaccuracies. http:!/ html?]

  • 0281.pdf [Email discussion between Bob Lee, Hiroshi Lockheimer and Dan Bornstein regarding contracting with "super shady" Noser.]

  • 0405.pdf [Emails between Eric Schmidt and Bob Lee re Sun's licensing tricks, May 2008.]
    From Eric Schmidt. Sent: 5/30/2008 11:00 PM
    To: Bob Lee
    Subject: RE: It was great chatting with you yesterday.

    Thanks Bob.. you were great to walk around with. I'm not surprised about Sun's position; this has been a long standing pattern. I can send a note to their CEO if that would help. My own view is that creating a truly free competitor is the best way to fix this; they won't really be responsible until there is a good alternative.

    Thanks eric

    From: Bob Lee [] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 10:57 PM
    To: Eric Schmidt
    Subject: It was great chatting with you yesterday.

    This is the YouTube-powered site I told you about:

    On Wednesday, I spoke about Guice, an open source project I created and released one year ago ( Guice won Dr. Dobb's Jolt award a couple months back.

    I hope you don't mind if I pick your brain for a moment. I'm certain you're already aware of this, but Sun has been abusing their special position within the JCP and playing licensing games with Java SE in order to keep it off phones and protect their Java ME licensing revenues. Sun puts field-of-use restrictions in the Java SE TCK licenses which prohibit Java SE implementations from running on anything but a desktop or server. These restrictions prevent Apache Harmony from independently implementing Java SE (Harmony can't put those restrictions on their own users and still Apache license the code) not to mention Android (though that's water under the bridge at this point). The JCP EC won't vote "yes" to start work on Java 7 until Sun straightens their act up, but Sun isn't budging and even threatens to blow up the JCP if things don't resolve themselves in the next couple months. We obviously depend heavily on Java internally and would like to see it move forward. Do you have any advice? What would you like to see happen here?


  • 0741.pdf [Screenshot of Android Developers website:]
  • 0748.pdf [Android 2.1 Compatibility Definition]
  • 0749.pdf [Android 2.1 Compatibility Definition]
  • 0751.pdf [Android 2.1 Compatibility Definition]
  • 0752.pdf [Android Compatibility Definition: Android 1.6]
  • 0753.pdf [Compatibility Test Suite (CTS) Framework User Manual]
  • 0767.pdf [ANDROID API Documentation, available at]
  • 0770.pdf [projects /platform/libcore.git / commit (13 Jan 2011)]
  • 0771.pdf [projects / platform/libcore.git / commit (14 Jan 2011)]
  • 0773.pdf [projects / platform/libcore.git / commitdiff]
  • 0862.pdf [Android Open Space Frequently Asked Questions]
  • 1030.pdf [Android Source Code (Version 2.2.3_R2, Froyo) Downloaded on March 12, 2012]
  • 1031.pdf [G:4 - Froyo22 (10_06_27)dalviklibcoresupportsrctestjavaorgapacheharmonysecuritytest]
  • 1032.pdf [G:4 - Froyo22 (10_06_27)dalviklibcoresupportsrctestjavaorgapacheharmonysecuritytest]
  • 1033.pdf [G:4 - Froyo22 (10_06_27)dalviklibcoresupportsrctestjavaorgapacheharmonysecuritytest]
  • 1034.pdf [G:4 - Froyo22 (10_06_27)dalviklibcoresupportsrctestjavaorgapacheharmonysecuritytest]
  • 1035.pdf [Froyo22 (10_06_27)dalviklibcoresupportsrctestjavaorgapacheharmonysecuritytest]
  • 1036.pdf [G:4 - Froyo22 (10_06_27)dalviklibcoresupportsrctestjavaorgapacheharmonysecuritytest]
  • 1037.pdf [G:4 - Froyo22 (10_06_27)dalviklibcoresupportsrctestjavaorgapacheharmonysecuritytest]
  • 1038.pdf [G:4 - Froyo22 (10_06_27)dalviklibcoresupportsrctestjavaorgapacheharmonysecuritytest]
  • 1039.pdf [G:4 - Froyo22 (10_06_27)dalviklibcoresecuritysrctestjavaorgapacheharmonysecuritytes]
  • 1040.pdf [G:4 - Froyo22 (10_06_27)dalviklibcoresecuritysrctestjavatestssecuritycertCollectionC]
  • 2001.pdf [Email from Vineet Gupta to Leo Cizek, Lino Persi, David Rivas, Rick Hyde, Kenneth K Lui Subject Re: [Fwd: Re: Java (JTWI) licensing issues] dated Aug 5 2005]
  • 2016.pdf [Contact Report John Combs, BD]
  • 2800.pdf [Android 2.2 Compatibility Definition (more pages than 3345.PDF)]
  • 2801.pdf [Android Compatibility Program and Compatibility Test Suite (CTS) (just one page with that heading)]
  • 2802.pdf [Android Compatibility]
  • 3341.pdf [Compatibility Program Overview]
  • 3342.pdf [Compatibility Test Suite CTS Framework User Manual]
  • 3343.pdf [Android 2.1 CompatibilityDefinition]
  • 3344.pdf [Android Compatibility Definition Android 1.6]
  • 3345.pdf [Android 2.2 Compatibility Definition]
  • 3346.pdf [Android 2.3 Compatibility Definition]
  • 3347.pdf [Compatability Test Suite]
  • 3348.pdf [CTS Development]
  • 3349.pdf [Android compatability downloads ]


  • [P956] 2012-04-22 Oracle Brief re Court's Copyright Questions.pdf [This is available here as docket #956.]
  • [P961] 2012-04-22 Oracle Update on 702 Copyright Questions.pdf["Oracle America, Inc. submits this update on the PTO’s progress in reexamining the asserted claims of the ’702 patent. On April 19, 2012, the PTO mailed a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate confirming the patentability of all the asserted claims of the ’702 patent. Attached hereto is a copy of the PTO’s notice."]
  • 0140.pdf [Email from Bill Coughran to Tim Lindholm, cc to Andy Rubin, dated Feb. 10, 2006, Re: Travel for Android requested, oking his email request, same date, to do a "two-day deep dive into the architecture with TI's engineers" which is referring to a TI project, "a Java acceleration architecture (silicon and surrounding software) done by TI." TI was asking to partner with Google and Sun for Android handsets.]
  • Mitchell_Demonstratives_Print10.pdf


  • 0207.pdf [Emails between Eric Schmidt and Andy Rubin. May, 2007]
    From: Eric Schmidt - Sent: 5/11/2007 11:07 PM
    To: Andy Rubin
    CC: -
    Bcc: -
    Subject: RE: java phone.

    Ok, thanks.. Will look forward to it !

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Andy Rubin [] - Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:32 AM
    To: Eric Schmidt
    Subject: Re: java phone

    They have been calling me as well.

    I don't see any way we can work together and not have it revert to arguments of control. I'm done with Sun (tail between my legs, you were right). They won't be happy when we release our stuff, but we now have a huge alignment with industry, and they are just beginning. While I'm not underestimating their abilities, when folks like DaCoMa tell us they want to dump Sun for us, I'm assuming we have something valuable and good. (DaCoMa is flying in next week).

    On a separate note, I need to speak with you re: Korea. LG and Samsung are two of my most difficult partners, extremely aggressive when it comes to competition. They know about each other and have crossed the line several times re: our IP (the Dream design I showed you). We are currently in a small dispute with each, which I'm sure will be resolved diplomatically, but I need to brief you in more detail so you don't walk into a storm in korea.

    On May 10, 2007, at 9:14AM, Eric Schmidt wrote:

    > > -----Original Message----- >
    From: []
    >On Behalf
    > Of Jonathan Schwartz >Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 6:52AM
    >To: Eric Schmidt
    > Subject: java phone

    > > btw, we would, of course, love to work together... our intent isn't to
    >deliver a phone, it's to help others do so.
    > >Jonathan >

  • 0214.pdf [One line email from Eric Schmidt to Andy Rubin, Subject: sun deal, May 14, 2006: "How are we doing on the Sun deal? Its it time to develop a non-Java solution to avoid dealing with them? Thanks ! Eric"]

  • 0215.pdf [One-line email from Chris Desalvo to Andy Rubin, Subject Java class libraries, June 1, 2006: "With talks with Sun broken off where does that leave us regarding Java class libraries? Ours are half-ass at best. We need another half of an ass. -chris"]

  • 0216.pdf [Email from Eric Schmidt to Andy Rubin, Jonathan Rosenberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin,, Alan Eustace, Subject: Android GPS, Jan. 15, 2007]
    I'd like to have an Android GPS as soon as practical. .. there are a few things to discuss:

    1. JVM resolution .. Andy is working on this

    2. Whether Google will offer a branded "Google Phone" .. who will make it, how will it be sold and serviced etc.

    3. Announcement plans and developer platform status

    4. Who are the telecom partners and how will we get all of them signed..

    Thanks eric

  • 0217.pdf [Email from Dave Burke, to Andy Rubin, Subject: Future of Mobile conference, 11/21/2007:]
    Hi Andy,

    Shannon mentioned you were a little surprised that I made a presentation on Android last week and that you had some concerns about what was reported. Sorry you weren't aware that I was asked to talk; I did go through a proper prep with Rich as well as the PR people; and I did by best to learn off the official Q&A. I was very conscious of the sensitivity around Java and was careful to sidestep any pointed questions in that direction (I definitely never said JVM or "the" Java language, for instance). It's very clear from reading some of postings that reporters both professional and amateur are not so diligent about such subtleties and tend to make their own inferences. I took the conclusion by TechCrunch (who were live-blogging) as an endorsement that I mightn't have messed up: "But if you were expecting much new information on all this you would probably have been disappointed.".

    Anyways, I can understand you unease about this since (a) you don't know me, and (b) I don't work on Android directly. I'm a big fan of the work you and your team are doing and hope that our "Mobile Gears" project in conjunction with David Carson and Rich Miner will prove valuable. With respect to the conference, my main motivation was to help the London office and EMEA in general (i.e. better visibility that we're involved in mobile). The last thing I want to do is cause any tension internally so I'm absolutely happy to pull back on talking about Android. Besides, I'll probably need your advice at some point on an autonomous model helicopter project so I'll need to be on talking terms with you :-)



  • 0221.pdf [Emails between Andy Rubin and Louis Perrochon.]
    From: Andy Rubin Sent 8/18/2010
    To: Louis Perrochon
    Subject: RE: On the good stuff

    I agree.

    On Wed, Aug 18,2010 at 1:19PM, Louis Perrochon wrote:

    You seem very down, and I understand. No stingray/crespo is a downer, personally, and strategically, inside and outside.

    However, it's not all doom. Some stuff works well.

    FYI, YouTube is exceeding it's target because they are sandbagged to hell... YT would have hit targets with purely organic growth, and absolutely no product upside. Many other products do that. Android promised targets based on not yet existing products, which is inherently riskier.


    On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Andy Rubin wrote:

    Ultimately the OC sees this as a fight against Apple. As you know, iPhone will come to Verizon in January.

    Breaking our promise to Verizon will change their behavior.

    I don't worry about today, I worry about our future. I'm a chess player and to win you need to look n moves ahead.

    On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Louis Perrochon wrote:

    You should point out to the OC and L&S that Android devices are organically very successful, and Android does support and needs support, and we deserve credit for this. A delay in GED won't slow that down.


  • 0222.pdf [Emails between Tim Lindholm and Andy Rubin, 7/25/2005, Subject: Re: Tuesday GPS.]
    From: Tim Lindholm Sent 7/25/2005 1:04 PM.
    To: Andy Rubin.
    Subject: Re: Tuesday GPS.

    Got it in my calendar.

    FWIW, I'm not sure I get all the value provided by the OSS wrinkle yet, although I do agree that a low cost, Google-friendly alternative to the incumbents makes sense given some possible Google strategies. I'm going to try to stay publicly neutral tomorrow and try to understand what Google hopes to achieve. If that doesn't make it clearer I'll come bug you.


    Andy Rubin wrote:

    >Confirmed for Tuesday at 12pm, Bldg 43, Marrakesh conference room.
    >On 7/25/05, Andy Rubin wrote:
    »Great. I'll let you know the timing as soon as I hear.
    >> »On 7/25/05, Tim Lindholm wrote:
    >>>Hi Andy,
    >>>I'd love to be there. I think I can make it whenever, just need to know
    >>>the logistics.
    >>> --Tim
    >>>Andy Rubin wrote:
    >>>>Android has a GPS meeting on Tuesday which I'd like to invite you to.
    >>>>We are discussing our open source strategy and how that meshes with
    >>>>Java. Your insights could be very useful.
    >>>>The presentation is here:
    >>>>Let me know if you plan on attending.

  • 0230.pdf [Email from Andy Rubin to Bob Lee, CC to Brian Swetland and Dan Bornstein, August, 2007]
    From: Andy Rubin. Sent 8/11/2007 4:56 PM.
    To: Bob Lee.
    CC: Brian Swetland; Dan Bornstein.
    Bcc: -
    Subject: Re: [jc-user] New OpenJDK Community Technology Compatibility Kit License (TCK).

    ...and as far as GPL-ing the VM, everything that is linked with the VM would get infected.

    The problem with GPL in embedded systems is that it's viral, and there is no way (for example) OEMs or Carriers to differentiate by adding proprietary works. We are building a platform where the entire purpose is to let people differentiate on top of it.

    Finally, Sun has a different license for its library for SE and ME. The SE library is LGPL, ME library is GPL. That means anything that links with the ME library gets infected. And the SE library is not optimized for embedded systems.

    Sun chose GPL for this exact reason so that companies would need to come back to them and take a direct license and pay royalties.

    Tricky, no? Why would we want to do anything to support this behavior? We want to distance ourselves as much as possible from Sun.


    PS --we negotiated 9 months with Sun and decided to walk away after they threatened to sue us over patent violations

    On Aug 11, 2007, at 3:47PM, Dan Bornstein wrote:

    >On 8/11/07, Bob Lee wrote:
    >>I thought you guys might be interested in the reactions to Sun's
    >>TCK licensing announcement
    >>on the Java Champions mailing list. Sun's not fooling anyone. (The
    >> list isn't public, so please
    >>don't forward further.)
    > I'm sure you agree that this is a totally unsurprising move by Sun.
    >> Would it make sense for us to use Sun's Java library
    >> implementation and license Dalvik under
    >> the GPL? I think that would count as "substantial derivation" in
    >> which case we'd get a TCK
    >> license, right? :)
    > I see the smiley, but in a word, no.
    > I don't think there is a substantial benefit to getting access to the
    > TCK, and any attempt to work loopholes would just open us up to more
    >trouble down the road. We are committed to implementing our own
    > libraries at this point along with associated tests, and we are basing
    > it off of the Apache Harmony work, which is already substantially
    >complete and has a fair number of tests.
    > We will no doubt have bugs that would have been caught by Sun's TCK,
    >but I am confident that we will be compatible *enough* by first-ship,
    >such that developers won't find themselves running into gotchas due to
    > compliance bugs.

  • 0273.pdf [Email from Andy Rubin to Dan Bornstein, dated Nov. 14, 2007, Re: ASF joining OHA? Talks about Apache joining OHA and an offical Harmony ME "fork". Rubin comment regarding Apache having access to Java TCK: Still, some kind of firewall will need to be in place. I dont want Sun claiming know-how from TCK made it into Android VM or libs.]
  • 0278.pdf [Android Project Software Functional Requirements Document for Release 1.0 Version 0.99- April 6, 2007 (Draft, 70 pages)]
  • 0298.pdf [Emails between Brian Swetland, Mathias Aogpian, cc'd to,,, Jan. 3, 2006, Re: new java world. [Lists reasons to "shift to a primarily Java API, among them: "the negotiations with Sun are going far better than expected" and "The nature of the cellular market is that we are *required* to have java due to carrier requirements, etc."]

  • 0382.pdf [Email from Andy Rubin to Eric Chu, cc'd to others on PR team, Nov. 16, 2007, re Google folks being quoted. "PR team --can you make sure that only authorized speakers speak to the press? This is really important and a legal issue.]

  • 0387.pdf [Email from Rich Miner to David Thevenon, dated Sep. 11, 2006, pres. The content is in an attachement "The Google Phone", a 79 page presentation for T-Mobile (date on presentation is Nov 2006). The presentation contains among many other things mock-ups of a Google phone, and it mentiones a Google subsidized data plan (page 26, $9.99/month).]
  • 0389.pdf [Email between Rich Miner and Andy Rubin, Aug. 2006, Re: JVM]
    From: Rich Miner Sent: 8/1/2006 9:34 AM
    To: Andy Rubin
    Subject: Re: JVM

    Ah ... what a scam .. you get generate your own code 100% and Sun still gets to tell you what to do with it.. ahhh ...

    let me know if you need any local followup with Skermier.

    Any update on Qualcom, did our legal conversation with them go ok last week?

    .. Rich

    On 8/1/06, Andy Rubin wrote:

    IBM is a Java licensee, so they can't open source their implementation.

    On Aug 1, 2006, at 9:08AM, Rich Miner wrote:
    > I dont think we have time to start going down this path ... but I
    > have had two people mention to me that IBM might be open to the
    >idea of working with us to open source their JVM. Most people seem
    >to think they have a better JVM than Sun. They are much more
    > aggressive at leveraging "true" open source as a business model.
    >Anyway, should we need a plan "C"... I should have thought of it
    > ..Rich

  • 0406.pdf [Eric Schmidt email re suggesting buying Java, Jan. 2009.]
    From: Eric Schmidt.
    To: Brett Slatkin
    Cc: Vic Gundotra;
    Subject: RE: How about we buy Java from Sun?

    Certainly a clever idea.

    I'll ask our team to pursue; in my experience Sun views Java as its identity (remember they renamed their stock symbol) so its unlikely but you never know!!


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Brett Slatkin []
    Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:59 AM
    To: Eric Schmidt
    Cc: Vic Gundotra Subject: How about we buy Java from Sun?

    Hey Eric,

    I was talking to Vic today about what will happen to Sun long-term. It seems to me that Sun's only option for survival is a set of spin-offs. What do you think about us buying the full rights to Java from Sun? Maybe it would cost $100 million? We could turn it into an open foundation (along with OpenJDK) and solve all of these lawsuits we're facing. It would also help improve our Java developer tools and bolster our enterprise image (especially with App Engine). I'd love to know what you think.


    Software Engineer
    Google App Engine

  • 0431.pdf [Talking points for board of directors on Android. Attachment: "The 5 Business Units each a $10B opportunity. Android and Chrome platforms critical assets for their success."]
  • 0433.pdf [Android GPS Meeting Notes, July 17, 2007, speed before beauty, adding hundreds of developers.]
  • 0438.pdf [Emails between Andy Rubin, Alan Eustace, re Noser agreement. April 2007 "Clean room environment" specified.]
    From: Andy Rubin Sent: 4/19/2007 5:58 PM
    To: Alan Eustace
    Subject: Re: Noser Agreement

    Thank you!

    On Apr 19, 2007, at 5:56PM, Alan Eustace wrote:



    On 4/19/07, Andy Rubin wrote:



    Incoming agreement for your signature. This is our final java solution -- consultants to take our java libraries as a starting place, and bring our java classes up to J2SE spec, in a clean-room environment.

    They have signed up to a pretty aggressive schedule for quite a bit of work. This deal replaces the $18M approved acquisition that we decided to pass on.

    Barring any unforeseen surprises, I think this is our last big deal ($4M). A couple of smaller 500k deals in the pipeline.

    We are under budget.


  • 0538.pdf [Sun's CTO Vineet Gupta to Andy Rubin emails, Oct. 2007, plugging Sun Java. Example: "Jonathan has been connecting with Eric S. on several fronts and he was asking me if we had anything being discussed around JavaME for your platform."]
  • 0618.pdf [Emails between Andy Rubin and Sun's Vineet Gupta, cc Matt Marquis at Sun, March 26, 2006, Subject: CONFIDENTIAL: Sun Google Collaboration. Attached is the draft agreement, titled COLLABORATION DEVELOPMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT. Note that both parties were to contribute pre-existing software, cross-licensed, not just Sun to Google, as well as joint work, to be jointly owned, going forward. There was to be an open source licensed version, under the Apache License, for which Google would pay Sun to release its code that way, and Sun would have a proprietary version.]
  • 0619.pdf [Draft agreement between Sun and Google, as revised by Google, March 29, 2006, emailed bet. Andy Rubin and Vineet Gupta at Sun.]
  • 1002.pdf
    From: Tim Lindholm. Sent: 11/24/2008 9:05 PM.
    To: [ - ] Andy Rubin.
    Cc: [ - ] .
    Bcc: [ - ] .
    Subject: Re: Android and JavaOne.

    Well, the answer might very well be a quick no. But if it's discrete I think it should at least be safe to ask.

    -- Tim

    On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Andy Rubin wrote:

    Happy to try if you feel strongly about this.

    On Nov 24, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Tim Lindholm wrote:

    I knew about the toolbar situation and think Sun already had a shamefully lucrative deal with us compared to other money they were making off Java. But money is going to talk very loudly at Sun right about now. If it came down to trying to outspend MSFT that probably is the wrong game for us. The Android licensing/JCP stuff is pretty clearly a non-starter, at least unless someone had some thinking way more creative than we have done internally. Sun's standard approach to resolving the situation that would poison the ecosystem we've tried to create with little to compensate (at least scoped to Android).

    Still, I guess I can't blame them for trying both of those things, and think they mostly reflect core business concerns rather than anything nefarious.

    But with no toolbar deal they have even fewer reasons to think of us as friends, and might have MSFT out there egging them on to hurt us. I worry that it's madness over there now, and with Rich Green gone insaner heads might prevail. So I think more than ever we'd rather try to find cheap, philosophically consistent ways to work with them rather than reduce the coupling and risk being blindsided. This JavaOne thing isn't the only or best one, but it's easy to try.

    -- Tim

    On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Andy Rubin wrote:

    Sun recently came to us to renew the toolbar deal (or which we distribute 24% of our clients) and requested two things: double the guaranty (from $50M to $100M) and for us to certify Android through the Java process and become licensees of Java. We made the decision to say no, greatly affecting our search business, and Sun gave the distribution deal to MSFT.

    What would you do?

    On Nov 24, 2008, at 7:01 PM, Tim Lindholm wrote:

    Hi Andy,

    [Dan B might have pinged you on this already:]

    The question has come up whether to try to submit Android talks to JavaOne. There are mixed opinions of whether this is worth peoples' time to do so for the sake of the exposure and developer relations alone.

    But some of us have also considered possible longer-term calming effects should we be allowed to participate. It seems likely that Sun, in turmoil anyhow due to its internal problems, will feel especially pressed to have cool or positive things to talk about at JavaOne. If on the balance Android would serve that need Sun might conclude it's worth having it in the tent rather than kept uneasily outside.

    The timing is also interesting given that Sun has disclosed (confidentially for now) an architectural relaxation that would make the Java platform more subsettable. That could provide a road to reconciliation between Android and the standard platforms without Android having to get sucked into the JCP. Google (not Android) has already made positive noises privately, and will probably come out in favor of this proposal publicly assuming Sun actually releases it.

    Of course they might just say blanket no about JavaOne. Rather than have a bunch of people waste time writing talks that might be rejected, we could send a feeler to a known Marketing VP in the JavaOne loop at Sun asking whether Android submissions would be considered.

    Do you think it's worth just this discreet question?

    -- Tim

    HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY Oracle America v. Google, 3:10-cv-03561-WHA GOOGLE-01-00031205

  • 1044.pdf [Email thread with Andy Rubin and Eric Chu re Josh Bloch, what he could and couldn't do re Java after being hired by Google. Dated Jan. 2009.]
  • 1048.pdf [CNET Article by Stephen Shankland, "Sun Concerned Google's Android Will Fracture Java", from Nov. 15, 2007. Downloaded in 2012 from will-fracture-java-62034418.htm]
  • 1050.pdf [Email thread internal Google from June 20, 2007, between Chris DiBona, Andy Rubin, and forwarded message from Greg Stein to Bill Coughran regarding what to do about the Apache-Sun dispute. Also includes an email from Peter Lord at Oracle to Wayne Carr at Intel, Mark Thomas as IBM, swolfe at IBM, Greg Stein at Google, Chris DiBona at Google, cc'd to Donald Deutsch at Oracle, Steven G. Harris at Oracle, Michael Gelbum at Oracle, Scott K. Jameson at HP, gtlane at IBM, Karla Norsworthy at IBM, zaheda at Google, Steven Chin at Intel. The email is about a private letter, draft attached, to Jonathan Schwartz suggesting he provide Apache with an unencumbered license to Java Compatibility Kit for use by the Apache Harmony project. The email from Oracle is asking for additional signatures from the other companies.]
  • 1051.pdf [Email from Andy Rubin to Chris DiBona, answering DiBona's question if he had any objections to DiBona signing the letter to Schwartz, cf. exhbit 1050, above: "[redacted], I'll sign it."]
  • 1060.pdf [Email from Eric Chu to Andy Rubin, 1/27/2009, re Josh Bloch. "Talked to Dan. He'll keep an eye on it. He said you already approved Josh's current Java activities before he transferred."]
  • 1061.pdf [Email from a financial analyst to Android Finance, asking for data, Oct. 2010.]
  • 2372.pdf [Email thread dated May 2006 between Vineet Gupta at Sun, Andy Rubin at Google, Jonathan Schwartz at Sun right after he was made CEO, cc'd to Scott McNealy at SUn and Eric Schmidt at Google, trying to get negotiations going again. "We lost a little momentum, but from the recent email exchange between you and ERic, it's obvious to me that both parties want to make this work. One final push may be all it takes." Schmidt says: "Google has made considerable investment in this area... Although well underway, we're still open to having Sun contribute components of the stack."]
  • 3441.pdf [Jonathan Schwartz email to Eric Schmidt, Nov. 2007, re Android. "Let us know how we can help support your announcements next week."]
    From: Jonathan Sent: 11/9/2007 8:06 AM
    To: Eric Schmidt
    Subject: Re: android

    A few of your alliance partners have reached out to us to build a "separate but equal" effort -- we would love having seen this movie a few times before to have one big tent rather than hundred little ones.. and we can obviously bring global Java community to the party

    On Nov 2007 at 800 AM Eric Schmidt wrote:

    >Thanks Jonathan. will review right now; the SDK is supposed to
    > release in
    early look on Monday Eric
    --Original Message--
    > From Jonathan [mailto: Jonathan]
    >On Behalf
    > Of Jonathan Sohwartz
    >Sent Friday November 09 2007 10:57 AM
    > To Eric Schmidt
    > Subject: android
    > Let us know how we can help support your announcements next week -
    > we're
    > happy to do so.
    > Jonathan

  • 3443.pdf [Emails between Eric Schmidt and Andy Rubin re Sun Deal, April 29, 2006. Rubin: "Overall here's where we stand: 1) I am convinced they will open source java with no tricks 2) Final price $28M..." Asks for input.]
  • 3466.pdf [Email from Eric Schmidt to Jonathan Schwartz, cc to Andy Rubin, March 31, 2008, Subject: update on android licensing. Schmidt explains to Schwartz that the Apache license means Sun can do whatever proprietary things it wants on top, with Java or anything, with no "give back".]


  • 0270.pdf [Email from Dan Bornstein to Ben Titzer, cc to android-dalvik, Subject: Re: [dalvik] Dalvik IP issues. Bornstein says it's ok to use what is in your head, but not ok to copy other people's code.]
  • 0359.pdf [Email from Dan Bornstein to Jesse Wilson at Google, dated Aug. 11, 2009. However, it's in the format of questions interspersed with the answers. It's regarding whether one of them should "disclose my work for danger". "no access to sun source code, but we did create a java impl., and we did license the j2me tck"]


  • 0016.pdf [Email thread between Jonathan Schwartz of Sun and Vineet Gupta of Sun, dated Feb. 9, 2006, re "Potential Sun Google partnership in the Mobile Java and OS Space". Includes a forwarded Scott McNealy email to Eric: "This is a great opportunity for both companies to jointly provide an Open Source Java Linux Mobile Handset Platform implementation and to build on the momentum of over 1 Billion Java Micro Edition based handsets deployed in the market currently. Alan and team on my side have this as a top priority. Jonathan has been reaching out to Sergey on this as well. The financials of this deal will be crucial for Sun to ensure success. I look forward to us announcing our alliance on this soon and getting the industry, developers, OEMs, content and service providers behind us. We should also have the teams start thinking about to play this big at JavaOne this year." Another McNealy email to Eric Schmidt, Feb. 9 also has statement re worries about "how we're going to replace the revenue this is likely going to submarine. I'm very supportive of driving a completely open stack, and even taking risk with Java to get there, but I just need to understand the economics." Another email dated Feb. 8 from Schmidt to McNealy proposes the two companies form "an alliance around our Open Handset Platform". Schmidt says it is "an opportunity for our two companies to work together to define the de-facto standard software stack for mobile phones."] [PJ: Full text:]
    From: Vineet Gupta - OEM Software Sales CTO/Worldwide SE Director
    Sent: The Feb 09 2006 15:33:48 PST
    To: Jonathan Schwartz
    Subject: Re: Fwd: Potential Sun Google partnership in the Mobile Java and OS Space

    Importance: Normal
    Priority: Normal
    Sensitivity: None

    Did not send my response as requested because Andy forwarded me Scott's
    response - so I did not respond to the team with mine. I think we
    should also push Google to be a Platinum sponsor for JavaOne...

    I am hoping you continue to provide Exec sponsoship thru Sergey/Larry
    regarding this. We will probably need that when we push on the financials...

    Appreciate you support as always.


    >My team has been keeping me in the loop on this. This is a great
    >opportunity for both companies to jointly provide an Open Source Java
    >Linux Mobile Handset Platform implementation and to build on the
    >momentum of over 1 Billion Java Micro Edition based handsets deployed
    >in the market currently.
    >Alan and team on my side have this as a top priority. Jonathan has
    >been reaching out to Sergey on this as well. The financials of this
    >deal will be crucial for Sun to ensure success. I look forward to use
    >announcing our alliance on this soon and getting the industry,
    >developers, OEMs, content and service providers behind us. We should
    >also have the teams start thinking about to play this big at
    >JavaOne this year.
    >Looking forward to seeing you soon.

    Andy Rudin wrote:

    Trial Exhibit 16, Page 1 of 3

    >Begin forwarded message:
    >*From: *Scott McNealy
    >*Date: *February 8, 2006 5:08:32 AM PST
    >*To: *Eric Schmidt
    >*Cc: *, "'Andy Rubin'"
    >Jonathan Schwartz , Greg Papadopoulos

    >*Subject: Re: Potential Sun Google partnership in the Mobile Java
    >and OS Space
    >Replay-To: *
    >Thanks for the note. Jonathan and the team are on top of this -
    >I'm worried about how we're going to replace the revenue this is
    >likely going to submaring. I'm very supportive of driving a
    >completely open phone stack, and even taking risk with Java to get
    >there, but I just need to understand the economics.
    >But we're obviously supportive in helping to fuel the market.
    >PS Has you team had a chance to try out the new T2000 with
    >32 hw threads yet?
    >Eric Schmidt wrote:
    >Scott.. I'm in a product review and we are looking at a very
    >partnership proposal with Sun. Basically, Andy Rubin runs our
    >op/search engineering group; he is talking with Alan Brenner
    >VP Consumer &
    >Mobile Systems Group of Sun.
    >Google has engaged with Sun's Java team in an effort to form
    >an alliance
    >around our Open Handset Platform. It is an opportunity for our
    >companies to work together to define the de-factor standard
    >software stack
    >for mobile phones. Google has adopted a completely open source
    >model as a
    >way to solve osme intricate distribution dependencies. It
    >makes sense to me
    >that Sun and Google should do this together; can you check and

    Trial Exhibit 16, Page 2 of 3

    >dedicate the resources necessary to move this ahead at an
    >accelerated pace.
    >I wanted to make sure you know I will do the same on my side.
    >Anyway this is very exciting and hopefully a good idea for
    >both of us !
    >Thanks and take care.. Eric

    Vineet Gupta
    WorldWide Sr. Director
    Chief Strategy/Technology officer
    OEM Software Systems Engineering
    SUN Microsystems

    Trial Exhibit 16, Page 3 of 3

  • 0563.pdf [Email from Jonathan Schwartz to Scott McNealy, dated March 8, 2007, Re: plane. Includes line regarding Google by McNealy: "They are immune from copyright laws."]
    From: Jonathan Schwartz
    Sent: Thu Mar 08 2007 21:50:33 PST
    To: Scott McNealy
    Subject: Re: plane

    Importance: Normal
    Priority: Normal
    Sensitivity None

    I'm talking to Bill tomorrow about your admin support.

    On Mar 8, 2007, at 8:52 PM, Scott McNealy wrote:

    >I made it. It is fine. Just have no one else to complain to.
    >Try to do it just to you.
    >I do have to get a new secy. I hate to say it but I really miss
    >Karen's efficiency and smarts.
    >I did good this trip. Calls are going well and we are getting some
    >good momentum in Fed.
    >The regular visits are starting to create a buzz. Going back out
    >to DC in first week of May.
    >Lets discuss the R&D cuts. We have so much opp.
    >The google thing is really a pain. They are immune to copyright
    >laws, good citizenship, they dont share.
    >They dont even call back.
    >See you tomorrow at Verizon
    >Jonathan Schwartz wrote:
    >>Sorry to hear about the time wasted - let's definitely talk about
    >>transport options. Your value/hour makes pretty much anything
    >>look cheap...

    Trial Exhibit 563, Page 1 of 1

  • 0565.pdf Email from Lino Persi to Leo Cizek, dated Sep 24 2007, subject: 'Re: Google's Mobility Push'. Is mostly a conversation between Gupta, Cizek, Persi and Schwartz sketching out ideas for licensing strategy.
    From: Lino Persi
    Sent: Mon Sep 24 2007 21:33:37 PDT
    To: Leo.Cizek@Sun.COM
    CC: Vineet Gupta - OEM Software Sales CTO/Worldwide SE Director
    Subject: Re: Google's Mobility Push

    Importance: Normal
    Priority: Normal
    Sensitivity: None

    Awesome, thanks Vineet

    Leo.Cizek@Sun.COM wrote:

    >Thanks, Vineet!
    >Vineet Gupta - OEM Software Sales CTO/Worldwide SE Director wrote:
    >>Please see email below. Am working with JS to get message to Eric S.
    >>to enable us to get in at higher level.
    >>>---- Original Message ---
    >>>Subject: Re: thanks for stopping by
    >>>Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:39:06 -0700
    >>>From: Vineet Gupta - OEM Software Sales CTO/Worldwide SE Director
    >>>To: Jonathan Schwartz
    >>>CC: Rich Green
    >>>Thanks Jonathan - yes from a mobile standpoint:
    >>>o) would love to partner on Google Apps available at a Resident App
    >>>levle in JavaFX Mobile
    >>>o) would like to see if they are interested in AdSence (TB/Google Ad
    >>>engine) integrated in our JavaFX Modile
    >>>Seperately they continue to work on G-Phone - and their engg has not
    >>>been open to re-engage - so don't know if they continue on the path of
    >>>a javascript/java bytecode minging CDC JVM or have moved to Ajax or
    >>>something else. If they end up creating a munge - it will end up in a
    >>>discussion around compatibility and licensing around Java.

    Trial Exhibit 565, Page 1 of 4

    >>>I will push from Priti's side as well.
    >>>Jonathan Schwartz wrote:
    >>>>What I said to Amy(?) was - we're seeing a very significant uptick in
    >>>>Java distribution and updates, along with a sizeable acceleration of
    >>>>OpenOffice usage - and in addition, we're building a phone.
    >>>>So we kinda/sorta have a relationship around the first two, none
    >>>>around the last and it's high time we figured out how to build
    >>>>something bigger than we're doing today.
    >>>>I'll send Eric a note with the same ping - presuming we want more
    >>>>opportunity to work together...
    >>Leo wrote:
    >>>Hi Vineet,
    >>>Re your email below, I thought I would ask for your updated
    >>>thoughts, now that the StarOffice deal is done (of course,
    >>>the Java SE Embedded deal is not).
    >>>On 08/02/07, Vineet Gupta, OEM Software Sale CTO/Worldwide SE
    >>>Director wrote:
    >>>>So two sides to this coin (part of this is for your other email Leo).
    >>>>1) Google has made it known that they will do a Google phone
    >>>>(similar to iPhone). We think that it is similar to what we were
    >>>>trying to work with them on Project Android - as a collaboration
    >>>>between the two companies. It does compete with Sun's Java DX
    >>>>Mobile strategy at several levels.
    >>>>2) If Google is still using Java in it - a) then they have to come
    >>>>for a license with us - and will need to be compatible (and Andy
    >>>>cannot say he is not aware of the licensing requirements - as he
    >>>>had to go thru this at Danger - and we discussed this during
    >>>>Project Android Phase, and then during the Sun/Google collaboration
    >>>>attempt as well). b) they will decide to go the non-compliant,

    Trial Exhibit 565, Page 2 of 4

    >>>>non-licensed route - then we will need to go deal with them or
    >>>>their handset vendor for IP issues. c) or they leverage opensourced
    >>>>PhoneMe - and we will have to wait and see if they are following
    >>>>all GPL rules requred.
    >>>>3) I have sent emails to Andy requesting a discussion around what
    >>>>they are planning, and if they need Java licensing and/or if they
    >>>>are interested in partnering around JavaFX mobile - with no
    >>>>response. He actaully canceled my face 2 face and requested an
    >>>>email instead - which he did not respond to. I have decided not to
    >>>>call his cell - as we need to see what they are doing - before I
    >>>>4) I need the SO deal done - before I raise a stink - else we get
    >>>>that deal entangled into the issues that are bound to come up.
    >>>>5) I also need to see how the embedded JavaSE deal is going to end
    >>>>up - to decide how much to pile on.
    >>>>Lino Persi wrote:
    >>>>>We gotta get in on this!!!!
    >>>>> m/google_wireless_dc_6
    >>>>Vineet Gupta
    >>>>WorldWide Sr. Director
    >>>>Chief Strategy/Technology office
    >>>>OEM Software Systems Engineering
    >>>>SUN Microsystems

    Trial Exhibit 565, Page 3 of 4

    >>>Leo Cizek
    >>>Account Manager
    >>>OEM Software Sales
    >>>Sun Microsystems
    >>>Cell: (415) 806-9009
    >>Vineet Gupta
    >>WorldWide Sr. Director
    >>Chief Strategy/Technology officer
    >>OEM Software Systems Engineers
    >>SUN Microsystems
    >Leo Cizek
    >Account Manager
    >OEM Software Sales
    >Sun Microsystems
    >Cell: (415) 806-9009

    Trial Exhibit 565 Page 4 of 4

  • 0917.pdf Open Letter to Sun Microsystems, by The Apache Software Foundation. Link
  • 1055.pdf Email from Jonathan Schwartz to Karen Kahn, dated Nov 12 2007, subject: 'Re: Google & SDK Announcement'. Discusses a CNET article "Google's Android parts ways with Java industry group" and Schwartz clarifies his perspective on forking/compliance.]
    From: Jonathan Schwartz
    Sent: Mon Nov 12 2007 19:07:33 PST
    To: Karen Kahn
    CC: Anil Gadre ; Rich Green ;Jacquelyn Decoster
    ; Ingrid Van Den Hoogen ;Frank
    Subject Re: Google & SDK Announcement

    Importance: Normal
    Priotity Normal
    Sensitivity: None

    A separate implementation isn't a fork - so long as Google agrees to
    certify their platform as compliant with the Java specification. If
    they don't, they won't be able to call it Java - we should ask the
    press to ask Google if their platform will be compliant with the Java
    specification. Let's get the on defense...

    "The Java community has never been stronger - Google's endorsement of
    the platform gives yet more opportunity to developers wanting to
    capitalize on the billions of decives running the Java platform
    around the world."

    On Nov 12, 2007, at 6:09 PM, Karen Kahn wrote:
    >fyi on cnet story that just posted. working with software team on
    >updated version of partyline to better scope out our position.
    >Jacquelyn Decoster wrote:
    >>Google made their SDK announcement today. Shankland just posted a
    >>story saying that it looks like Google is going to fork Java.
    >>(Article pasted below)
    >>8301-13580_3-9815495-39.html?tag=blog.3 [Ed note: link]
    >>Rich Green is quoted in the CNET story based on a comment he have
    >>Dawn Kawamoto last week during the OOW pre-brief interview. His
    >>quote and the Sun positioning is accurate:
    >>"For its part, Sun supports Java and open-source software on
    >>mobile devices, but expressed some caution about joining Google's
    >>alliance. "We were interested in being part of the Google
    >>ecosystem, but we were interested in getting more clarity on what
    >>this program entails," said Rich Green, executive vice president
    >>of Sun's softwrae effort."
    >>Paryline on this will follow.
    >>November 12, 2007 4:26 PM PST

    Trial Exhibit 1055, Page 1 of 4

    >>Google's Android parts ways with Java industry group
    >>Posted by Stephen Shankland
    [Ed note: The rest of this email just quotes the ;linked article. The article mentions a correction on Google's JCP status; the text explaining the correction isn't included but the relevant paragraph is the same.]
  • 1056.pdf [Email from Jonathan Schwartz to Marten Mickos, dated Mar 26 2008, subject: 'Re: no doubt you saw...'. Mickos and Schwartz discuss Postgres forks/companies, Google's preferred licensing, and Google's trend of taking things without paying.]
    From: Jonathan Schwartz
    Sent: Wed Mar 26 2008 17:20:12 PDT
    To: Marten Mickos
    CC: Greg Papadopoulous
    Subject: Re: no doubt you saw...

    Importance: Normal
    Priority: Normal
    Sensitivity: None

    I so totally agree with you. We all do.

    They also take Java for Android, without attribution or contribution.

    This is why I love scroogle :-)

    On Mar 26, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Marten Mickos write:

    > It's funny with Google. They take (without paying):
    >* the FOSS code of 10 million developers
    >* the web contents of 100 million websites
    >* the searches of 1,000 million web users
    >and add some magic of their own, after which they sell ads on this
    >to some 0.1 million companies. And everyone is happy.
    >>Jonathan Schwartz wrote:
    >>...was with my Google buddy over the weekend, and we got to talking
    >>about licenses. He made some pretty interesting comments about
    >>their internal (as communicated by senior mgrs) view of licenses.
    >>They hate GPL, they like Apache, and they love BSD.
    >>Just like Microsoft...
    >>On Mar 25, 2008, at 8:12 AM, Marten Mickos wrote:
    >>>Yep. Expected.
    >>>They have spent $27m investing in the EnterpriseDB brand and now
    >>>they switch to "Postgres Plus".
    >>>The list of Postgres attempts is getting long:
    >>>* Great Bridge in the early 2000s

    Trial Exhibit 1056, Page 1 of 2

    >>>* Red Had had "Red Hat Database"
    >>>* Progress had UltraSQL
    >>>* CommandPrompt had MammothSQL
    >>>* Pervasive sold Postgres support for a while
    >>>* EnterpriseDB has Postgres Plus
    >>>* in Canada there is a PosgreSQL Inc
    >>>* and probably some more
    >>>Jonathan Schwartz wrote:
    >>>>from where I sit... the weird thing about Postgres is that the
    >>>>copyright isn't owned by a company, it's owned by a collective -
    >>>>via a BSD license that seems to spawn lots of small companies,
    >>>>but no center of mass... allowing us to say "we suppo
    >>>>Postgres," and putting folks like EnterpriseDB into a position of
    >>>>always having to explain who they are...
    >>>Marten Mickos, SVP, Database Group, Sun Microsystems
    >Marten Mickos, SVP, Database Group, Sun Microsystems

    Trial Exhibit 1056, Page 2 of 2

  • 2070.pdf [Email thread between Vineet Gupta, Brian Sutphin and Jonathan Schwartz. Dated Oct 23 2008, subject: 'Re: STATUS: MS TB Side. -- call to Eric S. at G' - There is some discussion about a TB contract with Microsoft, then the topic changes to Android. Notable quotesfrom Gupta, "Eric, Jeet and myself - proposed a joint collaboration on the on a single stack that combined Java and Android into a single platform (Linux+JVM+dalvik extensions+Java APIs+Android APIs+Android Apps) - available thru Apache license - and having a single AppStore jointly owned." "Now Andy - wants the entire eco-system to be available for free - i.e. no connections to monetization" "So either we find a way to work together - or they become our biggest competition with Android"]
  • 2195.pdf [Email thread where Greg Stein (Google) informs Simon Phipps (Sun) that Sun sponsered projects will not be able to participate in Google Summer of Code. Sun's continued lack of cooperation with the Apache Software Foundation on the FOU (field of use) issue, is mentioned as one of the reasons. The email is forwarded to multiple high-level people at Sun and it ends with John Fowler asking: What is the Apache issue? In his answer Jonathan Schwartz writes that they (IBM/Google/Apache) can create a Java implementation but that they need a commercial license to use the Java brand. The email ends with the statement "But the codes available to be clear - just not the brand." Jonathan Schwartz to John Fowler, CC Rich Green, dated Mar 04 2008, subject: Re: Google summer of code 2008. Notable quotes from Schwartz, "They can create a Java implementation, have it pass the TCKs/etc., but they're not allowed to use our brand without a commercial license - thus they perceive a restriction on the 'field of use' allowable for Harmony." ... "But the code's available, to be clear - just not the brand."]
  • 2341.pdf Article from titled 'Sun Reveals a Slew of Moves at JavaOne' The article is about Sun releasing the JDK under GPLv2.
  • 2371.pdf Email thread between Jonathan Schwartz and John Markoff, dated Nov 06 2007, subject 'Re: I don't get it?' - Markoff asks, "How the heck is Java going to be part of the Apache distro that the Android software is being given away under? Is this a legal issue between you and Google? How come they are using Java and you aren't part of their Alliance?" Schwartz replies, "off the record... God knows. They didn't want us to open source Java," and "As for how they avoid those licenses, I don't know - they've show a frankly stunning naivete about free software"


  • 0465.pdf [Labor Services Agreement between Sun and CNS Publishing, Inc. "(Supplier)"; dated 2000-07-20.]
  • 0466.pdf [Labor Services Agreement between Sun and Mary Dageforde DBA Dageforde Consulting; dated 2000-12-22.]
  • 0467.pdf [PrO Unlimited Exempt Employee Services Agreement (Programmers - Computer Professionals); Client = Sun Microsystems; dated 2005-06-02 ]
  • 0468.pdf [Labor Services Agreement between Sun and Chet S. Haase; dated 2000-06-14]
  • 0469.pdf [PrO Unlimited Employee Services Agreement (Programmers - Computer Professionals) for Scott A. Hommel; dated 2000-08-14]
  • 0470.pdf [Acceptance Certificate ("services were rendered pursuant to agreement") between Sun and Elbrus MCST - J2ME Wireless Toolkit; Sun Cluster Automated Test Suite Development; Solaris Sustaining; Solaris Networking Test Development; SPARC Compiler Backend; mediaLib; Java Telematics Technology 1.0; Consumer and Mobile Systems Group (CMSG) Software Quality Engineering; Solaris Kernel and Data Services; Java2D; AWT and Swing; Java Studio Enterprise (Previously Sun One Studio Zebra/Stripes); Carlisle (Sun Java System Content Delivery Server); HPT QA; Project Rave, Hammerhead (Previously Sun ONE Studio, WebApps module); CLDL HI Development; Projects FOX, CPU2004 Analysis, GCC2IR, and Bytecode Optimizer (BCO); TCK Tools; JCCE (J2SE TCK work); C and C++ Compiler Front End Work; Developer Platform Group (DPG) Sustaining; Consumer and Mobile Systems Group J2ME TCKs; Jini Software Quality Assurance and Software Quality Engineering. Dated 2004-07-01.]
  • 0471.pdf [Acceptance Certificate between Sun and Moscow Center of SPARC Technology - Forte for Java; Sun ONE Studio etc. Dated 2002-08-31.]
  • 0472.pdf [Master Services Agreement between Sun and supplier Select Appointments (Holding), PLC dba New Boston Systems, Accountant's Inc., AccountPros]
  • 0477.pdf [Master Services Ageement between Sun and PrO, Unlimited, Inc. Dated 1999-12-22.]
  • 0478.pdf [Worker Confidentiality and Assignment Agreement (Sun) - Scott Hommel - Dated 2000-08-01]
  • 0479.pdf [Worker Confidentiality and Assignment Agreement (Sun) - Maydene Fisher (PrO Unlimited) - Dated 2002-11-25]
  • 0480.pdf [PrO Unlimited Non-Exempt Employee Services Agreement - Eric Armstrong - Dated 1997-06-09]
  • 0481.pdf [Employment Agreement (The Carl Group) - Jamie Ho - dated 2002-01-24]
  • 0482.pdf [Master Services Agreement between Sun and Carl Group, Inc. (The) - dated 1998-10-01]
  • 0483.pdf [Master Services Agreement between Sun and Venturi Partners ("now Comsys") - part 2/2 - dated 2002-08-01]
  • 0484.pdf [Master Services Agreement between Sun and Venturi Partners ("now Comsys") - part 1/2 - dated 2002-08-01]
  • 0485.pdf [Employment Agreement (BAL Associates, Inc.) - Michael/Mike Bronson - dated 1997-08-15]
  • 0486.pdf [Contingent Workforce Supplier Agreement between PrO and Venturi Partners - dated 2004-08-05]
  • 0487.pdf [Master Services Agreement between Sun and TelTech International Corp. - Jürgen Kreileder - dated 2000-03-01]
  • 0488.pdf [Agreement (subcontracting) between Sun and ZAO "Elbrus MCST" (Russia) - dated 2002-09-01]
  • 1074.pdf [Email from Alan Eustace, Google, to Safra Catz, Oracle - "We will not pay for code that we are not using" - dated 2010-06-28]
  • 1076.pdf [Color photocopy of a CD - Getting Started with J2SE 5.0 - stamp placement suggests the exhibit is the CD, not the photocopy]
  • 1077.pdf [B/W photocopy of a CD and its cover - Getting Started with J2SE 5.0 - the exhibit is the photocopy]
  • 1078.pdf [Request for Registration of Copyright in Computer Program - Java 2 Standard Edition, Version 5.0 - dated 2004- 12-20]
  • 1081.pdf [Request for Registration in Computer Program - Java 2 Standard Edition 1.4 - dated 2005-04-20]
  • 1082.pdf [License Agreement + Amendment 1 - Sun licensing Unicode framework from Taligent/IBM for Java - dated 1996- 07-17, 1996-07-19]
  • 1084.pdf [Java Specification Participation Agreement - Steven Knudsen (PsiNaptic Inc.) - dated 2001-06-14]
  • 1085.pdf [Java Specification Participation Agreement - Olivier Lefivre - dated 2002-12-08]
  • 1086.pdf [Java Specification Participation Agreement - InnoTek GmbH - dated 2003-02-18]
  • 1087.pdf [Java Specification Participation Agreement - SymSoft AB - dated 1998-12-15]
  • 1088.pdf [Java Specification Participation Agreement - Exabyte Corporation - dated 1999-05-05]




  • 0005.pdf [Email from Tim Lindholm to Andy Rubin sent 2005-08-05@12:49. Subject Re: Fwd: Java VM for Android. Last mail in a thread discussing possible choices of VM] [[Ed: As Andy Rubin refused to acknowledge an email due to inconsistent indents I have tried to reproduce the indents exactly]

    From: Tim Lindholm
    To: Andy Rubin
    Sent: 8/5/2005 12:49 PM
    Subject: Re: Fwd: Java VM for Android

    This is indeed entertaining, and I'm sure lots of offers to "help"
    will pop up as the Android Project becomes better known here.
    FWIW I largely agree with Brian, and think that the guy pointing to
    the various open source efforts out there is largely clueless. OK,
    maybe there might be a few odds and ends that would be worth picking
    up, where we have no value to add and the license isn't onerous. But
    most of that stuff is complete crap. The first 30% of a Java runtime
    is not nearly as valuable or costly as the last 30%, or 5%, of a
    commercial-quality one.
    I do want to second Robert G's assessment: he, Urs and Srdjan were
    three of what is surely one of the best small JVM implementation
    teams that has existed (there were five implementors total in the
    original team). They shared an aesthetic for clean design and
    coding that you probably won't see outside of academics. They had
    some flaws, but not many. One is that they are stubborn Northern
    Europeans, who will not necessarily appreciate some other way of
    doing things. But I don't think they want to be JVM engineers any
    more, and this separation makes for less reason for concern. Frank
    Yellin doesn't have the elegance of the HotSpot guys, but is
    extremely bright and very experienced with Sun's CLDC implementations.
    The other Sun guys he mentions were each very good in their ways, but
    not in ways that directly relate to what you need -- they were Big
    Java guys, e.g. worrying about scalability and management.
    On this same line, yesterday (or the day before??) I had lunch with
    the guy at Sun who is the brain behind Sun's little-JVM-on-Linux
    effort, on the efficient use of multiple processes on Linux. He
    wants to get out of Sun and is extremely interested in Google,
    even while not knowing anything about Android. (That email to
    Vineet might be able to change this?). Unfortunately he has
    immigration things require him to be out of the US Sept-Oct, and
    then career things that might make him want to stay at Sun until
    January. Knowledge of Android might overcome the latter, but if we
    tried for him in the shorter term we'd need to accommodate the away
    time. If we can't get him before the away time then he very likely
    will stay until January. This guy could be a key hire. The only
    possible downfall is that there had historically been bad blood
    between the team he worked in and the HotSpot guys, but since then
    he has proven his value.
    Andy Rubin wrote:
    > Thought you'd get a kick out of this thread ...
    >Begin forwarded message:
    >>*From: *Robert Griesemer
    >>*Dat e: *August 5, 2005 11 :35:38 AM PDT *To: *Brian Swetland
    >> > *Cc: *Sascha
    >> Brawer >,
    >> ,
    >> ,
    >> ,
    >> ,
    >> ,
    >> ,
    >> , Patrik Reali >> >, Urs Hoelzle >> > *Subject: **Re: Java VM for Android*
    >> I can't really comment on your project but I'd like to give you
    >>some more background info in case you are interested: There are
    >>several people here at Google that have intimate VM knowledge: Urs
    >> H"i(, V2lzle, Srdjan Mitrovic, and I all worked on Sun's HotSpot JVM; we
    >> are in fact part of the original designers of the VM. Srdjan and I
    >> later wrote the "client" compiler for the VM (this is the default
    >>compiler shipped with Sun's VM, for ia32 and SPARC); and we also
    >> wrote the compiler for one version of Sun's CLDC VM for embedded
    >>devices (also referred to as the "Monty" VM, running on StrongARM).
    >>Todd Turnidge, David Stoutamire, and Ben Gomes joined the HotSpot
    >> VM effort a bit later but also have done significant work in that
    >>space. Srdjan, Todd, and I later also worked on a successor of the
    >>HotSpot VM (for MIPS) at a startup. And last but not least we now
    >>also have Tim Lindholm and Frank Yellin, the original Java VM guys
    >> here at Google. But you probably don't want that many cooks ...
    >>Anyway, you may want to consider chatting with some of these
    >> people, there is a considerable amount of knowledge that can be
    >>tapped. - gri
    >> PS: I am not cc: these extra people to reduce the amount of spam
    >>you're getting ... :-)
    >>On 8/5/05, *Brian Swetland* >> > wrote:
    >> I am a somewhat familiar with the grungy work involved in embedded
    >> JVM building -- I wrote the VM that the Danger Hiptop platform
    >>There are some useful reasons (in my mind) for going through the
    >> effort of building our own embedded VM rather than just going with
    >>off the shelf solutions:
    >> - We'd like things to be really well-integrated with the
    >> environment, small, fast, and fast to launch. Both the "run the vm
    >> in a little box just for midlets" model (used by most handsets
    >> today) and "run the entire world inside one vm" model (used by
    >>danger) have downsides. I'd like to take advantage of running Linux
    >>on CPUs with a MMU (arm9 and better) and having multiple instances
    >>of the VM run in their own process space. Being able to have hard
    >> limits imposed by the kernel on memory use, etc, and tear down a
    >> whole VM if an app misbehaves is something we wished for often at
    >> Danger. To do this, we need to make sure we can start up things
    >>quickly when apps launch -- if java is core to the system and not a
    >> little novelty like in current handsets, users are not going to
    >>want to wait 10-15 seconds for apps to launch.
    >> - License choice is important. One of the goals of this project is
    >>to provide an open source system that's appealing to handset OEMs.
    >>The Linux kernel is GPL'd, but all the pieces above the kernel
    >>that we're using or building so far are under much friendlier
    >> licenses (BSD or MIT style typically). Bringing in third party
    >>commercial solutions is tricky for this reason too, unless we plan
    >> on buying them outright or otherwise convincing them to release
    >>their software under an open source license.
    >> - After some amazingly negative experiences at Be, dealing with
    >> Cygnus C++ compiler support, I would have a lot of concerns about
    >> throwing money (away) at Redhat or Cygnus or the like for language
    >>or compiler support. Of course there's also the concern of
    >>shopping core parts of the system out to possibly disinterested
    >>third parties.
    >>-The JVM is going to be a central piece of the system we're
    >> building, not some little add-on on the side -- so we can provide
    >> some really good java application development and user experiences.
    >> I'd like to take recycle bits where possible to support javascript
    >>and other language bindings, which will require doing things a
    >> little differently than an off the shelf JVM.
    >> - Classpath is interesting for their "build it all in java"
    >> approach, but from a performance perspective (which matters a lot
    >>on small devices), pushing chunks of the core library to native
    >>code is a huge win. Also, it is GPL with some special riders
    >>(which I thought the GPL disallowed ... ).
    >>Anyway, those are just some points off the top of my head,
    >>On 8/5/05, Sascha Brawer >> > wrote:
    >>> Hi androids,
    >>& amp;gt;I happened to stumble upon your wiki page [1]. Are you really
    >>sure you
    >>>want to write your own JVM, as [2] seems to indicate? You
    >>> certainly have your reasons, but it sounds like repeating lots of
    >>> grungy work.
    >>> So, if you don't mind, let me emit some random personal notes
    >>> about the free Java scene.
    >>> Everyone and their dog (not really, but way too many people) has
    >>>writing a JVM around GNU Classpath [3]. Most of them don't target
    >>>embedded systems, many are crap, much has gone to oblivion, but
    >>>there's also some stuff that might possibly be useful to you
    >>> I'd really recommend having a look at JamVM [4]: it's fast for a
    >>>inter preter, with a decent and small codebase. JamVM is what most
    >>> Classpath hackers use nowadays for development. The author seems
    >>>a nice guy, he was working on optimizing Sun's and IBM's JVMs,
    >>> and is now an independent contractor.
    >>> I know of two companies using Classpath for JVMs that target
    >>>embedded systems:
    >>> /k! [5] is a cover-up for one guy having his fun. My personal
    >>> impression from the Classpath meetings is that the author is
    >>>really into free software; I'm pretty sure he would be keen on a
    >> contract for
    >>> an open-source embedded JVM. In the meetings list, he seemed to
    >>> know what he's talking about, but I haven't chatted that much
    >>>with him.
    >>> Aicas [6] is a real company whose embedded JVM is based on
    >> Classpath.
    >>> Since they haven't given anything back to the project, I'd be
    >>> surprised if they would be interested in a contract for an
    >> open-source
    >>>embedded JVM.
    >>> There's also a Bytecode-to-C compiler [7], but I've no idea
    >>>whether it's any good. I don't think it gets much used. But it
    >>> might be interesting in case you want to use an ahead-of-time
    >>> compiler for selected hot spots, and use a pure interpreter like
    >>> JamVM for the rest.
    >>> Kaffe [8] has been used for embedded systems, but the licensing
    >>>is in
    >>> a limbo (GPL, copyright held by a dead company).
    >>> You could pay Redhat for tweaking gcj/gcc, but their focus
    >>really is
    >>>on desktop systems. But since you mention C++ linkage on your
    >>> wiki: gee uses the same vtables for Java and C++, they call this
    >>>"Cygnus Native Interface (CNI)". There has been lots of talk
    >>>giving gee
    >>> a better jitter for dynamically loaded bytecode; they currently
    >>>have a
    >>>very inefficient interpreter as part of the Java runtime
    >>> library. But
    >>> last I've heard, Redhat's plan now is to use the gee backend as
    >>a JIT
    >>> -- hairy stuff, and certainly totally unusable for an embedded
    >>> sytem.
    >>> If you need more info around the free Java projects, or if want
    >>> to establish a contact, please feel to talk to either me or
    >>> Patrik
    >>> We've both been somewhat active in this scene before joining
    >>> Google, so we know most people from meetings.
    >>> Oh, you surely know that quite a few people at Google have a JVM
    >>> background? For instance Robert Griesemer or Urs Hoelzle. I hope
    >>>you >>>don't mind that I'm taking the liberty to cc them on this post,
    >>> in case they want to comment/shoot me down.
    >>> Best wishes, and have fun with Android,
    >>> -- Sascha
    >>> [1] [2]
    >>>[3] [4]
    >>> [5]
    >>> [6] [7]
    >>> [8]
  • 0020.pdf [Email from "horowitz" to Leslie Hawthorn; Subject: Nedim; Regarding Google hiring Nedim Fresko from Sun]
    From: horowitz
    To: Leslie Hawthorn
    Bcc: Sent: 3/23/2006 6:49 PM
    Subject: Nedim

    Nedim Fresko is a candidate for the "Distinguished Engineer" title at
    Sun who comes highly recommended by a former co-worker, Tim Lindholm.
    Nedim brings deep expertise in the area of Java virtual machines and
    the Java eco-system for embedded devices. This knowledge and
    experience is critical to the Android project as the JVM is core to
    our platform architecture and strategy. In addition, as we engage
    further with Sun as a partner for our platform, Nedim's knowledge of
    the code, architecture, MIDP environment, JSRs, etc. will be
    invaluable in helping us navigate the world of Sun mobile technology.
    Nedim will play a crucial role as a liaison between Google and Sun in
    our developing partnership.
  • 0027.pdf [Activity reports from Andy McFadden; Covering period Jan 8, 2007 - Jan 2, 2008] [Ed: The exhibit can be found as text here.]
  • 0258.pdf [Email from Andy McFadden to Jason PArks;; Subject: [dalvik] Optimized stuff]
  • 0292.pdf [Andy McFadden's input for an annual employment review. Covers the period 1-Jan-2007 to 31-Aug-2007.]
  • 0294.pdf [Top level activity reports in same format as 0027.pdf. Covers period July 18, 2005 - May 5, 2008. On initial inspection this is a superset of 0027.pdf apart from the first 15 lines of 0027.]
  • 0302.pdf [Email from to; Subject Googlee Perf Confirmation. Confirmation of receipt of Andy McFadden's Employment review information The body appears to be the same or very similar to 0292.pdf]
  • 0955.pdf [Resumé of Andrew McFadden.]
  • 0971.pdf [Sun Microsystems Inc Form 10K. ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008]


  • 0047.24.pdf Source code for newarray unit tests (tests default array initialization, structural constraints between elements of the bytecode, etc.) The constraint mentioned in some of the tests is documented as "The number and types of arguments (registers and immediate values) must always match the instruction" (see
  • 0047.25.pdf Source code for unit tests for Dalvik opcode iastore (iastore is used in static array initialization in .class files).

    [Additional info (not referenced in the exhibit): Example #2 in this presentation ( shows the difference between array initialization in .class files and .dex files. They are totally different at the bytecode level - the .class contains a series of iastore operations where as .dex copies a data area into the array.]

  • 1001.pdf Email from Dan Bornstein (Google) to Patrick Brady (Google) about development of CTS (Compatibility Test Suite). Mentiones work done by Noser. Includes this comment from Bornstein: Although we don't have a relationship with Sun, we've been trying to be good "Java citizens" nonetheless, and testing dx falls under that umbrella, since it's *the* piece that bridges the divide.
  • 1094.pdf



  • 0043.1.pdf [A chart showing the Android architecture with Linux Kernel, Libraries, Android Runtime, Application Framework, and Applications sections.]
  • 0047.101.pdf Apache Harmony source code for java.lang.Math
  • 0623.101.pdf [F:i586 zip src]


  • 4027.pdf ["The Javatm Language Specification"]

  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 )