Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Mar 2013 17:58 UTC
Google Andy Rubin, who created Android and has led its development both at Android Inc. and later at Google, has decided to step down as the big Android boss at Google. Having created the world's "most-used mobile operating system", as Google CEO Larry Page refers to it, I'd say his stint has been successful. Interestingly enough, he will be succeeded by Sundar Pichai - Chrome OS boss. Yes.
Thread beginning with comment 555396
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Good to see I was right about it ticking off the fanatics.

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not a fanatic. I don't care if Android were to go to Mono or not (I don't even like Android), but the fact that you immediately labeled my response says a lot more about you than me. I meant it though, Mono is probably not a sound tactic as far as legal minefields go. I know of no legally binding documents by Microsoft saying they will not come after Mono. C# yes, that language can certainly be used and I'd have no objection to Google adopting C# as it's a hell of a lot better than Java, but you specifically said Mono which could carry a lot of patent baggage relating to .net and the CLR among others. Sure, Microsoft have "promised" not to enforce their patents, but that's not a signed contract and would hold no legal authority should they change their mind in the future. Given the protection money they already extort from Android device makers, do you really think they wouldn't decide to do something similar if Google adopted Mono? The only way Google could safely adopt C# is to do exactly what they did with Java: adopt the language but create a completely custom framework and vm around it. Microsoft could do absolutely nothing about it, and Google V. Oracle already sets the precedent for this.
By all means, if you know of any legally binding documents Microsoft have given in this matter, due tell. I'm not interested in their good will promises, I want to see proper legal documents. Without these, Google would be stupid to adopt Mono.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not a fanatic. I don't care if Android were to go to Mono or not (I don't even like Android), but the fact that you immediately labeled my response says a lot more about you than me.
[q]

No. I labeled your response after you posted a stupid, useless, meaningless comment. I don't personally care about your opinion on Microsoft or Oracle. Much less so when provide no rationale as you did above.

It isn't unreasonable for me to be dismissive of someone who just gets a stupid jab in and in no way furthers the discussion. Even in light of your latest comment, you still have likely retarded any potential rational discussion that could be had. Exactly why will be evident below.

[q]
I meant it though, Mono is probably not a sound tactic as far as legal minefields go. I know of no legally binding documents by Microsoft saying they will not come after Mono. C# yes, that language can certainly be used and I'd have no objection to Google adopting C# as it's a hell of a lot better than Java, but you specifically said Mono which could carry a lot of patent baggage relating to .net and the CLR among others. Sure, Microsoft have "promised" not to enforce their patents, but that's not a signed contract and would hold no legal authority should they change their mind in the future.


I'm not sure that you understand the law, and the fact that you think yourself qualified enough to make such statements is especially intriguing.

A promissory statement is still protected by the full weight of the law, and in fact the promisee (which in this case is everyone) is legally protected by contract law.

You'd also be covered under promissory estoppel.


Given the protection money they already extort from Android device makers, do you really think they wouldn't decide to do something similar if Google adopted Mono?


No. For reasons above. Microsoft doesn't extort money from Android. Microsoft collects payment from OEMs which wish deem Microsoft's IP valid enough to license.

This is currently a majority of Android vendors. In fact, in light of this, even if your primitive interpretation of the law was valid, OEMs would simply negotiate a license with Microsoft and add the terms to their already existing agreement.


The only way Google could safely adopt C# is to do exactly what they did with Java: adopt the language but create a completely custom framework and vm around it. Microsoft could do absolutely nothing about it, and Google V. Oracle already sets the precedent for this.


Google V. Oracle is far from completely litigated, the ink on the ruling has not even had time to dry. There are very strong arguments for API definitions being copyright-able works.


By all means, if you know of any legally binding documents Microsoft have given in this matter, due tell. I'm not interested in their good will promises, I want to see proper legal documents. Without these, Google would be stupid to adopt Mono.


Google would be stupid to listen to you.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

"A promissory statement is still protected by the full weight of the law, and in fact the promisee (which in this case is everyone) is legally protected by contract law."

How do you prove "Microsoft" ever said that ? Did someone get the word of some people from Microsoft, what does this say about Microsoft management ? What does that say about Microsoft management in the future ?

Did it only apply to Microsofts offering they had then or also all the newer C#/.Net stuff Microsoft created after that point in time ?

Edited 2013-03-14 09:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1