12 ms·

Google’s lawyers are asking to find Oracle’s lawyers in contempt of court

395 points by ivank 10y ago

mmastrac 10y ago
While this is a good story, the headline misses by far the point that the body makes - the only reason this is an open secret is because an Oracle lawyer revealed it in public. A better title might be: "Google is trying to get Oracle in trouble for revealing confidential figures"
- theDoug 10y ago
  Right? Something can be a so-called "open secret" but where it is brought up and how it is intended to be used is what is at question here. And arguing for the "heat of argument," is a weird position to take, but I'm sure no lawyer and definitely no Oracle lawyer.
- notyourwork 10y ago
  That article was simply hard to read. I kept asking if this was a story or a news article.
  - juliand 10y ago
    Especially with that animated gif above the fold. I had to scroll to a point where the animation was completely hidden to be able to read comfortably.
- cwillu 10y ago
  No kidding: "Unfortunately for Google, those two numbers can be readily found via a website known as Google dot com:" ...followed by two screenshots of searchs for the numbers, both of which only show results with snippets like "according to a transcript of court proceedings from Oracle Corp.'s copyright lawsuit against Google.", "....said in court while disclosing figures Google says shouldn't have been made public", and "Thanks to a lawyer, we know now that Google has made..."
segmondy 10y ago
Oracle should pay, they knew exactly what they were doing. If it was them, they would be suing too. Live by the sword die by the sword.
- helthanatos 10y ago
  Oracle would probably sue if Google said something about buying Sun... >“She just blurted out the two numbers that mattered. She just blurted it out,” said Judge Alsup. “If she had had the recipe for Coca-Cola she could have blurted it out in this court right now.” Knowing revenue isn't exactly the same as knowing a formula. It's odd that Google cares so much.
  - sjellis 10y ago
    I don't think that they care about that so much as making the point that nobody else should think about copying Oracle's tactics. The attorneys for Oracle were remarkably unscrupulous in the way that they conducted their case, IMO, and this is part of the payback, from the judge as well as Google's lawyers.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    Google cares because they didn't want the info made public. The judge cares, and everyone else should care, because revealing confidential information in court should never be tolerated, no matter how trivial that information might seem. If people get away with it, it undermines that principle and makes it more likely to happen in the future.
  - helthanatos 10y ago
    Interesting. 5 downvotes and 2 comments... Why only 2 comments
- sharemywin 10y ago
  I don't think Oracle is required to pay it's their lawyers.
  - 10y ago
grellas 10y ago
It is huge that a lawyer would disclose in a public setting such important confidential numbers. I even have trouble seeing how something like that could be "accidental". It is basically a force of habit among experienced litigators to think and to say, in any number of contexts, "I know this may be relevant but I can't discuss it because it is the subject of a protective order" or "I know the attorneys know this information but it was disclosed under the protective order as being marked for 'attorneys' eyes only'". In all my years of litigating, I don't believe I have ever heard a casual slip on such information, even in otherwise private contexts (e.g., attorneys are discussing with their own client what an adverse party disclosed and are very careful not to disclose something marked for "attorneys' eyes only"). Certainly willful disclosures of this type can even get you disbarred. But the significance of this breach is not the only thing that caught my eye. These litigants have been entrenched in scorched-earth litigation for years now in which the working M.O. for both sides is to concede nothing and make everything the subject of endless dispute. Big firm litigators will often do this. It is a great way to rack up bills. Clients in these contexts do not oppose it and very often demand it. And so a lot of wasteful lawyering happens just because everyone understands that this is an all-out war. To me, then, it seems that the big problem here (in addition to the improper disclosures of highly important confidential information in a public court hearing) was the resistance by the lawyers who did this to simply acknowledging that a big problem existed that required them to stipulate to getting the transcript sealed immediately. Had they done so, it seems the information would never have made the headlines. Instead (and I am sure because it had become the pattern in the case), they could not reach this simple agreement with the other lawyers to deal with the problem but had to find grounds to resist and fight over it. I know that we as outside observers have limited information upon which to make an assessment here and so the only thing we can truly say from our perspective is "who knows". Yet, if the surface facts reflect the reality, then it is scarcely believable that the lawyers could have so lost perspective as to take this issue to the mat, resulting in such damage to a party. Assuming the facts are as they appear on the surface, this would be very serious misconduct and I can see why Judge Alsup is really mad that it happened.
- Natsu 10y ago
  Suppose, for a moment, the judge believes that there's at least an open question as to whether the revelations were willful. Can the later conduct, in which they acted in such a way as to double down on the mistake, be used to support a finding that the conduct was willful?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ocdtrekkie 10y ago
If anything, my only sadness is that more of Google's dirty laundry wasn't aired. This illusion that Google search is winning because people prefer it and that Google doesn't make money on Android are both claims I'm happy to see debunked. Google's anti-monopoly claims fundamentally hinge on concepts like these. And if a lawyer did break the law by doing it, I say she belongs on the same high pedestal people put Snowden on.
- Natsu 10y ago
  There's a big difference between revealing the details of illegal actions, which Snowden did, and revealing your opponent's private financial dealings which are not illegal. Would you also support this if someone posted the routing information at the bottom of your personal checks? I mean, it's an "open secret" that's on every check. So no harm can come from the world at large knowing it.... right?
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    Google's actions are illegal though. It's not a government coverup, but Google is using misinformation as 'proof' they aren't guilty. It's also noteworthy that this court case first revealed to the public the Android MADA agreement, a secret contract which has been at the center of a large number of antitrust suits around the globe. Had it not been revealed, it's unlikely many government entities would've started to look into it.
    - Natsu 10y ago
      Oracle is able to disclose this to the court, just not to the world at large. So if what you say is true, the court (including appeals) is the proper place to raise that argument.
    - jhall1468 10y ago
      > Google's actions are illegal though. Have anything besides anecdotal evidence of that? Paying a company to use your search isn't anti-competitive. Google has competitors that can make the same (or better) offers. Google didn't prevent that behavior (in the way Microsoft did with Windows) because they can't... there are already alternatives. Google is a monopoly, but it's not anti-competitive without actual evidence. And your personal opinion doesn't qualify.
suyash 10y ago
Google is being plain old Evil.
- skj 10y ago
  I see the definition of "evil" has really slipped as late.
JadeNB 10y ago
The judge tried to reveal the depth of this revelation by comparing it to that of the most secret thing he could imagine: > If she had had the recipe for Coca-Cola she could have blurted it out in this court right now. (Seriously!) EDIT: I wasn't trying to be snarky or silly, just pointing out an aspect of the story that struck me as funny. Serious request: if that is inappropriate, please let me know rather than just silently downvoting. In that case, I apologise and will delete the post.
- UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
  What's wrong with that analogy? Coca Cola's exact formula is proprietary information, so saying it in court could cause damages (e.g. other manufacturers could make a perfect clone and undercut Coca Cola). There's even an article on Coca Cola's supposed secret formula[0] which further validates the analogy by making it an archetype for proprietary information. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_formula
  - JadeNB 10y ago
    Nothing's wrong with it as an analogy; I would have found "this is like blurting out Coca-Cola's secret formula!" extremely apt, not least for the reason that you mention. However, the judge's wording > If she had had the recipe for Coca-Cola she could have blurted it out in this court right now. seemed less like a comparison than a description of the dire consequences of this sort of behaviour, and it struck me as funny: surely anyone who's unconvinced of the seriousness of blurting out one business's proprierary information won't be convinced about the seriousness of blurting out another's?
    - johncolanduoni 10y ago
      I took it as him stressing the fact that though these numbers weren't likely to completely destroy Google's business models, if this was truly a "heat of the argument" thing (i.e. not calculated) that suggests she'd be likely to do the same with even more sensitive information that might.
nikic 10y ago
This article reads very weirdly to me. Are they arguing that disclosing confidential information, and subsequently opposing steps to contain the disclosed information, is perfectly fine because ... it can be found on the internet, precisely because of this disclosure? This makes absolutely no sense to me.
- arcticfox 10y ago
  I think the author of the article didn't realize that all of those references were generated from the very subject of the article. Very strange, I agree. It's an open secret now but it wasn't when the events happened, which is why there's a fight.
  - cortesoft 10y ago
    I think they did realize it, because they mention in the article itself that was the source of the information.... I think it is more likely the headline creator didn't realize it.
    - arcticfox 10y ago
      On further review, I think the confusing nature of the article stems for the author not being careful to separate the original trial from the current contempt of court proceedings. It's indeed a little silly / funny, although logical, that Google insists Oracle continues to redact things when it's now common knowledge. But the overall proceedings are certainly not silly or frivolous.
  - jdoliner 10y ago
    That would make sense but I don't think it's true based on the last paragraph: > Whatever the case, Google is probably right that sealing the transcript faster would have stopped the news story from ever breaking. But the cat’s out of the bag now, and Google’s private information is out there for everyone to see, on Google. Maybe it should try using the right to be forgotten? The other seems to fully understand that the statements in court led to the information being publicly available but somehow doesn't understand why that would lead to google's reaction. Truly bizarre.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
1024core 10y ago
> Oracle attorney Melinda Haag God I hate that woman. When she was a US Attorney for SF, she went around and threatened to seize buildings where medical cannabis dispensaries were located, in full compliance of the local laws. Because she couldn't do any thing to the dispensary directly, she threatened their landlords. This was after Obama had said that DoJ would not interfere with dispensaries which were operating within the state laws.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  Do you think it was her decision to do that? Or was she directed to by her boss?
  - akiselev 10y ago
    She was the boss in the Northern District of California. US Attorneys are like District Attorneys except they work for the federal, not state, government. The only people with any authority over these attorneys (there are only 93, one for each district except Guam) are the POTUS and Attorney General.
  - facetube 10y ago
    In either case it was ultimately her decision. Following orders is not an excuse for unethical behavior.
    - tamana 10y ago
      You mean, "refusing POTUS's orders to undermine the law of the USA, is unethical?"
nkurz 10y ago
As background, this opinion piece by the lawyer in question may be useful in understanding the mindset of the players. Hurst argues that because API's are not copyrightable, the GPL is dead and Oracle's valiant attempts to defend free software have been foiled: The Death of "Free" Software . . . or How Google Killed GPL by Annette Hurst (@divaesq) The developer community may be celebrating today what it perceives as a victory in Oracle v. Google. Google won a verdict that an unauthorized, commercial, competitive, harmful use of software in billions of products is fair use. No copyright expert would have ever predicted such a use would be considered fair. Before celebrating, developers should take a closer look. Not only will creators everywhere suffer from this decision if it remains intact, but the free software movement itself now faces substantial jeopardy. ... https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-free-software-how-google-killed-gpl-annette-hurst https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-free-software-how-googl... This wasn't an accidental "slip" by a poorly trained intern. This was a conscious disclosure made by one of Oracle's lead attorneys. She is one of the top IP lawyers in the nation: https://www.orrick.com/People/2/6/2/Annette-Hurst https://www.orrick.com/People/2/6/2/Annette-Hurst. It is in keeping with the "scorched earth" strategy that has been followed for this case. She knew what she was doing, and she (and her firm) should pay the consequences. If there are no consequences, it will legitimize and reward this strategy.
- macmac 10y ago
  If she really believes the analysis in that piece she is downright incompetent as an IP lawyer. In fact many "copyright experts" predicted the outcome. And it does nothing to threaten copyright in software. All it does is allow for reimplementation of the API.
  - nkurz 10y ago
    If she really believes the analysis in that piece she is downright incompetent as an IP lawyer. No. Regardless of what she actually believes, she is one of the most highly accomplished and sought after IP lawyers in the nation, and a partner and a director at one of the top IP firms in the nations. She may be wrong, she may be even be evil, but she is not incompetent. It is more likely that you and she have different goals. If your logic leads you to conclude that she is incompetent, your logic is simply wrong.
yongjik 10y ago
Off-topic, but I find it strange that money in the order of $1B can change hands between two mega-corporations without anyone outside having an inkling, while I could find websites saying exactly how much a low-level government worker earns in a social services center in my county. (Spoiler: much less than I used to earn as developer.) Shouldn't the structure of accountability be in the other direction?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- twinkletwinkle 10y ago
  They are publicly-owned companies too. That's surprising to me as well.
  - jhall1468 10y ago
    Public doesn't mean unlimited access. They aggregate information in their reports because knowing specific transactions means competitors would know far too much about those transactions.
- woah 10y ago
  I think the reason is that you are forced to pay the government worker's wages
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    We all pay Googlers' wages in all the extra taxes we have to pay because Google evades paying theirs.
    - justratsinacoat 10y ago
      And if that proposition rankles, we all pay Googlers' wages via "voluntarily"[0] using Google services and all that entails (ads, behaviour profiles, etc). [0] I say voluntarily here, because of course it is voluntary; put down the phone or whatever. Yet, it's difficult to imagine the average HN user successfully opting-out of making Google money by using the internet (if only because the average HN user wouldn't actually care about most vectors for it). It's basically impossible for the average user to do this. The reason it's so hard to avoid making Google money while you use the Internet isn't because of nefarious schemes, it's because Google kicks ass at what it does -- providing free services that are so good that most people use them, and matching eyeballs to ads using harvested info of said "most people". Regardless, when you're this big, you start to accrue responsibility (to, say, not be evil). Not that the capstone to this ranty footnote is "Google should be as transparent as government salaries", merely that that idea isn't actually too crazy when you consider the power Google wields over society via the Internet. Of course, the inconvenient reality of Google's position as a publicly traded company casts a huge shadow over any highfalutin prospect of serious responsibility to society, but a man can dream of a more reasonable system.
balabaster 10y ago
Having read this article it reminds me somewhat of tactics in movies where lawyers deliberately ask an inflammatory question in front of a jury purely for the purpose of planting a seed, and before anyone can yell objection they immediately retract knowing that the damage has been done. The judge may strike it from the record, the judge may tell the jury to disregard it, but you can't unthink or unhear something that's been said. The bell has already been rung. I don't (or can't, I'm unsure) believe that lawyers of this caliber make mistakes like this. So what was her play by doing this? Did it pay off?
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  I suspect (but do not know) that this is information that Google doesn't want out there. It costs them an information edge in negotiations that may cost them hundreds of millions of dollars (again, my guess). So it may be very painful for Google to have this information out. Oracle may have done this deliberately just to make the lawsuit more painful to Google. The unspoken message is "Don't you want this to just go away? You could settle with us. If you don't, we can continue to make it hurt."
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > The unspoken message is "Don't you want this to just go away? You could settle with us. If you don't, we can continue to make it hurt." To continue down this Machiavellian rabbit-hole; this then is Google saying to all lawyers who might agree to cooperate with Oracle in similarly murky shenanigans in the future "We will come after you"
    - chris_wot 10y ago
      Reminds me of Australian Federal Parliament. The previous Prime Minister obstructed the government of the day when he was an opposition leader by stopping "pairs" - where if one member of parliament could not be present the opposition agrees to have a member abstain from voting. He did that in a hung parliament, now they are in government the Labor party are doing the same hardball tactics. It's making the government's life hell.
bitmapbrother 10y ago
Regardless of the outcome her career in litigating high profile cases is pretty much over. You simply do not utter highly confidential company information accidentally. It was intentional and it was done to paint a picture to the jury about how much money Google was making from Android and what it was paying Apple.
- euyyn 10y ago
  But you'd think her client would be happy about it, no? How would that end her career (even though it maybe should)?
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    In future discoveries involving her firm, this event will be raised by the opposing parties - hell, Judge Aslup said he hopes that happens. I'm sure others will outright refuse to divulge confidential information to her firm and get away with it too. It probably won't end her career, but it will cost her and her firm a lot of business.
  - bitmapbrother 10y ago
    Yeah, I'm sure the client was happy to have the world learn about how much Android actually makes for Google and what Google paid Apple. Unfortunately, it came at the cost of her ever litigating a high profile case again. People who "accidentally" leak confidential corporate information about their competitor usually don't get a second chance. She's a seasoned IP lawyer so this wasn't accidental. It was premeditated and what's worse is that she's still refusing to accept responsibility for it. This is reckless behavior and someone you don't want litigating your case.
edgesrazor 10y ago
Off topic: I may be old and cranky, but I simply can't stand articles with animated gifs - it just seems ridiculously unprofessional.
- cheeze 10y ago
  I'm with you 100%. When I see an animated gif, it likens the article to clickbait or those 'my reaction when' pages. I'm here to read news, not watch funny images that appeal to to the lowest common denominator.
- kkoomi 10y ago
  Absolutely right. Bikers have flashing lights on at night because it's one of the strongest attention-grabbing effects on humans, in addition to motion. This animated GIF has elements of both. If you were an author, you wouldn't include an automatic strobe light strip on each page of your book would you? Again, a lack of empathy for the reader is the problem here.
swehner 10y ago
Why now? The blurting happened in January.
AceJohnny2 10y ago
If a lawsuit of this scale can be considered the corporate equivalent of war, contempt of court is equivalent to being declared a war criminal.
wfunction 10y ago
As someone who knows zilch about business, I don't quite understand why people knowing these numbers is so devastating. What will another company do with these two numbers that it otherwise wouldn't do?
- akiselev 10y ago
  Now everyone knows just how valuable Android is for Google so they can hold them over a barrel for more money, such as when Google is negotiating a patent licensing agreement for some critical patent in the Android ecosystem. If no one knows what the number is, you can at least play it down and get a better deal. Now there's no chance.
aboonaboo 10y ago
The Oracle bias is strong in this article
joering2 10y ago
"... or Robin Thicke being forced to plunge his own toilet." Can someone explain me this one??
c3534l 10y ago
How can a public corporation keep those two numbers secret? Those are basic cost and revenue numbers that should be disclosed in their annual financial statements. The fact that it's legal to keep those numbers secret means there's something very wrong with how we do financial disclosure in America.
nilinte 10y ago
Is it out of the box dude!!
b1daly 10y ago
Slightly off topic, but I've always had a hard wrapping my head around the stance the somehow an API is distinct from code. I understand that it's an abstraction in programming, and that industry practice has been that it's acceptable to take an existing API that you didn't create and write a new implementation. But since the API is "implemented" in code, it seems like for the purpose of copyright consideration that the distinction is simply one of custom. It's a programming abstraction, to create your own "implementation" of the API you still have to use code that is identical to original. Alsop's original, overturned, ruling was that as a matter of law API's couldn't be copyrighted because they express an idea that can only be expressed exactly that way, and traditionally this would not be allowed (can't copyright an idea). As I understood it, his concept implied that to get IP protection over an API would require something more like patent protection. (I might be totally wrong on this).
- j1vms 10y ago
  > It's a programming abstraction, to create your own "implementation" of the API you still have to use code that is identical to original. Not if you think of it like this really rough analogy: if the software product is a closed box, the API is the different configuration of holes cut in the box, and the code is whatever is inside the box. So you can imagine that boxes, despite being cut with identical holes, could hold different things within. Going a bit deeper would be to consider that software with identical API, and different implementations may have different run-time characteristics between them. That is, the same API call in one implementation may take twice as long to execute than in another implementation. Further, depending on how explicit/rigid the API spec is, a call in one implementation could have some "out-of-band" behavior (e.g. affect another software system unbeknownst to the calling routine; or every API call may be logged in one implementation, but not logged in another).
dream-on 10y ago
Comparing how much Google paid Apple to make Google the default search engine on the iPhone to the the most valuable trade secret in the world - the recipe for Coca-Cola - is a peculiar comparison. Does he think no one knows that a search engine company pays other companies to be the default? Is that the trade secret? Or is it the amounts paid? Is the amount paid for something now comparable to a trade secret? His comment seems ill-thought. It's as if he just "blurted it out".

395 points by ivank 10y ago

While this is a good story, the headline misses by far the point that the body makes - the only reason this is an open secret is because an Oracle lawyer revealed it in public. A better title might be: "Google is trying to get Oracle in trouble for revealing confidential figures"

theDoug 10y ago
Right? Something can be a so-called "open secret" but where it is brought up and how it is intended to be used is what is at question here. And arguing for the "heat of argument," is a weird position to take, but I'm sure no lawyer and definitely no Oracle lawyer.
notyourwork 10y ago
That article was simply hard to read. I kept asking if this was a story or a news article.
- juliand 10y ago
  Especially with that animated gif above the fold. I had to scroll to a point where the animation was completely hidden to be able to read comfortably.
cwillu 10y ago
No kidding: "Unfortunately for Google, those two numbers can be readily found via a website known as Google dot com:" ...followed by two screenshots of searchs for the numbers, both of which only show results with snippets like "according to a transcript of court proceedings from Oracle Corp.'s copyright lawsuit against Google.", "....said in court while disclosing figures Google says shouldn't have been made public", and "Thanks to a lawyer, we know now that Google has made..."

segmondy 10y ago

Oracle should pay, they knew exactly what they were doing. If it was them, they would be suing too. Live by the sword die by the sword.

helthanatos 10y ago
Oracle would probably sue if Google said something about buying Sun... >“She just blurted out the two numbers that mattered. She just blurted it out,” said Judge Alsup. “If she had had the recipe for Coca-Cola she could have blurted it out in this court right now.” Knowing revenue isn't exactly the same as knowing a formula. It's odd that Google cares so much.
- sjellis 10y ago
  I don't think that they care about that so much as making the point that nobody else should think about copying Oracle's tactics. The attorneys for Oracle were remarkably unscrupulous in the way that they conducted their case, IMO, and this is part of the payback, from the judge as well as Google's lawyers.
- twblalock 10y ago
  Google cares because they didn't want the info made public. The judge cares, and everyone else should care, because revealing confidential information in court should never be tolerated, no matter how trivial that information might seem. If people get away with it, it undermines that principle and makes it more likely to happen in the future.
- helthanatos 10y ago
  Interesting. 5 downvotes and 2 comments... Why only 2 comments
sharemywin 10y ago
I don't think Oracle is required to pay it's their lawyers.
- 10y ago

grellas 10y ago

It is huge that a lawyer would disclose in a public setting such important confidential numbers. I even have trouble seeing how something like that could be "accidental". It is basically a force of habit among experienced litigators to think and to say, in any number of contexts, "I know this may be relevant but I can't discuss it because it is the subject of a protective order" or "I know the attorneys know this information but it was disclosed under the protective order as being marked for 'attorneys' eyes only'". In all my years of litigating, I don't believe I have ever heard a casual slip on such information, even in otherwise private contexts (e.g., attorneys are discussing with their own client what an adverse party disclosed and are very careful not to disclose something marked for "attorneys' eyes only"). Certainly willful disclosures of this type can even get you disbarred. But the significance of this breach is not the only thing that caught my eye. These litigants have been entrenched in scorched-earth litigation for years now in which the working M.O. for both sides is to concede nothing and make everything the subject of endless dispute. Big firm litigators will often do this. It is a great way to rack up bills. Clients in these contexts do not oppose it and very often demand it. And so a lot of wasteful lawyering happens just because everyone understands that this is an all-out war. To me, then, it seems that the big problem here (in addition to the improper disclosures of highly important confidential information in a public court hearing) was the resistance by the lawyers who did this to simply acknowledging that a big problem existed that required them to stipulate to getting the transcript sealed immediately. Had they done so, it seems the information would never have made the headlines. Instead (and I am sure because it had become the pattern in the case), they could not reach this simple agreement with the other lawyers to deal with the problem but had to find grounds to resist and fight over it. I know that we as outside observers have limited information upon which to make an assessment here and so the only thing we can truly say from our perspective is "who knows". Yet, if the surface facts reflect the reality, then it is scarcely believable that the lawyers could have so lost perspective as to take this issue to the mat, resulting in such damage to a party. Assuming the facts are as they appear on the surface, this would be very serious misconduct and I can see why Judge Alsup is really mad that it happened.

Natsu 10y ago
Suppose, for a moment, the judge believes that there's at least an open question as to whether the revelations were willful. Can the later conduct, in which they acted in such a way as to double down on the mistake, be used to support a finding that the conduct was willful?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

If anything, my only sadness is that more of Google's dirty laundry wasn't aired. This illusion that Google search is winning because people prefer it and that Google doesn't make money on Android are both claims I'm happy to see debunked. Google's anti-monopoly claims fundamentally hinge on concepts like these. And if a lawyer did break the law by doing it, I say she belongs on the same high pedestal people put Snowden on.

Natsu 10y ago
There's a big difference between revealing the details of illegal actions, which Snowden did, and revealing your opponent's private financial dealings which are not illegal. Would you also support this if someone posted the routing information at the bottom of your personal checks? I mean, it's an "open secret" that's on every check. So no harm can come from the world at large knowing it.... right?
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  Google's actions are illegal though. It's not a government coverup, but Google is using misinformation as 'proof' they aren't guilty. It's also noteworthy that this court case first revealed to the public the Android MADA agreement, a secret contract which has been at the center of a large number of antitrust suits around the globe. Had it not been revealed, it's unlikely many government entities would've started to look into it.
  - Natsu 10y ago
    Oracle is able to disclose this to the court, just not to the world at large. So if what you say is true, the court (including appeals) is the proper place to raise that argument.
  - jhall1468 10y ago
    > Google's actions are illegal though. Have anything besides anecdotal evidence of that? Paying a company to use your search isn't anti-competitive. Google has competitors that can make the same (or better) offers. Google didn't prevent that behavior (in the way Microsoft did with Windows) because they can't... there are already alternatives. Google is a monopoly, but it's not anti-competitive without actual evidence. And your personal opinion doesn't qualify.

suyash 10y ago

Google is being plain old Evil.

skj 10y ago
I see the definition of "evil" has really slipped as late.

JadeNB 10y ago

The judge tried to reveal the depth of this revelation by comparing it to that of the most secret thing he could imagine: > If she had had the recipe for Coca-Cola she could have blurted it out in this court right now. (Seriously!) EDIT: I wasn't trying to be snarky or silly, just pointing out an aspect of the story that struck me as funny. Serious request: if that is inappropriate, please let me know rather than just silently downvoting. In that case, I apologise and will delete the post.

UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
What's wrong with that analogy? Coca Cola's exact formula is proprietary information, so saying it in court could cause damages (e.g. other manufacturers could make a perfect clone and undercut Coca Cola). There's even an article on Coca Cola's supposed secret formula[0] which further validates the analogy by making it an archetype for proprietary information. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_formula
- JadeNB 10y ago
  Nothing's wrong with it as an analogy; I would have found "this is like blurting out Coca-Cola's secret formula!" extremely apt, not least for the reason that you mention. However, the judge's wording > If she had had the recipe for Coca-Cola she could have blurted it out in this court right now. seemed less like a comparison than a description of the dire consequences of this sort of behaviour, and it struck me as funny: surely anyone who's unconvinced of the seriousness of blurting out one business's proprierary information won't be convinced about the seriousness of blurting out another's?
  - johncolanduoni 10y ago
    I took it as him stressing the fact that though these numbers weren't likely to completely destroy Google's business models, if this was truly a "heat of the argument" thing (i.e. not calculated) that suggests she'd be likely to do the same with even more sensitive information that might.

nikic 10y ago

This article reads very weirdly to me. Are they arguing that disclosing confidential information, and subsequently opposing steps to contain the disclosed information, is perfectly fine because ... it can be found on the internet, precisely because of this disclosure? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

arcticfox 10y ago
I think the author of the article didn't realize that all of those references were generated from the very subject of the article. Very strange, I agree. It's an open secret now but it wasn't when the events happened, which is why there's a fight.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  I think they did realize it, because they mention in the article itself that was the source of the information.... I think it is more likely the headline creator didn't realize it.
  - arcticfox 10y ago
    On further review, I think the confusing nature of the article stems for the author not being careful to separate the original trial from the current contempt of court proceedings. It's indeed a little silly / funny, although logical, that Google insists Oracle continues to redact things when it's now common knowledge. But the overall proceedings are certainly not silly or frivolous.
- jdoliner 10y ago
  That would make sense but I don't think it's true based on the last paragraph: > Whatever the case, Google is probably right that sealing the transcript faster would have stopped the news story from ever breaking. But the cat’s out of the bag now, and Google’s private information is out there for everyone to see, on Google. Maybe it should try using the right to be forgotten? The other seems to fully understand that the statements in court led to the information being publicly available but somehow doesn't understand why that would lead to google's reaction. Truly bizarre.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

1024core 10y ago

> Oracle attorney Melinda Haag God I hate that woman. When she was a US Attorney for SF, she went around and threatened to seize buildings where medical cannabis dispensaries were located, in full compliance of the local laws. Because she couldn't do any thing to the dispensary directly, she threatened their landlords. This was after Obama had said that DoJ would not interfere with dispensaries which were operating within the state laws.

cortesoft 10y ago
Do you think it was her decision to do that? Or was she directed to by her boss?
- akiselev 10y ago
  She was the boss in the Northern District of California. US Attorneys are like District Attorneys except they work for the federal, not state, government. The only people with any authority over these attorneys (there are only 93, one for each district except Guam) are the POTUS and Attorney General.
- facetube 10y ago
  In either case it was ultimately her decision. Following orders is not an excuse for unethical behavior.
  - tamana 10y ago
    You mean, "refusing POTUS's orders to undermine the law of the USA, is unethical?"

nkurz 10y ago

As background, this opinion piece by the lawyer in question may be useful in understanding the mindset of the players. Hurst argues that because API's are not copyrightable, the GPL is dead and Oracle's valiant attempts to defend free software have been foiled: The Death of "Free" Software . . . or How Google Killed GPL by Annette Hurst (@divaesq) The developer community may be celebrating today what it perceives as a victory in Oracle v. Google. Google won a verdict that an unauthorized, commercial, competitive, harmful use of software in billions of products is fair use. No copyright expert would have ever predicted such a use would be considered fair. Before celebrating, developers should take a closer look. Not only will creators everywhere suffer from this decision if it remains intact, but the free software movement itself now faces substantial jeopardy. ... https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-free-software-how-google-killed-gpl-annette-hurst https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-free-software-how-googl... This wasn't an accidental "slip" by a poorly trained intern. This was a conscious disclosure made by one of Oracle's lead attorneys. She is one of the top IP lawyers in the nation: https://www.orrick.com/People/2/6/2/Annette-Hurst https://www.orrick.com/People/2/6/2/Annette-Hurst. It is in keeping with the "scorched earth" strategy that has been followed for this case. She knew what she was doing, and she (and her firm) should pay the consequences. If there are no consequences, it will legitimize and reward this strategy.

macmac 10y ago
If she really believes the analysis in that piece she is downright incompetent as an IP lawyer. In fact many "copyright experts" predicted the outcome. And it does nothing to threaten copyright in software. All it does is allow for reimplementation of the API.
- nkurz 10y ago
  If she really believes the analysis in that piece she is downright incompetent as an IP lawyer. No. Regardless of what she actually believes, she is one of the most highly accomplished and sought after IP lawyers in the nation, and a partner and a director at one of the top IP firms in the nations. She may be wrong, she may be even be evil, but she is not incompetent. It is more likely that you and she have different goals. If your logic leads you to conclude that she is incompetent, your logic is simply wrong.

yongjik 10y ago

Off-topic, but I find it strange that money in the order of $1B can change hands between two mega-corporations without anyone outside having an inkling, while I could find websites saying exactly how much a low-level government worker earns in a social services center in my county. (Spoiler: much less than I used to earn as developer.) Shouldn't the structure of accountability be in the other direction?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
twinkletwinkle 10y ago
They are publicly-owned companies too. That's surprising to me as well.
- jhall1468 10y ago
  Public doesn't mean unlimited access. They aggregate information in their reports because knowing specific transactions means competitors would know far too much about those transactions.
woah 10y ago
I think the reason is that you are forced to pay the government worker's wages
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  We all pay Googlers' wages in all the extra taxes we have to pay because Google evades paying theirs.
  - justratsinacoat 10y ago
    And if that proposition rankles, we all pay Googlers' wages via "voluntarily"[0] using Google services and all that entails (ads, behaviour profiles, etc). [0] I say voluntarily here, because of course it is voluntary; put down the phone or whatever. Yet, it's difficult to imagine the average HN user successfully opting-out of making Google money by using the internet (if only because the average HN user wouldn't actually care about most vectors for it). It's basically impossible for the average user to do this. The reason it's so hard to avoid making Google money while you use the Internet isn't because of nefarious schemes, it's because Google kicks ass at what it does -- providing free services that are so good that most people use them, and matching eyeballs to ads using harvested info of said "most people". Regardless, when you're this big, you start to accrue responsibility (to, say, not be evil). Not that the capstone to this ranty footnote is "Google should be as transparent as government salaries", merely that that idea isn't actually too crazy when you consider the power Google wields over society via the Internet. Of course, the inconvenient reality of Google's position as a publicly traded company casts a huge shadow over any highfalutin prospect of serious responsibility to society, but a man can dream of a more reasonable system.

balabaster 10y ago

Having read this article it reminds me somewhat of tactics in movies where lawyers deliberately ask an inflammatory question in front of a jury purely for the purpose of planting a seed, and before anyone can yell objection they immediately retract knowing that the damage has been done. The judge may strike it from the record, the judge may tell the jury to disregard it, but you can't unthink or unhear something that's been said. The bell has already been rung. I don't (or can't, I'm unsure) believe that lawyers of this caliber make mistakes like this. So what was her play by doing this? Did it pay off?

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
I suspect (but do not know) that this is information that Google doesn't want out there. It costs them an information edge in negotiations that may cost them hundreds of millions of dollars (again, my guess). So it may be very painful for Google to have this information out. Oracle may have done this deliberately just to make the lawsuit more painful to Google. The unspoken message is "Don't you want this to just go away? You could settle with us. If you don't, we can continue to make it hurt."
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > The unspoken message is "Don't you want this to just go away? You could settle with us. If you don't, we can continue to make it hurt." To continue down this Machiavellian rabbit-hole; this then is Google saying to all lawyers who might agree to cooperate with Oracle in similarly murky shenanigans in the future "We will come after you"
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    Reminds me of Australian Federal Parliament. The previous Prime Minister obstructed the government of the day when he was an opposition leader by stopping "pairs" - where if one member of parliament could not be present the opposition agrees to have a member abstain from voting. He did that in a hung parliament, now they are in government the Labor party are doing the same hardball tactics. It's making the government's life hell.

bitmapbrother 10y ago

Regardless of the outcome her career in litigating high profile cases is pretty much over. You simply do not utter highly confidential company information accidentally. It was intentional and it was done to paint a picture to the jury about how much money Google was making from Android and what it was paying Apple.

euyyn 10y ago
But you'd think her client would be happy about it, no? How would that end her career (even though it maybe should)?
- sangnoir 10y ago
  In future discoveries involving her firm, this event will be raised by the opposing parties - hell, Judge Aslup said he hopes that happens. I'm sure others will outright refuse to divulge confidential information to her firm and get away with it too. It probably won't end her career, but it will cost her and her firm a lot of business.
- bitmapbrother 10y ago
  Yeah, I'm sure the client was happy to have the world learn about how much Android actually makes for Google and what Google paid Apple. Unfortunately, it came at the cost of her ever litigating a high profile case again. People who "accidentally" leak confidential corporate information about their competitor usually don't get a second chance. She's a seasoned IP lawyer so this wasn't accidental. It was premeditated and what's worse is that she's still refusing to accept responsibility for it. This is reckless behavior and someone you don't want litigating your case.

edgesrazor 10y ago

Off topic: I may be old and cranky, but I simply can't stand articles with animated gifs - it just seems ridiculously unprofessional.

cheeze 10y ago
I'm with you 100%. When I see an animated gif, it likens the article to clickbait or those 'my reaction when' pages. I'm here to read news, not watch funny images that appeal to to the lowest common denominator.
kkoomi 10y ago
Absolutely right. Bikers have flashing lights on at night because it's one of the strongest attention-grabbing effects on humans, in addition to motion. This animated GIF has elements of both. If you were an author, you wouldn't include an automatic strobe light strip on each page of your book would you? Again, a lack of empathy for the reader is the problem here.

swehner 10y ago

Why now? The blurting happened in January.

AceJohnny2 10y ago

If a lawsuit of this scale can be considered the corporate equivalent of war, contempt of court is equivalent to being declared a war criminal.

wfunction 10y ago

As someone who knows zilch about business, I don't quite understand why people knowing these numbers is so devastating. What will another company do with these two numbers that it otherwise wouldn't do?

akiselev 10y ago
Now everyone knows just how valuable Android is for Google so they can hold them over a barrel for more money, such as when Google is negotiating a patent licensing agreement for some critical patent in the Android ecosystem. If no one knows what the number is, you can at least play it down and get a better deal. Now there's no chance.

aboonaboo 10y ago

The Oracle bias is strong in this article

joering2 10y ago

"... or Robin Thicke being forced to plunge his own toilet." Can someone explain me this one??

c3534l 10y ago

How can a public corporation keep those two numbers secret? Those are basic cost and revenue numbers that should be disclosed in their annual financial statements. The fact that it's legal to keep those numbers secret means there's something very wrong with how we do financial disclosure in America.

nilinte 10y ago

Is it out of the box dude!!

b1daly 10y ago

Slightly off topic, but I've always had a hard wrapping my head around the stance the somehow an API is distinct from code. I understand that it's an abstraction in programming, and that industry practice has been that it's acceptable to take an existing API that you didn't create and write a new implementation. But since the API is "implemented" in code, it seems like for the purpose of copyright consideration that the distinction is simply one of custom. It's a programming abstraction, to create your own "implementation" of the API you still have to use code that is identical to original. Alsop's original, overturned, ruling was that as a matter of law API's couldn't be copyrighted because they express an idea that can only be expressed exactly that way, and traditionally this would not be allowed (can't copyright an idea). As I understood it, his concept implied that to get IP protection over an API would require something more like patent protection. (I might be totally wrong on this).

j1vms 10y ago
> It's a programming abstraction, to create your own "implementation" of the API you still have to use code that is identical to original. Not if you think of it like this really rough analogy: if the software product is a closed box, the API is the different configuration of holes cut in the box, and the code is whatever is inside the box. So you can imagine that boxes, despite being cut with identical holes, could hold different things within. Going a bit deeper would be to consider that software with identical API, and different implementations may have different run-time characteristics between them. That is, the same API call in one implementation may take twice as long to execute than in another implementation. Further, depending on how explicit/rigid the API spec is, a call in one implementation could have some "out-of-band" behavior (e.g. affect another software system unbeknownst to the calling routine; or every API call may be logged in one implementation, but not logged in another).

dream-on 10y ago

Comparing how much Google paid Apple to make Google the default search engine on the iPhone to the the most valuable trade secret in the world - the recipe for Coca-Cola - is a peculiar comparison. Does he think no one knows that a search engine company pays other companies to be the default? Is that the trade secret? Or is it the amounts paid? Is the amount paid for something now comparable to a trade secret? His comment seems ill-thought. It's as if he just "blurted it out".