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.
Thread beginning with comment 535356
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Interesting
by Windows Sucks on Sun 16th Sep 2012 21:58 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Interesting
by Laurence on Sun 16th Sep 2012 22:11 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 Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Interesting
by saso on Sun 16th Sep 2012 22:47 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 Parent Score: 3