Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Android Google Oracle The Courts The Media Your Rights Online

Paid Media Must Be Disclosed In Oracle v. Google 165

jfruh writes "One of the odder moments during the Oracle v. Google trial over Java patents came when patent blogger Florian Mueller disclosed that he had a 'consulting relationship' with Oracle. Now it looks like we're going to find out which other tech bloggers and journalists were on the payroll of one of the two sides in this epic fight. Judge William Alsup has ordered (PDF) that both parties disclose 'all authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have reported or commented on any issues in this case and who have received money (other than normal subscription fees) from the party or its counsel during the pendency of this action.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Paid Media Must Be Disclosed In Oracle v. Google

Comments Filter:
  • Uh oh (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07, 2012 @04:48PM (#40909765)
    That Pppprrrrrr sound is the noise of dozens of bloggers and self appointed media pundits simultaneously crapping their pants.
  • by h4rr4r ( 612664 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2012 @04:59PM (#40909945)

    Is anyone actually surprised Florian Mueller is a shill?

    Did anyone not see that coming? Hopefully, the media will stop printing anything he says.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07, 2012 @05:14PM (#40910147)

    I don't think it's obvious that anonymous speech is protected by the first amendment.

    Well you're entitled to your opinion of course but by contrast the Supreme Court says:

    "Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."

    (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 1995)

    I don't usually reply to gweihir (88907) either. So there.

  • Re:Interesting (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07, 2012 @05:36PM (#40910407)

    I don't really understand why Slashdot has got the hate towards him.

    Um, because he didn't disclose his relationship with Oracle until long after he'd started publishing articles despite his full knowledge of being cited by various mainstream media orgs like the BBC. He came clean in April of this year yet prior to that he is cited numerous times (example [bbc.com]) taking an antagonistic position against Android all the while allowing everyone to remain blissfully ignorant of who was really paying his bills. The guy is a snake.

  • Re:Interesting (Score:5, Informative)

    by dell623 ( 2021586 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2012 @06:18PM (#40910761)

    Have a look at this http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120724125504129 [groklaw.net]

    The fact that he was loudly and incessantly and inaccurately criticizing Google throughout the trial while being a paid Oracle consultant and turned out to be completely hilariously utterly stupidly wrong about every single thing raised some eyebrows in the right places. Finally.

    If you have the patience to trawl through some of his writings you immediately realize how biased he is. He has a deep unexplained hatred for anything Google and is constantly harping on how all Android manufacturers should just pay Microsoft to license their patents. Guess the other paid consulting relationship he revealed, yup, it's with Microsoft.

    He claims he is conducting a study on FRAND patents for Microsoft, and he continues to write on the issue with a decidedly pro-Microsoft perspective (one appropriate for a company with limited standard essential FRAND patents but thousands of software patents). So his perspective on FRAND patents is exactly the same as Microsoft, he is doing a paid study on FRAND patents for them, and yet he continues to write on the issue like he is an unbiased commentator.

    His pro-Microsoft leanings predate his pro-Oracle posts (because the consulting relationship with Microsoft is older). You won't find a scrap of writing that criticizes anything about Microsoft in his blog. When something happens that is embarrassing to Microsoft (like the B&N trail before MS gobbled them up), he completely ignores it. He sometimes criticizes Apple mildly but treads carefully, so I assume he wants to work for them but they haven't thrown him a bone yet.

    He is a self proclaimed expert with no law degree. The reason he is quoted so widely is because he is known to email his blog entries to every single media outlet and until recently, there weren't that many people writing about technology patents. Yes, I find it infuriating to find him quoted exclusively in major media outlets. Imagine if there was a consultant conducting a Google-funded study on privacy writing about online privacy and how Google's practices are acceptable, and getting quoted by every single major media outlet.

Man will never fly. Space travel is merely a dream. All aspirin is alike.