Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google, Oracle Deny Direct Payments To Media

Posted by Soulskill on from the many-disappointed-critics dept.

itwbennett writes "Earlier this month, the judge in the Oracle v. Google trial ordered the companies to disclose the names of bloggers and reporters who had taken payments from them. Not surprisingly, both companies have denied making direct payments to writers (with the exception of Florian Mueller of FOSSPatents, whose relationship to Oracle was disclosed in April). But Oracle has tattled on Google regarding some indirect connections. In particular, Oracle called out Ed Black for an article he wrote about the case for Forbes. And Jonathan Band, co-author of the book, 'Interfaces on Trial 2.0,' which Google cited in its April 3, 2012 copyright brief." Groklaw has an in-depth look at the filings. Oracle's fingerpointing is based in part on this BBC article and this piece at The Recorder, both of which they entered into evidence. Google's filing (PDF) affirmed that they have not paid media for articles or done any quid pro quo in exchange for coverage. However, they acknowledged that many people receive money from Google through other means (the company's philanthropy, ad business, etc.), and asked the judge if he wanted further details about those instances.

10 of 41 comments (clear)

  1. My recommendation by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pie fight in the courtroom.

    I don't know about Oracle and Google, but I think I'd enjoy it.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:My recommendation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hopefully the pies that hit Oracle's lawyers will have hand grenades in them.

    2. Re:My recommendation by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      Hopefully the pies that hit Oracle's lawyers will have hand grenades in them.

      I don't think they have those on the menu at the Google cafeteria.

      though I may be wrong

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  2. Florian thread! by symbolset · · Score: 4, Funny

    And finally one worth having, too.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Florian thread! by poetmatt · · Score: 2

      might want to start by correcting the title:

      Oracle didn't deny payments to the media, they acknowledged it. Google showed that they don't pay anyone. Florian is "media", even he's shitty/shoddy. The issue is he was paid/working on his contract with Oracle before the trial even started, so his PR damage/anti-google-ness is now legally acknowledged so hopefully nobody will quote that fraudulent shill anymore. This oracle trial acknowledges he is paid, not how far back payments started.

    2. Re:Florian thread! by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that at this point, it was bloody obvious that Florian was a "paid for opinion" going back a few years. The first sign was probably was when he became a hired gun telling Munich that the skies would darken with lawyers over patents if they went through with their migration.

      And he's dodged the question ever since, especially on LWN, even though everyone "knows" that he's been bought off, because no sane person would hold his opinions. It's actually better for people to consider you bought off instead of insane, no?

      --
      BMO

    3. Re:Florian thread! by oakgrove · · Score: 2

      Somebody needs to tell these guys then. So much for credibility CNET.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
  3. Internet media payola by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

    It's all over the place. I see incidental "actor tweets X" or "actress a big fan of X" stories right around the time their movies are coming out. I remember seeing almost daily reports on Megan Fox about every inane detail of her life suddenly appearing in the media, until the promos for Jennifer's Body started showing up. And, the Kardashians are being shoved down our throats everyday. Not to mention the scores of failed celebs who are trying to use their fame/endorsement model.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  4. dammit Google, you did it again! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Funny

    Google's filing (PDF) affirmed that they have not paid media for articles or done any quid pro quo in exchange for coverage. However, they acknowledged that many people receive money from Google through other means (the company's philanthropy, ad business, etc.), and asked the judge if he wanted further details about those instances.

    stupid Google, dont you know that as a corporation you are supposed to deny and impede any attempt to get information about what you've done and tie it up in court for years? just look at Oracle, they deny everything until the bitter end and fight tooth and nail to budge an inch on any information at all. i mean, volunteering information? for shame!

    this "don't be evil" stuff is really getting in the way of becoming a well adjusted sociopathic corporation.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  5. Florian Muller by dell623 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When it comes to attacking Google, he doesn't even limit himself to patent issues any more:

    http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/08/googles-motorola-mobility-lays-off.html

    Now he's not just a patents expert, despite not being a lawyer, he is also an expert on the whole industry, and has inside knowledge to tell us how buying Motorola is already a colossally bad deal mere months after the deal closed.

    I despair for journalism, if this guy is what passes for it now.