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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 KEKER & VAN NEST LLP ROBERT A. VAN NEST - #84065 rvannest@kvn.com CHRISTA M. ANDERSON - #184325 canderson@kvn.com DANIEL PURCELL - #191424 dpurcell@kvn.com 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: 415.391.5400 Facsimile: 415.397.7188 KING & SPALDING LLP DONALD F. ZIMMER, JR. - #112279 fzimmer@kslaw.com CHERYL A. SABNIS - #224323 csabnis@kslaw.com 101 Second St., Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: 415.318.1200 Fax: 415.318.1300 KING & SPALDING LLP SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER (Pro Hac Vice) sweingaertner@kslaw.com ROBERT F. PERRY rperry@kslaw.com BRUCE W. BABER (Pro Hac Vice) 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Tel: 212.556.2100 Fax: 212.556.2222 IAN C. BALLON - #141819 ballon@gtlaw.com HEATHER MEEKER - #172148 meekerh@gtlaw.com GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1900 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Tel: 650.328.8500 Fax: 650.328-8508 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) mjacobs@mofo.com MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725) mdpeters@mofo.com DANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624) dmuino@mofo.com 755 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018 Telephone: (650) 813-5600 / Facsimile: (650) 494-0792 6 7 8 9 10 11 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) dboies@bsfllp.com 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 / Facsimile: (914) 749-8300 STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177) sholtzman@bsfllp.com 1999 Harrison St., Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 874-1000 / Facsimile: (510) 874-1460 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ORACLE CORPORATION DORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049) dorian.daley@oracle.com DEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527) deborah.miller@oracle.com MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600) matthew.sarboraria@oracle.com 500 Oracle Parkway Redwood City, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 506-5200 / Facsimile: (650) 506-7114 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 RPerry@kslaw.com SWeingaertner@kslaw.com bbaber@kslaw.com mfrancis@kslaw.com ccarnaval@kslaw.com Timothy T. Scott Geoffrey M. Ezgar Leo Spooner III KING & SPALDING, LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 400 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 TScott@kslaw.com GEzgar@kslaw.com LSpooner@kslaw.com Fax: 650.590.1900 Google-Oracle-ServiceOutsideCounsel@kslaw.com 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 ssnyder@kslaw.com 24 fzimmer@kslaw.com csabnis@kslaw.com 25 Fax: 415.318.1300 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 bbanner@kslaw.com 5 Fax. 512.457.2100 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 ballon@gtlaw.com meekerh@gtlaw.com wetzelj@gtlaw.com powersdk@gtlaw.com Fax: Fax: 415.707.2010 2 Renny F. Hwang GOOGLE INC. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 rennyhwang@google.com 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 hov@gtlaw.com 15 Fax: 310.586.7800 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 rvannest@kvn.com canderson@kvn.com mkwun@kvn.com dpurcell@kvn.com epaige@kvn.com mkamber@kvn.com 19 Fax: 415.397.7188 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: (212) 556-2227 Direct Fax: (212) 556-2222 sweingaertner@kslaw.com March 2, 2011 VIA E-MAIL Marc D. Peters Morrison & Foerster LLP 755 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018 mdpeters@mofo.com 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) mjacobs@mofo.com MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725) mdpeters@mofo.com DANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624) dmuino@mofo.com 755 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018 Telephone: (650) 813-5600 / Facsimile: (650) 494-0792 6 7 8 9 10 11 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) dboies@bsfllp.com 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 / Facsimile: (914) 749-8300 STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177) sholtzman@bsfllp.com 1999 Harrison St., Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 874-1000 / Facsimile: (510) 874-1460 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ORACLE CORPORATION DORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049) dorian.daley@oracle.com DEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527) deborah.miller@oracle.com MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600) matthew.sarboraria@oracle.com 500 Oracle Parkway Redwood City, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 506-5200 / Facsimile: (650) 506-7114 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? webmaster@interop.org 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

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?