|
|
|
| Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 03:59 AM EDT |
Oracle's lawyers make it clear who they are talking about and fail to remove
Larry Ellison's foot from his mouth before they fire the footgun again in filing
#1118 (link to PDF is in the article above), where they say in answer to Judge
Alsup's question 4 ("Is this what the UK company Spring did?")
The
Court is correct that this is what SpringSource did:
There’s a
company in the UK that built its own Java environment. And they used the Java
programming language, but they created their own set of APIs, prewritten
programs. And that other environment is called Spring.
So Spring uses the
Java programming language, but it doesn’t use the Sun-created APIs. They have
their own set of APIs and their own set of prewritten programs. (RT 290:25-291:6
(Ellison).)
Of course, creating new APIs was much more time
consuming and expensive than what Google did here in its rush to bring Android
to market:
Q. Does it take a period of time and expense and
resources if you’re going to go that route?
A. Yeah. Spring had to design
their own APIs, and then they had to teach the developer community about these
new APIs. And they had to persuade them that their collection of APIs, their
library of programs, was in some ways better than the library of programs that
Oracle and Sun had produced.
Google addresses
Ellison's error in filing #1116 (also linke to PDF in article above) with
footnotes containing URLs about the Spring framework on the SpringSource web
site.
4. The Court should disregard Mr. Ellison’s testimony about
Spring.
When Larry Ellison was asked whether the Java APIs are needed to use
the Java language, Google objected on the ground that the question called for
expert testimony. RT 290:15-19. The Court overruled the objection, but only
after Mr. Ellison assured the Court that he was testifying based on personal
knowledge. RT 290:20-24. Mr. Ellison then testified that a UK company named
Spring had built its “own Java environment” called Spring, which used the Java
language, but not the Java APIs. RT 290:25-291:6.
Mr. Ellison’s testimony
was incorrect. The Spring framework is open source software, and the
documentation for the Spring framework is readily available on the Internet.
This documentation demonstrates that Mr. Ellison’s testimony was incorrect, and
that the Spring framework uses the J2SE APIs. For example, the Spring package
“org.springframework.ui” has a class named “ModelMap,” which is a subclass of
“java.util.HashMap”—a class that is in the accused java.util package. This
Spring class implements the interfaces Serializable (part of the accused java.io
package), Cloneable (part of the accused java.lang package) and Map (part of the
accused java.util package).
This evidence, which flatly contradicts Mr.
Ellison’s testimony, is not in the trial record. The accuracy of the cited
documentation, however, cannot reasonably be questioned under the circumstances,
and thus the Court may take judicial notice of these facts. Fed. R. Evid.
201(b)(2).
Moreover, if the Court requests, Google will submit a declaration
from Professor Astrachan explaining that the source code for the Spring
framework depends on no less than 20 of the 37 accused J2SE API packages. In
light of these facts, Google requests that the Court not rely on any of Mr.
Ellison’s unsupported testimony about Spring. See RT 290:25-291:6,
304:13-22.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
