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)

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., 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?