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