Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 902

Proposed Findings of Fact by Oracle America, Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 4/12/2012)

Download PDF
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?