Survey Says…Business Executives Love Email Newsletters - By Laura Powers At Furia Rubel, we spend a fair amount of time creating monthly and bimonthly email newsletters for our clients. We were intrigued by a re...
3 days ago
Because you also need to win in the Court of Public Opinion
"Lemley was ... cited and quoted in at least three news items or articles related to the Google-Oracle litigation. ... his relationship to Google was not revealed in any of those stories. As I quickly read those articles I found no explicit pro-Google bias. While it’s a bit of a gray area, as an attorney Lemley probably should have disclosed and explained his relationship to Google. He probably would still have been quoted. However his retention by Google isn’t mentioned."However, more than one commenter felt that the journalists who quoted Professor Lemley share the blame for not disclosing his relationship to Google:
"Professor Lemley is known as a controversial figure -- a legal professor whose profession is not patent law, but who has published journal papers attacking he current mire of patent law. And his page on [the] Durie Tungri [website] does mention he represented Google. So the SF Chronicle and Mercury News (Silicon Valley) should arguably have known what they were getting into when they Google searched (irony) his name."In his August 20 order requiring Google to supplement its initial submission, Judge Alsup stated why he was requiring Oracle and Google to make the disclosure:
"Just as a treatise on the law may influence the courts, public commentary that purports to be independent may have an influence on the courts and/or their staff if only in subtle ways. If a treatise author or blogger is paid by a litigant, should not that relationship be known?"In the context of high stakes litigation, public relations is used to influence public opinion, not the judge or the judge's staff. Nevertheless, Judge Alsup has put the litigants that appear before him on notice that they may be required to reveal whether any authors, journalists, commenters, or bloggers who report or comment on his cases have received money from the party or its counsel. It will be interesting to see whether other judges follow his lead.
"Scott Cleland hates Google for a living. For the past five years, the McLean, Va.-based analyst has churned out an endless stream of anti-Google papers, memos, research, testimony -- even a book: 'Search & Destroy: Why You Can't Trust Google Inc.' While his views that Google is a dangerous monopolist once seemed like a fringe theory, it has now drawn the attention of antitrust and privacy regulators throughout the world. 'I feel less lonely,' Cleland said. 'I have a strong belief that the wheels of justice turn slowly, but they turn truly.' But as Cleland's crusade has gained popularity it has also gained funding -- to a degree that he won't disclose -- from Google's competitors, including Microsoft. While he insists that his influential views remain his own, the financial connection begs the very real question of whether he is a hero or a paid corporate hit man -- and whether the debate he pushes is a legitimate intellectual discussion or a commercial enterprise."Members of the legal community also questioned the scope of the order, whether Judge Alsup had the power to issue it, and whether it was constitutional. See, for example, "Alsup Goes Fishing With Wide Net." However, since neither Oracle or Google challenged the order, the issues of power and constitutionality were unlikely to be addressed. Similarly, questions as to the scope of the order would have to wait until Judge Alsup reviewed the parties' submissions to see whether they had complied.
"Am I the only one who feels extremely uneasy and uncomfortable about this whole paying bloggers debate? . . . [i]f a brand or an agency is paying these bloggers to write about brands, that has gone way beyond PR's traditional territory of earned media into the paid media environment - or, as it is also known, advertising. That's an area that is fraught with danger in my opinion."When the August 17th deadline for compliance arrived, Oracle confirmed in its submission that it had a paid consulting relationship with Florian Mueller. As for Google, it notified Judge Alsup that the scope of his order created a group too large to list, but it assured Judge Alsup that it had not compensated anyone "to report or comment on any issues in this case" or otherwise struck a "quid pro quo" arrangement for favorable coverage. In response, Judge Alsup issued a new order expressing his dissatisfaction with Google's submission:
"in the court's view, Google has failed to comply with the August 7 order. . . . Google suggests that it has paid so many commenters that it will be impossible to list them all. Please simply do your best but the impossible is not required. Oracle managed to do it. Google can do it too by listing all commenters known by Google to have received payments as consultants, contractors, vendors, or employees."Judge Alsup required Google to supplement its filing by August 24, directing it to "disclose those commenters that can be identified after a reasonably diligent search," with the following clarification of his original order:
"Payments do not include advertising revenue received by commenters. Nor does it include experts disclosed under Rule 26. . . . As for organizations receiving money, they need not be listed unless one of its employees was a commenter. Gifts to universities can be ignored."
"a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter."
“At 2:48 p.m., after openings were done and a suave Apple industrial designer was testifying, a Samsung press statement hit our inbox (along with those of other reporters) with a link to the excluded slides. (The linked material has since been removed, but All Things D snagged it.)”The link to the disputed slides, which some reported came from a public relations firm, was accompanied by the following statement:
“The Judge’s exclusion of evidence on independent creation meant that even though Apple was allowed to inaccurately argue to the jury that the F700 was an iPhone copy, Samsung was not allowed to tell the jury the full story and show the pre-iPhone design for that and other phones that were in development at Samsung in 2006, before the iPhone. The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.”
" 'Call Mr. Quinn,' she told the Samsung legal team. 'I'd like to see him today.' When they told her he had already gone back to Los Angeles for an event, Koh ordered Quinn to file a declaration by Wednesday. 'I want to know who drafted the press release, who authorized it from your legal team,' Koh said, 'and I want Mr. Quinn's declaration as to what his role was.' "