|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|