12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
O
RACLE
’
S
O
PP
.
TO
M
TN
.
FOR
S
UMMARY
J
UDGMENT
O
N
C
OUNT
VIII
(C
OPYRIGHT
I
NFRINGEMENT
)C
ASE
N
O
.
CV 10-03561 WHA pa-1480647
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLPMICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664)mjacobs@mofo.comMARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725)mdpeters@mofo.comDANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624)dmuino@mofo.com755 Page Mill RoadPalo Alto, CA 94304-1018Telephone: (650) 813-5600 / Facsimile: (650) 494-0792BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLPDAVID BOIES (Admitted
Pro Hac Vice
)dboies@bsfllp.com333 Main StreetArmonk, NY 10504Telephone: (914) 749-8200 / Facsimile: (914) 749-8300STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)sholtzman@bsfllp.com1999 Harrison St., Suite 900Oakland, CA 94612Telephone: (510) 874-1000 / Facsimile: (510) 874-1460ORACLE CORPORATIONDORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049)dorian.daley@oracle.comDEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527)deborah.miller@oracle.comMATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600)matthew.sarboraria@oracle.com500 Oracle ParkwayRedwood City, CA 94065Telephone: (650) 506-5200 / Facsimile: (650) 506-7114
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO DIVISIONORACLE AMERICA, INC.Plaintiff,v.GOOGLE INC.Defendant.Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.’SOPPOSITION TO GOOGLE’SMOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT ON COUNT VIII OFORACLE’S AMENDEDCOMPLAINT
Date: September 15, 2011Time: 2:00 p.m.Dept.: Courtroom 9, 19th Floor Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup
Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document339 Filed08/20/11 Page1 of 30
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
O
RACLE
’
S
O
PP
.
TO
M
TN
.
FOR
S
UMMARY
J
UDGMENT
O
N
C
OUNT
VIII
(C
OPYRIGHT
I
NFRINGEMENT
)C
ASE
N
O
.
CV 10-03561 WHA
i INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................................................................2ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................................8I. GOOGLE’S WHOLESALE COPYING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF JAVAAPI SPECIFICATIONS IS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT..........................................8A. Ninth Circuit Law Requires An Analysis Of The Particular ExpressiveContent Of A Copyrighted Computer Program......................................................9B. Google Cannot Meet Its Burden Of Showing That The Java APIs Do NotContain Copyrightable Expression.......................................................................121. Copyright Law Protects the Original Expression in the Selection,Coordination and Arrangement Of the Java APIs.....................................122. Copyright Law Protects the Names of the Packages, Classes,Interfaces, Fields, and Other Elements in the Java APIs..........................14C. The Scenes A Faire And Merger Doctrines Do Not Apply Here.........................16D. Google Copied The APIs......................................................................................17E. Google’s Copying Was Not Fair Use...................................................................19II. GOOGLE AND ITS AGENTS LITERALLY COPIED MULTIPLE PROGRAMS,SOURCE CODE SECTIONS, AND COMMENTS.........................................................23CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................25
Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document339 Filed08/20/11 Page2 of 30
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
O
RACLE
’
S
O
PP
.
TO
M
TN
.
FOR
S
UMMARY
J
UDGMENT
O
N
C
OUNT
VIII
(C
OPYRIGHT
I
NFRINGEMENT
)C
ASE
N
O
.
CV 10-03561 WHA
ii
pa-1480647
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)C
ASES
9, 16, 17
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Int’l, Inc.
,725 F.2d 521 (9th Cir. 1984).............................................................................................10, 11
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
(“
Apple I
”)35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994).....................................................................................................9
Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.,
975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992).................................................................................................20
Autoskill, Inc. v. Nat’l Educ. Support Sys., Inc.
,994 F.2d 1476 (10th Cir. 1993)...............................................................................................14
Bateman v. Mnemonics
,79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1996).................................................................................................17
Baystate Techs. v. Bentley Sys.
,946 F. Supp. 1079 (D. Mass. 1996)........................................................................................17
Bean v. Littell
,669 F. Supp. 2d 1031 (D. Ariz. 2008).....................................................................................23
Biberro Sys., Inc. v. Colwell, Inc.
,893 F.2d 1104 (9th Cir. 1990).................................................................................................12
Boisson v. Banian, Ltd.
,273 F.3d 262 (2d Cir. 2001)....................................................................................................15
Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp.
,960 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1992).................................................................................................11
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose,
510 U.S. 569 (1994)................................................................................................................19
CMAX/Cleveland, Inc. v. UCR, Inc.,
804 F. Supp. 337 (M.D. Ga. 1992)...................................................................................14, 15
Control Data Sys., Inc. v. Infoware, Inc.
,903 F. Supp. 1316 (D. Minn. 1995)........................................................................................16
Dream Games of Ariz., Inc. v. PC Onsite
,561 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009)...................................................................................................16
Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document339 Filed08/20/11 Page3 of 30
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Oracle opposes Google's request for summary judgment
Oracle opposed Google's request for summary judgment on the copyright issue.
1.1K
Reads
3
Readcasts
1
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
