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 535363
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 2

v RE[7]: Interesting
by Slambert666 on Mon 17th Sep 2012 05:08 in reply to "RE[6]: Interesting"
RE[7]: Interesting
by Laurence on Mon 17th Sep 2012 07:14 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 Parent Score: 8

RE[7]: Interesting
by Beta on Mon 17th Sep 2012 08:59 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Interesting
by jared_wilkes on Mon 17th Sep 2012 10:42 in reply to "RE[7]: Interesting"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Except for the fact that Haier, another OHA member, is already producing an Aliyun phone and that Lenovo, another OHA member, had been selling the oPhone, a clear Android fork, in addition to Android phones as long as 3 years ago...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Interesting
by JAlexoid on Mon 17th Sep 2012 19:07 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Interesting
by jared_wilkes on Mon 17th Sep 2012 19:20 in reply to "RE[7]: Interesting"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Except we don't have the contract or independent verification that OHA membership is predicated on not using Android code in non-Android OSes and/or not using Android-app compatibility unless in 100% form and/or not hosting pirated apps in competing stores and/or... whatever other excuses Rubin has used.

We know they need to comply with Google's Android compatibility compliance when producing Android phones, but we've never had our eyes on an OHA agreement. Moreover, we can demonstrate that Lenovo has been violating such an agreement for as much as 3 years if it does exist (and depending on when they joined the OHA). And further evidence of another OHA member doing the same thing as Acer.

Here's the vagueries we actually get from Google directly:

"What have members of the Alliance committed to?

All members of the Alliance have committed to making the initial version of the platform a commercial success. Some companies have contributed significant intellectual property to the Alliance that will be released under the Apache v2 Open Source license. Others are working to make sure their chipsets support the platform. Handset manufacturers and mobile operators are working to develop handsets based on the platform. Commercialization partners are working with the industry to support the platform via a professional services model."

http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_faq.html

Didn't see them mention much in terms of commitments beyond "to making the initial version of the platform a commercial success" -- which apparently every member besides Samsung seems to be failing to fulfill.

Reply Parent Score: 2