|
| Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 08:34 PM EDT |
Goldman is a wonderful lawyer, but I think
he's parsing this too finely. The judge's
order is quite clear, and he's not talking
about AdSense money or subscription money.
I think all of us here know exactly what he
means. And who.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 08:53 PM EDT |
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.
That would be "normal subscription
money".
an attorney/client privilege (lots of lawyers are
blogging this case)
But did third party lawyers get paid to
blog about the case?
and a journalistic privilege, if someone
paid Google or Oracle as a source for information.
The order
is about Oracle or Google paying other people, not other people paying them.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 09:34 PM EDT |
A person would have a constitutional right to privacy for personal opinions, but
not for paid comments.
Subscription fees are excluded and my personal feelings dealing with AdSense ads
is that Google is mainly a middle man just purchasing ad space, not comments.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: dio gratia on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 10:41 PM EDT |
The CNN Money article Judge orders
Oracle, Google to disclose paid journalists and bloggers points out that it
was the FTC requiring disclosure on paid bloggers and endorsements and not the
SEC.
The paidContent article The ethics of astro-turfing: sleazy or smart business?
weighs in on the merits of requiring disclosure.
The FTC's FAQ The FTC’s Revised Endorsement Guides: What People are
Asking points out the purpose is to stop deceptive speech in the purview of
the FTC Act, that it can harm consumers and as commercial speech can be
regulated.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
The Judge might well want to use this as evidence for himself in deciding
"reasonable damages" or sanctions.
If it's articles paid for by Oracle that are then used to boost Oracle's case in
the press, he could well conclude that Google has been damaged by the law suit,
and indeed that the damage was an intended side effect of the suit.
That REALLY would put the cat amongst the pigeons ...
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 09 2012 @ 05:38 AM EDT |
and atty, as an officer of the court, should not be lying to the court or taking
money for opinions. if caught he should be sanctioned if not disbarred.
what you have here is a bunch of legal scumbags and their favorite type of
clients worrying that their gravy train, at the public's expense, will stop
running![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
