Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
12-05-11 Oracle v Google JMOL on 8 Dec Om Piled Files

12-05-11 Oracle v Google JMOL on 8 Dec Om Piled Files

Ratings: (0)|Views: 23,654|Likes:
Published by Florian Mueller
May 11, 2012 order by Judge William Alsup holding Google, as a matter of law, to have infringed 8 (decompiled) Java files, 6 of which were first published by the FOSS Patents blog.
May 11, 2012 order by Judge William Alsup holding Google, as a matter of law, to have infringed 8 (decompiled) Java files, 6 of which were first published by the FOSS Patents blog.

More info:

Published by: Florian Mueller on May 12, 2012
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

05/12/2012

pdf

 
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAORACLE AMERICA, INC.,Plaintiff,v.GOOGLE INC.,Defendant.No. C 10-03561 WHA
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONFOR JUDGMENT AS AMATTER OF LAW ONDECOMPILED FILES
The evidence at trial showed that Google decompiled eight Java files and copied themeach in their entirety. No reasonable jury could find that the copying of entire computer fileswas de minimis. The trial record contains the source code for the Java code files(TX 623.2–623.8), decompiled versions of Java code files (TX 896.1–896.8), and correspondingAndroid code files (TX 1031–40). Professor John Mitchell testified about the decompilationprocess, how he determined that the eight files were decompiled and how, in a side-by-sidecomparison he found “that the actual code matches completely” (Tr. at 1259–1260).In its opposition brief, Google argues that the jury may have found that Google’s use of the copied files was de minimis because these copied files were only “test files” that were notshipped on Android phones. This is unpersuasive. Professor Mitchell testified that using thecopied files even as test files would have been significant use. There was no testimony to thecontrary. Moreover, our court of appeals has held that it is the amount of copying as comparedto
Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1123 Filed05/11/12 Page1 of 2

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->