|Google ordered to disclose all paid "commenters"|
| 11:29 am on Aug 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|The judge who oversaw Oracle's lawsuit against Google said Monday that the search giant "has failed to comply" with a 7 August order to provide the names of parties whose commentary on the suit may have been influenced by money. |
Last week, Google said it had not directly paid anyone to comment on the case, which centred on alleged Java patent and copyright violations in the Android mobile OS.
However, given factors such as the prevalence of online publishing tools, "any number" of individuals or institutions with "indirect or attenuated" financial ties to Google may have written about the case, according to the company.
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. For example, Oracle has disclosed that it retained a blogger as a consultant. Even though the payment was for consulting work, the payment might have influenced the blogger’s reports on issues in the civil action. Just as a treatise on the law may influence the courts, public commentary that purports to be independent may have an influence on the courts and/or their staff if only in subtle ways. If a treatise author or blogger is paid by a litigant, should not that relationship be known?
| 1:58 pm on Aug 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Saw that yesterday.
Would I be right in thinking that the reason they didn't previously want to "waste the courts time with lots of lists" (to paraphrase) is because those would contain details of Adsense accounts?
They were hoping to get away with not disclosing this info but the judge doesn't care about the consequences.....
| 2:28 pm on Aug 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Adsense accounts and blogger accounts are the main ones, but could possibly extend to any employee, contractor or customer with a blog or social media account I guess.
Seems limited to those who received money. Good job as well - if Google had to list everyone they had provided free products to they may as well have said, "hey, meet the Internet...Internet, meet the judge".
| 7:29 am on Aug 23, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Asking Google to provide this information was silly, the judge should have asked the public to reveal them. Many web savy users would have jumped at the challenge to sniff them out, and likely still will. It would make a great article.
Comments with agendas is fast becoming a very real problem, look no further than Yahoo articles in Canada with their upcoming Sept 4th elections. You can see the new accounts being churned out in large numbers to bash anyone who even remotely says something negative about a politician, and these are being promoted to the top with vote giving "clubs". It has the feel of *robo-calls 2.0*
| 10:07 pm on Aug 23, 2012 (gmt 0)|
So, the judge ruled that even if Google hadn't paid for links or done anything spammy, they still needed to submit a reinclusion request detailing their sins and begging forgiveness? Savor the irony.
| 10:18 pm on Aug 23, 2012 (gmt 0)|
All commentators (including prominent search engine commentators) would do the public a favour by disclosure just as financial commentators are obliged to.
| 10:42 pm on Aug 24, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Google "names the names"..
|As ordered by the court, Google has submitted a new and longer list of bloggers and other commentators who have written about its ongoing patent litigation with Oracle, even as it continues to insist that it has never paid anyone to report or comment on the case. |
| 12:22 am on Aug 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Contrary to popular belief, it is sometimes necessary to press some of these big corps for further clarification on their statements
Hope the many paraphraser's hereabouts are paying attention
"Well known spokes person said,,, the sky is bright purple, day an nite "
therefore it must be so