Oracle v. Google Not Over Yet: Oracle Seeks Another New Trial While Google Seeks Sanctions On Oracle's Lawyers

As you probably remember, a jury decided in Google's favor after a somewhat wacky trial that its use of some of the Java APIs was considered fair use. Oracle, of course, isn't going down quietly. It immediately asked the judge, William Alsup, to reject the jury's verdict, which he refused to do. Everyone expects that Oracle will appeal this as high as it can go, though its chances aren't great. In the meantime, though, Oracle isn't done trying every possible door at the district court level. Last week it simply asked for a new trial in what I can only describe as Oracle's sour grapes motion. It starts out by claiming that "the verdict was against the weight of the evidence" and thus a new trial is necessary. And then it whines about a whole bunch of other issues, including Google's plans to use Android on computers, meaning that the "harm" portion of the trial was unfairly limited to just tablets and phones. It also whines about certain limitations and exclusions of information it was not allowed to present. These are purely "waaaaah, we lost, fix it, waaaaaah" kinds of arguments. The court also excluded lots of Google evidence as well, and Oracle may not really want to revisit some of that either. You can read the full document below or at the link above, but analyzing all of it is pretty silly. It's strictly a sour grapes argument that is unlikely to go anywhere. At the same time, Oracle filed yet another motion for judgment as a matter of law... that also seems unlikely to go anywhere. Here, though, the argument is basically that the jury got fair use wrong. The argument here is pretty laughable. It goes through each of the four factors and argues why the jury got it wrong. Now, it's true, as some have argued, that a court can take the four fair use factors and basically come to any conclusion it wants, but it's hard to see Judge Alsup doing that here. It would be shocking to see him do so actually. And, rather than go through each argument, I'll just present the table of contents of Oracle's filing here so you can see how desperate the company is:Basically, Oracle is continuing to falsely pretend that fair use only applies to non-commercial use (it doesn't), and that creating something new with an API isn't transformative unless it's like artwork or something (this is wrong). Oracle's interpretation of fair use is not supported by the history or case law of fair use, and it would be shocking to see the court accept it here. Meanwhile, on the flip side, Google is looking to punish Oracle's lawyers and asking for sanctions against them for revealing in open court sensitive information that had been sealed by the court.

On January 14, 2016, Oracle’s counsel Annette Hurst disclosed in open court representationsof sensitive confidential financial information of both Google and third-party Apple Inc., as well asextremely confidential internal Google financial information.... After Ms. Hurst’simproper disclosures, Oracle and its counsel neither sought to remedy the effects of the disclosuresnor acknowledged their wrongdoing. They instead refused to take responsibility for the disclosures,claimed they were inconsequential because Oracle hoped to use the information at trial (which itnever did), and even argued that Google’s motion to seal the third party Apple information—whichJudge Ryu subsequently granted,... —was “merely a delaying tactic.” ... Within days of the disclosures, and following Oracle’s failure to takeremedial action, this information became headline news for major news outlets, at least one of whichnoted that, thanks to Ms. Hurst, the press could finally report on confidential information that hadtheretofore been only a subject of speculation. Oracle’s disclosures and its subsequent actions reveal a profound disregard for this Court’sProtective Order and for other parties’ confidential information. Google and third party Apple wereharmed by Oracle’s counsel’s disclosure regarding the terms of a significant and confidentialcommercial agreement. Google believes it is important, both for this case and for other cases in thisDistrict, for the Court to make clear that Oracle’s counsel’s actions were impro