Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oracle Is Funding a New Anti-Google Group (fortune.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the shadow-group dept.

An anonymous reader writes from a report via Fortune: Oracle says it is funding a new non-profit called "Campaign for Accountability," which consists of a campaign called "The Google Transparency Project" that claims to expose criminal behavior carried out by Google. "Oracle is absolutely a contributor (one of many) to the Transparency Project. This is important information for the public to know. It is 100 percent public records and accurate," said Ken Glueck, Senior Vice President of Oracle. Fortune reports: "Oracle's hidden hand is not a huge surprise since the company has a history of sneaky PR tactics, and is still embroiled in a bitter intellectual property lawsuit with Google." One would think Microsoft may be another contributor, but the company said it is not. Daniel Stevens, the deputy director of the CfA, declined to name the group's other donors, or to explain why it does not disclose its funders. Why does this matter? "When wealthy companies or individuals pose as a grass-roots group like the so-called 'campaign for accountability' project, [it] can confuse news and public relations, and foster public cynicism," writes Jeff John Roberts via Fortune.

29 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. Pot, meet kettle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hilarious.

    1. Re: Pot, meet kettle by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think Oracle is probably just annoyed because after winning all of their big lawsuits against their own costumers, they lost what is arguably the mother of all of their lawsuits, and it wasn't one of their customers this time

    2. Re:Pot, meet kettle by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The evil of Google is like a candle flickering in the darkness.
      The evil of Oracle is like the midday sun.

    3. Re: Pot, meet kettle by yuvcifjt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're kidding right?
      Surely you can't be that ignorant of Google's power?!

      Here's a quick search to answer your question.

      Google literally have the power to change leadership of entire nations and sway voters, and even make or break an entire company!

      Google products are 100% voluntary, if you don't want to use them, then don't...

      Err, no they're not.
      You're Google's product and slave whether you like it or not.
      It's easy (for a technical person) to simply not use facebook and block their 2/3 domains, but it's almost impossible to do that with Google, considering GoogleAPIs, Captcha, Doubleclick, Analytics, GoogleAdServices, GoogleSyndication, GTM, Plus, etc, etc.

    4. Re:Pot, meet kettle by no1nose · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wanted to mod you up but everyone else already did. Oracle is evil. Anybody who says otherwise is selling something.

  2. If Google is doing something illegal by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then call them out on it already. Don't care if it's Oracle holding a childish grudge or not.

    1. Re:If Google is doing something illegal by guises · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you call them out on it then they can refute it. This is SCO tactics, and Oracle is going to milk it for as long as they can.

      There couldn't have been a worse company to buy Sun, even Microsoft would have been preferable.

    2. Re:If Google is doing something illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thank you for your post Larry.

    3. Re:If Google is doing something illegal by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      The courts disagreed.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:If Google is doing something illegal by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh bullshit. Oracle lost because Oracle never had a fucking case.

      Christ, Microsoft shills is one thing, but defending one of the most vile tech companies that ever existed, gimme a break. Every time Oracle gets shafted, an angel gets its wings.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:If Google is doing something illegal by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously. At least Microsoft makes shit that some people actually like to use. I've yet to meet one person that actually enjoys using the poorly engineered crap that discharges from Oracle's anus, and everybody who does use it only does so because they have to. The few things Oracle makes that are somewhat usable are things that they bought from some other company and haven't yet had the chance to wipe their ass with it.

      And then worst of all, if you simply look at your oracle product the wrong way, they'll probably sue you for breaking the EULA.

    6. Re:If Google is doing something illegal by capedgirardeau · · Score: 2

      The main complaint in the summary is not that someone is calling out Google, it is that Oracle is pretending to be a grassroots organization instead of Oracle just standing up and calling out google.

      And further, these fake grassroots organizations are harmful in the sense that they break down confidence and participation in real grass roots organizations. People get cynical and just assume any grassroots org is just a front for some giant evil corporation.

      --
      Wax on, wax off baby!
  3. Transparency project + secret funding = FAIL by mdtiemann · · Score: 4, Funny

    Umm...what part of transparency do they not understand?

  4. I'll bet it's all Larry by surfdaddy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Larry Ellison is likely pissed that Google managed to make a ton of money over the language that Oracle bought with Sun, but never managed to do anything with it. So go after Google. I also wouln't be surprised if Microsoft is involved. Microsoft likes to be a tough competitor but they don't like other tough competitors.

    1. Re:I'll bet it's all Larry by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's like being mad at all the successful psychics when you were the only one who paid for the official psychic's license from the back of a psychic magazine.

    2. Re:I'll bet it's all Larry by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Perhaps Google is getting too powerful, but one thing is clear, Oracle has been too powerful for far too long, and if it takes the up-and-coming Godzilla to defeat one of the Old Dark Ones, then so be it.

      As to regulating search, just don't use Google search or any Google products. It's not like Bing doesn't exist, or other companies don't make search engines. Regulating search, at least in the limited purview of "right to be forgotten" nonsense in Europe, has demonstrated how bad regulation could become. Much better that you simply invoke the consumer's right, and don't use Google products.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:I'll bet it's all Larry by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Microsoft says it is not involved", as quoted in the article, is not precisely the same claim as "Microsoft is not involved". Microsoft demonstrated during the SCO/Linux lawsuits that they could, and did, hide their business sponsorship of morally bankrupt legal fraud by encouraging their business partners to engage in support of the fraudulent litigants. That effectively kept Microsoft funding of the lawsuit from showing up in any directly traceable payments.

  5. Honest question time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Honest question time. Has anybody ever used an Oracle product that wasn't garbage? The only way I could see it is if they were selling trash to a dump, Oracle could probably find a way to fuck that up. Oracle go kill yourself.

    Oh and fuck Google too. When the mob puts a hit out on you it's often not because you've been running your business too honestly.

    1. Re:Honest question time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm posting this as AC because I'm currently involved in the rollout of a big, bloated, expensive Oracle product at a major university.

      They're a fucking shitshow through and through. No one knows what's going on. This thing is going to be delayed by at least a year or it's going to be rammed down our asses and be a catastrophe for 18 months or more. Billions will be lost in man-hours alone, and even in the best case scenario where it somehow magically works nothing will be gained. Instead, more staff will be required to support and coddle this beast.

      I've intentionally avoided looking up how much we will be spending on this fucking thing or how it was approved because I know I won't like what I find out.

  6. SCOracle? by Pezbian · · Score: 2

    With how often both do such incredibly asinine things, I'm sure I'm not the only one who gets Oracle and SCO mixed up at times.

    --
    In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
  7. Accountability? by XSportSeeker · · Score: 5, Informative

    Oracle is campaigning for accountability? Sure, I love accountability.
    How about:

    - Improper accounting practices on your cloud service business: http://venturebeat.com/2016/06...
    - Breach of contract: http://www.pcworld.com/article...
    - Putting stockholders' investments at risk: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
    - Fraudulent practices/overcharging the Deparment of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr...
    - Patent infringement: http://www.infoworld.com/artic...
    - Project cost overrun and breach of contract again: http://wtnnews.com/articles/85...

    If Oracle had any hint of accountability it would've closed doors a long time ago. What they want is money.

  8. Re:Why blame wealth? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    Probably because lying poor people are rarely in a position to mount a slick astroturf campaign through an apparently-neutral third party entity they are covertly buying influence over.

    That makes it pretty tricky for them to foster nearly as much cynicism, unleash more PR flacks on the world, or get their objectives turned into policy.

    In a vague abstract sense you can condemn all liars equally on moral grounds; but when it comes to the consequences of their behavior the ones with no power simply aren't in the position to be as dangerous.

  9. All your attention are belong to us by shanen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you are confusing aspirations with reality. Oracle has sunk so low that they are approaching "mostly harmless" status, whereas the google has completely transcended and redefined EVIL. New motto is "All your attention are belong to us". Your personal data is just collected for more leverage.

    The real problem is that we are forced to pick between lesser evils in EVERY purchase we make. The single-objective quest for profit has produced a small number of cancerous monster companies. I'm wracking my brains, but right now I am unable to think of a single company that I've recently done business with that I would rate as more good than evil.

    Mostly our own collective fault? I can actually think of a few companies that seem basically good, but the result is that their goods and services are no longer competitive, so I can't even justify the premium I'd have to pay. Of course, then I can rationalize the decisions to do business with the typical bad companies. The good company is probably going to go bad soon enough, or it's probably bad on the inside if I just look a bit more closely. The entire game of business (especially in America) has been rigged for nasty companies that grow like mindless cancers in pursuit of more money.

    Unsolvable problem. NO amount of money would ever be "more" enough.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:All your attention are belong to us by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They have exceptional software engineering standards

      Their search is good. Their advertising platform (for advertisers) is alright. Their operations team is top-notch. A lot of the other stuff is half-done. Android is barely sufficient (and has a lot of messiness, too).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:All your attention are belong to us by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Okay, so you don't value your freedom and you are happy being manipulated. The carrot side usually tastes okay.

      No, he didn't say anything like that. If freedom isn't important to you, then perhaps you should think a bit about the stick? Oh wait. Maybe you're perfect and you've never made any embarrassing little mistakes?

      Just read an interesting book called Our Final Invention about the nastiest stick, ASI with no use for us. Don't get me wrong. If the google does it first, I'm going to surrender ASAP. No sense in fighting the inevitable. Maybe the ASI will feel like keeping a few of us around in some sort of zoo?

      If you think there's a stick, you'd find it better contribute to the discussion to describe it, rather than demand people read a book before continuing discussion here.

      The truth is Google really doesn't have one. It makes its money mostly by using the information it has about you to display relevant ads. That information about you is private, and contrary to myth it's not exactly comprehensive - it isn't a full browsing history, or anything like that, just some quick generalizations based upon some key sites.

      This is not bad. This is fine. It doesn't harm anyone's freedom in the slightest.

      Yes, Google has the potential to be evil. They could, technically, start recording a log of most of the sites you've been to. They could sell browsing histories linked to personal information to third parties.

      But so could Mozilla. Mozilla could do more than Google ever could dream of doing. Is Mozilla evil because it could be evil if it wanted to be? Is Mozilla restricting my freedom by being capable of recording my history and bookmarks and purchases and credit card numbers and selling it to third parties?

      You know who can do more than even Mozilla can dream of doing? Microsoft. You know, the company that started the original "Google sells your details to advertisers" smear. They can abuse all of the information Mozilla could, for all of the browsers on your system. Plus they can let people know what the files on your PC are.

      Why pick on Google? Because Microsoft and now Oracle have run smear campaigns against it?

      Yes, Google's done some shitty things lately. Their search engine has become crappier. "Default" Android has become less open source. Their apps have become too AI infested and usually don't do what you want them to. Google+ was an unmitigated disaster. And yet none of these things were evil, just horrible, like fish flavored popsicle sticks, or Hollywood deciding to reboot The Godfather.

      Don't confuse horribleness with evil. Just because Google's products aren't as good as they were doesn't mean they're also selling the names of the porn sites you subscribe to to your mother in law.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:All your attention are belong to us by HiThere · · Score: 2

      It's not what it has to do, it's what it has to avoid doing. I believe the applicable quote is "Don't be evil.".

      That said, Google has rarely been very evil. A lot of people seem to dislike them purely because they are large and successful, but for me that's not sufficient reason to call them evil. It is sufficient to be hesitant about trusting them. Someone who's extremely powerful can harm you without even noticing.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  10. It's not that hard by trawg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oracle, if you want to be total dicks to google but get tech people on side so we start giving a shit about you, here's an idea: build us a nice open source browser with no telemetry that blocks ads. Base it on Chromium. Make it fast and lightweight and strip out anything that might annoy privacy advocates (like syncing) and make it an optional extension.

    Short of building a better search engine it's the only thing I could imagine making me try one of your products again.

  11. Re:Dumb question... by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 2

    No, Oracle actually based their case on copyright this time, weirdly. That's why the fair use argument came up; it's a defense in copyright claims. Apache Harmony has some weird lineage issues which make the license of Harmony code somehow different than GPL, a problem that evidently OpenJDK doesn't have. Current and future Android stuff won't be affected by this claim.

  12. "Created yourself" and "commercial content" by tepples · · Score: 2

    But what does Microsoft have that's remotely similar to, say, YouTube?

    Vimeo

    Vimeo isn't by Microsoft, as I had previously stipulated. And even if we agree to abandon this stipulation, Vimeo has drawbacks. From the Vimeo Guidelines:

    1. "Upload only videos you created yourself." This means at least one of the authors of a video has to be a Vimeo user with a suitable Internet connection. Videos created by a minor child may not qualify, as the parent who uploads it might not be an author. Nor may videos created by someone who lives in an area where home Internet connections are harshly capped, as the author can't sneakernet the video to a non-author to upload to Vimeo unless the non-author pays $199 per year for Vimeo PRO.
    2. "If you are a business or wish to upload commercial content, you must use Vimeo PRO. [...] Exception! If you’re an independent production company, artist, or non-profit, you may use any account type (Basic, Plus, or PRO) to showcase your creative work." But so far, I haven't found an easy way to tell what makes a production company "independent", nor where "showcas[ing] your creative work" ends and "promoting or representing a for-profit business or brand" begins.
    3. From July 2008 through October 2014, there was a blanket rule against gameplay videos. During this period, Vimeo was handing the audience for video game reviews over to YouTube. And even after this period, the "commercial content" rule still raises doubt.