Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 16th Sep 2012 16:53 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 535372
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 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-04-18
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.
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.
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 have to have a basis in law. Bringing a lawsuit that is baseless is itself punishable as a frivolous lawsuit.
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.