Judge: Email in Oracle-Google case will remain public

The email from a Google engineer could be damaging to Google's defense

The judge overseeing the lawsuit Oracle filed over the Android mobile OS has denied Google's attempt to get a potentially damaging e-mail redacted.

"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."

Oracle sued Google in August 2010, alleging that Android violated a number of patents held by Oracle on the Java programming language, which it acquired through the purchase of Sun Microsystems. Google has denied any wrongdoing.

The e-mail was revealed last month during a hearing on whether the conclusions of Oracle's damages expert should be set aside.

"You are going to be on the losing end of this document" if the e-mail ends up being revealed to a jury, Judge William Alsup told Google's attorney during the hearing.

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.

"Attorney-client privilege protects communications made between an attorney and his or her client for the purpose of obtaining legal advice," Alsup wrote. "Google states that the addressee field of the draft message is blank, indicating that the draft never was sent to anyone. Thus, the document is not a communication of any type, much less a communication protected by the attorney-client privilege."

Google had also argued that the final version of the e-mail draft had been sent to Google's in-house lawyers as well as labeled "attorney work product," and therefore was "indisputably privileged," Alsup added.

"Simply labeling a document as attorney work product or sending it to a lawyer ... does not automatically trigger privilege," he wrote.

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.

Chris Kanaracus covers enterprise software and general technology breaking news for The IDG News Service. Chris's e-mail address is Chris_Kanaracus@idg.com

Join the newsletter!

Or

Sign up to gain exclusive access to email subscriptions, event invitations, competitions, giveaways, and much more.

Membership is free, and your security and privacy remain protected. View our privacy policy before signing up.

Error: Please check your email address.

Tags mobileOracleGoogleAndroidlegalsoftwareapplicationstelecommunicationapplication developmentintellectual propertyCivil lawsuitsMobile OSes

Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

Chris Kanaracus

IDG News Service
Show Comments

Most Popular Reviews

Latest Articles

Resources

PCW Evaluation Team

Tom Pope

Dynabook Portégé X30L-G

Ultimately this laptop has achieved everything I would hope for in a laptop for work, while fitting that into a form factor and weight that is remarkable.

Tom Sellers

MSI P65

This smart laptop was enjoyable to use and great to work on – creating content was super simple.

Lolita Wang

MSI GT76

It really doesn’t get more “gaming laptop” than this.

Jack Jeffries

MSI GS75

As the Maserati or BMW of laptops, it would fit perfectly in the hands of a professional needing firepower under the hood, sophistication and class on the surface, and gaming prowess (sports mode if you will) in between.

Taylor Carr

MSI PS63

The MSI PS63 is an amazing laptop and I would definitely consider buying one in the future.

Christopher Low

Brother RJ-4230B

This small mobile printer is exactly what I need for invoicing and other jobs such as sending fellow tradesman details or step-by-step instructions that I can easily print off from my phone or the Web.

Featured Content

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?