Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 948

ORDER RE ADDITIONAL ISSUES FOR SECOND BRIEF DUE SUNDAY. Signed by Judge Alsup on April 20, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

Defendant.
/

15

17
18

ORDER RE ADDITIONAL
ISSUES FOR SECOND BRIEF
DUE SUNDAY

GOOGLE INC.,

14

16

No. C 10-03561 WHA

In addition to all other issues raised this morning (definition of “class libraries” for
example), please address the following in the second brief due Sunday.
1.

What case law or other authority is there that states the judge must identify the

19

“work as a whole” (for similarity, fair use, and de minimis) for the jury? Quote

20

the entire relevant paragraphs. Which party has the burden to identify the “entire

21

work”?

22

2.

With respect to what segment of the “work” can stand alone within the meaning

23

of Hustler v. Moral, 796 F.2d 1148, 1155 (9th Cir. 1986), the Court wishes to

24

know whether the implementation of the 37 API packages inherit, call upon,

25

invoke, or incorporate any method, field, or class outside the 37.

26

3.

Why shouldn’t we let the jury decide what the “work as a whole” is?

27

4.

Is the “work as a whole” the same for purposes of “substantial similarity (or

28

virtually identical)”, “fair use,” and “de minimis copying? If not, how are the
“works as a whole” to be found for these purposes?

1

5.

2
3

For purposes of identifying the “work as a whole,” should Oracle be held to the
copyrighted work identified in the operative complaint? Quote key case law.

6.

If the SSO and declarations are held to be protected elements, then why are there

4

still issues of access and similarity for purposes of infringement (excluding de

5

minimis and fair use)? Put another way, isn’t substantial similarity only an issue

6

if there isn’t admission of factual copying of protectable elements?

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: April 20, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2