Rep. Hank Johnson, D-GA, also questioned Google about what it was doing.  Google was sending to apps developers the name, email address and address of people who bought apps on Google play.  It tried to claim that the the information was necessary for the transaction, but that’s clearly not the case when talking about downloading an app from its app store. Neither Apple nor Microsoft provide such personal information. Google’s response to Rep. Johnson confirmed what Google was doing and actually showed it was unnecessary.  Consumer Watchdog sent a second letter to the FTC with a copy to California Attorney General Kamala Harris when Google answered Rep. Johnson’s letter.

On Tuesday WebProNews and DroidLife reported Google was addressing the concerns on a new Wallet Merchant Center it is rolling out and won’t send the personal information to apps developers.

I’m glad the change is coming, but I’ve got questions.

What role did the Federal Trade Commission or the California Attorney General’s office play in this change?  Why did Google only act when formal complaints were filed? Will there be fines?

Google has become a serial privacy violator.  You’ll remember that no sooner was the ink dry on the “Buzz” consent agreement than it was caught hacking around the privacy settings on the Safari browser used on iPhones, iPads and other Apple devices.  It ultimately cost Google a fine of $22.5 million, which is pocket change to a company that has annual revenue of around $50 billion. It’s like giving a $25 parking ticket to a person who makes $50,000 a year.

Google is simply figuring that fines are a cost — and a minor one at that — of doing business.  In case you missed it, on Monday Germany hit Google with a $189,225 for the Wi-Spy incident where its Street View Cars sucked up emails, URLs, passwords, account numbers as they snapped photos around the world.

In describing the fine The New Times’ Claire Cain Miller wrote:

Regulators in Germany, one of the most privacy-sensitive countries in the world, unleashed their wrath on Google on Monday for scooping up sensitive personal information in the Street View mapping project, and imposed the largest fine ever assessed by European regulators over a privacy violation.
The penalty? $189,225.
Put another way, that’s how much Google made every two minutes last year, or roughly 0.002 percent of its $10.7 billion in net profit.
It is the latest example of regulators’ meager arsenal of fines and punishments for corporations in the wrong. Academics, activists and even regulators themselves say fines that are pocket change for companies do little to deter them from misbehaving again, and are merely baked into the cost of doing business.

The fact Google is changing Google Wallet’s practices makes it clear Google violated the Buzz Agreement.   Google claims that it is taking privacy seriously now that it is operating for 20 years under the Buzz Agreement. It isn’t and the regulators aren’t holding Google’s feet to the fire.

The company’s executives need to be held to account in a meaningful way. I’ve always argued the way to get corporate executives’ attention is to hit them with jail time when they flout the law.  It’s not going to happen here, but a meaningful fine for the second Buzz violation sure would be nice.

The provisions of the EU agreement still have to be publicly released, but based on what’s emerged so far, here’s the good news: Unlike the deal with the FTC, which wasn’t even a consent agreement, the EU is demanding that the settlement would be legally binding for five years.  A third party would ensure compliance and Google would face fines of 10 percent of its global annual sales if it fails to keep its promises.

The bad news is that instead of requiring Google to change its algorithm and treat all services the same, the deal will apparently allow Google to continue favoring its own services in search results so long as it labels them as its own.

Google essentially has been using its dominant position as gatekeeper of the Internet to unfairly promote its own service at the expense of competitors and consumers.  In Europe it has about 90 percent of the search market.  In the U.S. it’s around 70 percent. About all this agreement appears to do is require Google to be transparent about the way it unfairly abuses its market position.

Indeed, labeling could actually leave the impression with some consumers that the Google-branded result was a better one, rather than one that received a better position because Google had its thumb on the scale.

Another problem with the deal is that it doesn’t seem to do anything to rectify the damage to the market that Google has already wreaked.  I’d have thought some sort of  disgorgement of the Internet giant’s ill-gotten gains would have been appropriate.

The next step in the EU process is for the Google deal to be “market tested.”  The competition authorities will make the settlement public and receive comments on whether it solves the problems or not.  I suppose it’s possible there may ultimately be stronger sanctions than currently appear to be the case in what’s been leaked or that the authorities will do more after the “market testing,” but frankly I doubt it.

Bottom line:  Google has had its wings clipped a little bit.  Google will be legally bound to follow labeling rules in Europe for five years and have a third-party enforcer to ensure that happens.  It also means that European search results will look different than in the U.S. unless Google decides to take the same approach here or someone forces the company to do so.  That could happen.  Several state attorneys general led by the Texas attorney general have an open antitrust probe.  I’d hope that they would settle for nothing less than what the Europeans got.

And further down the road?  Fairsearch Europe has recently filed another antitrust complaint with the EU accusing Google of using Android software “as a deceptive way to build advantages for key Google apps in 70 percent of the smartphones shipped today.” Now that mobile is becoming more important than the wired Internet, Google is flexing its muscles there. The more things change, the more they stay the same…

I mean how many of you actually thought Google even had a privacy chief?

Whitten, an engineer based in London (now that’s a location convenient to its Mountain View Headquarters) took the position in 2010 about six months after the Wi-Spy scandal was uncovered and as Google was reaching a consent agreement with the Federal Trade Commission for invading users’ privacy when it launched the ill-fated Buzz social network.

Well, about all that happened on Whitten’s watch was that Google became a confirmed serial privacy violator.  No sooner was the ink dry on the Buzz Consent Decree with the FTC, than Google was caught hacking around privacy settings on Apple’s Safari browser, which is on iPads and iPhones, and lying about its practices on the Google website. Google was fined $22.5 million by the FTC, pocket change to the Internet giant.

Also on Whitten’s watch Google was fined $25,000 for obstructing the Federal Communications Commission’s investigation of Wi-Spy and just settled for a paltry $7 million with 38 states attorney general who were investigating.  They’ve also got to make a YouTube video telling people how to improve Wi-Fi network security and have a Privacy Day for employees.  That’s like asking the fox teach the chickens about how to make the coop safe.

It was also on Whitten’s watch that Google combined its privacy and data collection policies across its services without asking users’ consent first.  European data protection officials led by the French are still investigating and action is likely this spring.

Whitten intends to stay on the job through June — not that it makes much difference to users — until her successor Lawrence You takes over.

I guess it makes sense a certain amount of sense that this got announced on April Fools’ Day.  Privacy at Google is a joke.  Google’s executives view the taps on the wrist the Internet giant has received for privacy violations as nothing more than the cost of doing business.

So what’s behind the Commission’s new found spine?  Is it real? Will it last?

First, let’s review what reportedly was on the table.  The FTC wasn’t going to do anything meaningful about the way Google favors its own services in search.  It was  going to accept a non-binding note from the Internet giant essentially promising to play nice with others.  Google would stop scrapping content from other sites and would make it easier to move ad campaigns from Google to other sites.  There would be no binding consent agreement on the key issues.  Supposedly Google would sign a consent agreement on the unrelated question of how it unfairly uses  its “Standards Essential Patents” to thwart competitors.

But on the key anticompetitive issues that harm competitors and consumers Google once again would be saying, “Trust us, we’ll be nice.”  Given its record of broken promises and violated consent agreements, why would anyone believe Google?

So when word of the expected settlement leaked, there was substantial pushback. Craig Timberg of The Washington Post explained it like this:

“Recent news reports detailing the terms of the tentative agreement unleashed a torrent of opposition from companies that had complained, state attorneys general who felt cut out of negotiations, interested lawmakers and consumer advocates. Many have long said that Google was manipulating search results to hobble competitors and gain advantage for its own offerings in shopping, travel services and other lucrative businesses — and in the process, limiting consumer choice.”

Consumer Watchdog has been pushing the FTC for meaningful action since the antitrust probe began. Last month we wrote a letter to the Commissioners urging them to file an antitrust suit and seek the breakup of the company and a spinoff of the Motorola Mobility subsidiary.  With the reports that the FTC appeared to be caving, on Tuesday we wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder asking the Department of Justice to take over the ongoing federal antitrust probe of Google after the company’s chairman in a news interview equated it with antitrust poster child Microsoft in the 1990s.

The same day The Emperor of All Identities, an op-ed written by former FTC Commissioner Pamela Harbour Jones, appeared in The New York Times. She wrote:

But we need to look at Google’s market role — and behavior — through a different prism. Google is not just a “search engine company,” or an “online services company,” or a publisher, or an advertising platform. At its core, it’s a data collection company.
Its “market” is data by, from and about consumers — you, that is. And in that realm, its role is so dominant as to be overwhelming, and scary. Data is the engine of online markets and has become, indeed, a new asset class…
Now, the FTC. has another chance to protect consumers, promote innovation and ensure fair competition online. In making its decision, it must understand that while Google may be the runaway leader in Web search and online advertising, its most troubling dominance is in the marketplace of private consumer data. If real competition in this area can be restored, I am confident that market forces will provide the incentives necessary for companies to offer attractive services and relevant, engaging ads without violating consumer privacy.

Perhaps the FTC commissioners felt trapped in a pincer between state antitrust investigations  and the probe underway by the European Commission.  Texas, California, Ohio and New York have active investigations of the Internet giant.  In fact Texas has sued Google to get documents it needs for the investigation.  Google is stiffing  the Texas AG. As Ed Wyatt and Clair Cain Miller reported in The New York Times, “State attorneys general, some of whom are undertaking their own Google investigation, were briefed on the potential agreement, and some were unhappy that they were not included in the talks and that the proposed punishment seemed light.”

Meanwhile, Politico’s Steve Friess and Elizabeth Wasserman noted that “European regulators appear headed toward a dramatically different conclusion to their antitrust probe of Google than their American counterparts — a binding agreement that could cost the search company dearly if violated. That’s one of several reasons why the expected Federal Trade Commission settlement that sources said was a done deal unraveled Tuesday.”

“At the FTC, people close to the agency said, commissioners grew irked that they were being portrayed as spineless, wrote Wyatt and Miller in The New York Times. “In a parallel investigation, European regulators were said to be wringing a more stringent agreement from Google.”

Well, maybe the commissioners are irked at being called spineless, but guess what?  They were.  I hope they are beginning to see the need — at a very minimum — for a binding consent decree that halts Google’s abuses. However, the best course would be to follow the FTC staff’s recommendation and file an antitrust suit. The fully developed public record that would result from a trial would ensure that effective remedies could be put in place.  A negotiated settlement will inevitably invite cynicism about the results, and keep any documents obtained in the course of the investigation out of the public eye.

Meanwhile, the states attorneys general must keep their investigations open and aggressive in case the FTC falters again.  We need to keep the pressure on; it would be a sad situation if we have to rely on  the European Commission to solve our antitrust problems for us.

Citing unidentified sources, Bloomberg reporter Sara Forden wrote:

“Google has been in discussions with the agency for about two weeks and hasn’t put any remedy proposals on the table, said the people, who declined to be identified because the negotiations are private.”

FTC staff have been investigating whether the Google has been abusing its dominance of the Internet for more than a year.  The staff has reportedly recommended issuing a complaint focused on Google’s search practices and also for misusing its patents to block rivals smartphones.

The FTC has told Google it won’t accept a resolution short of a consent decree, Bloomberg’s Forden wrote,  and is prepared to take action in the next week or two.

Google is continuing its usual happy-face spin. “We continue to work cooperatively with the Federal Trade Commission and are happy to answer any questions they may have,” Google Spokesman Adam Kovacevich told Bloomberg.

At first blush the idea that the FTC is holding out for a consent decree may sound reassuring.  For what it’s worth though, I’m a little concerned that a settlement  might not do enough.

Chairman Leibowitz is expected to step down from the agency soon.  There is speculation that in a nod toward his legacy, he might be willing to agree to a less than adequate settlement, just to be able to say the FTC got the Internet giant on his watch.

Franky, there is a similar concern among privacy advocates that there could be a willingness to accept a weak Do Not Track standard for the same reason.

If the Commission files a lawsuit, the FTC could proceed in its own administrative court or in federal court.  No decision has been made about the venue.

Meanwhile there was a development over the summer that might give Google pause.  The Commission has changed its policy and can now seek “disgorgement” — forcing a firm to surrounded profits as an antitrust penalty.  If the FTC goes that route, it might really concentrate the minds of the geeks in Mountain View.

And don’t forget the other side of the Atlantic.  The EU is pressing Google to resolve its antitrust concerns or face a formal complaint.  That, too, could come in a matter of weeks.

Here’s how he puts it in his post on Google+:

I must confess, I am dreading today’s elections.
Not because of who might win or lose.
Not because as a Californian, my vote for President will count 1/3 as much as an Alaskan (actually it won’t matter at all — I’m not in a swing state).
Not because my vote for Senate will count 1/50 as much as an Alaskan.
But because no matter what the outcome, our government will still be a giant bonfire of partisanship.  It is ironic since whenever I have met with our elected officials they are invariably thoughtful, well-meaning people.  And yet collectively 90% of their effort seems to be focused on how to stick it to the other party.
So my plea to the victors — whoever they might be: please withdraw from your respective parties and govern as independents in name and in spirit.  It is probably the biggest contribution you can make to the country.
[If you agree, pass it on to your newly elected officials.]

Come on Sergey, get real. Partisanship has existed since the founding of our republic.  Different people have different ideas about how things should be done and groups coalesce around views and work to get things done.  Nothing wrong with that.

There is something terribly wrong with our political system though and it’s something you can help fix. It’s the way money has completely corrupted the process.

You guys at Google are spending money like drunken sailors in your efforts to buy what polices you want in Washington, DC. To refresh your memory, lobbying disclosures filed in October with the House of Representatives showed Google spent $4.18 million, in the third quarter, a 76 percent increase from $ 2.38 million in the comparable 2011 period. For the first nine months Google’s total lobbying spending hit a record $13.1 million. Google spent $9.68 million in all of 2011.

So, it’s simple.  If you want good government, stop trying to buy our representatives.

Written by Steve Lohr and Clair Cain Miller the article, Google Casts a Big Shadow on Smaller Web Sites, explains what’s going on:

Regulators in the United States and Europe are conducting sweeping inquiries of Google, the dominant Internet search and advertising company. Google rose by technological innovation and business acumen; in the United States, it has 67 percent of the search market and collects 75 percent of search ad dollars. Being big is no crime, but if a powerful company uses market muscle to stifle competition, that is an antitrust violation.

So the government is focusing on life in Google’s world for the sprawling economic ecosystem of Web sites that depend on their ranking in search results. What is it like to live this way, in a giant’s shadow? The experience of its inhabitants is nuanced and complex, a blend of admiration and fear.

The Federal Trade Commission staff has recommended bringing an antitrust action against Google.  The Times calls the government’s antitrust “scrutiny of Google the most exhaustive investigation of a major corporation since the pursuit of Microsoft in the late 1990s.”

The Times points out that Google has drawn antitrust investigations as it has moved aggressively beyond search and advertising into areas like online commerce and local reviews. The problem is that Google uses its search engine to promote its own products and services, hurting competition and, more important in antitrust law, harming consumers.

Our 2010 study, Traffic Report: How Google is Squeezing out Competitors and Muscling Into New Markets, demonstrated how with the launch of Universal Search Google favored its own properties and services in search results to the detriment of its competitors. One stark example was the dramatic drop-off in traffic that occurred on Mapquest’s site after Google placed its Google Maps at the top of Universal Search.

The Times article outlines what happened to the shopping service Nextag when Google manipulated its algorithm. Traffic referred from Google, where 60 percent had originated dropped by half. Nextag responded by doubling its paid search advertising on Google.

The Times article also relates the story of Vote-USA.org and how it was banished to the hinterlands of search results.  The Times talked to Ron Kahlow, who runs the organization and reported:

Last year, Mr. Kahlow said, F.T.C. investigators asked him if he thought his site was a target of discrimination. No, he replied. But since then, he has watched Google promote its tools for finding where to vote and sample ballots, just like his site offers.

“At that time, I didn’t believe it was intentional, but I’m having second thoughts,” he says. “I’m sure they’re aware of the amount of money that’s being spent in politics and I’m sure they’d like to get their fingers in the pie.”

In another example of the Internet giant’s power the Times relates how two local news sites CaryCitizen and Berkeleyside were dropped from Google News with no explanation.  The changes came as Google was building up its Google Plus Local service.

Google executives maintain that the changes to the “secret sauce” are all about serving the user and offering him or her what they want.

They’re making that argument because a benefit to the consumer can, under antitrust law, offset the damage done to a competitor.  But we can’t let Google executives get away with that dodge; it’s not true.

Users of Google services are not customers — not consumers in the usual sense.  We are Google’s product.  Our activities across its services are tracked and the digital dossiers that have been amassed about us are used to sell advertising.

And now that Google is moving in to becoming a shopping site — see what happens when you type patio furniture into the search box, for example — the Internet giant is squeezing other comparison sites of the results page.  It means Google can get a bigger cut and prices will be higher because of a lack of competition.

This is real harm to consumers; Google has crossed the “red line” that will inevitably draw the antitrust regulator’s ire.

Bloomberg’s Sara Forden reported that a majority of the agency’s commissioners are inclined to sue.  Earlier it was reported that the FTC is considering suing Google for favoring its own services in search results.

Chairman Jon Leibowitz has said the Commission will decide by the end of the year and some have speculated a decision could come shortly after the election.

Two years ago Consumer Watchdog called for a broad antitrust action against Google seeking remedial action that could include breaking the Internet giant into separate companies.

“Such action could include breaking Google Inc. into multiple separate companies or regulating it as a public utility,” I wrote at the time. “Google exerts monopoly power over Internet searches, controlling 70 percent of the U.S. market.  For most Americans – indeed, for most people in the world – Google is the gateway to the Internet. How it tweaks its proprietary search algorithms can ensure a business’s success or doom it to failure.”

Earlier in the week the European Consumer Organization (BEUC) wrote Joaguin Almunia, vice president of the European Commission, who has been leading an antitrust probe of Google’s behavior.  He has said that he would prefer to settle the Commission’s concerns without filing a formal case.  One possible settlement that has been reported to be on the table is to require Google to label its own services as getting favorable treatment in search results.

BEUC said that would not be adequate. “Simply requiring Google to label its own vertical search services would not prevent the company from manipulating the search results and discriminating against competing services,” wrote Mononique Goyens, BEUC’s executive director.

A 2010 Consumer Watchdog study, Traffic Report: How Google is Squeezing out Competitors and Muscling Into New Markets, demonstrated how with the launch of Universal Search Google favored its own properties and services in search results to the detriment of its competitors. One stark example was the dramatic drop-off in traffic that occurred on Mapquest’s site after Google placed its Google Maps at the top of Universal Search.

Goyens letter continued:”

“We expect the European Commission to take a strong stance and protect consumers by exercising its powers under the treaties to sanction dominate companies who abuse the dominance to the detriment of consumer welfare. Net and search neutrality are the guiding principles that must be preserved in order to protect the open Internet.“

I couldn’t agree more and there are increasing signs that the FTC on this side of the Atlantic is coming to that point of view as well.

Our original call was aimed at the U.S. Department of Justice Department.  Both the DOJ and FTC have antitrust jurisdiction.  Our letter asked for a broad antitrust action against Google seeking remedial action that could include breaking the Internet giant into separate companies.

“Such action could include breaking Google Inc. into multiple separate companies or regulating it as a public utility,” I wrote at the time. “Google exerts monopoly power over Internet searches, controlling 70 percent of the U.S. market.  For most Americans – indeed, for most people in the world – Google is the gateway to the Internet. How it tweaks its proprietary search algorithms can ensure a business’s success or doom it to failure.”

Detailed reports on Friday from Reuters, Bloomberg and The New York Times quoted unidentified sources and said that a 100-page staff report urging antitrust action against the Internet giant was being circulated to the Commission.  Four commissioners were reported to be in favor of antitrust action; one was said to be skeptical.  A decision on how to proceed could come next month.

The FTC was reported also to be considering action around whether Google is exerting illegal monopoly power with its Android smartphone operating system. Also under investigation is whether it abused patents in an illegal anticompetitive way. The patents were acquired when Google bought Motorola Mobility.

The news stories late Friday were clearly the result of deliberate leaks, more than likely from the FTC. That’s a sign that the Commission is trying to ratchet up pressure on Google, perhaps in an effort to bring about a settlement, rather than taking the case to court.  Already the FTC has hired an outside litigator and economist for a possible case, again perhaps as much to signal seriousness and push toward settlement.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the European Commission is in talks about a possible antitrust settlement with the Internet giant. EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said last month that the negotiations are “not there yet.” He warned that if Google does not offer “effective solutions” to the complaints he “will be obliged to continue with our formal proceedings.”

Given Google’s track record in the way it has stiffed regulators and one-upped them on both sides of the Atlantic, I’d urge regulators to forget about early settlement talks and file a formal case. They’ll have more leverage to talk after it’s filed. As we said in April 2010, remedies could include:

– Breaking Google into different companies devoted to different lines of business.  Search could be separated from advertising.  Gmail and its new social networking service, Google+, could be spun off as a separate entity as could YouTube, a Google acquisition that should have been denied at the time of merger. Enterprise applications could be another separate business.

– Google’s importance as a gateway to cyberspace requires a maximum degree of openness and transparency with the potential for government regulation. Arguably Google’s monopoly position and importance to the Internet means that the company should be regarded as a public utility and regulated.  Regulations could be designed to open up Google’s ad platform to enable other competitors to compete.  Rules could be crafted to create greater transparency in the operation of Google’s ad platform to enable parties to negotiate more effectively – for example: by providing greater visibility into the maximum amount of the highest bid, how many search terms are shown per page, and how Google’s “quality score” is derived and applied.  Little, if any, of this information is currently public and openness would contribute to consumer choice and options as well as foster competition.

– Forcing Google to disgorge its monopolistic gains through the imposition of financial penalties.  The payment would have to be significant enough to impact Google’s future behavior. Perhaps the amount could be tied to paying back consumers for monetizing their private information and content without compensating them.

The estimate came in the FTC’s response to Consumer Watchdog’s amicus curiae brief opposing the proposed $22.5 million settlement with Google for the violation.  We argued that the settlement is deficient because: 1. It includes no permanent injunction precluding Google from violating the “Buzz” Consent Decree; 2. The $22.5 million civil penalty is inadequate; and 3. The proposed deal specifically allows Google to deny it did anything wrong.

Booth Google and the FTC filed their responses late Friday.  Frankly, they both claimed about what I expected they would say: that the deal was reached after arms-length negotiations; that it was fair, reasonable and in the public interest; and that decisions by an executive branch agency deserve considerable deference from a court.

We’ll have to wait see what Judge Susan Illston thinks of all the arguments.  What’s next in the case is up to her.

Meanwhile, the interesting new nugget in the FTC’s filing was the estimate of what Google earned by violating our privacy.  Megan Bartley, an attorney in the FTC’s Division of Enforcement in the Bureau of Consumer Protection said in a declaration filed as Exhibit A with the FTC response brief: “Using a variety of sources, the FTC estimated that Google profited no more than $4 million from the alleged violation.”

I’ve maintained that the fine is mere pocket change to Google executives.   Indeed,  the value of the company’s outstanding stock climbed more than $22.5 million the day the proposed settlement deal was announced. The FTC doesn’t want to us to compare the fine to Google’s $40 billion in annual revenue, but rather what Google derived by playing fast and loose with our privacy.

It’s good to see the FTC cite the $4 million figure if that was a basis for the fine. What’s missing, though, is what sources and methods the agency used to make the estimate.

Perhaps Google’s repeated privacy missteps and antitrust concerns have prompted the President to distance himself.  The motive is not clear, but here’s what happened.

Acceptance speeches are tightly scripted and the nominee generally follows the prepared text as it rolls across the TelePrompTer.  The text is given to the press before the speech is delivered to facilitate reporting and analysis. According to the text distributed to the media, President Obama was supposed to say:

“We believe that a little girl who’s offered an escape from poverty by a great teacher or a grant for college could become the founder of the next Google, or the scientist who cures cancer, or the President of the United States — and it’s in our power to give her that chance.”

Instead he said:

“We believe that a little girl who’s offered an escape from poverty by a great teacher or a grant for college could be the next Steve Jobs, or the scientist who cures cancer, or the President of the United States — and it’s in our power to give her that chance.”

Looks like President Obama understands that Google’s image is crumbling even if his speechwriters don’t.

Well, you’re not the only one to ask.  The difference, though, is that this person can demand answers.  The federal judge presiding in the Oracle v. Google patent infringement case wants to know if either company paid commentators or bloggers during the case. Judge William Alsup’s order is short and to the point:

The Court is concerned that the parties and/or counsel herein may have retained or paid print or internet authors,  journalists, commentators or bloggers who have and /or may publish comments on the issues in this case.  Although the proceedings in this matter are are almost over, they are not fully over yet and, in any event, the disclosure required by this order would be use on appeal or on any remand to make clear whether any treatise, article commentary or analysis on the issues posed by this case are possibly influenced by financial relationships to the parties or counsel. Therefore, each side and its counsel shall file a statement herein clear identifying all authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have received money (other than normal subscription fees) from the party or its counsel during the pendency of this action.  The disclosure shall be filed by noon on Friday, August 17, 2012.

It’s not at all clear what prompted Judge Alsup to act.  Both companies have said they will comply.  It was already known that Florian Mueller of the FOSS Patents blog was getting paid by Oracle.   He disclosed that he was a consultant to Oracle in April as the trial was beginning and said Microsoft is a client as well.

So was Google paying somebody?

It’s possible that Google has arrangements that are similar to Mueller’s deal with Oracle.

Complicating the picture is a reality of the Internet and world of blogging.  Many bloggers run ads from Google’s AdSense program.  Google pays them a commission to run the ads.

And there are organizations that receive Google money either as donations or cy press payments in class action suits.  To what extent  — if any — does such money come with strings? Is their at least an unspoken understanding that the recipient won’t bite the Google hand doing the feeding.

Judge Alsup’s order is broad enough that it appears to cover not only the clear case of a blogger for hire, but also cases were ad money was received and where donations were accepted by an organization.

There should be some interesting reading on Aug. 17.