decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
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.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.


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


On this page, you'll find Groklaw's collection of transcripts from the Oracle v. Google trial in US District Court in Northern California, held in two phases -- the copyright phase from April 16-30, 2012 and the patent phase from May 7-May 23, 2012 -- before the same jury, as well as links to Groklaw's coverage from the courtroom. This page is divided into the two phases. There was intended to be a third phase on damages, but in the end, it didn't happen. The presiding judge was William Alsup.

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 ]  

COPYRIGHT TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS, Phase 1, April 16-30, 2012
16-April-2012 [PDF] [Text] Day 1 of the copyright phase jury trial held before Judge Willaim Alsup. Jury Selection, opening statement by Oracle's lawyer Michael A. Jacobs.
[Groklaw's coverage from the courtroom.]
17-April-2012 [PDF] [Text] Day 2 Opening statement by Google. Oracle begins its case in chief, with first live witness, Larry Ellison, but first Larry Page's video deposition. Then Thomas Kurian. Then Larry Page live.
[Groklaw's coverage from the court.]
18-April-2012 [PDF] [Text] Day 3 Larry Page back on the stand, then Dr. Mark Reinhold and Edward Screven.
[Groklaw coverage from the courtroom and trial exhibits of the day.]
19-April-2012 [PDF] Day 4 of the jury trial. Dr. Mark Reinhold back on the stand, followed by Tim Lindholm and Joshua Bloch. After jury leaves, discussion about the 37 APIs and copyrightability, with Judge William Alsup asking for briefing and announcing that is a question he will make, not the jury.
[Groklaw coverage from the courtroom.]
20-April-2012 [PDF] Day 5 of the jury trial. Witnesses were Bob Lee, Brian Swetland, Dan Morrill, and Leo Cizek.
[Groklaw coverage from the courtroom.]
23-April-2012 [PDF] Day 6 of the jury trial. Bob Lee took the stand again, then Dr. John Mitchell, and then Andy Rubin.
[Groklaw coverage from the courtroom, as well as Oracle's and Google's copyrightability briefs that the judge requested.]
24-April-2012 [PDF] Day 7 of the jury trial. Witnesses were Andy Rubin, back on the stand, and Eric Schmidt (called first as a witness by Oracle, then by Google, Google's first witness as it begins its case).
[Groklaw coverage from the courtroom.]
25-April-2012 [PDF] Day 8 of the trial. Google calls Andy Rubin back to the stand (cross by David Boies for Oracle) and then Dan Bornstein.
[Groklaw coverage from the courtroom. Oracle tried to reassert a dropped patent, but judge ruled it would have to stand by its word.]
26-April-2012 [PDF] Day 9 of the jury trial. Jonathan Schwartz took the stand, then Craig Gering, Hassan Rizdi, Scott McNealy, and Google's expert Dr. Owen Astrachan.
[Groklaw coverage from the courtroom. Discussion with judge about Google Rule 50 motion re copyright registration of 37 APIs and ownership issues (blank CD filed with US Copyright Office).]
27-April-2012 [PDF] Day 10 of the jury trial. Professor Owen Astrachan once again on the stand, and then Dr. Mark Reinhold, and then Tiki Dare. Then Google rests, and Oracle begins its rebuttal with Reinhold being brought back, and then Dr. John Mitchell again, and ending with Safra Katz. Oracle also says, before the jury enters, it is no longer seeking a package-by-package ruling on infringement as it relates to code. What they want is that documentation be treated similarly to code. Refuse to bring in witness to authenticate. End of evidence presentation by both sides.
[Groklaw coverage from the courtroom. Trial exhibits from the day.]
30-April-2012 [PDF] Day 11 of the jury trial. Closing Statements. Case goes to the jury for deliberation.
[Groklaw coverage from the courtroom.]
[--] [PDF] [Text] Trial exhibits for phase 1 of the jury trial - the parties' joint trial exhibit list.
07-May-2012 [PDF] Jury's Special Verdict Form, filled in by the foreperson.
31-May-2012 [PDF] Order by Judge Alsup, Java APIs not copyrightable.
31-May-2012 [PDF] Judge Alsup's Final Order

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

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 )