Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 938

ORDER GRANTING IN PART ORACLE'S MOTION TO DEEM ISSUES UNDISPUTED AND DENYING RELIEF REGARDING STATEMENT TO JURY by Hon. William Alsup granting in part and denying in part #908 Motion.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2012)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
ORACLE’S MOTION TO DEEM
ISSUES UNDISPUTED AND
DENYING RELIEF REGARDING
STATEMENT TO JURY

GOOGLE INC.,

12

Defendant.
/

13
14

No. C 10-03561 WHA

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

Oracle moves to deem issues undisputed (Dkt. No. 908) and for relief regarding

15

statement to jury (Dkt. No. 909). Google opposes. After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the

16

following will be told to the jury:

17

1)

“The Java APIs as a whole meet the low threshold for originality required by the

18

Constitution.” This instruction reflects Google’s admission in its March 23 brief

19

(Dkt. No. 823 at 9) and April 13 brief (Dkt. No. 914).

20

2)

“Sun released the specifications for Sun’s Java platform, including Sun’s Java

21

virtual machine, under a free-of-charge license that allowed developers to create

22

“clean room” implementations of Sun’s Java specifications. If those

23

implementations demonstrate compatibility with the Java specification, then Sun

24

would provide a license for any of its intellectual property needed to practice the

25

specification, including patent rights and copyrights. The only way to

26

demonstrate compatibility with the Java specification is by meeting all of the

27

requirements of Sun’s Technology Compatibility Kit (“TCK”) for a particular

28

edition of Sun’s Java. Importantly, however, TCKs were only available from
Sun, initially were not available as open source, were provided solely at Sun’s

1

discretion, and included several restrictions, such as additional licensing terms

2

and fees. In essence, although developers were free to develop a competing Java

3

virtual machine, they could not openly obtain an important component needed to

4

freely benefit from Sun’s purported open-sourcing of Java.” This instruction

5

reflects Google’s admission in its Answer to Oracle’s Amended Complaint (Dkt.

6

No. 51) and its April 13 brief. The Court will read this statement in its entirety.

7

Oracle’s requested excerpts standing alone and out of context would be

8

confusing.

9

3)

“Although Sun eventually offered to open source the TCK for Java SE, Sun
included field of use restrictions that limited the circumstances under which

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Apache Harmony users could use the software that the Apache Software

12

Foundation created, such as preventing the TCK from being executed on mobile

13

devices.” This instruction reflects Google’s admission in its Answer and its April

14

13 brief.

15

Oracle’s second request to deem undisputed, that “Google has admitted that the Java

16

programming language is distinct from the Java APIs and class libraries,” is DENIED. Google

17

did not make such an unequivocal admission in its pleadings.

18

With respect to Dkt. No. 896, Oracle’s motion for modification is DENIED. The point

19

about the structure, sequence, and organization will be appropriately addressed in other

20

instructions.

21

The Court will read each statement to the jury at the time Oracle wishes but only once.

22

The Court will advice the jury that the admission has been made, and that they may consider the

23

admission as evidence along with all other evidence at trial. The jury will be told that the

24

admissions are not conclusive. These same will apply to the prior order on Google’s request to

25

deem undisputed (Dkt. No. 896).

26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 18, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2