Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Filing
509
DECLARATION of RUCHIKA AGRAWAL in Opposition to #496 MOTION in Limine No. 5, #494 MOTION in Limine No. 3, #492 MOTION in Limine No. 1, #493 MOTION in Limine NO. 2, #495 MOTION in Limine No. 4 filed byGoogle Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1-1, #2 Exhibit 1-2, #3 Exhibit 1-3, #4 Exhibit 1-4, #5 Exhibit 1-5, #6 Exhibit 1-6, #7 Exhibit 1-7, #8 Exhibit 1-8, #9 Exhibit 1-9, #10 Exhibit 1-10, #11 Exhibit 1-11, #12 Exhibit 1-12, #13 Exhibit 2-1, #14 Exhibit 2-2, #15 Exhibit 2-3, #16 Exhibit 2-4, #17 Exhibit 2-5, #18 Exhibit 2-6, #19 Exhibit 2-7, #20 Exhibit 2-8, #21 Exhibit 2-9, #22 Exhibit 2-10, #23 Exhibit 2-11, #24 Exhibit 2-12, #25 Exhibit 2-13, #26 Exhibit 2-14, #27 Exhibit 2-15, #28 Exhibit 2-16, #29 Exhibit 2-17, #30 Exhibit 3-1, #31 Exhibit 3-2, #32 Exhibit 3-3, #33 Exhibit 3-4, #34 Exhibit 3-5, #35 Exhibit 3-6, #36 Exhibit 3-7, #37 Exhibit 3-8, #38 Exhibit 3-9, #39 Exhibit 3-10, #40 Exhibit 3-11, #41 Exhibit 4-1, #42 Exhibit 4-2, #43 Exhibit 4-3, #44 Exhibit 5-1, #45 Exhibit 5-2, #46 Exhibit 5-3, #47 Supplement 5-4)(Related document(s) #496 , #494 , #492 , #493 , #495 ) (Kamber, Matthias) (Filed on 10/7/2011)
EXHIBIT 3-2
Pages 1 - 53
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Before The Honorable William Alsup
Oracle America,
Incorporated,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Google, Incorporated,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________)
No. C10-3651 WHA
San Francisco, California
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Reporter's Transcript Of Proceedings
Appearances:
For Plaintiff:
By:
Morrison & Foerster, LLP
755 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Michael A. Jacobs, Esquire
By:
Oracle, Incorporated
500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Matthew Sarboraria, Esquire
For Plaintiff:
(Appearances continued on next page.)
Reported By:
Sahar Bartlett, RPR, CSR No. 12963
Official Reporter, U.S. District Court
For the Northern District of California
(Computerized Transcription By Eclipse)
Sahar Bartlett, RPR, CSR 12963
Official Court Reporter, U.S. District Court
(415) 626-6060
Exhibit 3-2
9
10
1
He overlooks the actual negotiations --
1
to take a hundred million, but the rejection means nothing,
2
THE COURT: Repeat that last point again about
2
does it? What could it possibly mean?
3
diminimus and -- say that again. Where did that come from?
4
3
MR. VAN NEST: Yeah, that came from Oracle's
MR. VAN NEST: Well, it doesn't mean nothing, Your
4
Honor, but your point is well taken; it probably means more
5
representations to the federal regulators when they acquired
5
that that's what Sun offered, that's what Sun was willing to
6
Sun. And there was an investigation into whether this was
6
take. In other words, in the hypothetical negotiation --
7
anti-competitive or not, that, hey, we have always licensed
7
8
Java, we have never refused to license Java, and we have
8
9
licensed it at diminimus rates.
9
10
And now you have Dr. Cockburn coming in here and
THE COURT: And then your side -- tell me why there
isn't willful infringement here.
MR. VAN NEST: I will.
10
THE COURT: Because you went to get the license, you
11
claiming that in a hypothetical negotiation, Google would have
11
didn't follow through, and now you got a production out there
12
agreed to pay 15 to 20 percent of all of its ad revenue off
12
that is in direct violation of these patents?
13
every handset sold by every carrier, not only using Android,
13
14
but as I understand his report, every other platform as well.
14
15
Now, the actual negotiations, in the actual
MR. VAN NEST: None of those.
THE COURT: That's a very hard scenario -- I am
15
going to ask you, but I bet you've never seen that scenario
before. I have not.
16
negotiations, Sun proposed a royalty all in for three years of
16
17
a hundred million dollars, and that was rejected by Google.
17
18
That was offered, according to Dr. Cockburn and according to
18
19
the evidence --
19
20
THE COURT: Well, what difference does it make? Why
20
MR. VAN NEST: And you won't see it here, either,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, then, why isn't there willful
infringement?
21
does it matter if Google rejected it? Google may have been
21
MR. VAN NEST: I'll explain why.
22
playing -- they may have just been trying to get it on the
22
THE COURT: All right. Leave enough time.
23
cheap, that doesn't mean it was reasonable to reject it.
23
MR. VAN NEST: The negotiation that took place was
24
MR. VAN NEST: No, Your Honor, Your Honor --
24
not a pure licensing negotiation. And that's been confirmed by
25
THE COURT: It may mean that the offerer was willing
25
all the participants, including Mr. Schwartz, the CEO of Sun at
Sahar Bartlett, RPR, CSR 12963
Official Court Reporter, U.S. District Court
(415) 626-6060
Sahar Bartlett, RPR, CSR 12963
Official Court Reporter, U.S. District Court
(415) 626-6060
12
11
1
2
the time.
1
Google had two essential options in building
MR. VAN NEST: They were negotiating a technology
2
partnership, they were negotiating an agreement. They weren't
3
Android: They could have entered into a technology partnership
3
coming to say, we need a license to your technology, they were
4
with another company and contributed resources and engineers
4
coming to say, we have a product and a project we would like to
5
and built Android together, that's what they were discussing,
5
build, we would like to build it together, you guys have
6
in fact, with Sun.
6
technology that might be useful, we have technology that might
7
be useful, let's partner together and build it.
7
They discussed that same thing, Your Honor, with
8
several other companies that already had virtual machines. So
8
9
they went to several companies, not just Sun, and said, do you
9
And that is what was being proposed in 2005 and 2006
in these discussions we've been talking about. That was not
10
want to build this project with us together? We'll provide
10
acceptable, ultimately, either to Google or to Sun, they
11
engineers and technology, you provide engineers and technology,
11
couldn't reach term on that. So Google went out, they built
12
and we'll build the product together and the advantage of that
12
their own. They used a clean-room environment. They didn't
13
was, it might be a little faster.
13
look at any of these Sun patents we're talking about.
14
The other option they had was to build it on their
14
And the kicker is, Your Honor, discussions
15
own, build it independently and using their own engineers, own
15
continued, there were further discussions; Sun became more and
16
technology and/or licensing technology from other third
16
more and more interested in getting on the Android bandwagon.
17
parties, not -- not just Sun, because many other folks were
17
18
building virtual machines.
18
throw up their hands and say, oh, my gosh, you're infringing,
19
Sun congratulated Google on Android, welcomed Android to the
19
What happened was, they couldn't come to terms with
So when Android was announced in 2007, Sun didn't
20
Sun -- by the way, in those negotiations, there wasn't any
20
Java community, put Android on Sun products, asked Google how
21
specific discussion of the patents. Nobody showed them Sun
21
they could help Android.
22
patents. Nobody said, are you infringing these patents. They
22
23
didn't see these Sun patents until Oracle showed them to them a
23
Sun saw, then, as beneficial to them, something that would
24
month before --
24
spread the news and the word about Java. They didn't come in
25
in 2007 --
25
THE COURT: Why did they need their license, then?
The whole point was that Android was something that
Sahar Bartlett, RPR, CSR 12963
Official Court Reporter, U.S. District Court
(415) 626-6060
Sahar Bartlett, RPR, CSR 12963
Official Court Reporter, U.S. District Court
(415) 626-6060
Exhibit 3-2