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.
E-mail Print r 4   · Read More · 52 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 555488
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

I find it "intriguing" that you use such bold statements and in the last sentence use such low level tone.

Why? Am I supposed to be appreciative of the fact that the same people sling the same FUD every single time a discussion on Mono is brought up? Despite the fact that this rumor has been smashed, as in provable shown to be wrong, every single one of those times.

They'll say something next about how it still is a given that Mono is covered under this promise, despite the fact that such patent non aggression promises are made for other standards, including some incorporated by the W3C. That's usually where the discussion trails off.

This is so predictable that its annoying.

It is also perplexing that you so strongly "dispel" any doubts related to immunity against litigation based on promises from MS and, at same time, raise uncertainty and deny such benefit to Google x Oracle case, where there were also a promise from the top executive (from Sun).

No. You just have a false equivalency going on. The estoppel equitable defense that Google tried to use was a single statement from a CEO, not an official stance taken by the company.

He seems to be a loner in that sentiment, considering it wasn't the views held by many prominent people within the company either, and in fact, beyond his single blog post, there was no other mention of it from Sun.

Contrast this with a clear cut statement from Microsoft on a page with a bunch of other standards which are offered under that same promise. Press releases were also sent out the day they were announced.

Because I oppose an estoppel defense in one instance because of very peculiar circumstances, does not mean I oppose it in all instances. That doesn't make sense.

Reply Parent Score: 3