Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Filing
902
Proposed Findings of Fact by Oracle America, Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 4/12/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664)
mjacobs@mofo.com
KENNETH A. KUWAYTI (Bar No. 145384)
kkuwayti@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
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
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.
18
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
20
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
21
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
22
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
23
Plaintiff,
24
v.
25
Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA
ORACLE’S RESPONSE TO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSED
FINDINGS
GOOGLE INC.
26
Defendant.
27
28
ORACLE’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSED FINDINGS
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
pa-1522857
Dept.: Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup
1
Oracle submits the following proposed findings relating to the issue of the
2
copyrightability of the selection, organization, and structure of the API specifications and
3
associated implementations in class libraries for the 37 packages at issue in this case (collectively
4
“APIs”). (See ECF No. 877).
5
Proposed Findings
6
1. The APIs include thousands of individual elements, organized into packages,
7
classes, interfaces, exceptions, constructors, methods, and fields. There is an
8
intricate relationship of hierarchies and dependencies among elements within and
9
across packages.
10
2. The detailed selection, organization, and structure in the API specifications is
11
mirrored in the source code and object code implementation in the Java class
12
libraries.
13
3. The APIs represent years of creative design. The selection, organization, and
14
structure of the elements and names in the APIs are each highly original and
15
creative.
16
4. Oracle had many choices for what elements and names to include in the APIs.
17
Other than a few classes, Oracle was not required to include any particular element
18
or name.
19
5. There were many different ways to organize and structure the APIs.
20
6. A primary purpose of the selection, organization, and structure of the APIs is to
21
make them more comprehensible and easier to use for programmers.
22
7. The selection, organization, and structure of the APIs is the detailed expression of
23
an idea, not an idea itself. An idea for an API package may be to have a library of
24
pre-written computer code relevant to the area of programming to which the
25
package relates.
26
27
8. That selection, organization, and structure is not commonplace, and was not an
indispensable or standard way of expressing any idea.
28
ORACLE’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSED FINDINGS
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
pa-1522857
1
1
9. Other than a few classes, Google was not required to copy the selection,
2
organization, and structure of the APIs to be compatible with the Java
3
programming language.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10. It was not technically necessary for Google to copy the APIs. Google designed
many of its own APIs for Android.
11. Android is not compatible with Java. Many programs written for one will not run
on the other.
12. The specifications and implementations of the APIs are not a method of operation
or system.
10
11
12
Dated: April 12, 2012
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By: _ /s/ Michael A. Jacobs
13
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORACLE’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSED FINDINGS
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
pa-1522857
2
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?