4 ms·

It's fairly disingenuous to say that Google doesn't get paid for sales of Android. They get no direct payment, but they are indirectly paid via: - Increased t

It's fairly disingenuous to say that Google doesn't get paid for sales of Android. They get no direct payment, but they are indirectly paid via: - Increased take up of Google Mail and Google Apps (with associated desktop ad revenue). - Increased take up of Google Voice (both for Android, and also for the iPhone which was at least in part a result of pressure from GV on Android). - Maintenance of a viable mobile ad market. (By which I mean an ad market which isn't Apple-dominated.) Plus every other indirect network benefit. I think a good lawyer could certainly establish a plausible link.

jacquesm 16y ago
Indirect revenue does not come in to play here, just as RedHat isn't obliged to pay Linus Torvalds or RMS. A good lawyer might make that link, but that won't entitle them to a share of that particular pie. And you'd still have to prove that increased use.
- notauser 16y ago
  RedHat isn't obliged to pay Linus or RMS because the license they distributed their work under does not require it. Making or not making money has nothing to do with it. If Oracle distributed their work under a license that permitted use by Google this is evidence of permission not to pay them, not evidence that monetary 'loss' has not occurred. Some claims are treated less harshly if it was done without a profit motive. This appears to be something that Google is trying to benefit from. However the claim that they will make no profit from the success of Android is pretty outrageous. If that was true, why did they bother? Outrageous claims are pretty standard practice of course, but this one is still laughable. And since this is a civil case proof will most likely be accepted on the balance of the probabilities rather than a tougher standard. (In this case I'm no supporter of Oracle, just to be clear.)

4 ms·

It's fairly disingenuous to say that Google doesn't get paid for sales of Android. They get no direct payment, but they are indirectly paid via: - Increased t

by notauser 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago
Indirect revenue does not come in to play here, just as RedHat isn't obliged to pay Linus Torvalds or RMS. A good lawyer might make that link, but that won't entitle them to a share of that particular pie. And you'd still have to prove that increased use.
- notauser 16y ago
  RedHat isn't obliged to pay Linus or RMS because the license they distributed their work under does not require it. Making or not making money has nothing to do with it. If Oracle distributed their work under a license that permitted use by Google this is evidence of permission not to pay them, not evidence that monetary 'loss' has not occurred. Some claims are treated less harshly if it was done without a profit motive. This appears to be something that Google is trying to benefit from. However the claim that they will make no profit from the success of Android is pretty outrageous. If that was true, why did they bother? Outrageous claims are pretty standard practice of course, but this one is still laughable. And since this is a civil case proof will most likely be accepted on the balance of the probabilities rather than a tougher standard. (In this case I'm no supporter of Oracle, just to be clear.)