Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Filing
1085
RESPONSE (re #1080 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Regarding Compatibility Testing Suite ) filed byOracle America, Inc.. (Peters, Marc) (Filed on 5/6/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664)
mjacobs@mofo.com
KENNETH A. KUWAYTI (Bar No. 145384)
kkuwayti@mofo.com
MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725)
mdpeters@mofo.com
DANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624)
dmuino@mofo.com
755 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018
Telephone: (650) 813-5600 / Facsimile: (650) 494-0792
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
dboies@bsfllp.com
333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: (914) 749-8200 / Facsimile: (914) 749-8300
STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)
sholtzman@bsfllp.com
1999 Harrison St., Suite 900, Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 874-1000 / Facsimile: (510) 874-1460
ORACLE CORPORATION
DORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049)
dorian.daley@oracle.com
DEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527)
deborah.miller@oracle.com
MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600)
matthew.sarboraria@oracle.com
500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 506-5200 / Facsimile: (650) 506-7114
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
18
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
20
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
21
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
22
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
23
Plaintiff,
24
v.
25
GOOGLE INC.
26
27
Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA
ORACLE AMERICA, INC’S
OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE’S
MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
EVIDENCE REGARDING
COMPATIBILITY TESTING SUITE
Defendant.
Dept.: Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup
28
ORACLE’S OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
REGARDING CTS
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
pa-1527443
1
2
3
Oracle opposes Google’s motion to exclude evidence regarding the Android Compatibility
Test Suite (“CTS”).
I.
THE CTS PROVIDES PROOF OF INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’104
PATENT
4
Google’s Compatibility Definition Document (TX 2802) requires Android devices to meet
5
certain performance characteristics in order to be certified as Android-compatible: “Compatible
6
implementations must ensure not only that applications simply run correctly on the device, but
7
that they do so with reasonable performance and overall good user experience. Device
8
implementations MUST meet the key performance metrics of an Android 2.3 compatible device,”
9
as specified in the document. (TX 2802 at 122; see also Brady Topic 9 Dep. 121:6-128:1,
10
attached as Exhibit A; Morrill Dep. 167:3-169:20, attached as Exhibit B.)
11
The CTS ensures that devices meet these characteristics through testing. Some CTS tests
12
test the performance of Android phones—these tests are highly relevant to Oracle’s infringement
13
claims. The fact that OEM device manufacturers must pass these tests before calling their phone
14
“Android” suggests that they have not changed Android’s symbolic reference resolution
15
functions, which would significantly and negatively affect performance. The Android
16
Gingerbread source code (TX 47) includes a number of CTS performance tests:
17
18
0047\gingerbread23 - GOOGLE-0000000527\cts\tests\tests\performance\src\android\performance\cts\MultiAppStartu
pTest.java (Tests that restart of calculator takes less time than start of calculator)
0047\gingerbread23 - GOOGLE-0000000527\cts\tests\tests\performance2\src\android\performance2\cts\AppStartup.ja
va (Tests for average MusicBrowserActivity in com.android.music startup time of
less than 500 milliseconds)
0047\gingerbread23 - GOOGLE-0000000527\cts\tests\tests\performance3\src\android\performance3\cts\AppStartup.ja
va (Tests for average BrowserActivity in com.android.browser startup time of less
than 1300 milliseconds)
0047\gingerbread23 - GOOGLE-0000000527\cts\tests\tests\performance4\src\android\performance4\cts\AppStartup.ja
va (Tests for average ui.ConversationList in com.android.mms startup time of less
than 700 milliseconds)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORACLE’S OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
REGARDING CTS
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
pa-1527443
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0047\gingerbread23 - GOOGLE-0000000527\cts\tests\tests\performance5\src\android\performance5\cts\AppStartup.ja
va (Tests for average AlarmClock in com.android.alarmclock startup time of less
than 650 milliseconds)
The CTS thus provides circumstantial evidence that OEMs include on their devices the infringing
functionality that Google provides to them.
II.
THE CTS PROVIDES PROOF OF INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’520
PATENT
8
The Court should allow Oracle to present evidence regarding the Android CTS for the
9
’520 patent because the CTS directly tests the accused behavior in Android. Specifically, the
10
CTS includes a test for the fill-array-data instruction that the Android code accused of
11
infringement creates. (See TX 47 at 0047\gingerbread23 - GOOGLE-00-00000527\cts\tools\vm-
12
tests\src\dot\junit\opcodes\fill_array_data\Test_fill_array_data.java.) That OEMs pass these tests
13
suggests that they do not change Dalvik’s ability to execute the fill-array-data instruction, a
14
Dalvik instruction used for array initialization. Indeed, the final step in claim 1 of the ’520 patent
15
is “interpreting the instruction by a virtual machine to perform the static initialization of the
16
array.” By requiring OEMs to pass the CTS to certify their devices as Android-compatible,
17
Google actually requires them to perform a step of the patented method (a step that Google has
18
refused to admit that its licensees perform, the Court may recall). This evidence is highly
19
probative, and the jury should hear it.
20
Google’s only argument to exclude CTS evidence for the ’520 patent is that “the CTS
21
includes no tests directed at the Android Software Development Kit.” That is flat wrong. The
22
CTS includes tests directed to confirm the proper functioning of dx tool’s simulation of Java
23
bytecodes that participate in static array initialization. (See, e.g., bytecode tests in
24
0047\gingerbread23 - GOOGLE-00-00000527\cts\tools\dx-tests\src\dxc\junit\opcodes (opcodes
25
newarray, iastore, lastore, fastore, dastore, aastore, bastore, and sastore).) The dx tool is part of
26
the Android SDK, and is part of the software accused of infringing the ’520 patent. If any
27
developer or OEM were to change the dx tool, speculation for which there is no evidence, the
28
CTS tests suggest that the manner of creating the fill-new-array instruction would not be changed.
ORACLE’S OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
REGARDING CTS
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
pa-1527443
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
III.
GOOGLE’S OBJECTIONS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO EXCLUDE THIS
EVIDENCE
Google claims that Professor Mitchell did not utilize performance tests to prove
infringement. In fact, Professor Mitchell refers to the performance tests of the CTS in paragraph
188 of his opening report, which Google attached to its motion as Exhibit C.
Google’s argument that testimony in this area would duplicate Phase I testimony (ECF
No. 1080 at 5) is false. Mr. Morrill’s testimony during Phase I did not cover tests for the Dalvik
Virtual Machine, let alone performance tests. Oracle expects Mr. Morrill’s and Mr. Brady’s
testimony to confirm the presence of the patented technology.
9
IV.
10
11
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court should deny Google’s motion to exclude the CTS
evidence from trial.
12
13
Dated: May 6, 2012
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
14
By: /s/ Marc David Peters
15
16
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORACLE’S OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
REGARDING CTS
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
pa-1527443
3
EXHIBIT A
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
4
5
_______________________
6
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
7
Plaintiff,
8
vs.
9
GOOGLE, INC.,
10
11
)
)
) No. CV 10-03561 WHA
Defendant.
)
)
_______________________)
12
13
14
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
15
16
17
Videotaped Deposition of DANIEL MORRILL,
18
taken at 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite
19
400, Redwood Shores, California, commencing
20
at 9:43 a.m., Tuesday, July 12, 2011,
21
before Leslie Rockwood, RPR, CSR No. 3462.
22
23
24
25
PAGES 1 - 248
Page 1
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
MS. TERAGUCHI:
2
Foerster for plaintiff Oracle America.
3
4
MR. WEINGAERTNER:
Scott Weingaertner of
King & Spalding for Google.
5
6
Yuka Teraguchi of Morrison &
MR. KAMBER:
Matthias Kamber of Keker & Van
09:41:11
Nest for Google.
7
MR. HWANG:
8
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
9
The witness will be sworn in and we may
10
Thank you, Counsel.
proceed.
09:41:21
11
12
Renny Hwang of Google.
THE REPORTER:
Would you raise your right
hand, please, Mr. Morrill.
13
You do solemnly state that the evidence you
14
shall give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole
15
truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
16
THE WITNESS:
17
THE REPORTER:
18
19
I do.
Thank you.
EXAMINATION
BY MR. MUINO:
20
Q.
Good morning, Mr. Morrill.
21
A.
Good morning.
22
Q.
Can you please state your full name for the
24
A.
My full name is Daniel Lawrence Morrill.
25
Q.
And what is your home address?
23
09:41:34
record.
09:41:43
Page 5
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
do you know if one of the optimizations performed by the
2
dexopt tool is to change symbolic references in the DEX
3
bytecode to the memory location of the data referred to
4
by those references?
5
A.
I don't know either way.
6
Q.
Okay.
15:33:39
With respect to the dexopt tool, do
7
you know if one of the optimizations that it makes is to
8
change certain bytecode instructions into in-line native
9
code?
10
A.
11
12
13
I don't know either way.
MR. WEINGAERTNER:
Q.
BY MR. MUINO:
15:33:54
Object to the form.
Okay.
Let's go back to the
Android 2.2 compatibility definition.
14
A.
Uh-huh.
15
Q.
And take a look at page 10, Section 5.
And
16
this is the application packaging compatibility.
17
entitled "Application Packaging Compatibility."
18
first sentence says:
19
install and run Android.APK files as generated by the
20
AAPT tool included in the official Android SDK."
15:34:06
21
It's
The
"Device implementations must
15:34:28
Do you see that?
22
A.
I do.
23
Q.
Second paragraph says:
"Device
24
implementations must not extend either the .APK, Android
25
manifest, the Dalvik bytecode formats in such a way that
15:34:42
Page 165
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
would prevent those files from installing and running
2
correctly on other compatible devices.
3
implementers should use the reference upstream
4
implementation of Dalvik and the reference
5
implementations package management system."
6
Device
15:34:56
Do you see that?
7
A.
I do.
8
Q.
Did you author this -- those two paragraphs?
9
A.
In this form, yes, but I did not originate
10
11
this section.
Q.
15:35:14
Okay.
The last sentence that I read there
12
with respect to the reference upstream implementation of
13
Dalvik, does that refer to the Dalvik virtual machine?
14
15
16
A.
It would refer to the source code of the
Dalvik virtual machine, yes.
Q.
Okay.
15:35:27
And pursuant to the CDD, Google is
17
instructing the device implementers should use the Dalvik
18
source code; is that correct?
19
A.
Device as it is written, device
20
implemented -- -- device implementers should use the
21
reference upstream implementation.
22
Q.
Okay.
23
A.
15:35:47
It's probably worth noting that this is
24
merely a reinforcement of the language in section --
25
well, in Section 1 in the introduction where we refer to,
15:36:06
Page 166
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
again, the reference implementation and the upstream
2
Android Open Source Project.
3
Q.
Okay.
Let's refer to Section 10 now.
4
is on page -- page 18.
5
look at Section 9 on page 17.
6
page 17.
7
I'm sorry, I misspoke.
This
Let's
It's the bottom of
15:36:35
And the first paragraph, the first sentence
8
there says:
"One of the goals of the Android
9
compatibility program is to enable consistent application
10
experience to consumers.
11
ensure not only that applications simply run correctly on
12
the device, but that they do so with reasonable
13
performance and overall good user experience."
14
Compatible implementations must
15:36:49
Do you see that?
15
A.
I do see that.
16
Q.
Did you write that portion?
17
A.
I actually think I did not, but I don't
18
19
20
21
15:37:03
recall clearly.
Q.
Okay.
Do you have an understanding of what
"reasonable performance" means here?
A.
15:37:23
In context it would refer to the contents of
22
the table immediately following, but I do not have a
23
precise answer for what "reasonable performance" would
24
be meant -- or would mean here.
25
Q.
Okay.
Is it a requirement of the CDD that
15:37:48
Page 167
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
Android devices meet the performance thresholds that are
2
shown in the chart below in this Section 9?
3
A.
Section 9 is included in the CDD, and the CDD
4
is the definition of a compatible device, yes.
5
Compatible devices must meet the performance
6
specifications in the table -- or in Section 9.
7
Q.
Okay.
15:38:08
And if you look at the table there,
8
the first row of the table, well, second row, the first
9
row of data is application -- says "application launch
10
time."
And the second column there says:
11
applications should launch within the specified time:
12
Browser less than 1300 milliseconds, MMS-SMS less
13
than 700 milliseconds, alarm clock less than
14
650 milliseconds."
15
"The following
Do you see that?
16
A.
Q.
Okay.
15:38:46
I do.
17
15:38:24
It's required for an
18
Android-compatible device that these applications launch
19
in these specified times in order to be compatible under
20
the CDD; is that right?
21
A.
That is correct.
22
Q.
15:38:59
Why is -- why is speed important to Google
23
24
25
for the launch of applications?
A.
Because an end-user might obtain a phone and
unknowingly purchase a, you know, poor quality phone,
15:39:23
Page 168
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
such as it might have an obsolete processor in it or it
2
might have a, you know -- excuse me -- a poor driver
3
implementation or some other defect that makes it
4
unreasonably slow or at least slower than its competitors
5
in its class.
15:39:43
6
This user would then install applications on
7
it, you know, such as from Android market and then judge
8
the quality of those applications in a negative light
9
because the device is slow.
In other words, the device's
10
poor performance would reflect -- in the user's eyes,
11
would reflect poorly on the application.
12
user were more informed and knowledgeable, they would
13
15:40:00
know that the blame should properly be placed on the OEM.
Whereas if the
14
The intent of this section in the CDD is to
15
make sure that Android devices meet a minimal threshold
16
of performance to rule out the scenario that I just
17
described.
18
applications will launch in a reasonable amount of time
19
and that the user will not blame third-party developers
20
for the errors or implementation issues of an OEM.
21
22
Q.
15:40:17
So that we can rely on the fact that
15:40:36
Is the launch speed of applications something
that's important to consumers?
23
A.
In the way I just described, yes.
24
Q.
Okay.
25
And are you aware of portions of
Android or elements of Android that are designed to
15:41:01
Page 169
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
increase the speed of the launch of applications?
2
MR. WEINGAERTNER:
3
THE WITNESS:
Objection to form.
Yes.
We have several
4
performance optimization avenues that we routinely pursue
5
in launching a device.
6
7
8
9
Q.
15:41:21
BY MR. MUINO:
Okay.
And tell me the ones
that you're aware of.
A.
Sure.
One example is the specific type and
nature of the -- you know, would we call the flash part
10
or the storage chip.
11
some storage types or classes are faster than others.
12
Some models are faster than others;
15:41:40
Another example is the -- the file system in
13
use on that partition.
In some cases, the -- for
14
example, I believe today we use the X4 -- EXT 4 file
15
system because it tends to be faster and more reliable
16
than the file systems we've used previously.
17
We have a variety of deferred loading, you
18
know, and load-on-demand techniques that we use in the
19
software, and we have a variety of pre-caching or
20
pre-loading techniques that we use, one of which is the
21
dexopt tool that you referred to previously, and another
22
is the Zygote technique that you also referred to
23
15:42:08
previously.
24
Q.
Okay.
25
A.
There are others, but those are two of the
15:42:31
15:42:43
Page 170
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
EXHIBIT B
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
4
5
--------------------------
6
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
7
Plaintiff,
)
)
8
vs.
)
9
GOOGLE, INC.,
)
10
11
Defendant.
No. CV 10-03561 WHA
)
--------------------------
12
13
14
-- HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY --
15
16
Videotaped Federal Rule 30(b)(6), Topic 9,
17
deposition of PATRICK BRADY, taken at the law
18
offices of King & Spalding LLP, 333 Twin Dolphin
19
Drive, Redwood Shores, California, commencing at
20
2:24 p.m., Thursday, July 21, 2011, before
21
Leslie Rockwood, RPR, CSR No. 3462.
22
23
24
25
PAGES 1 - 149
Page 1
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
Flexner for plaintiff Oracle America.
2
3
MR. KAMBER:
Matthas Kamber of Keker & Van
Nest for Google, Inc.
4
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
Thank you.
5
Will the reporter please swear the witness.
6
THE REPORTER:
7
You do solemnly state that the evidence you
8
shall give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole
9
truth and nothing but the truth so help you God --
14:26:21
Raise your right hand, please.
10
THE WITNESS:
11
THE REPORTER:
12
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
13
Please proceed.
14
15
I do.
09:38:38
Thank you.
-- thank you.
EXAMINATION
BY MR. NORTON:
14:26:39
16
Q.
Good afternoon.
17
A.
Good afternoon.
18
Q.
As you heard, my name's Fred Norton.
19
represent Oracle.
20
record, obviously you were already deposed on another
21
subject matter earlier today, and so I'm going to try not
22
to go over things that were already covered.
23
time to time I'll have to ask you a question just to set
24
up the context.
25
time as I can be and get out of here as quickly as we can
I
As I mentioned before we went on the
14:26:48
But from
But I'll try to be as respectful of your
14:27:07
Page 4
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
Q.
And do you recall when this was?
2
A.
I want to say that these conversations came
3
up.
Things with Vodafone move slow at times.
4
I want to say it spanned the second half of 2009 and
5
2010.
6
So this --
17:53:48
Q.
Okay.
And if you turn to the prior page,
7
still in Exhibit 230, there's a Section 9 called
8
"Performance Compatibility."
9
A.
Yep.
10
Q.
Would you just read aloud the three sentences
11
that appear there?
12
MR. KAMBER:
13
THE WITNESS:
14
Object to the form.
The three sentences that appear
directly underneath 9 -- the section heading?
15
16
17:54:06
Q.
BY MR. NORTON:
Yes.
Just read it out loud
17:54:22
please.
17
MR. KAMBER:
18
THE WITNESS:
Same objection.
As the document reads:
"One of
19
the goals of the Android compatibility program -- of the
20
Android compatibility program is to enable consistent
21
application experience to consumers.
22
implementations must ensure not only that applications
23
simply run correctly on the device but that they do so
24
with reasonable performance and overall good user
25
experience.
17:54:30
Compatible
Device implementations must meet the key
17:54:50
Page 121
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
performance metrics of the Android 2.2 compatible device
2
defined in the table below."
3
4
Q.
BY MR. NORTON:
And then there's a table that
has criteria set forth there; right?
5
A.
Yeah.
17:55:04
6
Q.
Now, is there any testing that Google does to
7
ensure -- and does the CTS test to see whether devices
8
satisfy the criteria set forth in Section 9?
9
A.
I believe it does test some of these, yeah.
10
Q.
All right.
And the specific criteria that
11
are set out here are application launch time and then
12
17:55:25
simultaneous applications?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
And under application time, the standard is
15
that the following applications should launch within the
16
specified time, the browser less than 1300 milliseconds
17
MMS/SMS less than 700 milliseconds and alarm and clock
18
less than 650 milliseconds; is that right?
19
A.
Alarm clock is a single application here.
20
Q.
Oh, thank you.
17:55:37
21
22
17:55:58
And so that's -- in the case of the browser,
1.3 seconds to connect, 1300 milliseconds?
23
A.
If my math is correct, yes.
24
Q.
And why does Google care how quickly these
25
things launch?
17:56:15
Page 122
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
A.
Well, when -- one of the things that we found
2
when we had the OEMs making Android devices -- porting
3
the Android platform to their devices and running this is
4
sometimes the -- the -- this talks about user experience.
5
But it's also developer experience.
6
17:56:38
So Rovio, for example, is very upset when
7
their app runs very slowly.
And they get complaints.
8
they'll get returns, if it's a paid app.
9
will be rated poorly.
Or
Or their app
And, you know, the app developer
10
has basically, you know, nothing much they can do; right,
11
if the device is just too slow?
12
17:56:57
And so here we're trying to put some, you
13
know, we think fairly conservative and not onerous
14
requirements on OEMs to maintain some minimum level of
15
performance for users and application developers so that
16
it's a reasonable experience.
17
Q.
Okay.
17:57:20
Other than the concern that developers
18
will have a bad experience because they might get
19
complaints or returns, are there other reasons why Google
20
wants to -- has as a goal to enable consistent
21
application experience to consumers?
22
A.
17:57:41
It's really -- from a compatibility
23
standpoint, it's really about developers.
So I'll
24
state -- you know, consumers indirectly drive, you know,
25
the developer experience, I guess I should say.
The
17:58:02
Page 123
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
consumer experience drives the developer experience, if
2
that makes sense.
3
So when a device -- you know, an application
4
developer creates an application that -- a great
5
application, but the device executes that application
6
poorly, the developer has a bad experience, because they
7
may get rated poorly.
8
may, you know, have upset users.
9
what we're trying to ensure doesn't happen here.
10
Q.
All right.
They may suffer returns.
17:58:18
They
And so that's generally
And at the risk of pushing too
11
hard on the obvious, why does Google care about whether
12
or not the developers have bad experiences with their
13
17:58:37
applications running on a given device?
14
A.
Because, I mean, generally, any ecosystem
15
needs developers -- an app ecosystem needs developers.
16
And developers who have a bad experience leave.
17
18
Q.
17:58:55
The other performance criterion here is
simultaneous applications.
19
A.
Yep.
20
Q.
And the standard there in the compatibility
21
definitions is that when multiple applications have been
22
launched, relaunching an already running application
23
after it has been launched must take less than the
24
17:59:10
original launch time.
25
A.
This is an interesting metric.
Yes.
17:59:24
Page 124
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
2
Q.
So in other words, when you relaunch it, it
will start faster than it did the first time?
3
A.
Yes.
I think maybe relaunching it isn't -- I
4
don't know -- an exact term here.
5
Android does -- or that Android developers do in Android
6
is, you know, launch one application from another.
7
One of the things that
17:59:43
So I may have an application that I can
8
launch out to send an email or do something, and then I
9
hit "back."
And Android has this notion of an affordance
10
for the user to go back.
And you'll go back to the
11
application you were in.
So it's kind of integration
12
between applications.
13
18:00:03
In this case, what we're trying to say is if
14
I open whatever application it may be, and it has an
15
option to email someone, and I hit the email button and
16
it launches the email application, when I go back, I
17
don't want that -- you know, that old application to take
18
longer than it initially took to launch.
19
sense?
20
Q.
18:00:19
Does that make
So I'm in the browser, and I click on an
21
email address.
It opens the email program.
22
to send an email right now, and I want to go back to the
23
browser.
24
to wait for the browser to take launch as long as it took
25
the first time; right?
18:00:33
So I go back to the browser.
I don't want
And I don't want
18:00:50
Page 125
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
A.
Right.
2
Q.
Okay.
3
So again, this is about -- it's a
particular application of speed, but it's about speed?
4
A.
Yes.
5
Q.
And, in fact, both of these criteria for
6
7
performance are about -- I'm sorry.
A.
Go ahead.
18:00:58
Sorry.
Well, I'd say it's about speed, but it's
8
really -- here, I mean, it's about the ability to run
9
multiple applications at once.
10
Q.
Okay.
18:01:11
11
A.
So a big part of Android is multitasking.
12
And, you know, when trying to define that, what we're
13
trying to figure out is, well, okay, do you need to be
14
able to run -- you know, in defining the requirements,
15
able to run multiple applications at once?
16
default user experience in Android is a single foreground
17
application.
18
here is, say, well, when you go back to a previously open
19
application, it should launch faster than if it was from
20
a cold start.
21
it's about, performance.
22
Q.
Well, the
18:01:32
And so the way we're trying to codify that
It's perhaps a -- but yes, that's what
18:01:49
And strictly speaking, what Section 9 is
23
doing with it is not compatibility, per se, but just how
24
well the device performs when consumers have them.
25
MR. KAMBER:
Objection to form.
18:02:14
Page 126
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
THE WITNESS:
No.
I think it is
2
compatibility.
3
for a long time.
4
perspective, you can have two devices that may be
5
technically able -- you know, one device that runs an
6
application well and one device that technically executes
7
the byte code but does it extremely slowly.
8
And this is something that we've debated
From an application developer
18:02:30
And, you know -- and we need, you know, from
9
an application developer's perspective, they maybe, you
10
know, don't consider those two devices to be compatible,
11
because they can't write their applications the same
12
way -- they can't use the same application on both
13
devices.
14
18:02:45
And so what we're doing here is putting, in
15
all honesty, a very low bar on -- on, you know, the
16
minimum performance requirements you must have.
17
18
18:02:59
So, I mean, from our sense, it really is
about compatibility here.
19
And, you know, we constantly get complaints
20
from the developer that, "Hey, when I -- when I want to
21
play a sound on this given device, sometimes there's a
22
2-second lag before the song gets played," you know, "and
23
on this other device, there's no lag."
24
the same -- the same application is executing on both
25
devices, but they're incompatible from a user experience
18:03:19
That's, you know,
18:03:36
Page 127
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
perspective.
2
Q.
And that's a problem for developers.
All right.
So stepping back a little bit,
3
this -- the OEM is free to customize Android in various
4
ways, but one of the things that they have to do is make
5
sure that when they customize Android, they do not impair
6
the performance of the platform with respect to its
7
ability to launch programs quickly and multi-task?
8
9
A.
18:03:58
According to these specific provisions, yes,
they need to meet those.
10
Q.
And these particular applications that are
11
called out here, the browser, MMS and the alarm clock,
12
those are just proxies for the general ability of the
13
platform to meet overall speed expectations.
14
18:04:15
fair?
15
A.
Yes.
Is that
And I believe those applications would
16
have been adjusted over time.
17
trying to establish some standard reference that we can
18
use to have an objective, you know, assessment across
19
different devices.
20
Q.
18:04:38
But yes, I mean, we're
So the idea is if it can launch the browser
21
as fast as we need to launch the browser, it will
22
18:04:52
probably run Angry Birds okay?
23
A.
I wish that was a valid assertion.
But, you
24
know, I mean, at some point you have to be realistic;
25
right?
And we're not going to be able to test these two
18:05:08
Page 128
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?