The Freeland File
Aerospace & Defense
Global Market Data
Tales from the Trail
Lucy P. Marcus
David Cay Johnston
The Great Debate
Jack & Suzy Welch
Macro & Markets
Lipper Awards 2012
Personal Finance Video
Gu Kailai's trial ends in seven hours, verdict later
Assad replaces fugitive PM, Aleppo rebels pull back
Virus found in Mideast can spy on finance transactions
Mars rover Curiosity sends home first color photo
08 Aug 2012
Exclusive: Justice Ginsburg shrugs off rib injury
08 Aug 2012
Obama urges ”soul searching” on ways to reduce gun violence
Obama’s lead over Romney grows despite voters’ pessimism
Chick-fil-A faces ”kiss-in” protest in gay marriage flap
Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography. See more | Photo caption
Battle for Syria
The battle for Syria's biggest city, Aleppo. Slideshow
The worst dryspell in over half a century punishes the Midwest. Slideshow
Judge in Google-Oracle case seeks names of paid reporters, bloggers
Google should pay $750 a book, say authors in copyright case
Fri, Aug 3 2012
Apple's Jobs was open to making smaller iPad: executive
Fri, Aug 3 2012
Apple, Samsung launch salvos as smartphone trial heats up
Tue, Jul 31 2012
Apple, Samsung patent trial starts with jury selection
Mon, Jul 30 2012
Apple, Samsung take patent fight to crucial California trial
Fri, Jul 27 2012
Analysis & Opinion
Blame Standard Chartered in-house lawyers in money-laundering mess
Knight Capital crisis brings new push for rules on trading, technology, structure
A photo of the Google Inc. logo is shown on a computer screen in San Francisco, California July 16, 2009.
Credit: Reuters/Robert Galbraith
By Alexei Oreskovic
SAN FRANCISCO |
Thu Aug 9, 2012 8:29am EDT
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A judge in the patent battle between Google Inc and Oracle Corp ordered the companies to disclose the names of journalists on their payrolls, stunning the legal and media communities.
The highly unusual order was issued on Tuesday by U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who said he was concerned that Google and Oracle or their counsel had retained or paid people who may have published comment on the case.
The order, issued several months after a jury found that Google did not infringe Oracle patents, hints at the possibility of a hidden world of for-pay press coverage and injects uncertainty into the widely followed case.
Alsup issued a one-page order but did not go into full details of the court's concerns.
"I haven't seen anything quite like this before," said Eric Goldman, a professor of Internet law at Santa Clara University School of Law. "I think the judge is in uncharted territory with this order."
Goldman said two potential reasons for the order would be if there were evidence that the jury had been swayed by extensive press coverage of the case, or if the jury had relied on evidence not properly labeled as unbiased, such as a for-pay news article offered as an exhibit in the trial.
But with the trial mostly finished and few details in the order, Goldman said it was unclear why the issue was coming up now.
"The court is concerned that the parties and/or counsel herein may have retained or paid print or Internet authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have and/or may publish comments on the issues in the case," Alsup wrote in order.
He said the information "would be of use on appeal" and could "make clear whether any treatise, article, commentary or analysis on the issues posed by this case are possibly influenced by financial relationships to the parties or counsel."
The companies must submit the information by noon August 17.
Oracle sued Google in federal court, claiming the search engine giant's Android mobile platform violated its patents and copyright to Java, seeking roughly $1 billion on its copyright claims.
The jury ruled in Google's favor and the judge decided Oracle could not claim copyright protection on most of the Java material that Oracle took to trial.
Oracle has said it will appeal.
The trial, which featured testimony from high-profile technology executives including Oracle Chief Executive Larry Ellison and Google CEO Larry Page, has attracted heavy media coverage from the mainstream press and technology-focused blogs.
One of the more well-known bloggers on intellectual property matters and on the Oracle-Google case, Florian Mueller, revealed three days into the trial that Oracle had recently become a consulting client of his. People who followed the case said they were not aware of any other similar examples.
An Oracle spokeswoman said in a statement that the company has "always disclosed all of its financial relationships in this matter, and it is time for Google do to the same. We read this order to also include indirect payments to entities who, in turn, made comments on behalf of Google."
Google said it would comply with the order.
What impact the order could have on the case remains unclear, legal experts said.
Barry McDonald, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine Unive0rsity, said an argument could be made that forcing the disclosure of commentators would raise First Amendment issues because it would "improperly chill speech." But he added, "I doubt a court would be very receptive to that claim if the speech at issue was essentially being bought by a party in some sort of misleading way."
Some observers said the order was written broadly, so that it could be interpreted to include anyone who commented on the case and who is affiliated with an organization that has received money from one of the companies, such as someone at a university or non-profit organization.
Goldman, who blogged about the case, said his name would likely appear on the list, since his website features ads distributed by Google's online advertising network.
"The court has really wide discretion in granting a remedy to fix any kind of wrongdoing," said Julie Samuels, an intellectual property attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Samuels said the judge could order a retrial, but said that would be a highly extreme and unlikely scenario.
The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California is Oracle America, Inc v. Google Inc, 10-3561.
(Editing by Michael Perry and John Wallace)
Related Quotes and News
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Be the first to comment on reuters.com.
Add yours using the box above.
Back to top
New York Legal
Support & Contact
Connect with Reuters
Our Flagship financial information platform incorporating Reuters Insider
An ultra-low latency infrastructure for electronic trading and data distribution
A connected approach to governance, risk and compliance
Our next generation legal research platform
Our global tax workstation
About Thomson Reuters
Thomson Reuters is the world's largest international multimedia news agency, providing investing news, world news, business news, technology news, headline news, small business news, news alerts, personal finance, stock market, and mutual funds information available on Reuters.com, video, mobile, and interactive television platforms. Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
NYSE and AMEX quotes delayed by at least 20 minutes. Nasdaq delayed by at least 15 minutes. For a complete list of exchanges and delays, please click here.