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
-
-
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.
-
Jan 21: Oracle files saying they have no position.
-
Jan 21: Bloomberg publishes.
-
Jan 22: Ryu seals the transcript. Oracle tries to take credit for this by saying Ryu must have seen that Oracle "did not contest."
-
ORACLE: I submit to your honor that there’s no bad faith here.
-
Alsup is EXTREMELY salty right now
- 31 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.