Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Android Oracle The Courts Apple

Google Twists the Knife, Asks For Sanctions Against Oracle Attorney (arstechnica.com) 78

Posted by msmash from the drawing-the-line dept.
Google isn't done with its victory over Oracle. Court filings suggest that Google will be filing a motion for sanctions against Oracle and its law firm, Orrick, Sutcliffe & Herrington. The Mountain View-based company is apparently irked that Oracle attorney disclosed the financial agreements between Google and Apple. From an Ars Technica report: Speaking in open court, Oracle attorney Annette Hurst said that Google's Android operating system had generated revenue of $31 billion and $22 billion in profit. She also disclosed that Google pays Apple $1 billion to keep Google's search bar on iPhones. "Look at the extraordinary magnitude of commerciality here," Hurst told a magistrate judge as she discussed the revenue figures. The $1 billion figure comes from a revenue-split that gives Apple a portion of the money that Google makes off searches that originate on iPhones. The revenue share figure was 34 percent, "at one point in time," according to Hurst. Google lawyers asked for the figure to be struck from the record. "That percentage just stated, that should be sealed," Google lawyer Robert Van Nest said, according to a transcript of the hearing. "We are talking hypotheticals here. That's not a publicly known number."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Twists the Knife, Asks For Sanctions Against Oracle Attorney More

Google Twists the Knife, Asks For Sanctions Against Oracle Attorney

Comments Filter:

  • It's not a publicly known number (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Monday July 04, 2016 @11:47AM (#52443325) Journal

    Therefore it doesn't exist! We're in the world of Harry Potter

    • It is now.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It exists, but not in the context you and Oracle's lawyers think. It's a hypothetical, a.k.a made up number. It's not a number that was "disclosed", it was a "claim" presented as fact. Which probably explains why Google is pissed off, and thinks it can get Oracle and said lawyers sanctioned.

      • I think Google's reaction shows the number wasn't so "made up". Otherwise they could have just stated so much.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          So if someone said publicly in court if you showed your mom your pedophile collection, would you not be pissed?

          Does making a fuss validate you have pedo porn?

          • No, I would just say he 's a liar. What's to get pissed about?

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Calydor ( 739835 )

              That's exactly what someone trying to hide the truth would say! Why are you so ashamed of the world knowing about your kiddie porn collection?

              • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

                by fustakrakich ( 1673220 )

                Well see, the real assholes in such a situation are the people who believe the liar, not the liar himself. He's simply a liar. The believers are the dangerous ones. Everybody makes a big stink about people like Trump and Limbaugh, but they are just big mouths, their followers are the violent crazy people you have to watch out for..

          • So if someone said publicly in court if you showed your mom your pedophile collection, would you not be pissed?

            Can you express that in a manner which English readers can understand?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tomhath ( 637240 )
        It might not have been made up. A lawsuit like this would have all kinds of subpoenas and discovery. That doesn't mean the lawyer could blab that information in court.

  • It should be... (Score:3)

    by SeattleLawGuy ( 4561077 ) on Monday July 04, 2016 @12:00PM (#52443403)

    Google only had what, a 28 billion cost of revenue for 2015? A billion dollars out of that mix starts to be a big enough number that there's an argument it should be publicly disclosed in SEC filings. I'm not saying it necessarily has to be, just that there would be public policy reasons for it. It better informs the investors and transparency generally results in healthier markets, because it allows for more competition between bidders.

  • so NOW google thinks privacy matters? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 04, 2016 @12:21PM (#52443511)

    That's rich.

  • This doesn't strike me as knife twisting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday July 04, 2016 @12:28PM (#52443531)
    Do you have any idea how valuable that number is to anyone partnering with Google? It's also likely to cause Google some headaches during their next round of negotiations with Apple. I'd want compensation too, and whatever they get probably won't be anywhere near what they lost. The threat of Dragging stuff like this out in the open during a lawsuit is one of the main reasons companies settle out of court.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Do you have any idea how valuable all the data Google collects about me (no matter that I try to block them from doing so) is to me? Yet they make it their business to collect it for their own profit, over my objections.

      I have ZERO sympathy for Google losing some of their precious privacy, when they have made it their business to destroy the entire concept of privacy for the "little people".

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        There was no privacy exposed. There was a claim in court that had zero facts as true, that was presented. Lets hear how you justify that?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

        "Yet they make it their business to collect it for their own profit, over my objections."
        Don't use their services. They are an advertising company and use public information plus what you give them to sell ads.
        So don't use Android, Chrome, Gmail, Maps, Blogger, and or GTalk.
        I really wonder what people are so worried about when it comes to advertising.As far as other issues I just do not send anything to private in any email system.

    • for a company that publicly stated that if you don't want your private information exposed, you should not allow anyone else to know it (I paraphrase) to then have a number which they publicly (court records, not EXPLICITLY SEALED are PUBLIC!!!!) exposed in court stated that it should not have been stated, is ridiculous. And it is another indication of a company saying that whatever they do is fine, but other companies shouldn't be allowed to... do you not get that? Court cases ARE public, unless they are e

  • Orrick, Sutcliffe & Herrington

    Sounds like they make suits on Savile Row [wikipedia.org], not are suits.

  • Who do I hate most?

    Oracle, Google or lawyers.

    Oracle lose a stupid lawsuit, and will probably have to pay a huge amount of money which is good,

    to Google, which is not so good,

    but a lawyer might be 'sanctioned". If that means losing her license, then great, one less lawyer. It will probably mean don't do it again.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

      The paying it to Google doesn't bother me at all. They offer great services I use everyday and I know how to control my own privacy,

  • Oracle deliberately broke the rules (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Required Snark ( 1702878 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @05:08AM (#52446801)
    Bringing this up in open court was a deliberate and hostile act. Oracle and their attorneys knew that this was very proprietary number and that putting it into circulation would damage both Apple and Google. Now when any of the big players negotiates fees with either Google or Apple they will have this benchmark. It's a game changer.

    It is impossible that this was a mistake by Oracle and their law firm. It's very normal that corporations learn proprietary information during a big suit like this, and there are all sorts of rules pertaining to how it can be used and who has a right to see it. Without these rules legal actions would be used all the time to find out how the competition is doing internally.

    Take a look at the letter that Google's law firm sent to the judges in the case. It's short and does not contain too much legalese. It refers to the relevant case law [arstechnica.com] and asks the judge for sanctions. They are going after both Oracle and their law firm, and accuse them abusing the courts and not respecting the judges.

    Accordingly, Google respectfully requests permission to file a motion for a finding of contempt and the imposition of sanctions, including but not limited to: an Order precluding further access by Ms. Hurst to Google and third-party confidential information; an Order requiring all of Oracle’s counsel to sign undertakings under the Protective Order, reinforcing the importance of the Order; an award of Google’s attorneys’ fees and costs necessitated by Oracle’s and its counsel’s violations of the Protective Order; and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

    This is the legal way of asking the judge to throw the book and Oracle and it's lawyers. Asking to have the Oracle legal team sign a document saying they will obey the law in the future makes them look really, really bad. Asking that Hurst not be allowed to see information means she can't continue to work on the case. If her law firm is looking for a scapegoat for loosing, she just got a target on her back. This sanction could end her career, so it is not likely it will be granted. Still, findings of contempt are very serious and have significant longer term impact. It boils down to how far the judges think that Oracle's law firm went over the line and how much they disrespected the judges and the law. People sitting on the bench take this very seriously so it could be a big deal.

  • Was this our "feel good" article of the day?

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close