Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 1809

AGENDA FOR THURSDAY HEARING (May 5, 2016 at 9:30 AM). Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/5/2016 09:30 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 5/4/2016. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2016)

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.,

17
18
19

AGENDA FOR THURSDAY HEARING

Defendant.
/

15
16

No. C 10-03561 WHA

Tomorrow (Thursday), at 9:30 a.m., we will have a hearing to address the questions
below regarding GPLv2+CE and related issues:
1.

Precisely when and how was the Classpath Exception first

extended by Sun to the 37 APIs in question.

20

2.

When and how did GNU do so?

21

3.

What in the GPLv2+CE would have barred/allowed any company

22

from developing and distributing a product generally like Android in the

23

commercial way that Google did for Android?

24

4.

What exactly is “linking”? What is the difference between

25

“linking” and “incorporating code”? What is an “executable”? What is

26

“copyleft”? What is “viral”? What difference under GPLv2+CE did it make if

27

the secondary product was a “derivative”?

28

1
2
3

5.

Did the TCK apply to OpenJDK under the GPLv2+CE? Or to

GNU Classpath under GPLv2+CE?
6.

Point out the precise paragraphs (three at most) in the GPLv2+CE

4

that make your point. Point out the precise language in FAQs and Sun or Google

5

statements that make your point (three at most).

6

7.

What was the advantage of the Apache license over GPLv2+CE?

7

8.

How far along on the development timeline was Google when the

8
9

37 APIs became available under GPLv2+CE?
9.

What is the best usable proof that any company other than Google

actually released a product in reliance on GPLv2+CE and OpenJDK (or GNU

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Classpath)? Google counsel keep saying in court that IBM “did it” but the “it”

12

has never been spelled out. What is the actual and specific proof?

13

10.

Google wishes to present evidence that it thought the items in

14

question were not copyrightable. How can we get into that without explaining the

15

appellate holding that came later?

16
17

*

*

*

Time will be short. No other issues will be on the agenda. Counsel will please be

18

forthright, complete, know the answers, and not slide over to your memorized talking points.

19

Please, the Court needs help — illumination, not heat. Please bring highlighted copies of

20

relevant license agreements (GPLv2+CE) and FAQs and documents then extant. Yes, the judge

21

knows that Google actually rejected OpenJDK for Android but right now the Court needs to

22

learn whether OpenJDK would have been a viable alternative.

23

Please do not bring up other pending motions or items. The Court has worked hard to

24

issue memorandum rulings on a multitude of in limine motions and is still working on others, but

25

some simply will not be finished before the opening statements, as all were warned weeks ago,

26
27
28
2

1

and counsel will be ordered not to refer to certain items still “hanging fire.” It would have

2

helped immensely had counsel stipulated to certain needlessly contentious points, like those

3

referred to Judge Kim for mediation.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: May 4, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3