> We were immediately told that we could not discuss an ongoing court case in the AMP advisory committee. That’s fair enough. But will it go both ways? Or will

> We were immediately told that we could not discuss an ongoing court case in the AMP advisory committee. That’s fair enough. But will it go both ways? Or will lawyers acting on Google’s behalf be allowed to point to the AMP advisory committee and say, “But AMP is an open source project! Look, it even resides under the banner of the OpenJS Foundation.” Google's lawyers will most likely do something like that, though . But there's nothing stopping you from contacting the prosecution and offering testimony against the claim that AMP is open source. Unless the AMP advisory committee is somehow considered a party in the lawsuit? Though even then, depending on how the committee works, I don't think they could ban you from communicating with the prosecution. Actually I'd expect members of the advisory committee to be deposed. The prosecution explicitly mentions the AMP committee in their suit: "Although Google claims that AMP was developed as an open-source collaboration, AMP is actually a Google-controlled initiative. Google originally registered and still owns AMP’s domain, ampproject.org. In addition, until the end of 2018, Google controlled all AMP decision- making. AMP relied on a governance model called “Benevolent Dictator For Life” that vested ultimate decision-making authority in a single Google engineer. Since then, Google has transferred control of AMP to a foundation, but the transfer was superficial. Google controls the foundation’s board and debates internally" . Both Google and the prosecution will likely depose members of the committee to get testimony regarding those facts.