3 ms·

Google Tells ITC Judge: Microsoft Revealed Our Secret Source Code

20 points by joelhaus 15y ago

jdp23 15y ago
Hmm, it seems to be more about objecting to the specific expert witness they're using: "In April, Microsoft sent Google a subpoena asking for a variety of information, including confidential source code.... In its motion for sanctions, Google says it should have had a chance to review the credentials of the expert in question, Dr. Robert Stevenson, and it should have had a chance to object. The motion notes that Stevenson has done consulting work for Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ), “both direct competitors of Google.” Now Google wants the ITC judge overseeing the Microsoft v. Motorola case to stop Stevenson from testifying."
- kenjackson 15y ago
  The real issue is that Google has the right to review the experts that look at Google confidential code. MS is supposed to disclose these efforts to Google. MS disclosed this expert to Motorola, but not to Google, hence the problem. From what I can tell Google has a good case on this, but it's far less controversial than the title would lead one to believe. MS will probably have to get a new expert and light smack on the hand for not following protocol. These types of things happen all the time in court cases.
CurtHagenlocher 15y ago
I believe in situations like this that it's customary to give the code to be evaluated to an outside expert in order to protect both parties from the risk of theft of intellectual property. Is Google's main objection that they would have wanted to approve of the expert witness first? That seems unusual. (Disclaimer 1: IANAL) (Disclaimer 2: I work for Microsoft, but I know nothing about this matter.)
tzs 15y ago
Wait...Google objects to the outside expert Microsoft hired to look at the source code because he's worked for Microsoft before on legal cases? Surely Google doesn't expect that every time a company needs an outside expert to look at source code (which they have to hire an outside expert for because they are not allowed to see it themselves) they need to find a new expert?
- wtallis 15y ago
  If the outside expert is supposed to be an outside expert, then there needs to be a way for Google to object to the expert on the grounds that they're not really that independent.

20 points by joelhaus 15y ago

jdp23 15y ago

Hmm, it seems to be more about objecting to the specific expert witness they're using: "In April, Microsoft sent Google a subpoena asking for a variety of information, including confidential source code.... In its motion for sanctions, Google says it should have had a chance to review the credentials of the expert in question, Dr. Robert Stevenson, and it should have had a chance to object. The motion notes that Stevenson has done consulting work for Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ), “both direct competitors of Google.” Now Google wants the ITC judge overseeing the Microsoft v. Motorola case to stop Stevenson from testifying."

kenjackson 15y ago
The real issue is that Google has the right to review the experts that look at Google confidential code. MS is supposed to disclose these efforts to Google. MS disclosed this expert to Motorola, but not to Google, hence the problem. From what I can tell Google has a good case on this, but it's far less controversial than the title would lead one to believe. MS will probably have to get a new expert and light smack on the hand for not following protocol. These types of things happen all the time in court cases.

CurtHagenlocher 15y ago

I believe in situations like this that it's customary to give the code to be evaluated to an outside expert in order to protect both parties from the risk of theft of intellectual property. Is Google's main objection that they would have wanted to approve of the expert witness first? That seems unusual. (Disclaimer 1: IANAL) (Disclaimer 2: I work for Microsoft, but I know nothing about this matter.)

tzs 15y ago

Wait...Google objects to the outside expert Microsoft hired to look at the source code because he's worked for Microsoft before on legal cases? Surely Google doesn't expect that every time a company needs an outside expert to look at source code (which they have to hire an outside expert for because they are not allowed to see it themselves) they need to find a new expert?

wtallis 15y ago
If the outside expert is supposed to be an outside expert, then there needs to be a way for Google to object to the expert on the grounds that they're not really that independent.