Google Tells ITC Judge: Microsoft Revealed Our Secret Source Code

Hmm, it seems to be more about objecting to the specific expert witness they're using:<p>"In April, Microsoft sent Google a subpoena asking for a variety of information, including confidential source code.... In its motion for sanctions, Google says it should have had a chance to review the credentials of the expert in question, Dr. Robert Stevenson, and it should have had a chance to object. The motion notes that Stevenson has done consulting work for Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ), “both direct competitors of Google.” Now Google wants the ITC judge overseeing the Microsoft v. Motorola case to stop Stevenson from testifying."

I believe in situations like this that it's customary to give the code to be evaluated to an outside expert in order to protect both parties from the risk of theft of intellectual property. Is Google's main objection that they would have wanted to approve of the expert witness first? That seems unusual.<p>(Disclaimer 1: IANAL) (Disclaimer 2: I work for Microsoft, but I know nothing about this matter.)

Wait...Google objects to the outside expert Microsoft hired to look at the source code because he's worked for Microsoft before on legal cases?<p>Surely Google doesn't expect that every time a company needs an outside expert to look at source code (which they have to hire an outside expert for because they are not allowed to see it themselves) they need to find a new expert?