DENIED BY JUDGE: Google's attempt to get a damaging e-mail redacted
Google doesnt want the juryto see this email.
"What we've actually been asked to do by Larry and Sergey is to investigate what technology alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome," Google engineer Tim Lindholm wrote in the Aug. 2010 e-mail, in reference to Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. "We've been over a hundred of these and think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/23702...in_public.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...857778484.html
"What we've actually been asked to do by Larry and Sergey is to investigate what technology alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome," Google engineer Tim Lindholm wrote in the Aug. 2010 e-mail, in reference to Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. "We've been over a hundred of these and think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java."
Quote:
In a court filing last week, Google called the e-mail an incomplete draft message that was subject to client-attorney privilege and wrongly revealed by Oracle in violation of a protective order. It asked Alsup for permission to file two motions that would redact the information from court documents.
But Alsup ruled that the e-mail was not subject to such protection in a ruling filed Monday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Since Google has provided no concrete evidence the e-mail falls under attorney-client privilege, allowing it to file its motions "would be futile," Alsup added.
In a court filing last week, Google called the e-mail an incomplete draft message that was subject to client-attorney privilege and wrongly revealed by Oracle in violation of a protective order. It asked Alsup for permission to file two motions that would redact the information from court documents.
But Alsup ruled that the e-mail was not subject to such protection in a ruling filed Monday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Since Google has provided no concrete evidence the e-mail falls under attorney-client privilege, allowing it to file its motions "would be futile," Alsup added.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/23702...in_public.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...857778484.html