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)

Download PDF
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

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?