“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.
Thom,
Are you one of them?
//I kidd…
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
OsNews can do like Slashdot, but then OsNews couldn’t be taken seriously.
http://www.anti-slash.org/
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.
Looking my comment and your answer, they don’t really match.
Edited 2012-08-22 10:15 UTC
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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”