|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 20 2012 @ 03:13 PM EDT |
| El Reg has
something [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 20 2012 @ 03:14 PM EDT |
"Google suggests that it has paid so many
commenters that it will be impossible
to list them all,"
Alsup wrote. "Please simply do your best but the
impossible
is not required. Oracle managed to do it."
looks like interpreted
Google's statement in a rather
cynical way, which is probably part of his job.
I don't
remember reading that from it, but perhaps its the
donations to
universities and organizations he wants
to see enumerated. I saw mention
somewhere that he's
not bothered about AdSense. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: DannyB on Monday, August 20 2012 @ 03:39 PM EDT |
| ArsTechnica has this;
Judge: Google didn't follow "show your shills"
order
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 20 2012 @ 05:36 PM EDT |
The August 7 order was not limited to authors “paid . . . to report
or comment”
or to “quid pro quo” situations. Rather, the order was designed to
bring to light authors whose
statements about the issues in the case might have
been influenced by the receipt of money
from Google or
Oracle.
...
Oracle managed to do it. Google can do it too by listing all
commenters known by Google to
have received payments as consultants,
contractors, vendors, or employees. As for
organizations receiving money, they
need not be listed unless one of its employees was a
commenter. Gifts to
universities can be ignored.
Oracle v Google 1238 PDF
So how does Google control what a
recipient of money thinks or writes after
receiving said donation or
adsense cents? Notice the good judge leaves the ivory towers
untainted, hmmph.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
