Judge Skewers Oracle Attorney For Revealing Google, Apple Trade Secrets (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The federal judge who presided over the Google-Oracle API copyright infringement trial excoriated one of Oracle's lawyers Thursday for disclosing confidential information in open court earlier this year. The confidential information included financial figures stating that Google generated $31 billion in revenue and $22 billion in profits from the Android operating system in the wake of its 2008 debut. The Oracle attorney, Annette Hurst, also revealed another trade secret: Google paid Apple $1 billion in 2014 to include Google search on iPhones. Judge William Alsup of San Francisco has been presiding over the copyright infringement trial since 2010, when Oracle lodged a lawsuit claiming that Google's Android operating system infringed Oracle's Java APIs. After two trials and various trips to the appellate courts, a San Francisco federal jury concluded in May that Google's use of the APIs amounted to fair use. Oracle's motion before Alsup for a third trial is pending. Oracle argues that Google tainted the verdict by concealing a plan to extend Android on desktop and laptop computers. As this legal saga was playing out, Hurst blurted out the confidential figures during a January 14 pre-trial hearing, despite those numbers being protected by a court order. The transcript of that proceeding has been erased from the public record. But the genie is out of the bottle. Google lodged a motion (PDF) for sanctions and a contempt finding against Hurst for unveiling a closely guarded secret of the mobile phone wars. During a hearing on that motion Thursday, Judge Alsup had a back-and-forth with Hurst's attorney, former San Francisco U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag. According to the San Francisco legal journal The Recorder, Haag said that her client Hurst -- of the law firm Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe -- should not be sanctioned because of "one arguable mistake made through the course of a very complex litigation."

Comments

apple+skewer

[turkeydance]

i'm hungry.

apple+Oracle

[invictusvoyd]

I'm puking. Seriously.

Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[shanen]

Kind of boggles my mind that the google thinks they made $22 billion profit on $31 billion revenue from Android. Talk about magic money? Some kind of projection of the effects of Android's success on their stock prices? Already we're dealing with fantasy here.

However, my two primary reactions were sadness and amusement.

The sadness is at the loss of the google's innocence. I used to think they were sincere about the "Don't be evil" thing, but now they are just another giant EVIL company and the corporate motto has become "All your attention are belong to us." I can't decide whether I was a gullible fool or if the transition was just inevitable under the rules of the American business game as encoded into law by the most cheaply bribed politicians.

The amusement is from watching them battling it out. I think Apple is probably the least evil of the three companies, but I can't believe any of them are innocent babes in the woods. It would suit me fine if they all died in the arena of their stupendous greed, though I guess Oracle is the greediest and most evil, which probably means Oracle will win. (Omens of Trump?)

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't be evil" was a motto from before they were a publicly traded company.

Once you have stockholders, everything you do is about making more money. Everything.

Re: Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly what evil is it that you accuse Goggle of doing here?

Re: Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[hey!]

Making obscene piles of money, evidently.

Re: Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[fustakrakich]

No, he's saying it's not real, those numbers are purely speculative "valuations", like Uber's 60 "billion". They are pure fantasy. Google is just squeezing investors. It's a "Libor scandal" that's waiting to pop.

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[UnknowingFool]

Kind of boggles my mind that the google thinks they made $22 billion profit on $31 billion revenue from Android. Talk about magic money? Some kind of projection of the effects of Android's success on their stock prices? Already we're dealing with fantasy here.

Why does it boggle the mind? Most of the Android revenue is licensing. Google doesn't have a lot of cost when it comes to licensing.

However, my two primary reactions were sadness and amusement. The sadness is at the loss of the google's innocence. I used to think they were sincere about the "Don't be evil" thing, but now they are just another giant EVIL company and the corporate motto has become "All your attention are belong to us." I can't decide whether I was a gullible fool or if the transition was just inevitable under the rules of the American business game as encoded into law by the most cheaply bribed politicians.

Again, why? Sure Goggle has done some evil things but you're saying making money is inherently evil. How do you think Goggle can afford to be not evil as a company. Some money has to come in from somewhere.

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[shanen]

With regards to your first question about the $31 billion in revenue and the $22 billion in profits: The marginal profits seem a bit excessive. For example, they could put some of those profits into improving the security model.

Regarding your second question, you are touching the heart of the matter, but you don't seem to see the obvious. There are good business models that are aligned with the best interests of all of the people who are involved. There are also bad business models that increase the EVIL, and the google is going down the rathole. I think the good business models are oriented around making the world better and solving problems, but the google's business model is just more profit, and this is not a real problem with any possible solution. No matter how large the profit, there is a bigger number available. You can't cure greed with any amount of cash or booze.

One concrete example that addresses both of these topics would be to expose the developers' business models in Google Play. The developers should have the option to tell us how they plan to make money, and the google should be able to comment on the business model. This would allow us, the people who are interested in downloading apps, to have a better idea of the legitimacy of the apps. In most cases the developers should be able to pick from standard business models like "advertising" or "demo version of full feature app" and the google would just say something like "We confirm substantial advertising revenue" or "We confirm many downloads of the full app." (Out of time, but details on request.)

Re: Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[swillden]

No, he's saying it's not real, those numbers are purely speculative "valuations", like Uber's 60 "billion". They are pure fantasy. Google is just squeezing investors.

How is Google using secret, unpublished numbers to squeeze investors?

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[swillden]

Why does it boggle the mind? Most of the Android revenue is licensing. Google doesn't have a lot of cost when it comes to licensing.

I think most of Android's revenue is from the Play store, not licensing. In fact, I don't think Google charges anything for the Google apps, and it really couldn't charge anything for Android, since it's open source.

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[LynnwoodRooster]

No, that's about the right amount of gross profit for a successful software platform. Microsoft tends to make around 60-70% gross margins, and they are predominantly a software company. So yeah - 70% gross margin sounds about right.

Re: Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[LynnwoodRooster]

The difference is, Google actually turns a net profit on big revenues. Uber's losses are larger than it's revenues (meaning they are burning 100% of revenue - AND still consuming additional investment funds). Google's value is inflated IMHO, but there is real value there. Uber's value is 100% speculative.

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[shanen]

Okay if that's how you feel. At what point would you regard the profits as harmful or even obscene?

I hope I'm not confusing you, but I'm also going to ask if you understand what a monopoly profit is? Also, do you understand the concept of a natural monopoly?

Pretty sure this is stretching you much too far, but if you understand the problems, do you have anything like a remotely constructive solution?

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[Anonymous Coward]

>At what point would you regard the profits as harmful or even obscene?

Is this a trick question? So long as the consumer has a choice whether or not to purchase the product (i.e. not live-saving drugs), the answer is "never".

(If you don't like that answer, feel free to give up your salary to those in the third world who would declare you obscenely overpaid for what you do.)

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[tlhIngan]

Kind of boggles my mind that the google thinks they made $22 billion profit on $31 billion revenue from Android. Talk about magic money? Some kind of projection of the effects of Android's success on their stock prices? Already we're dealing with fantasy here.

However, my two primary reactions were sadness and amusement.

The sadness is at the loss of the google's innocence. I used to think they were sincere about the "Don't be evil" thing, but now they are just another giant EVIL company and the corporate motto has become "All your attention are belong to us." I can't decide whether I was a gullible fool or if the transition was just inevitable under the rules of the American business game as encoded into law by the most cheaply bribed politicians.

You have to remember the reason for Google buying Android then.

Remember, iOS just came out and it was doing fairly well. Google was also doing fairly well - the default being Google for everything meant every iPhone user was using Google and making Google a lot of money.

This did concern Google because Google realized that Apple could cut them off from their golden mobile goose egg at any time, so they needed something to ensure that even if Apple did that, they'd still have fingers in the mobile advertising business. And that's where Android comes into play - it was an OS Google acquired in order to secure mobile advertising profits without Apple.

That's why Android is offered with generous terms to OEMs - as long as Google apps come first, Android was practically free, thus locking in Google's grip on mobile.

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[shanen]

I'm not sure what your point is, but I was definitely NOT saying that there was something wrong with their strategy for making profits. My point would be more along the lines that large American companies are forced to become evil in the pursuit of increasing profits (and no amount of profit is ever a "solution" to their "problem of needing larger profits), which leaves us in the position of always choosing among evils, greater or lesser.

You focused on the google, but if you think "Don't be evil" is still relevant, then I think you aren't paying attention. I can't prove it, but I'm quite sure their de facto motto is along the lines of "All your attention are belong to us" (even though that makes it somewhat difficult to explain the google's ongoing support of attention-stealing (and reputation-abusing) spammers).

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[UnknowingFool]

With regards to your first question about the $31 billion in revenue and the $22 billion in profits: The marginal profits seem a bit excessive. For example, they could put some of those profits into improving the security model.

Let me see if I understand you new complaint. Google spent $9B in cost for Android. $9B which included security and you are complaining they should have spent more. How would you know? Google didn't break down the cost into how much it spent on each component.

Need I remind you that no one is forced to use Android. And that Android is open source.

No matter how large the profit, there is a bigger number available. You can't cure greed with any amount of cash or booze.

No you missed the whole point. Google is a business. It has to pay for its operating expenses somehow. You seem to think that being altruistic will keep their doors open and their people paid. It doesn't. Now the amount of money of profit is another thing completely separate of whether Google is evil or not.

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[shanen]

Maybe you could clarify your position with the same questions the other fellow ignored. What amount of profit would you regard as obscene? Also, do you understand natural monopoly?

However, mostly I feel like just saying "Drop me a line when you figure out this whole freedom thing." My basic position is that reduced freedom is an indicator of evil at work. If I had that freedom, I might well be satisfied with a superior PDA.

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[UnknowingFool]

Maybe you could clarify your position with the same questions the other fellow ignored. What amount of profit would you regard as obscene?No

No, why don't you answer my questions first. So your argument now is the amount is obscene therefore Google must be evil. You still haven't clarified how much you want Google to spend on security even though you don't know how much they spent.

Also, do you understand natural monopoly?

I understand that Android is not one. From wikipedia:

A natural monopoly is a monopoly in an industry in which high infrastructural costs and other barriers to entry relative to the size of the market give the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, an overwhelming advantage over potential competitors

Android wasn't the first supplier in the industry. If we are talking OS, Windows Mobile was way earlier than Android. Also, again, Android being open source against presents many opportunities against monopolization.

However, mostly I feel like just saying "Drop me a line when you figure out this whole freedom thing." My basic position is that reduced freedom is an indicator of evil at work. If I had that freedom, I might well be satisfied with a superior PDA.

No your position was money==evil without explaining any of that.

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[shanen]

It's kind of hard to take you seriously, but I'll make an attempt. I rather think I'm wasting my time and would recommend you do some background reading. However, the areas of your apparent ignorance are so broad that I am hard pressed to suggest a starting point.

In the case of a natural monopoly, excessive profits can become quite harmful. I think the obvious solution in the case of a true natural monopoly is careful government regulation and special taxation, with some of the tax revenue being invested in research to break the monopoly. You don't seem to understand the definition in Wikipedia, but it does talk about first mover advantage. There is some confusion there, but it's easier to use Windows as an example because a solution is also obvious.

Imagine that Microsoft were divided into 5 competing companies. Each new company would start with a copy of all of the source code and equal shares of the people and facilities. Each shareholder would get corresponding shares in each of the new companies. Some of the new companies would make good decisions, get more business, and grow. Others would do less well, but the important thing is that the competition would drive stronger improvements in the OS and applications. The Windows platform would continue to exist as a standard, but a public standard rather than a secret one. If the overall pace of innovation increased, then everyone would win. The model would be more like an amoeba family rather than a 'unified' cancer.

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[UnknowingFool]

It's kind of hard to take you seriously, but I'll make an attempt. I rather think I'm wasting my time and would recommend you do some background reading. However, the areas of your apparent ignorance are so broad that I am hard pressed to suggest a starting point.

Logical fallacy: personal attack

Why don't you answer the original question instead of insulting people: How much would you like to spend on Android security given that you know almost NOTHING about how much was spent? We know only that it was than $9B.

In the case of a natural monopoly, excessive profits can become quite harmful.

Logical fallacy: presupposition

You've already taken the position that Android is a natural monopoly yet you have to demonstrate that it is one.

You don't seem to understand the definition in Wikipedia, but it does talk about first mover advantage. There is some confusion there, but it's easier to use Windows as an example because a solution is also obvious.

Logical fallacy: strawman

I said that it is obvious that Android is not a first mover AND that being open source that makes it hard to be a monopoly. Considering that the open source nature of Android means the barrier to entry is significantly lowered as other companies can modify it as they wish given they comply with licensing agreements.

I also mentioned Windows Mobile (which exists today as Windows 10). This is a clear alternative to Android. I would argue it is inferior to Android in many ways but nowhere in the definition of natural monopoly where inferiority is a disqualification as an alternative. Barrier to entry is the issue.

My point again which you missed is that Android is not a natural monopoly. Being the only grocery store in a remote region is a natural monopoly. I don't think you understand what a natural monopoly is.

Imagine that Microsoft were divided into 5 competing companies. Each new company would start with a copy of all of the source code and equal shares of the people and facilities. Each shareholder would get corresponding shares in each of the new companies. Some of the new companies would make good decisions, get more business, and grow. Others would do less well, but the important thing is that the competition would drive stronger improvements in the OS and applications. The Windows platform would continue to exist as a standard, but a public standard rather than a secret one. If the overall pace of innovation increased, then everyone would win. The model would be more like an amoeba family rather than a 'unified' cancer.

Logical fallacy: red-herring

What does MS have to do with natural monopoly, again? Nothing. The courts ruled that it was an illegal monopoly. I suggest you read the article.

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[shanen]

Maybe you are sincere, but I've concluded that this thread is just a waste of time. Maybe it's just an artifact of inline posting that makes you look like an intellectually dishonest Sophist, but we don't need another religious war on that issue.

Good day, sir. I'm sorry you wasted so much of your time, but even sorrier that you wasted so much of mine.

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[Anonymous Coward]

Man! You really are the most banal troll! If you are for real, it's pathological. If it's an act.... good one!

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[UnknowingFool]

Maybe you are sincere, but I've concluded that this thread is just a waste of time.

From the very beginning you made statements as if they were facts. When challenged, you have yet to answer basic questions on your statements.

So let's start again: You said that Google should have spent more money on Android security. How much money should have they spent even though you don't know how much they did spend?

Maybe it's just an artifact of inline posting that makes you look like an intellectually dishonest Sophist, but we don't need another religious war on that issue.

Logical fallacy:ad hominem

I'm not asking you to describe atomic physics; I'm asking you to clarify your own statements. Are you saying you have no answer to clarify your own statements?

Good day, sir. I'm sorry you wasted so much of your time, but even sorrier that you wasted so much of mine.

Logical fallacy: pooh-pooh

Face it, you don't really didn't have good arguments other than beliefs. Beliefs are not arguments.

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[shanen]

What part of "waste of time" were you unable to understand?

If this had been an actual discussion, recent news would be worth mention.

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[UnknowingFool]

What part of "waste of time" were you unable to understand?

Logical fallacy: pooh-pooh

Why are you bothering to comment on it if it's a waste of time? Or is it that you can't even explain your arguments much less support them. Most of your responses is one logical fallacy after another.

If this had been an actual discussion, recent news would be worth mention.

Logical fallacy: changing the subject

And why would recent news be worth mentioning? The whole point of the article is about what Google has made in profit on Android in the year of lawsuit. Since we have no new detailed financial data from Google on this topic, it is only speculation.

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[shanen]

What part of "waste of time" were you unable to understand?

Or perhaps I should ask why you value your own time so little?

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[UnknowingFool]

What part of "waste of time" were you unable to understand?

You're still commenting on this so obviously it's a waste of your own time to explain the gibberish you wrote above or do you not understand the logic of your own statements that you cannot explain yourself. Also do you understand what a logical fallacy is? You seem to be on repeat.

Or perhaps I should ask why you value your own time so little?

Logical fallacy: begging the question

Why don't you just answer a question for once instead trying to deflect?

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[shanen]

What part of "waste of time" are you continuing to be unable to understand?

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[UnknowingFool]

What part of "waste of time" are you continuing to be unable to understand?

You're still commenting. I think "Missing the obvious" is beyond your comprehension at this point.

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[shanen]

What part of "waste of time" are you unable to understand?

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[UnknowingFool]

What part of "waste of time" are you unable to understand?

Logical fallacy: Argumentum ad nauseam

Your posts remind me of MacBeth: "It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury Signifying nothing."

Re:Do we have to let the winner out of the arena?

[shanen]

What part of "waste of time" is too complicated for you to understand?

Ehical Stockholders

[Anonymous Coward]

Most stock is owned by likewise evil institutions. If real people owned companies, perhaps they would not be as evil.

Re:Ehical Stockholders

[PrimaryConsult]

Except those "evil institutions" usually do a pretty good job at keeping our retirement funds healthy, which benefits people. Yes they take some off the top, but really you want the people working for the funds that comprise retirement accounts to be making top dollar. They are spending all day researching which companies should go in and out of a fund that potentially millions of people will be relying on to retire someday - I'd much rather that field be highly competitive to be sure there are smart people in there...

Re:Ehical Stockholders

[Required Snark]

No they don't. One of the biggest drains on retirement savings for 401k plans is the fees charged by Wall Street. Given the end of defined benefit pensions, and the general under funding of pensions by government and business, the only hope most people have is their Wall Street based savings and home ownership, if they have not already been locked out of the housing market.

Wall Street is a rigged game: heads the insiders win, tails everyone else in the entire world looses. Remember 2008? Wall Street has ended up way ahead, and the rest of the economy is just now beginning to recover. Home owners who were victimized got squat and the bankers were bailed out. That bailout is still going on. It's called a zero interest prime lending rate. A blind poodle with diabetes can make a profit with a zero interest rate. Wall Street love the current setup. Free Money!!!

Meanwhile the gap between the very rich and everyone else is accelerating. It's a fact. So just how stupid do you have to be to support a system that is so massively corrupt?

Re:Ehical Stockholders

[PrimaryConsult]

I certainly do remember 2008. When the market tanked I threw $10k into a Roth IRA, all into a managed fund considered 'safe'. In early 2009 I contributed $5k more. I made no customizations, and didn't contribute again (or even look at it) for four years. Whatever demons run that fund had gotten me a 60% return in those 4 years, and it's certainly outpaced inflation since. No matter how corrupt Wall street may be, they did far better for me and my puny $15K than I myself possibly could while holding down a full time job (during that same time frame, my hand picked stocks only gained 15%). While my normal pre-tax retirement fund has grown less dramatically (probably because I customized it a bit, oddly enough to try and avoid fees), it has still averaged 7%/year. Good enough, considering that inflation is barely at 1% and interest rates are so low savings accounts are a fool's errand.

Don't get me wrong, I know there is corruption. But (1) It's good enough for me and (2) it's not like there is an alternative we can point to and say "let's do that instead". There's stock markets all over the world, yet ours is the one that investors flock to. If the corruption was truly that terrible, any one of the many markets in other countries would be outshining ours, and people would be putting their money there instead.

Oracle playing dirty? You don't say!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would not put them past this legal strategy:

Use litigation to obtain proprietary information.

Leak a little to get Google nervous.

Use that as leverage to help force a settlement.

Illegal? Absolutely. But they'll probably get away with it.

You all know Oracle's real motives, right? Oracle's products won't scale in to to the truly world scale big data future without patents that Google controls. Google's been there since day one. Oracle's products are great, but they won't be 10 years form now.

Their existence is at stake. They will do anything to get cross-licenses from Google.

Re:Oracle playing dirty? You don't say!

[sexconker]

Oracle's products are great

The problem with talking out of your ass is that everyone can smell your bullshit.

Re:Oracle playing dirty? You don't say!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would not put them past this legal strategy:

Possible, but just as likely in the heat of a losing position their lawyer screwed up. Please raise your hand if you have never screwed up in the heat of an argument (and provide the email addresses of all your ex's to prove it). The real penalty will happen to the law firm (somewhat later) when Oracle never hires the firm again due to the tainted position they have acquired.

Re:Oracle playing dirty? You don't say!

[Anonymous Coward]

Great is a relative term. They are behind a whole lot of very big and very important and very (most importantly) expensive systems.

You do pay out the nose for them. Their licensing terms can be found in the dictionary under the word "draconian". They are a terrible company and the man that heads them is also found in the dictionary, under the word "asshole"

They are great in the sense in that they generate enormous amounts of revenue for Oracle, which is all Oracle (and Oracle's shareholders) cares about.

Re:Oracle playing dirty? You don't say!

[PrimaryConsult]

The database is solid. Weblogic is ok (though I prefer Tomcat & JBoss). Their products that sit on top of Weblogic are... a great big steaming convoluted pile once you look under the hood. But if I were them and trying to play the long game, I would put a ton of resources into streamlining and stabilizing those products so that they were actually good. A lot of companies buy them, and if they weren't so damned hard to install, configure, customize and maintain they could get more of that money directly (which is currently going to H1Bs who have the patience to deal with the mess). And I completely believe the need for H1Bs in this case. As it stands now, anyone with the intelligence and patience to implement Oracle Fusion Middleware can just as easily do things far more interesting with those skills, and would opt to do so.

Re: Oracle playing dirty? You don't say!

[Anonymous Coward]

He's right, MySQL is great, some peolple find Java is great, OpenOffice has been great ...

Those figures should not be trade secrets

[hackwrench]

I am also suspicious of the concept of trade secrets and proprietary information in general. Come on, people, what happened to that big talk we were going to have about ethics and intellectual property and culture and stuff?

Re:Those figures should not be trade secrets

[sexconker]

Trade secrets are fine, but it's on the company to keep them secret.

From the KFC recipe (which is NOT what was recently all over the news) to the Coke recipe, the owners of the secrets have to keep the secrets. If they slip up, they don't get squat when it gets out.

Further, these are financials, which every investor has a right to know, not trade secrets. If Google really thought there were secrets they had a right to keep from the public they wouldn't have let Oracle get the info in the first place. The discovery phase includes redaction and filtering and the assumption that lawyers for all parties are acting ethically. (Of course that assumption is a joke. See HRC.)

Re:Those figures should not be trade secrets

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if they are, I thought the whole point of "trade secrets" is that you get to keep them "forever" (read, for as long as you can keep it a secret), but don't get the benefits of being able to sue someone for revealing those secrets?

Re: Those figures should not be trade secrets

[hackwrench]

Somehow I don't like the idea that people can keep the details of what they are offering me for the purpose of putting it into my body a secret. Not that the tools for managing that information is all that great... and they really ought to be a whole lot better than they are currently. The company that provides my health care is just now getting all their people on one system and there are no guarantees regarding exchanges of information between health care companies.

Re:Those figures should not be trade secrets

[sconeu]

And those figures *WOULD* have remained secret, except the court said, "Give them to Oracle for the trial".

Re:Those figures should not be trade secrets

[Anonymous Coward]

And if I sue the Department of Defense for using too-easy-to-guess nuclear launch codes, will a court say "Give the codes to this guy for the trial. Don't worry he's gagged by a court order." ?

Re:Those figures should not be trade secrets

[Dragonslicer]

You don't have any clue about how confidential information is handled in litigation, do you?

Re:Those figures should not be trade secrets

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if you do, your comment is fucking useless, since you didn't bother explaining anything.

Re:Those figures should not be trade secrets

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially looking at these kinds of figures, it seems very much in the public interest that they are published.
It should not be possible to run an enormous multinational with closed books.

Re:Those figures should not be trade secrets

[sexconker]

Of course I do.

Confidential or privileged information is withheld or redacted by the owner during discovery and the court is notified what was withheld or redacted and why. Unrelated information is also withheld.

In situations where lawyers for one party have direct access to the other party's data, they're expected to be ethical and not go diving for shit unrelated to the case at hand. In instances where parties can't agree about what should be turned over, what or how much should be redacted, etc. the court steps in, often assigning a third party to make those determinations.

Try harder, troll.

Judge is Retarded

[sexconker]

That's the kind of info that should be available to all shareholders. No court order should have been issued to try to prevent it from being disseminated.

Oracle's complaint has merit. Google is going to take Android and put it on the PC, or rename Android, or leverage Android's mobile position to achieve the same effect of unification across mobile and PC.

Oracle's claim is that Google plans to use Android, which absolutely did copy both Java and Java APIs, to compete in a space Oracle is in. Google got a "fair use" ruling in part because they weren't directly competing with Oracle. Oracle pointed to a $31 billion in revenue, $22 billion in profit, and $1 billion to gain the leverage of being the default search engine that screams "Of fucking course Google is going to expand this to every corner of existence!".

Oracle is fucking awful and I hope they go belly up. But Google is far from being the good guy. (And for those keeping score, there's no fucking way anyone with a brain believes that Compaq's BIOS was a "clean room" implementation.)

Re:Judge is Retarded

[invictusvoyd]

Maybe true but "Judge is Retarded " wont get you anywhere in the court case .

Re:Judge is Retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

How about *Judge is a Mexican*? Maybe next January?

Re:Judge is Retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

which absolutely did copy both Java and Java APIs

They made their own clean room implementation of Java, which is completely different from simply copying it. Copyright doesn't apply if you don't copy the code (or derive your code directly from that code).
Furthermore, if public APIs couldn't be copied freely, we may as well stop creating software libraries, because that's how you use them. That's why it was ruled fair use.

Re:Judge is Retarded

[mysidia]

That's the kind of info that should be available to all shareholders.

Nope, Not the court's decision. It's management's decision to publish to shareholders or not.

And the information they revealed could have negative repurcussions against them as a business.

This is the kind of thing that should have resulted in a default judgement against Oracle and sanctioning their lawyers against participating in further cases.

Judge Alsup...

[raftpeople]

...strenuously stated that the lawyer should not do that again.

Of course Judgie is mad

[Anonymous Coward]

He keeps trying to redirect the trial and the appellate courts say his tactics are too stinky even for them. So of course he takes a "but the lawyers are slimeballs too!" stand. His rulings are still going to get slapped down again. Everybody knows Apple and Google lie in discovery all the time. Just makes you wonder what the real numbers are.

It is a Lawyers job to not make those mistakes

[Anonymous Coward]

So doing it was no accident and Ale should own the law firm.
Then an only then will it never happen again.
So many Judges are really crack heads.

Kangaroo Court

[Anonymous Coward]

The attorney intentionally leaks this information, after knowing they aren't supposed to, and the Judge does what? Oh no he fucking yelled at them? Holy shit no way.

But Manning intentionally leaks stuff and gets jail. Hillary mishandles stuff, nothing.

The rules are simply different for everyone and its far fucking past time it stopped being that way.

Re:Kangaroo Court

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing remotely similar about any of these cases.

Actually I think all those numbers should be known

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm for full transparency here. Too much deception of the public is happening already. In a time where states are disappearing (the anorectic state propagated by the ultra-libs seems to be in fashion), it's ever more important tha corporations are fully transparent.

Don't get me wrong. I've *no* sympathy whatsoever for Oracle, and whatever hurts them...

But then, OTOH, I've pretty little sympathy for Google either.

The Arrogance of Lawyers

[CaptainOfSpray]

"Haag said that her client Hurst -- of the law firm Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe -- should not be sanctioned because of "one arguable mistake... "

No, it's an open-and-shut case of contempt of court. Lawyers are supposed to, like, know the law.

Yet again, lawyers think they should be above the law, unlike the rest of us.

Go on, Alsup, jail her or expect this to be used as a precedent..

Re:The Arrogance of Lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet again, lawyers think they should be above the law, unlike the rest of us.

I agree. The more lawyers that are slapped down hard for this kind of behavior, the more that other lawyers will think twice about doing so.