Google Vs Oracle: Who Paid Bloggers?
August 20, 2012

After Trial Concludes, Google And Oracle Still Fighting

John Neumann for - Your Universe Online

Despite both Google and Oracle saying last Friday that they have not paid any journalists or bloggers to write about or comment online about the recently concluded high-profile copyright infringement battle, the companies disagreed on what arrangements, that apparently did not occur, should be disclosed.

The lawsuit, originally filed by Oracle, claimed that Google violated Oracle´s patents regarding the use of Java within Google´s Android operating system, writes David Murphy for PC Mag.

Oracle lost its major claims in the patent portion of the trial, and elected to ask for $0 in statutory damages for Google´s confirmed use of nine lines of Oracle´s Java code in the copyright portion of the trial.

Presiding Judge William Alsup asked both companies to disclose if they “retained or paid print or internet authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have and/or may publish comments on the issues” in the case, reports Martyn Williams IDG News. Both companies had until noon Friday to make their submissions, and they appear to have been filed shortly before the deadline.

Google disclosed a total of zero relationships. “Neither Google nor its counsel has paid an author, journalist, commentator or blogger to report or comment on any issues in this case,” Google said in its statement to the court. "Neither Google nor its counsel has been involved in any quid pro quo in exchange for coverage or articles about the issues in this case.”

Oracle disclosed Florian Mueller, author of the FOSS Patents blog, as “a consultant on competition related matters, especially relating to standards-essential patents,” and noted he disclosed the arrangement in a blog posting on April 18.

Oracle also said that some staff members had blogged about the case on its website, but Oracle did not seek to approve any postings in advance.

Oracle then took aim at Google in its court statement, “In contrast, Oracle notes that Google maintains a network of direct and indirect ℠influencers´ to advance Google´s intellectual property agenda.”

“This network is extensive, including attorneys, lobbyists, trade associations, academics, and bloggers, and its focus extends beyond pure intellectual property issues to competition/antitrust issues.”

“Oracle believes that Google brought this extensive network of influencers to help shape public perceptions concerning the positions it was advocating throughout this trial,” Oracle´s statement continued.

Oracle singled out two people who it said had written on issues related to the case and had links with Google: Ed Black, president and CEO of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, of which Google is a member, and Jonathan Band, whose book was cited as part of Google´s evidence and who Oracle says has links to Google through trade organizations.

It remains unclear why Alsup issued the original order. Neither party had petitioned the court for such disclosure and it came well after arguments were over in the central part of the case.