Google discloses paid bloggers to judge in Oracle case, lists Stanford prof. Mark Lemley as ‘outside counsel’

We told you earlier this month that a judge in the Google/Oracle case ordered the companies to disclose any payments it made to journalists, bloggers, and other members of media who made commentary or reported on the lawsuit. It was no secret at the time, but even paid blogger Florian Mueller of Foss Patents admitting previously that Oracle, in addition to other companies such as Microsoft, funded some of the posts on his blog.

Oracle later disclosed to the courts that Mueller was indeed a paid “consultant.” Today, we get an update on Google’s follow up to the judge’s request in a recent court filing (via The Verge).

While the majority of the people listed by Google include former interns, copyright lawyers, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, The Verge noted Mark Lemley, a Stanford professor who is often quoted by Google with no mention of the relationship, appears on the list as Google’s “outside counsel” for unrelated cases. Another name mentioned in the document is Google employee Tim Bray. The document cited tweets made by Bray from his personal Twitter account related to the case:

Read more

Judge orders Google, Oracle to disclose payments made to bloggers

A judge ruled today that Google and Oracle must disclose any payments made to Internet authors, journalists, or bloggers for published commentary related to the Google vs. Oracle lawsuit involving Android software.

The trial is just now ending, but Judge William Alsup issued a court order (PDF) today that calls for both companies to divulge which Internet-based journalists were compensated. The judge is apparently concerned that evidence in the case includes analysis from influenced bloggers.

FOSS Patents‘ Florian Mueller revealed in April that Oracle and Microsoft pay for posts on his blog, where he regularly discusses the Google vs. Oracle case.

The full court order is below: 

Read more

Judge orders Oracle to pay Google’s $300K in legal fees

A jury decided this last month that Google did not infringe upon Oracle’s patents, but it has recently come to light that Oracle must pay Google’s steep legal fees accrued during the trial.

Oracle, a database software giant based in Redwood City, Calif., sued Google in August 2010, while alleging the Android operating system violated a number of patents and copyrights within Java, which Oracle acquired through Sun Microsystems. Android currently powers more than 150 million mobile devices. Google, based in Mountain View, Calif., adamantly denied Oracle’s contention, and claimed the Android team was unaware of Sun’s patents before the suit.

Google spokesperson Jim Prosser told Business Insider that Oracle did not succeed in landing a $6 billion settlement from Google, but it did win the responsibility of paying Google’s $300,000 in legal expenses.

Read more

The verdict is in: Android did not infringe upon Oracle’s patents

A jury decided this morning that Google did not infringe upon Oracle’s patents.

The verdict came unanimously as jurors in the Google vs. Oracle trial found six claims in U.S. Patent RE38,104, including two claims in U.S. Patent number 6,061,520, did not infringe.

“Today’s jury verdict that Android does not infringe Oracle’s patents was a victory not just for Google but the entire Android ecosystem,” announced Google in a public statement, according to CNET.

Oh, and here is Oracle’s public statement on the decision: “Oracle presented overwhelming evidence at trial that Google knew it would fragment and damage Java. We plan to continue to defend and uphold Java’s core write once run anywhere principle and ensure it is protected for the nine million Java developers and the community that depend on Java compatibility.”

Read more

Google’s Eric Schmidt testifies at Oracle vs Google trial; Exec’s sarcasm abound during 3-hr testimony

Google’s former CEO Eric Schmidt took the stand at 9 a.m. PST this morning to give his direct testimony during the Oracle v. Google trial, and while the questioning hulked along, the executive’s answers glimmered with cynicism.

Oracle’s counsel immediately showcased a plethora of documents from 2005 and 2006 that seemingly depicted the Internet giant as having prior knowledge about needing Sun software licensing agreements to apply Java in the Android mobile operating system, but the Executive Chairman denied the exhibited emails and presentations and remained steadfast to his defense that he was unaware Google even needed permission to employ the open-source software.

Oracle, a database software giant based in Redwood City, Calif., sued Google in August 2010, and alleged the Android operating system violated a number of patents and copyrights within Java, which Oracle acquired through Sun Microsystems. Android currently runs on more than 150 million mobile devices. Google, based in Mountain View, Calif., denies the contention.

In today’s court appearance, Oracle is essentially alleging that Schmidt and Google had clear knowledge that they did not have explicit rights to use Java in Android. Meanwhile, many Google officials, including Schmidt, profess otherwise.

[Schmidt's testimony lasted until 12 p.m. PST—see below for details.]

Read more

Google slides indicate Oracle is bitter over Java’s failed mobile attempts; court battle is a tantrum (photos)

So, everyone is aware that Java platform maker Oracle is amid a courtroom grapple with Google over whether Java patents were infringed in the search engine’s mobile operating system Android, but not everyone is clued in to the defendant’s intriguing side of the story.

According to Google’s money slides (via ZDNet), the heart of Google’s defense is summarized in three clear-cut points: Java code was free and openly available to the public; Google did not violate any patents or copyrights when developing Android; and, Oracle is disgruntled due to its and Sun’s failed attempts to market a Java-based platform for smartphones.

Read more