Oracle v Google: Financial Disclosure of Ties to Commentators

This is cute. Oracle lost its shirt in Oracle v Google/Android but some pretty harsh words were spread all over the web. The court has ordered the parties to spill their guts about any “astroturfing”… I can tell you no one paid me for my comments… Chuckle. This could be good. I wonder if such an order will result in Apple v Samsung. That would be so cool. I wonder whether or not any commentators on my blog will be revealed as paid shills… 😉

It seems to me that several notables on the web pronounced in favour of Oracle in this matter apparently with no logical basis. Perhaps there was a financial basis.

“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.”

via Groklaw – Judge Alsup Orders Financial Disclosure of Ties to Commentators in Oracle v Google ~pj.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Oracle v Google: Financial Disclosure of Ties to Commentators

  1. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon it gets interesting if they list any Australian Bloggers or Media.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_comment_affair

    Paid shills are allowed in Australia as long as the disclose they are. Few sporting people have got into trouble recently for posting on facebook and not stating they were sponsored by the product they posted.

    The fun part is this regulation does apply to people who are not Australian nationals while in Australia and Australian nationals where ever they are on earth.

    Clarence Moon
    “Interestingly enough, the charges of “astro-turfing”, “paid to post” and similar are generally being leveled by the FLOSS supporters against those who might offer a more rational view of Microsoft, Apple, or Oracle.”

    Problem here is there are documented case of Astro-turfing and paid to post. You like to say more rational view. Lot of those would go away if USA and other countries brought their broadcast media laws into alignment with Australia. Astro-turfing and paid to post without disclosure is fraudulent representation in lots of cases. Turns out the first cases in Australia did not even need the Broadcast media laws just used your normal fraud laws.

    Clarence Moon
    “No one would believe that there is anyone covertly sponsoring pro-Linux posting since there is no money to do so.”
    There are a few documented cases of convert sponsoring pro-Linux postings. FOSS world did not take too kindly to it. You do it get caught don’t even think they will buy support contracts from you any more. Has been the historic result. So you can guess how dead those companies are now.

    FOSS community has a universal hate of paid for post or astro-turfing. This is why IBM, Redhat and so on are very clear on declaring what Linux advertisements are theirs.

    That there has been cases of pro-Linux posting covertly sponsored I would not say its not happening. If anyone is doing it they will be very careful that there is no way it can lead back to them due to the communities known reaction. So the odd of covertly paid Linux stuff is low but not impossible. Backlash if caught is just way to savage.

    In fact if Google or Oracle has been paying shills that have not been declared they are going to have pissed off communities on there hands.

    I can see Google and Oracle both wanting this kept off the public record if either of them have been doing it.

    Mind you have to name you shills in a patent case might slow down companies wanting to go to court over patent cases.

    http://www.fosspatents.com/ << This party is a documented “paid to post” without declaring.

    There are others. Some of the ones paid to post seam to write pro-Linux stuff then make sure they kick it where they can this is what Florian Mueller got caught doing then found out paid by Microsoft to write the Pro kind of Linux post. Not declaring Microsoft Paid for it.

    So your claim is no one paid for Pro-Linux stuff is bogus. Microsoft does at times Clarence Moon. By mistake?? You need so much correct stuff so the community will keep on visiting. So intentionally Microsoft pays for so much Pro-Linux stuff so the can attempt to undermine with false information in other posts.

    Yes insane right the ones that want market share from Linux are also paying to advertise it.

    Foss world has very good reasons to believe that some of the people they are running into are only pretending to be part of there ranks.

  2. Ivan says:

    Snide remarks by bloggers regarding Oracle or Google are certainly not sponsored by either party.

    Bob’s paranoia aside, roach baiting is common practice by all multi-nationals and it will be interesting to see the reach of both marketing divisions.

  3. lpbbear says:

    “But if you truly assign Machiavellian reasoning to Microsoft, or any other company you want to cast in some evil light, you would see that they would not use such a tactic here since it would be so obviously ineffective.”

    Microsoft has done that almost since its inception. That is an undisputed fact.

    Whether you are paid to post here or just simply “slightly imbalanced enough to serve that purpose at no charge” does not matter to me. The end result is the same. A loonytunes fruitcake supporting a corrupt corporation.

  4. Clarence Moon says:

    Perhaps there was a financial basis.

    You seem rather jaded, Mr. Pogson. Where is your belief and confidence in the system? Snide remarks by bloggers regarding Oracle or Google are certainly not sponsored by either party. There is no business reason to do so and there are plenty of people completely or even slightly imbalanced enough to serve that purpose at no charge.

    Interestingly enough, the charges of “astro-turfing”, “paid to post” and similar are generally being leveled by the FLOSS supporters against those who might offer a more rational view of Microsoft, Apple, or Oracle.

    I guess that stems from the general lack of funding for FLOSS projects and the generally well-to-do nature of the successful proprietary software vendors. No one would believe that there is anyone covertly sponsoring pro-Linux posting since there is no money to do so. But Microsoft is filthy rich and swimming in cash so the idea is not immediately dismissed.

    But if you truly assign Machiavellian reasoning to Microsoft, or any other company you want to cast in some evil light, you would see that they would not use such a tactic here since it would be so obviously ineffective.

Leave a Reply