Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 1057

REQUEST FOR FURTHER PHASE ONE BRIEFING RE COPYRIGHTABILITY OF SSO (briefing due noon 5/10/2012; replies due noon 5/14/2012). Signed by Judge William Alsup on 5/3/2012. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,

No. C 10-03561 WHA

v.
GOOGLE INC.,

14

REQUEST FOR FURTHER
PHASE ONE BRIEFING RE
COPYRIGHTABILITY OF SSO

Defendant.
/

15
16

On MAY 10, 2012, AT NOON, both sides may file memoranda to add any legal argument

17

they wish on the issue of SSO copyrightability beyond what they have said in their voluminous

18

proposed findings and conclusions of law, each limited to twenty pages. Replies limited to ten

19

pages may be filed by NOON ON MAY 14. All evidence relied on must be in the trial record and

20

received in evidence.

21

In those briefs, please address the following:

22

1.

If the Copyright Act is meant to protect expression but not

23

vocabulary, should the vocabulary and grammar of a computer language be

24

copyrightable, as distinct from programs written in the language? In this regard,

25

please comment on the May 2, 2012, decision of the High Court of the European

26

Union.

27
28

1

2.

If each API method is a program — pre-packaged but nonetheless

2

a program — did Google copy anything more than the name and the declaration

3

(substituting its own implementation)?

4

3.

If the format of the name is dictated by the Java programming

5

rules, then is the form of “java.package.class.method” required by the syntax of

6

the language itself?

7

4.

Could Google have come up with different names and SSO yet still

8

have provided the same functionality as in Android? Android users would have

9

had to learn a new vocabulary and a new outline but the methods would all still
have been resident in such a modified Android. True? Is this what the UK

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

company Spring did?

12

5.

Is the input-output (i.e., argument and return) scheme of a method

13

copyrightable? For example, can someone copyright the function of inputting

14

an angle and outputting the cosine of that angle? If someone has a copyright

15

on a particular program to find cosines, does that copyright cover all other

16

implementations that perform the identical function (input = angle,

17

output = cosine)?

18

6.

19

The following were the core Java Application
Programming Interface: java.lang, java.util and
java.io.

20
21
22
23

Is it agreed that the following is true, at least as of 1996?

7.

Does the Java programming language refer to or require any

method, class or package outside the above three?
8.

To what extent do subparts of the above three Java packages refer

24

to any other Java packages or subpart of other packages (meaning outside the

25

three)? To the extent this occurs, should those outside subparts be deemed to be

26

“core” to the programming language?

27
28
2

1

9.

What cross-method, cross-class interdependencies exist at the

2

implementation level in Java? Were any of these duplicated in the Android

3

implementations? (The judge remembers no evidence on this point.)

4

10.

In Java, what interdependencies exist at the name/declaration level

5

other than the inherited characteristics from the super class, interfaces, same class,

6

etc.? Please explain.

7
8

11.
Association:

9

(A)

To what extent has it been adopted in the

Ninth Circuit?

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

With respect to the Seventh Circuit decision in American Dental

(B)

If the taxonomy in that decision was protectable,

12

why shouldn’t Sun’s hierarchical outline of packages, classes,

13

methods for the 37 API packages be protectable (other than

14

perhaps the three core packages?

15

(C)

Did ADA hold that the numbering system alone

16

(apart from the description) was copyrightable?

17

12.

18

With respect to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Kapes:
(A)

Kapes stated “Whether CDN’s selection and

19

arrangement of the price lists is sufficiently original to merit

20

protection is not at issue.” 197 F.3d at 1256. If that was not issue,

21

what, if anything, did Kapes expressly say about SSO?

22

(B)

In what sense were the “prices CDN creates” in

23

Kapes a “compilation” within the meaning of the Copyright Act

24

(see 197 F.3d at 1260, second col.).

25

(C)

Didn’t Kapes treat the coin prices as

26

“compilations”? Please explain how this was done. Has Oracle

27

abandoned the compilation argument herein?

28
3

1
2

(D)
13.

Was originality the only issue decided in Kapes?

When discussing use of the SSO in the 37 API packages in

3

Android to achieve “compatibility,” what exactly are the parties referring to? Is it

4

“compatibility” with programmers who write in the Java programming language?

5

Or compatibility with pre-existing programs? If so, approximately what percent

6

of pre-existing programs written for the Java platform are compatible with

7

Android? Is it compatibility with the TCK? Or Java virtual machine? Or java

8

compiler?

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Dated: May 3, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4