|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 12:29 AM EDT |
Heh. One way to look at it...the judge was thorough and
fair. It is perfectly reasonable to occasionally test
people - and companies too.
Results?: Oracle pays people to lie about cases. Google
doesn't. Yes - Oracle and others will try to use Google's
disclosure against various commentators. But, they'd have
done that anyways. Transparency helps. And, now, it is
really obvious that there's at least one Oracle-paid shill.
--Erwin[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:42 AM EDT |
Most of these are obviously well known "noble" organizations and
individuals. However, others, such as the 'Competitive Enterprise Institute'
sound
more like opinion-makers and lobbying groups.
Google was so
obviously on the side of right in this case that it's not like
they needed to
pull strings in the tech press. However, as with any large
corporation, it's
not surprising they have connections to think tanks and others
on more of the
political side. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 07:39 AM EDT |
I think there is lot of room for learning for those people who
where the source of the Oracle filing. Somebody should explain
them there is more in the world than the interests of Oracle and
the interests of Google. Or even the interests of other
company's.
Sometimes it looks to me that many bloggers are just busy with
the interests of company A and company B but don't seem very
interested in other things like users interests, free speech,
general interests and others. Something to do with the way they
are sponsored by publicity?
Oracles filing does not seem to understand organisations may
defend other things. In the long run, if that would be the
attitude of Oracle itself, that could be counterproductive if
Oracle wants to sell not only to company's.
I understand almost every argument can be mimicked by FOSS
PATENTS as long that there is no real deal discovered that proves
payments for influencing coverage in the media. Some PR-plan. But
seriously, FOSS PATENTS defending user interests?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Education - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:43 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 04:14 PM EDT |
Uh, not for profit, perhaps, but that doesn't make them any
less pawns. No one gives a not-for-profit hundreds of
thousands of dollars without expecting something. When
Google gave all of that money to the EFF, they were clearly
looking to support the work of the EFF. One of the things
that the EFF does is blog about things and I don't think
anyone at Google was surprised when the EFF started issuing
anti-Oracle blog posts.
To me, donating to support the work of a non-profit sure
looks like a quid pro quo. You give the money so they
continue to do what they do. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
