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 bought Android to skirt Microsoft and Apple anti-competitive action on mobile search. | 523 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Google bought Android to skirt Microsoft and Apple anti-competitive action on mobile search.
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 05:03 AM EDT
If you look through the Oracle v. Google pages on Groklaw, you will find that
Google were desperate to avoid Microsoft freezing out their mobile browser
search revenue. As it turned out, Microsoft bombed in mobile and it was Apple
that tried to use its monopoly in the smartphone OS market to freeze out
Google.

The Android platform was intended to provide an assured platform for Google
search engines and advert revenue. The present attack is again directed against
Google's search engine, but also against Google's app store because Microsoft
are failing on Bing revenue and on Microsoft app store revenue.

Microsoft are wrong to attack competing platforms as a way to boost their app
store and search revenue because people would rather not click at all than to
use Microsoft or their partners' platforms.



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

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

GuitarPro giving away GuitarPro 6.0 Lite to throttle piracy?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 22 2013 @ 08:34 AM EDT
GuitarPro, the company that has been pirated to the extent that they are now
the standard guitar tabbing software, has released its GuitarPro 6.0 Lite as a
free download for anyone wishing to sign up to receive their email
newsletters.
http://www.mostiwant.com/blog/guitar-pro-lite-free-download-user-id-
and-key-id/

http://bedroomproducersblog.com/2013/05/27/guitar-pro-6-lite-free-
downloa/

http://www.guitar-pro.com/en/index.php%3fpg=lite-bundle-licence-
generator&distributor=iguitar

As far as I can make out, it's a constructive response to the level of software

piracy they face. Better to have a small piece of a very large pie than a big
piece of a very small pie ... technically, a Loss Leader.

I seriously doubt that Fairsearch has anyone who's ever had business
experience, because Loss Leader is one very powerful method of regaining
access to a customer base that would otherwise ignore you.

(Mind you, I think one could also say the same thing about Microsoft - that its

leadership has no idea of how to handle a truly competitive business
environment, thus casting into doubt its ability to ever bring Microsoft back
into profitability. (But I'm sure we won't be overly upset about that! :) )

[ 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 )