3 ms·

I'm mainly playing devil's advocate here. But many, if not all, of google's empire is based around curating other people's IP, including Android. Much of the I

I'm mainly playing devil's advocate here. But many, if not all, of google's empire is based around curating other people's IP, including Android. Much of the IP Google does have is kept server side, safe from competitors. But the legal issues are real, and I imagine many of the downrates of my previous comment was of either google developers or people within that eco-system. Why did Microsoft take so long to make Windows Phone, and why does it legally appear safe? And how is that related to Android? But don't get me wrong, I love Google for search and web apps, just not operating systems that, to at least me, seem slightly trojan in nature.

bryanlarsen 15y ago
If Android is illegal, then so is Apple (Good artists copy, great artists steal) and Microsoft (embrace, extend, extinguish). If your product contains software, then chances are that it infringes on many patents.
- TechNewb 15y ago
  It would have been interesting to see if Android turned out the way it did, if Google's CEO was not on the Apple board. I'm not implying anything, other than that I find that really interesting. There are so many little things about Android like that, that this article also leaves out.
  - Kylekramer 15y ago
    You can just come out and say what you think, no need to hide behind "finding that interesting" and "devil's advocate". I happen to disagree that Android/Google in general steals IP, but it is better to say what you mean to have a real discussion.
    - TechNewb 15y ago
      Well I find that the Microsoft 'embrace, extend, extinguish' sounds more like Google today. When was the last time Gmail had introduced innovative features, there is still much improvement to be done. Chrome browser is by far the best, but when they get the market share, I imagine we will see improvements and innovations come to a slow as well. But sure, let's talk about how Eric Schmidt was the Apple board during the development of the iPhone. That is fascinating. How could that not have influenced the only competition to the iPhone. That seems suspicious to me, as no other company besides Google anticipated it. So let's talk about the design similarities between Android and iPhone. These topics are fascinating. So Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle are all claiming that Android violates their products, while Google, before this, had no patents regarding OS. That is also fascinating. The only reason why Android is 'open source' is to make it more difficult for litigation. And I don't think a company that develop's open source should be able to place ads on it, as to me, that is still 'selling' the software.
      - feor 15y ago
        >And I don't think a company that develop's open source should be able to place ads on it, as to me, that is still 'selling' the software. Free speech, not free beer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre
        TechNewb 15y ago
        This gives me some insite on the matter: From: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html "9. Accepting Warranty or Additional Liability. While redistributing the Work or Derivative Works thereof, You may choose to offer, and charge a fee for, acceptance of support, warranty, indemnity, or other liability obligations and/or rights consistent with this License. However, in accepting such obligations, You may act only on Your own behalf and on Your sole responsibility, not on behalf of any other Contributor, and only if You agree to indemnify, defend, and hold each Contributor harmless for any liability incurred by, or claims asserted against, such Contributor by reason of your accepting any such warranty or additional liability." So someone please help explain how this is possible: From Reuters Nov 9, 2011: "Google Inc will continue to offer support to firms using its Android system that are involved in legal disputes, its executive chairman Eric Schmidt said on Wednesday, as the Internet giant looks to cement alliances in the face of toughening competition." The way I am reading the Apache license says that Google should not be giving support to OEMs? Am I reading this part wrong? "However, in accepting such obligations, You may act only on Your own behalf and on Your sole responsibility, not on behalf of any other Contributor" I'm not the best at reading law, so I would love some insight. Edit to add Reuters link: http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE7A64T920111109 http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE7...
        jrockway 15y ago
        First off, you are reading it wrong. But it doesn't matter. Google owns the copyright on Android, so the Apache License has no relevance to their activities. Licenses are a way of limiting the restrictions levied by copyright law; they give you more freedom than you would otherwise have. If you otherwise have more freedom than a license grants because you are not bound by copyright law, you ignore the license. It's meaningless. I haven't contributed any code to the Apache-licensed parts of Android, but I assume that you assign copyright to Google when you push your code. That means that Google continues to own the copyright on the whole codebase, and you have copyright on your contributions.

bryanlarsen 15y ago

If Android is illegal, then so is Apple (Good artists copy, great artists steal) and Microsoft (embrace, extend, extinguish). If your product contains software, then chances are that it infringes on many patents.

TechNewb 15y ago
It would have been interesting to see if Android turned out the way it did, if Google's CEO was not on the Apple board. I'm not implying anything, other than that I find that really interesting. There are so many little things about Android like that, that this article also leaves out.
- Kylekramer 15y ago
  You can just come out and say what you think, no need to hide behind "finding that interesting" and "devil's advocate". I happen to disagree that Android/Google in general steals IP, but it is better to say what you mean to have a real discussion.
  - TechNewb 15y ago
    Well I find that the Microsoft 'embrace, extend, extinguish' sounds more like Google today. When was the last time Gmail had introduced innovative features, there is still much improvement to be done. Chrome browser is by far the best, but when they get the market share, I imagine we will see improvements and innovations come to a slow as well. But sure, let's talk about how Eric Schmidt was the Apple board during the development of the iPhone. That is fascinating. How could that not have influenced the only competition to the iPhone. That seems suspicious to me, as no other company besides Google anticipated it. So let's talk about the design similarities between Android and iPhone. These topics are fascinating. So Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle are all claiming that Android violates their products, while Google, before this, had no patents regarding OS. That is also fascinating. The only reason why Android is 'open source' is to make it more difficult for litigation. And I don't think a company that develop's open source should be able to place ads on it, as to me, that is still 'selling' the software.
    - feor 15y ago
      >And I don't think a company that develop's open source should be able to place ads on it, as to me, that is still 'selling' the software. Free speech, not free beer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre
      - TechNewb 15y ago
        This gives me some insite on the matter: From: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html "9. Accepting Warranty or Additional Liability. While redistributing the Work or Derivative Works thereof, You may choose to offer, and charge a fee for, acceptance of support, warranty, indemnity, or other liability obligations and/or rights consistent with this License. However, in accepting such obligations, You may act only on Your own behalf and on Your sole responsibility, not on behalf of any other Contributor, and only if You agree to indemnify, defend, and hold each Contributor harmless for any liability incurred by, or claims asserted against, such Contributor by reason of your accepting any such warranty or additional liability." So someone please help explain how this is possible: From Reuters Nov 9, 2011: "Google Inc will continue to offer support to firms using its Android system that are involved in legal disputes, its executive chairman Eric Schmidt said on Wednesday, as the Internet giant looks to cement alliances in the face of toughening competition." The way I am reading the Apache license says that Google should not be giving support to OEMs? Am I reading this part wrong? "However, in accepting such obligations, You may act only on Your own behalf and on Your sole responsibility, not on behalf of any other Contributor" I'm not the best at reading law, so I would love some insight. Edit to add Reuters link: http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE7A64T920111109 http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE7...
        jrockway 15y ago
        First off, you are reading it wrong. But it doesn't matter. Google owns the copyright on Android, so the Apache License has no relevance to their activities. Licenses are a way of limiting the restrictions levied by copyright law; they give you more freedom than you would otherwise have. If you otherwise have more freedom than a license grants because you are not bound by copyright law, you ignore the license. It's meaningless. I haven't contributed any code to the Apache-licensed parts of Android, but I assume that you assign copyright to Google when you push your code. That means that Google continues to own the copyright on the whole codebase, and you have copyright on your contributions.