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)

Download PDF
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

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?