From an IP perspective, do you think Android is legal? From Java, to multi touch, to design aesthetics. Is Google doing to the OS industry to what they did to the news paper and media industry where IP is considered 'obsolete'. And a silent emperor sits over the valley of chaos?
I'm mainly playing devil's advocate here. But many, if not all, of google's empire is based around curating other people's IP, including Android.
Much of the IP Google does have is kept server side, safe from competitors.
But the legal issues are real, and I imagine many of the downrates of my previous comment was of either google developers or people within that eco-system.
Why did Microsoft take so long to make Windows Phone, and why does it legally appear safe? And how is that related to Android?
But don't get me wrong, I love Google for search and web apps, just not operating systems that, to at least me, seem slightly trojan in nature.
It would have been interesting to see if Android turned out the way it did, if Google's CEO was not on the Apple board. I'm not implying anything, other than that I find that really interesting. There are so many little things about Android like that, that this article also leaves out.
You can just come out and say what you think, no need to hide behind "finding that interesting" and "devil's advocate". I happen to disagree that Android/Google in general steals IP, but it is better to say what you mean to have a real discussion.
Well I find that the Microsoft 'embrace, extend, extinguish' sounds more like Google today. When was the last time Gmail had introduced innovative features, there is still much improvement to be done. Chrome browser is by far the best, but when they get the market share, I imagine we will see improvements and innovations come to a slow as well.
But sure, let's talk about how Eric Schmidt was the Apple board during the development of the iPhone. That is fascinating. How could that not have influenced the only competition to the iPhone. That seems suspicious to me, as no other company besides Google anticipated it.
So let's talk about the design similarities between Android and iPhone.
These topics are fascinating.
So Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle are all claiming that Android violates their products, while Google, before this, had no patents regarding OS. That is also fascinating.
The only reason why Android is 'open source' is to make it more difficult for litigation. And I don't think a company that develop's open source should be able to place ads on it, as to me, that is still 'selling' the software.
"9. Accepting Warranty or Additional Liability. While redistributing the Work or Derivative Works thereof, You may choose to offer, and charge a fee for, acceptance of support, warranty, indemnity, or other liability obligations and/or rights consistent with this License. However, in accepting such obligations, You may act only on Your own behalf and on Your sole responsibility, not on behalf of any other Contributor, and only if You agree to indemnify, defend, and hold each Contributor harmless for any liability incurred by, or claims asserted against, such Contributor by reason of your accepting any such warranty or additional liability."
So someone please help explain how this is possible:
From Reuters Nov 9, 2011:
"Google Inc will continue to offer support to firms using its Android system that are involved in legal disputes, its executive chairman Eric Schmidt said on Wednesday, as the Internet giant looks to cement alliances in the face of toughening competition."
The way I am reading the Apache license says that Google should not be giving support to OEMs? Am I reading this part wrong? "However, in accepting such obligations, You may act only on Your own behalf and on Your sole responsibility, not on behalf of any other Contributor" I'm not the best at reading law, so I would love some insight.
First off, you are reading it wrong. But it doesn't matter.
Google owns the copyright on Android, so the Apache License has no relevance to their activities. Licenses are a way of limiting the restrictions levied by copyright law; they give you more freedom than you would otherwise have. If you otherwise have more freedom than a license grants because you are not bound by copyright law, you ignore the license. It's meaningless.
I haven't contributed any code to the Apache-licensed parts of Android, but I assume that you assign copyright to Google when you push your code. That means that Google continues to own the copyright on the whole codebase, and you have copyright on your contributions.
The license says Google is not obligated to offer support, accept liability, etc. to anyone who uses the code. Google is, of course, free to do more than that for certain users (like Android OEMs) if they want to.
What did Google embrace, extend, and extinguish with Gmail? You can still connect to it with any standards-compliant MUA to download messages, and you can send messages to it like you would send messages with any mail server. Every user can talk to the rest of the Internet, and every user on the Internet can talk to Gmail users. So there is no extension or extinguishing going on; it's just another mail host that is functionally identical, from a standards perspective, to any other. You happen to also get a nice web interface for free.
Compare this to Exchange, which is its own system with a special client and special server. Good luck using offlineimap to sync your Exchange inbox.
But sure, let's talk about how Eric Schmidt was the Apple board during the development of the iPhone.
When Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board, he did not attend any meetings related to the iPhone, and then eventually resigned. He also got Android through buying an outside company, which did not sit on Apple's board.
So let's talk about the design similarities between Android and iPhone.
You press a picture of the phone when you want to make a phone call, and then your voice is transmitted over the cellular phone network to the person you're talking to? Icons are pictures of things? You can send and receive text messages and email from the phones?
Ultimately, any phone is going to be very similar to any other phone, because they are both phones.
And I don't think a company that develop's open source should be able to place ads on it, as to me, that is still 'selling' the software.
Interesting thought. When you write your own open source software, don't put any ads on it.
But it's worth pointing out that Google doesn't put ads in Android. Some providers even switch the search engine that Android uses from Google to Bing. The point of open source is freedom; if someone wants to make money with it, you can just delete that part. And people have done that with Android.
