Google Doesn’t Want to Talk About Bribing Bloggers

The years-long patent litigation trial between Google and Oracle took an unexpected turn in the past few days, after the judge caught wind that the two companies were paying bloggers to do their bidding. This wouldn’t be such a big deal — unless you’re into journalism ethics but, hey, it’s the Internet, right? — except U.S. District Judge William Alsup suspects the paid-for coverage may have affected the jury’s opinion of the companies. Oracle fessed up to hiring a blogger to do consulting for them after Alsup ordered a list of all paid commentators, but Google’s not really into airing its dirty laundry. So they just aren’t complying.

“Google suggests that it has paid so many commenters that it will be impossible to list them all,” Alsup wrote in his order. “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.” But Google swears it didn’t hire any commentators. “Our reply to the court is clear,” Google said last Friday, “no one on our side paid journalists, bloggers, or other commentators to write about this case.” On the same token, Google admitted that it can’t keep track of all the people it pays. In fact, it would be “perhaps impossible” to list them all, the search giant said in a court filing.

So what’s a little bit of bribing got to do with a silly old patent dispute? Well, this isn’t any patent case. When the trial started two years ago, Googlefaced a billion dollar payout to Oracle as well as a licensing fee for every Android device sold if it lost. So far, Google’s managed to win the bulk of the case, but the judge now seems to think there’s something fishy going on. This puts everything in doubt, explains Chris Watson, a partner and social media expert at law-firm CMS Cameron McKenna: “[T]here have been criminal cases in the UK where a jury has had to be discharged due to the concern that social media articles could influence their verdict and so risk contempt of court, which shows that judges are aware of the power of social media to shape debate on legal proceedings.”

Then again, Google could be telling the truth. They very well may not have paid any commentators to write about the case. And what about other issues, say Google’s battle with Apple for dominance in the smartphone market or the face-off against Bing on the search front? That depends on who’s asking.

Image via Flickr