Oracle wants Larry Page up before the beak

Oracle has asked the courts to allow it to question Google's CEO Larry Page as part of the ongoing battle over alleged Java patent infringement relating to Google's Android operating system.

Oracle made the request in a court filing sent to Judge Donna M Ryu, where it asked to despose four additional people from Google, including the Googler in Chief.

Oracle and Google discussed the possibility of the additional four depositions by telephone on July 1st and July 12th, but ultimately Google refused to agree with the request. Oracle has already secured 10 people from Google for questioning in the case.

Oracle wants to question Page because he was reportedly behind the decision to acquire the Android company and software, along with involvement in Google's negotiations to secure a licence with the creator of Java, Sun Microsystems, which was subsequently acquired by Oracle.

The fact that he's the current CEO of the company is likely also a factor, but Oracle did not mention this in the court filing.

Google particularly objected to the deposition request in relation to Page, suggesting he was of no relevance to the case, particularly given Android's creator, Andy Rubin, was already questioned and would be subject to questioning again.

Oracle argues that Page should be in the frame, since he can provide information on the negotiations with Sun that Rubin could not provide. It also pointed out the contradiction in Google's request to depose Oracle's CEO, Larry Ellison.

The other three individuals Oracle wants to question include Dipchand Nishar, Bob Lee and Tim Lindholm.

Nishar was a former Google employee who was deeply involved with Android and particularly with the negotiations with Sun.

Lee was a former Google employee who worked on the core library development for Android. Oracle believes his testimony could affect Oracle's claims and damages estimates.

Lindholm works for Google on Android and previously worked for Sun on the Java technology in dispute. He also participated in the negotiations over licensing and his testimony has obvious relevance.

The judge's decision can be expected within the next two weeks before the deadline for fact discovery on July 29.