Still waiting for the case to come up. I've stepped out in the meantime to pursue valuable activitiespic.twitter.com/9bcZMBXB1N
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
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
ALSUP: In my mind, she should never have done that.
ALSUP: I practiced 25 years... 17 years in this job. This is uniform practice in this district, in every district.
ALSUP: You tell the judge, I’d like to give you this, judge, but it's under this protective order... I need to hand you a copy.
ALSUP: If you were on the other side, you’d be jumping up and down about how they violated the protective order.
ALSUP: I think it's important for you to own up and admit that it’s a violation.
ORACLE: Even assuming it’s a violation of the protective order—
ALSUP: *exasperated noise*
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.