Judge gives Google until Friday to dish on paid media
Tattletale Oracle gets pat on the head
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Judge William Alsup has said that Google "failed to comply" with his August 7 order to disclose any paid relationships with the media as part of its ongoing patent litigation with Oracle, and has given the search giant five days to resubmit.
In his original order, Judge Alsup had asked that both parties in the case reveal any paid relationships with bloggers, journalists, commentators, or other media representatives whose statements might have influenced public opinion regarding the case.
Google denied having any such relationships in a statement issued last Friday, although it said that it would be "extraordinarily difficult and perhaps impossible" to cite all of the authors who may have written about the case and who may have indirect financial relationships with the Chocolate Factory through its participation in trade groups.
In a new order issued on Monday, Judge Alsup said that Google's response was insufficient and gave it until Friday, August 24 to submit a revised statement.
"Please simply do your best but the impossible is not required," the judge wrote. "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."
Judge Alsup was apparently more satisfied with Oracle's statement, which acknowledged that Oracle had a paid consulting relationship with blogger Florian Mueller. Mueller himself had disclosed his relationship with the database maker in an August 18 blog post.
Although Oracle cited Mueller as its sole example of a potential paid media link, however, it went further, giving two names of individuals who it said had a financial stake in Google's success, due to membership in Chocolate Factory–backed industry trade groups.
Google acknowledged that it funded various groups in its own statement to the court, but denied that these funds were intended to influence the groups' public statements or that it had paid any person or group specifically to comment on the case.
In his order, Judge Alsup said that his August 7 order was not limited to pay-for-comment arrangements but was intended to reveal any authors whose statements may have been influenced by money from Google.
"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," the judge wrote. "If a treatise author or blogger is paid by a litigant, should not that relationship be known?"
Oracle did not mention any relationships with industry trade groups in its own statement, and Judge Alsup has not asked it to resubmit. ®
COMMENTS
It's all about goodwill
I was going to point out that at least Google had tried to be upfront about the fact that there are a lot of people (though apparently none here) who are friendly towards Google, for whatever reason, at companies or organizations where Google spends or contributes money. Lotsa people still like Google (except here). Whereas Oracle just ignored the whole issue of favourable comments from people with indirect financial interests.
But then it occurred to me that Oracle probably doesn't have any goodwill it doesn't buy outright.
(Disclaimer: I know people who work for Google. They're a whole lot more open about stuff that's not explicitly private, and honest about mistakes and failures, than any of the people I know who work for Microsoft or Apple. I don't know anyone who works for Oracle. I've never worked for any of the above, but they've all complicated my job, in various ways, at different times.)
All we need now
is for Lucy Koh to ask Apple who they pay to spew their bile all over the internet...
Oracle didn't do it
Oracle listed one commentator - that's not even close to "all". And they picked one that was a known shill, so they hardly revealed anything.

IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider