He disclosed his relationship with Oracle four months before the judge asked both companies to "name their shills" [1,2]. It was a highly unusual and controvers

He disclosed his relationship with Oracle four months before the judge asked both companies to "name their shills" [1,2]. It was a highly unusual and controversial order [3], so it's not like Mueller, or indeed anybody, could have predicted this and "come clean" in advance. Also note that Oracle had that one name on its list. Google had a much longer list. Further, I think the judge erred by not requiring both sides to disclose relevant PR ties, because really, it's the PR companies that oversee the shilling [4, 5] 1. http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/oracle-v-google-trial-evidence-of.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/oracle-v-google-trial-evi... 2. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/name-your-shills-judge-orders-oracle-google/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/name-your-shills-... 3. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/with-anti-shill-order-googleoracle-judge-enters-uncharted-territory/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/with-anti-shill-o... 4. http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html 5. http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Facebook-busted-for-anti-Google-smear-campaign-1376903.php http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Facebook-busted-fo...