|
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 06:36 PM EDT |
I think you are right. That'll leave only Groklaw
still standing. Hey, that'd be great.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dio gratia on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 08:06 PM EDT |
Which Tech Bloggers Are On Google And Oracle's Payroll?
In a phone conversation, law professor Eric Goldman said that
he was surprised by this order on a number of grounds. First, it was issued very
late in the trial — normally, the concern with biased press would be around a
jury being tainted by unfair media coverage, but that isn't the case here. Also,
the sheer scope of the order — there are thousands of vendors and independent
contracts who have done business with Google and Oracle since the trial got
started in April — makes it a big deal.
"I'm concerned by the false
positives. The literal order is about people who have blogged about the case and
gotten money from Google — well, I've blogged the case and I do get Google
AdSense money. I meet the literal terms of the order," Goldman said.
Additionally, he could think of two situations where the order might conflict
with one's constitutional right to privacy: an attorney/client privilege (lots
of lawyers are blogging this case) and a journalistic privilege, if someone paid
Google or Oracle as a source for information.
And those are just the first
two possibilities that popped into Goldman's head. "Frankly, I'm not even sure I
can think of all the different types of people and the reasons they would be
affected by this order," he said.
You could imagine this is as
similar to SEC changes requiring disclosure of paid web proselytizers as
influencing outlook on stocks. There's the nabobs or expert witnesses pushing
the party line for billions in patent or copyright suits where it's simply done
for competitive advantage and no realistic expectation of winning.
You
could wonder at the intersection of public perception and the likelihood of
certain case events such as preliminary injunctions or appeals. How much
difference would knowing who originated a public viewpoint matter?
If
there's an attorney client privilege issue, you'd think an attorney shouldn't be
blogging. I'm rather skeptical about a privilege for journalists paying for
news. There doesn't seem to be too firm a First Amendment connection and that's
not the direction of payment requested in the order. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: alanjshea on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 08:13 PM EDT |
Very astute observation!
Sunlight is always the best disinfectant and preventative; lets hope other
courts observe and do likewise.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 03:40 AM EDT |
There was an update to FTC regulations a year or so ago regarding disclosure
from people who write glowing reviews of products in exchange for freebies or
even cash. It only makes sense that other types of "news for hire"
should be similarly exposed to the harsh light of day...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 08:56 AM EDT |
I think it could. Or could inspire some in the future to build constructions
that allow them to stay hidden when other orders like this would come.
But some commentators may have been defending other interests like those of
Microsoft/Apple and won't be in the lists submitted by the party's.
Wonder if publicity on a site may be considered as a form of payment.
For me a many commentators don't seem to be very busy to defend their readers.
Simple test: You still run Windows XP? Microsoft doesn't support the latest
browser on it. Competing browsers are supported. Who, when giving comment about
browsers, did advice it's readers to switch, who did not?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 04:49 PM EDT |
While I would love to see comments-for-hire (and the entire PR industry) go
away, it can't be this easy.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|