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 535527
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by clasqm
by galvanash on Tue 18th Sep 2012 01:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by clasqm"
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

Then it should be quite easy for you to show that he is wrong, shouldn't it? OK, let's see you do it. So far you've only done some name-calling. Address the argument.


Happily. The entire article is nothing but a carefully crafted appeal to equality. Not surprising considering the source.

The title itself illustrates this perfectly: "If Google can cancel Acer's license, why should Apple have to grant one to Google?"

The problem with this is that I'm not aware of any circumstance where Google has demanded Apple grant them license to anything... Are you? If there was such an example - you would think that it would have been mentioned in the article. But it wasn't... I wonder why?

Its just 1000 words setting up a false equivalency - badly at that. Easily demonstrated in this little gem of a quote:

While Acer accepted the OHA's terms on a formally voluntary basis, it didn't have the chance at the time to negotiate a better deal.


Is he implying that Apple would have offered Acer a better deal? Oh wait - Apple doesn't actually license to anyone...

Which is the point by the way... Google may have conditions setup for those who wish to work with them on Android - but those conditions are designed to be equitable. In other words Google requires a hardware maker to meet certain obligations, but they maintain the role of software supplier and let the hardware makers do their own thing (pricing, branding, customization, whatever). By the mere act of _trying_ to setup a mutually beneficial arrangement with hardware manufacturers they are demonstrating that they are in fact nothing like Apple.

Apple's approach to "partners" is simple. Do you see Foxconn's name anywhere on an iPhone? Samsungs? Apple's message to their partners? Jump when we say jump and we will let you in on the piece of the pie we think you deserve to get - don't like it we will find someone else. At the end of the day this is our platform to do with what we will - you are easily replaced if you get out of line...

That is Apple's prerogative of course - but don't try to create some kind of ridiculous equivalency between an alliance between independent software and hardware companies and the dictatorship that Apple has established.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by clasqm
by jared_wilkes on Tue 18th Sep 2012 02:05 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by clasqm"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

The problem with this is that I'm not aware of any circumstance where Google has demanded Apple grant them license to anything... Are you? If there was such an example - you would think that it would have been mentioned in the article. But it wasn't... I wonder why?


Because he has discussed it numerous times and is a running meme over many posts. See here:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/07/in-lobbying-and-litigation-googl...

and for non-Mueller sourcing see here:
http://allthingsd.com/20120720/google-claims-popularity-has-made-so...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by clasqm
by galvanash on Tue 18th Sep 2012 04:25 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by clasqm"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Again, show me an example of Google asking Apple to license anything to them??? All the patents mentioned in those articles were already worked around in Android ages ago (i.e. bounce scroll)...

A letter to the senate making the argument that some patents not currently considered to be SEP maybe should be is not the same thing as Google asking Apple for a license to anything. It isn't even in the same ballpark...

It doesn't even demonstrate that Google thinks Apple even HAS a patent they want or need - it is simply lobbying the senate.

Google is generally willing to share patents and license them to others - Apple is not. They are very different companies... Lobbying the senate to treat patents in a way that would weaken Apple's leverage (by forcing them to license some of them that might be seen as commercially essential) is simply smart and in their best interest. It would be beneficial to their style of business and detrimental to their competitors (i.e. Apple).

It doesn't mean, as this fictional account seems to imply, that there is some stash of patents that Google desperately needs to get it's grubby hands on in Cupertino...

Reply Parent Score: 2