|
|
|
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 10:59 PM EDT |
| Sadly [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 02:04 AM EDT |
I don't think that he is looking for writing that influenced the jury. And this
order would be atypical for that type of inquiry.
I think that this is aimed squarely at Oracle. They were advancing a novel
legal theory, getting the press to write stories about billions in potential
liability for Google, and expecting a nine or ten figure settlement. This may
have been crossing the line from legitimate protection of their rights to using
the legal system for extortion.
This case was very high profile, and the reporters didn't come up with the very
large damages numbers on their own.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
If we step back and look at the forest from the trees, didn't FM recently boast:
"Out of the 700+ blog posts I've done so far (which as per today, June 1,
2012, have been read well over 5 million times (see the real-time counter,
courtesy of Google, in the right-hand column) and been mentioned in articles
that in my estimate have collectively been viewed many billions of times."
And
in another article:
"As I told the L.A. Times, I believe the problem for Larry
Page is that he was personally very much involved with the decision to use Java
without a license."
Did Oracle use a mouthpiece, who was quoted by many
technical blogs and journalists, both to influence public perception (and
potential jurors) and beef up a weak case (they lost on virtually every
count)?
Was FM hired to discredit Google's public imagine and force them to
negotiate a settlement before going to trial?
Recent update of FTC guidelines
say a shill must state affiliation every time they endorse . . . not just once.
http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus71-ftcs-revised-endorsement-guideswhat-pe
ople-are-asking
Based on FTC guidelines, it's not good enough that FM said
once, by the way I'm a paid consultant for Oracle.
The order states for the
purpose of appeals, but maybe additional monetary compensation for Google's
costs might also be a consideration. Google's asked for $4M which only
covers costs for research and copying, but could not ask for lawyers fees.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
