|
| Authored by: nsomos on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
Please post corrections in this thread.
A summary in the title may be helpful.
Thanks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: tknarr on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 03:48 PM EDT |
This (Florian's comments) is why the companies and the bloggers should have
no discretion in revealing payment. The company may not say in so many words
"You must say these things for/about us.", but when someone's paying you there's
always at least an implicit statement in there: "If we don't like what you're
saying for/about us, we're going to stop paying you.". To give either the
company or the blogger the right to decide that the payment isn't relevant and
doesn't have to be disclosed just isn't kosher. Both of them have a stake in not
having the payment disclosed to avoid risking having readers decide that the
blogger's being influenced by it. The parties who should be making that decision
are the readers of the blog and other outside observers, and they should be
making that decision based on all the facts including the ones the
company and the blogger might not want them to have. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 03:48 PM EDT |
Did the judge ask for either party to make statements about the other party's
possible relationships or payments to people or organizations that may have made
public comments about the case? If not, can Oracle be sanctioned for doing so?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: nsomos on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 04:02 PM EDT |
To me, the fact that Oracle DOES pay FM, who writes,
and that Oracle also tries to smear Google, speaks volumes.
That Oracle is paying FM for consulting on supposedly
competition related matters, means that either that Oracle
is being ripped off, or they are less than entirely honest.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: BJ on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 04:18 PM EDT |
I hereby declare that I was sympathetic to Google's side of this case. My
sympathies were based on the merits of its arguments.
As well Oracle's assertions and tactics caused me to smell a rat, making me
highly unsympathetic to Oracle.
My sympathetic / unsympathetic feelings towards these parties were mutually
independent, and thus unlike 'communicating vessels'.
I hereby declare that I have not and have never had and don't foresee having any
relation to Google nor Oracle in whatever way that might fall under the judge's
definition, or the spirit of his inquiry.
I hate bullies, that's all.
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 04:20 PM EDT |
| He writes one of the leading treatises on copyright, and is Google's senior
copyright council. I do not know if he has publicly commented on the case (he
used to blog, but has since stopped, last I checked), and supports a restricted
view of copyright that jives with Google's business model (and that I happen to
agree with).
His last major publication, How to Fix
Copyright, was released subsequent to the commencement of the case,
though likely makes no mention of it.
I suspect Oracle's listing of Paul
Goldstein is so they can waggle a finger at Google should Google fail to
explicitly mention Patry. That said, I'm certain the Court is well aware of
Patry's relationship to Google. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 04:26 PM EDT |
As far as I can make out, he has always had his ridiculous
biases and badly thought out reasoning.
I think this may be just a case of Oracle choosing the clown
they want, rather than influencing reporting directly.
Wonder if he'll report on this exciting new court development.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 04:50 PM EDT |
| From the article on wired" Oracle responded to the judge’s order Friday too,
saying that it was paying one blogger — Florian Mueller,"
Click
for wired article [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: crs17 on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 04:53 PM EDT |
In google's brief they refer to "the instant lawsuit". Now I know
that is just lawyerese for "the lawsuit in front of us now". But I
thought it funny to think of that with a different meaning of
"instant" such as "add water and mix". Can you imagine an
"instant" lawsuit - one ready in 60 seconds or so? What would groklaw
write about?
:-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 05:51 PM EDT |
It seems to me somewhat evasive to provide only the date on which Herr Mueller
disclosed his financial partnership with Oracle.
The more
substantive date would be when he was first retained, which is merely
asserted as having occurred at some point subsequent to his first blogging about
the case (in August of 2010, 16 months prior to the disclosure date).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 06:25 PM EDT |
But you didn’t listen.
I wonder if he will ever be quoted again by the beeb?
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 06:50 PM EDT |
What a blow to the ego it would be if Judge Alsup decided there was no need to
further pursue this inquiry, as "The lone identified journalist for hire
produced no descernable influence or effect."
Mr. Mueller might prefer to be jailed for a week or something.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jonathon on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 06:55 PM EDT |
In Google's phrasing in the various classes it says:
«It would be extraordinarily difficult and perhaps impossible for Google to
identify all individuals who have commented on the issues of this case, and who
... », where " ... " is either organizational affiliation, or gets
money from Adsense.
Three points:
1: Even if Google were to supply such a list, that list would include people
whose comments favourable to Oracle, as well as people whose comments were
favourable to Google, as well as people whose comments were unfavourable to both
parties;
2: Whilst they could run a check against sites that use Adsense, they could not
know if the person wrote comments elsewhere;
3: Whilst they could run a check against sites of organizations that they
contributed to, they could not know if, or where employees, volunteers,
ex-employers, and affiliates of those organizations wrote comments elsewhere;
I'm wondering why Google didn't explicitly make those statements in their
filing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 09:56 PM EDT |
Just wondering about their Public Liability from spouting
non-sense and inducing stress and anxiety?
I feel stressed out and anxious.
Really. I do. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: dio gratia on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 10:23 PM EDT |
Judge Alsup noting a disparity between Google's response and Oracle's allegation
"that Google maintains a network of direct and indirect “influencers” to
advance Google’s intellectual property agenda" could always order Oracle to
provide substantiation in the search for misrepresentation by Google.
As it is, the allegation is so reminiscent of "The State Department is
infested with communists. I have here in my hand a list of 205 — a list of names
...", Senator Joe McCarthy to the Women’s Republican Club of Wheeling, West
Virginia in February 1950. The number on the illusory list always incrementing
giving the appearance of more investigation underway.
A case of put up or shut up "don't wait for the translation" does
Oracle have any proof? Court filings shouldn't be used for propaganda purposes
and sly innuendo. Less so than should paid media (mis)representation. It
appears down right craven.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 10:42 PM EDT |
Interesting that FM always seems to have "independant views" that
coincidently seem to match those of his clients. You cannot expect to really
write impartially when one of the parties is personally sending you money
directly. It just isnt possible. Case in point, ive not seen anything critical
of
oracle or microsoft from him lately.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: artp on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 11:35 PM EDT |
Anything but Mueller or for-hire yellow journalism. Let me
repeat that again....
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: artp on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 11:36 PM EDT |
Change the Title Block and URLs are very much appreciated.
Helps anchor the reference.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: artp on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 11:39 PM EDT |
For transcriptions of the non-text PDFs from the Comes v. MS
(see above link) to nicely Geeklog-formatted HTML. Or email
to PJ. Reserve your place now!
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 18 2012 @ 12:09 AM EDT |
FM: Oracle never ever suggested a topic for me to blog about -- nor
did anyone close to Oracle, such as its counsel. I repeat, never
ever.
The mark of professionalism as a consultant is to
anticipate your customer's needs and to operate without requiring detailed
direction. A good consultant needs to be told only the ultimate goal and then
uses his experience and knowledge of the industry to direct himself towards that
goal. It's abilities like these that keep customers coming back for more.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 18 2012 @ 02:45 AM EDT |
Whilst Oracle is busying itself in slinging as much mud as possible at Google,
through its lawyers, perhaps it will pay dividends to look at what Oracle is
doing with it's other metaphorical hand?
In other words, what Oracle is NOT saying is perhaps more informative about
their motives and ethics.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Saturday, August 18 2012 @ 06:36 AM EDT |
Oracle did not ask or approve any of its employees to write about
the case and does not track employee bloggers.
Oracle my not
ask, but it's official bloggers do follow the case see here
---
Beware of him who would deny you access to information for in his
heart he considers himself your master. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 18 2012 @ 08:16 AM EDT |
Quoth Florian:
"There was never any request to say please do
this
or that," he said. "We agreed I would still express my
views and pick my
topics. I wrote all the blog posts
independently, and they did not see draft
posts."
Quoth PJ:
Pick from what list? His own? Suggestions? It
reminds me of Microsoft's Get the Facts website. Remember
that? All those
"independent" studies?
Really? This is paranoia. The original
quote from Florian
seems like a flat-out denial that Oracle in any way
influenced either his choice of topics or content.
If you think he's
lying, OK. Say so. But to suggest he's
cleverly doublespeaking being handed a
list of topics by
Oracle, and only "choosing" in the sense of picking "which
Oracle line to feed to the world" doesn't seem in any way
implied here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Fixed formatting. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 18 2012 @ 08:18 AM EDT
- PJ, I love you, but this is a little over the top. - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, August 18 2012 @ 08:48 AM EDT
- I don't think you will get PJ to call him a liar. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 18 2012 @ 10:33 AM EDT
- PJ, I love you, but this is a little over the top. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 18 2012 @ 11:01 AM EDT
- PJ, I love you, but this is a little over the top. - Authored by: Charles888 on Saturday, August 18 2012 @ 01:00 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: pem on Saturday, August 18 2012 @ 02:25 PM EDT |
|
Contrasting Oracle's statement to the judge about Oracle's employee-bloggers
with Oracle's internal employee policy.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: xtifr on Saturday, August 18 2012 @ 04:18 PM EDT |
PJ wrote: It's unseemly, and no journalist worth his or her salt
would *ever* write about a company it took money from, and if it happened, it
could only happen if the journalist put a notice about the relationship
prominently on every single article about the client. That's Journalism
101.
But FM's not a journalist, is he? He's a pundit--a
self-appointed "expert" in fields he has no formal training in, like patent law.
He's more like a PR flack than a journalist. Or a cross between that and a
one-man advertising company.
Of course Oracle didn't tell him what to
write about. You don't tell your advertising company what should go in an ad.
You ask them. And with an independent flack like Florian, you simply
give him money and expect him to start issuing opinions that support your
positions, much like an ad company issues ads that promote your
products.
FM's more like a spambot than a journalist, except that
technically, he's not a bot. But his job is to go out and inject PR on whatever
forums he can, much as a spambot injects ads. Expecting him to follow a
journalistic code of conduct makes about as much sense as expecting an
infomercial to provide a fair and balanced view of the products on the
market.
---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them
soggy and hard to light. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- +1 - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 18 2012 @ 05:32 PM EDT
- FM's not a journalist - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 12:02 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: hardmath on Saturday, August 18 2012 @ 10:00 PM EDT |
It's a bit late in the day, but I parsed this the first three
times I read it as "copycat specialist". Given Mueller's
confessed reliance on Oracle's daily trial postings, I'm
afraid this misreading made all too much sense, esp. beside
PJ's assessment that it was "laughable".
---
Hate the math. Don't hate the mathematician![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 19 2012 @ 02:23 PM EDT |
I take Mueller at his word and his commentaries and quotes were not
coordinated with or directed or written by Oracle. Mind you the thing
I'm not seeing is what Oracle did get for its money, i.e., when the contract
outlined deliverables, what were the triggers for Oracle's check to be cut. It
must
have been something of value if it wasn't an active pro-Oracle quote
machine.
Right? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 20 2012 @ 10:05 AM EDT |
I admit it, in return for writing favorable coverage on blogs
and comments areas over the last few months, Google has given
me a huge number of freebies like email and calendars, a tool
to search the web, some kind of social networking thing, and
even an operating system which I gather from Apple and Oracle
is worth $Kajillion.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 20 2012 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
Can IBM/OSDL and Novell file a "no paid writers/bloggers" statement?
I don't think so.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
