ORACLE AMERICA, INC. v. GOOGLE INC., C 10-03561 WHA. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160503b59
Visitors: 1
Filed: May 02, 2016
Latest Update: May 02, 2016
Summary: ORDER IN LIMINE RE GOOGLE'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 RE IRRELEVANT TESTIMONY INTENDED TO SUGGEST VIOLATION OF PRIVACY OR ANTITRUST LAWS WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Google's motion in limine to preclude Oracle from introducing evidence or argument intended to suggest that Google is violating the jurors' privacy rights, privacy laws, and antitrust laws (Dkt. 1558) is DENIED except as to any references to "cookies," "monopoly," or "monopolization." Although Google does not dispute
Summary: ORDER IN LIMINE RE GOOGLE'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 RE IRRELEVANT TESTIMONY INTENDED TO SUGGEST VIOLATION OF PRIVACY OR ANTITRUST LAWS WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Google's motion in limine to preclude Oracle from introducing evidence or argument intended to suggest that Google is violating the jurors' privacy rights, privacy laws, and antitrust laws (Dkt. 1558) is DENIED except as to any references to "cookies," "monopoly," or "monopolization." Although Google does not dispute ..
More
ORDER IN LIMINE RE GOOGLE'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 RE IRRELEVANT TESTIMONY INTENDED TO SUGGEST VIOLATION OF PRIVACY OR ANTITRUST LAWS
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
Google's motion in limine to preclude Oracle from introducing evidence or argument intended to suggest that Google is violating the jurors' privacy rights, privacy laws, and antitrust laws (Dkt. 1558) is DENIED except as to any references to "cookies," "monopoly," or "monopolization." Although Google does not dispute that the use was for a commercial use, the extent of the commercial use is still in play. Evidence regarding Google's business practices is relevant to show the extent of commercialism and to meet Google's point that Google gives Android away for free.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
