Google says that in January, Oracle attorney Annette Hurst disclosed confidential information in open court *where there were reporters*
-
-
** actually it's probable that they literally do represent less than half a percent
-
*** what a world
-
what's amazing is that the article has been out since january and google and oracle still have to pretend like this is super sekrit
-
but even better, i don't remember this news cycle at all? i guess it did make the rounds though
-
To be clear, it was subject to a protective order!https://twitter.com/MarkJKings/status/778982471983505408 …
-
It only came up in court "in the heat of an argument" says Oraclepic.twitter.com/8ErKIpFEk4
-
My favorite quibble in this beef is over whether saying something in open court where a reporter is present is disclosing to the press
-
might be different in front of judge, but my impression from the filings is that Google is Very Mad and Oracle is Defensive and Embarrassed
-
omg they might clear the courtroom for the motion hearing because of the "sensitive information"
-
Still waiting for the case to come up. I've stepped out in the meantime to pursue valuable activitiespic.twitter.com/9bcZMBXB1N
-
ok we're on
-
Alsup just warned attorneys that a lot of people are "out there" and to be careful not to say anything confidential
-
Google says that not only did Oracle disclose the confidential information in court, they also took no steps to limit the damage
-
Namely, they didn't agree with Google when Google asked to seal the information at that very hearing, or in a letter to the court later
-
In the brief they also blame Hurst for not telling the reporter to not report thathttps://twitter.com/tmslft/status/779012624881180673 …
-
Attorney for Google says that "things happen" and "There but for the grace of God go I."
-
GOOGLE: The answer is not to dispute that there was a problem, to refuse to cooperate, to refuse to take very simple steps to address it.
-
Google adds, "This motion is not meant to punish anyone."
-
Google says it's important for the court to clarify what the standard protective order for the Northern District of California actually does
-
(this seems fair)
-
GOOGLE: Google had to spend a significant amount of money to undo the effects of the disclosure.
-
Oracle is up.
-
Melinda Haag for Oracle, not Annette Hurst (since Hurst is the attorney who blurted the info)
-
Oracle says this motion is asking the court to find "a respected trial attorney and her firm in contempt"
-
ORACLE: [On January 14] there was an exchange between Judge Ryu and Ms Hurst that went on for at least ten pages.
-
ORACLE: In the course of that back and forth, Ms Hurst revealed information, two numbers that are now the basis of this motion.
-
ORACLE: Google expressed no objection, no concern with the revelation of those two numbers.
-
ORACLE: Five days after the hearing, Google raised a concern for the first time about the revelation of the Google or Android number.
-
Oracle now turns to the "Apple information," which they say is a separate issue.
-
Note: the "Google number" is the Android revenue share, the "Apple number" is how much Google pays Apple to use the Google search bar.
- 44 réponses de plus
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.