During the trial, Oracle v Google, Larry Ellison was a witness and gave false testimony even after declaring he had personal knowledge of Java:
“When Larry Ellison was asked whether the Java APIs are needed to use the Java language, Google objected on the ground that the question called for expert testimony. RT 290:15-19. The Court overruled the objection, but only after Mr. Ellison assured the Court that he was testifying based on personal knowledge. RT 290:20-24. Mr. Ellison then testified that a UK company named Spring had built its â€œown Java environmentâ€ called Spring, which used the Java language, but not the Java APIs. RT 290:25-291:6.
Mr. Ellisonâ€™s testimony was incorrect. The Spring framework is open source software, and the documentation for the Spring framework is readily available on the Internet. This documentation demonstrates that Mr. Ellisonâ€™s testimony was incorrect, and that the Spring framework uses the J2SE APIs. For example, the Spring package â€œorg.springframework.uiâ€ has a class named â€œModelMap,â€ which is a subclass of “java.util.HashMapâ€ â€”a class that is in the accused java.util package. This Spring class implements the interfaces Serializable (part of the accused java.io package), Cloneable (part of the accused java.lang package) and Map (part of the accused java.util package).”
I wonder how many layers of lying are involved. Did he lie about “personal knowledge”, the use of the Java API from SUN by a company or both? It’s not as if there was a matter of opinion or point of view involved. This was a “yes or no” situation. Did Spring use SUN’s Java API or not?
Google’s response was to a list of questions posed by Judge Alsup after he read an EU decision about non-copyright protection for APIs.
Oracle is in pretty deep doo-doo with this judge. Either Oracle is an evil corporation or they have a really evil legal firm running the case or both. Lies could fit either or both scenarios.