Oracle v. Google Trial Transcripts - Part 1, Copyright Claims, and Part 2, Patent Claims

ORACLE v. GOOGLE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS

This page includes only the transcripts from that trial. For the full list of all documents and all hearings and all Groklaw articles, the Oracle v. Google Timeline page is the one you need to visit.

[ Copyright Trial ]   [ Patent Trial ]  

PATENT TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS, Phase 2, May 7-May 23, 201
07-May-2012	[PDF]		Day 1 of patent phase of the jury trial. Parties filed briefs re Oracle motion in limine, wishing to block Jonathan Schwartz testimony. Verdict of jury in copyright phase read. Judge Alsup: "There has been zero finding of liability on copyright, the issue of fair use is still in play,” Alsup said after the verdict was read. Opening statement by Michael A. Jacobs for Oracle. [Groklaw coverage from the courtroom.]
08-May-2012	[PDF]		Day 2 of the jury trial. Opening statements, then Oracle began presenting its case, with Tim Lindholm its first witness. Then Oracle called Andy Rubin again, then Robert Vandette and Noel Poore. [Groklaw coverage from the courtroom, trial exhibits.]
09-May-2012	[PDF]		Day 3 of the trial. Discussion about Jonathan Schwartz v. Scott McNealy regarding blog being corporate, as per 10K, signed by both, saying it was, contradicting McNealy's testimony. Witnesses this day are Andy Rubin again, then Andy McFadden (Google engineer who worked on Android Dalvik Virtual Machine), and Brian Sutphin, and then Dr. Mitchell, Oracle expert, back on the stand. [Groklaw coverage.]
10-May-2012	[PDF]		Day 4 of the jury trial. Dr. John Mitchell back on the stand again. He is followed by Dan Bornstein (creator of Dalvik). Then Google calls Andrew McFadden. [Groklaw coverage.]
11-May-2012	[PDF]		Day 5. Judge grants Oracle's motion for summary judgment on test files. Re copyright phase, David Boies says Oracle wants infringers' profits; judge mocks. On the witness stand, Google calls Andrew McFadden back, then plays Vineet Gupta video deposition, then calls Terence Parr and then Dr. David August. [Groklaw coverage from the courtroom.]
14-May-2012	[PDF]		Day 6 of the jury trial. Rulings on various motions, including the judge calling Oracle's position on damages "super extreme". Google expert Dr. David August, who testified on Friday, is back on the witness stand. Then Oracle calls rebuttal witness Dr. Mitchell, back on the stand. The parties rest after that. That makes the end of the evidence presentation, and the parties rest. [Groklaw coverage from the courtroom.]
15-May-2012	[PDF		Day 7. Closing statements - Michael A. Jacobs for Oracle; Robert Van Nest for Google. First, Juror 2 is dismissed - car trouble makes it impossible for her to get to the court. Jury instructions read. Judge reveals he is a programmer, that infringers' profits argument by Oracle for rangeCheck is ridiculous. Motion hearing on infringer's profits. Alsup to Boies: You're one of the best lawyers in America. How could you even make that argument? "Judge: We heard the testimony of Mr. Bloch. I couldn't have told you the first thing about Java before this problem. I have done, and still do, a significant amount of programming in other languages. I've written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before. I could do it, you could do it. The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. There's no way you could say that was speeding them along to the marketplace. You're one of the best lawyers in America, how could you even make that kind of argument?" Jury leaves to deliberate. [Groklaw coverage from the courtroom.]
16-May-2012	[PDF]		Day 8. While jury is out, more motions on infringers' profits, jury charge available, witness list for phase 3 of the trial (which never happened due to jury ruling on phase 2). [Groklaw coverage.]
17-May-2012	[PDF]		Day 9 of the trial. First jury question re determining the scope of the meaning of the term 'simulating execution of the bytecodes' in patent '520. Is the existence of an example of the Android code not functiong (punting), when formatted in a normal simulated execution setting, permitted to be taken as evidence that Android's array initialization diverges from the patented array intiialization? Answered by Judge Alsup, after discussion with lawyers, telling them that it's up to them to decide facts. Second note from jury, asking for transcript of Dr. Mitchell's testimony. Juror reports she is sick. Jury given rest of the day off to see if she can feel better by morning. [Groklaw coverage from the courtroom.]
18-May-2012	[PDF]		Day 10. Sick juror calls in sick, dismissed. Another question from the jury. Why does the verdict have to be unanimous? Because, they are told. Ask to hear Dr. Parr's testimony read back. [Groklaw coverage.]
21-May-2012	[PDF]		Day 11. More jury deliberations. More questions from the jury. [What is meant by instructions containing one or more symbolic references? Can a determined numeric reference become a symbolic reference of something that happens downstream later? Regarding symbolic reference in '104 claims, does the resolution of symbolic references need to happen immediately? On '520 patent, is a stack synonymous with memory and is all memory stack? (No) They want to know if something matches 3 out of 4 claims, is that infringement? The judge tells them no. It has to match everything. "Is it true that the DVM would be infringing the '104 patent via any resolution of a symbolic reference anywhere in the data fields as shown in the demonstrative" (He said that a determined numeric reference can not become a symbolic reference because of something that happens downstream. A computer can not make a numeric reference symbolic later. But he told the jury that to figure out if a reference is numeric or symbolic, they have to consider what happens downstream with it. They should look at the value contained in the instruction stream. If this value refers to an actual memory location, it is numeric. And that it is their job to determine this.)] [Groklaw coverage.]
22-May-2012	[PDF]		Day 12. Jury note asking: For the purpose of patent 104, do claims cover a symbolic resolution anywhere in the data fields? Than another: If we find a reference that identifies data by numeric memory location, does its existence preclude existence of a symbolic reference? The Court answered that a reference cannot be a “symbolic reference” for one datum and a “numeric reference” for another datum within the meaning of the claim language. [Groklaw coverage.]
23-May-2012	[PDF]		Day 13. Jury question. Oracle's lawyer says he doesn't understand the question. Ditto Google's. Judge tries to answer it. Jury rules [PDF] no patent infringement. Jury notes, both phase 1 and 2. There will be no Phase 3 on damages. Trial is over. [Groklaw coverage from the courtroom, jury interviews by the media.]
[]	[PDF]	[Text]	Trial exhibits, phase 2, patent phase.

© Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones

Last Updated Wednesday, July 03 2013 @ 08:59 PM EDT