--Microsoft, internal document [PDF]
A short while back we wrote about the motion to expose shills like Florian Müller, whose shilling career goes quite a while back. Pamela Jones and myself have warned about him for a long time and yesterday she wrote that "Google and Oracle have just filed their lists of anyone they paid to write about their litigation."
"And when will the BBC finally realise that this is a paid shill that it habitually quotes? Where is the apology for bad reporting?"Here is another article abut the bias 'whore', coming from a site that helped amplify his agenda: "Oracle says it would never give money to any outside blogger or journalist who writes about its ongoing litigation against Google – except Florian Mueller, that is. On the other hand, the database giant says Google employs an insidious "network of influencers" that it uses to "shape public perceptions" about the suit.
"Oracle made its accusations in a statement filed in response to Judge William Alsop's request that both companies disclose any paid relationships they may have with journalists, bloggers, and other media commentators, as Groklaw's PJ Jones reports."
The passage of payments is a shrewd one; it's like disguised bribery.
"Florian Mueller is also paid by Microsoft for some consultancy," notes this article, adding: "Mueller' blog FOSS Patents seems to have a single line agenda: to spin anti-Android stories. Some lazy journalists (who don't want to do their own R&D) pick his stories and quote him as a patent expert. In my opinion while quoting Mueller the appropriate designation should be 'paid Microsoft consultant' or 'paid Oracle consultant' so that the reader is aware they are not reading some independent opinion, but opinion expressed by someone who is hired by these two companies."
"The same was done by Microsoft, which has used the shill for a couple of years to spread anti-Linux bias."To sum up: "Oracle responded to the judge’s order Friday too, saying that it was paying one blogger — Florian Mueller, who comments on the case."
The same was done by Microsoft, which has used the shill for a couple of years to spread anti-Linux bias. He also tried spamming mass mailing Techrights with his nonsense.
Anyway, with all that in mind, the Oracle vs. Google case moves on. As Pamela Jones puts it: "Google's lead attorney in Oracle v. Google, Robert Van Nest of Keker & Van Nest, doesn't let any moss grow on his case. Last Friday, there was a decision in another case, Cambridge University Press v. Becker, where the court ruled that even if there is a split in who won a case, with each side winning something, what matters in terms of having the prevailing party's costs paid is who won the most. And in Oracle v. Google, that would be Google. It's Bill of Costs request is still pending, and now if the judge would like a case to support a decision for Google, forcing Oracle to pay it millions in costs, he has one." ⬆