Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 497

Declaration of DANIEL PURCELL in Support of 496 MOTION in Limine No. 5, 494 MOTION in Limine No. 3, 492 MOTION in Limine No. 1, 493 MOTION in Limine NO. 2, 495 MOTION in Limine No. 4 filed byGoogle Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40)(Related document(s) 496 , 494 , 492 , 493 , 495 ) (Kamber, Matthias) (Filed on 10/7/2011)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT 31 Oracle America v. Google - Expert Report of Iain Cockburn – September 12, 2011 - Subject to Protective Order (Contains Confidential and Highly Confidential/Attorneys' Eyes Only Material) Exhibit 15 Past Patent Damages Before Geographic Adjustment to Limit Patent Infringement Damages to U.S. Infringement Only Reflects Patent Apportionment of 30% 2011 TOTAL 2007 - 2011 (millions) 2007 2008 2009 2010 Starting Point Apportioned to Patent Contribution $6.0 $6.0 $6.5 $3.6 $7.5 $29.6 [1] Sun's Expected Profit from Armstrong Monetization (Includes only Armstrong Business Model Projections) $0.0 -$0.2 $0.1 $38.8 $128.4 $167.2 [2] Sun's Incremental Profit from Ad Revenue Sharing Without $25M Cap $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $8.4 $8.4 [3] Upward Adjustments Apportioned to Patent Contribution Harm to Sun from Diminished Control and Compatibility Revenue Sharing From Other Benefits to Google Not Quantified [4] Litigation Premium Not Quantified [5] Harm to Sun from Java Fragmentation Not Quantified [6] Past Patent Damages Apportioned for Patent Contribution $6.0 $5.9 $6.6 $42.4 $144.3 $205.1 Notes & Sources [1] Exhibit 14 [2] Armstrong business model finance presentation projected that Sun would earn revenues through the end of FY09 in connection with Project Armstrong. The timing of expected Armstrong sales is shifted to begin in late 2008 to correspond to the timing of actual Android sales. Sun Microsystems, "Project Armstrong: Business Model," February 2006, OAGOOGLE100166874 OAGOOGLE100166899, at OAGOOGLE100166884. [3] Sun would have required a share of the proceeds from Google's replacement business model to compensate for risk to existing Sun business model due to incompatible license. In the event that the platform is a commercial success, Sun shares in that success. Calculated using actual Android ad revenue for years 2008 - 2010 and estimate for 2011 taken from Google OC Quarterly Reviews. GOOGLE-00303725; GOOGLE-01-00053552; GOOGLE-77-00053555. [4] Includes direct benefits such as net revenues from the Android Market and DTC handset sales. Also includes indirect benefits such as greater access to end users and the facilitation of other products sales (music, videos, books). [5] The Litigation Premium is meant to reflect the fact that the starting point terms were negotiated before the patents at issue were found to be valid. Thus, the starting point reflects an uncertainty discount that is left unquantified here. [6] Harm to Sun from Java Fragmentation is left unquantified. [7] = [1] + [2] + [3] [7]