Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
7Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Google v Oracle Disclosure Order

Google v Oracle Disclosure Order

Ratings: (0)|Views: 42,064 |Likes:
Published by WiredEnterprise
Judge Alsup's Aug 20 order in Oracle v. Google telling Google to try again at naming paid commenters
Judge Alsup's Aug 20 order in Oracle v. Google telling Google to try again at naming paid commenters

More info:

Published by: WiredEnterprise on Aug 20, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAORACLE AMERICA, INC.,Plaintiff,v.GOOGLE INC.,Defendant./No. C 10-03561 WHA
ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT
The August 7 order was not limited to authors “paid . . . to report or comment” or to“quid pro quo” situations. Rather, the order was designed to bring to light authors whosestatements about the issues in the case might have been influenced by the receipt of money fromGoogle or Oracle. For example, Oracle has disclosed that it retained a blogger as a consultant.Even though the payment was for consulting work, the payment might have influenced theblogger’s reports on issues in the civil action. Just as a treatise on the law may influence thecourts, public commentary that purports to be independent may have an influence on the courtsand/or their staff if only in subtle ways. If a treatise author or blogger is paid by a litigant,should not that relationship be known?In the Court’s view, Google has failed to comply with the August 7 order. Google isdirected to do so by
F
RIDAY
 
A
UGUST
24
AT
N
OON
with the following clarifications. Paymentsdo not include advertising revenue received by commenters. Nor does it include expertsdisclosed under Rule 26. Google suggests that it has paid so many commenters that it will be
!ase3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1238 Filed08/20/12 Page1 of 2

Activity (7)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->