decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Optimist! | 236 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
This action could be a game changer
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 | # ]

This action could be a game changer
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 | # ]

This action could be a game changer
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 | # ]

FTC requres disclosure for Product Endorsements for Hire
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 | # ]

This action could be a game changer
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 | # ]

Optimist!
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )