Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Filing
1088
FURTHER ITEM FOR TWENTY-PAGE BRIEFS DUE MAY 10 [re #1062 Order, #1057 Order]. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 5/7/2012. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2012)
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
14
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
FURTHER ITEM FOR TWENTY-PAGE
BRIEFS DUE MAY 10
Defendant.
/
15
16
No. C 10-03561 WHA
16.
Assuming that a copyright protection does not extend to names,
17
including fully qualified names, and assuming that copyright protection does not
18
bar others from using identical input-output (argument-return) designations, such
19
that Google was free to use the identical names and identical input-output
20
designations, what more did Google allegedly copy from the 37 packages that is
21
allegedly covered by copyright? Put differently, assuming Google was free to do
22
the foregoing, to what extent was Android’s SSO dictated by the rules of the basic
23
programming language?
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 7, 2012.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?