14 DAY TRIAL // The Oracle vs Google lawsuit is essentially over, which is sad, since it's only now getting interesting. A couple of weeks ago, the judge presiding the case asked the two companies to reveal if anyone they pay may have made public comments about the case which may have influenced public opinion.
It was a peculiar request, even more so since it was made after the outcome of the lawsuit was already settled, Google won in every respect.
The two sides complied and came up with an answer last week. Oracle disclosed that it was paying Florian Mueller, who runs the FOSS Patents blog, but this was already known, albeit neither Oracle nor Mueller has been that forthcoming with this fact.
Google though said it paid no one to speak for it or, the other way around, no one it paid spoke about the case.
The company then presented a long list of organizations, scholars, experts, even bloggers that were receiving payments from it either in the form of donations, grants or even advertising revenue.
"Neither Google nor its counsel has paid an author, journalist, commentator or blogger to report or comment on any issues in this case. And neither Google nor its counsel has been involved in any quid pro quo in exchange for coverage of or articles about the issues in this case," Google said in its response.
The judge though wasn't convinced and made it clear that Google was taking a very restrictive view on the order. He didn't just want to know about bloggers or journalists, he wanted to know about any financial link between the company and anyone who may have commented about the case.
"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," the judge said.
"In the Court’s view, Google has failed to comply with the August 7 order," he added. He gave Google until the end of this week to come up with a better answer and detailed better what he wanted to see.
The judge made it clear that he was not interested in companies or organizations, unless individual employees made comments. He also doesn't care about university gifts and grants. What's more, the clarification applies to Oracle as well, that is, Oracle is asked to amend its list if the new details make it clear that some other people should be there.
"Payments do not include advertising revenue received by commenters. Nor does it include experts disclosed under Rule 26. Google suggests that it has paid so many commenters that it will be impossible to list them all. Please simply do your best but the impossible is not required. 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," he said.