Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Aug 2012 23:17 UTC
Legal "Earlier this month Judge William Alsup ordered Oracle and Google to disclose any journalists or bloggers either has paid that could have commented on the Oracle v. Google case. Both parties responded last week - but Judge Alsup didn't think Google was completely forthright, and has asked the company to try again by the end of the week." Good to know Alsup is on top of this. Google claimed it hadn't paid any shills, but as large and powerful as the company is, I find that very hard to believe.
Order by: Score:
hmm...
by Jondice on Mon 20th Aug 2012 23:55 UTC
Jondice
Member since:
2006-09-20

Thom,

Are you one of them?

//I kidd...

Reply Score: 6

Comment by Stephen!
by Stephen! on Tue 21st Aug 2012 00:04 UTC
Stephen!
Member since:
2007-11-24

Maybe Google isn't hiding anything. After all, their mantra is "Don't be evil" ...

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by Stephen!
by Laurence on Tue 21st Aug 2012 10:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by Stephen!"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Maybe Google isn't hiding anything. After all, their mantra is "Don't be evil" ...

That, and also I think there's enough Google fanboys around to give a biased viewpoint for free :p

But in all seriousness, Google do have a much better public image compared with Oracle. So it's really not that hard to believe that Oracle would spend more to pay bloggers to represent a positive image for the company.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!
by kwan_e on Tue 21st Aug 2012 11:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Stephen!"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

That, and also I think there's enough Google fanboys around to give a biased viewpoint for free :p


I fail to understand what's wrong with bias. Nothing in the world falls exactly in the middle of any axis. The only thing that is wrong is sticking to a point along the axis where the truth of a matter isn't.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!
by Laurence on Tue 21st Aug 2012 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


I fail to understand what's wrong with bias. Nothing in the world falls exactly in the middle of any axis. The only thing that is wrong is sticking to a point along the axis where the truth of a matter isn't.

I never said there was anything wrong with a bias and I don't even see how any of that is even relevant to point.

Oracle: bad image thus pays people to promote the company.
Google: good image thus doesn't need to pay people to promote the company.

It's really no different to any other form of advertising, from Oracles perspective.

Reply Score: 3

bah
by TechGeek on Tue 21st Aug 2012 00:13 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

"Oracle managed to do it." -Judge Alsup. Thats right. Oracle did it and they only had one. Is it so inconceivable to think that Google has none?

Reply Score: 11

RE: bah
by Beta on Tue 21st Aug 2012 17:54 UTC in reply to "bah"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

"Oracle managed to do it." -Judge Alsup. Thats right. Oracle did it and they only had one. Is it so inconceivable to think that Google has none?

It’s inconceivable to think Oracle just had one.

Reply Score: 5

Read Google's Filing
by gsyoungblood on Tue 21st Aug 2012 00:31 UTC
gsyoungblood
Member since:
2007-01-09

I skimmed it on Groklaw, but from what I saw of Google's filing they said they didn't pay anyone directly and then asked the court for clarification on the order to confirm the depth being requested.

For instance, bloggers with Google AdSense are "paid by Google" but that doesn't mean Google has a relationship with the blogger to post stories on behalf of, at the direction of or, or specifically to benefit Google.

Seems much to do about nothing really. At least for this particular item.

Reply Score: 13

RE: Read Google's Filing
by gan17 on Tue 21st Aug 2012 13:02 UTC in reply to "Read Google's Filing"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

Google has also provided a lot of support and funding for various bodies, many of whom focus on "freedom" in one form or another (open source/standards, free-speech, etc), like the EFF, Creative Commons and various law schools. Many of these bodies would've spoken out in Google's defence. Whether you'd consider them "schills" or not depends on which side of the fance you sit on, I suppose.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Read Google's Filing
by Vanders on Tue 21st Aug 2012 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Read Google's Filing"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Likewise, Oracle is a member of the Business Software Alliance, and contributes to that organisation (and other like it). Should Oracle include them in its list, on the basis that the BSA may have made statements concerning Oracle?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Read Google's Filing
by JAlexoid on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 13:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Read Google's Filing"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Thus Alsup clarified who he wants to be disclosed. His statement that Google didn't comply was very predictable; Because Google didn't comply(strictly speaking), they asked for clarification.

Reply Score: 2

Must be a slow week
by UltraZelda64 on Tue 21st Aug 2012 03:30 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

There's been no news at all for the last few days, and now, this. Must be a slow, boring week for news.

Slashdot has been relatively boring, too--but there's been more activity and a semi-interesting story or two at least.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Must be a slow week
by Nth_Man on Tue 21st Aug 2012 15:54 UTC in reply to "Must be a slow week"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

OsNews can do like Slashdot, but then OsNews couldn't be taken seriously.
http://www.anti-slash.org/

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Must be a slow week
by UltraZelda64 on Tue 21st Aug 2012 19:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Must be a slow week"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I look at Slashdot as more of an entertainment news site. Whether you want to fully trust the summaries or not, that's up to you. Obviously, if you really want to know about something you would RTFA linked to in the summary and not take Slashdot's often poor summaries as 100% accurate. You can slam Slashdot all you want, but that's not going to stop anyone from going to it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Must be a slow week
by Nth_Man on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 10:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Must be a slow week"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

Looking my comment and your answer, they don't really match.

Edited 2012-08-22 10:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Tue 21st Aug 2012 04:58 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

Google didn't give a clear denial.

That doesn't mean they paid anyone to get on their positive side, but Google's money does flow to bloggers via their ad system and Oracle could make a case, valid or not, it would influence the attitude of these people.

Paying money to influential people, leaking stuff to the media, hiring people to write in comment sections, it probably happens on a very daily business. If politics does it, so do companies.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by kwan_e on Tue 21st Aug 2012 07:35 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Oracle could make a case, valid or not, it would influence the attitude of these people.


Google AdSense may influence bloggers (anyone want to do a proper psychological study on how and how wide?).

But Oracle is not merely influencing Florian Mueller. They're telling him what to say.

Does Google AdSense's terms of service state what bloggers can or cannot say about Google?

* Tu quoque arguments can be fallacious, and are in this case.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Tue 21st Aug 2012 07:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12


Google AdSense may influence bloggers (anyone want to do a proper psychological study on how and how wide?).


Bloggers are either pro or anti Google, perhaps some even neutral. I don't think AdSense makes much difference and even if it did it's their lives and opinion.

Google probably (I think) doesn't pay anyone, but a clever lawyer may make a case. Even if it's not true it will take time, recourses and may influence public opinion.


But Oracle is not merely influencing Florian Mueller. They're telling him what to say.


My guess is they're not telling him what to say, but a bag of money and a good old fashioned wink should get Florian a pretty good idea how the tone of his articles should be.


Does Google AdSense's terms of service state what bloggers can or cannot say about Google?


If I'd read them I could be the first to do so, but without doing that I have a pretty good guess they have no such restriction.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by clintg on Tue 21st Aug 2012 09:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
clintg Member since:
2009-09-19

According to the order from the court: "Payments do not include advertising revenue received by commenters." So any commenters only receiving AdSense revenue seem to be excluded!

Reply Score: 3

Name one Google commenter
by clintg on Tue 21st Aug 2012 07:52 UTC
clintg
Member since:
2009-09-19

I think the proof of whether or not Google paid anyone to write on their behalf is in the lack of any significant figure pushing Google's position in the news. Can anyone name a single reporter or consultant who consulted regularly and might have been compensated by Google? If they are so big and powerful, they did a terrible job of making Google's position stand out!

With the possible exception of PJ at Groklaw, I cannot personally think of even one name that was clearly behind Google's position. I can, without hesitation, name Florian Mueller as the anti-Google voice and the voice of Oracle's position in this lawsuit. Nearly every major story I read over the months either quoted Mueller or his position, even though most of his views were wrong or very skewed. If he wasn't directly paid, he was "rewarded" with a consulting contract (probably lucrative) for his pro-Oracle position and anti-Google rhetoric.

PJ's voice has been consistent on her anti-software patents position and has been against the frivolous use of the courts to stifle competition for 9 years. She has made it clear that the stories and companies she writes for do not pay her. Her position in this has been more against this lawsuit, not pro-Google nor anti-Oracle.

Although the judge felt like Google should list others, Google did say in their filing "Neither Google nor its counsel has paid any individuals or organizations within these categories to report or comment on any issues in this case." Which was pretty direct.

Reply Score: 7

Are freebies payments?
by MrWeeble on Tue 21st Aug 2012 12:19 UTC
MrWeeble
Member since:
2007-04-18

I wonder if part of the problem is Google's freebies. If Google sends bloggers review devices is that a payment? If a blogger is invited to Google I/O and walks away with $1200 worth of kit, is that a payment?

The list could be very long if those are included

Reply Score: 3

mikeinohio
Member since:
2010-02-21

The judge is all worried about who paid which blogger?

I am not speaking specifically about this case. But, the legal system should be more concerned about which corporation contributed to which politician's election campaign.

Reply Score: 5

Not really
by Soulbender on Tue 21st Aug 2012 12:56 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

I mean, if we for a moment accept that Oracle only had one than it's not really unlikely that Google had none.
On the other hand they're both pretty unlikely.

Reply Score: 4

2 concerns
by fretinator on Tue 21st Aug 2012 17:20 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

First, I am tired of people trying to link Google to all kinds of immoral behavior, just because "everyone is doing it". It is a very weak argument.

Second, I am really upset at Google for missing my last two months of payment. Astro turf doesn't install itself, you know.

Reply Score: 5

Comment by Stephen!
by Stephen! on Tue 21st Aug 2012 21:07 UTC
Stephen!
Member since:
2007-11-24

Isn't it all just baseless speculation on Oracle's part anyway.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=25364

"Oracle suggests Google may have some skeletons in its closet"

Reply Score: 2