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 - Further Questions from the Bench on Interoperability ~mw
Monday, May 21 2012 @ 07:20 PM EDT

The Court has asked the parties to provide further briefing on the subject of interoperability. (1181 [PDF; Text]) It is unclear whether this line of questioning indicates some likelihood that the Court considers APIs protectable by copyright, but there is certainly that possibility.

In the meantime, the questions being asked by the jury in the patent phase give every indication that the jury is hung on the issue of patent infringement. Numerous times over the last two court days the jury has asked to have the instructions read to them again or to have certain phrases interpreted.

The problem is that, unless that information is already in the trial record, asking the question doesn't mean getting an answer. Moreover, the parties are frequently disagreeing on what the answer should be. Judge Alsup's candid remark to both parties about the dangers of patent infringement litigation never seemed more pertinent.


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

Docket

05/21/2012 - 1181 - REQUEST FOR MORE BRIEFING RE INTERFACES, EXCEPTIONS, AND INTEROPERABILITY. Signed by Judge Alsup on May 21, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2012) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

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

Documents

1181

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.

No. C 10-03561 WHA

REQUEST FOR MORE BRIEFING
RE INTERFACES, EXCEPTIONS,
AND INTEROPERABILITY

1) By noon Wednesday, each side shall please state how many “interfaces” are included in the joint table supplied a week ago by counsel (Dkt. No. 1124). This can be on a total basis and need not be broken down by the 37 packages. Also please state how many “exceptions” were “thrown” and the extent to which they were duplicated by Google (again on a global basis). Each side should include one example of an “interface” and one example of a “throw” to illustrate the most salient points about these features (for a total of four examples). Please explain the salient point. All information must be in the trial record. Please include cites.

2) With respect to interoperability (Sega / Sony), please state the trial record evidence on:

A) To what extent, if at all, have applications and programs written for the J2SE platform before Android arrived been able to run on Android?

B) To what extent, if at all, have applications and programs written after Android arrived been able to run both on Android and J2SE?


C) How, if at all, have Android and the replication of virtually all of the 37 packages promoted interoperability?

D) To what extent was interoperability an actual motive of Google at the time the decision was made to replicate the 37 packages?

To the extent practical, please quote the testimony or exhibits in evidence so that the judge can make his own evaluation. Counsel may add argument but please quote the evidence.

Please answer both question 1 and 2 by Wednesday at noon in 12 pages or fewer. By Thursday at noon each side may reply in five pages or fewer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 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 )