Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Filing
1934
REQUEST FOR RESPONSE RE TECHNICALLY NECESSARY COPYING. Signed by Judge Alsup on 5/20/16. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2016)
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.,
REQUEST FOR RESPONSE
RE TECHNICALLY NECESSARY
COPYING
Defendant.
/
15
16
No. C 10-03561 WHA
In connection with the pending Rule 50 motion by Oracle, the Court asks both sides to
17
explain how, if at all, Java programmers knew which classes and methods in the Java library
18
were technically required to write in the language and which were not. Is this explained in the
19
book? In the code comments? Or would a programmer have to deconstruct the Java language
20
itself to find the invocations of classes and methods in the library? Please stick to the trial
21
record. If the essential ones were not readily identifiable and the essential ones were mixed in
22
with the nonessential ones, should all be treated as fair use? Google should answer in its
23
opposition due Saturday and Oracle may file a reply brief on TUESDAY BY NOON.
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: May 20, 2016.
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?