Google wants Oracle to have to pay for the subsequent filings Google made in the aftermath of the disclosurepic.twitter.com/0ptLS8AvrF
Vous pouvez ajouter des informations de localisation à vos Tweets, comme votre ville ou votre localisation précise, depuis le Web et via des applications tierces. Vous avez toujours la possibilité de supprimer l'historique de localisation de vos Tweets. En savoir plus
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.
At the time, Van Nest did object to the disclosure of the Apple information. At the time, Judge Ryu said she would rule on it later.
In the five days after the hearing, counsel met and conferred about the discovery request in general. They did not discuss Google/Apple info
On January 19th, Google asked Oracle to join them in asking for that part of the transcript to be sealed. They gave them until noon next day
At 3:30, before Oracle had a chance to respond, Judge Ryu ruled against Google's motion. So Oracle shrugged it off.
Jan 20: Google files a motion for reconsideration.
Jan 21: Google's motion gets bounced because it's incorrectly filed.
Jan 21: Google refiles motion for reconsideration.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.