Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 506

DECLARATION of Reid Mullen in Opposition to #498 First MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence or Argument Regarding Patent Reexaminations (MIL No. 1)First MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence or Argument Regarding Patent Reexaminations (MIL No. 1), #500 Third MOTION in Limine to Preclude Google from Offering Evidence or Argument That Third-Party OEMs Changed Infringing Components of Android (MIL No. 3)Third MOTION in Limine to Preclude Google from Offering Evidence or Argument That Third-Party OEMs Changed Infringing Components of Android (MIL No. 3), #501 Fourth MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence or Argument Regarding Oracle's Past Actions With Application Programming Interfaces (MIL No. 4)Fourth MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence or Argument Regarding Oracle's Past Actions With Application Programming Interfaces (MIL No. 4), #502 Fifth MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Argument Contrary to Statements in Tim Lindholm's August 6, 2010 Email (MIL No. 5)Fifth MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Argument Contrary to Statements in Tim Lindholm's August 6, 2010 Email (MIL No. 5), #499 Second MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence or Argument That Google Relied on Legal Advice in Making Its Decisions to Develop and Release Android (MIL No. 2)Second MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence or Argument That Google Relied on Legal Advice in Making Its Decisions to Develop and Release Android (MIL No. 2) (Mullen Declaration in Support of Google's Oppositions to Oracle's MILs 1-5) filed byOracle America, Inc.. (Related document(s) #498 , #500 , #501 , #502 , #499 ) (Muino, Daniel) (Filed on 10/7/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
ROBERT A. VAN NEST - #84065
[e-mail]
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON - #184325
[e-mail]
DANIEL PURCELL - #191424
[e-mail]
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone:
415.391.5400
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]

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

18
19

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

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,

20
21

v.

22

DECLARATION OF REID MULLEN IN
SUPPORT OF GOOGLE INC.’S
OPPOSITIONS TO ORACLE AMERICA,
INC.’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

GOOGLE INC.,
Judge:

23

Hon. William Alsup

Defendant.
Date Comp. Filed:

October 27, 2010

Trial Date:

October 31, 2011

24
25
26
27
28

582820.01

DECLARATION OF REID MULLEN IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE INC.’S OPPOSITIONS TO ORACLE
AMERICA, INC.’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA

1

I, Reid Mullen, declare as follows:

2

1.

I am an associate in the law firm of Keker & Van Nest LLP, counsel to Google

3

Inc. (“Google”) in the present case. I submit this declaration in support of Google Inc.’s

4

Oppositions to Oracle America, Inc.’s (“Oracle”) Motions in Limine. I have knowledge of the

5

facts set forth herein, and if called to testify as a witness thereto could do so competently under

6

oath.

7

2.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 are true and correct copies of the Responses to

8

Interrogatories Nos. 14 and 17, from Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc.’s Objections and Responses

9

to Defendant Google, Inc.’s Fourth Set of Interrogatories, dated July, 14, 2011.

10
11
12

3.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the March 2, 2011 from

Google’s counsel (Scott Weingaertner) to Oracle’s counsel (Marc Peters).
4.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of pages 1, 19-21, 38-39,

13

43-44, 77-78 from the transcript of the July 21, 2011 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Patrick Brady

14

(along with the Errata sheet and signature pages) (highlights added). Google’s confidentiality

15

designation has been removed from the cover page and the pages included in Exhibit 3.

16

5.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the cover page, page 66

17

and page 384 from the August 8, 2011 Opening Expert Report of John C. Mitchell Regarding

18

Patent Infringement Submitted on Behalf of Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. (highlights added). A

19

confidentiality designation has been removed from the cover page because confidential

20

information is not included in the excerpts included in Exhibit 4.

21

6.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the cover page and

22

pages 1-2 of Oracle’s Second Supplemental Patent Local Rule 3-1 Disclosure of Asserted Claims

23

and Infringement Contentions, served on April 1, 2011 (highlights added).

24
25
26
27
28

7.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of a document entitled

ACIS Fact Sheet, available at http://www.interop.org/fact-sheet.html.
8.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of a document produced

by Google Inc. in this litigation at production number GOOGLE-03369758.
9.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of a document entitled
1

582820.01

DECLARATION OF REID MULLEN IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE INC.’S OPPOSITIONS TO ORACLE
AMERICA, INC.’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA

1

Oracle Data Sheet – Interoperability and Oracle Solaris 10, available at

2

http://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/solaris/interoperability-solaris-10-

3

ds067316.pdf.

4
5
6

10.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct of relevant excerpts of the

August 25, 2011 Transcript of Proceedings in front of the Honorable Donna M. Ryu.
11.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of the September 22,

7

2011 Declaration of Tim Lindholm in Support of Google’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude

8

Mr. Lindholm’s August 6, 2010 Email and Drafts Thereof.

9
10
11
12

12.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of relevant excerpts from

the September 7, 2011 deposition transcript of Tim Lindholm.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
declaration was executed at San Francisco, California on October 4, 2011.

13
14

By:

/s Reid Mullen
REID MULLEN

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
582820.01

DECLARATION OF REID MULLEN IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE INC.’S OPPOSITIONS TO ORACLE
AMERICA, INC.’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA

1
2
3
4
5

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664)
[e-mail]
MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725)
[e-mail]
DANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624)
[e-mail]
755 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]

6
7
8
9
10
11

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]
STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)
[e-mail]
1999 Harrison St., Suite 900
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

ORACLE CORPORATION
DORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049)
[e-mail]
DEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527)
[e-mail]
MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600)
[e-mail]
500 Oracle Parkway
Redwood City, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

19
20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

23

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

24

Plaintiff,

PLAINTIFF ORACLE AMERICA,
INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND
RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT
GOOGLE INC.’S FOURTH SET OF
INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 14-17)

Defendant.

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION

25

v.

26

GOOGLE INC.

27

Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA

28
ORACLE’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO GOOGLE’S 4TH SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 14-17)
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
pa-1470046

1

PROPOUNDING PARTY:

Defendant GOOGLE INC.

2

RESPONDING PARTY:

Plaintiff ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

3

SET NO.:

Four (Nos. 14-17)

4

Pursuant to Rule 33 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc.

5

(“Oracle”) hereby responds to Defendant Google Inc.’s (“Google”) Fourth Set of Interrogatories.

6

INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

7

Identify (by setting forth the date, individual participants, form of communication,

8

substance of communication and, if applicable, relevant document production number) all

9

communications between Oracle and Google on which Oracle relies to support any allegation or

10

contention of willful patent or copyright infringement.

11

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

12

Oracle sets forth below the communications between Oracle and Google that are

13

responsive to this interrogatory. This is only a small subset of the evidence and information on

14

which Oracle may rely to support its contention that Google’s infringement of the patents and

15

copyrights in suit is and has been willful. Among other things, Google was well aware that

16

Oracle had purchased Sun and thereby acquired Sun’s well-known portfolio of Java-related

17

patents. Google was also aware that Sun, and hence Oracle, asserted copyright protection over

18

Java application programming interfaces and code. For example, in 2005 and 2006, Google and

19

Sun held extensive negotiations over a possible intellectual property license and collaboration

20

relating to Java and Android. Sun and Google discussed licensing of Sun’s Java platform

21

technologies, including Java copyrighted elements and Java-related patents. In addition, in 2009,

22

Sun and Google discussed licensing of Sun’s Java platform technologies for Android and other

23

Google products. Also, Eric Schmidt held various engineering and management positions at Sun

24

from 1983 to 1997. He was the President of Sun Technology Enterprises from 1991 to 1994, and

25

Sun’s Chief Technology Officer from 1994 to 1997. During his tenure at Sun, Sun engineers

26

made large contributions to the Java platform and filed numerous Java-related patent applications,

27

many of which have since issued. Schmidt subsequently became Google’s Chief Executive

28

Officer and Chairman, bringing his knowledge of the Java platform to Google. Moreover,
ORACLE’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO GOOGLE’S 4TH SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 14-17)
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
pa-1470046

1

1

Google has hired former Sun engineers who were key developers of the Java platform. For

2

example, Google currently employs at least four named inventors and co-inventors of the

3

patents-in-suit: Lars Bak, James Gosling, Robert Griesemer, and Frank Yellin. Google thus had

4

knowledge of the Java platform and Java intellectual property rights and knew that its actions

5

constituted patent and copyright infringement, or acted with reckless disregard for Oracle’s rights.

6

Responsive to this interrogatory, Oracle identifies the following communications between

7

Oracle and Google that it may rely upon to demonstrate Google’s willful infringement:

8

BEGIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

9

•

10
11

In 2010, Larry Ellison of Oracle, and Eric Schmidt and Larry Page of Google

discussed a potential Google-Oracle partnership. (Rubin Tr. 119:5-121:17.)
•

In 2010, Thomas Kurian of Oracle and Andy Rubin of Google met on multiple

12

occasions to discuss Android and the Java platform. (Rubin Tr. 121:9-17; 122:21-133:4; and

13

134:17-135:24.) Also, in 2010, representatives of Oracle met with Andy Rubin to discuss the

14

same. (Rubin Tr. 14:20-15:3; and 138:19-142:5.)

15
16
17

•

On May 27, 2010, TJ Angioletti and George Simion of Oracle had a discussion with

Tim Porter of Google about Oracle’s patents.
•

In June 2010, Safra Catz and Thomas Kurian of Oracle had a discussion with Alan

18

Eustace of Google about Android and the Java platform. The communication leading to the

19

discussion can be found at OAGOOGLE0006901553.

20

•

On July 20, 2010, representatives of Oracle and Google met to discuss Oracle’s

21

Java-related patents, including the patents-in-suit. Oracle explained how Android infringes the

22

patents-in-suit and why Google’s invalidity defenses are meritless. The following representatives

23

attended the discussion: TJ Angioletti, Matthew Sarboraria, and George Simion of Oracle; and

24

Benjamin Lee, Josh McGuire, and Eric Schulman of Google. The presentation used during the

25

July 20, 2010 meeting can be found at GOOGLE-00392259.

26

END CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

27

•

28

On August 12, 2010, Oracle filed a complaint against Google in the present action.

The complaint lists the patents-in-suit and copyrights-in-suit.
ORACLE’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO GOOGLE’S 4TH SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 14-17)
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
pa-1470046

2

1

Discovery is ongoing, and Oracle has not yet completed its investigation of the documents

2

and facts relevant to the claims and defenses asserted in this action. Accordingly, Oracle’s

3

responses are based on the information reasonably available at this time and Oracle will

4

supplement this response as appropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

5

INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

6

Identify, by reference to the relevant portions of the source code and the date on which

7

such portions were first included in the code, the specific functionality within JavaOS 1.0 that

8

Oracle contends practices the Asserted Claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,966,702.

9

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

10

Oracle does not contend that JavaOS 1.0 practiced the Asserted Claims of U.S. Patent

11

No. 5,966,702.

12

INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

13

Identify, by reference to the relevant portions of the source code and the date on which

14

such portions were first included in the code, the specific functionality within JDK 1.2 that Oracle

15

contends practices the Asserted Claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,910,205.

16

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

17

The functionality that practices the Asserted Claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,910,205 is

18

implemented in the TemplateTable::_fast_invokevfinal() method, which is included in

19

templateTable_i486.cpp of the HotSpot virtual machine. The HotSpot virtual machine first

20

became an optional component of JDK 1.2 in version 1.2.1_004 on or about March 18, 1998.

21

Discovery is ongoing, and Oracle has not yet completed its investigation of the documents

22

and facts relevant to the claims and defenses asserted in this action. Accordingly, Oracle’s

23

responses are based on the information reasonably available at this time and Oracle will

24

supplement this response as appropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

25

INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

26

State all facts supporting any allegation or contention by Oracle that any product listed in

27

Oracles Patent Local Rule 3-1(g) Asserted Practice of the Claimed Inventions disclosure was

28

marked in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 287.
ORACLE’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO GOOGLE’S 4TH SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 14-17)
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
pa-1470046

3

1
2

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
Oracle is not aware of any product listed in Oracle’s Patent Local Rule 3-1(g) Asserted

3

Practice of the Claimed Inventions that was marked with the patent number of any of the

4

patents-in-suit. Oracle notes that method claims do not require marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287.

5

Also, section 287 has no application with respect to Oracle’s copyright claim.

6

Discovery is ongoing, and Oracle has not yet completed its investigation of the documents

7

and facts relevant to the claims and defenses asserted in this action. Accordingly, Oracle’s

8

responses are based on the information reasonably available at this time and Oracle will

9

supplement this response as appropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

10
11
12

Dated: July 14, 2011

MICHAEL A. JACOBS
MARC DAVID PETERS
DANIEL P. MUINO
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

13
14
15
16

By: /s/ Daniel P. Muino
Daniel P. Muino
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORACLE’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO GOOGLE’S 4TH SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 14-17)
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
pa-1470046

4

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I declare that I am employed with the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, whose address
is 755 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304-1018. I am not a party to the within cause,
and I am over the age of eighteen years.

3
4

I further declare that on July 14, 2011, I served a copy of:

5

PLAINTIFF ORACLE AMERICA, INC.’S OBJECTIONS
AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S
FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 14-17)

6
7

BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE [Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. rule 5(b)] by electronically
mailing a true and correct copy through Morrison & Foerster LLP's electronic mail
system to the e-mail address(es) set forth below, or as stated on the attached service
list per agreement in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 5(b).

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Robert F. Perry
Scott T. Weingaertner
Bruce W. Baber
Mark H. Francis
Christopher C. Carnaval
KING & SPALDING LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-4003
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Timothy T. Scott
Geoffrey M. Ezgar
Leo Spooner III
KING & SPALDING, LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 400
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Fax:

650.590.1900

[e-mail]
Fax:

212.556.2222

Donald F. Zimmer, Jr.
Cheryl Z. Sabnis
KING & SPALDING LLP
101 Second Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105

Steven Snyder
KING & SPALDING LLP
100 N. Tryon Street, Suite 3900
Charlotte, NC 28202
[e-mail]

24

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

25

Fax: [phone]

Fax:

704.503.2622

26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
pa-1470046

1

1

3

Brian Banner
King & Spalding LLP
401 Congress Avenue
Suite 3200
Austin, TX 78701

4

[e-mail]

5

Fax. [phone]

6

Ian C. Ballon
Heather Meeker
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
1900 University Avenue, 5th Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303

Joseph R. Wetzel
Dana K. Powers
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
153 Townsend Street, 8th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94107

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Fax:

Fax: [phone]

2

Renny F. Hwang
GOOGLE INC.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
[e-mail]
Fax:

7
8
9

650.618.1806

10
650.328.8508

11

13

Valerie W. Ho
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400E
Santa Monica, CA 90404

14

[e-mail]

15

Fax: [phone]

12

16
17
18

Robert A. Van Nest
Christa M. Anderson
Michael S. Kwun
Daniel Purcell
Eugene M. Paige
Matthias A. Kamber
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
710 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1704
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

19
Fax: [phone]
20
21
22

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed at Palo Alto, California, this 14th day of July, 2011.

23
24
25
26

Cynthia D. Fix
(typed)

/s/ Cynthia D. Fix
(signature)

27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
pa-1470046

2

King & Spalding LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036-4003
www.kslaw.com

Scott T. Weingaertner
Direct Dial: [phone]
Direct Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

March 2, 2011
VIA E-MAIL
Marc D. Peters
Morrison & Foerster LLP
755 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018
[e-mail]
Re:

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc., Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Marc:
I write in response to your letter of February 21, regarding certain of Oracle’s Requests
for Production (RFPs). With respect to RFP 1, Google has already produced source code from
http://android.git.kernel.org/ and is in the process of making non-public source code available for
inspection pursuant to the parties’ discussions on a suitable mechanism. Google has not
identified any other code sets for production other than an updated version of the code available
at http://android.git.kernel.org/, which it intends to produce toward the end of fact discovery as
discussed in previous correspondence.
Non-privileged communications responsive to RFP 40 and RFP 52, to the extent they
exist, would have been included in Google’s production of its internal Android-related web
pages and wiki sites, or will be produced in custodial production, which Google expects to
substantially complete in the upcoming weeks. Finally, Google has collected agreements with
third parties and complied with protective order provisions regarding notice and non-disclosure
provisions. Those agreements are currently being processed for production by the end of this
week.
With respect to your letter generally, I take issue with the notion that you need discovery
from Google to supplement your infringement contentions. While I acknowledge that Oracle has
chosen to rely on an assumption as to the operation of all handsets in lieu of performing
diligence related to the handsets themselves, we have been clear that Google’s position is that
this assumption is insufficient for Oracle to carry its burden and that no amount of discovery
from Google is going to provide Oracle with what it is apparently hoping for—some sort of
blanket representation across all devices to bolster that assumption. You previously asked for

Marc D. Peters
March 2, 2011
Page 2
such a representation despite the fact Oracle has been on notice at least since the time of
Google’s Answer that no such representation is even possible. We explicitly declined that
request and further explained Google’s position in papers to the Court regarding the deficiencies
in Oracle’s Infringement Contentions. (See Dkt. 79.)
Our understanding from discussions during the meet and confer was that Oracle would
analyze third party materials and devices, and if, necessary, seek discovery from third parties.
To be clear, Oracle has been on notice for months that Google would not and could not be the
source of the detail that Oracle apparently needs to establish the operation of third party devices.
Oracle has chosen to proceed by relying on an assumption in lieu of analysis or discovery into
third party devices and does so at its own peril.

Regards,

Scott T. Weingaertner
cc:

Michael A. Jacobs (via email)
Google’s outside counsel (via email)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

4
5

------------------------

6

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

7

Plaintiff,

8

vs.

9

GOOGLE, INC.,

10
11

)
)
) No. CV 10-03561 WHA

Defendant.

)
)

------------------------

12
13
14
15

Videotaped Federal Rule 30(b)(6), Topic 7,

16

deposition of PATRICK BRADY, taken at the Law

17

Offices of King & Spalding LLP, 333 Twin Dolphin

18

Drive, Redwood Shores, California, commencing at

19

9:36 a.m., Thursday, July 21, 2011, before

20

Leslie Rockwood, RPR, CSR No. 3462.

21
22
23
24
25

PAGES 1 - 133
Page 1
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

1

code -- the Android source code that your team was

2

providing to HTC, LG and Samsung for loading on their

3

devices, are you aware that that Android source code was

4

installed on those devices?

5

MR. KAMBER:

6

THE WITNESS:

Object to the form.

09:56:52

I can't -- I mean, the source

7

code that we provided to OEMs, I don't know if that

8

specific source code was installed on the systems.

9

of the handset manufacturers made changes to the source

10

Many

code and then loaded it onto their devices.

11

Q.

12

HTC for a moment.

13

A.

Uh-huh.

14

Q.

You mentioned the HTC Dream device.

15

A.

Yep.

16

Q.

Are you aware that the HTC Dream was

17

BY MR. MUINO:

09:57:11

Let's focus just on the -- on

09:57:22

installed with Android code?

18

MR. KAMBER:

19

THE WITNESS:

Object to the form.
I'm aware that the HTC Dream

20

ran a compiled version of the Android operating system,

21

yes.

22

Q.

BY MR. MUINO:

09:57:39

And do you know if the Android

23

operating system installed on HTC Dream included the

24

Dalvik Virtual Machine?

25

A.

I believe it did, yes.

09:57:52
Page 19

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

1

Q.

Do you know if it included the dexopt tool?

2

A.

I don't know.

3

Q.

Do you know if it included the Zygote

5

A.

I would believe it did.

6

Q.

Do you have any reason to think the code --

4

process?
09:58:02

7

Android code installed on the HTC Dream did not include

8

the dexopt tool?

9
10

MR. KAMBER:

Object to the form, lack of

foundation.

11

09:58:14
THE WITNESS:

I don't know enough about the

12

dexopt tool to know one way or another if it was

13

installed.

14

Q.

BY MR. MUINO:

Do you have any knowledge with

15

respect to the HTC Dream that HTC made any modifications

16

to the Dalvik Virtual Machine installed on that device?

17

A.

09:58:22

They made many modifications to the source

18

code, and it -- the level of modifications varied on

19

where they were shipping the HTC Dream.

20

I don't know specifically what modifications they made or

21

where exactly those changes were made.

22

Q.

I don't know -09:58:48

How do you know that HTC made many

23

modifications, as you put it, to the Android source code

24

installed on HTC Dream?

25

A.

I remember at the time we -- you know, due to

09:59:04
Page 20

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

1

limited resources, Google really worked with HTC and

2

designed the platform, really, just for the initial

3

product launch in the U.S.

4

everywhere that the handset was shipped outside of the

5

U.S. where we -- at that point we'd open sourced the

6

source code and told them, you know, "You can ship this

7

as long as it's compatible with the original, with the

8

Android platform."

9

Q.

10

HTC made modifications for

09:59:23

With respect to the HTC Dream in particular

that your team was helping HTC with --

11

A.

Uh-huh.

12

Q.

09:59:44

-- in the 2007 time period, did your team

13

test or examine that phone in its final form?

14

A.

That wasn't a responsibility of my team.

15

Q.

What insight did your team have as to the

16
17
18
19
20

installed code on that phone in its final form?
A.

What insight?

Q.

Did your team have any knowledge of the

installed code on -- strike that.

10:00:21

I assume your team had some knowledge about
the code that was actually installed on the HTC Dream?

23

MR. KAMBER:

24

THE WITNESS:

25

I'm not sure I understand what

you mean by insight.

21
22

10:00:02

Q.

BY MR. MUINO:

Object to the form.
Yes.
And how did -- how did your

10:00:31
Page 21

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

1

particular and the modifications that they represent?

2

MR. KAMBER:

3

THE WITNESS:

Object to the form.
There are tens of thousands of

4

patches if not more, so I did not study any particular

5

patches there.

6
7

Q.

10:24:54

BY MR. MUINO:

You previously mentioned the

Open Source change log.

8

A.

Yes.

9

Q.

And you said you reviewed that in preparation

10

for today.

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

What does the Open Source change log show?

10:25:03

13

MR. KAMBER:

14

THE WITNESS:

Object to the form.
The Open Source change log

15

shows patches -- patches that were accepted by the

16

maintainers of the Open Source Project or the component

17

in Open Source that were then merged into the code base.

18

So not the full set of patches that were sent to the Open

19

Source Project, but those that were actually accepted and

20

merged in.

21

Q.

22

10:25:14

10:25:41
BY MR. MUINO:

And when you say the Open

Source code base, do you mean the Android code base?

23

A.

Yes.

24

Q.

So this was code submitted by OEMs that

25

The Android Open Source Project.

ultimately was included in Android itself?

10:25:55
Page 38

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

1

MR. KAMBER:

2

THE WITNESS:

Objection to form.
The code -- the patches or the

3

change log that I reviewed, did not indicate who -- the

4

company for the author of each of these patches, so I

5

have no way of knowing if they came from OEMs or, you

6

know, silicon vendors, carriers or anonymous third

7

parties.

8

email address.

9

10:26:16

Most of these just come in with a personal

Q.

BY MR. MUINO:

Do you know if any of those

10

changes reflected on the change log are indicative of

11

changes made on actual Android devices?

12

MR. KAMBER:

13

THE WITNESS:

10:26:33

Objection to form.
Are they indicative of changes

14

made?

15

being contributed are being contributed for purposes of

16

shipping on an Android device.

17

subset of changes that any third party would make when

18

shipping Android on hardware.

19

small portion of those to the Open Source Project.

20
21
22
23

I would assume that many of the changes that are

Q.
change log?
A.

BY MR. MUINO:

10:26:54

Again, these are a small

So they would submit some

Who maintains the Open Source

10:27:18

Is that in Google's possession?
No.

It's operated by a third party,

kernel.org.

24

Q.

Is that publicly accessible?

25

A.

It is.

10:27:32
Page 39

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

1

Q.

BY MR. MUINO:

2

on Samsung Galaxy?

3

MR. KAMBER:

4

THE WITNESS:

5
6

Q.

BY MR. MUINO:

MR. KAMBER:

8

THE WITNESS:

10

Objection to form.
Again, I do not know.
Was the Zygote process

10:32:22

capability installed on Samsung Galaxy?

7

9

Was the dexopt tool installed

Objection to Form.
I can't say for sure, but I

would assume that the Zygote process was installed.
Q.

BY MR. MUINO:

And does that formulation make

11

sense to you, Mr. Brady?

12

10:32:36

I understand your pushback that

Zygote process is a process that happens.

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

If I say Zygote process capability, do you

15

understand that to refer to the ability of the phone to

16

use a Zygote process to generate virtual machines to run

17

other applications?

18

MR. KAMBER:

19

THE WITNESS:

Objection.
Yes.

10:32:47

Form.

I think I -- yes.

20

understand that -- that use now that we've used it

21

I

several times.

22
23
24
25

Q.

BY MR. MUINO:

10:32:59

Are you aware of any changes

that Samsung made to the Android code on the Galaxy?
A.

They made extensive changes.

I don't know

the specifics.

10:33:14
Page 43

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

1

Q.

What do you know in that regard?

2

MR. KAMBER:

3

THE WITNESS:

Objection.

Form.

What I do remember that jumps

4

out at me specifically, they made several changes to the

5

user interface.

6

this was on the Galaxy.

7

but Samsung was making changes to -- to the Dalvik

8

Virtual Machine, but I don't remember the specifics.

9

They were changing the way that bytecode would be

I believe at the time -- I'm not sure if

10:33:29

It may have been other devices,

10

interpreted or executed on the device.

11

were adding an ahead of time compiler and changing other

12

things.

13
14

Q.

BY MR. MUINO:

I believe they

10:33:53

Let's move on to the Galaxy S.

Was the Android platform installed on the Galaxy S?

15

A.

I believe it was.

16

Q.

And what work did your team do with Samsung

17
18

10:34:22

in connection with the Galaxy S?
A.

Similar to the other devices, general support

19

when Samsung ran into issues and helping them to --

20

general operational, so helping them apply security

21

patches, helping them with compatibility issues related

22

to third-party applications.

23
24
25

Q.

10:34:41

Was the Dalvik Virtual Machine installed on

the Galaxy S?
MR. KAMBER:

Objection to form.

10:34:59
Page 44

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

1

A.

I do.

2

Q.

The first sentence there is:

"Device

3

implementations must support the full Dalvik Executable

4

(DEX) bytecode specification and Dalvik Virtual Machine

5

semantics."

6

11:36:50
Do you see that?

7

A.

I do.

8

Q.

Under this requirement, is it necessary to

9

have a Dalvik Virtual Machine in your Android

10

implementation in order for the implementation to be

11

compatible?

12

MR. KAMBER:

Objection to form.

13

THE WITNESS:

Absolutely not.

11:37:04

You must have

14

a virtual machine that's capable, as it says here, of

15

supporting the Dalvik executable bytecode.

16

11:37:15

So you could create another clean room

17

implementation virtual machine that was able to execute

18

this bytecode.

19

Q.

BY MR. MUINO:

Are you aware of any OEMs --

20

Android OEMs that have done that, created an alternative

21

implementation of the virtual machine capable of

22

executing the Dalvik bytecode?

23

A.

11:37:33

Well, I think, you know -- and it's hard to

24

distinguish what constitutes creating an alternative

25

version.

So as I said, many of our partners make

11:37:52
Page 77

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

1

extensive modifications to Android, the platform in

2

general, and some to Dalvik as well.

3

And so I would say that each one of them is

4

creating a kind of unique version of Android.

5

some cases, of the Dalvik -- the Dalvik -- or a Dalvik

6

Virtual Machine that runs this bytecode.

7

sometimes, you know, this causes compatibility problems

8

that we find out later on.

9

Q.

And in
11:38:06

And, in fact,

Have any OEMs told you that they intended to

10

replace the Dalvik Virtual Machine with their own virtual

11

machine implementation?

12

MR. KAMBER:

13

THE WITNESS:

11:38:27

Objection to form.
Yeah, I don't think -- I don't

14

recall any OEMs telling us specifically that they

15

intended to replace the Dalvik Virtual Machine.

16

11:38:43

As I said earlier, you know, many OEMs have

17

told us portions they intended to change in what is

18

provided -- in the source code that's provided in the

19

Android Open Source Project for their implementations of

20

the Dalvik Virtual Machine.

21

Q.

11:39:01

I'm going to show you what was previously

22

marked as Exhibit 235 (indicating).

23

Compatibility Test Suite framework user manual for

24

Android 1.6.

25

This is the

Have you seen this document before,

11:39:42
Page 78

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.
Defendant.

OPENING EXPERT REPORT OF JOHN C. MITCHELL
REGARDING PATENT INFRINGEMENT
SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

pa-1460906

194.

Individually and collectively, the terms of these agreements (which I understand

that Google has with every major Android device manufacturer) mean that Google exerts
significant control over Android devices made and sold by others and what software they run.
Google provides infringing code to device manufacturers, discourages or prevents any changes
to Android with respect to the infringing functionality, and could change the Android software
running on devices made by others to avoid infringement if its chose. For these reasons, I
conclude that Google induces and contributes to infringement by the entities that make, use, and
sell Android devices, such as device manufacturers, carriers, application developers, and end
users.
E.
195.

Experimental Work

Appendix A discuses the experimental work I performed to confirm infringement

of the patents-in-suit, in supplementing the analysis detailed below. Appendix A is an integral
part of my report, and discusses my study of the following Android devices to confirm
infringement in support of my analysis:
•

Nexus One;

•

Nexus S;

•

HTC’s Droid Incredible 2;

•

LG Optimus;

•

Samsung Captivate; and

•

Motorola Atrix.

196.

In support of my analysis and rendered opinions, I also rely on the performance

benchmark and testing analysis completed by Bob Vandette, Noel Poore, and Erez Landau, as
detailed in their respective summaries and reports submitted to Google with my Opening Patent
Infringement Report. Their work was conducted at my request and direction. I engaged in
numerous conversations with these Java engineers in carrying out this work.

66
pa-1460906

XIII. CONCLUSION
767.

For the foregoing reasons, it is my opinion that Android infringes:

•

Claims 11, 12, 15, 17, 22, 27, 29, 38, 39, 40, and 41 of United States Patent
No. RE38,104;

•

Claims 1, 2, 3, and 8 of United States Patent No. 6,910,205;

•

Claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, 15, and 16 of United States Patent No. 5,966,702;

•

Claims 1, 4, 8, 12, 14, and 20 of United States Patent No. 6,061,520;

•

Claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 13, 19, 21, and 22 of United States Patent No. 7,426,720;

•

Claims 10 and 11 of United States Patent No. 6,125,447; and

•

Claims 13, 14, and 15 of United States Patent No. 6,192,476

It is also my opinion that Google is liable for direct and indirect infringement in the manner
described above.
768.

For the forgoing reasons, it is my opinion that the patents-in-suit form the basis

for consumer demand for Android by developers and end-users.
769.

For the forgoing reasons, it is my opinion that once Google decided to adopt the

Java execution model in Android, the patents-in-suit became necessary to Android achieving
satisfactory performance and security.

Dated: August 8, 2011
John C. Mitchell

384
pa-1460906

Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document410-7

1
2
3
4
5

Filed09/08/11 Page2 of 4

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664)
[e-mail]
MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725)
[e-mail]
DANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624)
[e-mail]
755 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]

6
7
8
9
10
11

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]
STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)
[e-mail]
1999 Harrison St., Suite 900
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

ORACLE CORPORATION
DORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049)
[e-mail]
DEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527)
[e-mail]
MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600)
[e-mail]
500 Oracle Parkway
Redwood City, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

19
20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

23

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

24

Plaintiff,

25

v.

26

GOOGLE, INC.

27

Case No. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA
ORACLE’S SECOND
SUPPLEMENTAL PATENT LOCAL RULE
3-1 DISCLOSURE OF ASSERTED
CLAIMS AND INFRINGEMENT
CONTENTIONS

Defendant.

28
ORACLE’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-03561-WHA
pa-1456177

Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document410-7

1

Filed09/08/11 Page3 of 4

Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-1 and agreement between the parties, Plaintiff Oracle

2

America, Inc. (“Oracle”) hereby submits the following Second Supplemental Disclosure of

3

Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions.

4

Fact discovery is ongoing, and Google has yet to produce substantial quantities of

5

information that may affect Oracle’s infringement contentions. In addition, depositions that are

6

directly relevant to Oracle’s claims of infringement will be scheduled for after the date of this

7

statement. Not all information about the various versions of the Accused Instrumentalities is

8

publicly available. For example, Google has neither released nor produced the source code for

9

Honeycomb, preventing Oracle from analyzing it. Further still, Oracle understands that Google

10

plans to release future versions of the Accused Instrumentalities.1

11

As such, Oracle’s investigation into the extent of infringement by Google is ongoing, and

12

Oracle makes these disclosures based on present knowledge of Google’s infringing activities. In

13

light of the foregoing, Oracle reserves the right to supplement or amend these disclosures as

14

further facts are revealed during the course of this litigation.

15

I.

16

DISCLOSURE OF ASSERTED CLAIMS AND INFRINGEMENT
CONTENTIONS.
A.

17

Patent Local Rule 3-1(a) — Asserted Claims.

Oracle asserts that Defendant Google is liable under Title 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), and
18
(f) for infringement of:
19

•

Claims 11-41 of United States Patent No. RE38,104 (“the ’104 reissue patent”)

20
(infringement claim chart attached as Exhibit A);
21

•

Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 of United States Patent No. 6,910,205 (“the ’205 patent”)

22
(infringement claim charts attached as Exhibits B-1 and Exhibit B-2);
23

•

Claims 1, 5-7, 11-13, 15, and 16 of United States Patent No. 5,966,702 (“the ’702

24
patent”) (infringement claim chart attached as Exhibit C);
25
26
27

1

See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system) (last visited March 31, 2011)
(Android version “Ice Cream” scheduled for 2011 launch).

28
ORACLE’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-03561-WHA
pa-1456177

1

Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document410-7

•

1
2

Filed09/08/11 Page4 of 4

Claims 1-24 of United States Patent No. 6,125,447 (“the ’447 patent”)
(infringement claim chart attached as Exhibit D);

•

3
4

Claims 1-21 of United States Patent No. 6,192,476 (“the ’476 patent”)
(infringement claim chart attached as Exhibit E);

•

5
6

Claims 1-4 and 6-23 of United States Patent No. 6,061,520 (“the ’520 patent”)
(infringement claim chart attached as Exhibit F); and

•

7
8

Claims 1-8, 10-17, and 19-22 of United States Patent No. 7,426,720 (“the ’720
patent”) (infringement claim chart attached as Exhibit G).

9

B.

Patent Local Rule 3-1(b) — Accused Instrumentalities.

10

Based on Oracle’s investigation thus far, Oracle accuses the following Accused

11

Instrumentalities of infringing the asserted claims specified above in the manner described in

12

Exhibits A-G: (i) “Android” or “the Android Platform”;2 (ii) Google devices running Android;

13

and (iii) other mobile devices running Android. Representative examples of Google devices

14

running Android include the Google Dev Phones, the Google Nexus One, and the Google Nexus

15

S.3 Representative examples of other mobile devices running Android include HTC’s EVO 4G,

16

HTC’s Droid Incredible, HTC’s G2, Motorola’s Droid, and Samsung’s Captivate. Android

17

applications, including those written by Google, when built or run will necessarily use the

18

infringing functionality in the manner described in Exhibits A-G. For example, application

19

developers like Google use the Google-provided dx tool from the Android SDK to convert .class

20
2

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

“Android” or “the Android Platform” means “Android” as referred to in Google’s Answer
(Docket No. 32) at Background ¶ 12 and in Google’s Answer to Amended Complaint (Docket
No. 51) at Background ¶ 12 and at Factual Background ¶¶ 11-17, and includes any versions
thereof (whether released or unreleased) and related public or proprietary source code, executable
code, and documentation.
3
See, e.g., JR Raphael, The Nexus S and Google: Everything There Is To Know, PCWORLD (Nov.
11, 2010), available at
http://www.pcworld.com/article/210460/the_nexus_s_and_google_everything_there_is_to_know.
html (last visited Nov. 29, 2010) (“Today’s buzz is all about the Samsung Nexus S -- a stillunder-wraps smartphone believed to be the successor to Google’s Nexus One. According to
various leaks, the Nexus S will be a ‘Google experience’ device, meaning it’ll run a stock version
of Android without any of those baked-in manufacturer UIs. And, if the latest rumors prove to be
true, the Samsung Nexus S will be rocking the as-of-yet-unannounced Android Gingerbread
release.”). The “leaks” proved to be true: the Nexus S runs a stock version of Gingerbread.

28
ORACLE’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-03561-WHA
pa-1456177

2

ACIS fact sheet

1 of 1

http://web.archive.org/web/20021017004227/http://www....

Fact Sheet

.
Organization:

ACIS is a voluntary organization of more than 30 corporations in the computer industry. Members include: Advanced Micro Devices;
Amdahl Corporation; Bull HN Information Systems, Inc.; NCR Corporation; Seagate Technology Corporation; StorageTek Corporation; Sun
Microsystems, Inc.; and 3Com Corporation.

Purpose:
The organization supports policies and principles of intellectual property law that provide a balance between rewards for innovation and the
belief that computer systems developed by different vendors must be able to communicate fully with each other. This ability to
communicate is termed interoperabilty, and involves the interchange of information that benefits all computer users.

Membership:
There are no dues or membership for joining ACIS. Members contribute time and resources in support of ACIS activities on a voluntary
basis. Application for membership in ACIS is open to companies in the information technology industry which endorse the ACIS Statement
of Principles, and is subject to approval by members of ACIS.
Panel of Academic Advisors:
Howard Anawalt, Professor Law - University of Santa Clara
Stephen Barnett, Professor of Law - University of California, Berkeley
John Barton, Professor - Stanford University
Dan Burk, Professor of Law - Seton Hall University School of Law
Julie Cohen, Professor of Law - Georgetown University Law Center
Gideon Frieder, Dean of Engineering & Applied Sciences - The George Washington University
Allan Gottlieb, Professor of Computer Science/Director of Ultra Computer Research Laboratory - New York University
Peter Jaszi, Professor of Law - Washington College of Law, The American University
Gerald Johnson, Academic Vice President - National Technological University
Dennis Karjala, Professor of Law - Arizona State University
David Lang, Professor of Law - Duke University Law School
Mark Lemley, Professor of Law - University of California, Berkeley
Jessica Litman, Professor of Law - Wayne State University
Robert Merges, Professor of Law - University of California, Berkeley
L. Ray Patterson, Professor of Law - University of Georgia Law School
Jerome Reichman, Professor of Law - Duke University School of Law
David Rice, Professor of Law - Rober Williams University School of Law
Pamela Samuelson - Professor of Law - University of California, Berkeley
Diane Zimmerman, Professor of Law - New York University

ACIS Sister Organizations:
ACIS Coordinates closely with the like-minded organizations in Europe, Canada and Australia. These organizations are the:
European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS)
Canadian Association for Interoperable Systems (CAIS)
Supporters of Interoperable Systems in Australia (SISA)

Questions or comments? [e-mail]

10/04/2011 10:13 PM

ORACLE DATA SHEET

INTEROPERABILITY AND ORACLE
SOLARIS 10
INTEROPERABILITY FROM THE
DESKTOP TO THE DATA CENTER AND
ACROSS A RANGE OF SYSTEMS,
SOFTWARE, AND TECHNOLOGIES
KEY FEATURES
x Support for open standards such as

UDDI, SOAP, WSDL, and XML

Oracle Solaris 10 meets the challenges of complex, heterogeneous
computing environments with an array of key features, including
interoperability with both Linux- and Microsoft Windows–based
systems and support for a wide range of open standards and open
source applications.

x Source and binary compatibility for Linux

applications and interoperability with
Microsoft Windows
x IPerl, PHP, and other popular scripting

languages
x Apache, Samba, Sendmail, IP Filter,

BIND, and other open source software
x Support for Java-based application

development and deployment with Java
2 Platform, Enterprise Edition and
Standard Edition

Investment Protection in Heterogeneous Environments
Modern businesses rely on large, geographically dispersed computing
infrastructures that often incorporate hundreds of heterogeneous hardware and
software platforms from a wide variety of vendors. If these environments are to
remain manageable, organizations must ensure that these diverse products function
well together. At the same time, as organizations update their computing
environments to improve cost-effectiveness and total cost of ownership, they must
protect major investments in servers, operating systems (OSs), and applications and
avoid dependence on specific hardware or software vendors.

x Source-level compatibility that allows

Oracle Solaris and Linux applications to
compile and run on both platforms

Interoperability with Java Technology
By freeing application design from the limitations of a specific platform, the Java
technology revolution has changed the way people think about interoperability.
Because it runs on every major hardware platform and is supported by virtually
every software vendor, Java technology enables business applications to be
developed and operated regardless of the OSs being used. Oracle Solaris 10
provides a rich set of features for Java technology–based development and
deployment, including two types of Java 2 Platform, Enterprise Edition (J2EE
platform)–compliant application servers—Oracle GlassFish Server and the open
source Tomcat server.

Interoperability with Microsoft Windows
Oracle Solaris 10 has key features for interoperability with Microsoft Windows.
Samba, which is integrated into Oracle Solaris 10, allows Oracle clients and servers
to access file and print services in a Microsoft Windows network. The Oracle Open
Office suite provides interoperability with Microsoft Office file formats. Users can
even run Microsoft Windows on a Sun Oracle x64 system running Oracle Solaris
using Oracle VM VirtualBox. Oracle Solaris also supports open standards and
interfaces that make it easier to interoperate with Microsoft Windows systems,
including integration with Microsoft Active Directory environments via Oracle
Solaris features such as Kerberos protocol support. Separately, LDAP
authentication can also be used to access a Microsoft Active Directory server from
an Oracle Solaris client.

ORACLE DATA SHEET

Interoperability with Linux
Sharing the same roots as the Linux OS, Oracle Solaris 10 functions efficiently with
that OS in nearly any environment. As Linux interfaces continue to evolve, Oracle
Solaris maintains source-level compatibility, helping to ensure that applications
developed for either Oracle Solaris or Linux software will compile and run on both
platforms. This includes the addition in Oracle Solaris 10 of libraries such as GLib,
zlib, and Tcl/Tk; scripting; shell utilities such as Perl, Python, zsh, tcsh, and bash;
and common user and administrative interfaces such as GNOME, KDE, and
Webmin. In addition, an update to Oracle Solaris 10, the Oracle Solaris Linux
application environment will allow users on x86 systems to run existing,
unmodified Linux binaries on the Oracle Solaris platform. This new level of
interoperability will give users access to the applications they choose while
enabling them to reap the benefits of Oracle Solaris 10 functionality.

Common Desktop and Infrastructure Software
In addition to providing interoperability for Java-based development, Oracle
provides integrated applications and environments that run across multiple OSs.
These include the Java Desktop System and the Java Enterprise System, both of
which are available on Oracle Solaris and Linux platforms. Oracle Solaris 10 now
includes the Java Desktop System—an integrated, full-featured client environment
that includes the Mozilla Web browser and the Oracle Open Office suite—
providing a unified desktop interface across Oracle Solaris and Linux platforms.
Components of the Java Enterprise System are also included with Oracle Solaris
10, introducing an end-to-end software system that can support all of your
infrastructure service needs on both Oracle Solaris and Linux platforms.

Common Free and Open Source Software and Tools
In addition to contributing software to the open source community, Oracle helps
you leverage the power of free and open source software (F/OSS) by providing it
with Oracle Solaris 10. You don’t have to download, compile, test, and integrate
the tools you need. Oracle Solaris 10 includes 187 software products from the
F/OSS community, also popular on Linux platforms, including the following:
x

Apache, Tomcat, and multiple Zebra routing protocols for network and Web
services

x

Bison, GCC, Perl, and Python tools for software development

x

IP Filter, TCP Wrappers, and Secure Shell utilities for security

x

GNOME, Mozilla, and Evolution software for desktop usability

These free software components are either integrated directly into Oracle Solaris 10
distribution or are included on the Oracle Solaris software companion CD. In
addition, F/OSS tools integrated into Oracle Solaris 10 include the standard GNU
development utilities. Library support includes UNIX standard functions as well as
the most popular F/OSS libraries such as Glib, GTK, JPEG, PNG, Tcl/Tk, TIFF,
XML, and zlib, which can be used across Oracle Solaris and Linux platforms.

2

ORACLE DATA SHEET

Conclusion
For businesses that rely on heterogeneous environments, Oracle Solaris 10
empowers users with new technologies and tools that let them take advantage of the
innovation, security, and performance of Oracle Solaris 10 software while
protecting existing investments in applications, hardware, and training.

Contact Us
For more information about interoperability and Oracle Solaris 10, visit oracle.com/solaris or call +1.800.ORACLE1 to speak to an
Oracle representative.

Copyright © 2009, 2010, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
This document is provided for information purposes only and the contents hereof are subject to change without notice. This document is not warranted to be error-free, nor subject to any
other warranties or conditions, whether expressed orally or implied in law, including implied warranties and conditions of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. We specifically
disclaim any liability with respect to this document and no contractual obligations are formed either directly or indirectly by this document. This document may not be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, for any purpose, without our prior written permission.
Oracle and Java are registered trademarks of Oracle and/or its affiliates. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.
AMD, Opteron, the AMD logo, and the AMD Opteron logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Advanced Micro Devices. Intel and Intel Xeon are trademarks or registered trademarks
of Intel Corporation. All SPARC trademarks are used under license and are trademarks or registered trademarks of SPARC International, Inc. UNIX is a registered trademark licensed through
X/Open Company, Ltd. 0310

3