Google Twists the Knife, Asks For Sanctions Against Oracle Attorney (arstechnica.com)

Google isn't done with its victory over Oracle. Court filings suggest that Google will be filing a motion for sanctions against Oracle and its law firm, Orrick, Sutcliffe & Herrington. The Mountain View-based company is apparently irked that Oracle attorney disclosed the financial agreements between Google and Apple. From an Ars Technica report: Speaking in open court, Oracle attorney Annette Hurst said that Google's Android operating system had generated revenue of $31 billion and $22 billion in profit. She also disclosed that Google pays Apple $1 billion to keep Google's search bar on iPhones. "Look at the extraordinary magnitude of commerciality here," Hurst told a magistrate judge as she discussed the revenue figures. The $1 billion figure comes from a revenue-split that gives Apple a portion of the money that Google makes off searches that originate on iPhones. The revenue share figure was 34 percent, "at one point in time," according to Hurst. Google lawyers asked for the figure to be struck from the record. "That percentage just stated, that should be sealed," Google lawyer Robert Van Nest said, according to a transcript of the hearing. "We are talking hypotheticals here. That's not a publicly known number."

Comments

It's not a publicly known number

[fustakrakich]

Therefore it doesn't exist! We're in the world of Harry Potter

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[93 Escort Wagon]

It is now.

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[Anonymous Coward]

It exists, but not in the context you and Oracle's lawyers think. It's a hypothetical, a.k.a made up number. It's not a number that was "disclosed", it was a "claim" presented as fact. Which probably explains why Google is pissed off, and thinks it can get Oracle and said lawyers sanctioned.

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[fustakrakich]

I think Google's reaction shows the number wasn't so "made up". Otherwise they could have just stated so much.

Re: It's not a publicly known number

[tysonedwards]

I take it Google's lawyers were out sick in middle school when they discussed the concept of imaginary numbers.

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[Anonymous Coward]

So if someone said publicly in court if you showed your mom your pedophile collection, would you not be pissed?

Does making a fuss validate you have pedo porn?

Re: It's not a publicly known number

[fustakrakich]

Well, to be honest, they are fighting over imaginary property. It's more like gambling in the Lawsuit Casino

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[fustakrakich]

No, I would just say he 's a liar. What's to get pissed about?

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats what this knife twisting is about. Liar.

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[Calydor]

That's exactly what someone trying to hide the truth would say! Why are you so ashamed of the world knowing about your kiddie porn collection?

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[fustakrakich]

They aren't calling them liars. They were pissed about their contract being exposed and want it stricken for not being public knowledge, nothing there about it being false.

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[fustakrakich]

Well see, the real assholes in such a situation are the people who believe the liar, not the liar himself. He's simply a liar. The believers are the dangerous ones. Everybody makes a big stink about people like Trump and Limbaugh, but they are just big mouths, their followers are the violent crazy people you have to watch out for..

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I would just say he 's a liar. What's to get pissed about?

And calling it a hypothetical is lawyerspeak for just that. I'd imagine that you would get pissed when you start losing economic opportunities once everyone starts hearing you are a "pedophile".

In this case, having that number trumpeted as a fact could lead to other negotiations going poorly for google because other companies might assume they could get the same result, which not one of us, including google's lawyers, knows if it's correct.

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[fustakrakich]

The rumor monger can say what he wants. I will go after the people who act on them. You can sue people for acting on bad faith. It wouldn't bother me to see the entire system clogged up over it. You do whatever it takes to stop the bad actors. They are the bullies. The fist is your enemy, not the tongue.

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[tomhath]

It might not have been made up. A lawsuit like this would have all kinds of subpoenas and discovery. That doesn't mean the lawyer could blab that information in court.

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they can't do that. Calling Oracle and their lawyers bald faced liars would be an accusation of criminal behaviour, i.e perjury or open themselves up to counter claims of libel or slander or something like that.

So to back up that accusation, they'd have to prove it, i.e Google basically would have to show the real numbers, which the whole point was that they didn't want to.

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[mark-t]

The irony is that it *IS* public knowledge now, so the reason that it is "not public knowledge" would not apply to it anymore.

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[Captain Splendid]

So when you wrote this, did it ever occur to you that you resemble these remarks?

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[Anonymous Coward]

Brave words are easy to say until you can't get a job because everyone thinks you are a child rapist. Good luck suing an employer that is acting on good faith but incorrect information.

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[fustakrakich]

I like that you follow me now... What was the question?

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[fustakrakich]

If he is acting on incorrect information, by default he is acting in bad faith. His obligation is to verify before acting. Maybe the law doesn't agree, but those are the facts, legal or not. Right now the law reflects popular opinion, not the facts, so yes, I will lose in court. The truth loses also, little I can do about that.

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[fustakrakich]

Yeah, but then we would have to admit all evidence, whether or not it was legally acquired. What I didn't check was to see if that particular evidence was used in deciding the verdict, because I can kind of understand Oracle's POV if it was. On the other hand, if they didn't object during the trail, then I guess it would be a bit late to complain now. The big discrepancy to me is what is legal and what is real. I am of the opinion that if a fact is true, it should be admissible no matter what. I say that because the law might have to be broken to find evidence that acquits a person also. The person breaking the law getting the evidence should get his own trial.

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[fustakrakich]

Yes, in Google's case that might be so. I was responding to his hypothetical. He has to prove his accusation of pedophilia is true. Unless he does he should be considered a simple liar and of course charged with perjury if under oath. In the meantime we need a recourse to penalize people who act in bad faith on such info unless it is verified. I want people to be held responsible for what they do, not what they say. The word has no intrinsic power or force. All responses to words are learned. The meaning is in the inflection, or tone of voice.

This whole thing reminds me why politicians can't accuse each other of anything, because the accuser will rightfully face the same scrutiny, and they cannot afford that. The entire institution would crumble.

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[mark-t]

No... because illegally acquired evidence doesn't change its status of being illegally acquired simply because it is known. If the only reason to dismiss that point is because it wasn't publicly known, unless it was also actually illegal to disclose it, making the evidence illegally acquired, and inadmissible on that basis, then there would be no further reason to keep it from evidence from that point forward.

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[fustakrakich]

Got it...

In this case though, are we even talking about evidence, or merely something Oracle used to to sway the jury's emotions?

Was "commerciality" really supposed to make a difference?

And another thing. The transcript was indeed legally made public, even if for a brief time. Are we seeing something similar to the government's attempts to reclassify information sent over a certain email server? :-)

Re:It's not a publicly known number

[ChrisMaple]

So if someone said publicly in court if you showed your mom your pedophile collection, would you not be pissed?

Can you express that in a manner which English readers can understand?

$1 billion for staying on a search bar

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of mad house has the world become?

Re:$1 billion for staying on a search bar

[fragMasterFlash]

Google built a better mousetrap and the world beat a path to their door.

Re:$1 billion for staying on a search bar

[JustOK]

What kind of mad house has the world become?

same as it has always been.

Re:$1 billion for staying on a search bar

[HiThere]

So now you're believing the word of both Oracle and a lawyer.
I strongly suspect that Google *is* paying Apple to stay as their default search engine, after all, they paid Mozilla. But the amount is currently unsupported except by the word of a couple of professional liars. (For the purpose of the prior sentence I'm pretending that Oracle counts as a person.)

Re: $1 billion for staying on a search bar

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean "Same as it ever was" with apologies to the Talking Head's

Re: $1 billion for staying on a search bar

[JustOK]

You're thinking about Dolly Parton.

It should be...

[SeattleLawGuy]

Google only had what, a 28 billion cost of revenue for 2015? A billion dollars out of that mix starts to be a big enough number that there's an argument it should be publicly disclosed in SEC filings. I'm not saying it necessarily has to be, just that there would be public policy reasons for it. It better informs the investors and transparency generally results in healthier markets, because it allows for more competition between bidders.

Re:It should be...

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously do not understand fiance and international laws. Make some shitty law in some country and not have it apply everywhere, then intelligent corporations will move transactions to a place where it is beneficial. The only way to fix this mess it make a corporations *NOT* a person, and make the board of directors the persons.

Oracle sells software, Google sells privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Oracle sells software and hardware.

Google sells your privacy.

Who's evil?

Re:Oracle sells software, Google sells privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's evil?

You?

Re:Oracle sells software, Google sells privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's evil?

You?

Google fanboi can't answer the question.

What's fundamentally worse: selling software or selling users' privacy?

Re: Oracle sells software, Google sells privacy

[tysonedwards]

I was going to check, but Google got rid of their "I'm Feeling Lucky" button on mobile. They must be hiding something...

Re: Oracle sells software, Google sells privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to check, but Google got rid of their "I'm Feeling Lucky" button on mobile. They must be hiding something...

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, eh?

So, what's worse? Selling software or selling details of users' private lives?

Re: Oracle sells software, Google sells privacy

[silentcoder]

How about stealimg 60 million dollars from taxpayers by selling vapourware to the government ?
They are both evil but in this case Oracle was the company trying to destroy the entire software industry for all but a few big players. We didnt support google because of who is or isnt evil. We supported google because if they lost we would all lose with them.

Re:Oracle sells software, Google sells privacy

[HiThere]

Google sells access to your privacy. It's against their business model to actually sell the information about you, instead what they sell is access to a demographic that includes you.

Thus: In *this* aspect Oracle is the evil party...though not because they sell software and hardware, but rather because they are trying to monetize APIs. (There are other reasons, but less related to this case.)

Re: Oracle sells software, Google sells privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

False dilemma. Of course one line of business could be construed to be more inherently evil than the other, but on the question of which _company_ is more evil, Oracle's business practises dont exactly paint them as paragons of virtue regardless. In much the same way as a rabbit skinner could be far less evil than the snarling, violent arrogant douche working in a charity shop, for example.

Re:Oracle sells software, Google sells privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

And what exactly is the difference between selling your private information and selling access to your private information? The delivery method? The end result is the same. Google is an advertising firm and all the impressive technology they have built is geared to helping them serve ads up faster and to more people. And while Google is sometimes praised because it open sources some software the fact is they have never open sourced the software they use to drive their business. The version of Linux they use bears little resemblance to anything they may have open sourced. Their value-pair database technology bears almost nothing in common with the database source code they open sourced a while back. The processors used in all their servers are custom made and very proprietary. They are so secretive that they will not even publish the number of servers they have running all over the world.

Re:Oracle sells software, Google sells privacy

[HiThere]

Assuming you're not a troll:
The don't sell information on you, or information about you. The let people buy ads that will be shown to a defined demographic. Who is in that demographic is a company confidential secret.

If they sold information about who was in the demographic, others could place ads without paying them. So they keep it a secret. But they look for ways to place ads where they can act as a middleman, because that lets them maximize their profit.

P.S.: This information is around a decade old now, but I've seen no indication that anything about it has changed.

Re: Oracle sells software, Google sells privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

only someone that's never dealt with Oracle would present this in this manner

Oracle is pretty much teh Evillz
Nothing Google has or will ever do is going to be as bad as the BEST think Larry's ever done.

you're comparing a St. Bernard Puppy with Caligula there is no frame of reference.
as an aside, who has Google sold details of users private lives too? that would be counter to their business model of selling their users eyes to their customers after all.

so NOW google thinks privacy matters?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's rich.

This doesn't strike me as knife twisting

[rsilvergun]

Do you have any idea how valuable that number is to anyone partnering with Google? It's also likely to cause Google some headaches during their next round of negotiations with Apple. I'd want compensation too, and whatever they get probably won't be anywhere near what they lost. The threat of Dragging stuff like this out in the open during a lawsuit is one of the main reasons companies settle out of court.

Re:This doesn't strike me as knife twisting

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any idea how valuable all the data Google collects about me (no matter that I try to block them from doing so) is to me? Yet they make it their business to collect it for their own profit, over my objections.

I have ZERO sympathy for Google losing some of their precious privacy, when they have made it their business to destroy the entire concept of privacy for the "little people".

Re:This doesn't strike me as knife twisting

[Anonymous Coward]

There was no privacy exposed. There was a claim in court that had zero facts as true, that was presented. Lets hear how you justify that?

Re:This doesn't strike me as knife twisting

[Anonymous Coward]

So, that makes it perjury or at minimum disclosure of facts found in discovery you're not allowed to make public. Neither which is very healthy for a lawyer to do.

BTW, I hereby state that you're a paedophile. What is your evidence that the claim is not true?

Re:This doesn't strike me as knife twisting

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words, you are agreeing with the basic point that Google should not be collecting and distributing personal data about everyone. If you think Google has that basic right, then so do we.

Re:This doesn't strike me as knife twisting

[Anonymous Coward]

Then don't use Google and don't use sites that have Google Analytics or Google Adwords. Vote with your dollars and your views.

Problem solved.

No one is forcing you to use Google. You could also null route their hostnames if you so choose.

TLDR: Stop crying like a baby.

Re:This doesn't strike me as knife twisting

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is forcing you to use Google.

Yes, and how does that work when I send an email to a company at them@SomeOtherDomain.com, and they are actually using gmail, thus giving my email to google?

How does that work when half the fucking sites on the web no longer function unless you allow google's recaptcha?

Your solution is tantamount to "STFU and stop using the web".

Re:This doesn't strike me as knife twisting

[Anonymous Coward]

What has this got to do with privacy? Confidential information and private information are two very different beasts in law and out here in the Real.

Re:This doesn't strike me as knife twisting

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any idea how valuable all the data Google collects about me (no matter that I try to block them from doing so) is to me?

How did Google get your valuable secrets? You clearly didn't try that hard to block them if they managed to get the data.

Re:This doesn't strike me as knife twisting

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is forcing you to use Google.

Yes, and how does that work when I send an email to a company at them@SomeOtherDomain.com, and they are actually using gmail, thus giving my email to google?

Don't send your secrets as email. If you sent plaintext email, Google is the least of your privacy problems.

How does that work when half the fucking sites on the web no longer function unless you allow google's recaptcha?

What does recaptcha reveal to google? Are you concerned that they will know you are not a robot?

Your solution is tantamount to "STFU and stop using the web".

Yes. Using the web involves telling many systems what information you are accessing. This is not something you can change by complaining. You have to make a choice: Use the web and reveal information, or don't use the web.

Did someone promise you that you could get through life without making any tradeoffs? If so, they were a liar.

Re:This doesn't strike me as knife twisting

[LWATCDR]

"Yet they make it their business to collect it for their own profit, over my objections."
Don't use their services. They are an advertising company and use public information plus what you give them to sell ads.
So don't use Android, Chrome, Gmail, Maps, Blogger, and or GTalk.
I really wonder what people are so worried about when it comes to advertising.As far as other issues I just do not send anything to private in any email system.

Re:This doesn't strike me as knife twisting

[Jack_of_Shadow]

for a company that publicly stated that if you don't want your private information exposed, you should not allow anyone else to know it (I paraphrase) to then have a number which they publicly (court records, not EXPLICITLY SEALED are PUBLIC!!!!) exposed in court stated that it should not have been stated, is ridiculous. And it is another indication of a company saying that whatever they do is fine, but other companies shouldn't be allowed to... do you not get that? Court cases ARE public, unless they are explicitly sealed, the COURT decides what is sealed, not the litigants, they can merely ASK. Apparently Google did not ask for the answers in discovery to be sealed, then bitched when it was exposed. Tough luck Google. Gee, instead of being INSANELY PROFITABLE, you'll just be insanely profitable. I pity you (sarcasm)

Re:This doesn't strike me as knife twisting

[Anonymous Coward]

fortunately for them then, they don't do that. because that would be a really stupid and short-sited business model, basically putting yourself out of business is rarely a long-term model for success.

Exactly, there is no public contract.

[Anonymous Coward]

How can a private contract that might *not* exist be publicly exposed as fact just because a lawyer says so. Get a clue.

Re:Exactly, there is no public contract.

[fustakrakich]

Get a clue yourself! They are not arguing the facts, just their exposure.

Re:Exactly, there is no public contract.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess show my the fact (contract) would be pointless ? Again, just because a lawyer says so, does not make something a fact.

Re:Exactly, there is no public contract.

[fustakrakich]

Google doesn't want to show the contract, but if they want to call somebody a liar (if that is what they are doing), they have to back it up, and they seem unwilling at this point. Claiming it isn't public knowledge to make it inadmissible instead is a nice attempted end run around it. It has potential. We shall wait and see.

Re:Exactly, there is no public contract.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're probably misunderstanding who's making an end run around what.

I think the following is the more probable scenario is

A) Google doesn't want a particular number disclosed.

B) Oracles lawyers finds some interesting numbers during discovery or via some subpoena, but are not allowed to disclose them. As someone else pointed out, just because you stumble upon something during this phase, doesn't automatically mean you're allowed to talk about it. Or maybe they just made some shit up. We might never know.

C) Google is now presented the following dilemma: Oracle either lied in court, or disclosed something they were not allowed to. Both are really bad things to do, so if you accuse someone of it, you basically have to show the real numbers. Which is the whole point of the manoeuvre, because that's exactly what Google didn't want to.

D) Google is now rightfully pissed off because Oracle with retainers tried to make an end run around the obstacle by breaking the rules, and are trying to get them sanctioned.

Re:Exactly, there is no public contract.

[fustakrakich]

Or maybe they just made some shit up.

Personally, I think it's a neat trick. These people deserve each other. Besides, it's mostly dramatics, which should be expected for the money the lawyers get paid. Google could have just demanded that Oracle show the evidence of what they claimed without having to release anything of their own.

Re:SLASHDOT MODERATION IS CENSORSHIP

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! It's important that we get rid of all the SJW opinions, because SJWs hate freedom and free speech. They want to live in 'safe zones' where they don't have to hear things that offends them. That's why I propose a FREEDOM ZONE! Here on Slashdot, where we can get rid of all the SJW opinions we don't like in the name of free speech!

Law firm names.

[fahrbot-bot]

Orrick, Sutcliffe & Herrington

Sounds like they make suits on Savile Row, not are suits.

Eeny meany miny mo

[youngone]

Who do I hate most?

Oracle, Google or lawyers.

Oracle lose a stupid lawsuit, and will probably have to pay a huge amount of money which is good,

to Google, which is not so good,

but a lawyer might be 'sanctioned". If that means losing her license, then great, one less lawyer. It will probably mean don't do it again.

Re:Eeny meany miny mo

[LWATCDR]

The paying it to Google doesn't bother me at all. They offer great services I use everyday and I know how to control my own privacy,

Oracle deliberately broke the rules

[Required Snark]

Bringing this up in open court was a deliberate and hostile act. Oracle and their attorneys knew that this was very proprietary number and that putting it into circulation would damage both Apple and Google. Now when any of the big players negotiates fees with either Google or Apple they will have this benchmark. It's a game changer.

It is impossible that this was a mistake by Oracle and their law firm. It's very normal that corporations learn proprietary information during a big suit like this, and there are all sorts of rules pertaining to how it can be used and who has a right to see it. Without these rules legal actions would be used all the time to find out how the competition is doing internally.

Take a look at the letter that Google's law firm sent to the judges in the case. It's short and does not contain too much legalese. It refers to the relevant case law and asks the judge for sanctions. They are going after both Oracle and their law firm, and accuse them abusing the courts and not respecting the judges.

Accordingly, Google respectfully requests permission to file a motion for a finding of contempt and the imposition of sanctions, including but not limited to: an Order precluding further access by Ms. Hurst to Google and third-party confidential information; an Order requiring all of Oracle’s counsel to sign undertakings under the Protective Order, reinforcing the importance of the Order; an award of Google’s attorneys’ fees and costs necessitated by Oracle’s and its counsel’s violations of the Protective Order; and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

This is the legal way of asking the judge to throw the book and Oracle and it's lawyers. Asking to have the Oracle legal team sign a document saying they will obey the law in the future makes them look really, really bad. Asking that Hurst not be allowed to see information means she can't continue to work on the case. If her law firm is looking for a scapegoat for loosing, she just got a target on her back. This sanction could end her career, so it is not likely it will be granted. Still, findings of contempt are very serious and have significant longer term impact. It boils down to how far the judges think that Oracle's law firm went over the line and how much they disrespected the judges and the law. People sitting on the bench take this very seriously so it could be a big deal.

Re:Oracle deliberately broke the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

> very proprietary number ...

Lawyer getting screwed?

[ebvwfbw]

Was this our "feel good" article of the day?

Re:SLASHDOT MODERATION IS CENSORSHIP

[beastofburdon]

As long as it isn't something related to their specific sjw fetish many of them can have a decent conversation, but lo and behold if you offer a differing opinion on the source of the "pay gap".

Re:SLASHDOT MODERATION IS CENSORSHIP

[Coren22]

Your post wasn't suppressed on my screen. I see it just fine. Therefore, no censorship occurred. Suppressing speech means it does not appear at all. Your speech still appears, therefore it wasn't suppressed.

suppress
spres/Submit
verb
past tense: suppressed; past participle: suppressed
forcibly put an end to.
"the uprising was savagely suppressed"
synonyms: subdue, repress, crush, quell, quash, squash, stamp out; More
prevent the development, action, or expression of (a feeling, impulse, idea, etc.); restrain.
"she could not suppress a rising panic"
synonyms: conceal, restrain, stifle, smother, bottle up, hold back, control, check, curb, contain, bridle, inhibit, keep a rein on, put a lid on
"she suppressed her irritation"
prevent the dissemination of (information).
"the report had been suppressed"
synonyms: censor, keep secret, conceal, hide, hush up, gag, withhold, cover up, stifle; More