Paid Media Must Be Disclosed In Oracle v. Google

jfruh writes "One of the odder moments during the Oracle v. Google trial over Java patents came when patent blogger Florian Mueller disclosed that he had a 'consulting relationship' with Oracle. Now it looks like we're going to find out which other tech bloggers and journalists were on the payroll of one of the two sides in this epic fight. Judge William Alsup has ordered (PDF) that both parties disclose 'all authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have reported or commented on any issues in this case and who have received money (other than normal subscription fees) from the party or its counsel during the pendency of this action.'"

Comments

Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

That Pppprrrrrr sound is the noise of dozens of bloggers and self appointed media pundits simultaneously crapping their pants.

Re:Uh oh

[oakgrove]

I hope this goes all the way through. It'll be better than when Anonymous threatened to out the Mexican cartel collaborators.

Corporate benefits

[pushing-robot]

Every Oracle employee will now be provided a retroactive subscription to a collection of technology blogs and news sites. Don't worry, all expenses will be paid for by the company.

Re:Corporate benefits

[jyujin]

Indeed, wouldn't expect an AAA to let down their corporate property, errrr citizens, errrr wait that hasn't happened yet.

Oh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to make it totally clear that it must be some other Anonymous Coward who's been taking money from both sides.

--
I do not usually reply to gweihir (88907) either. So there.

Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[malx]

Let's set aside the quibbles, and for the sake of argument just roll with the notion that these writers are mere shills for the Oracle and Google, respectively (after all, that's the notion that clearly lies behind this ruling).

Isn't the right to speak anonymously protected by the First Amendment? Doesn't that protection extend to Oracle and Google too?

(I know corporate speech isn't as vigorously protected under the First Amendment, but it is still protected somewhat. And this speech isn't advertising (as with most limitations on corporate speech), it's closer to legal/political commentary).

I would be most interested to see this in SCOTUS.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[Fwipp]

I don't think it's obvious that anonymous speech is protected by the first amendment.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[HarrySquatter]

How exactly is writing a blog post under your legal name 'anonymous speech'? Also, no, it isn't protected to write shill blog posts under while being paid by a corporation. The FTC, for example, in 2009 made explicit rules about bliggers having to disclose if a company is paying them if they do product reviews.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[Desler]

It's also a tough case to claim something is anonymous speech when you blog under your legal name.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[jbeaupre]

It would apply if they were anonymous. Google and Oracle know who they are. They paid them. And if they were paid, then there exists the possibility that the content (speech) was not entirely theirs, but Google's and Oracle's.

The judge is asking Google and Oracle for list of who may have spoken on their behalf.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[jhoegl]

Bliggers, is that what we are calling paid pundits for shill corporations? :)
I wouldnt mind coming up with a word for these types of people. "Advertisement" is too nice.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[N0Man74]

Whether or not it is protected, I don't think that Anonymous speech is the same thing as when a non-anonymous author being paid to give a biased opinion while hiding the fact that they are being paid to give that opinion.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[SomePgmr]

Nested parens? Are we allowed to do that?!

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[Cid Highwind]

A judge can generally order parties to a case in his court to disclose all sorts of things that would normally be confidential.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's obvious that anonymous speech is protected by the first amendment.

Well you're entitled to your opinion of course but by contrast the Supreme Court says:

"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."

(McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 1995)

--
I don't usually reply to gweihir (88907) either. So there.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[Desler]

How is this 'anonymous speech'? These people blog under their legal names not under some cloak of anonymity or a psuedonym.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[MightyMartian]

How about "Santorums?"

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[vlm]

Let's set aside the quibbles, and for the sake of argument just roll with the notion that these writers are mere shills for the Oracle and Google, respectively (after all, that's the notion that clearly lies behind this ruling).

Isn't the right to speak anonymously protected by the First Amendment? Doesn't that protection extend to Oracle and Google too?

Its to protect the profits of the corporations who are not hiring, not the people who they hire. Surprised? Shouldn't be.

I am no one's official spokesweasel (have you read what I write? no corp would be that insane). I can write something jury tamper-ish or jury influence-ish or stock price influencing and there's not a whole heck of a lot the judge can do about it unless I was served a gag order first or can prove I am revealing trade secrets or otherwise doing something shady. Basically if I'm not guilty of fraud/libel/industrial espionage I have to be left alone aside from SLAPP suits, which due to the Streisand Effect are not as powerful as they were 20 years ago.

However... what if I was a secret astroturfer... unless the judge lays down the law on astroturfers on both sides, the "good guys" need to "protect themselves" by hiring their own astroturfers. They have stock values to maintain, they have a financial obligation to try to influence the jury as much as the "bad guys", etc. Its an astroturf arms race.

Its just a huge mess where everyone has to hire astroturfers unless the judge protects the good guys by laying down the law. Its an arms control law aimed at the people in charge of hiring astroturfers. Not much to do with the astroturfers themselves, other than they get pissed off because they won't get hired by either side.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[vux984]

Read the whole thread. The thread topic had drifted away from this specific case, to the more general question of whether or not anonomous speech was actually protected.

He responded that anonymous speech was in fact protected.

He never said the specific case at hand with Google and Oracle is actually anonomous speech.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[Fwipp]

Ah, that's good to hear. Thanks for pointing me at the right court case.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[sumdumass]

Why wouldn't it be the same? Anonymous sources use the news media all the time to get a message out anonymously. It's really no different other then a dislike for one more then another.

I'm more concerned with assuming that someone receiving money in some way is automatically considered a shill. I have personally posted things to blogs anonymously in the past favoring employers I had not because they paid me to post, but because I supported what I wrote. I was paid for doing other things not associated with any postings.

I have also anonymously posted stuff that would pretty much make me unhirable from a competitor (my then current employer too) should I ever wanted to change jobs and remain in the same field. I ended up going to work for an advocacy group that mirrored my opinions of the matters. That did not make me a shill, it made me someone who stood up for what they believed in.

While I have been paid while working for people who benefited from my anonymous opinions, I have never received a dime to have them or make them known. I have about 6 online identities I can't use any more that if I did it right, no one can piece them together as the same person. I have many more waiting to be used too.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[oakgrove]

I love this judge.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[oakgrove]

Why wouldn't it be the same? Anonymous sources use the news media all the time to get a message out anonymously. It's really no different other then a dislike for one more then another.

There is precedent for the FTC coming down on shilling. It could be argued in court that paying bloggers to whitewash a brand is a "testimonial". I'm not a lawyer so I'm sure a good one could dream up all sorts of ways to unmask the miscreants legally.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[Shompol]

And this speech isn't advertising

Paid speech isn't advertising? Well it definitely has a conflict of interest.. I heard about a court order in the past, that if a radio station is paid to play some song with the purpose of promotion it should state that "the following is a paid advertisement".

Being paid under the table while pretending to produce "objective" tech writer opinions is nothing short of deception. Luckily it was not hard to to figure it out even before the disclosure.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[v1]

This almost sounds like astroturfing, but instead of using shills for public supporters, they're using shills for public reviewers. Not really much of a difference is there?

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[stephanruby]

Personally, I'd consider this anonymous speech only if the "shills" themselves had been trying to be anonymous, or if the shills themselves had been representing the fact that the speech they were conveying was an advertisement coming from some anonymous sponsor.

In other words, if a paid "shill" really did use their own identity and their own personal/professional fame to misrepresent the fact your talking points was coming from them, and not you, then I'd say the corporation did a lot more than just try to anonymize its speech.

Also, I'm not sure this order from the judge will uncover all the paid shills out there. Many corporations use PR firms and ad agencies, and then those agencies are probably the ones that farm out the work to professional shills and journalists. And unfortunately, the judge's order doesn't seem to require those paid PR firms or ad agencies to disclose the paid consultants they've themselves hired.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[HiThere]

The idea is that if Oracle or Google paid someone to post, it's anonymous speech BY either Oracle or Google. That it is attributed to some person doesn't reveal the real speaker.

I'm not really convinced that it fits in with the Supreme Court case, but then there were different justices on the bench then. Now it would probably be accepted without a qualm.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[elashish14]

It's called fraud, my friend.

What if I told you that I'm a financing expert and that you should invest all your money in $COMPANY because I make you think that their stock is going way up when I didn't really know if it were true, but my motivations were really coming from the fact that I was getting a commission every time someone bought a stock I referred them to? Would you not feel deceived and manipulated in a way that would make me a criminal?

It's one thing to say something which is full of bias, but when you're doing it becaues you were bought off, that's downright corrupt, because you're not the one speaking, it's the money that's doing the talking.This is particularly important when you can sway the public opinion (because Florian has such a large presence in the media, primarily cause they're stoopid) and influence the public which has to sit in as juror for the trial[1]. So that being said, it's pretty important that we know who (and what) is doing all the talking.

[1] Yes I know the jury isn't supposed to read media coverage during the trial, but they could still be influenced beforehand.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[sumdumass]

If you were half as smart as me, you would have realize how silly your comment is considering the post I replied to. Perhaps you should think a bit before posting.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[sumdumass]

It could be fraud but I do not think it would always be fraud. If someone actually believed in what they were saying and someone paid them to continue to say it, it would be an honest endorsement of whatever it was they were saying. Similarly, as I said, my endorsement for something that an employer found advantage in would essentially be me getting paid for it. But it wouldn't have been fraud to say what I was saying.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[cupantae]

"cundits"?
"shloggers"?
It's probably not a good idea to invent any new words, especially insults, ending -igger.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[Zontar The Mindless]

If you were half as smart as me, you would have realize how silly your comment is considering the post I replied to. Perhaps you should think a bit before posting.

Okay, let's look at that post and your response:

N0Man74: "Whether or not it is protected, I don't think that Anonymous speech is the same thing as when a non-anonymous author being paid to give a biased opinion while hiding the fact that they are being paid to give that opinion."

You: "Why wouldn't it be the same? Anonymous sources use the news media all the time..."

One of these has to do with someone not revealing their identity out of self-interest in order to express his own opinion that might prove unpopular, get them in trouble with an employer who doesn't agree, etc..

The other has to with someone not revealing the fact that they are are actually expressing someone else's opinion, much less who it is that they're really speaking for.

One of these is someone without much power; the other is hiding the fact that he's backed by someone with a lot of power.

So my +1, Informative mod would be going to the AC who pointed out that you apparently don't understand the difference. And I'd be giving you a -1, Dense.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[Zontar The Mindless]

It would be fraud if you claimed not to have any relationship with your employer, and this is *exactly* what Florian has made a career of.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[Zontar The Mindless]

Only if you're posting in Lisp.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[Hal_Porter]

Bliggers, is that what we are calling paid pundits for shill corporations

How about we call them pundits and tech journalists?

You're naive if you think most tech journalists aren't taking cash from the companies whose products they review. Having a special name for the ones who've admitted to it gives the ones who haven't a spurious credibility.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[mcgrew]

It's probably not a good idea to invent any new words, especially insults, ending -igger.

Indeed, anyone who has ever had chigger bites don't want to think about it!

And these insects are no bigger than a mosquito's eye. Their bites always trigger a nasty rash. If you're a ditch digger you're likely to get bites. Nobody's ever managed to jigger up a good way to treat those bites.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[sumdumass]

And your mod wile maybe correct, wouldn't be for the reasons you stated.

Take James Hansen from NASA for instance, he gets paid for his work concerning Global warming. He's gotten huge monetary awards specifically for his alarming statements that was completely hidden from the public until someone went through his ethics statements and complained that a couple of things were missing. He amended them and poof, it was obvious.. Does that mean he is a shill for it. No, it doesn't. In fact, he is a political zealot who deeply believes in what he states beyond a point that seems rational to some.

Here is what you are missing, all opinions are biased. You simply cannot get around it. Some people are biased to Apple computers because it's what they are comfortable with. To them they are better then windows computers because they don't suffer whatever it is that they like about Apple systems. Some people are the exact opposite and are biased towards windows operating systems for sometimes the same reasons or entirely different ones. Some of these people will even work at the companies they endorse.

You simply cannot connect a strait line from payment or funding to misrepresenting something or not holding the opinions yourself based on it. You might be able to draw a line if the claims turned out to be false or made specific statements that cannot be verified. But like the association of Hansen getting paid for shouting fire- global warming is burning the building down, it's clear that payment has done nothing to influence his statements other then maybe caused them to be made more often even though they are the other party's opinions too.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[sumdumass]

It would be fraud if the content of the speech was solely that of the employer or somehow a misrepresentation of the true nature of events. Not disclosing employment or payments in and of itself would not make it fraud.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[mcgrew]

I'm more concerned with assuming that someone receiving money in some way is automatically considered a shill.

Occam's razor comes into play. Simply state "disclaimer: I am an employee of Acme Computers" and you're upfront, and therefore not a shill.

The history of the word "shill" is interesting. Carnival workers and magicians used shills. The magician would "read" the shill's mind, the shill would win a big prize at the rigged ring toss game. The whole idea of a shill is that they work for who they're benefitting, without admitting they were a shill. If people knew they were shills, the magician's trick would be no good and the ring toss guy wouldn't get as many or any customers.

So yes, if you praise your employer without letting your audience know you work for him, you ARE a shill, and it doesn't matter that you are giving an honest opinion. You're still shilling.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[cupantae]

Good heavens, aren't you clever! Look at all those words!

"Bligger" is obviously a bad idea. I didn't say that there aren't other words ending in -igger or anything like that.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[sumdumass]

I think there is a serious problem with your analogy there. You show and state situations where someone deceives others, the magician reads the shilll's mind, the shill wins a rigged game, then go round the world saying that anyone without any evidence of fraud would be committing fraud if they looked or talked like that person who did something wrong at some time.

It just doesn't make sense to do this. If there is fraud going on, ten sure, but not disclosing potential relationships does not automatically equate to fraud.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[mcgrew]

I was going for "funny," which is always dangerous.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[mcgrew]

The magician's shill is no more a fraud than his palming of cards during a card trick is. Praising your employer without disclosing that you work for him is underhanded and should not be done. If you're going to praise someone who's paying you, even if that praise is valid, DISCLOSE IT or you are being dishonest.

Re:Anonymous Speech, First Amendment?

[sumdumass]

The magician's shill is still attempting to deceive people. Someone who gives their honest opinion is not.

If it is the person's honest opinion, there is no reason to disclose anything.

Wait, what?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Florian Mueller paid schill?! Well smack my arse and call me Susan. I was not expecting that.
A veritable bolt from the blue.

Re:Wait, what?!

[Grishnakh]

Considering how easily Google won the case, and how ridiculous Oracle's claims were, Google probably didn't really need to hire any shills. There were tons of people right here on Slashdot taking their side with no payment at all, because it was plainly obvious that Google was in the right. It doesn't surprise me that Oracle needed to pay off some shills to take their side.

Now this doesn't mean that Google definitely didn't hire any shills, but it is my contention that it probably wasn't necessary.

Re:Wait, what?!

[Grishnakh]

Yes, there's plenty of fanboys and zealots for both Android and iOS/Apple. Interestingly, however, there aren't many for Windows Phone, nor for Oracle.

Re:Wait, what?!

[Grishnakh]

That doesn't surprise me. When I was at Intel, I frequently didn't agree with their strategy: Itanic, x86-64, the consumer devices, etc. and frequently talked about this stuff to coworkers (ones I trusted to not blab to management).

Pass the Popcorn

[Rob Riggs]

Now this is going to be fun! Part of me would rather remain blissfully ignorant on this...

Now lets hope Apple joins them

[fredprado]

It would be very interesting if it happens to Apple too. I can safely bet Apple is the technology company that has more "journalists" in their payroll.

Re:Now lets hope Apple joins them

[Jeng]

You can safely bet that every major corporation have people on their payroll to make friendly articles for them.

Yes, corporate PR hands off press releases which then get changed very little and then printed.

Re:Now lets hope Apple joins them

[Bill Dimm]

You can safely bet that every major corporation have people on their payroll to make friendly articles for them.

Yes, corporate PR hands off press releases which then get changed very little and then printed.

It's not really fair to assume that is due to money changing hands -- it's just easier/cheaper to reprint a press release than write something from scratch.

Re:Now lets hope Apple joins them

[Jeng]

I'm sorry I did not make it clear that the reporter is not getting paid by the corporate PR, just that the reporter is lazy and the PR guy is getting paid to write the basics of the article.

While we are this topic.

If you ever want to promote a protest then fax and email every news publication in your area about it before hand and you will get coverage. If you are protesting and wondering why the press isn't there, it is normally because they don't know about it.

Re:Now lets hope Apple joins them

[sumdumass]

Isn't that usually called a PR firm though?

Re:Now lets hope Apple joins them

[shugah]

Apple shills do it for free. That's why their called fanboys.

Re:Now lets hope Apple joins them

[fredprado]

Yes, but the money each one invests in that says a lot about them, and when those articles are not about making positive remarks about them, but about smearing the competition it makes them illegal in many places...

Re:Now lets hope Apple joins them

[fredprado]

PR firms do not pose as neutral news sources and therefore cannot smear their client's competitors without consequences.

Re:Now lets hope Apple joins them

[RelaxedTension]

Apple? I'd be a lot more interested to see what showed up for Microsoft.

Re:Now lets hope Apple joins them

[Paradise Pete]

I can safely bet Apple is the technology company that has more "journalists" in their payroll.

How much would you like to bet?

Re:Now lets hope Apple joins them

[ozmanjusri]

Yes they do, and yes they can.

Facebook Inc. hired public relations firm Burson-Marsteller to enlist reporters to write stories that would portray its rival Google Inc. (GOOG) in an unfavorable light, according to the firm and a journalist whom it approached.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-12/facebook-enlists-pr-firm-burson-marsteller-to-pitch-google-privacy-story.html

Re:Now lets hope Apple joins them

[fredprado]

Smearing campaigns are illegal. If Facebook tried this, which is exactly the same we are talking about here, and it can be proved, it won't end well for them. Now if they are telling strictly the truth they are within their rights to do so. The problem starts when pseudo-journalists paid by a third party consistently lie to smear their competition.

Re:Now lets hope Apple joins them

[DeathToBill]

It might be quite a lot trickier with Apple. Apple encourages positive press by refusing to talk to any journalist who annoys them - witness the long-running spat between Apple and The Register. El Reg said something unkind about an apple product and Apple have refused to give them any press contact at all for years after.

So Apple might not need a financial relationship with journalists to encourage Apple-friendly press; they get it anyway, because journos Know What Will Happen otherwise.

I think the SEC should be very interested in this

[erroneus]

After all, when these types of cases come up, it often has serious effect in the market. So when there are paid-for opinions which are believed to be independent, it alters the perceptions of shareholders and potential shareholders when they are deciding to buy or not to buy. One could conceivably bring meritless lawsuits against market opponents coupled with media doom (such as we saw with Meuller) and see a gain in market value long enough to make a tidy sum when you sell some of your shares at the right time... then buy them back when the truth comes out. The net outcome might be a loss for the company, but a huge benefit to majority shareholders.

precedent is here

[poetmatt]

If the judge in the apple case is following this one from Alsup (one can hope), then I bet that will come up as well. The interesting part will be seeing which journalists, etc are on which payrolls in conjunction - as it's not hard to contrive that apple/ms/oracle has the same pundits on the payroll for all 3. We already have 2 of 3 confirmed by Florian.

Florian Mueller is a shill what a surprise!

[h4rr4r]

Is anyone actually surprised Florian Mueller is a shill?

Did anyone not see that coming? Hopefully, the media will stop printing anything he says.

Re:Florian Mueller is a shill what a surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think at least part of the implication is that many of those who reposted his posts had been encouraged to do so

Re:Florian Mueller is a shill what a surprise!

[gmhowell]

Hopefully, the media will stop printing anything he says.

I hope not. I absolutely love the nerd rage his every word inspires.

Re:Florian Mueller is a shill what a surprise!

[elashish14]

It's been known for a few months now:

In April 2012, Müller said he had been hired by Oracle to consult on competition-related topics including FRAND licensing terms.[33]

He also consults with Microsoft.[34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_M%C3%BCller#Google_vs_Oracle_copyright

And for the record, nobody in the media cares. Shows how much integrity they have... even Ars still reports the tripe he spews out.

Re:Florian Mueller is a shill what a surprise!

[elashish14]

I take back what I said about Ars - the few articles I found since he's been outed do mention that he's on payroll of some of the companies he supports.

Biased media? By golly, however did that happen!

[jyujin]

Not exactly a surprise, but I'd sure like to get my hands at the statistics afterwards...

Re:why?

[Baloroth]

Because it might have relevance in appeals, which Oracle has shown a clear intention of pursuing. This judge has actually been very careful about creating a thorough result so that there isn't a lot to appeal, and this seems to be in that same vein.

Judge William Alsup for Supreme Court!

[Anonymous Coward]

This may have nothing to do with anonymous speech. When "expert" opinions are being considered in court, they must be able to withstand scrutiny. Florian Mueller is not just some random interested party, he published an article claiming that he had evidence of copyright infringement.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/01/new-evidence-supports-oracles-case.html

If Oracle used his opinions in court, Google should be given the opportunity to cross examine him.

Either way, it is nice to see someone rubbing Florian's nose in it. Another great ruling by Judge Alsup!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_M%C3%BCller#Google_vs_Oracle_copyright

Do they have to disclose slashdot avatar too?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Would be interesting if the judge had ordered the shills to disclose their slashdot ids too. Would be hilarious.

Re:Do they have to disclose slashdot avatar too?

[steelfood]

Except it's easy to just go and make new ones.

Sure, no karma, no 4- or 5-digit prestige, but all it takes is for a couple of biased mods to get them the soapbox they need to do their shilling.

Good thing there are usually shills for the other side with mod points. Heck, I sometimes wonder if Slashdot's moderation system works as well as it does because the shills end up cancelling each other out, leaving only the impartial(er) comments and moderations.

Re:Do they have to disclose slashdot avatar too?

[oakgrove]

The sweet taste of schadenfreude would still be satisfying for posters like Bonch, OverlyCriticalGuy, Westlake, RecoiledSnake, D'aldredge, et al to finally have to come clean.

Re:Do they have to disclose slashdot avatar too?

[Kalriath]

Indeed. And perhaps give us the opportunity to point and laugh at the crazies that insist that everyone who disagrees with them works for Burston Marstellar or whatever that company is.

Wish we had seen this in SCO.

[sconeu]

I wish Judge Kimball or Judge Steward had ordered this in the SCO case.

Congress *must* pass the Rob Enderle act!

[jonabbey]

Congress should pass the Rob Enderle act immediately to prevent out of control judges from assaulting the good name of IT industry analysts everywhere!

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he's curious about Groklaw itself? While IMO they're authentic freetards, they do take highly partisan pro-corporation views that extends beyond 'free software' issues.

Slashdot accounts

[phorm]

I wonder how many accounts on slashdot etc could be identified.
Most here I see tend to be shills for certain other tech corps, but I wouldn't be surprised to find some for Oracle/Google as well.

Florian Mueller is essentially a whore.

[Frosty Piss]

Florian Mueller is essentially a whore. I'm surprised that he can attract business anymore, it's well known by everyone (except maybe the mainstream media) that he's bought and paid for.

Re:Florian Mueller is essentially a whore.

[Grishnakh]

I think your comparison is rather insulting, to prostitutes. Prostitutes (or "whores") are providing a service that their customers demand, and the only people possibly being hurt are the prostitutes themselves, and the customers themselves (and possibly the customers' spouses). Florian and other such shills, however, have a much larger effect, because the lies they spew influence so many people, as well as financial markets, basically they affect much of our society.

Also, prostitutes generally take that job because they're desperate and don't think they have any good alternatives. It's not a career many would choose willingly; the incidence of disease is high, they're frequently abused by customers and pimps, and they tend to have short lifespans. Florian, however, is smart enough and in a financial position that he could make a good living doing lots of other stuff besides shill writing. He's just plain greedy.

Re:Florian Mueller is essentially a whore.

[Frosty Piss]

I think your comparison is rather insulting, to prostitutes

A prostitute might be a whore, but a whore is not necessarily a prostitute.

Re:Florian Mueller is essentially a whore.

[TapeCutter]

Also, prostitutes generally take that job because they're desperate and don't think they have any good alternatives.

Legalize brothels and you may be surprised how many women think it is a good alternative to a minimum wage job.

Re:Florian Mueller is essentially a whore.

[Grishnakh]

Maybe, but it'd be a big surprise. The issues of disease and pregnancy aren't going to go away; birth control isn't 100% effective, and abortion can have medical consequences. Not many men would want to be married to a prostitute. And on top of all that, you'd have to have sex with all kinds of men, most of them probably not the most physically appealing specimens. It's not like being a porn star, where the men are regularly tested, and the male stars are also usually at least fairly attractive, not random smelly old fat creepy men. I can understand why some (not that many) women would find being a porn star would be an attractive career, but not general prostitution, even if it were fully legalized the way it is in Amsterdam.

Re:Slashdot accounts and shills

[sensei moreh]

I'm not a shill - the closest thing to a tech corp that I've ever worked for was a one-person consultancy that needed an extra semi-competent warm body. However, I have done a bit of Java programming. And I have a gmail account.

Re:Interesting

[v1]

I was thinking more entertaining. Especially if the list is either (A) long, (B) contains some very high profile or normally impartial authorities, or BOTH.

Better go make some popcorn...

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really understand why Slashdot has got the hate towards him.

Um, because he didn't disclose his relationship with Oracle until long after he'd started publishing articles despite his full knowledge of being cited by various mainstream media orgs like the BBC. He came clean in April of this year yet prior to that he is cited numerous times (example) taking an antagonistic position against Android all the while allowing everyone to remain blissfully ignorant of who was really paying his bills. The guy is a snake.

Re:Interesting

[chowdahhead]

Because he's not a lawyer or a paralegal. But he apparently believes that he's still qualified to be an "expert" on patent-related litigation, and much of what he writes on his blog is inaccurate, untruthful, and sometimes downright foolish. Furthermore, while he was once vehemently opposed to software patents, he's now bedfellows with Oracle and Microsoft--two of the most ardent supporters (and in recent time, abusers) of software patents. The guy has a major credibility problem.

Re:TechDirt, the EFF,

[oakgrove]

Wow, if Julie Samuels is a paid Google shill then she sure has some 'splainin' to do. The next time you try to smear somebody maybe do a little research into what you're talking about.

Huffington Post is terrible about this

[GodfatherofSoul]

Leading up to a crappy Megan Fox movie release, they were flooded with articles (unflagged as payola) about every minute detail of her life. Even the bloggers were commenting about the unwarranted attention. Then, the promos started...

I've seen them do that with lots of other wannabe stars as well. That and funneling traffic to "gone viral" YouTube videos with ~1000 hits.

Re:why?

[oakgrove]

maybe I'm naive to think that once it ended up in court it was to be decided by the jury based on the evidence, not by what bloggers and journalist may or maybe not have been paid to write

Yes, you are naive actually. Read the order to avoid any further confusion or just keep reading this post for the relevant bits.

The Court is concerned that the parties and/or counsel herein may have retained or paid print or internet authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have and/or may publish comments on the issues in this case. Although proceedings in this matter are almost over, they are not fully over yet and, in any event, the disclosure required by this order would be of use on appeal or on any remand to make clear whether any treatise, article, commentary or analysis on the issues posed by this case are possibly influenced by financial relationships to the parties or counsel. Therefore, each side and its counsel shall file a statement herein clear identifying all authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have reported or commented on any issues in this case and who have received money (other than normal subscription fees) from the party or its counsel during the pendency of this action. This disclosure shall be filed by NOON ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 2012.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Re:Interesting

[oakgrove]

he's one of the few bloggers generally releasing information and facts about the cases, patents, etc.

He wraps his "facts" in so much editorial spin to make them worthless to the layman which is what many of the media that cites him are directed towards. If you want facts about cases and patents it's all public record. The only thing he brings to the table is his opinions which are remarkably consistently wrong.

Re:Interesting

[viperidaenz]

So he increases his credibility by releasing facts other media outlets don't bother with, putting more traction on his anti-android editorials that Oracle pay him for?

Re:Interesting

[dell623]

Have a look at this http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120724125504129

The fact that he was loudly and incessantly and inaccurately criticizing Google throughout the trial while being a paid Oracle consultant and turned out to be completely hilariously utterly stupidly wrong about every single thing raised some eyebrows in the right places. Finally.

If you have the patience to trawl through some of his writings you immediately realize how biased he is. He has a deep unexplained hatred for anything Google and is constantly harping on how all Android manufacturers should just pay Microsoft to license their patents. Guess the other paid consulting relationship he revealed, yup, it's with Microsoft.

He claims he is conducting a study on FRAND patents for Microsoft, and he continues to write on the issue with a decidedly pro-Microsoft perspective (one appropriate for a company with limited standard essential FRAND patents but thousands of software patents). So his perspective on FRAND patents is exactly the same as Microsoft, he is doing a paid study on FRAND patents for them, and yet he continues to write on the issue like he is an unbiased commentator.

His pro-Microsoft leanings predate his pro-Oracle posts (because the consulting relationship with Microsoft is older). You won't find a scrap of writing that criticizes anything about Microsoft in his blog. When something happens that is embarrassing to Microsoft (like the B&N trail before MS gobbled them up), he completely ignores it. He sometimes criticizes Apple mildly but treads carefully, so I assume he wants to work for them but they haven't thrown him a bone yet.

He is a self proclaimed expert with no law degree. The reason he is quoted so widely is because he is known to email his blog entries to every single media outlet and until recently, there weren't that many people writing about technology patents. Yes, I find it infuriating to find him quoted exclusively in major media outlets. Imagine if there was a consultant conducting a Google-funded study on privacy writing about online privacy and how Google's practices are acceptable, and getting quoted by every single major media outlet.

Florian Muller

[dell623]

Try this entry for blatant sock puppeting: http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/microsoft-says-motorolas-efforts-to.html

Does he seriously believe that posting that and pretending to be unbiased is ok when he is conducting a study on the same topic that is funded by Microsoft: http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/10/study-on-worldwide-use-of-frand.html

Re:Slashdot accounts and shills

[phorm]

I'd imagine it's a bit more fine-grained than that.

As in, receives direct benefits/payment from Google or Oracle, rather than "is a user of services/products provided by Google or Oracle"

Otherwise that would include every Android phone owner and everyone with Java installed on their Desktop....

Re:TechDirt, the EFF,

[cornicefire]

Look at the money flowing into the EFF from Sergei Brin: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/join-now-and-eff-gets-4x-power http://boingboing.net/2011/12/10/give-to-eff-today-and-your-do.html https://www.eff.org/pages/eff-mission And then there are the fun private parties: https://www.eff.org/event/eff-mixer-google Didn't you get an invite? Face it. A big part of their budget come from Google billionaires and so it shouldn't be surprising that they're seeing eye to eye.

Re:Interesting

[stanlyb]

YES yes and YES. God bless the judge. And don't forget, thanks to the Apple-Samsung battle we will learn a lot more of what happened behind the scene. One second to take my popcorn and coke....., k, done, let the show start now.

Re:TechDirt, the EFF,

[swillden]

A big part of their budget come from Google billionaires and so it shouldn't be surprising that they're seeing eye to eye.

I think you've got the cause-effect order backward.

Re:why?

[marcosdumay]

they do take highly partisan pro-corporation views...

Funny that in the end the facts agreed with the freetards' "highly partisan" view all the time untill now. Also, I don't even know where to start on that "pro-corporation" part. Have you ever read anything in GL?

Yep, anyway the judge may be curious about GL. Just not the way you think.

Re:why?

[marcosdumay]

Most judges aren't as technicaly literate as Alsup, and will need help understanding the evidence. Some of that help does come from journalists and bloggers, wether we like it or not.

Re:TechDirt, the EFF,

[marcosdumay]

And you think the EFF wrote an article completely aligned with its mission, that everybody with a minimum grasp of IT (not working for Oracle) agreed, including the judge, just because Google paid for it?

I'd not be surprized if Google donates to the EFF. (I'll just respect Google a bit more, but not yet as much as in the old times.) But you claim is ridiculous. You expect the EFF to be against the freedom to write software?

Re:why?

[elashish14]

This is pretty awesome. Oracle may have suffered in their public image in a few ways, but this is some actual damage that's come about by this ridiculous lawsuit. If they invested a decent amount of money in hiring those shills, chances are that those shills are going to be heavily diminished in value once their covers are outed.

On the other hand, the media still sucks up everything Muller writes, so maybe it's not that significant. Regardless, this is a good ruling for honesty.

Re:Interesting

[Taco Cowboy]

DavidSell
                ByOhTek
                antitithenai
                Bonch
                TechGuys
                Overly Critical Guy
                CmdrPony
                InsightIn140Bytes
                InterestingFella
                HairyFeet
                SharkLaser
                jo_ham
                DCTech
                smithz
                HankMoody

 
I strongly suspect there are more than those listed above !!
 

Why the judge is doing this.

[dackroyd]

Here is a simple explanation of why the Judge has ordered this:

1) You are allowed to claim anything you like in a court of law and you can't be sued for slander, defamation, libel etc. as otherwise the legal system would be completely broken.

2) Journalists are allowed to report anything they like and they can't be used for slander, defamation, libel etc. as otherwise freedom of the press would be completely broken.

3) Oracle appears to have paid 'journalists' to repeat the claims made in court as fact. Because those claims are now being made outside of court, they don't have the courts protection against being sued. Because the 'journalist' is acting as a paid agent of Oracle they are no longer protected by freedom of the press.

So this isn't a first amendment issue - this is just a did Oracle pay someone to defame Google issue.

AdSense?

[spongman]

Does this include any blogger that used AdSense on their blog that might have posted or commented about this?

Complete off-topic

[Kupfernigk]

You obviously aren't keeping up. It seems a remarkable number of women postgraduate students pay their way with a little prostitution on the side. It really isn't so different from marrying a rich man and divorcing as soon as possible. Some women go in for one-night-stands, and whatever that says about their self-esteem, the fact is that it happens. Being a PhD student, working long hours and really not having the energy or social time to support a relationship, the fact that they can earn enough to pay their way in three hours a week obviously counts for a lot. Stripping and lap-dancing pay a lot less per hour.

This is, basically, what you get if you have a rather unregulated capitalist society which is still a long, long way from male/female equality. So where was I...

Ah yes. Calling Florian Mueller a whore is deeply insulting to honest prostitutes.

Re:Complete off-topic

[Grishnakh]

Hmm. Maybe there's some different dynamics there with some of these women postgraduate students. From what you describe, it sounds like they can be rather choosy about which clients they accept, unlike at a brothel, for instance, where they have to take any client that management requires them to. I can see how this arrangement (being picky about clients) would make the profession much more attractive.

1 is incorrect

[Kupfernigk]

You appear not to have heard of perjury.

Re:1 is incorrect

[Zontar The Mindless]

How can someone who is "merely expressing his opinion" perjure himself?

Re:throws his material to them like candy for kids

[TaoPhoenix]

Oh I know this one!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUw-qRihn7k

Re:why?

[Zontar The Mindless]

why would the judge care other than for his own curiosity? what possible impact could it have on the case?

Is that you, Florian?

Re:TechDirt, the EFF,

[cornicefire]

Sure. Whatever. Like the $500k check showed up and just a few weeks later the EFF announced a big increase in their effort to stop SOPA? I'm sure the Google folks went back in time with a time machine. It doesn't matter. The judge just wants to know who was paid, not the order of payment and article.

Re:TechDirt, the EFF,

[cornicefire]

Their mission is very flexible and the way they respond is flexible. Both Google and NSA spy on Americans, but the EFF really protests about one of them. The other gets forgotten or put on the back burner. Can you guess which one? These places have to pay their bills. They can't be too picky or too earnest.

Re:TechDirt, the EFF,

[swillden]

Sure. Whatever. Like the $500k check showed up and just a few weeks later the EFF announced a big increase in their effort to stop SOPA? I'm sure the Google folks went back in time with a time machine.

Do you know anything about the EFF? Fighting SOPA was always consistent with their mission and goals. It's certainly possible that Google's money increased their ability to fight it, but fighting it would have been in their agenda regardless.

Re:TechDirt, the EFF,

[marcosdumay]

Can you guess which one?

Let me guess. It's the one that has guns and can lock you away?

Happy Hookers.

[TapeCutter]

You should get out and actually learn about the world with practical first hand experience, and then you can have an informed opinion.

Three years as a night shift taxi driver in Melbourne where brothels are legal, regulated, and discrete. Informed by brief first hand accounts (and offers to barter services) from literally hundreds of prostitutes, admittedly it was two decades ago but nothing appears to have changed. What's your first hand experience, oh worldly one?

even if it were fully legalized the way it is in Amsterdam

Having also been to Amsterdam in the flesh, I think the main difference with Melbourne is the level of visibility, in Melbourne the average brothel looks like a big house, in Amsterdam they display themselves in shop front windows. The laws have been this way in Melbourne for at least 30yrs and you will find similar laws and attitudes across most of western Europe, Amsterdam gets all the attention because it's in your face,

You sound like an academic who is an expert on sex because you have read every single book on the subject.

If you have never met a hooker who enjoys her job, then perhaps you are projecting your shortcomings onto me? The hooker has the right to say no to a customer without giving a reason, a customer has the same right, these messy logistical and organic details are agreed upfront. The opinion of many of the happy hookers I met was the job is about as dangerous as driving a taxi or tending bar on a Saturday night

In answer to your flamebait, you sound like a frustrated young man who desperately needs to meet an intelligent, shameless whore who looks like butter wouldn't melt in her mouth. I suspect you have the sitcom "Big Bang Theory" of women as reluctant participants in sex which is reinforced by their reluctance to have sex with you. As for my own expertise in sex, I'm a divorced grandfather of 3 in a de-facto relationship, when your chest is silver and your sack starts suffering from gravel rash come back and we will talk about "life-experience" again.