Google: Oracle in danger of being charged with civil contempt of court

The Judge ruling over the case between Google and Oracle, William Alsup, is yet to grant the request of Oracle made last month, seeking that they are given another trial as Google did not disclose all it ought to have disclosed before its last trial.  Google on its own part is asking through its lawyers that Oracle is found to be in contempt of court.

The two parties involved appeared before Mag. Judge Ryu in a dispute over a discovery made. The attorney representing Oracle, Annette Hurst, while the argument was hot, revealed two numbers that are supposed to be kept secret putting the court in a position to ask every reporter out of the courtroom just to avoid hearing any confidential information Google may have.

Out of the two numbers revealed, one was concerning the amount paid to Apple by Google so that their search bar can appear on the iPhone, and the other is how much that Android rakes in for the company on a yearly basis. These numbers are not to be revealed just anyhow.

Google is standing on the ground that Oracle purposely gave out that information that was not supposed to be made public. According to the attorney representing Google, Bruce Baber, he said that the news has made headlines all over giving those people that have been wondering what the figures were what they needed exactly.

Oracle on its part is defending its action by claiming that the blurting out of the figures on January 14, 2016, in court was done in the heat of the moment.

Four days after the incidence, Google started seeking that Oracle sign a letter that will make that particular portion of the transcript redacted which the magistrate judge has not granted.

Before we could say, Jack Robinson, Bloomberg carried the news that $31 billion was what Android made in a year and that Apple was paid $1 billion to get Google search bar its bar.

According to Melinda Haag, Oracle attorney, Oracle it is agreed made a mistake, but not such that calls for them to be sanctioned.

Alsup, on the other hand, is in disagreement saying that Oracle could have asked to court to put everyone out so as to make the disclosure or could have handed the document to the judge instead of blurting it out.

If the court grants the motion by Google, Oracle together with its lawyers could pay for the leak of that very secretive information to the tune of $9 billion. But that is not really the major concern here, the concern is that the attorney for Oracle that made the revelation and her law firm that is highly prestigious could be held in civil contempt of court. This could land them in jail and is not in the least palatable.

The case is not really easy for Oracle as the figure was not just reported by Bloomberg the same day of the matter in court but a week after and exactly a day after the transcript was made available. Whatever be the case, if Oracle had heeded to the call by Google to seal the transcript, this whole scenario with the press and the information made public could have been avoided.