Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 27th Sep 2010 21:20 UTC
Original OSNews Interviews We've covered the lawsuit between Skyhook and Google in quite some detail already, but today we have something very interesting that sheds a lot of new light on the case: an interview with Skyhook's CEO and founder, Ted Morgan, about the lawsuit. While Morgan obviously couldn't talk about everything, he explains a few things and gives some new information, as well. Read on for Skyhook's side of the story.
Order by: Score:
Thanks for the additional POV.
by Tuishimi on Mon 27th Sep 2010 22:12 UTC
Member since:

I hope things pan out for them.

Reply Score: 2

Easy there Thom
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 27th Sep 2010 22:32 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:

You were really pushing it with those questions, trying to get Skyhook to speculate on Google's reasoning and/or motivations. Very leading questions. He pretty much shut you down on those, but on the more legitimate questions he did provide some interesting details.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Easy there Thom
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 27th Sep 2010 22:40 UTC in reply to "Easy there Thom"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:

You were really pushing it with those questions

That's kind of the point, isn't it? They were all legitimate questions, and of course, nobody is forced to answer anything. I'm not a particularly fond of how modern-day tech media interview people - too afraid, too shallow, too scared to lose review item agreements.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Easy there Thom
by Timmmm on Tue 28th Sep 2010 11:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Easy there Thom"
Timmmm Member since:

I agree. Well done for asking real questions, rather than invitations to advertise.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Easy there Thom
by igf1 on Tue 28th Sep 2010 16:41 UTC in reply to "Easy there Thom"
igf1 Member since:

That's what good journalism is. Asking cookie jar questions is an artifact of the mainstream propaganda outlets.

Reply Score: 3

location location location ....
by Bully on Tue 28th Sep 2010 00:55 UTC
Member since:

"the resulting location usage of cell phones users will become increasingly important to marketers as a better way to target promotions"

That seems to be the major issue here. Who will end up controlling the location information.

Reply Score: 2

No smoke...
by vodoomoth on Tue 28th Sep 2010 11:03 UTC
Member since:

There's a saying in French: "pas de fumée sans feu" (no smoke without a fire or something like that).
The fact that this litigation exists is already a bad thing. With all the battlefields Google is engaged in, did they really need that much this "bit" of land?

I don't know how big Skyhook is or how good their technology is (I don't even see how Wifi spots can help locate people better than cell towers) compared to the others including Google's but, with all the technical prowess they've displayed so far, people at Google don't seem to be in the need to fight these fights: they can easily hire bright people and they can easily buy competitors to Skyhook. They've done that in the past, why can't they now?

Bad move Google, whether Skyhook's complaint is founded or not.

Reply Score: 2

Is XPS really better?
by Timmmm on Tue 28th Sep 2010 11:40 UTC
Member since:

I can't really see how Skyhook's positioning could be better than Google's. Once you have all the location lookup data, calculating the location of wifi APs must be fairly easy.

I would have thought most of the difference in accuracy would come from the number of devices roaming the world, mapping out the wifi networks, of which Google surely has vastly more than Skyhook.

That said, Google does occasionally think I am in India.

Reply Score: 2

Privacy Threat
by lemonation on Tue 28th Sep 2010 14:09 UTC
Member since:

I'm way more worried about the privacy risk involved in mapping visible routers than I am about who wins the lawsuit. While I understand that we can not do anything to stop them (after all, a revealed SSID is public information -- at least theoretically), I think it may be time to start countermeasures.

I think we need to consider enabling the feature which we were always told not to use, "hidden SSID". (Although this is a privacy risk in itself.)

I wish Thom had asked about Skyhook about the privacy risks involved.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Privacy Threat
by giffypop17 on Tue 28th Sep 2010 20:15 UTC in reply to "Privacy Threat"
giffypop17 Member since:

Doesn't do any good. They're mapping MAC addresses, not SSID, IIRC. Somebody (Ars?) had a good article up about it a few weeks ago. Really there's nothing you can do to hide, except avoid wireless completely.

Reply Score: 1