Google Twists the Knife, Asks For Sanctions Against Oracle Attorney

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."

Re:

[beastofburdon]

As long as it isn't something related to their specific sjw fetish many of them can have a decent conversation, but lo and behold if you offer a differing opinion on the source of the "pay gap".

Re:

[Coren22]

Your post wasn't suppressed on my screen. I see it just fine. Therefore, no censorship occurred. Suppressing speech means it does not appear at all. Your speech still appears, therefore it wasn't suppressed.

suppress
spres/Submit
verb
past tense: suppressed; past participle: suppressed
forcibly put an end to.
"the uprising was savagely suppressed"
synonyms: subdue, repress, crush, quell, quash, squash, stamp out; More
prevent the development, action, or expression of (a feeling, impulse, idea, etc.); restrai

It's not a publicly known number

[fustakrakich]

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

Re:

[93 Escort Wagon]

It is now.

Re: It's not a publicly known number

[tysonedwards]

I take it Google's lawyers were out sick in middle school when they discussed the concept of imaginary numbers.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Well, to be honest, they are fighting over imaginary property. It's more like gambling [slashdot.org] in the Lawsuit Casino

Re:

[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.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

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

Re:

[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?

Re:

[fustakrakich]

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

Re:

[fustakrakich]

They aren't calling them liars. They were pissed about their contract being exposed and want it stricken for not being public knowledge, nothing there about it being false.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Get a clue yourself! They are not arguing the facts, just their exposure.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Google doesn't want to show the contract, but if they want to call somebody a liar (if that is what they are doing), they have to back it up, and they seem unwilling at this point. Claiming it isn't public knowledge to make it inadmissible instead is a nice attempted end run around it. It has potential. We shall wait and see.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Or maybe they just made some shit up.

Personally, I think it's a neat trick. These people deserve each other. Besides, it's mostly dramatics, which should be expected for the money the lawyers get paid. Google could have just demanded that Oracle show the evidence of what they claimed without having to release anything of their own.

Re:

[mark-t]

The irony is that it *IS* public knowledge now, so the reason that it is "not public knowledge" would not apply to it anymore.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Yeah, but then we would have to admit all evidence, whether or not it was legally acquired. What I didn't check was to see if that particular evidence was used in deciding the verdict, because I can kind of understand Oracle's POV if it was. On the other hand, if they didn't object during the trail, then I guess it would be a bit late to complain now. The big discrepancy to me is what is legal and what is real. I am of the opinion that if a fact is true, it should be admissible no matter what. I say that be

Re:

[mark-t]

No... because illegally acquired evidence doesn't change its status of being illegally acquired simply because it is known. If the only reason to dismiss that point is because it wasn't publicly known, unless it was also actually illegal to disclose it, making the evidence illegally acquired, and inadmissible on that basis, then there would be no further reason to keep it from evidence from that point forward.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Got it...

In this case though, are we even talking about evidence, or merely something Oracle used to to sway the jury's emotions?

Was "commerciality" really supposed to make a difference?

And another thing. The transcript was indeed legally made public, even if for a brief time. Are we seeing something similar to the government's attempts to reclassify information sent over a certain email server? :-)

Re:

[Calydor]

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:

[fustakrakich]

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..

Re:

[Captain Splendid]

So when you wrote this, did it ever occur to you that you resemble these remarks?

Re:

[fustakrakich]

I like that you follow me now... What was the question?

Re:

[fustakrakich]

The rumor monger can say what he wants. I will go after the people who act on them. You can sue people for acting on bad faith. It wouldn't bother me to see the entire system clogged up over it. You do whatever it takes to stop the bad actors. They are the bullies. The fist is your enemy, not the tongue.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

If he is acting on incorrect information, by default he is acting in bad faith. His obligation is to verify before acting. Maybe the law doesn't agree, but those are the facts, legal or not. Right now the law reflects popular opinion, not the facts, so yes, I will lose in court. The truth loses also, little I can do about that.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Yes, in Google's case that might be so. I was responding to his hypothetical. He has to prove his accusation of pedophilia is true. Unless he does he should be considered a simple liar and of course charged with perjury if under oath. In the meantime we need a recourse to penalize people who act in bad faith on such info unless it is verified. I want people to be held responsible for what they do, not what they say. The word has no intrinsic power or force. All responses to words are learned. The meaning is

Re:

[ChrisMaple]

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:

[tomhath]

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.

Re:

[fragMasterFlash]

Google built a better mousetrap and the world beat a path to their door.

Re:

[JustOK]

What kind of mad house has the world become?

same as it has always been.

Re:

[JustOK]

You're thinking about Dolly Parton.

Re:

[HiThere]

So now you're believing the word of both Oracle and a lawyer.
I strongly suspect that Google *is* paying Apple to stay as their default search engine, after all, they paid Mozilla. But the amount is currently unsupported except by the word of a couple of professional liars. (For the purpose of the prior sentence I'm pretending that Oracle counts as a person.)

It should be...

[SeattleLawGuy]

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.

Re: Oracle sells software, Google sells privacy

[tysonedwards]

I was going to check, but Google got rid of their "I'm Feeling Lucky" button on mobile. They must be hiding something...

Re: Oracle sells software, Google sells privacy

[silentcoder]

How about stealimg 60 million dollars from taxpayers by selling vapourware to the government ?
They are both evil but in this case Oracle was the company trying to destroy the entire software industry for all but a few big players. We didnt support google because of who is or isnt evil. We supported google because if they lost we would all lose with them.

Re:Oracle sells software, Google sells privacy

[HiThere]

Google sells access to your privacy. It's against their business model to actually sell the information about you, instead what they sell is access to a demographic that includes you.

Thus: In *this* aspect Oracle is the evil party...though not because they sell software and hardware, but rather because they are trying to monetize APIs. (There are other reasons, but less related to this case.)

Re:Oracle sells software, Google sells privacy

[HiThere]

Assuming you're not a troll:
The don't sell information on you, or information about you. The let people buy ads that will be shown to a defined demographic. Who is in that demographic is a company confidential secret.

If they sold information about who was in the demographic, others could place ads without paying them. So they keep it a secret. But they look for ways to place ads where they can act as a middleman, because that lets them maximize their profit.

P.S.: This information is around a decade old now, but I've seen no indication that anything about it has changed.

so NOW google thinks privacy matters?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's rich.

This doesn't strike me as knife twisting

[rsilvergun]

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:

[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:

[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:

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is forcing you to use Google.

Yes, and how does that work when I send an email to a company at [e-mail], and they are actually using gmail, thus giving my email to google?

How does that work when half the fucking sites on the web no longer function unless you allow google's recaptcha?

Your solution is tantamount to "STFU and stop using the web".

Re:

[LWATCDR]

"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.

Re:

[Jack_of_Shadow]

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

Law firm names.

[fahrbot-bot]

Orrick, Sutcliffe & Herrington

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

Eeny meany miny mo

[youngone]

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:

[LWATCDR]

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

[Required Snark]

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.

Lawyer getting screwed?

[ebvwfbw]

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