

Google has filed its Answer with Counterclaims [PDF] to Oracle's patent and copyright infringement complaint, and how! It's a very aggressive and confident response to Oracle's complaint. Google asks that Oracle's complaint be dismissed, for a judgment in favor of all its counterclaims, for a declaratory judgment that Google has not infringed or contributed to any infringement of any of the patents, a declaration of the invalidity of all the Oracle patents, and a declaration that all Oracle's claims are barred by laches, equitable estoppel and/or waiver, and unclean hands. It wants Oracle to have to pays its costs and expenses of this litigation, including Google's attorneys' fees and expert witness fees, asking for a judgment that this is an exceptional case warranting it. Google also filed a motion to dismiss [PDF] the copyright infringement claim, Claim VIII, or for a more definite statement. The complaint doesn't tell them what exactly they are supposed to have done wrong, Google says. They'd like to know. Android has over 11 million lines of code, so where does Google look to find the alleged infringement? It's an operating system, so there are a lot of components, and so it could be code, documentation, specifications -- so what is it precisely Google, or others, supposedly did wrong? Do we have any volunteers in the San Francisco area who can attend hearings as this goes forward? The motion to dismiss is set for a hearing on November 18th, so if you can volunteer, email me please, and I'll fill you in with what you need to know.



Let's take a look at both filings. And I have the motion to dismiss as text. The Answer with Counterclaims: Here is the specific language in the relief section, showing what Google asks for in the Answer with Counterclaims: WHEREFORE, Google prays for judgment as follows: a. A judgment dismissing Oracles Complaint against Google with prejudice; b. A judgment in favor of Google on all of its Counterclaims; c. A declaration that Google has not infringed, contributed to the infringement of, or induced others to infringe, either directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claims of the Patents-in-Suit; d. A declaration that the Patents-in-Suit are invalid; e. A declaration that Oracles claims are barred by the doctrines of laches, equitable estoppel, and/or waiver; f. A declaration that the Oracles claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands; g. A declaration that this case is exceptional and an award to Google of its reasonable costs and expenses of litigation, including attorneys fees and expert witness fees; and h. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Ah. Unclean hands. This could get interesting. What could Oracle be thinking? Android was independently developed except for "a subset" of Apache Harmony libraries: 13. The Android platform includes, among other things, the Android Software Development Kit (SDK) and the Dalvik Virtual Machine (VM). The Dalvik VM relies on a version of the Linux kernel for core system services such as security, memory management, process management, network stack, and driver model, and as an abstraction layer between the hardware and the rest of the software stack. The core class libraries of the Dalvik VM incorporate a subset of Apache Harmony, a clean room, open source implementation of Java from the Apache Software Foundation. Other than the Harmony libraries, the Android platform, including, without limitation, the Dalvik VM, was independently developed by the OHA. Here's some water under the bridge Google highlights, from the history of Java: 6. Upon information and belief, Sun also released the specifications for Suns Java platform, including Suns Java virtual machine, under a free-of-charge license that can be found at http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/jcopyright.html and http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jvms/second_edition/html/Copyright.doc.html, respectively. The license allows developers to create clean room implementations of Suns Java specifications. If those implementations demonstrate compatibility with the Java specification, then Sun would provide a license for any of its intellectual property needed to practice the specification, including patent rights and copyrights. One example of a clean room implementation of Suns Java is Apache Harmony, developed by the Apache Software Foundation. The only way to demonstrate compatibility with the Java specification is by meeting all of the requirements of Suns Technology Compatibility Kit (TCK) for a particular edition of Suns Java. Importantly, however, TCKs were only available from Sun, initially not available as open source, were provided solely at Suns discretion, and included several restrictions, such as additional licensing terms and fees. In essence, although developers were free to develop a competing Java virtual machine, they could not openly obtain an important component needed to freely benefit from Suns purported open-sourcing of Java. 7. Sun came under significant criticism from members of the open source community, including Oracle Corp., for its refusal to fully open source Java. For example, in August of 2006, the Apache Software Foundation (ASF), a not-for-profit corporation that provides organizational, legal, and financial support for open source software projects, attempted to obtain a TCK from Sun to verify Apache Harmonys compatibility with Java. Although Sun eventually offered to open source the TCK for Java SE, Sun included field of use (FOU) restrictions that limited the circumstances under which Apache Harmony users could use the software that the ASF created, such as preventing the TCK from being executed on mobile devices. In April of 2007, the ASF wrote an open letter to Sun asking for either a TCK license without FOU restrictions, or an explanation as to why Sun was protect[ing] portions of Suns commercial Java business at the expense of ASFs open software and violating Suns public promise that any Sun-led specification [such as Java] would be fully implementable and distributable as open source/free software. However, Sun continued to refuse the ASFs requests. 8. Oracle Corp., as a member of the Executive Committee (EC) of the Java Community Process (JCP), the organization tasked with managing Java standards, voiced the same concerns regarding Suns refusal to fully open source the Java platform. Later that year, in December of 2007, during a JCP EC meeting, Oracle Corp. proposed that the JCP should provide a new, simplified IPR [intellectual property rights] Policy that permits the broadest number of implementations. At that same meeting, BEA Systems  which at the time was in negotiations that resulted in Oracle Corp. purchasing BEA  proposed a resolution that TCK licenses would be offered without field of use restrictions . . . enabling the TCK to be used by organizations including Apache. Oracle Corp. voted in favor of the resolution. 9. Just over a year later, in February of 2009, Oracle Corp. reiterated its position on the open-source communitys expectation of a fully open Java platform when it supported a motion that TCK licenses must not be used to discriminate against or restrict compatible implementations of Java specifications by including field of use restrictions on the tested implementations or otherwise. Licenses containing such limitations do not meet the requirements of the JSPA, the agreement under which the JCP operates, and violate the expectations of the Java community that JCP specs can be openly implemented. 10. Only a couple of months later, in April of 2009, Oracle Corp. announced that it would be acquiring Sun (renamed Oracle America after the acquisition was completed in January of 2010). Since that time, and directly contrary to Oracle Corp.s public actions and statements, as well as its own proposals as an executive member of the JCP, Oracle Corp. and Sun (now Oracle America) have ignored the open source communitys requests to fully open-source the Java platform. This history does make Oracle look bad, taking one position before it owned Java and the opposite the moment it obtained it. And here's a detail that matters in any copyright infringement litigation: 17. Google does not receive any payment, fee, royalty, or other remuneration for its contributions to the Android Platform. Here's another: 19. Although software applications for the Android platform may be written in the Java programming language, the Dalvik bytecode is distinct and different from Java bytecode. The Dalvik VM is not a Java VM. As for patents, Google states pointblank that it doesn't infringe: 24. Google does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the Patents-in-Suit, either directly or indirectly. And here's what matters in the patent context, repeated after each claim: 30. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because Oracle filed its Complaint with knowledge of the facts stated in this Counterclaim. That means they will be asking, as you saw in the relief section, that they think Oracle should have to pay them for the expense of answering and defending against the patent infringement litigation. The Motion to Dismiss: Google explains what it feels is wrong with the copyright claim: In support of this motion, Google respectfully shows that the claim for copyright infringement asserted in Count VIII of the Complaint is legally deficient. Count VIII does not identify any specific infringing work that is the subject of the alleged copyright infringement claim, does not identify with any specificity the manner in which Google allegedly infringed any copyrights of plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. ("Oracle"), and does not identify with any specificity the basis for any claim of vicarious infringement, inducement of infringement, or contributory infringement. As a result, Count VIII fails to state a claim for relief upon which relief can be granted. In the event that Count VIII is not dismissed, Google requests in the alternative that the Court enter an order requiring Oracle to provide a more definite statement of its claim of copyright infringement that provides sufficient detail so that Google may reasonably prepare a response to Oracle's claim. That's interesting, because I couldn't figure it out either. There is no way, from the complaint, to know why Oracle thinks it has such a claim. I thought we'd find out when Google responded, but they don't know either. Google explains further: Count VIII of Oracle's Complaint seeks to assert a claim of copyright infringement against some unidentified portion of the Android "platform," which includes a variety of different types of materials, including software code, computer programs, specifications, reference materials and developer tools and resources. Count VIII, however, is so vague and general that it is impossible for Google to determine from the Complaint: which portion or portions of the Android "platform" are the subject of the copyright infringement claim;

how Google allegedly infringed the copyrights in the two works identified in paragraph 11 and Exhibit H of Oracle's Complaint (the "Asserted Copyrights");

how any "users" of the Android platform may have allegedly infringed the Asserted Copyrights; or

how Google allegedly "encouraged, induced, caused, [or] materially contributed to" any acts of copyright infringement by any such other parties. As a result of these deficiencies, Oracle's claim of copyright infringement fails to meet the pleading standards applicable to a claim of copyright infringement. ....Rather than allege facts to support its claim, Oracle instead pleads nothing more than a rote recitation of certain of the exclusive rights the Copyright Act provides in 17 U.S.C. § 106, with absolutely no supporting facts. Like the complaints in both Miller and Cutler, there is no factual allegation as to how any Google materials relating to Android allegedly infringe the Asserted Copyrights. See Compl. ¶ 39. Indeed, Oracle fails to provide any assertion as to which part of Android  which even Oracle concedes is an "operating system software platform" consisting of numerous types and extensive amounts of materials, Compl. ¶ 12  allegedly infringes the Asserted Copyrights. See Compl. ¶ 39. Oracle's Complaint is precisely the type of bare recitation of elements that the Supreme Court warned against in Iqbal.... The Complaint also does not include any explanation or identification whatsoever of any alleged unlicensed acts of infringement of the Asserted Copyrights by any other party (including those for which Oracle seeks to hold Google vicariously liable) or any alleged acts of Google that constitute inducement of infringement or contributory infringement with respect to any such alleged unlicensed acts of others. Oracle has to fill in the blanks, if the judge agrees the complaint is deficient, or the claim can indeed be dismissed. The idea in the law is that you have to tell what your claim is, so the other side has a chance to defend itself. If you recall, SCO was sanctioned for not telling what it claimed IBM did wrong, so that later when it wanted to add materials, it was not allowed to. The magistrate judge said they were like a store detective grabbing someone leaving the store, claiming they stole something, but not saying what, instead handing the person a catalog and telling them, "What you stole is in the catalog somewhere, so you find it. You know what you took." That doesn't fly in copyright infringement litigation. You have to tell. But what is really interesting here is the tone and one twist. Android, Google points out, is open source. The whole world can read the source code, so there is no excuse for Oracle not to be specific: The deficiencies in Oracle's copyright infringement claim are both striking and telling in view of the fact that Android is an open-source platform, and that all of the relevant source code and documentation for Android is currently  and has for some time been  publicly available. Oracle's inadequately-pleaded accusations are striking because Oracle has had complete access to every piece of information that is relevant to any possible assertion of copyright infringement, yet Oracle still failed to meet even the minimum pleading standards. Oracle's inadequately-pleaded accusations are also telling because, notwithstanding Oracle's access to the allegedly infringing work, Oracle has not articulated a legally sufficient claim that puts Google on notice of either the factual basis or the substance of Oracle's copyright claim. I pick up from the tone that Google is mad, not worried about the outcome, and that it intends to fight to the death on Claim VIII. I might be reading too much into it, but I don't think so. The lawyers take their stance based on what the client has told them it wants and based on what they expect will be the outcome. Usually at this point in litigation, the filings are fairly bland, though. Both sides try to reveal as little as possible, because discovery is coming and they don't want to help the other side at all or get stuck in something they said too soon, knowing that cases morph as more information gets known. Here, the language is stronger than that, and I believe it indicates that Google believes that this motion has a good shot at being granted, or rather that it believes that it *should* be granted. It's pretty hard to predict what a judge will or won't do, particularly at the beginning, but Google isn't afraid. That's what I see. Here's one detail that might explain why Google feels confident: As to Oracle's copyright claim, the Complaint alleges that "Oracle America owns copyrights in the code, documentation, specifications, libraries, and other materials that comprise the Java platform" and that "Oracle America's Java-related copyrights are registered with the United States Copyright Office, including those attached as Exhibit H." Compl. ¶ 11. Exhibit H to the Complaint consists of certificates of copyright registrations obtained by Sun for two identified works, named "Java 2 Standard Edition 1.4" and "Java Standard Edition, Version 5.0" (the "Asserted Copyrights"). Compl. Ex. H. These registrations appear to relate to versions of certain Sun Java materials that were released as open-sourced software in 2006 and 2007. Obviously, if that proves to be so, the claim goes poof. There is no copyright infringement of open source code if you just use it according to the license. If that was a mistake on Oracle's part, then the final footnote tells us what Google thinks Oracle should do: 26 Oracle also contends that the "copyrightable" portions of the "Java platform" include, "without limitation code, specifications, documentation, and other materials." Compl. ¶ 38. To the extent Oracle believes that Google has infringed or is liable for infringement by any party of the copyrights in any works other than those that are the subject of the two registrations included in Exhibit H to the Complaint, Oracle should identify any and all such other works and the copyright registrations for them. See Sega, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4621, at *4. All Google says it can figure out about Oracle's claim is that there are apparently two types of copyright infringement in Oracle's mind: direct copying and vicarious liability for copying others have done: Count VIII of the Complaint  the copyright infringement claim  alleges generally that "[t]he Java platform contains a substantial amount of original material (including without limitation code, specifications, documentation, and other materials) that is copyrightable subject matter." Compl. ¶ 38. The two operative paragraphs of Count VIII then state as follows: 39. Without consent, authorization, approval, or license, Google knowingly, willingly, and unlawfully copied, prepared, published, and distributed Oracle America's copyrighted work, portions thereof, or derivative works and continues to do so. Google's Android infringes Oracle America's copyrights in Java and Google is not licensed to do so. 40. On information and belief, users of Android, including device manufacturers, must obtain and use copyrightable portions of the Java platform or works derived therefrom to manufacture and use functioning Android devices. Such use is not licensed. Google has thus induced, caused, and materially contributed to the infringing acts of others by encouraging, inducing, allowing and assisting others to use, copy, and distribute Oracle America's copyrightable works, and works derived therefrom. Compl. ¶¶ 39-40. These paragraphs are mere conclusory statements apparently intended to assert two different types of copyright infringement claims against Google. First, Oracle apparently contends in paragraph 39 that Google itself infringes the Asserted Copyrights because "Google . . . copied, prepared, published and distributed Oracle America's copyrighted work, portions thereof, or derivative works and continues to do so." Compl. ¶ 39 (emphasis added). Second, Oracle apparently contends that Google is vicariously liable for alleged infringement of the Asserted Copyrights by others because "[o]n information and belief, users of Android, including device manufacturers, must obtain and use copyrightable portions of the Java platform or works derived therefrom to manufacture and use functioning Android devices" and that, for reasons that are not explained, Google allegedly "has thus induced, caused, and materially contributed to the infringing acts of others by encouraging, inducing, allowing and assisting others to use, copy, and distribute Oracle America's copyrightable works." Compl. ¶ 40 (emphasis added). "On information and belief" is a phrase you use in legal papers when you don't actually know in the "I can prove it" sense, but you think it's true. You heard it on the grapevine. Well, a bit more than that, but it's weaker than stating that this or that happened. It means often that the party saying it hopes to prove it after discovery lets them dig in to find evidence. On the vicarious liability part, Google says it's totally impossible to know what Oracle means: Oracle's Complaint asserts only that third parties infringe the Asserted Copyrights because "users of Android, including device manufacturers, must obtain and use copyrightable portions of the Java platform." Compl. ¶ 40. Neither "obtaining" nor "using," however, are among the exclusive rights of a copyright owner under the copyright statute. See 17 U.S.C. § 106. For this reason alone, the claim of vicarious liability for infringement should be dismissed. Oracle also fails to identify any works of third parties that allegedly infringe the Asserted Copyrights, any specific acts of any third parties that allegedly infringe Oracle's copyright rights, or any acts of Google that allegedly induced or contributed to any such infringement. Oracle's claim against Google of vicarious liability for copyright infringement therefore fails to adequately state a claim for infringement. So, who did what where? Specifics please, Google says, if the judge doesn't toss it out completely, which it hopes he will. Google probably has a clue or two what Oracle is probably thinking, but Oracle does have to flesh this out. The law is that Google isn't supposed to have to guess. The best part of these filings is that Google explains Android, so technically we can follow along, with lots of footnotes. They don't do it for us; it's for the judge. But it's nice to be able to follow along, and I'm glad to see that Google realizes how important it is for the judge to understand the underlying tech. But it also indicates that Google feels quite confident of the ultimate outcome, in the sense that they do not believe they have done anything wrong with respect to copyrights. They put it all out on the table, therefore. Actually, it's open source, so it's out there already. Now it's time for Oracle to put its cards on the table too. Here are all the filings, and you see two lawyers from King & Spalding have amended their notice of appearance: 10/01/2010 - 30 - NOTICE of Appearance by Donald Frederick Zimmer, Jr and Cheryl A. Sabnis -- Defendant's AMENDED Notice of Appearance of Counsel (Zimmer, Donald) (Filed on 10/1/2010) (Entered: 10/01/2010) 10/04/2010 - 31 - NOTICE of Appearance by Donald Frederick Zimmer, Jr Application of Bruce W. Baber for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice and [Proposed] Order Granting Application of Bruce W. Baber for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Zimmer, Donald) (Filed on 10/4/2010) (Entered: 10/04/2010) 10/04/2010 - 32 - GOOGLE INC.'S ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand, COUNTERCLAIM against Oracle America, Inc. by Google Inc.. (Zimmer, Donald) (Filed on 10/4/2010) (Entered: 10/04/2010) 10/04/2010 - 33 - MOTION to Dismiss filed by Google Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 11/18/2010 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Zimmer, Donald) (Filed on 10/4/2010) (Entered: 10/04/2010) Mr. Zimmer appears to be the one writing the actual filings. Here's the motion to dismiss, as text: *************************** DONALD F. ZIMMER, JR. (SBN 112279)

[email]

CHERYL A. SABNIS (SBN 224323)

[email]

KING & SPALDING LLP

[address]

[phone]

[fax]



SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER (Pro Hac Vice) [email]

ROBERT F. PERRY [email]

BRUCE W. BABER (Pro Hac Vice Pending) [email]

KING & SPALDING LLP [address]

[phone]

[fax]

Attorneys for Defendant

GOOGLE INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

Plaintiff,



v.



GOOGLE INC.

Defendant. Case No. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA

Honorable Judge William H. Alsup GOOGLE INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS

COUNT VIII OF PLAINTIFF'S

COMPLAINT OR, IN THE

ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE

DEFINITE STATEMENT



Hearing Date: November 18, 2010

Hearing Time: 8:00 A.M.

Location: Courtroom 9, 19th Floor (1) TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. Introduction 2 II. Argument 3 A. Factual Background 3 1. The Android Platform 3 2. The Dalvik Virtual Machine 5 3. Oracle's Copyright Claim 7 B. Oracle Fails To State A Claim For Copyright Infringement 9 1. The Applicable Pleading Requirements Are Well-Settled 9 2. Proper Pleading of Copyright Infringement Requires Sufficient Factual Allegations Describing the Alleged Infringement 10 3. Oracle's Claim For Copyright Infringement Is Deficient 11 4. Oracle's Claim For Vicarious Copyright Liability Is Also Deficient 14 C. Google Is Entitled To A More Definite Statement 14 III. Conclusion 15 i (2) TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.,

239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) 10 Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) 9-12 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544 (2007) 9-11 Cutler v. Enzymes, Inc.,

No. 08-04650-JF, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17942 (N.D. Cal. Feb 25, 2009) 10-12 Miller v. Facebook, Inc.,

No. 5:10-cv-264-WHA, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31534 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2010) 10-12 Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int'l Service Ass'n,

494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007) 14 Sega Enters. LTD. v. Accolade, Inc.,

No. 91-3871, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4621 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 1992) 14-15 STATUTES 17 U.S.C. § 106 10, 14 Fed. R. Civ. P 8(a)(2) 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) 1, 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) 1 Fed. R. Civ. P., Form 19 10-12 ii (3) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO NONPARTIES AND PLAINTIFF ORACLE AMERICA, INC. AND ALL ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the following motion will be heard at 8:00 A.M. on November 18, 2010, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor of this Court, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California before the Honorable William Alsup. Defendant Google Inc. ("Google") will and hereby does move this Court for an order dismissing Count VIII of plaintiff's "Complaint For Patent And Copyright Infringement" under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that the claim for copyright infringement asserted in Count VIII fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In the alternative, Google will and hereby does move this Court, in accordance with Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules, for a more definite statement of the claim asserted in Count VIII. In support of this motion, Google respectfully shows that the claim for copyright infringement asserted in Count VIII of the Complaint is legally deficient. Count VIII does not identify any specific infringing work that is the subject of the alleged copyright infringement claim, does not identify with any specificity the manner in which Google allegedly infringed any copyrights of plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. ("Oracle"), and does not identify with any specificity the basis for any claim of vicarious infringement, inducement of infringement, or contributory infringement. As a result, Count VIII fails to state a claim for relief upon which relief can be granted. In the event that Count VIII is not dismissed, Google requests in the alternative that the Court enter an order requiring Oracle to provide a more definite statement of its claim of copyright infringement that provides sufficient detail so that Google may reasonably prepare a response to Oracle's claim. This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the pleadings and papers on file in this action, any matters of which the Court may take judicial notice, any evidence or argument presented at the hearing on the motion, and any other matters the Court deems proper. (4) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. Introduction On August 12, 2010, Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. ("Oracle") filed its Complaint For Patent And Copyright Infringement (Docket No. 1) ("Complaint") against Google. The Complaint is directed at Android, a publicly-available, open-source software platform that anyone, anywhere, may freely use. Android was and continues to be developed by Google with substantial contributions from others, both volunteer technology enthusiasts and corporate partners. Since its release in 2007, handset manufacturers and software developers have rapidly adopted Android  which is designed specifically for operation on devices with limited computing resources, such as mobile phones  as their platform of choice for next-generation mobile devices. Count VIII of Oracle's Complaint seeks to assert a claim of copyright infringement against some unidentified portion of the Android "platform," which includes a variety of different types of materials, including software code, computer programs, specifications, reference materials and developer tools and resources. Count VIII, however, is so vague and general that it is impossible for Google to determine from the Complaint: which portion or portions of the Android "platform" are the subject of the copyright infringement claim;

how Google allegedly infringed the copyrights in the two works identified in paragraph 11 and Exhibit H of Oracle's Complaint (the "Asserted Copyrights");

how any "users" of the Android platform may have allegedly infringed the Asserted Copyrights; or

how Google allegedly "encouraged, induced, caused, [or] materially contributed to" any acts of copyright infringement by any such other parties. As a result of these deficiencies, Oracle's claim of copyright infringement fails to meet the pleading standards applicable to a claim of copyright infringement. 2 (5) The deficiencies in Oracle's copyright infringement claim are both striking and telling in view of the fact that Android is an open-source platform, and that all of the relevant source code and documentation for Android is currently  and has for some time been  publicly available. Oracle's inadequately-pleaded accusations are striking because Oracle has had complete access to every piece of information that is relevant to any possible assertion of copyright infringement, yet Oracle still failed to meet even the minimum pleading standards. Oracle's inadequately- pleaded accusations are also telling because, notwithstanding Oracle's access to the allegedly infringing work, Oracle has not articulated a legally sufficient claim that puts Google on notice of either the factual basis or the substance of Oracle's copyright claim. II. Argument A. Factual Background Because this dispute has not previously been before this Court, Google submits the following brief discussion of Android. Google believes that an explanation of the Android platform and the relationship among certain of its major components is essential to the understanding of the factual landscape underlying Oracle's Complaint and, accordingly, this Motion. Google submits that all of the facts stated herein are of public record, and are all matters of which the Court may take judicial notice if necessary. Google acknowledges, however, that the Motion is directed to the sufficiency of Plaintiff's Complaint, and the sufficiency of the pleading must be determined by the pleading itself. 1. The Android Platform In November of 2007, Google and thirty-four other companies with an interest in the mobile device market formed the Open Handset Alliance ("OHA").1 The mission of the OHA  now made up of seventy-eight companies  is to provide a better experience for the world's three-billion mobile phone users by developing and promoting the first open, complete, and free 3 (6) platform created specifically for mobile devices.2 The Android Platform  the cornerstone of the OHA's mission  was released the same month.3 As part of Android's first release, most of the software code that makes up the Android Platform was released to the public under a permissive open-source license known as the "Apache Software License 2.0."4 Approximately one year later, in September of 2008, the first full version of Android was released to the public.5 One month after the first full release, in October of 2008, the remainder of the Android source code was released to the public under the same Apache license.6 Android has undergone development by the OHA (including Google) and individual developers since its release.7 The most recent release of the Android platform  Version 2.2, Android's eighth release  includes more than 11 million lines of computer code that supports the operation of thousands of components.8 The key components of the Android Platform include: the Software Development Kit ("SDK") that contains software tools and thousands of pages of documentation that assist developers in creating applications (commonly referred to as "apps") that run on Android;

the "kernel" that controls the basic aspects of the mobile device, such as security and memory management; 4 (7) "libraries" that provide many basic programming functions, including for example reading and writing files, using the World Wide Web, and playing audio and video files;

an "application framework" that consists of libraries that provide Android- specific programming functions, such as displaying Android menus and dialogs and using phone-specific hardware such as the dialer, global positioning system, and microphone;

"applications" that provide the functionality that users see, such as the home screen, the phone dialer, and other utility functions; and

the "Android Runtime," which provides services to applications, such as executing Dalvik bytecodes, managing user notifications, and being informed of events such as position changes, hardware status changes, and incoming messages.9 All of the source code and documentation needed to implement these core features of Android is publicly available for download on the Android website.10 2. The Dalvik Virtual Machine One aspect of the Android Platform referenced in Oracle's Complaint  but not specifically accused in Oracle's copyright infringement claims  is the Dalvik virtual machine (the "Dalvik VM"). Compl. at ¶ 12. A "virtual machine," in a general sense, is a software system that receives instructions, usually in the form of software code that has been compiled into an intermediate form, and outputs a different set of instructions that are understood by the 5 (8) device on which the virtual machine is running.11 This is a common technique in computer science, used by many programming systems.12 Some famous examples include p-code, Python, and the Java platform, all of which include a programming language, a set of libraries and a virtual machine.13 There are several ways to create and execute Android software applications. For example, developers can create software for Android-based mobile devices in the C or C++ programming languages that run directly on the Linux kernel, bypassing the Dalvik VM entirely.14 Alternatively, developers can create software applications for Android-based mobile devices in other programming languages, such as the Java, Ruby or Scala programming languages that run on the Dalvik VM.15 In this instance, these software applications are converted into a set of intermediate instructions  i.e., Dalvik "bytecode" or files in the Dalvik Executable (.dex) format  through the use of the "dx" tool included with the Android platform.16 These .dex files can be executed on any mobile device with a Dalvik VM.17 6 (9) The Dalvik VM is a custom-built system that has been optimized for running programs on battery-powered mobile devices that are more limited than desktop computers in terms of computing and memory resources.18 The Dalvik VM relies on the open-source Linux kernel for underlying functionality such as threading and low-level memory management.19 The Dalvik VM was independently developed by Google and the OHA. The class libraries of the Dalvik VM incorporate a subset of Apache Harmony, a clean- room, open source implementation of Java developed by the Apache Software Foundation and released under the same permissive Apache license under which the OHA has released most of Android.20 3. Oracle's Copyright Claim Oracle alleges in the Complaint that it purchased Sun Microsystems ("Sun") in January of 2010 and at that time became the owner of Sun's patents and copyrights in the Java "platform." Compl. ¶¶ 8-9. As to Oracle's copyright claim, the Complaint alleges that "Oracle America owns copyrights in the code, documentation, specifications, libraries, and other materials that comprise the Java platform" and that "Oracle America's Java-related copyrights are registered with the United States Copyright Office, including those attached as Exhibit H." Compl. ¶ 11. Exhibit H to the Complaint consists of certificates of copyright registrations obtained by Sun for two identified works, named "Java 2 Standard Edition 1.4" and "Java Standard Edition, Version 5.0" (the "Asserted Copyrights"). Compl. Ex. H. These registrations 7 (10) appear to relate to versions of certain Sun Java materials that were released as open-sourced software in 2006 and 2007.21 Count VIII of the Complaint  the copyright infringement claim  alleges generally that "[t]he Java platform contains a substantial amount of original material (including without limitation code, specifications, documentation, and other materials) that is copyrightable subject matter." Compl. ¶ 38. The two operative paragraphs of Count VIII then state as follows: 39. Without consent, authorization, approval, or license, Google knowingly, willingly, and unlawfully copied, prepared, published, and distributed Oracle America's copyrighted work, portions thereof, or derivative works and continues to do so. Google's Android infringes Oracle America's copyrights in Java and Google is not licensed to do so. 40. On information and belief, users of Android, including device manufacturers, must obtain and use copyrightable portions of the Java platform or works derived therefrom to manufacture and use functioning Android devices. Such use is not licensed. Google has thus induced, caused, and materially contributed to the infringing acts of others by encouraging, inducing, allowing and assisting others to use, copy, and distribute Oracle America's copyrightable works, and works derived therefrom. Compl. ¶¶ 39-40. These paragraphs are mere conclusory statements apparently intended to assert two different types of copyright infringement claims against Google. First, Oracle apparently contends in paragraph 39 that Google itself infringes the Asserted Copyrights because "Google . . . copied, prepared, published and distributed Oracle America's copyrighted work, portions thereof, or derivative works and continues to do so." Compl. ¶ 39 (emphasis added). Second, Oracle apparently contends that Google is vicariously liable for alleged infringement of the Asserted Copyrights by others because "[o]n information and belief, users of Android, including device manufacturers, must obtain and use copyrightable portions of the Java platform or works 8 (11) derived therefrom to manufacture and use functioning Android devices" and that, for reasons that are not explained, Google allegedly "has thus induced, caused, and materially contributed to the infringing acts of others by encouraging, inducing, allowing and assisting others to use, copy, and distribute Oracle America's copyrightable works." Compl. ¶ 40 (emphasis added). The remainder of the allegations of Count VIII are general allegations that merely recite additional generalities and claims for different types of relief. Compl. ¶¶ 41-46. Importantly, the Complaint does not include any identification of any specific work created or distributed by Google that allegedly infringes the Asserted Copyrights, nor does it even identify the type of work (software code, reference materials, development kit materials) that allegedly infringes. The Complaint also does not include any explanation or identification whatsoever of any alleged unlicensed acts of infringement of the Asserted Copyrights by any other party (including those for which Oracle seeks to hold Google vicariously liable) or any alleged acts of Google that constitute inducement of infringement or contributory infringement with respect to any such alleged unlicensed acts of others. B. Oracle Fails To State A Claim For Copyright Infringement. 1. The Applicable Pleading Requirements Are Well-Settled. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that the complaint must include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P 8(a)(2). The United States Supreme Court's opinions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), confirmed that, although detailed factual allegations are not required, satisfying Rule 8(a)(2) requires the complaint to plead sufficient factual matter, accepted to be true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570). A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Iqbal 556 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Courts in this district, including this Court, have applied Iqbal and Twombly to dismiss copyright infringement claims that merely state the elements of the claims 9 (12) and legal conclusions without any underlying facts. See Miller v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:10-cv- 264-WHA, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31534, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2010). 2. Proper Pleading of Copyright Infringement Requires Sufficient

Factual Allegations Describing the Alleged Infringement. A claim of copyright infringement requires the plaintiff to prove (1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) violation of one of the exclusive rights granted by section 106 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106. See A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001). Applying Iqbal and Twombly, courts in this district have recently dismissed claims of copyright infringement that did not include any factual allegations regarding how the defendant allegedly infringed the plaintiff's copyright. See Miller, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31534 at *9; Cutler v. Enzymes, Inc., No. 08-04650-JF, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17942, at *8-9 (N.D. Cal. Feb 25, 2009). In both Miller and Cutler, the complaints lacked any facts that described in sufficient detail the infringing acts. In Miller, the complaint merely alleged that the defendant Facebook "reproduced and distributed" an infringing work, by, among other things, publishing the work in their application directory, allowing Facebook users to "search and view" the application. See Miller, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31534, at *4, *8-9. On Facebook's motion to dismiss, this Court found such allegations deficient, and concluded that the plaintiff must provide "sufficient factual allegations to explain how defendant Facebook copied, displayed, or distributed infringing copies" of the work, and dismissed the complaint. See Miller, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31534, at *9 (emphasis added). Similarly, the court in Cutler dismissed a complaint for copyright infringement that did not include any specific facts about the alleged acts of infringement. Cutler, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17942, at *9 (granting motion to dismiss because "[a]side from claims of ownership, the complaint is devoid of any other specific facts related to the Published Work and alleged copyright infringement"). 10 (13) Although promulgated before the Supreme Court issued Iqbal and Twombly, the pleading forms in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure confirm the need to plead sufficient factual support describing the acts of infringement. Fed. R. Civ. P., Form 19 (2007). Form 19  the form complaint for copyright infringement  identifies the copyrighted work, identifies the allegedly infringing work, and explains how the alleged infringement occurred. See id. Specifically, the form pleading suggests an allegation to the effect that "[a]fter the copyright was issued, the defendant infringed the copyright by publishing and selling a book entitled ____, which was copied largely from the plaintiff's book." Id. 3. Oracle's Claim For Copyright Infringement Is Deficient. Oracle's Complaint fails to satisfy the standards set forth in Iqbal, Twombly, and Form 19, and therefore dismissal of Count VIII would be fully consistent with the decisions in Miller and Cutler. This authority is clear  Oracle's Complaint must provide facts that identify or describe (1) the works in which a valid copyright is claimed;22 (2) the alleged acts of infringement, including identifying the allegedly infringing work or works, see Cutler, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17942, at *9; and (3) how any accused infringer has infringed and how any party has induced or contributed to such infringement. See Miller, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31534, at *9. Because Oracle's Complaint fails to provide any facts identifying any Google work that allegedly infringes the Asserted Copyrights, and fails to provide any factual allegations as to how Google or any third parties are allegedly infringing, Oracle's Complaint does not state a claim for copyright infringement. Oracle's Complaint includes only three allegations relating to direct copyright infringement: (1) that Oracle owns copyrights in the Sun materials that comprise the Java platform and, more specifically, in the Sun works that are the subject of the copyright 11 (14) registrations shown in Exhibit H, Compl. ¶ 11; (2) that Google has "copied, prepared, published and distributed Oracle America's copyrighted work, portions thereof, or derivative works and continues to do so," Compl. ¶ 39 (emphasis added); and (3) that "Google's Android infringes Oracle America's copyrights in Java and Google is not licensed to do so." Compl. ¶ 39. These allegations: do not identify the type(s) of "copyrighted work" allegedly copied; 23

do not specify whether Google has allegedly copied and distributed entire works of Sun / Oracle, "portions thereof" (and, if so, what portions), or "derivative works";

do not identify any specific work or works of Google  or even the types of materials  that Google has created by allegedly copying, preparing, publishing, and distributing Sun / Oracle's copyrighted work; and

do not provide any facts that suggest how any alleged infringement has occurred. Rather than allege facts to support its claim, Oracle instead pleads nothing more than a rote recitation of certain of the exclusive rights the Copyright Act provides in 17 U.S.C. § 106, with absolutely no supporting facts. Like the complaints in both Miller and Cutler, there is no factual allegation as to how any Google materials relating to Android allegedly infringe the Asserted Copyrights. See Compl. ¶ 39. Indeed, Oracle fails to provide any assertion as to which part of Android  which even Oracle concedes is an "operating system software platform" consisting of numerous types and extensive amounts of materials, Compl. ¶ 12  allegedly infringes the Asserted Copyrights. See Compl. ¶ 39. Oracle's Complaint is precisely the type of bare recitation of elements that the Supreme Court warned against in Iqbal. 12 (15) Oracle's allegations also fail to meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P., Form 19, which requires factual pleadings that identify both the infringing work, and how that work infringes. See Fed. R. Civ. P., Form 19 ("the defendant infringed the copyright by publishing and selling a book entitled _____, which was copied largely from the plaintiff's book"). Oracle's Complaint does not come close to even this form pleading. Oracle's Complaint does not allege that any work of Google  Android or otherwise  is a copy of, or is substantially similar to, any of Sun / Oracle's copyrighted works. See Compl. ¶ 39. This deficiency is compounded by the fact that "Android" as a whole contains over 11 million lines of computer code, thousands of pages of documentation, and thousands of components.24 See Compl. ¶ 39 ("Google's Android infringes Oracle America's copyrights"). Oracle's Complaint provides no indication of what part or parts of "Android," which could include code, documentation, specifications, and many other types of materials, allegedly infringe. There is no justification for Oracle's failure to plead sufficient facts to assert a copyright infringement claim. All of the relevant materials, including the Android source code, has been publicly available since the Android Open Source Project released the code base in 2008.25 Every fact that Oracle could have required to properly plead copyright infringement was available to Oracle before it filed this lawsuit, and Oracle and its counsel were required to make a good-faith evaluation of the merits of the claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3). Because all of the information Oracle requires is already publicly available, Oracle cannot excuse its vague pleading by claiming that it needs discovery to identify the accused works or acts. 13 (16) 4. Oracle's Claim For Vicarious Copyright Liability Is Also Deficient. Oracle's assertion of vicarious copyright liability suffers from the same deficiencies as its claim of infringement by Google. A claim for vicarious liability for copyright infringement requires the plaintiff to plead acts of infringement of the Asserted Copyrights by a third party, and knowledge and inducement of those acts by the defendant. See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int'l Service Ass'n, 494 F.3d 788, 795 (9th Cir. 2007). Oracle has not pleaded with any specificity any alleged acts of infringement of the Asserted Copyrights by a third party or any acts of Google that supposedly induced such infringement. Oracle's Complaint asserts only that third parties infringe the Asserted Copyrights because "users of Android, including device manufacturers, must obtain and use copyrightable portions of the Java platform." Compl. ¶ 40. Neither "obtaining" nor "using," however, are among the exclusive rights of a copyright owner under the copyright statute. See 17 U.S.C. § 106. For this reason alone, the claim of vicarious liability for infringement should be dismissed. Oracle also fails to identify any works of third parties that allegedly infringe the Asserted Copyrights, any specific acts of any third parties that allegedly infringe Oracle's copyright rights, or any acts of Google that allegedly induced or contributed to any such infringement. Oracle's claim against Google of vicarious liability for copyright infringement therefore fails to adequately state a claim for infringement. C. Google Is Entitled To A More Definite Statement. If the Court declines to dismiss Count VIII of Oracle's Complaint, Google respectfully requests that the Court order Oracle to provide a more definite statement of its claims for copyright infringement. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) allows a party to move for a more definite statement when a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Although generally disfavored, this district has found such relief to be appropriate in a copyright case where, as here, the complaint is impermissibly 14 (17) vague regarding the alleged claim of infringement. See Sega Enters. LTD. v. Accolade, Inc., No. 91-3871, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4621, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 1992). The Sega court noted that the complaint vaguely alleged infringement of "other works" (among other things), and ordered plaintiff to provide a more definite statement specifying "the particular 'other works' which are subject to the copyright claim and registration of those works, the acts constituting infringement of those works, and the dates the infringement occurred." Id. Similarly, Oracle's Complaint asserts that Google has "copied, prepared, published, and distributed Oracle America's copyrighted work, portions thereof, or derivative works." Compl. ¶ 39. Oracle should at a minimum be required to identify any specific "copyrighted work" or "portion thereof" that Google allegedly copied or distributed, any "derivative works" known to Oracle that form the basis of its claim, as well as the acts constituting the alleged infringement.26 Finally, as discussed above, Oracle's Complaint fails entirely to identify any facts giving rise to Oracle's claim of vicarious infringement based on alleged acts of infringement by third parties. Oracle's more definite statement should include specification of the alleged acts of such parties that Oracle believes infringe its Asserted Copyrights and how such acts infringe, as well as the acts of Google that Oracle believes make Google liable for any such alleged infringement. III. Conclusion Oracle's Complaint includes impermissibly vague and broad allegations of copyright infringement. In particular, the Complaint does not specifically identify any allegedly infringing works of Google, how Google has allegedly infringed Oracle's rights in the two Sun works attached to the Complaint, or how Oracle believes its claim of vicarious liability for copyright infringement arises. For these reasons, Count VIII of Oracle's Complaint fails to meet the 15 (18) minimum pleading standards required by the law, and fails to properly put Google on notice of the substance of Oracle's claims. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss Count VIII of the Complaint, or, in the alternative, should require Oracle to provide a more definite statement of its copyright claims. DATED: October 4, 2010 Respectfully submitted, KING & SPALDING LLP



By: /s/ Donald F. Zimmer, Jr.______



SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER (Pro Hac Vice)

[email]

ROBERT F. PERRY

[email]

BRUCE W. BABER (Pro Hac Vice Pending)

[email]

KING & SPALDING LLP

[address]

[phone]

[fax]



DONALD F. ZIMMER, JR. (SBN 112279)

[email]

CHERYL A. SABNIS (SBN 224323)

[email]

KING & SPALDING LLP

[address]

[phone]

[fax] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

GOOGLE INC. 16 (19) See Android Timeline, http://www.android.com/timeline.html. See Open Handset Alliance, http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/index.html, Alliance Overview, http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_overview.html. See id.; Android Timeline, http://www.android.com/timeline.html. See Licenses  Android Open Source, http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html. See Android Timeline, http://www.android.com/timeline.html. See id. See Philosophy and Goals  Android Open Source, http://source.android.com/about/philosophy.html. See Android SDK, http://developer.android.com/sdk/index.html; Android 2.2 Platform, http://developer.android.com/sdk/android-2.2.html. See What is Android?, http://developer.android.com/guide/basics/what-is-android.html; http://developer.android.com/guide/developing/tools/index.html. See Android Developers, http://developer.android.com/index.html. The overwhelming majority of the Android software source code and its supporting documentation is publicly available. The exceptions, such as low-level hardware drivers which are proprietary to hardware makers, and proprietary third party (and Google) business applications  none of which are mentioned in Oracle's Complaint  are peripheral to the core Android platform. See About the Java Technology, http://download.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/getStarted/intro/definition.html (describing the process of creating Java bytecode and translating the Java bytecode into machine instructions using the Java virtual machine); Parrot  The Parrot Primer, http://docs.parrot.org/parrot/latest/html/docs/intro.pod.html (describing basic virtual machine functionality). See The Java Virtual Machine Specification (2d ed. 1999), at http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jvms/second_edition/html/Introduction.doc.html ("It is reasonably common to implement a programming language using a virtual machine; the best- known virtual machine may be the P-Code machine of UCSD Pascal."). See id., Glossary  Python v3.1.2 documentation, http://docs.python.org/py3k/glossary.html#term-bytecode. See http://developer.android.com/sdk/ndk/index.html#overview (describing the use of native code on Android). See What is Android?, http://developer.android.com/guide/basics/what-is-android.html; http://code.google.com/p/android-ruby; http://www.assembla.com/wiki/show/scalaide/Developing_for_Android. See id. See id. See Glossary  Android Developers, http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/glossary.html; What is Android?, http://developer.android.com/guide/basics/what-is-android.html; Android Overview, http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/android_overview.html. See What is Android?, http://developer.android.com/guide/basics/what-is-android.html. See Dalvik  Android Open Source, http://source.android.com/porting/dalvik.html; Apache Harmony  Open Source Java Platform, http://harmony.apache.org; Apache Harmony  Apache License, http://harmony.apache.org/license.html; Licenses  Android Open Source, http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html. See Jim Inscore, Opening Up: Laurie Tolson on Open Source Strategy for the Java Platform, available at http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/javaopensource/OS_qa ("Sun will release several significant components of Java SE by the end of 2006. ... The rest of a buildable JDK will be released in early 2007"). Oracle's Complaint appears to identify two specific Sun works that presumably are the subject of the copyrights on which Oracle's claim is based, namely the works entitled "Java 2 Standard Edition 1.4" and "Java 2 Standard Edition, Version 5.0," which are the works identified in the Asserted Copyrights shown in Exhibit H to the Complaint. The copyright registrations attached to Oracle's Complaint as Exhibit H state that the Sun works that are the subject of the registrations include at least both "computer code" and "documentation and manuals." Complaint, Ex. H, Form TX 6-196-514 at space 6(b) and Form TX 6-066-538 at space 6(b). Android is a complete set of software for mobile devices: an operating system, middleware and key mobile applications. http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/android_overview.html. It includes a full set of tools for developers, id., and an entire suite of reference documentation, http://developer.android.com/reference/packages.html. The Dalvik virtual machine is only one of over 240 separate source code modules that make up Android. http://android.git.kernel.org. See, e.g., http://www.android.com/timeline.html; http://android.git.kernel.org. Oracle also contends that the "copyrightable" portions of the "Java platform" include, "without limitation code, specifications, documentation, and other materials." Compl. ¶ 38. To the extent Oracle believes that Google has infringed or is liable for infringement by any party of the copyrights in any works other than those that are the subject of the two registrations included in Exhibit H to the Complaint, Oracle should identify any and all such other works and the copyright registrations for them. See Sega, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4621, at *4.