2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SUPERIORCOURT,STATEOFCALIFORNIACOUNTYOFSANTACLARA
10
11
12
HEWLETT-PACKARDCOMPANY,
)))))
)CaseNo.:1~11~CV-203163
)
)PROPOSEDSTATEMENTOFDECISION
)))
)
)
--------------------------~)
13
Plaintiff,
14
VS.
15
16
ORACLECORPORATION,
17
Defendant
1819
20
NOTICE:INACCORDANCEWITH§632OFTHECODEOFCIVILPROCEDUREANDRULE3.1590(g),CALIFORNIARULESOFCOURT,THEPARTIESHAVE15DAYSTOOBJECTTOTHISPROPOSEDDECISION
1
22
23
2425
26
HewlettPackardCompanyv.OracleCorporationSuperiorCourta/California,Countya/SantaClara,CaseNo.l-11-CV-203163ProposedStatement
0/
Decision
1
1
I.INTRODUCTION
2
ThiscasecausestheCourttorevisitthecenturies-oldissuesofwhetheracontractexists
3
and,ifso,whatdoesitmean.ThesequestionsarefortheCourttodecide,ratherthanajury.
4
(GreaterMiddletonAssn.
v.
HolmesLumberCo.
(1990)222Ca1.App.3d980,989-990.)When
5
theCourtdeniedthesummaryjudgmentmotionbroughtbyHewlett-PackardCompany("HP")
6
todeclaretherewasindeedacontractwithOracleCorporation("Oracle")andtofurtherspecify
7
whatitmeant,therewerefactualissuesthatrequiredatrial.(OrderofMay14,2012["MSJ
8
Order"]).Forseveralweeks,theCourtheardfrombusinessexecutives,lawyers,andcomputer
9
engineersfrombothsides.InmakingthisdecisiontheCourthasbeenguidedbyestablished
10
principlessuchasthese:
11
"Whenadisputearisesoverthemeaningofcontractlanguage,thefirstquestiontobe
12
decidediswhetherthelanguageis'reasonablysusceptible'totheinterpretationurgedbythe
13
party.
If
itisnot,thecaseisover."
(SouthernCal.EdisonCo.
v.
SuperiorCourt
(1995)37
14
Cal.AppAth839,847-848,citing
ConsolidatedWorldInvestments,Inc.
v.
LidoPreferred,Ltd.
15
(1992)9Cal.AppAth373,379).ShouldtheCourtdecidethelanguageisreasonablysusceptible
16
totheinterpretationurged,theCourtmovestothesecondquestion:whatdidthepartiesintend
17
thelanguagetomean?
(Winetv.Price
(1992)4Cal.AppAth1159,1165.)"Whetherthe
18
contractisreasonablysusceptibletoaparty'sinterpretationcanbedeterminedfromthelanguage
19
ofthecontractitself
(UnitedTeachersofOakland
v.
OaklandUnifiedSch.Dist.
(1977)75
20
Cal.App.3d322,330)orfromextrinsicevidenceoftheparties'intent
(Winet
v.
Price,supra,4
21
Cal.AppAthatp.1165.)"
(SouthernCal.Edison,supra,
37Cal.App.4thatpp.847-848).1
22
23
1
Thisisnotthefirsttimeadisputehasarisenbetweentwobillion-dollarcorporationsastowhetheracontractexistedbetweenthem.TheCourttakesjudicialnoticeofthePennzoil/Texacolitigationofsomeyearsago.InthatcaseahandshakebetweenthekeyexecutivesbecamethefocalpointofthedecisionconcerningthepurchaseofGettyOil.(See
Texacov.Pennzoil
(1987)729S.W.2d768.)
4
25
26
HewlettPackardCompanyv.OracleCorporationSuperiorCourtofCalifornia,CountyofSantaClara,CaseNo.l-11-CV-203163ProposedStatement
0/
Decision
2
9
PursuanttoCaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule3.1590(g),"[a]nypartymay,within15daysII.PROCEDURALBACKGROUND
2
ThebenchtrialofthiscasebeganonMay31,2012andproceededtotrialthroughJune
3
26,2012,totaling12trialdays.Thirtywitnessestestifiedinpersonorbywayofselected
4
depositionexcerpts.Over500exhibitswereintroducedintoevidence.Thepartiesmade
5
detailedopeningstatementsandclosingarguments,andutilizedtheCourt'sevidence
6
presentationequipmenttoemphasizeevidenceandissuesastheysawfit.Bothsidessubmitted
7
theirversionsofstatementsofdecisionwhichtheCourthascarefullyconsideredinmakingthis
8
ruling.
10
aftertheproposedstatementofdecisionandjudgmenthavebeenserved,serveandfile
11
objectionstotheproposedstatementofdecisionorjudgment."Thereafter,theCourtshallissue
12
itsfinaldecisionastothisphaseandacasemanagementconferencewillbescheduledto
13
determinethetimingandcourseoffurtherproceedings.
14
III.FINDINGSOFFACT
15
A.ThePeriodBeforetheHurdLawsuitAndSettlement
16
ForapproximatelythreedecadesOracleporteditsdatabase,middlewareandkey
17
applicationsoftwaretoHP'sserverplatforms.
It
isundisputedthat"porting"istheprocessby
18
whichsoftwareismadetorunonaparticularplatform.Inthecontextofthiscaseportingisthe
19
essentialstepthatenablesOraclesoftwareandHPhardwaretoconnect.Throughoutthisperiod,
20
HPandOracleengagedinjointsalesactivities,withHPsellingitshardwareandOracleselling
21
itssoftware,intandem,totheirmutualcustomers.(Livermore6/4pm39:9-40:7;Ex.200at
4.i
22
Therelationshipwasprofitableforbothparties.(Livermore6/4pm58:3-5;Fink
6/13
am73:25-
23
75:8.).
2425
HewlettPackardCompanyv.OracleCorporationSuperiorCourta/California,Countya/SantaClara,CaseNo.J-ll-CV-203J63ProposedStatementa/Decision
3
26
2
Footnotesrefertotrialtranscriptbydate(morningorafternoon),page(s)andline(s).
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
HP v. Oracle: Proposed Statement of Decision
2.5K
Reads
1
Readcasts
39.9K
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
