I want to thank you all for your contributions of all kinds. Groklaw isn't just Mark and me by any means. We literally couldn't do Groklaw without your input.
Getting back the transcripts -- and thank you for your donations, which paid for them -- I want to highlight one of them. The trial was divided into three phases, first copyright issues, then patents, then damages, if any. The copyright phase began on April 16, 2012. The patent phase began on May 7th. There was no damages phase. I'm reminding you about the dates, so you can find things. If someone wants to craft a chart with all the days listed, PDFs of the transcripts and links to our daily coverage, that might be a handy thing to have. But the Timeline works too, if not.
So, do you remember when David Boies was given a bit of a dressing down by the judge in Oracle v. Google, the Hon. William Alsup? It was on the day that Boies indicated he wanted to ask for infringer's profits on the test files and rangeCheck, May 15, 2012. The jury was out in deliberations, and it was the judge and the lawyers in the room. As Boies started into a discussion about rangeCheck, the judge suddenly revealed that he's a programmer himself, and he knew better than what Boies was telling him. Here's how it went, precisely, from the transcript [PDF]:
MR. BOIES: I do, Your Honor. And one of the things that we could have done is, we could have taken statutory damages on one of them and sought infringer's profits on the other, as a tactical matter. It goes on, because Boies is Boies, but didn't the judge nail it? That because Boies is so good, what he says sounds legit even when it's total nonsense, as it was in this instance. And do you see why it's so important for judges -- and lawyers -- to actually grok the tech? Hence Groklaw. It's exactly one of our core purposes, to explain the tech, so they can avoid embarrassing themselves or coming up with rulings that don't match technical reality. Trust me, Google made nothing from rangeCheck. Don't trust me, actually. Trust the judge. He was absolutely correct. It was not a good argument.
We think, as a matter of principle, that we're entitled to infringer's profits. And the Court's -- I know from previous things the Court has said, the Court's dubeity about this. Okay. And we've thought about the fact that if we lose this and lose the other, that we are in a position of not having won anything. And we thought about it, okay.
We've thought about whether what we ought to do is we ought to take statutory damages on one of those things, and seek infringer's profits on the other.
And we decided that's that was the wrong thing to do, that as a matter of principle that we thought we were entitled to infringer profits.
And as a matter of principle, in trying to enforce these copyrights, we didn't want to send a message that says, if you take something that's small, and you're a big compnay and you can afford to litigate it thoroughly, what we're going to do is we're going to say, okay, we're going to settle for statutory damages.
THE COURT: All right. Let's get to the point. Does your expert call out these two items and trace through a nexus from those items to the large amount of profits that you have in mind? I don't think -- I think the answer to that is no. But maybe I don't understand the expert report well enough.
MR. BOIES: I think the way the Court is asking the question, the answer is no, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The law requires you to prove a nexus between the infringement and the body of profits that you're seeking. So how do you propose to prove that nexus?
MR. BOIES: With respect, Your Honor, I think the law with respect to infringer profits, as opposed to damages, only requires us to demonstrate that there was a product that contained infringing material, and that product generated revenue.
Once we have done that, I believe the burden shifts to the other side.
Now, if I'm wrong about that -- and I don't think I'm wrong about that, I think it is still possible as a factual matter to demonstrate a nexus by, for example, showing that, one, speed was very important to Google in getting Android out there; two, by copying, they accelerated that; three, even --
THE COURT: Can I stop you on that part for a second? We heard the testimony of Mr. Bloch.
MR. BOIES: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. I have -- I was not good -- I couldn't have told you the first thing about Java before this trial. But, I have done and still do a lot of programming myself in other languages. I have written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times or more. I could do it. You could do it. It is so simple.
The idea that somebody copied that in order to get to market faster, when it would be just as fast to write it out, it was an accident that that thing got in there.
There was no way that you could say that that was speeding them along to the marketplace. That is not a good argument.
MR. BOIES: Your Honor --
THE COURT: You're one of the best lawyers in America. How can you even make that argument?
You know, maybe the answer is because you are so good it sounds legit. But it is not legit. That is not a good argument.
MR. BOIES: Your Honor, let me approach it this way, first, okay. I want to come back to rangeCheck. All right.
THE COURT: RangeCheck. All it does is it makes sure that the numbers you're inputting are within a range. And if they're not, they give it some kind of exceptional treatment. It is so -- that witness, when he said a high school student would do this, is absolutely right.
MR. BOIES: He didn't say a high school student would do it in an hour, all right.
THE COURT: Less than -- in five minutes, Mr. Boies.
MR. BOIES: Well, Your Honor --
THE COURT: If you know the language. Once you know the language, it is a five-minute proposition.