Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 1748

ORDER IN LIMINE RE ORACLE'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF APACHE HARMONY AND GNU CLASSPATH by Judge William Alsup [denying #1552 Motion in Limine]. The Court reserves its ruling on evidence regarding GNU Classpath for the reasons stated in this order. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2016)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
No. C 10-03561 WHA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER IN LIMINE RE ORACLE’S
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO
EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF APACHE
HARMONY AND GNU CLASSPATH

GOOGLE INC.,

13

Defendant.
/

14
15

INTRODUCTION

16

Plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude all evidence of Apache Software Foundation,

17

Apache Harmony, Google’s distribution of Android under the “Apache License,” and GNU

18

Classpath is DENIED as to evidence regarding Apache. The Court, however, reserves its ruling

19

on evidence regarding GNU Classpath until it has received and reviewed a written offer of

20

proof on GNU Classpath and Oracle’s written response as requested by this order.

21
22

STATEMENT
At all material times, the Apache Software Foundation was a non-profit organization

23

that focused on “open, collaborative software development projects” (TX 1047 at 1). It called

24

one of its projects, “Apache Harmony,” an open-source, independent implementation of Java

25

SE (Standard Edition) (id. at 1, 3; Trial Tr. at 522). Harmony contained, among other things,

26

class libraries for the 37 APIs at issue in this case (Trial Tr. at 396–97). Starting about 2005,

27

Apache made the source code for Harmony publicly available to download from its website (id.

28

at 561).

1

At some point after 2005, Google downloaded the code at issue herein from Harmony

2

for use in the Android platform (id. at 1684, 1688). Google chose Harmony because of

3

Apache’s open-source license, which permitted developers to modify the software code,

4

without having to submit the modifications back to Apache (id. at 1506–07, 1697).

5

Sun (now Oracle) offered different types of licenses for the Java programming platform.

6

One such license was a specification license, which permitted developers like Apache to view

7

the specifications (not the source code) for Java so that they could build their own version of

8

Java (id. at 293–94). Sun also required developers like Apache to get a license for a test

9

compatibility kit or “TCK,” which they were required to pass to ensure that their versions of
Java were compatible with the standard edition of Java (id. at 294, 376–77).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Starting in 2006, Apache attempted to obtain a license from Sun for a TCK or JCK

12

(“Java compatibility kit”) for Harmony to “demonstrate its compatibility with the Java SE

13

specification, as required by Sun’s specification license” (TX 917 at 1).1

14

Sun offered Apache a license for a TCK/JCK, but with a “field-of-use restriction”

15

(ibid.). A field-of-use restriction “is a restriction that limits how a user can use a given piece of

16

software, either directly or indirectly” (TX 1047 at 4). Sun’s field-of-use restriction required

17

Apache to limit the use of Harmony to desktop computers or servers — i.e., not mobile devices

18

(Trial Tr. at 524–25).

19

Apache disagreed with Sun’s field-of-use restriction (TX 1047 at 5). On April 11, 2007,

20

Apache sent Sun an open letter, requesting a TCK/JCK license unencumbered by a field-of-use

21

restriction (id. at 2). Apache explained that Sun’s field-of-use restriction contradicted the

22

“basic principles of open source licensing” and prevented distribution under “any open source

23

license,” including Apache’s own license (ibid.).

24
25
26
27
28

1

The parties dispute whether Harmony could have been distributed in absence of a TCK license.
Oracle argues that Apache could not have distributed Harmony, irrespective of whether or not it wanted to call
itself Java-compatible, unless it obtained a TCK license and passed the TCK (Pl.’s Br. at 1–2; Pl.’s Reply at 3).
Google contends that Apache could have distributed Harmony because Harmony was based on Apache’s own
source code; it simply could not have called itself Java-compatible without a TCK license and passing the TCK
(Def.’s Opp. at 1–3). This dispute cannot be resolved in limine. Possibly, it will be subject to a Rule 50 motion
after the evidence at trial.

2

1

The dispute between Apache and Sun became known to other members of the

2

open-source community. On June 22, 2007, various members of the open-source community

3

including Google and Oracle (before it acquired Sun) sent a letter to Sun, requesting that Sun

4

release a TCK/JCK license to Apache without a field-of-use restriction (TX 2347 at 1).

5

Sun never agreed to Apache’s request for a TCK/JCK license with no field-of-use

6

restriction (Trial Tr. at 527). Harmony was eventually shut-down (after Google adopted its

7

code for Android) (id. at 530).

8

ANALYSIS

9

Oracle seeks to exclude all evidence regarding Apache and GNU Classpath on the
grounds that the evidence is not relevant to Google’s fair use defense or any equitable defense

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

and that the presentation of the evidence will result in juror confusion and would be unduly

12

time-consuming.

13

1.

14

Given that Oracle is accusing Google of willful copyright infringement, Google is

THE APACHE STORY IS RELEVANT TO WILLFULLNESS AND FAIR USE.

15

entitled to present to the jury the story of how it acquired the software code in question,

16

including its downloading of the 37 APIs in question from Apache’s website. At a minimum,

17

therefore, the Apache story is relevant to Google’s defense against Oracle’s charge of

18

willfulness.

19

At least to some extent, the Apache story is also relevant to the defense of fair use.

20

In Wall Data, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, 447 F.3d 769, 773–74

21

(9th Cir. 2006), a Sheriff’s department purchased a certain number of licenses for defendant’s

22

copyrighted software but installed the software on more computers than had been licensed.

23

In determining whether the use was fair, our court of appeals stated: “As we balance these

24

factors, we bear in mind that fair use is appropriate where a ‘reasonable copyright owner’ would

25

have consented to the use, i.e., where the ‘custom or public policy’ at the time would have

26

defined the use as reasonable.” Id. at 778 (quoting Subcomm. on Patents, Trademarks &

27

Copyrights of the Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., Study No. 14, Fair Use of

28
3

1

Copyrighted Works 15 (Latman) (Comm. Print 1960)). The court concluded that the use was

2

not fair after balancing the four statutory factors. 447 F.3d at 777–82.

3

Oracle is correct that our court of appeals in Wall Data did not specifically rely upon

4

evidence of custom in its analysis of the specifics of that case and that the statement quoted

5

above is a dictum. Nevertheless, our court of appeals made the statement regarding the

6

relevance of custom and Oracle is wrong to ask this Court to ignore the statement. Indeed, the

7

legislative history on fair use summarized the various tests for fair use as follows:

8

[I]mportance of the material copied or performed from the point of
view of the reasonable copyright owner. In other words, would the
reasonable copyright owner have consented to the use? At times,
custom or public policy defines what is reasonable.

9
10

Oracle does not dispute the importance of the 1960 legislative history in interpreting the
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Latman, Study No. 14, Fair Use of Copyrighted Works, at 15 (1958).
11
12
1976 Act. During the April 19, 2016 hearing, Oracle’s counsel argued that the 1960 legislative
13
history was part of the legislative history of the Act. See Dkt. 1722 at 136 (Ms. Hurst: “It took
14
more than 20 years to develop the legislative history for the 1976 Copyright Act.”).
15
Furthermore, as the Ninth Circuit stated in Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.,
16
977 F.2d 1510, 1522 (9th Cir. 1993), the “statutory factors are not exclusive. Rather, the
17
doctrine of fair use is in essence ‘an equitable rule of reason.’” (quoting Harper & Row
18
Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 560 (1985)). As Oracle itself states in its
19
critique of this court’s proposed instructions on fair use, “since the doctrine is an equitable rule
20
of reason, no generally applicable definition is possible, and each case raising the question must
21

be decided on its own facts .” Dkt. 1663 at 1 (emphasis in original).2

22
On a different point, as Oracle itself insists, in Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 471 U.S.
23
at 562, the Supreme Court observed that “[a]lso relevant to the ‘character’ of the use is ‘the
24
propriety of the defendant’s conduct’” and that “‘[f]air use presupposes ‘good faith’ and ‘fair
25
dealing.’” Oracle cannot accuse Google of bad faith without letting Google show good faith.
26
27
28

2

Moreover, this Court has searched for, and, has not found, any decision in this Circuit concluding
that evidence regarding a custom cannot be considered in determining whether a use is fair.

4

1

Google proffers that at the time in question, it was an accepted practice that the header

2

lines in the APIs could be copied freely without a license so long as the copier used its own

3

implementing code and, in the case of Java, did not call itself Java. If this proves true, this

4

would certainly mitigate Oracle’s charge of bad faith and willful acquisition and use and

5

explain why Google might have believed that it needed no license whatsoever from Sun to use

6

the Apache Harmony APIs.

7

So, at least to some extent, the Apache story bears upon whether or not there was a

(from Google’s point of view) that Google knew of Sun’s field-of-use restriction, so it is not

10

entirely clear how the Apache story will establish custom and practice within the meaning of

11
For the Northern District of California

custom and practice in favor of the kind of use made by Google. One caveat: it is problematic

9

United States District Court

8

Wall Data. Accordingly, the Court will listen carefully to the evidence as it is presented and at

12

some point may restrict further evidence regarding custom under Rule 403, but the Court is not

13

yet prepared to say that balance favors exclusion altogether.

14

2.

THE BALANCE UNDER RULE 403 DOES NOT WEIGH
IN FAVOR OF TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE APACHE STORY.

15
Oracle’s concern over juror confusion, as evident by juror notes in the prior trial, is
16
well-taken. To reduce juror confusion from the outset, the Court will instruct the jury, during
17
the presentation of the evidence, that Google could acquire no greater Java license rights by
18
using Harmony than Apache had in the first place.
19
3.

GNU CLASSPATH.

20
Google did not acquire anything from GNU Classpath, so the GNU Classpath story has
21
less probative value. Before a decision on GNU Classpath will be made, Google must submit a
22
written and specific offer of proof addressing these points:
23
1.

Did anyone at Google, in making the decision to rely on

24
Harmony, actually refer to any custom or practice? If so, give the particulars
25
(witnesses and documents).
26
2.

Did anyone at Google, in making the decision to rely on

27
Harmony, actually refer to GNU Classpath? If so, give the particulars (witnesses
28
and documents).
5

1

3.

Google must lay out its offer or proof (by witnesses and

2

documents) with specific testimony and quotes showing how GNU Classpath

3

established a custom that it was permissible to copy Java declaring code for the

4

APIs so long as the new work had new implementing (source) code and did not

5

call itself Java.

6

4.

7

it will be proven.

8

5.

9

Did Sun know of this custom or practice? Give specifics and how

Any other evidence on GNU Classpath that Google will present.

This offer of proof is due in TWO CALENDAR DAYS and Oracle’s response in TWO
CALENDAR DAYS

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

thereafter. Meanwhile, until a ruling, no reference to GNU Classpath will be

made in the presence of the jury. No page limits are imposed but please be reasonable.

12
13
14

CONCLUSION
Oracle’s motion is DENIED as to evidence regarding Apache. The Court reserves its
ruling on evidence regarding GNU Classpath for the reasons stated in this order.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated: April 28, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6