Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 505

EXHIBITS re #503 Declaration in Support, (Exhibits L through R) filed by Oracle America, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit M, #2 Exhibit N, #3 Exhibit O, #4 Exhibit P, #5 Exhibit Q, #6 Exhibit R)(Related document(s) #503 ) (Muino, Daniel) (Filed on 10/7/2011) Modified on 10/11/2011 (wsn, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
ROBERT A. VAN NEST - #84065
[e-mail]
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON - #184325
[e-mail]
710 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1704
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
415.397.7188

KING & SPALDING LLP
DONALD F. ZIMMER, JR. - #112279
[e-mail]
CHERYL A. SABNIS - #224323
[e-mail]
101 Second St., Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

KING & SPALDING LLP
SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER (Pro Hac
Vice)
[e-mail]
ROBERT F. PERRY
[e-mail]
BRUCE W. BABER (Pro Hac Vice)
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

IAN C. BALLON - #141819
[e-mail]
HEATHER MEEKER - #172148
[e-mail]
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1900 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

16
17

Case No. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,

18
19

v.

20

DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
TO PLAINTIFF ORACLE AMERICA,
INC. (NOS. 1 – 429)

GOOGLE INC.,
Judge:

21

Hon. William H. Alsup

Defendant.
Date Comp. Filed:

October 27, 2010

Trial Date:

October 31, 2011

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

562803.01

GOOGLE’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO ORACLE
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA

EXHIBIT O

1

Admit that Oracle Corporation currently does not have a license to any copyrights

2

covering the structures of Microsoft Excel’s Spreadsheet Functions.

3

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 336:

4

Admit that Sun was a member of the American Committee for Interoperable Systems.

5 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 337:
6

Admit that Sun was a founding member of the American Committee for Interoperable

7 Systems.
8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 338:
9

Admit that Sun was the initial founder of the American Committee for Interoperable

10 Systems.
11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 339:
12

Admit that Sun contributed financially to the American Committee for Interoperable

13 Systems.
14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 340:
15

Admit that the American Committee for Interoperable Systems was located in facilities

16 owned by Sun.
17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 341:
18

Admit that the American Committee for Interoperable Systems was headquartered at

19 Sun’s offices at 901 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto, CA.
20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 342:
21

Admit that the American Committee for Interoperable Systems was headquartered at

22 Sun’s offices at 2550 Garcia Avenue, Mountain View, CA.
23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 343:
24

Admit that Peter Choy was employed by Sun in the role of Deputy General Counsel.

25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 344:
26

Admit that while he was employed by Sun, Peter Choy served as chairman of the

27 American Committee for Interoperable Systems.
28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 345:
46
DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO PLAINTIFF ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 10-03561-WHA

EXHIBIT O

1

Admit that while he was employed by Sun, Peter Choy served as chairman of the

2

American Committee for Interoperable Systems with the approval of Sun.

3

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 346:

4

Admit that Howard Freedland was employed by Sun in the role of Associate General

5

Counsel.

6

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 347:

7

Admit that while he was employed by Sun, Howard Freedland served as counsel for the

8

American Committee for Interoperable Systems.

9

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 348:

10

Admit that while he was employed by Sun, Howard Freedland served as counsel for the

11

American Committee for Interoperable Systems with the approval of Sun.

12

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 349:

13

Admit that the American Committee for Interoperable Systems “Statement of Principles”

14

stated that “members . . . support the following principles” and that among the principles are

15

“[t]he rules or specifications according to which data must be organized in order to communicate

16

with another program or computer, i.e., interfaces and access protocols, are not protectable

17

expression under copyright law.” (See

18

http://web.archive.org/web/20020602155255/http://www.interop.org/Princ-Stat.html.)

19

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 350:

20

Admit that, as an American Committee for Interoperable Systems member, Sun

21

supported the following principle: “The rules or specifications according to which data must be

22

organized in order to communicate with another program or computer, i.e., interfaces and access

23

protocols, are not protectable expression under copyright law.”

24

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 351:

25

Admit that the American Committee for Interoperable Systems “Statement of Principles”

26

stated that “members . . . support the following principles” and that among the principles are

27

“intellectual property law is not intended to protect investment as such. In order to qualify for

28

protection, a computer program or computer-related invention must meet the requirements of one
47
DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO PLAINTIFF ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 10-03561-WHA

EXHIBIT O

1

or more of the various forms of protection, failing which, no amount of money spent in its

2

development should make it protectable.”

3

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 352:

4

Admit that, as an American Committee for Interoperable Systems member, Sun

5

supported the following principle: “[I]ntellectual property law is not intended to protect

6

investment as such. In order to qualify for protection, a computer program or computer-related

7

invention must meet the requirements of one or more of the various forms of protection, failing

8

which, no amount of money spent in its development should make it protectable.”

9

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 353:

10

Admit that the American Committee for Interoperable Systems “Statement of Principles”

11

stated that “members . . . support the following principles” and that among the principles are

12

“nothing in copyright law should prevent or discourage the development of interoperable

13

(competing or attaching) products or systems. On the contrary, copyright law should promote

14

innovation and competition in furtherance of consumer welfare.”

15

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 354:

16

Admit that, as an American Committee for Interoperable Systems member, Sun

17

supported the following principle: “[N]othing in copyright law should prevent or discourage the

18

development of interoperable (competing or attaching) products or systems. On the contrary,

19

copyright law should promote innovation and competition in furtherance of consumer welfare.”

20

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 355:

21

Admit that during the period in which he was employed by Sun, Peter Choy authored, co-

22

authored, edited, or was counsel of record for Brief Amici Curiae of American Committee for

23

Interoperable Systems and Computer & Communications Industry Association in Support of

24

Appellant Connectix Corporation, Sony Computer Entm’t v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th

25

Cir. 2000) (No. 99-15852), 1999 WL 33623859.

26

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 356:

27
28

Admit that with Sun’s approval, Peter Choy authored, co-authored, edited, or was counsel
of record for Brief Amici Curiae of American Committee for Interoperable Systems and
48
DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO PLAINTIFF ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 10-03561-WHA

EXHIBIT O

1

Computer & Communications Industry Association in Support of Appellant Connectix

2

Corporation, Sony Computer Entm’t v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) (No. 99-

3

15852), 1999 WL 33623859.

4

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 357:

5

Admit that the address given by Peter Choy in the filing of Brief Amici Curiae of

6

American Committee for Interoperable Systems and Computer & Communications Industry

7

Association in Support of Appellant Connectix Corporation, Sony Computer Entm’t v. Connectix

8

Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) (No. 99-15852), 1999 WL 33623859 (901 San Antonio

9

Road, Palo Alto, CA) was also the address of a Sun office at the time of the filing of the brief.

10
11

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 358:
Admit that Brief Amici Curiae of American Committee for Interoperable Systems and

12

Computer & Communications Industry Association in Support of Appellant Connectix

13

Corporation, Sony Computer Entm’t v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) (No. 99-

14

15852), 1999 WL 33623859 states that the holding of Sega Enters., Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977

15

F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) was that the Sega Court “permitted an ‘intrusive’ act of copying - the

16

translating of a program to decipher the interface information contained within it - to prevent

17

copyright from extending de facto protection to the unprotectable interface information.”

18

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 359:

19

Admit that Brief Amici Curiae of American Committee for Interoperable Systems and

20

Computer & Communications Industry Association in Support of Appellant Connectix

21

Corporation, Sony Computer Entm’t v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) (No. 99-

22

15852), 1999 WL 33623859 states that the Connectix product was “precisely the sort of

23

competitive yet innovative product whose production this Court sought to preserve in its Sega

24

decision.”

25

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 360:

26
27

Admit that with Sun’s approval, Peter Choy authored, co-authored, edited, or was counsel
of record for Brief Amici Curiae of American Committee For Interoperable Systems and

28
49
DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO PLAINTIFF ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 10-03561-WHA

EXHIBIT O

1

Computer & Communications Industry Association in Support of Respondent, Lotus Dev. Corp.

2

v. Borland Int’l, Inc., 515 US 1191 (1995) (No. 94-2003), 1995 WL 728487.

3

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 361:

4

Admit that during the period in which he was employed by Sun, Peter Choy authored, co-

5 authored, edited, or was counsel of record for Brief Amici Curiae of American Committee For
6 Interoperable Systems and Computer & Communications Industry Association in Support of
7 Respondent, Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, Inc., 515 US 1191 (1995) (No. 94-2003), 1995
8 WL 728487.
9 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 362:
10

Admit that the address given by Peter Choy in the filing of Brief Amici Curiae of

11 American Committee For Interoperable Systems and Computer & Communications Industry
12 Association in Support of Respondent, Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, Inc., 515 US 1191
13 (1995) (No. 94-2003), 1995 WL 728487 (2550 Garcia Avenue, Mountain View, CA) was also
14 the address of a Sun office at the time of the filing of the brief.
15 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 363:
16

Admit that Brief Amici Curiae of American Committee For Interoperable Systems and

17 Computer & Communications Industry Association in Support of Respondent, Lotus Dev. Corp.
18 v. Borland Int’l, Inc., 515 US 1191 (1995) (No. 94-2003), 1995 WL 728487 states that “[t]his
19 case is about whether competitors can introduce compatible products that emulate, as they must,
20 interface specifications, the rules that form the ‘external design’ of a program. This case is an
21 attempt by a few companies who are the ‘first comers’ to particular markets to use copyright law
22 to preclude competitors from using the same external design, even though it is implemented in
23 wholly original program code.”
24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 364:
25

Admit that Brief Amici Curiae of American Committee For Interoperable Systems and

26 Computer & Communications Industry Association in Support of Respondent, Lotus Dev. Corp.
27 v. Borland Int’l, Inc., 515 US 1191 (1995) (No. 94-2003), 1995 WL 728487 states that
28
50
DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO PLAINTIFF ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 10-03561-WHA

EXHIBIT O

1

“[c]opyright protection for interface specifications would lead to monopolies within each product

2

market in the industry.”

3

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 365:

4

Admit that Brief Amici Curiae of American Committee For Interoperable Systems and

5 Computer & Communications Industry Association in Support of Respondent, Lotus Dev. Corp.
6 v. Borland Int’l, Inc., 515 US 1191 (1995) (No. 94-2003), 1995 WL 728487 states that
7 “compatibility unquestionably is a functional characteristic unprotected by copyright.”
8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 366:
9

Admit that Brief Amici Curiae of American Committee For Interoperable Systems and

10 Computer & Communications Industry Association in Support of Respondent, Lotus Dev. Corp.
11 v. Borland Int’l, Inc., 515 US 1191 (1995) (No. 94-2003), 1995 WL 728487 states that “[i]t
12 should be stressed that compatible products are not mere ‘clones’ that offer only the same
13 functionality as the products of the first comer, but at a lower price. While compatible products
14 must offer at least the same functionality, they typically offer additional functionalities not found
15 in the first comer’s products.”
16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 367:
17

Admit that Brief Amici Curiae of American Committee For Interoperable Systems and

18 Computer & Communications Industry Association in Support of Respondent, Lotus Dev. Corp.
19 v. Borland Int’l, Inc., 515 US 1191 (1995) (No. 94-2003), 1995 WL 728487 states that
20 “compatible developers’ use of preexisting interface specifications is a transformative use of the
21 sort accredited by [the Suprement] Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 114 S. Ct. 1164
22 (1994).”
23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 368:
24

Admit that during the period in which he was employed by Sun, Peter Choy authored, co-

25 authored, edited, or was counsel of record for Brief Amicus Curiae of American Committee for
26 Interoperable Systems, Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1996) (No. 9327 3234), 1994 WL 16129974.
28 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 369:
51
DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO PLAINTIFF ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 10-03561-WHA

EXHIBIT O

1

Admit that with Sun’s approval, Peter Choy authored, co-authored, edited, or was counsel

2

of record for Brief Amicus Curiae of American Committee for Interoperable Systems, Bateman v.

3

Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1996) (No. 93-3234), 1994 WL 16129974.

4

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 370:

5

Admit that the address given by Peter Choy in the filing of Brief Amicus Curiae of

6

American Committee for Interoperable Systems, Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532

7

(11th Cir. 1996) (No. 93-3234), 1994 WL 16129974 (2550 Garcia Avenue, Mountain View, CA)

8

was also the address of a Sun office at the time of the filing of the brief.

9

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 371:

10

Admit that Brief Amicus Curiae of American Committee for Interoperable Systems,

11

Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1996) (No. 93-3234), 1994 WL 16129974

12

states that “the set of rules or commands permitting communication between two programs --

13

here, the interface library -- is clearly a ‘system’ or ‘method of operation’ unprotectable under 17

14

U.S.C. § 102(b).”

15

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 372:

16

Admit that during the period in which he was employed by Sun, Peter Choy authored, co-

17

authored, edited, or was counsel of record for Brief Amicus Curiae of American Committee for

18

Interoperable Systems, Computer Associates Intern., Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir.

19

1992) (No. 91-7893), 1991 WL 11010231.

20

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 373:

21

Admit that with Sun’s approval, Peter Choy authored, co-authored, edited, or was counsel

22

of record for Brief Amicus Curiae of American Committee for Interoperable Systems, Computer

23

Associates Intern., Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992) (No. 91-7893), 1991 WL

24

11010231.

25

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 374:

26

Admit that the address given by Peter Choy in the filing of Brief Amicus Curiae of

27

American Committee for Interoperable Systems, Computer Associates Intern., Inc. v. Altai, Inc.,

28
52
DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO PLAINTIFF ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 10-03561-WHA

EXHIBIT O

1

982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992) (No. 91-7893), 1991 WL 11010231 (2550 Garcia Avenue,

2

Mountain View, CA) was also the address of a Sun office at the time of the filing of the brief.

3

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 375:

4

Admit that Brief Amicus Curiae of American Committee for Interoperable Systems,

5

Computer Associates Intern., Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992) (No. 91-7893), 1991

6

WL 11010231 states that “[i]f the developer of the first computer program to conform to []

7

interface specifications, and thus the first computer program to contain [] non-literal elements,

8

could use copyright law to prevent all subsequent developers from writing programs with similar

9

non-literal elements, the first developer could prevent all subsequent developers from filling the

10

same niche in the computer system. Such a broad monopoly would have serious consumer

11

welfare implications. In the absence of competition, the first developer would have little

12

incentive to develop more innovative and less costly products.”

13

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 376:

14

Admit that Brief Amicus Curiae of American Committee for Interoperable Systems,

15

Computer Associates Intern., Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992) (No. 91-7893), 1991

16

WL 11010231 states that “the forms for calls for services . . . lie in the public domain, because

17

they are intended to be known in the industry and to be used by programmers.”

18

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 377:

19

Admit that during the period in which he was employed by Sun, Howard Freedland

20

authored, co-authored, edited, or was counsel of record for Brief Amici Curiae of American

21

Committee for Interoperable Systems and Computer & Communications Industry Association in

22

Support of Appellant Andrew Brunner, DVD Copy Control Ass’n Inc. v. Bunner, 10 Cal. Rptr. 3d

23

185 (Cal. Ct. App. 6th Dist. 2000) (No. H021153), 2000 WL 35459934.

24

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 378:

25

Admit that with Sun’s approval, Howard Freedland authored, co-authored, edited, or was

26

counsel of record for Brief Amici Curiae of American Committee for Interoperable Systems and

27

Computer & Communications Industry Association in Support of Appellant Andrew Brunner,

28
53
DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO PLAINTIFF ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 10-03561-WHA

EXHIBIT O

1

DVD Copy Control Ass’n Inc. v. Bunner, 10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 6th Dist. 2000)

2

(No. H021153), 2000 WL 35459934.

3

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 379:

4

Admit that the address given by Howard Freedland in the filing of Brief Amici Curiae of

5 American Committee for Interoperable Systems and Computer & Communications Industry
6 Association in Support of Appellant Andrew Brunner, DVD Copy Control Ass’n Inc. v. Bunner,
7 10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 6th Dist. 2000) (No. H021153), 2000 WL 35459934 (901
8 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto, CA) was also the address of a Sun office at the time of the filing of
9 the brief.
10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 380:
11

Admit that Sun CTO Eric Schmidt, in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s

12 Antitrust, Technology, and Law Subcommittee in September 1994, stated that “Sun’s view is
13 simply stated: To attract the substantial private investment required, to encourage free-market
14 competition, and to enable universal access by the greatest number of information consumers and
15 providers in the shortest time frame, interoperability will be achieved by making the critical
16 interface specifications barrier-free.”
17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 381:
18

Admit that Sun CTO Eric Schmidt, in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s

19 Antitrust, Technology, and Law Subcommittee in September 1994, stated that:
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

When we discuss interfaces, it is important to carefully note the distinction
between an interface specification, and an actual product which has interfaces that
conform to the specification. Interface specifications are merely the words that
describe the interface which allows two components to work together [or
interoperate]. They are not blueprints, nor recipes for actual products. Let me
repeat that: interface specifications are not blueprints, nor recipes for making
knock-offs or clones. Sun and many other firms in highly competitive industries
believe in protection of products but also believe that no one individual or
company should own the rights to interface specifications for a public network,
such as the [National Information Infrastructure]. (Or for other public
infrastructure networks. Can you imagine charging auto makers a fee to let them
know the load-bearing capacity of the cement in the interstate? Or charging ship
builders a fee to know the width of the locks on the Panama Canal? Or charging
electric appliance makers a fee to know the voltage of electric currents flowing
across the national power grid? Or locomotive makers a fee to design railroad cars
54
DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO PLAINTIFF ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 10-03561-WHA

EXHIBIT O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

for a certain gauge track?) With respect to intellectual property rights, Sun
strongly believes in -- and will defend -- the rights of intellectual property owners
to maximize their returns on product implementations. At the same time, we
believe that interface specifications are not protectable under copyright. The
leading federal appellate court case, Computer Associates v. Altai and the cases
which follow it, all reinforce the separation of the interface from the
implementation. The interface, as an element necessary for interoperability, falls
into the category of ideas which the copyright law seeks to disseminate to
promote the public good. This in no way curtails the protectability of the code
itself. Other forms of intellectual property law -- notably patent -- may grant
varying degrees of intellectual property protection to interfaces.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 382:
Admit that portions of Oracle Corporation’s implementation of the java.text API package
are copyrighted by IBM and/or Taligent.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 383:
Admit that portions of the API of the java.text API package are copyrighted by IBM
and/or Taligent.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 384:
Admit that Oracle Corporation’s license to IBM’s copyright in the portions of Oracle
Corporation’s implementation of the java.text API package copyrighted by IBM and/or Taligent
is a non-exclusive license.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 385:
Admit that Oracle Corporation’s license to IBM’s copyright in the portions of the API of
java.text copyrighted by IBM and/or Taligent is a non-exclusive license.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 386:
Admit that the portions of the API of java.text copyrighted by IBM and/or Taligent were
licensed to Sun under the terms of the Technology License and Distribution Agreement between
IBM and Sun, dated Oct. 25, 1996, or under the terms of any amendments to that Agreement.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 387:
Admit that the portions of the API of java.text copyrighted by IBM and/or Taligent were
licensed to Sun under the terms of the Java Specification Participation Agreement between IBM
and Sun, dated Oct. 25, 1996, or under the terms of any amendments to that Agreement.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 388:
55
DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO PLAINTIFF ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 10-03561-WHA

EXHIBIT O