Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 16th Sep 2012 16:53 UTC
Google There's a bit of a story going on between Google, Acer, and Alibaba, a Chinese mobile operating system vendor. Acer wanted to ship a device with Alibaba's operating system, but Google asked them not to, and Acer complied. The reason is that Acer is a member of the Open Handset Alliance, which prohibits the promotion of non-standard Android implementations - exactly what Alibaba is shipping. On top of that, Alibaba's application store hosts pirated Android applications, including ones from Google.
Order by: Score:
v Interesting
by Windows Sucks on Sun 16th Sep 2012 18:00 UTC
RE: Interesting
by drcouzelis on Sun 16th Sep 2012 18:26 UTC in reply to "Interesting"
drcouzelis Member since:
2010-01-11

In what way does Google sound like Oracle and Microsoft? Why does it make you giggle?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Interesting
by Windows Sucks on Sun 16th Sep 2012 21:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

In what way does Google sound like Oracle and Microsoft? Why does it make you giggle?


1. Oracle sued saying Google forked Java and making an incompatible version. Now Google is saying the same about this Chineese company.

2. Microsoft used to do the same to their OEM's if they tried to sell any other OS.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Interesting
by saso on Sun 16th Sep 2012 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

1. Oracle sued saying Google forked Java and making an incompatible version. Now Google is saying the same about this Chineese company.

Google didn't sue Acer. They merely reminded them of their contractual obligations that come as part of being a member of the Open Handset Alliance. If Acer persisted, they'd have been kicked out of the OHA.

2. Microsoft used to do the same to their OEM's if they tried to sell any other OS.

Microsoft never sued any of their OEMs because of what you say either.

Edited 2012-09-16 21:49 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Interesting
by Windows Sucks on Sun 16th Sep 2012 21:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

No duh we know they didn't sue (Yet) but originally Sun didn't sue ether.

And no Microsoft didn't sue they just threated companies as in this situation by saying they would not be able to sell Windows or the price for Windows would go way up for those OEMs.

This rule would only apply IF this is a fork of Android which the company said it isn't. Just the same as Google says their implementation of Java is not a fork of Oracles Java.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Interesting
by Laurence on Sun 16th Sep 2012 22:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Interesting"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

You're either incredibly biased or incredibly stupid, but either way your argument is incredibly flawed.

Oracle sued Google because of licencing. Oracle wanted a fee for all the Android handsets sold and that meant going after Google, proving that Google "stole" Java. However Oracle lost this case massively because Google proved that not only was their implementation a compete re-write from the ground up, but also that you cannot copyright a programming language any more than you can copyright speaking French.

This case wasn't even remotely about litigation nor licencing. Google just wanted to stop piracy by reminding Acer of their obligations as part of the Open Handset Alliance. Acer could easily have rejected the OHA if they disagreed with Google.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Interesting
by Windows Sucks on Sun 16th Sep 2012 22:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Interesting"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

You're either incredibly biased or incredibly stupid, but either way your argument is incredibly flawed.

Oracle sued Google because of licencing. Oracle wanted a fee for all the Android handsets sold and that meant going after Google, proving that Google "stole" Java. However Oracle lost this case massively because Google proved that not only was their implementation a compete re-write from the ground up, but also that you cannot copyright a programming language any more than you can copyright speaking French.

This case wasn't even remotely about litigation nor licencing. Google just wanted to stop piracy by reminding Acer of their obligations as part of the Open Handset Alliance. Acer could easily have rejected the OHA if they disagreed with Google.


? Interesting that Google barely mentions piracy saying: "The fact is, Aliyun uses the Android runtime, framework and tools. And your app store contains Android apps (including pirated Google apps). So there’s really no disputing that Aliyun is based on the Android platform and takes advantage of all the hard work that’s gone into that platform by the OHA."

Basically Google is saying that Aliyun OS is a copy of Android (On top of the piracy which is the last thing mentioned) And Alibaba is saying its not and should not be covered under the OHA and also that their App store is open where people can put up whatever.

The part of the Oracle argument that I am bringing up is that Google's version of Java is copy of Oracles Java.

Has nothing to do with bias.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[7]: Interesting
by Slambert666 on Mon 17th Sep 2012 05:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Interesting"
RE[7]: Interesting
by Laurence on Mon 17th Sep 2012 07:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Interesting"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


? Interesting that Google barely mentions piracy saying: "The fact is, Aliyun uses the Android runtime, framework and tools. And your app store contains Android apps (including pirated Google apps). So there’s really no disputing that Aliyun is based on the Android platform and takes advantage of all the hard work that’s gone into that platform by the OHA."

Basically Google is saying that Aliyun OS is a copy of Android (On top of the piracy which is the last thing mentioned) And Alibaba is saying its not and should not be covered under the OHA and also that their App store is open where people can put up whatever.

Google have a clear case for preventing Alibaba via the OHA. They'd have a tougher time (and one that would likely result in lengthy court battles) if they tried to stop Alibaba via the piracy route.

You're putting Google in a no win scenario: you moan when Google use polite methods to crack down, and you'd bitch even more if Google took this whole thing to court. Much like how people like you whine about fragmentation in Android and then whine when Google try to fix it. It's as if you have nothing better to do than just moan about Android.


The part of the Oracle argument that I am bringing up is that Google's version of Java is copy of Oracles Java.

Clearly you don't understand how Java works.

Google used the Java language and built their own runtime from scratch - which is akin to taking the French language and writing a novel in it. Google did not copy Oracles Java software in any way shape nor form (that case had been through the courts and Google were cleared on all counts). Oracle just got greedy because Google's reimplementation meant that Google didn't have to pay royalties for JRE licences and it was suggested to Oracle during the Sun acquisition talks that there was potential ground for litigation there.

So if you think languages can be intellectual property, then I'll copyright Latin and sue every single person on this site - starting with yourself. But clearly that would just be absurd - just as Oracles claims that the language Java is IP or your claims that Google copied Oracles runtime.

Edited 2012-09-17 07:18 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE[7]: Interesting
by Beta on Mon 17th Sep 2012 08:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Interesting"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

And Alibaba is saying its not and should not be covered under the OHA


Acer however is covered, and Google have quite the right to point out to their OHA‐partner Acer, that working with Alibaba on that would be against the purposes of OHA.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Interesting
by JAlexoid on Mon 17th Sep 2012 19:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Interesting"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Alibaba is the bystander here. Acer was breaking their OHA contractual obligations. Simple as that.
Google said that they have to adhere to the contract or the contract is terminated.

All tehy are saying is that Allyun is not compatible and that contradicts the OHA contract. Acer is free to go all Amazon.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Interesting
by saso on Sun 16th Sep 2012 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Interesting"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

No duh we know they didn't sue (Yet) but originally Sun didn't sue ether.

Google has no legal standing in existing law to sue Acer as Oracle sued Google, therefore these cases are not equal and your response to the question "In what way does Google sound like Oracle" was erroneous.

To expand on why Google has no legal standing to sue: Oracle's copyright and patent grants related to Java were constructed to be dependent on adherence to a contract and thus breach of contract translated into breach of copyright and patents. Google has no such requirement for Android. Google can let off as much hot air out of their mouths as they want, but that doesn't mean they have legal leverage over Android in the same way in which Oracle has over Java.

And no Microsoft didn't sue they just threated companies as in this situation by saying they would not be able to sell Windows or the price for Windows would go way up for those OEMs.

It was you who was talking about lawsuits. To recap:
1. Oracle sued saying Google forked Java and making an incompatible version...[snip]
2. Microsoft used to do the same to their OEM's...

You could evade by saying that "the same" here meant that Google is saying that the Chinese company is creating an incompatible version, but Microsoft never said that about any of their OEMs trying to sell a machine with a non-Windows OS, as none of the non-Windows operating systems were an "incompatible version" of Windows. In fact, none of them were any kind of Windows OS at all. They were completely different operating systems in their own right, so Microsoft claiming that they were an "incompatible version" would have been patently false. That is not to say that Microsoft didn't abuse their position of power over OEMs, it's just that they weren't abusing it in the same way as Oracle and/or Google.

This rule would only apply IF this is a fork of Android which the company said it isn't. Just the same as Google says their implementation of Java is not a fork of Oracles Java.

As I have shown, Google cannot institute legal proceedings against Acer, thus this claim is irrelevant. What happens in the OHA or based on what parameters they choose to grant or revoke membership is entirely the OHA's business, not the court's.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Interesting
by Windows Sucks on Sun 16th Sep 2012 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Interesting"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

If we want to get technical we could go to Microsoft saying that Windows could only run on MS Dos and the lawsuits related to that.

We could also say that Google could kick Acer out of OHA and Acer could sue and it could be in court.

Lawsuits are the end result.

But its funny: "It is ironic that a company that talks freely about openness is espousing a closed ecosystem. Aliyun OS is not part of the Android ecosystem, so of course Aliyun OS is not, and does not have to be, compatible with Android. This is like saying that because they own the Googleplex in Mountain View, therefore anyone who builds in Mountain View is part of the Googleplex.

Will someone please ask Google to define Android?"

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Interesting
by saso on Sun 16th Sep 2012 23:29 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Interesting"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

If we want to get technical

The question at hand are not technicalities. It's whether what you're saying is accurate or not. If you assert unsupported stuff, be prepared to be called on it.

we could go to Microsoft saying that Windows could only run on MS Dos and the lawsuits related to that.

First show that these suits hinged on the same arguments Oracle used against Google (i.e. breach of copyright and patents), if they in fact existed at all.

We could also say that Google could kick Acer out of OHA and Acer could sue and it could be in court.

Membership in private organizations is not subject to oversight by law, except in cases of direct discrimination based on certain controlled aspects of the person being discriminated against (race, ethnicity, gender, etc.) As Acer and Google aren't human beings, these do not apply. Therefore, Acer would have no standing to sue. Neither OHA, nor Google as its steering member, are obliged by law to accept anybody as a member.

Lawsuits are the end result.

Lawsuits have to have a basis in law. Bringing a lawsuit that is baseless is itself punishable as a frivolous lawsuit.

But its funny: "It is ironic that a company that talks freely about openness is espousing a closed ecosystem. Aliyun OS is not part of the Android ecosystem, so of course Aliyun OS is not, and does not have to be, compatible with Android. This is like saying that because they own the Googleplex in Mountain View, therefore anyone who builds in Mountain View is part of the Googleplex.

Will someone please ask Google to define Android?"

Please source this quote. Parts of it seem to be from Andy Rubin, but I cannot find a quote like this anywhere on the net.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Interesting
by cdude on Mon 17th Sep 2012 10:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Interesting"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Aliyun OS is not part of the Android ecosystem, so of course Aliyun OS is not, and does not have to be, compatible with Android.


Correct and now the news: Google agrees on that. Google has no legal way to not agree on that.

Aliyun does NOT have to be compatible just like Amazon Kindle does NOT have to be compatible. Google cannot sue and has NO legal way to demand that.

And they don't. What they did was to form the OHA, formulate compatibility as target there. All OHA members agreed. Alibaba is not a OHA member and so they did not agree but even when they could decide right NOW its not there goal any longer and leave the OHA.

But this is not about Alibaba. This is about Acer which are in the OHA and they like to stay there. To be allowed to stay in the OHA Acer needs to fullfit the goal the OHA defined: compatibility. So, either Acer does not see that as priority, does the incompatible Aliyun and leaves, or they keep to define it as priority, abort Aliyun (as long as its incompatible - what can also mean Acer works on making it compatible) and stay in the OHA. Acer cannot have both cause both are exclusive. This is what google made clear and they are right about it.

You cannot define something as your target and expect to profit from things associated to it while doing the exact opposite without consequences (except your are a politican what is worse enough).

Google made clear Acer need to decide. Either they go for compatibility, and can stay in the OHA, or they don't, and need to leave the OHA. Acer decided.

Edited 2012-09-17 10:28 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Interesting
by WorknMan on Mon 17th Sep 2012 01:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

2. Microsoft used to do the same to their OEM's if they tried to sell any other OS.


I think in order for this to compare directly, a Linux vendor would have to ship Linux with a version of Wine on top, and an app store that had pirated Windows apps in it.

I can appreciate what Google is doing here; it's a hybrid approach between '100% open' and the iOS walled garden. If they didn't exercise some sort of control, you'd have the phone equivalent of Linux on the desktop, and we all know how successful that was ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE: Interesting
by robojerk on Sun 16th Sep 2012 18:35 UTC in reply to "Interesting"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

allthingsd is definitely biased for Apple, and against Google..

Acer is part of the OHA so they either need to follow the rules or leave. If Alibaba didn't host pirated apps I might have agreed that this resembles like Google being mean to other OS's, but since this seems like an OS trying to be compatible with Android, with pirated apps I loose sympathy quick.

Reply Score: 7

v RE[2]: Interesting
by Elv13 on Sun 16th Sep 2012 19:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting"
RE[3]: Interesting
by WereCatf on Sun 16th Sep 2012 19:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

It is like Microsoft asking Dell not to sell Linux PCs because Wine is available in the repository and allow installing pirated apps.


Not really. It would be the same if there were pirated apps in the repository itself.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Interesting
by cdude on Mon 17th Sep 2012 10:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

The pirated apps story is only one part. In my eyes the most less important one even.

Google defines certain compatibility criterias. They have a huge set of tests an "Android version" needs to pass and there is the demand that all of the code including modifications and drivers are opened so others can build up on top, reuse, etc. just like with Android itself.

The tests are one reasons we, app-developers, have a limited set of pain coming to us while making our apps proper run on all the Android devices and form-factors out there. I, as app-developer, would have a hard time to realize that someone offers a broken version of my apps for a specific device and claims it works while it doesn't cause of differences I do not find in any other device. User complains to me, blames me, great.

That manufactors are forced to open there Android versions too is great and the reason things like Cyanogen mods for close to all the devices out there are available. Thats why we get 3th party support for our devices where the manufactor itself gave up already and moved on to newer generation devices. Its why we have a huge range of hardware drivers shipped together with Android.

Edited 2012-09-17 10:47 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Interesting
by Beta on Mon 17th Sep 2012 09:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

It is like Microsoft asking Dell not to sell Linux PCs because Wine is available in the repository
… snipped early to keep an apple to pears parallel to the topic.

Wine is not written by Microsoft so there would be no copyright infringement.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Interesting
by Windows Sucks on Sun 16th Sep 2012 21:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

? But pirated Apps are not the reason Google is using. Google is saying that you can't use a non compatible Android fork. The Chineese company is saying its not a fork. It's Linux with an Android compatible runtime.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Interesting
by saso on Sun 16th Sep 2012 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Google is saying that you can't use a non compatible Android fork. The Chineese company is saying its not a fork. It's Linux with an Android compatible runtime.

Except that the statement that it's not a fork is, for all we know, false. Google's Android chief Andy Rubin is quoted as stating this:
the Aliyun OS incorporates the Android runtime and was apparently derived from Android

Apparently they didn't re-implement a new VM, libs and tooling like Google did with Java. Instead they simply lifted portions of the Android OS wholesale. This would make Aliyun clearly a derivative work of Android and therefore a fork.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Interesting
by Windows Sucks on Sun 16th Sep 2012 23:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

"Google is saying that you can't use a non compatible Android fork. The Chineese company is saying its not a fork. It's Linux with an Android compatible runtime.

Except that the statement that it's not a fork is, for all we know, false. Google's Android chief Andy Rubin is quoted as stating this:
the Aliyun OS incorporates the Android runtime and was apparently derived from Android

Apparently they didn't re-implement a new VM, libs and tooling like Google did with Java. Instead they simply lifted portions of the Android OS wholesale. This would make Aliyun clearly a derivative work of Android and therefore a fork.
"

Yet the company says: “Aliyun OS incorporates its own virtual machine, which is different from Android’s Dalvik virtual machine. Aliyun OS’s runtime environment, which is the core of the OS, consists of both its own Java virtual machine, which is different from Android’s Dalvik virtual machine, and its own cloud app engine, which supports HTML5 web applications. Aliyun OS uses some of the Android application framework and tools (open source) merely as a patch to allow Aliyun OS users to enjoy third-party apps in addition to the cloud-based Aliyun apps in our ecosystem.”

So that would then not make it a fork.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Interesting
by saso on Mon 17th Sep 2012 07:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Interesting"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Yet the company says: “Aliyun OS incorporates its own virtual machine, which is different from Android’s Dalvik virtual machine. Aliyun OS’s runtime environment, which is the core of the OS, consists of both its own Java virtual machine, which is different from Android’s Dalvik virtual machine, and its own cloud app engine, which supports HTML5 web applications. Aliyun OS uses some of the Android application framework and tools (open source) merely as a patch to allow Aliyun OS users to enjoy third-party apps in addition to the cloud-based Aliyun apps in our ecosystem.”

So that would then not make it a fork.


Yes, it is to be expected that the statements by Google would be denied by Aliyun's maker (which is why I said "apparently they didn't re-implement a new VM"). A first-order determination of whether a given code-base is derived and altered can be made pretty quickly (a simple "strings" dump will do it), but since we lack the binaries in question to do an actual confirmation, all we have are statements against statements.

Nevertheless, even without a VM, they admitted openly to incorporating (at least some of) Android's frameworks and tooling as a drop-in, so Google clearly has a case here. Let's keep in mind, that these aren't just a few lines of code, it's a substantial and non-trivial codebase.

Therefore, the case is quite dissimilar to Oracle v. Google. There, Google didn't copy anything from Oracle's implementation (save for a few lines of a range-check macro), and Oracle has a patent grant on Java predicated on adherence to an interoperability specification.

The Aliyun OS lifted wholesale substantial portions of the Android codebase and Google has no such patent grant for Android (i.e. one based on compatibility testing), so there is no legal leverage that can be used against downstream forks. The only leverage they have is revocation of membership in the OHA, which is not something anybody can sue over.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Interesting
by jared_wilkes on Mon 17th Sep 2012 10:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Google says this is against the OHA, but there are at least 2 other OHA members doing exactly the same thing (Haier with Aliyun and Lenovo with oPhone). Therefore, no, I do not find Google more credible, and no, I will not assume they are being the more truthful party in this case.

Edited 2012-09-17 11:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Good
by Nelson on Sun 16th Sep 2012 20:29 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Good on Google for trying to wrestle back control of Android.
Its a little heavy handed, but hey, they need leverage somehow.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Good
by cdude on Mon 17th Sep 2012 10:59 UTC in reply to "Good"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

As the app compatibility story proves they never lost compatibility control. Fragmentation with compatibility :-)

Reply Score: 2

Wait a minute
by akrosdbay on Sun 16th Sep 2012 20:48 UTC
akrosdbay
Member since:
2008-06-09

So it is OK for Google to take Java and make it incompatible and call it Dalvik. But it is not Ok when some one else does the same to one of Google's projects.

Double standards much?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wait a minute
by forte555 on Sun 16th Sep 2012 20:52 UTC in reply to "Wait a minute"
forte555 Member since:
2009-06-16

Except that it is ok to fork android.. But if you do you can not be a member of OHA, did you even read the article?

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: Wait a minute
by Elv13 on Sun 16th Sep 2012 20:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Wait a minute"
Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

Google is part of the Java steering committee. To join it (and OpenJDK), IBM had to drop Symphony for the same reason.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Wait a minute
by Vanders on Sun 16th Sep 2012 21:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wait a minute"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

So you'll have a point when Sunacle care enough to ask Google to drop Dalvik or leave the steering committee.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Wait a minute
by akrosdbay on Sun 16th Sep 2012 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wait a minute"
akrosdbay Member since:
2008-06-09

So you'll have a point when Sunacle care enough to ask Google to drop Dalvik or leave the steering committee.


Hunh? They sued them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Wait a minute
by cdude on Mon 17th Sep 2012 11:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wait a minute"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Dude, IBM never dropped Symphony. They are even merging Symphony back into Apache OO.org giving up there own OO.org fork after a deal with Oracle to move OO.org to the APL.

Edited 2012-09-17 11:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wait a minute
by akrosdbay on Sun 16th Sep 2012 21:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Wait a minute"
akrosdbay Member since:
2008-06-09

Except that it is ok to fork android.. But if you do you can not be a member of OHA, did you even read the article?


Acer didn't fork Android. They wanted to release a phone based on another vendor's OS. Like they release Windows Phones and Android phones. Did you read the article?

Alibaba is not a member of OHA. So telling Acer they will revoke any Android ecosystem privileges when they release a phone that is not branded as Android is dubious. Especially since Acer makes 100% compliant Android phones as well that would ship along side the one running Aliyun OS.

Google is using their Android OHA membership as a tool to add a barrier to entry to a competitor's OS based on an Open Source Project.

Edited 2012-09-16 21:16 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Wait a minute
by chithanh on Sun 16th Sep 2012 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wait a minute"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

Google is using their Android OHA membership as a tool to add a barrier to entry to a competitor's OS based on an Open Source Project.

Google is totally cool with competitors offering Windows Phone, iOS, Tizen, Firefox OS, MeeGo, WebOS, BB10 or whatever open source or proprietary operating systems alongside Android.

But if you want to offer an incompatible competing OS based on Android code, they will not let you be part of the club that has early access to said code.

While I would have preferred that Google competes on merit and educating consumers about such practices, their actions are totally understandable.

Reply Score: 8

RE[4]: Wait a minute
by jared_wilkes on Mon 17th Sep 2012 10:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wait a minute"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

You should inform Google that they should be kicking out at least 3 OHA members this week then.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Wait a minute
by cdude on Mon 17th Sep 2012 11:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wait a minute"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Can't do yourself? Fear the answer google would give you: who and why?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Wait a minute
by jared_wilkes on Mon 17th Sep 2012 11:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wait a minute"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Haier is an OHA member and produces both Aliyun and Android phones. Lenovo is an OHA member and has produced both oPhone and Android phones. And Acer. Satisfied?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Wait a minute
by gan17 on Mon 17th Sep 2012 11:53 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wait a minute"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

Do the Haier and Lenovo phones include the Official Google Android Market/Play Store?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Wait a minute
by cdude on Mon 17th Sep 2012 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wait a minute"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Just wait what Haier is doing in the future. If they stay in the OHA but stop making new Aliyun devices then you have your answer. Not every company is that stupid (vocal) with there coperate communication like Acer.

oPhone seems to be pre Android 1.0, before the OHA was born, before Android was google. No conflict.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Wait a minute
by Andre on Mon 17th Sep 2012 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wait a minute"
Andre Member since:
2005-07-06

Doesn't BB10 include an Android compatibility layer? I wonder if Google is going to complain about that as well?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Wait a minute
by chithanh on Mon 17th Sep 2012 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wait a minute"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

BlackBerry is not member of the Open Handset Alliance, so they are free to do what they want with the Android code.

Also, I expect that their app store contains no pirated apps.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Wait a minute
by jared_wilkes on Mon 17th Sep 2012 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wait a minute"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

You're missing the point, I'm perfectly aware that BB is not a member of the OHA. The point is: Google claims members of OHA can use rival OSes, just not rival derivatives of Android -- but what if those non-Android rivals start using Android code (which they can do since they aren't members of the OHA), does that mean OHA members can no longer use any competitive OSes?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Wait a minute
by cdude on Mon 17th Sep 2012 20:32 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wait a minute"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

You can answer that question yourself by asking:
Is it possible that something own becomes a fork of something else cause I integrate parts of something else in[*] something own?

[*] In the case of BB10 it must be "on top of" except you plan to merge the Linux-Kernel with QNX too? When why?

Edited 2012-09-17 20:37 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Wait a minute
by gsyoungblood on Mon 17th Sep 2012 01:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wait a minute"
gsyoungblood Member since:
2007-01-09

Acer joined OHA and agreed to abide by the terms. As I read the news around this, it's quite simple. Acer was going to release a phone that ran the other OS that included a "market" hosting Google apps. Never mind that allegation that the market is hosted pirated apps, let's pretend Acer has a license to them because of being a member in the OHA.

And there's the rub, the license Acer has to the app is from membership in the OHA which has compatibility guidelines which this other OS does not meet. Therefore there's no license for the Google Apps.

It is perfectly reasonable for Google to say nuh-uh for putting their apps on this other OS. If this other OS is partially compatible and the apps have problems then Google's damaged by the appearance of faulty apps. That's why there are compatibility guidelines in the first place.

This time, I think Google is being reasonable. Lately it's been rare.

<off topic rant>
I'm still sore about the bait-and-switch Google Galaxy Nexus phone. It was released first and premiered on Verizon, you'd think they'd back it. Instead the drop the CDMAs like a hot potato and now I've got a Verizon phone with sluggish Verizon releases and minimal (if any) official Google releases. The other Galaxy Nexus' devices have Jelly Bean from an official released download on Google's site. The only Jelly Bean for the Verizon Nexus is a leaked version. I bought the Galaxy Nexus BECAUSE it was a Google Nexus "official" device. Silly me to expect it to be treated like previous Nexus devices.
</off topic rant>

I'm considering the new iPhone now. I'm also thinking about jumping carriers, but both are irrelevant to the topic at hand. As generally annoyed as I am with Google, in this particular case with Acer, Google so far appears to be in the right.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Wait a minute
by Laurence on Sun 16th Sep 2012 22:16 UTC in reply to "Wait a minute"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

So it is OK for Google to take Java and make it incompatible and call it Dalvik. But it is not Ok when some one else does the same to one of Google's projects.

Double standards much?

People who make this argument are people who don't understand what Java is.

Google took the Java language and made their own runtime (which is akin to taking a French and writing a French novel). Google did not fork nor do anything else to Oracles Java runtime (which is what you're implying with the Android fork comparison)

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Wait a minute
by atsureki on Mon 17th Sep 2012 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Wait a minute"
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

Google took the Java language and made their own runtime (which is akin to taking a French and writing a French novel). Google did not fork nor do anything else to Oracles Java runtime (which is what you're implying with the Android fork comparison)


This is completely wrong.

Java is not a natural language, and Google did not simply write something in Java. They engineered an incompatible implementation of Java's underlying design. They used Sun's work to create a functional clone because they didn't like Sun's licenses.

It's all right here: http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1592541....

I especially like page 50, where freedom-defending Google talks about how the GPL version of Java is unacceptable because it would infect all their proprietary add-ons (we certainly can't expect the OHA to be stuck producing actually-open phones), and page 81, which shows lines of code fully copied and pasted from Java to Android.

Much of the rest of the document consists of e-mails expressing the need for Java and their unwillingness to use it on Sun's terms, and a deposition in which a programmer is unable to deny accessing and copying Sun's code.

In short: Google forked Java, called it Dalvik, and put up a policy of not mentioning the J-word, and not even demoing Dalvik around Sun employees and lawyers. Yeah. They know full well what they did.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Wait a minute
by chithanh on Mon 17th Sep 2012 01:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wait a minute"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

Google forked Java, called it Dalvik
That is not true, they didn't use Sun's Java code. And I don't think that fork means what you think it does.

Quoting Wikipedia: "In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct piece of software."(emphasis mine)[1]

In contrast, what Alibaba did is take Android code and build their own, incompatible OS from it. So that is a fork.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Wait a minute
by atsureki on Mon 17th Sep 2012 03:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wait a minute"
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

That is not true, they didn't use Sun's Java code. And I don't think that fork means what you think it does.

Quoting Wikipedia: "In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct piece of software."(emphasis mine)[1]

In contrast, what Alibaba did is take Android code and build their own, incompatible OS from it. So that is a fork.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)



Like I said, page 81 of Oracle's opening statement slideshow contains snippets of code that were copied unmodified from Java into Android. So fork, even by that strict definition, is partially true, just as reimplementation by a strict definition is only partially true, as it wasn't done cleanly. They accessed Sun's original code to "help" them copy it. Maybe that approach wasn't strictly authorized, but the leaked e-mails in the linked PDF establish a firm pattern of looking the other way. They also establish that Google's explicit goal was to get Java technology without accepting Sun's terms, which is precisely what they're now accusing Alibaba of doing, while simultaneously maintaining the narrative that Android is not proprietary.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Wait a minute
by Laurence on Mon 17th Sep 2012 07:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wait a minute"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Like I said, page 81 of Oracle's opening statement slideshow contains snippets of code that were copied unmodified from Java into Android. So fork, even by that strict definition, is partially true, just as reimplementation by a strict definition is only partially true, as it wasn't done cleanly. They accessed Sun's original code to "help" them copy it. Maybe that approach wasn't strictly authorized, but the leaked e-mails in the linked PDF establish a firm pattern of looking the other way.

I don't think Oracles testimony is the best source for reference material in this discussion considering it's natural bias.

You're right that Oracle did accuse Google for directly taking code. But that wasn't the fault of Google as that particular code in question was supplied by a 3rd party. Plus the code was made available on their versioning system to try and prevent this sort of thing from happening - Sun/Oracle had every chance to contact Google to correct this mistake long before it was even bought to trial.

But anyhow, Google had since rectified this mistake with original code.

(1)They also establish that Google's explicit goal was to get Java technology without accepting Sun's terms, (2)which is precisely what they're now accusing Alibaba of doing, while simultaneously maintaining the narrative that Android is not proprietary.

Oh I completely agree with your statements here, just not with your conclusion.

(1)Google were 100% intending to use Java technology without accepting Sun's terms. But as Google reimplemented Java from the ground up, their only basis is:
a/ the language (which cannot be copyrighted - eg my French example)
b/ the bytecode / virtual machine runtime concept (which is also used by a number of other languages outside of Java).

What Google did is little worse than Next/Apples derivative of C - the key difference being that Dennis Ritchie didn't lay any claims to intellectual property.

So the Oracle vs Google case was about language and design, not about source code.

(2) Where as the Alibaba case is a clear case of software forking. So not comparable with the aforementioned trial.

Furthermore -and has been repeatedly mentioned by nearly everyone on here yet gets completely ignored every single time- Google are NOT banning Alibaba. They're not taking Alibaba / Acer to court not any other form of forced oppression. Yes, Google have Acer an ultimatum: drop Alibaba or leave the Open Handset Alliance; but Acer could easily have chosen the latter and carried on with business as usual if they so wished. Acer were given a choice and they chose to drop Alibaba - there was no litigation what-so-ever.

Quite frankly, personal views of Google, Oracle nor the rest of IT aside, it's bloody refreshing to see these conflicts resolved out of court and in a mature way.

[edit]

I hope it's not too premature to say this, but it's nice to chat to someone on a topic like this who feels passionately about their view point but is also willing to discuss it in a mature way; without lowering the tone to personal attacks nor condensation.

I may not agree with your view points, but I've thoroughly enjoyed discussing them with you ;)

Edited 2012-09-17 08:04 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Wait a minute
by swift11 on Mon 17th Sep 2012 10:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wait a minute"
swift11 Member since:
2012-08-23

Quite frankly, personal views of Google, Oracle nor the rest of IT aside, it's bloody refreshing to see these conflicts resolved out of court and in a mature way.

This is a public humiliation of Acer, the worst offence in Chinese culture. Acer could have cancelled this phone a few weeks later without anyone noticing it. Google are shooting themselves in the foot. Google is a Big Brother, but China is a Giant Brother.

Edited 2012-09-17 10:33 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Wait a minute
by cdude on Mon 17th Sep 2012 11:47 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wait a minute"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

It wasn't google who made that story public.

What you have to understand about chinese culture of losing face in a global company is that its always 100% business related. Here Acer could only lose, either OHA or Aliyun. But that the story became public is even a more worse lose for Acer. Its a disaster to handle that situation from a chinese business perspective by bringing it into the public. Its like giving up, not having the stand and control to handle such a situation in the best interest of the company. That shows Acer is driven by less chinese business culture. Just a very poor western babarian business style to drag your weakness, your loses into the public.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Wait a minute
by chithanh on Mon 17th Sep 2012 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wait a minute"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

Like I said, page 81 of Oracle's opening statement slideshow contains snippets of code that were copied unmodified from Java into Android. So fork, even by that strict definition, is partially true, just as reimplementation by a strict definition is only partially true, as it wasn't done cleanly.

Indeed two instances of copying were part of the lawsuit: One was deemed so insignificant that the judge doubted even its copyrightability. The other was never part of any shipped Android device. This does not qualify as fork in any sensible way.

One commenter on Andy Rubin's Google+ post explained it through examples:

Apache Harmony is an implementation of Java
Mono is an implementation of .NET
LibreOffice is a fork of OpenOffice.org
X.org is a fork of XFree86

I hope it is more clear now.

They also establish that Google's explicit goal was to get Java technology without accepting Sun's terms, which is precisely what they're now accusing Alibaba of doing, while simultaneously maintaining the narrative that Android is not proprietary.

Alibaba using Android code is no problem, the license allows that. Amazon and BlackBerry do it too. But Acer cannot make incompatible products from Android code as long as they are member of the OHA.

Edited 2012-09-17 17:37 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wait a minute
by akrosdbay on Mon 17th Sep 2012 02:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Wait a minute"
akrosdbay Member since:
2008-06-09



Google took the Java language and made their own runtime (which is akin to taking a French and writing a French novel). Google did not fork nor do anything else to Oracles Java runtime (which is what you're implying with the Android fork comparison)


Your analogy is deeply flawed. What Google did would be akin to writing novel based on french that no one who is fluent in French can actually read or understand.

Code written for Davlik won't run on a Java JVM. There fore making it incompatible Java.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Wait a minute
by Laurence on Mon 17th Sep 2012 07:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wait a minute"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Your analogy is deeply flawed. What Google did would be akin to writing novel based on french that no one who is fluent in French can actually read or understand.

Code written for Davlik won't run on a Java JVM. There fore making it incompatible Java.

True, but the incompatibilities is a side issue as it's not the reason Oracle sued. And quite honestly, I didn't hear people up in arms because Next/Apple took C as the basis for Objective-C then made their new language incompatible.

Personally I don't see the issue with Google making Dalvik code incompatible with JRE code if it means that Android runs better for it. I mean it's not like anyone would want to write an app that works the same on Android and Windows. Plus, and if we're completely honest, code written for Oracles JRE isn't always 100% compatible with OpenJRE. So it's not like things were all cosy on PC land to start with.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Wait a minute
by moondevil on Mon 17th Sep 2012 08:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wait a minute"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Code written for Davlik won't run on a Java JVM. There fore making it incompatible Java.


It will if the APIs are available.

Don't confuse Java the language with Java the virtual machine.

It was an unfortunate decision, that Sun's marketing decided to call both the same name. At least in .NET and Android, language and VM have different names.

Reply Score: 3

Alibaba?
by earksiinni on Mon 17th Sep 2012 02:45 UTC
earksiinni
Member since:
2009-03-27

Surely you don't mean the online Chinese electronics vendor? Wasn't aware that they shipped operating systems? www.alibaba.com

Reply Score: 2

RE: Alibaba?
by Soulbender on Mon 17th Sep 2012 02:50 UTC in reply to "Alibaba?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Surely you don't mean the online Chinese electronics vendor?


Yes, that's exactly who.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyun_OS

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Alibaba?
by earksiinni on Mon 17th Sep 2012 02:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Alibaba?"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

O_O wow! Thanks!

Reply Score: 2

big mistake
by swift11 on Mon 17th Sep 2012 05:41 UTC
swift11
Member since:
2012-08-23

Google made a typical Big Brother mistake:
* Nationalistic tensions are running high in China (island dispute with Japan)
* Acer could use a subsidiary to launch this phone;
* All OEMs will study this case;
* Excellent publicity for the Aliyun OS, which is Linux + HTML5 btw;
* worst-case scenario: Android/Google could even be banned from China.
* the "stop piracy in China" argument is laughable, at best.

Edited 2012-09-17 05:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: big mistake
by EvilMonkeySlayer on Mon 17th Sep 2012 08:27 UTC in reply to "big mistake"
EvilMonkeySlayer Member since:
2010-04-08

Yes, it is a fork of Android. Not just "Linux + HTML5".

See this: http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/09/15/aliyun-app-store-confirmed-...

If it wasn't a fork of Android then how the heck can it run Android apps? Also, it's hosting a load of pirated apps, Googles included. (which I doubt they're non too happy about)

Edited 2012-09-17 08:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: big mistake
by jared_wilkes on Mon 17th Sep 2012 10:56 UTC in reply to "RE: big mistake"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

You do understand that Android apps can run on BB, Windows, Mac, and iOS, don't you, because of reversed-engineered VM emulators? Are these OSes obviously based on Android too?

Edited 2012-09-17 10:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: big mistake
by EvilMonkeySlayer on Mon 17th Sep 2012 13:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: big mistake"
EvilMonkeySlayer Member since:
2010-04-08

Pretty sure a lot of those are all source code ports of Android. Which is allowed by the license.

In other words, forks.

So, let me get this right. Rather than believing Google outright say this thing is a fork of Android and the fact they've (aliyun) put up pirated apps on their own app store.

Plus, also Acer would be breaking their OHA agreement.

You instead believe a post on an osnews forum that it is "Linux + HTML5" instead? Oh, and that they did a clean room reverse engineering of Android whilst they're at it? (of a very complex and large number of api's.. allowing them to run Google Android Apps flawlessly?)

Do you realise how utterly ridiculous that sounds?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: big mistake
by jared_wilkes on Mon 17th Sep 2012 13:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: big mistake"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

No, I don't think it's ridiculous to not believe a company that is now arbitrarily preventing what it has permitted for years. No, I am not basing any knowledge of Aliyun on any post here. I am reserving judgment on Aliyun, and questioning why Rubin had to claim 4 or 5 different reasons, all of which can be shown to be inconsistently enforced. Yes, I actually expect Google to have clarity on this issue, and until they do, I will doubt what they say.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: big mistake
by jared_wilkes on Mon 17th Sep 2012 13:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: big mistake"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Additionally, of course I believe that Aliyun hosts pirated apps on its store as it has been independently verified. However, this does not explain why Haier was permitted to release an Aliyun phone nor does it explain why Acer is being prevented from releasing an Aliyun phone and/or being threatened to be kicked out of the OHA when it is far easier to get those apps removed (either legally or just in dealing with business partners) than this whole mess is.

Reply Score: 3

v Comment by clasqm
by clasqm on Mon 17th Sep 2012 08:12 UTC
RE: Comment by clasqm
by EvilMonkeySlayer on Mon 17th Sep 2012 08:42 UTC in reply to "Comment by clasqm"
EvilMonkeySlayer Member since:
2010-04-08

Hold on, you're linking to fosspatents.com...

A site owned and run by Florian Mueller a person known to be actively paid by Oracle to shill for them? (which they've admitted to in court)

A person who has a known anti-Google bias.

That site is a poisoned well for information, you're nullifying any argument you might have by pointing to it.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Comment by clasqm
by clasqm on Mon 17th Sep 2012 11:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by clasqm"
clasqm Member since:
2010-09-23

Then it should be quite easy for you to show that he is wrong, shouldn't it? OK, let's see you do it. So far you've only done some name-calling. Address the argument.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by clasqm
by EvilMonkeySlayer on Mon 17th Sep 2012 12:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by clasqm"
EvilMonkeySlayer Member since:
2010-04-08

You're missing the point of the post.

There cannot be a credible argument to be made, because of the source.

Have you never heard of the concept of conflict of interest or poisoned well?

This is like saying Fox News or Russia Today are credible sources of impartial news.

Regardless of whatever is posted or said by this person everything is suspect because of past and present behaviour, and as such cannot be relied upon for any arguments or information.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by clasqm
by galvanash on Tue 18th Sep 2012 01:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by clasqm"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Then it should be quite easy for you to show that he is wrong, shouldn't it? OK, let's see you do it. So far you've only done some name-calling. Address the argument.


Happily. The entire article is nothing but a carefully crafted appeal to equality. Not surprising considering the source.

The title itself illustrates this perfectly: "If Google can cancel Acer's license, why should Apple have to grant one to Google?"

The problem with this is that I'm not aware of any circumstance where Google has demanded Apple grant them license to anything... Are you? If there was such an example - you would think that it would have been mentioned in the article. But it wasn't... I wonder why?

Its just 1000 words setting up a false equivalency - badly at that. Easily demonstrated in this little gem of a quote:

While Acer accepted the OHA's terms on a formally voluntary basis, it didn't have the chance at the time to negotiate a better deal.


Is he implying that Apple would have offered Acer a better deal? Oh wait - Apple doesn't actually license to anyone...

Which is the point by the way... Google may have conditions setup for those who wish to work with them on Android - but those conditions are designed to be equitable. In other words Google requires a hardware maker to meet certain obligations, but they maintain the role of software supplier and let the hardware makers do their own thing (pricing, branding, customization, whatever). By the mere act of _trying_ to setup a mutually beneficial arrangement with hardware manufacturers they are demonstrating that they are in fact nothing like Apple.

Apple's approach to "partners" is simple. Do you see Foxconn's name anywhere on an iPhone? Samsungs? Apple's message to their partners? Jump when we say jump and we will let you in on the piece of the pie we think you deserve to get - don't like it we will find someone else. At the end of the day this is our platform to do with what we will - you are easily replaced if you get out of line...

That is Apple's prerogative of course - but don't try to create some kind of ridiculous equivalency between an alliance between independent software and hardware companies and the dictatorship that Apple has established.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by clasqm
by jared_wilkes on Tue 18th Sep 2012 02:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by clasqm"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

The problem with this is that I'm not aware of any circumstance where Google has demanded Apple grant them license to anything... Are you? If there was such an example - you would think that it would have been mentioned in the article. But it wasn't... I wonder why?


Because he has discussed it numerous times and is a running meme over many posts. See here:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/07/in-lobbying-and-litigation-googl...

and for non-Mueller sourcing see here:
http://allthingsd.com/20120720/google-claims-popularity-has-made-so...

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by clasqm
by galvanash on Tue 18th Sep 2012 04:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by clasqm"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Again, show me an example of Google asking Apple to license anything to them??? All the patents mentioned in those articles were already worked around in Android ages ago (i.e. bounce scroll)...

A letter to the senate making the argument that some patents not currently considered to be SEP maybe should be is not the same thing as Google asking Apple for a license to anything. It isn't even in the same ballpark...

It doesn't even demonstrate that Google thinks Apple even HAS a patent they want or need - it is simply lobbying the senate.

Google is generally willing to share patents and license them to others - Apple is not. They are very different companies... Lobbying the senate to treat patents in a way that would weaken Apple's leverage (by forcing them to license some of them that might be seen as commercially essential) is simply smart and in their best interest. It would be beneficial to their style of business and detrimental to their competitors (i.e. Apple).

It doesn't mean, as this fictional account seems to imply, that there is some stash of patents that Google desperately needs to get it's grubby hands on in Cupertino...

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by clasqm
by jared_wilkes on Tue 18th Sep 2012 04:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by clasqm"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

It doesn't mean, as this fictional account seems to imply, that there is some stash of patents that Google desperately needs to get it's grubby hands on in Cupertino...


That's a fictional summary if I ever saw one. Where in the primary post or the two posts I linked to does anyone suggest that Google "desperately needs to get it's grubby on" Apple's patents?

You asked a question: what is he even talking about? You suggested that there was no evidence that Google was suggesting that there are some patents that they should be granted access to. I provided links to Mueller's thinking and from an independent, objective source that draws exactly the same conclusion as Mueller: that Google wants to change patent law to make it compulsory for Apple (and Microsoft) to license its/their desired (but not standard essential) patents.

If you want to get all conspiracy theorist on that, you can't claim yourself any better than how you describe Mueller.

Edited 2012-09-18 04:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by clasqm
by cdude on Tue 18th Sep 2012 07:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by clasqm"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

So you are not able to show an example?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by clasqm
by galvanash on Tue 18th Sep 2012 09:44 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by clasqm"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

The title of Meuller's article is "If Google can cancel Acer's license, why should Apple have to grant one to Google?"

The only person who is saying that Apple should have to grant a license for anything to Google is Mueller...

Petitioning the senate to reconsider what constitutes a standards essential patent is not the same thing as asking them to force Apple to license something to Google. Hell, I'm not even aware of an Apple patent that Google would want at this point, much less need...

Do you not see the problem there? Its called a false equivalency fallacy - that article is the epitome of one.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by clasqm
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 17th Sep 2012 08:50 UTC in reply to "Comment by clasqm"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Fosspatents? Really? In 2012?

Reply Score: 7

Comment by kovacm
by kovacm on Mon 17th Sep 2012 10:36 UTC
kovacm
Member since:
2010-12-16

"The OHA prohibits its members from promoting incompatible Android implementations..."

"Incompatible Android implementations..."

:)

what is Alibaba's Phone incompatibility with Android? Can not run Android applications?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by kovacm
by dsmogor on Mon 17th Sep 2012 12:00 UTC in reply to "Comment by kovacm"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

That's a good question. A.Rubin stated they analysed packages in the store and that's indeed the case but I'm really missing technical details.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kovacm
by cdude on Mon 17th Sep 2012 21:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kovacm"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

1. It did not run the compatibility tests. Google has a bigger collection of automated tests to target application compatibility. Every Android fork needs to pass those tests.
2. Aliyun sourcecode was not provided. That means all necessary changes Alibaba did (minus propitary stuff like there cloud integration) including hardware drivers and patches need to be given back to Android. This is the base for 3th part mods like cyanogen and for proper auditing, validation, reconstruction and future enhanced application compatibility testing.

This is for OHA members. Anyone can take the Android code everytime and not follow that requirements. But then they a) cannot be in the OHA and b) are ranged as incompatible.

Also when Alibaba says that they did heavy changes within Android so its not Android any longer then that opens some more questions like where in Android got the changes done? Unlike common believe Opensource does not mean you can do everything without giving back and compared to common believe most or at least lot of Android is not APL. Alibaba would be required to open any changes done in certain areas or they lose there right to use them. Compare to what google brings on the table the license-issue is serious and legally binding.

Edited 2012-09-17 21:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kovacm
by jared_wilkes on Mon 17th Sep 2012 21:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kovacm"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

AGAIN, this is you taking Google at their word. OHA has to comply with compatibility testing when submitting something they intend to be called Android. There is ZERO evidence that OHA members cannot work on competing OSSes that utilize code that's a part of Android or non-Android code that emulates it. In fact, there are TWO HUGE GLARING examples of just the opposite being true.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kovacm
by cdude on Tue 18th Sep 2012 07:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kovacm"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

AGAIN, this is you taking Google at their word.


The OHA terms are public since years and indirect linked in the article.

OHA has to comply with compatibility testing when submitting something they intend to be called Android.


Correct but only half of the story. See the comment you replied too.

There is ZERO evidence that OHA members cannot work on competing OSSes that utilize code that's a part of Android or non-Android code that emulates it.


There are actually lots of evidences this is fine including Google itself naming Samsung as example of a OHA member who does with WP, Bada and Tizen competing OSes.

Please read the article and linked sources. The issue is about Android and Android forks. The OHA is only about Android and not about whatever competing other OS.

For your "googles view" point: Alibaba itself wrote its a Linux with opensource. That means they are legally forced to open the source-code. GPL and stuff you know. Why did they not? This is yet another violation not named but important cause if they would everybody could validate there statement. As it looks right now Alibaba does:
* Violate various opensource licenses.
* Does pirate propitary google software
* Does drag there ex-partner Acer into a public dirt battle.
* Fails to give just any proof.

Yes, I believe google more then Alibaba in the current situation but would be fine to switch my opinion if Alibaba gives proof and may it only by following the licenses of the opensource they use what would enable anyone to verify themselfs.

Edited 2012-09-18 08:16 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Chrispynutt
Member since:
2012-03-14

I have a pre-order on the S500 Cloudmobile.

Though most people are unaware that Acer even makes Android phones.

I will be on my second when I get the S500, as my S100 Liquid is far too long in the tooth.

Reply Score: 1