1. The evidence cannot support a finding that
Android’s English-language documentation was copied from the Java API
specifications.
Oracle adduced evidence of precisely three examples of
alleged substantial similarity between Google’s and Oracle’s specifications for
the 37 APIs. A “mere scintilla” of evidence is insufficient to support a jury
verdict. See Lakeside-Scott v. Multnomah County, 556 F. 3d 797, 802 (9th Cir.
2005) (quoting Willis v. Marion County Auditor’s Office, 118 F.3d 542, 545 (7th
Cir. 1997)). Oracle’s three examples — out of over 11,000 pages of
specifications (RT 617:2-7 (Reinhold))[6] — cannot support a jury
verdict.
[...] The only evidence in the record relates to these classes;
Oracle did not present evidence on any other classes. Oracle could have, but
didn’t, present evidence of an automated comparison between the Android and Java
documentation as a whole, as it did with the implementing source code. This
absence is telling. It is also grounds to dismiss Oracle’s claim that Android’s
documentation for anything but the CipherInputStream, Cipher, and Pipe classes
infringe Oracle’s specifications for those same classes.
[6]
The 11,000 page figure is the length of the specifications for just the 37 API
packages. The specifications for all 166 API packages of the J2SE 5.0 platform
presumably are several-fold longer, and the size of the J2SE 5.0 platform as a
whole is larger still.
