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 535366
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Interesting
by Windows Sucks on Sun 16th Sep 2012 23:11 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Interesting
by saso on Sun 16th Sep 2012 23:29 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Interesting
by cdude on Mon 17th Sep 2012 10:20 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 Parent Score: 4