decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Google and Android | 354 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Google and Android
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 01:35 AM EDT
Google produced Android because Microsoft was threatening to freeze them out of
advertising revenue from mobile search services.

The later success of the iPhone meant that the threat moved from a potential
Microsoft threat to an actual walled-garden, Apple threat and the advertising
tied to apps as well as internet search.

Android dominance only ensures a level playing field for Google's services. It
is a dominance that is earned. Android is not monetized.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

How do Microsoft feel
Authored by: AndyC on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 03:36 AM EDT
Hmmm, Anonymous portrays Google as being BAD...

I call TROLL!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I call troll! You can tell because they can't make valid arguments
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 02:53 PM EDT

Google just could have made sure that Android didn't infringe other companies patents.

That is impossible, due to what they call the "patent thicket"! Also, there is no way to ensure you don't infringe somebody's patent because that is a judgement call, patents are written so broadly. Even USPO will change there mind about the validity of a patent. If you begin a comment with a statement like that, it is clear nothing good can become of it and you are either a troll, or very ignorant about the subject. From your vehemence, I can discern that you are a troll rather than just ignorant, but you might be both.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )