Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561-361/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 GOOGLE INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 10-03561 WHA

REQUEST RE

“CUSTOM” DETAILS

With respect to “custom,” the Court understood open-source to still have licensing

restrictions, which included, if you downloaded the open-source code, (i) donating back to the

open-source public all improvements by the downloader, and (ii) not selling for profit your own

version of what you downloaded. Were these conditions part of the open-source custom or not? 

If so, how does Google contend it complied with these conditions? Oracle will please address

these concerns in its “custom” response due MONDAY, and Google must answer specifically on

the above (and any other licensing bars raised by Oracle to any such custom) by TUESDAY AT

NOON.

Dated: May 1, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1768 Filed 05/01/16 Page 1 of 1