I don't think it is Google twisting the knife. Google is just trying to fix the damage done by the knife Oracle's lawyer stuck in their back in disclosing the magnitude of their deal with Apple.

Agreed. Civil litigation works on the principle that finding out the truth is what really matters, and has all sorts of stern features like discovery, who's nastiness is mitigated by rules, like not discussing on open court trade secrets (well, absent winning a procedural fight to allow such disclosure).

I'm really happy that the lawyer mentioned those figures. We (the public) depend on bits and pieces like this to find out how the world works. So much of our everyday life is governed by the secret internal policies of giant corporations, and secret deals between them.

I fully understand that private companies have a right to keep things secret. But I also believe that people should have a right to know about the things that affect them. And somehow I think it's important to know that the default search engine on my phone might not only be there because its the best one, but because they pay the most.

I hope more lawyers start mentioning random tidbits like this...

Careful what you wish for. Not being able to keep trade secrets is why many toxic trade agreements and patents happened, which ultimately keep the big players big and the small players small.

And does it really help you to know that there's a deal between Google and Apple? It was already public knowledge that Google payed a lot of money to Mozilla for making the default in Firefox. Did you think Apple did it for free or something?

And how exactly does that influence your choices as a customer? Does that make their search engine worse somehow?

I doubt that it can make a difference for a majority of people. For one because it's not newsworthy, I mean, a majority of people don't care about privacy either, let alone worrying about having their choices influenced. But also because Google's search engine is objectively the best search engine and disbelievers should simply try local searches in Europe for a taste of the huge margin of how Google's search beats its competition. And the same can be said of Google Maps actually. Maybe they've integrated it with Waze or something, but it's really smart about traffic and alternative routes lately, not to mention that it's the only one that can keep up with the one-way streets in my city. Apple might have rolled their own solution, but it really sucks by comparison. And the iPhone owners in my city install Google Maps anyway.

I'm pretty sure that most "trade secrets" aren't actually about avoiding unfair competition, but more about preventing customers from finding out how the sausage is made.

All the industry insiders probably know how much the licensing fees are; it's the public that they don't want to find out.

The exact amount paid to Mozilla was known as well.

Apple treats confidentiality very seriously. Google has to do what Apple's would do, to demonstrate they are a reliable partner.

IANAL but I would be surprised if the judge grants significant sanctions over such a minor legal error. Google hasn't shown any specific monetary damages from the disclosure of their contractual terms with Apple. (I am happy that Google won the main case.)

Samsung or all other mobile companies now know 1. how much Google pays Apple. 2. How much profit Google makes on mobile search. It will make negotiations harder for Google.

Oracle lawyer deserves it, a poor lawyer.

As I think I can easily prove Andorid is a copy of Java.

And how, exactly, can it "easily" prove that?

Android was, iirc, a completely clean-room implementation of Java's standard library, sans one method of one class that was coded the same way because it was obvious to code it that way (hence why oracle lost in the first place).

If you can do better than millions of dollars worth of Oracle lawyers, you are indeed a most impressive specimen.

> "Look at the extraordinary magnitude of commerciality here,"

Can't say that in front of the children.

Naked figures, eww, yucky.

I agree it shouldn't be a secret. However it isn't a level playing field if some companies have secrets and other's don't.

If all agreements between public companies and other entities had to be public then the playing field would be more level and the figures in this case would have already been public.

> some companies have secrets and other's don't.

The big companies (and TLAs) have good intelligence, as shown.

Small businesses and the public ... well, tough luck.

Dump a ton of bricks on the clumsy oaf that blew the gaff.

> The big companies (and TLAs) have good intelligence, as shown.

They don't have "good intelligence". They had access to Google's confidential information specifically for the purposes of discovery in this trial. That's why Google is asking for sanctions. They basically abused the discovery process and revealed privileged data that they should not have.

so you volunteer your salary to all your coworkers without demanding the same of them?

The gummint, and anyone well enough connected, already knows my finances down to the last red cent.

Can't say I know theirs.