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)

Download PDF
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

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?