4 ms·

Important bit: > That’s why we’ve signed an agreement with HTC, a leader in consumer electronics, that will fuel even more product innovation in the years ahea

Important bit: > That’s why we’ve signed an agreement with HTC, a leader in consumer electronics, that will fuel even more product innovation in the years ahead. With this agreement, a team of HTC talent will join Google as part of the hardware organization. These future fellow Googlers are amazing folks we’ve already been working with closely on the Pixel smartphone line, and we're excited to see what we can do together as one team. The deal also includes a non-exclusive license for HTC intellectual property.

yeukhon 9y ago
The "non-exclusive" bit is actually quite important here. This means anyone can get IP from HTC, and I am not sure if that's a good deal at all, if Samsung comes along to pour down couple billions. What isn't clear is whether Google will have access to the exclusive HTC intellectual property at all.
- usrusr 9y ago
  The way I read it the "non-exclusive" refers to the access, not to the IP: Google got a permanent license to use every IP HTC owns. HTC stays the owner and could strike similar deals with others or completely sell it in parts or whole, Google's ability to use those patents would be unaffected, as selling IP does not revoke existing licences. There is no mystery about some distinction between "exclusive IP" and "non-exclusive IP" (whatever that would mean).
  - yeukhon 9y ago
    That's what I meant. They have access, but what is really not clear is whether they have access to the exclusive IP. If they don't, they would have to strike for another agreement. This is not noted in this announcement, which makes perfect sense. This is a collaboration agreement more than anything else.
    - cbraz 9y ago
      What exclusive IP? What's being discussed is "non-exclusive access" to IP. Meaning that Google/Alphabet can make use of that IP and HTC can still use it or license it to other companies.
      - yeukhon 9y ago
        You still don't get it. This does not mean Google has the whole IP. In simple terms, what Google gets is not the best deal if what they can access are also available to other competitors for a deal. Get it now? You usually want to have exclusive access, like certain songs are exclusively released on Spotify. Get it?
        s73ver_ 9y ago
        It means that Google can use it at all. Otherwise they would be unable to use it. Which is what they're concerned about. Previously, with other companies actually making the phones, they didn't have to worry about that kind of thing. Now that they're looking to do more of it themselves, they do. Google doesn't give a damn if Samsung can come in and use the same IP and have similar features on their phones. Remember, Google just wants to improve the Android experience as a whole. If they use the HTC IP in a cool way, it's good for Google if Samsung does the same thing.
        yeukhon 9y ago
        I am confused. What kind of things? Google's intention is not to improve Android. They know what features people want. What they want is to expand their business in consumer hardware. This could be useful for technology such as Google hlr Glass. Whatever they can scrape together. The real only exclusive deal right now is they have a bunch of HTC engineers working at Google. I do not understand how so many still don't get why I brought up this exclusive vs non-exclusive deal. The best deal one can get is exclusive rights. The unknown here is we don't know whether Google's agreement includes (NDA) any exclusive IP.
  - 9935c101ab17a66 9y ago
    It took me a few minutes, but I think I understand what GP is saying. Basically, they are speculating that though the press release only mentions "non-exclusive" access to some of HTC's IP, Google may have arranged "exclusive" access to a different set of HTC's IP. I think. Not really sure this makes any sense, because it's not covered in the article, and I don't see why Google wouldn't announce that was the case to make the deal appear to be better value.
grzm 9y ago
Please don't use code blocks for text quoting. They cause side scrolling which can be annoying in desktop browsers and nigh unreadable on mobile. Common methods to quote text blocks on HN are to use a > prefix and/or asterisks to italicize the quoted text. Edit: Thanks for updating!
- EddieRingle 9y ago
  Sorry - I used '>' first but instinctively changed it to a block since HN didn't actually format it any differently. (And I use a Chrome extension to restyle HN, so code blocks don't have the issues you described.)
  - akvadrako 9y ago
    > Sorry - I used '>' first but instinctively changed it to a block since HN didn't actually format it any differently. Indeed HN has miserable quoting constructs. I prefer the italics with ">", but dedicated support would be nice.
  - Philomath 9y ago
    What Chrome extension do you use?
  - gjm11 9y ago
    I also find quoting on HN annoying when I need to do it. But it occurs to me that this may be (at least in part) a deliberate move to discourage quote-heavy styles of discussion, which are always tempting but would probably not be good for HN. I'm thinking of this sort of thing, as found in the good ol' days on Usenet: > > Sorry - I used '>' first > You should have trusted your first instincts. > > but instinctively changed it to a block > So you tried the right thing and changed it to the wrong thing? What's wrong with you? > > since HN didn't actually format it any differently. > You didn't request any formatting and you're surprised HN didn't give you what you didn't ask for? ... and so on. (For the avoidance of doubt, the snarky tone of the above does not reflect my actual opinions. It's just what tends to happen in the comment-on-fragments kind of interaction, which is one reason why discouraging it here might be wise.)

yeukhon 9y ago

The "non-exclusive" bit is actually quite important here. This means anyone can get IP from HTC, and I am not sure if that's a good deal at all, if Samsung comes along to pour down couple billions. What isn't clear is whether Google will have access to the exclusive HTC intellectual property at all.

usrusr 9y ago
The way I read it the "non-exclusive" refers to the access, not to the IP: Google got a permanent license to use every IP HTC owns. HTC stays the owner and could strike similar deals with others or completely sell it in parts or whole, Google's ability to use those patents would be unaffected, as selling IP does not revoke existing licences. There is no mystery about some distinction between "exclusive IP" and "non-exclusive IP" (whatever that would mean).
- yeukhon 9y ago
  That's what I meant. They have access, but what is really not clear is whether they have access to the exclusive IP. If they don't, they would have to strike for another agreement. This is not noted in this announcement, which makes perfect sense. This is a collaboration agreement more than anything else.
  - cbraz 9y ago
    What exclusive IP? What's being discussed is "non-exclusive access" to IP. Meaning that Google/Alphabet can make use of that IP and HTC can still use it or license it to other companies.
    - yeukhon 9y ago
      You still don't get it. This does not mean Google has the whole IP. In simple terms, what Google gets is not the best deal if what they can access are also available to other competitors for a deal. Get it now? You usually want to have exclusive access, like certain songs are exclusively released on Spotify. Get it?
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        It means that Google can use it at all. Otherwise they would be unable to use it. Which is what they're concerned about. Previously, with other companies actually making the phones, they didn't have to worry about that kind of thing. Now that they're looking to do more of it themselves, they do. Google doesn't give a damn if Samsung can come in and use the same IP and have similar features on their phones. Remember, Google just wants to improve the Android experience as a whole. If they use the HTC IP in a cool way, it's good for Google if Samsung does the same thing.
        yeukhon 9y ago
        I am confused. What kind of things? Google's intention is not to improve Android. They know what features people want. What they want is to expand their business in consumer hardware. This could be useful for technology such as Google hlr Glass. Whatever they can scrape together. The real only exclusive deal right now is they have a bunch of HTC engineers working at Google. I do not understand how so many still don't get why I brought up this exclusive vs non-exclusive deal. The best deal one can get is exclusive rights. The unknown here is we don't know whether Google's agreement includes (NDA) any exclusive IP.
- 9935c101ab17a66 9y ago
  It took me a few minutes, but I think I understand what GP is saying. Basically, they are speculating that though the press release only mentions "non-exclusive" access to some of HTC's IP, Google may have arranged "exclusive" access to a different set of HTC's IP. I think. Not really sure this makes any sense, because it's not covered in the article, and I don't see why Google wouldn't announce that was the case to make the deal appear to be better value.

grzm 9y ago

Please don't use code blocks for text quoting. They cause side scrolling which can be annoying in desktop browsers and nigh unreadable on mobile. Common methods to quote text blocks on HN are to use a > prefix and/or asterisks to italicize the quoted text. Edit: Thanks for updating!

EddieRingle 9y ago
Sorry - I used '>' first but instinctively changed it to a block since HN didn't actually format it any differently. (And I use a Chrome extension to restyle HN, so code blocks don't have the issues you described.)
- akvadrako 9y ago
  > Sorry - I used '>' first but instinctively changed it to a block since HN didn't actually format it any differently. Indeed HN has miserable quoting constructs. I prefer the italics with ">", but dedicated support would be nice.
- Philomath 9y ago
  What Chrome extension do you use?
- gjm11 9y ago
  I also find quoting on HN annoying when I need to do it. But it occurs to me that this may be (at least in part) a deliberate move to discourage quote-heavy styles of discussion, which are always tempting but would probably not be good for HN. I'm thinking of this sort of thing, as found in the good ol' days on Usenet: > > Sorry - I used '>' first > You should have trusted your first instincts. > > but instinctively changed it to a block > So you tried the right thing and changed it to the wrong thing? What's wrong with you? > > since HN didn't actually format it any differently. > You didn't request any formatting and you're surprised HN didn't give you what you didn't ask for? ... and so on. (For the avoidance of doubt, the snarky tone of the above does not reflect my actual opinions. It's just what tends to happen in the comment-on-fragments kind of interaction, which is one reason why discouraging it here might be wise.)