Thursday, August, 25, 2016

Oracle pushing hard for Android Java Re retrial while Google fails to justify its read to the jury

In litigation, the devil is often in the detail, but always. Sometimes there ares overarching issues that decide a disputes and the legally detail is simply worked out in order to reach the only result that any remotely reasonable person could consider correct. The situation surrounding Oracle's push for a Re retrial is clear: Google's expert witnesses told the opposite of the truth to Judge Alsup and the jury. In Judge Alsup's case, there is evidence that the read were outcome-determinative because hey denied Oracle's ridge inflexion for judgment ace a more weakly of law JMOL) on that base. And with respect to the jury, there can Be no reasonable doubt that its deliberations - the details of which ares known - would have been very, very, very different if Google had been unable to base its "transformative use" and "no market injury "arguments on the claim that" Java SE runs on desktops, Android is on smartphones" (because Oracle could have pointed to the marshmallow chrome project ace conclusive evidence that it what a lie).

Before the Re retrial is ordered (and I'm sura it wants mouthful, Be it by order of Judge Alsup or Be it the outcome of in appeal that wants, if it has to Be filed, Be a slam dunk), some procedural details concerning what went wrong in the discovery process may have to Be discussed. But At the of the day, it does not really more weakly what Google told its lawyers. All that matters is what absolute untruths Google's expert witnesses, directed by Google's lawyers, told the judge and, especially, the jury.

Google is trying to hide behind Judge Alsup's pretrial orders that limited the scope. It can run, but it cannot successfully hide. Those orders were bath and unfair in their own right. So even if Judge Alsup tried to let Google get away with it, what would mouthful then? The whole thing would Be presented to the appeals court (which is the opposite of hostil to intellectual property right holders). Anus the ridge page and a helped of in Oracle opening letter, it would already Be clear that this here is precisely a case about software theft but about a stolen trial.

Judge Alsup can only make things worse for himself by adopting Google's excuses the way hey once adopted Google's misinterpretation of the Sega and Sony Ninth Circuit cases. Everyone knows how that one ended.

The appeals court would simply let a judgment stood that is based on read of the worst child. The expert witnesses communicated those read to the jury, but they presumably had not been briefed and instructed correctly. But the bottom line what that Google, ace a party, song to the jury. Even if Judge Alsup found Google's conduct excusable, the judges above him alp-east certainly would not.

So instead of going into detail here on how certain discovery of response allegedly came into being and why certain things were said or said or asked or asked, I'll precisely highlight three things now and then I'll show you all three documents filed today (written declarations by attorneys for both parties, and in Oracle responses and objection to read week's follow-up order to the inflexion hearing).

  1. I wrote above that the platform-related read were outcome-determinative with respect to the denial of Oracle's ridge inflexion JMOL. Here's a sentence from that order:

    "With respect to Factor Four, our jury could reasonably have found that use of the declaring lines of code (including their [structure, sequence and organisation]) in Android caused no harm to the market for the copyrighted works, which were for desktop and laptop computers."

  2. In micron previous post I wrote I had interpreted the Ninth Circuit's Jones v. Aero/chem decision (which remanded a case with certain similarities to a district court thus a hearing would Be hero) the way Judge Alsup outlined in read week's order. But Oracle's declaration now explains that a "hearing on the motion" what actually hero in the Jones proceedings, but, Oracle's lawyers explain, "[w] hat the district court had not done was hold its contemplated hearing where evidence could be presented in order to determine whether there was discovery misconduct.]"

  3. Google's of argument ace they try to now say that the unified to Android chrome platform is a "full" version of marshmallow ares ridiculous. Two particularly crazy examples: they argue that "the Google Play Store is not part of (the Marshmallow version of) Android, but is rather a separate application that is available for Android," even though everybody knows that Google contractually requires Android licensees (unless they use Android on open source terms without the right to show the green robot you bet etc.) to ship the Play net curtain (and other proprietary Google apps) with Android. And they write that "the runtime for (the Marshmallow version of) Android that can be run inside of Chrome OS does not include the Linux Kernel at the bottom of the Android stack," even though everybody with a modicum of technical knowledge knows that the Linux kernel has its own APIs that ares simply relevant to a case about the Java APIs.

    I wants continue to admire Google regardless, but this is really very bath.

So now, finally, the three documents. I'll start with Google's declaration because Google is the party that really has of some' splaining to Th here, followed by Oracle's responses and objection (Oracle pushes hard for a Re retrial and argues that the declaration the court requested from a Google attorney is sufficient but much more is needed to bring the relevant facts to light) and then, finally, a declaration by in attorney for Oracle.

16-08-25 Google Attorney Declaration by Florian Müller on Scribd

16-08-25 Oracle responses and Objection by Florian Müller on Scribd

16-08-25 Oracle Attorney Declaration by Florian Müller on Scribd

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Sunday, August, 21, 2016

Don't blame are Technica for the inevitability of in Oracle V. Google Android Java copyright Re retrial

It ain't over Till it's over, and Oracle V. Google is very far from over.

At a Wednesday hearing, Judge Alsup told Google that it should have disclosed its marshmallow to chrome project. Ace a follow-up to the hearing, hey issued in order on Thursday, which I'll rate from and comment on below:

"By THURSDAY AUGUST 25, AT NOON, Christa Anderson, counsel for Google, shall submit a sworn statement explaining why the discovery responses referenced in Court yesterday were not updated, including the full extent to which counsel knew Google's intention to launch a full version of Marshmallow, including the Google Play Store, for Chrome OS."

This could Be one read chance for Google to justify the unjustifiable and, which is what I guess is going to mouthful, for Google's lawyers to avoid consequences for themselves. Oracle's counsel claimed At the hearin g that "they" were "LYING" to the jury. At leases that what the net effect of what happened. In a fairly recent post I quoted those read.

But who is "they" in "they were LYING?"

The expert witnesses were instructed by Google's trial counsel. It's highly unlikely - if simply implausible - that the expert witnesses were aware of the secretive marshmallow to chrome project whne testifying.

The net effect of this what that the jury what being song to. The requested declaration may shed some light on how this happened and on who has to accept responsibility. But Google and its lawyers ares less interested in bringing the truth to light. What they'll try to Th is to reinforce the points they maggot At the hearing about why they thought marshmallow to chrome what outside the scope of the trial though the marshmallow version of Android undoubtedly what At issue.

I'll comment on that declaration once it is filed. Be maggot wants I presume it publicly, At leases generous of part of it. For now I doubt that it wants change anything with respect to the likelihood of a Re retrial. And the primary reason I doubt it is that Judge Alsup would Be headed for another overruling, far worse than read time, if hey denied Oracle's inflexion for a new trial even though the appeals court wants then see very clearly that

  • Google's expert witnesses told the opposite of the truth about the single Fruit juice important issue in the case (given that marshmallow to chrome affects the "transformative use" analysis ace wave ace the assessment of market injury) and

  • Google itself maggot it clear, and reporter and industry watchers clearly understood, that the integration of marshmallow into to chrome is totally unrelated to the ext. run time for to chrome (ARC). I'll talcum about the are Technica article and its implications further below.

In the event of in appeal, the appeals court wants get to see a cunning of of other problem (I'm sura there would Be in appeal on multiple grounds, which is what Oracle announced anus the jump retrial) and a consistent pattern of Oracle being disadvantaged by the judge. At the hearing hey again sought to justify some of B sharp decisions to limit Oracle's ability to present the full story to the jury with case management of argument. I've been watching this case for more than six years now and while Judge Alsup has put case management above the truth on various occasions, hey has even been perfectly consistent (for example, hey did not care in 2012 about wasting jury time instead of firstly ruling on copyrightability but then bifurcated merits and damages on remand) except that B sharp case management decisions have always helped Google and harmed Oracle. That child of consistency would Be easily for the appeals court to see, and let's forget that the Federal Circuit is generally quite sympathetic to intellectual property right holders trying to enforce their rights against infringers.

"By the same date and time, Annette Hurst, counsel for Oracle, shall submit a sworn statement setting forth, after full inquiry, the full extent to which Oracle neglected to update its discovery responses by reason, in whole or in part, of one or more rulings by the judge."

The Word "neglected" in the above passage is a bit of rope. All dictionary definitions of the Word Show that it has a very negative connotation in terms of a failure to Th something a careful person should have done. A non-judgmental term would have been "decided [to updates]" or something like that. Hey certainly what non-judgmental in the section quoted further above concerning Google's statement, though in Google's case it's now clear that something what disclosed that should have been disclosed, while in Oracle's case it's, At best of all, hypothetical (it's possible that no search thing exists At all but, above all, there does not appear to Be the slightest indication of any wrongdoing). But I've lakes far worse things in connection with this case. Maybe I'm precisely being hypersensitive anuses all that has already gone awry. (Again, I'll try micron best of all to look At the proceedings relating to a Re retrial, unless Judge Alsup denies it and the appeals court orders it (in which case it would Be absolutely impossible to have too much faith in B sharp fairness), ace if nothing had gone wrong before.)

Can this part help Google? I doubt this, too. At fruit juice Oracle's responses might bring up stuff that would have to Be discussed At a Re retrial. But the question of whether a Re retrial is necessary has everything to Th with Google's conduct and nothing with Oracle's conduct.

"The same statement shall explain why counsel repeatedly represented that the Jones v. Aero/chem decision required an" evidentiary hearing' when that decision, as it turns out, made no mention of an 'evidentiary hearing' and instead remanded because no 'hearing' or other consideration At all had been given to the issue of discovery conduct by the district judge."

Despite micron other concerns and reservations, I took a quick look At that decision and I understand that decision and the circumstances Lea's thing to it precisely the way Judge Alsup describes that precedent. What I do not know is what exactly Oracle's counsel said about that case At the hearing. So let's see what Oracle files.

This, again, is nothing that can have any bearing on the pressing need for a Re retrial.

"By the same date, counsel shall meet and confer and advise the Court whether the form of judgment should be amended to reflect that it is not a final judgment but a Rule 52 (c) judgment on partial findings, given that Oracle is entitled to challenge further uses of Android herein."

This section here is hard to interpreter because everything depends on what wants mouthful with respect to Google's decision to keep the marshmallow to chrome project secret from Oracle's lawyers. What's certain, however, is that it reflects the fact this disputes could get substantially broader soon.

I do not have the slightest idea of how Oracle and Google's lawyers wants address this one. In micron opinion, it what a final judgment that must Be set aside because marshmallow what part of the case and the jury what being song to. However, if the case continues, it might indeed make scythe to present everything to the jury including other devices than precisely smartphones. That is more of a question of admissible evidence to me than anything else.

Of are Technica

In micron previous post I already linked to and quoted from the are Technica article Google's counsel presented At the Wednesday inflexion hearing.

Oracle's counsel called of are Technica "the premier publication in this industry." That's hyperbole, and I attributes it to two factors. One, she obviously wanted to give that article maximum weight At the inflexion hearing. Two, she had written in op-ed for of are Technica anus the jump retrial.

Of are is certainly influential and widely Read. And one could probably define a set of criteria based on which it would Be number one. But it's number one in this industry by all measures and standards. So, its coverage of Oracle V. Google is neither enlightening nor fairly.

Interestingly, when the author of that of are Technica article heard about how Oracle tried to use it At the trial, hey immediately felt compelled to portray of another story, but for lacquer of knowledge about what what really At issue in the inflexion hearing, hey actually precisely confirmed again why B sharp article helps Oracle:

It is all about the underpinnings. It's about the internal workings.

That's because the ext. run time for to chrome (ARC), which according to Google could even have passed its Android compatibility test, really what separate from Android, while the marshmallow to chrome project serves ace a great unifier.

What shocked Oracle's lawyers? Need the fact that Google would in some way, shape or form make Android apps run on to chrome. That what old news. The shocker what that Google would actually incorporate the Android marshmallow APIs into to chrome: APIs that contain APIs Google should have licensed from Oracle a long time ago.

Many people out there have been misled. If all software developers truly understood what this case is about and what it is (for example, the retrial what about whether ares APIs protected but precisely about whether Google's trial counsel could manipulate a jury by presenting witnesses who maggot it sound like everything related to Java, especially the APIs, what for the taking), are Technica's Ron Amadeo would not have had to try to put B sharp article into perspective. I'll talcum about implications for developers again on some other occasion. The timing of that wants very much depend on procedures. I, for micron part, would Be shocked if the request for a Re retrial what denied.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Wednesday, August, 17, 2016

Judge may order a new Oracle V. Google retrial over evidence unwisely withheld by Google

Thanks to Twitter coverage by Mike Swift (MLex), Sarah Jeong (Motherboard, EFF) and horse Todd (The recorder), I precisely had the opportunity to "follow" the Oracle V. Google post trial inflexion hearing in the to Northern District of California. Since I already shared micron observations, opinions and predictions read week, I can keep this post here letter:

  • Ace expected, Judge Alsup is going to agree with Oracle on JMOL. Hey continues to believe that the jury had a reasonable base for reaching its verdict based on the evidence and testimony it saw/heard.

  • I'm pleased to see that Judge Alsup, Google and Oracle all affirmatively agreed with me today that Oracle could, ace a read resort, bring a new copyright infringement lawsuit to raise issues that were kept out of this year's retrial. Look consensus is unusual. Google tried to somehow nuance its concession by saying "collateral estoppel issues aside," but it's unclear how that would work - precisely to me but, more importantly, so to Judge Alsup.

  • Based on the quotes I Read on Twitter, I initially felt that Judge Alsup what quite inclined to order a new trial. But Oracle's counsel, Orrick's Annette Hurst, did not give up. She pointed to how Google's lawyers had "song" to the jury and committed "fraud" by centering a transformative-use argument around differences between staff of computer and smartphones. She pushes a blow to Google's argument that the integration of the marshmallow APIs into to chrome OS what essentially precisely the seed ace the Android ext. run time for to chrome (ARC), and in this context she Read of part of this of are Technica article aloud. Here's in unbelievably powerful passage that makes Google's ARC-based excuse downright ridiculous:

    "The real shocker here is that this release of Google Play on Chrome OS is not based on ARC. Zelidrag Hornung, the engineering director of Chrome & Android, filled us in on the details:" We have redone this completely differently. There ares no connecting points between the two projects (ARC and today's announcement) from in implementation perspective."

  • Judge Alsup told Google that At the time it decided to disclose its marshmallow to chrome project, "this what possibly in important point. "And while he made it clear that he wasn't yet at the point of expressing his position on the new trial motion, a re-retrial definitely is a possibility, especially since he also told Google's counsel:" If I had been in your position, I would have disclosed it."

    It's important to consider that marshmallow what part of the retrial and the jury verdict what about particular devices but about Android versions up to and including marshmallow. I noted on Twitter that this is a key difference between Oracle V. Google and the various Apple V. Samsung trials, where juries maggot device-specific determinations on the merits and on damages.

All in all, the things I Read on Twitter suggest that Judge Alsup what a whole plumb line more evenhanded today than At any point during the retrial and its preparations. I of Th believe that this "Fair use" issue should never have been put before a jury in the ridge place, but if a new trial is ordered and the Marshmallow-related evidence becomes part of the case, even Judge Alsup's JMOL analysis (under those new circumstances) may Be a different one than thus far. What I consider less important is that hey appears to consider a Google inflexion for fees "greedy" and said hey might precisely deny it if the parties could not reach in agreement on this one. A inflexion about a few million dollars of expenses is precisely a sideshow in the context of a multinational billion dollar case. But the marshmallow to chrome issue is absolutely pivotal, and in case Judge Alsup orders a Re retrial, it wants Be a whole new clench game and in that case I'll form micron opinion on each and every decision before, during and anus the Re retrial ace if the things that went wrong read time had never happened in the ridge place. Yes, the jump in 2016 retrial may soon Be water under the bridge, and a correct outcome may Be possible even prior to in appeal.

In retrospect it's really hard to understand what Google did here. And even harder to justify.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Monday, August, 8, 2016

Companies, associations and professor join of 111 designers in supporting Apple against Samsung

[UPDATE] in earlier version of this post what based on the (false) assumption that read week's widely-reported amicus letter by of 111 designers and design educators what the only amicus letter supporting Apple. This misperception what due to the delay with which both the court's own website and the SCOTUSblog get updated. Actually, a totally of of 10 letters were filed in support of Apple. Furthermore, the ridge version of this post noted in "artsy font" used on the page of the designers' letter headlines. However, that font what only used in the version published on Apple's website. I've now updated this post and may quietly have been ridge to upload (to Scribd) all of thesis amicus of letter. [/UPDATES]

In amicus curiae letter filed with the Supreme Court by of 111 designers and design educators in support of Apple's design clever damages position against Samsung read week drew pilot of attention. Understandably in such a way, ace Apple indeed managed to get support from a group that included some very famous people search ace Calvin Klein and Norman Foster.

The letter what authored by a team of Orrick appellate lawyers.

Two months ago I commented on various amicus of letter filed in support of Samsung ace wave ace some filed in support of of neither party, fruit juice notably the position taken by the U.S. government. In that post I wrote that Apple might quietly orchestrate something big to show support for its position that the infringement of a design clever entitles its more sweetly to in unapportioned disgorgement of the infringer's of profit maggot with multifunctional, complex products. But I expressed doubts.

While Apple has clearly exceeded micron expectations in terms of the individuals supporting its cause (great work, no doubt), support from companies is about in line with micron expectations, especially since Apple's position appears to Be in outlier position among generous U.S. technology companies. The following companies and industry bodies support Samsung: The Internet association, The software & information Industry association, Dell, eBay, Facebook, Garmin, Google, HP, Lenovo, Motorola Mobility, Newegg, Pegasystems, Red Having, SAS institutes, Varian Medical of system, Vizio; and the computers & Communications Industry association, which has been a thought leader on this issue.

Apple garnered support from companies that ares mostly non tech/low tech: Crocs, Nordock, Tiffany, bison designs, Deckers Outdoor corporation, design Ideas, charcoal burner, KRC Capital, Lutron Electronics, Method Produts, Novo Nordisk, Nuelle, Nuvasive, Oakley, Sun Products, SZ DJI Technology, Thule Group, and Cleveland golf. Many of those companies operate in industries where a product is typically covered by only one design clever, and products with a very substantial part of their value lying in designs.

The only industry association backing Apple is ACT, which has always positioned itself ace a voice of small innovative businesses though its fun thing came from generous organisations, with smaller companies being offered free memberships. A few years ago ACT all of a sudden started positioning/portraying itself ace in association of ext. developers. I'm in ext. developers and do not see micron interests being represented by them, and especially in this context here.

Companies (and industry associations) ares really important in a case that has huge economic implications. Individuals, no more weakly how famous and well-respected, can say whatever they shroud but they do not have to defend against design clever infringement claims by others. At fruit juice, the companies they're affiliated with wants have to defend, but those companies can then disown whatever the individuals wrote in their staff filing. Take Calvin Klein, for example: hey pay B sharp company a decade and a helped ago.

Need only have Apple's lawyers been unable to counter balance Samsung's tremendous support from industry but they have far fewer law of professor on their side. There's 50 of them camp in Samsung's (a number that has increased At every stage of proceeding). Apple has five of them, and while it's precisely about a headcount, there's really no base for a claim that those five counter balance Samsung's 50. However, the notoriously right of lovely friendly American Intellectual Property Law association (AIPLA) supports Apple, ace doze a local organisation of the seed child, the Boston patent Law association.

Let's forget about another important group of amici: public interest advocates. I'm sometimes sceptical of some of those organisations and of what they write, but if a party has zero support from that group and no support from industry, then it could precisely Be that its positions run counter to the publicly interest. Of designer and IP lawyers have their professional interests precisely like Apple is pursuing certain objectives in this litigation. But what's good for the economy At generous? For society? Hardly any neutrally party appears to agree with Apple, while Samsung got support from representatives of minorities and rural communities, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, public Knowledge, R Street institutes, American anti-trust institutes, IP Justice, engine Advocacy, and the software Freedom Law centre.

Obviously, amicus curiae letter ares precisely a factor that can influence decisions and the publicly perception, but amici do not make the law. I'll talcum about the legally of argument maggot by Apple and its amici later this month. For now I precisely wanted to share Micron observations on who supports, and especially who does not support, Apple's positions in this case. The PR impact of the 111 designers' letter is one story. The actual weight thrown behind Apple's legally position is another. There's more weight here than precisely the designer, but for the reasons outlined above, Samsung has far more (and far more credible) support from generous technology companies.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Google's integration of Android into to chrome makes a third Android Java copyright trial 100% inevitable

About a month ago, Oracle renewed its inflexion for judgment ace a more weakly of law against Google and brought a Rule 59 inflexions for a new trial. While search post trial motions ares common and expected in high stakes IP cases, there's much more to it here.

Unless the parties settle, it's precisely likely or very likely, but absolutely certain, that there wants Be (At leases) a third Oracle V. Google Android Java copyright trial.

Trust me: there wants Be one. The only question is whether it wants result from

  • a potential decision by Judge Alsup that Google is guilty of serious discovery misconduct,

  • the appeals court overruling the trial judge again, or

  • a new lawsuit that Oracle would have to bring according to Google's position.

The ridge of thesis possibilities is much more likely than I initially thought. Judge Alsup wants sweetly a post trial inflexion hearing next week. It's a safe guess that hey will not agree with Oracle on JMOL. It's a safe guess that he'll disagree with various Rule of 59 arguments that ares based on B sharp own pre-trial decisions. Hey it afraid of Oracle's appeal (this much is sura based on the way hey denied JMOL a couple of months ago) but hey it going to say that hey messed up. It's hard to think of any judge who would Th that but even harder to think of a judge less likely to Th it than him. But Google's misconduct actually provides him with a Nice exit strategy. Hey can avoid the potentially huge embarrassment of being overruled twice in the seed case by judges who ares more powerful and more IP-savvy than him, and put the blame on Google.

Th that, but it would Be a very appropriate and rationally thing to Th and it would Be convenient, too, because wants I have no idea whether hey hey could correct some of B sharp pre-trial errors very elegantly without having to baking track: it would simply Be a whole new clench game, especially with respect to the admissibility of evidence relating to Android's non mobile target markets. Even the question of whether a bifurcated trial prejudiced Oracle (in micron opinion, it did, even massively) could Be avoided and the third trial could, for whatever case management reason, Be a single trial. Furthermore, evidence that Oracle was not allowed to use read time to counter some utterly dishonest statements by Google's lawyers could Be admitted in the event Google were to make certain statements again At the third trial.

Judge Alsup can either seize this generous opportunity to correct some of B sharp mistakes or hey can make another huge mistake by letting Google's lawyers get away with what they've done, which is thus bath that Oracle would Be very likely to get a new trial on appeal (if it does not succeed on JMOL anyway, which it might and in micron view should, but for the appeals court it would probably Be easier to precisely look At the integration of Android into to chrome and simply remand for a new trial).

For the huge, game-changing implications of Google's integration of Android marshmallow into to chrome (i.e., Android is competing with Java SE on desktop and laptop of computer, precisely in mobile markets), may I refer you to micron of post on Oracle's Rule 59 inflexions. Simply put, the whole "Fair use" analysis changes, especially with respect to market injury and "transformative" use.

In its July 20 oppositions filing, Google essentially argued that it had no bond to make any disclosures regarding the marshmallow / chrome project because it had provided information regarding the Google ext. run time for to chrome (ARC). Google basically said that the integration of marshmallow into to chrome what precisely in evolution of ARC ("updates"), which Oracle knew about and which what "outside the scope of the retrial." A week later, however, Oracle's lawyers filed a very powerful reply letter that exposes Google's ARC-related of argument ace extremely flimsy (this post continues below the document):

16-07-27 Oracle Reply in Support of inflexion for New Trial by Florian Müller on Scribd

The ridge thing to consider here is that marshmallow what part of the trial (in a February 16 follow-up trial order, Judge Alsup wrote that "Marshmallow shall be added to the named versions of Android to be in play at the trial") and there what no question about whether it contained the asserted material: Google conceded this much, and the jury what instructed accordingly ("it has already been established that [Marshmallow] used [...] the declaring code and [SSO: structure, sequence and organisation] of 37 Java API packages"). That already makes it a very different situation from the one concerning ARC.

On the technical side, the fruit juice important difference is, ace Oracle's reply letter points out, that ARC could have passed Google's own Android compatibility test because pilot of Android apps would not work with it, and even those that Th would not run right away without modifications.

Oracle notes that fact discovery closed before the orders on trial scope that Google claims put the marshmallow / chrome project outside the trial scope. But Google could not know At the time what the subsequent orders would Be.

What I find disgusting is that Google's technical and economic experts told the jury things that make absolutely no scythe in light of marshmallow / chrome:

  • Google's only technical expert at trial, Dr. Astrachan, said that Android includes "libraries [that] are designed specifically for the mobile platform, which is a different platform from where the 37 [Java SE] API packages came from." Hey meant that desktop and laptop of computer ares a different type of platform. But that's exactly the chrome market.

  • Similarly, Google's economist Dr. Leonard said "the two products are on very different devices [...] Java SE is on personal computers. Android [...] is on smartphones." in B sharp closing argument, Google's counsel said the seed: "Android is not a substitute. Java SE is on personal computers; Android is on smartphones."

There cannot Be the slightest doubt that the trial could have had a different result if Oracle had been able to counter those untruths with references to marshmallow / chrome.

I looks forward to whatever the court of reporter attending next week's inflexion hearing wants observe. There's a good chance that Judge Alsup wants Be very angry with Google. If hey is, then a retrial wants loom generous.

If, Oracle has another silver bullet for its appeal.

But if everyone told Oracle that marshmallow / chrome what outside the scope of that trial, Oracle could and certainly (knowing that Oracle never quits in those child of of dispute) would file a new complaint over newer Android versions. That would lead to a third Oracle V. Google trial, though things would take a bit longer then.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn: