

Google fights to hide incriminating Java patent emails - cpeterso
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/08/google_oracle_java/

======
ChuckMcM
Yet another cautionary tale about email. If you read the actual motion here:
[http://www.scribd.com/doc/61754518/11-08-05-Oracle-Google-
Jo...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/61754518/11-08-05-Oracle-Google-Joint-Letter-
Re-Lindholm) you will see that part of the argument is that 'auto-saves' of an
email are at question here, in part because the To: line hasn't been filled in
(to one of Google's lawyers) and of course the email doesn't contain the
'propietary and privledged email' clause that every lawyer has a part of their
.signature file these days.

When you look at behind the covers on the Oracle case, and you read the
various 'your a meany' emails that have come out recently over patents and
buying patents etc. You can really appreciate just how "young" Google as a
company really is. I don't know if this will change whether or not the
appreciate just how valuable folks like Brian Reid [1]would have been to keep
around, but it will change permanently change the leadership forever.

[1]
[http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/08/google_age_discr...](http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/08/google_age_discrimination_case.php)

~~~
Natsu
I wonder what the judge will think of this tactic? Oracle has previously been
whacked on the nose like a bad dog for overreaching on patent damages and
warned that the next bite is "for keeps."

In this dispute, Oracle neglected to give Google advanced noticed of using
this, got one magistrate (who didn't know that it was a draft of an email that
was ultimately sent to Google lawyers) to refer the matter to the judge, then
tried to get cute and say that the magistrate had already ruled that it wasn't
protected! True, the magistrate denied Google's motion (not to mention
Oracle's), but I have to wonder if they're going to anger the judge again and
sent to the doghouse.

That said, I bet some Google engineers will be working on their email systems
so that, in the future, it will correctly handle emails sent to legal

~~~
ChuckMcM
"That said, I bet some Google engineers will be working on their email systems
so that, in the future, it will correctly handle emails sent to legal"

Absolutely, I was thinking about this as I read the article. What you "want"
is that the email not to exist until it is actually "sent" but you also want
to protect against losing power etc etc. So perhaps a scheme where the work in
progress is saved using an ephemeral key or something which doesn't level
'footprints' in the file system.

Sort of like making IM's off the record by default, people are much less
cautious about IMs than emails.

