In the high-profile trademark battle between Oracle and Google, Judge Alsup encouraged both companies to consider the privacy of potential jurors. He gave the companies a choice to either agree not to research jurors on social media until the trial was over, or disclose any online research they had done. Judge Alsup was concerned that online research of jurors could be used to inappropriately influence them, such as by tailoring arguments to their interests found online. While Google agreed not to research jurors online, Oracle was unwilling to agree to a complete ban on online research.

1. Google and Oracle Must Disclose Mining of Jurors’
Social Media
Analysis by jurors is a common concern for most judges. In a high-
stake trademark battle between two Silicon Valley leaders, it’s Analysis
on jurors that’s illustrating particular analysis from the regular.
As the long-running Oracle Corp. v. Google Inc. trademark discussion
approaches test, the federal assess listening to the situation is
encouraging both ends to regard the comfort of jurors. The assess has
given attorneys a choice: either believe the fact not to execute Online
and public networking research about jurors until the test is over or be
compelled to reveal their online tracking.

2. ●
In this high-profile trademark action, both ends asked
for that the Court require the [jury pool] to finish a
two-page judge set of questions. Either part then
desired a complete additional day to process the
solutions, and lack of desired two complete
additional days, all before beginning voir serious.
Considering the wait assigned to analyzing two
pages, the assess gradually pointed out that advice
desired what they are and homes from the set of
questions so that, during the wait, their groups could
clean Facebook, Tweets, LinkedIn, and other Web
sites to draw out individual details about the venire.

3. Judge Alsup said one of the risks of exploration juror public
networking use is that attorneys will use the details to create
“improper individual is attractive.” He offers a appropriate
example:
●
If searching found that a juror’s preferred book is To
Destroy A Mockingbird, it wouldn’t be hard for advice to
create a trademark judge discussion (or a line of expert
questions) based on an example to that work and to try
out upon the recent loss of life of Harper Lee, all in an
effort to ingratiate himself or herself into the heartstrings
of that juror.

4. Judge Alsup said Search engines had been willing to agree to an
overall judge research ban — if it used similarly to both ends — but
Oracle wasn’t.
●
Oracle stocks the Court’s comfort issues and likes
the Court’s consideration to the technicalities of this
issue,” attorneys for the company had written in a
March 17 brief to the judge. “Neither Oracle nor
anyone working with Oracle will log into any public
networking records to execute queries on jurors or
potential jurors at any time,” the company’s brief
said.

5. Google has confident the judge that it won’t be
exploration any juror’s Online queries, the assess
had written. But he said that in a situation in which
“the very name of the accused — Search engines
— gives mind Online queries,” it’s “prudent to
describe to” the judge share that “neither party will
hotel to analyzing search backgrounds on any
internet search engine.

6. Google has confident the judge that it won’t be
exploration any juror’s Online queries, the assess
had written. But he said that in a situation in which
“the very name of the accused — Search engines
— gives mind Online queries,” it’s “prudent to
describe to” the judge share that “neither party will
hotel to analyzing search backgrounds on any
internet search engine.