Oracle vs. Google - Problems in Discovery

>>Quite a lot to digest, eh? You'd have to be a developer with some experience with Java and/or Dalvik to know who has the stronger argument, but I'm not one, so I'll leave it to you. But at its core, what we are seeing is Google saying, in effect, that Oracle is the plaintiff. It has to tell what it is complaining about enough for Google to know how to defend itself. And so far, its position is that it can't really go forward in discovery revelations unless Oracle gets more specific on a claim by claim basis, telling Google which Android devices are infringing. And just because there's Android code in a public repository, that doesn't prove that the code "has in fact been implemented and/or used in third party devices". That's the missing piece, from Google's perspective. Oracle so far is saying, if I've understood their claims, and not having their answers to Google's interrogatories, I might not have it fully, that all of Android is infringing the patents, all devices that run Android from 2008 onward. Stating it is to see what the problem is, I think. In any case, we can see why they need the judge to intervene and tell them who has to cough up specifics first and/or to what degree. Although how he will know in such a technical dispute is a little hard for me to see. I'm struggling, not being a developer, and I know he has in earlier cases we've covered made clear that he's not a programmer either. But he surely knows the law, and that is what he'll try to apply, and I don't doubt that it's why he set up a meet and confer for the parties prior to the hearing. He's hoping to encourage them to work it out themselves, if at all possible.