Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th May 2010 14:55 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 423760
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2010/apr10/04-27mshtcpr.ms...
Android isn't any freer than patented MPEG codecs.
Unfortunately there are some out there who some how equate open source equally patent free; As I noted previously, there is no such thing as a piece of software not infringing on some patent some where - as soon as you move beyond a basic hello world programme you're going to hit a patent somewhere along the lines. I wouldn't be surprised whether other patent holders are simply allowing Android to slide or waiting for the same time to pounce.
I think the biggest problem with Android is that you're licensing it from no one, so if the sh-t does hit the fan it'll be you the OEM who takes the fall and not the software licenser. If you go and licence Windows Phone 7 then Microsoft takes on that responsibility as so far as patents go but if you go with Android then you're opening you're self up for a bag of hurt because you're responsibility for whether there are patents infringed (as so far as software is concerned).