Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 16th Sep 2010 19:30 UTC
Legal It looks like Google has a serious lawsuit up its tailpipe. Skyhook Wireless, the company that develops technologies for determining the location of cell phones and similar devices, has filed a patent infringement and a tortious interference lawsuit against the search giant, claiming Google's interference cost Skyhook tens of millions of dollars.
Thread beginning with comment 441376
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Sherman Act
by syadnom on Thu 16th Sep 2010 22:44 UTC in reply to "Sherman Act"
Member since:

Its not applicable. Simply put, google's location application is a component of its other programs. Google's license requires a vendor to maintain compatibility between googles apps if they are used. Google certainly can require motorola to either not ship a product that violates the license, or force motorola to not include googles apps.

This is well within googles rights.

A consumer can choose to switch this but a vendor cannot ship a product in violation of the license.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Sherman Act
by melgross on Thu 16th Sep 2010 22:46 in reply to "RE: Sherman Act"
melgross Member since:

This wouldn't violate that. It would still work across apps.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Sherman Act
by kristoph on Fri 17th Sep 2010 02:52 in reply to "RE: Sherman Act"
kristoph Member since:

The license under which Google provides Android to an OEM cannot trump the law at least not in the United States.

(not yet anyway)


Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Sherman Act
by Moredhas on Fri 17th Sep 2010 03:10 in reply to "RE[2]: Sherman Act"
Moredhas Member since:

The clever thing is, though, that Motorola are free to use Android as they see fit. It's the Google licensed applications, in this case specifically Maps, that are at issue. Motorola are more than free to publish a phone without them, but if they do, they have to abide by Google's license agreement. If Motorola previously agreed, that trumps the law, if they had legal objections to any clause, then they should have addressed those prior to signing.

A better explanation, if Motorola agreed to provide Google Maps with Google's locatin service, they have to do that. If they intended to use Skyhook, they should have negotiated a bit more with Google to remove Google's location service from the agreement.

Edited 2010-09-17 03:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4