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
for the record... NOT me! | 79 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Judge Asks Google to Supplement Its List of Any Paid Folks ~pj
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, August 20 2012 @ 11:37 PM EDT
I think it's simpler than that.

The Judge wants any employees, contractors or consultants paid by Google for
anything who also commented on this case.

Given Google's expertise in search, that seems a doable request.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Judge Asks Google to Supplement Its List of Any Paid Folks ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 20 2012 @ 11:51 PM EDT
I think Google were absolutely clear: neither they nor their
lawyers have paid anyone to commentate. Nor paid for some
other reason, with the expectation of coverage. Nor come to
any quid-pro-quo deal (which I don't think Oracle covered, so
it's possible Oracle or their lawyers came to some quid-pro-
quo deal.).

Google are clean.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Judge Asks Google to Supplement Its List of Any Paid Folks ~pj
Authored by: tknarr on Monday, August 20 2012 @ 11:59 PM EDT

Were I Google, I'd respond with two lists. The first would be all the employees, contractors or vendors who Google knows commented on the case. This list may be empty. The second list would contain the names of every employee, vendor or contractor not in the first list, with a heading "The following people have been paid by Google, but were not paid to comment or report on this case. Given the deadline, the number of people involved and the lack of legal ability to subpoena all of them, it is infeasible for Google to create a comprehensive list of which venues not under Google's control they may have commented in and confirm whether or not they have commented or reported on the case. Since Google can't show positively that they haven't commented on the case, Google must perforce include their names here. To do otherwise would risk failing to comply with the court's order if some of them have in fact commented in other venues.". I'd inform the judge beforehand of the size of the list, and offer to deliver it in electronic form if he thinks that amount of paper would be unwieldy.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

for the record... NOT me!
Authored by: mirrorslap on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 01:49 AM EDT
I'd hope that it would go without saying, but there, I said it.

Nobody paid me to cover the Oracle v. Google trial, I volunteered to cover it
when PJ sent out her request for volunteers, and I had a fantastic time doing
it, even though it was hard work and time-consuming.

My best guess is that the Honorable Judge Alsup is being diligent and even-
handed in addressing Google in this manner. As PJ has postulated, it may be
that he is interested in using the data as a means of determining allocation of

costs? But to really do that, it seems to me that the Good Judge would need to
know how much each party got paid... and whether there were contingency
fees.

And so now Oracle, having been caught paying FM (both parties having their
pants down) are doing their best to distract attention from the horrid
spectacle. Oracle can now add "cockroach wrangler" to their collective

corporate resumé. Whichever team wins the America's Cup should probably
shake it out pretty well to avoid taking home unwanted Oracle pets.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Judge Asks Google to Supplement Its List of Any Paid Folks ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 04:16 PM EDT
I think this is important because other judges may ask the same.
Or people may start acting taking that possibility in to account.

So it is in the public interest that the question is well
formulated. Would payments as those admitted by Facebook to a
PR-company fall under the order?

[ 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 )