Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Filing
912
RESPONSE (re #909 MOTION for Administrative Relief Regarding Statement to Jury ) filed byGoogle Inc.. (Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 4/13/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
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 Street, 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
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
IAN C. BALLON - #141819
ballon@gtlaw.com
HEATHER MEEKER - #172148
meekerh@gtlaw.com
1900 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Tel: 650.328.8500
Fax: 650.328.8508
13
14
Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
18
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
19
Plaintiff,
20
v.
21
Case No. 3:10-cv-03651 WHA
GOOGLE INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
REGARDING STATEMENT TO JURY
GOOGLE INC.,
22
Defendant.
Dept.:
Judge:
Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
Hon. William Alsup
23
24
25
26
27
28
GOOGLE’S OPPOSITION TO ORACLE’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION RE STATEMENT TO JURY
Case No. 3:10-CV-03561 WHA
649088.01
1
The Court should reject Oracle’s “motion for administrative relief,” which is actually just
2
an improper motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order deeming admitted the fact that the
3
names of the Java API packages at issue in this case are not protected by copyright, as the Court
4
found last year in its summary-judgment ruling. Oracle contends that it would be misleading to
5
tell the jury that the names are not copyrightable without also telling them that, in some
6
circumstances, the structure, selection, and arrangement of those names might be copyrightable.
7
But this is exactly the argument that Oracle made last week, in its opposition to Google’s motion
8
to deem admitted the non-copyrightability of the names. Oracle Opp’n to Google Admin. Mot.
9
[Dkt. 882] at 3-4. There, Oracle argued that “to simply instruct the jury that ‘the names are not
10
protected by copyright’” would “risk[ ] being misinterpreted to apply to the selection and
11
arrangement of the names.” Id. Oracle’s present motion is devoted solely to rearguing this point.
12
That alone is reason enough to deny it.
13
Moreover, Oracle’s requested “clarification” is a general statement of copyright law that
14
can, and should, wait for jury instructions. Telling the jury at the outset that the structure,
15
selection, and arrangement of the API package names might be copyrightable is a vague
16
statement of the law whose relevance is contingent on facts the Court and the jury have not yet
17
heard. It would not be helpful. It is not a definitive finding, like the Court’s ruling that the names
18
themselves are not copyrightable. There are many statements related to the copyrightability of
19
the structure, selection, and arrangement of the APIs that might be true, depending on how the
20
record develops at trial:
21
•
“A copyright, we have seen, bars use of the particular ‘expression’ of an
idea in a copyrighted work but does not bar use of the ‘idea’ itself.”
Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 1971).
“[I]deas themselves are not protected by copyright and cannot therefore be
infringed.” Rachel v. Banana Republic, Inc., 831 F.2d 1503, 1507 (9th
Cir. 1987).
•
Where an idea and the expression merge, and “are thus inseparable,
copying the ‘expression’ will not be barred, since protecting the
‘expression’ in such circumstances would confer a monopoly of the
‘idea.’” Rosenthal Jewelry, 446 F.2d at 742.
•
Any elements of the APIs that are "functional requirements for
compatibility" are not protected by copyright. Sega Enters. Ltd. v.
Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1522 (9th Cir. 1992).
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
GOOGLE’S OPPOSITION TO ORACLE’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION RE STATEMENT TO JURY
Case No. 3:10-CV-03561 WHA
649088.01
1
•
"Under the scenes a faire doctrine, protection is denied to those elements
of a program that have been dictated by external factors." Baystate Techs.
v. Bentley Sys., 946 F. Supp. 1079, 1088 (D. Mass. 1996).
•
Even if the structure, selection, and arrangement of the APIs are
copyrightable under all of the above legal principles, any use of that
structure by Google could be a fair use and therefore not an infringement.
2
3
4
5
Simply flagging complex legal issues like these for the jury at the start of trial would raise myriad
6
questions and answer none of them. That is what careful and focused jury instructions are for—
7
and the sensible time to issue such instructions is at the close of evidence, when any instructions
8
can and should be tailored to reflect the evidence actually offered at trial, as well as the Court’s
9
conclusions of law on copyrightability. The Court invited the parties to move to deem undisputed
10
narrow, identifiable issues that had been conclusively resolved, like the copyrightability of names.
11
The Court did not invite the parties to suggest general statements of copyright law.
12
13
The Court should deny Oracle’s motion for reconsideration.
Dated: April 13, 2012
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
14
15
By:
16
/s/ Robert A. Van Nest
ROBERT A. VAN NEST
Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
GOOGLE’S OPPOSITION TO ORACLE’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION RE STATEMENT TO JURY
Case No. 3:10-CV-03561 WHA
649088.01
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?