SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - Oracle and Google on Wednesday asked a federal judge to keep the other's expert witnesses from testifying before a jury in a second copyright trial set to kick off next month.
Google says Oracle's economics expert took an overly broad approach when he analyzed the market harm caused by Google's use of copyrighted Java code in its Android operating system.
Oracle, in turn, claims Google's computer scientist impermissibly opines on economic issues and adopts stances on legal matters that were rejected by an appeals court.
Attorneys for both tech titans made their cases to U.S. District Judge William Alsup during a hearing Wednesday morning.
Economist Dr. Adam Jaffe failed to hone in on the relevant portion of Oracle's Java code used in Android and instead looked at Android's overall effect on the entire Java platform, Google attorney Robert Van Nest told the judge.
"He's looking at all of Android and applying it to all of Java," Van Nest said. "He's not limiting himself to the two Java platforms in this suit."
Even though Jaffe acknowledges that Android includes several valuable elements that have nothing to do with the infringing Java code, he simply "throws his hands in the air" and makes no effort to focus his analysis on the infringing code, Van Nest said.
Oracle attorney Lisa Simpson said Google wants to "have it both ways" by pushing for only the copyrighted code to be analyzed for one factor of the fair-use test — market harm — while also saying Android must be looked at as a whole when evaluating another factor — the purpose and character of use.
"For the first factor, they want to look at the entirety of Android, but when it comes down to the fourth factor, they don't want to look at all of Android," Simpson said. "They want to look at a tiny piece of Android."
The real question centers around the market value of the copyrighted works at issue, Alsup said.
"What could you have sold the copyrighted work for before and afterwards?" Alsup asked.
Whether Oracle could have "hit a home run" in the smartphone market the way Google did with Android is dubious, Alsup suggested, because that involves huge amounts of investments beyond the Java code.
"In Silicon Valley, I've seen a lot of people have successes, then had people come out of the woodwork saying, 'They stole our idea,'" Alsup said. "Maybe they did steal your idea."
Simpson replied that Sun, the company acquired by Oracle, was hitting a home run when Google launched the Android system in 2008 because Java was in over 80 percent of cellphones at the time.
The Oracle attorney cited a 1988 Ninth Circuit ruling affirmed by the Supreme Court, Stewart v. Abend, which found the fair-use test must look at the entire "Rear Window" film, not just the portion of the film based on the plaintiff's short story.
Van Nest countered the court was only asked to focus on the entire film in that case, even though Alfred Hitchcock testified in a deposition that the movie was "at least 20 percent" of the original story "It Had to Be Murder."