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
Whose costs? | 523 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here please
Authored by: jesse on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 04:21 PM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Pick discussions
Authored by: jesse on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 04:22 PM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES document thread
Authored by: jesse on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 04:22 PM EDT
Thank you for the work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic discussions
Authored by: jesse on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 04:23 PM EDT
thanks to all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

maybe (more than) a touch of projection involved
Authored by: mcinsand on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 04:32 PM EDT
I'm not surprised at all that MS sees this sort of bundling as anticompetitive,
seeing as this is the way MS dumped IE to beat Netscape back.

>>People like freedom to do what they want with their own
>>things.

Somewhat true, somewhat false. Apple products look shiny, at first glance, but
the antifreedom engineering definitely tarnishes their products in my eyes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's Wrong With The Latest FairSearch Complaint to the EU Commision About Google? A Lot ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 04:48 PM EDT
"I doubt the EU Commission realizes this is what is at stake, if it took me
this long to figure it out, and I'm always trying to be on the alert."

I actually give them more credit than that. Whether they have already figured
it out or not, I suspect they will, especially after google explains it to
them.

Look at all the previous efforts that fizzled, including at the FTC, where it
looked for awhile like google's enemies actually stood a chance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's Wrong With The Latest FairSearch Complaint to the EU Commision About Google? A Lot ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 05:15 PM EDT
What I have not seen so far is why FairSearch is on being investigated for
collusion. What the companies that make up FairSearch sure does fit the
definition of collusion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's Wrong With The Latest FairSearch Complaint to the EU Commision About Google? A Lot ~pj
Authored by: mikeprotts on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 05:22 PM EDT
In the UK, we have BBC tv and radio funded by license fee (a form of taxation).
We also have ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 TV, and numerous radio stations,
funded by advertising. Despite all this free to view/listen, Sky has a huge
market for satellite subscribers for television channels, who pay a lot of
money.

It's a very relevant comparison. Sky do complain about the competition, but
they also make a very healthy profit.

Google (like ITV) don't give away anything, they provide services in return for
allowing them to show you adverts. This works for Channel4 and Channel 5 (as
well as commercial radio). Microsoft has a business model closer to Sky where
you pay for what you want, but still have to accept a lot of adverts.

Are we going to ban ITV for showing advert funded programs? I suspect a lot of
TV stations around the world also provide free to view programming that's funded
by adverts.

I don't think Google have ever tried to claim any form of monopoly on using
advertising revenue to be able to provide end users with content with no direct
cost. Maybe this analogy would help to explain the concepts to those who need
educating.

Mike

[ Reply to This | # ]

GPL means free as in beer is NOT anti-competitive
Authored by: jbb on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 05:38 PM EDT
I've been thinking about this too. The reason low priced items are sometimes considered anti-competitive is that they are being sold at a loss to remove competitors from the market and once the competitors are gone then the price can go through the roof. This simply can't happen with GPL software. The worst Google could do is try to charge for updates to Android. Whenever they deliver an updated Android binary then they also have to deliver or make available the GPL'ed source code. The recipient is then free to distribute the source and/or binary at a lower cost, including free. But Google's Android business model is based on giving the code away for free to manufacturers so it makes no sense for them to ever try to raise the price. If they ever do try to raise the price it will be an epic fiasco on the scale of partnering with Microsoft.

Also, it is very hypocritical of Microsoft on the one hand to complain that the GPL license is too cheap and on the other hand refuse to use the code because the cost of the license is too great for them. Microsoft is free to use Linux and Android in the products. They choose not to use it only because they don't want to obey the terms of the license. That is the cost. People are also free to fork FOSS if the original maintainer/contributor gets nasty. I believe we have seen this happen several times when Oracle tried to leverage FOSS projects they got in buyouts. This is a perfectly level playing field.

It impossible to be anti-competitive by distributing GPL'ed code or other forms of open source software. Perhaps I'm going overboard here but it reminds me a little of the non-violent resistance movement in South Africa and India. One of the things they told people before they joined was "we can't promise no one will get hurt. We can promise that only the people on our side will get hurt." In the marketplace, GPL software by its very nature cannot be anti-competitive. All the secret sauce is there in the open for everyone to see and to use. There might be anti-competitive acts in the marketplace but we can know for sure they won't involve distributing GPL'ed software. If fact, whoever is making their source code available through any open-source license cannot be anti-competitive. Although it is possible for someone to take permissively licensed code and then close it up. This is what Apple did with BSD to make OS X. Perhaps that could be seen as anti-competitive, but the people who released the source code used by Apple (and otherwise) cannot possibly be anti-competitive.

The real problem Microsoft is up against is that the open source model is much more economically efficient than their outdated closed source model. Even Microsoft is aware of this. See the Halloween Documents if you have any doubts. The only anti-competitive action here is Microsoft trying to remove a business model from the marketplace that is obviously much more economically efficient than their own. It's like a bookstore trying to outlaw libraries or private campgrounds trying to outlaw public parks and wilderness areas. Free and open source software is a gift to the people of the world that cannot be taken back. Since it can't be taken back, it can't be anti-competitive.

---
In a time of universal deceit -- telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
-- George Orwell

[ Reply to This | # ]

Greater insight through homonyms
Authored by: NigelWhitley on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 05:56 PM EDT
The article quotes an article in ComputerWorld containing the remark
'"No one is really fooled. Everyone knows that [FairSearch] lies in the
shadow of Microsoft," Petit said.'

I'm pretty sure the intended meaning is that "lies" is synonymous with
"sits", but IMHO the natural meaning of "lies" when used in
conjunction with Microsoft is "deceives" and it fits perfectly here.
-------------------
Nigel Whitley

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's Wrong With The Latest FairSearch Complaint to the EU Commision About Google? A Lot ~pj
Authored by: rhdunn on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 06:11 PM EDT
Firstly, the GPL does not state you have to give the code away for free (i.e.
Free as in Freedom). It just requires you to make the source code available to
the users of your software.

Secondly, Microsoft have their own Open Source projects. For example, the WiX
project allows the developers to create Windows installer (MSI) files. According
to FairSearch's logic, this is anti-competitive to companies like InstallShield
that provide commercial products for creating Windows installers.

Not to mention that Microsoft have themselves contributed to the Linux kernel
from which Android is built on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

FairSearch and Microsoft ..
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 06:18 PM EDT
“Microsoft tried to make deals to become the default search engine on mobile devices. On Android, that was rendered impossible. They were told, Android makers, and carriers, were told, that you cannot use another default besides Google,” link

FairSearch’s members are: .. Microsoft ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

um
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 08:10 PM EDT
Am I only that seems to feel that this resembles apple in some way?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google's Android certification
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 09:00 PM EDT

I think I know where the bundling part of the complaint comes from. Before a device can get access to the Play Store, Google must certify the firmware. (I don't know a lot about what the certification process means, but I would guess that a large part of it is checking for malicious additions to the code.) As part of getting the Play Store, it's possible that the manufacturer may need to load a few other Google apps.

Where the argument falls down is that there is no requirement to use the Play Store. This is what Amazon and B&N have done, using the Android platform but not Google's services. I believe that a number of the cheap Chinese Android devices do the same thing.

As the article mentions, there doesn't appear to be any requirement to use Google's search as the default. It's just something that comes as part of the bundle, so is easy to integrate. There's absolutely no reason why one of the FairSearch members can't write their own app and try to get it bundled by a manufacturer.

I hope the EU looks at all of the evidence and sees the big holes in the argument. Slapping down Google for providing Android is just ridiculous.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Microsoft/FairSearch Tactic.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 09:34 PM EDT
The goal of the campaign is to create a constant stream of
news about Google and Android that has a negative connotation
and/or wording.

I think that are trying to change the public mood about both.
Possibly miss-guide officials by skewing the tone of the
average news story.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Makes sense - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 10:29 PM EDT
    • Makes sense - Authored by: stegu on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 04:34 AM EDT
      • Its culture - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 20 2013 @ 12:02 PM EDT
Has someone pointed this out to the SEC?
Authored by: JonCB on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 10:31 PM EDT
“[Expedia] complained to regulators that it was largely dependent upon search engines for traffic in 2011, but in October 2010, CEO Dara Khrosrowshahi told investors that search traffic is “much less profitable traffic” than direct traffic.” [Daily Caller, 9/20/12]

(From the "who is FairSearch" link).

So... isn't this an offense? If they're trumpeting how much they're dependent on search engines and lying to their investors about it...

Or alternatively if someone relies on their public comments with FairSearch then wouldn't that fall under some form of stock manipulation law? I mean that's why Sun's CEO had to go through so many hoops to make his blog an official company blog, because you're legally required to make sure that you're not giving people the wrong impression about your stock. Right?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google's Play Store is anticompetitive? (howls of laughter)
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 10:55 PM EDT
Apple bundles Apple's App Store with iOS
and does NOT allow other app stores on iOS
and doesn't allow most users to load
applications outside of the App Store.

Microsoft bundles Microsoft's App store
with Windows 8 (and phone) and does NOT
allow other app stores. They are similar
and make it hard for users to load
applications outside of the store (for
phone and RT at least).

Most Android phones come with Google's
Play Store. However, there are other app
stores such as Amazon's App Store can be
installed on the phone and it's easy for
users to load programs outside of the app
stores. Amazon's and Barnes and Nobles
tablets come with their own app stores
though Barnes and Noble includes Goggles
Play Store as well.

So going with FairSearch's logic Microsoft
and Apple would be anticompetitive with
bundling before Google.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hmm... Any Other Businesses Use This Model??
Authored by: PaulOBear on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 11:55 PM EDT
Oh, gee, let's see. How about the *razorblade* business? This is the
quintessential business which name is now synonymous with the business
practice of selling the platform (razor handle) at less than cost in order to
sell the accessories (razorblades). This model has been applied to all sorts
of industries which have consumables - printers/print cartridges, game
consoles/games, medical chemical analyzers/analytic chemicals, pulse
oximeters/sensors.

Another analogy would be Loss-Leader. Sell something cheap or under cost, or
*give away* in order to get people into the store to buy other things which
are more expensive or more highly marked up. There's a new one.

Android is merely the platform on which Google gathers information for
advertising. They sell it at a loss in order to get phone vendors to select
it, and then get users to buy the less expensive phones. *Anyone* who claims
that this new and interesting version of a common business model is unfair is
blowing smoke out some dark orifice hoping no one will notice. Or they are
incompetent business people. Or both. >:{=}

Actually, I'm pretty sure that these actions are more aimed at tying up
competitors' resources and attention so that Microsoft, Apple, Nokia can try
to catch up. I think it's much more of a desperation move than a legitimate
beef. Reminds me of the music and video industries.

[ Reply to This | # ]

*checking cyanogenmod*
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 03:19 AM EDT
Hrrmm.

No Nokia devices at all, on both the official and the unofficial port lists.

For a company that seems awfully concerned about consumer choice, you'd think
they'd do more to support loading alternative firmware.

That being said, it's quite telling that their complaints about consumer lockin
all relate to Google specifically, and there's nary a peep about handset
lockdown by the carriers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'd like to order a winpho.....
Authored by: frankieh on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 03:25 AM EDT
not really, but someone call Nokia or Microsoft and ask them to send you a Lumia
without any integration into Microsoft services.. no bing, no skydrive, no
outlook.com none of it..

oh wait.. they don't make that phone do they....

wonder if the EU has noticed this? At some stage they might end up paying some
more EU fines for that.. assuming people start buying their phones.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where there's smoke
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 04:40 AM EDT

PJ wrote

All of this is to get you so used to being bombarded with anti-Google, anti-Google partners, anti-Android headlines, you, and the EU Commission, will imagine that where there's smoke, there must be some fire somewhere.

There is a fire. It's Microsoft burning

---
Beware of him who would deny you access to information for in his heart he considers himself your master.

[ Reply to This | # ]

But let us look on the bright side.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 05:15 AM EDT
Nearly A Bezillion bucks wasted plus the damage to their credibility going forward. Link

[ Reply to This | # ]

The bundling comment is even more nonsensical
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 06:00 AM EDT
You see, Google's app suite is licensed differently than the OS. Where the OS is
open sourced, the app suite has a more restrictive license. I'm not sure exactly
how restricted the app license is, but the app suite is readily available as a
separate install from the modded ROMs.

Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure I saw a jukebox in a bar running on
android. I doubt touchtunes was required to bundle anything from google into
their firmware.

bkd

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fairsearch "Report Abuse"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 09:28 AM EDT

I went to have a look at fairsearch.org, and noticed they have a "report abuse" option in the navigation menu.

Assuming it was to report abuse from Fairsearch, I clicked on it

Report abuse
Witnessed Google’s anticompetitive behavior first-hand? Share your story with FairSearch.org.

ah okay, they're playing like that...Not interested in any story connected with fairness or searching unless it's an "abuse" by Google.

"Fairsearch touched me here, and here" (apologies to the Inbetweeners)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Android bundling
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 09:28 AM EDT

My complaint about bundling apps on Android has nothing to do with Google and everything to do with the Manufacturer.

I have a Samsung Galaxy S. The bundling of the apps that is on it that I don't have the choice to alter happens to be Samsung apps.

Of course, that's "choice to alter" as in "I can make use of the administrative functions on the phone as-is to alter them". I can still root the device and dump raw Android on it having full control over the apps I want installed.

    But I shouldn't have to root the device to do that!

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

File your own complaint about Microsoft's Free services
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 09:50 AM EDT

In fact everyone should file separately. Let the EU investigate Microsoft as
well.

After all, we want to be Fair...

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's good to see Microsoft doing this.
Authored by: kawabago on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 01:16 PM EDT
It keeps them from doing something that might work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Danny Sullivan does offer an interesting idea tho ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 01:47 PM EDT
Having Google apply for membership to FairSearch ...

Have them post the request as a memo for record on the internet and see what
happens ....

[ Reply to This | # ]

On my Android devices....
Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 03:59 PM EDT
..., tablet and phone, I just open a browser and go to where I want. That is how the web works, as everyone here knows very well. If I want to use Google for search, I do so. If I wanted to use Bing, I would do so. A browser does not prevent either of these being bookmarked, nor is there any prohibition on creating a Bing app for Android so you don't even need to open the browser. (But I don't imagine that many people would download such an app!)

A browser, because of what it does, is vendor-neutral. People choose the search engine that gives them the quality of results that they require. That is the true problem here. Bing is just plain naff. M$ can't compete, yet again, so they go bleating and crying foul to the authorities. That would be the same M$ that got slapped down by Neelie or her associates for not providing a browser choice in Windoze 7, and then, after a good spanking, and a promise to include it, broke it again within weeks, for a period of about a year.

Why are M$ not just trying to compete by making and advertising a Bing app for Android? Perhaps they know that only the 3 remaining fanbois would download it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Ah, but, - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 10:18 PM EDT
    • another, but, - Authored by: ukjaybrat on Monday, July 22 2013 @ 08:33 AM EDT
    • Ah, but, - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 23 2013 @ 08:14 AM EDT
      • Ah, well, - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 23 2013 @ 04:09 PM EDT
Free Does Not Equal Anti Competitive
Authored by: 351-4V on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 04:51 PM EDT
"part of the complaint is that it's anticompetitive to distribute Android for free"
I think dear Mr. Wallace already covered this ground with the help of his friends at FSF and IBM.

Wallace v. FSF - Wallace Loses, Must Pay Costs

[ Reply to This | # ]

My First Android Phone Had Bing
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 05:20 PM EDT
The very 1st smart phone I got was an Android phone through Verizon May 2011.
That phone was an LG Vortex with Bing as the default search and no way to get
rid of it without rooting it.

Any with other model that had default Bing search?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can you put android on it?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 11:08 PM EDT
If you fould put android on it. ( Or even Tizen. ) I would by it if they have a
fire sale.


Mouse The Lucky Dog

[ Reply to This | # ]

One could write a book about Microsoft?
Authored by: luvr on Saturday, July 20 2013 @ 06:16 AM EDT
“Lordy, one could write a book about Microsoft.”
Only one???

[ Reply to This | # ]

Whose costs?
Authored by: dcf on Saturday, July 20 2013 @ 09:30 AM EDT

FairSearch's argument about costs make no sense.

Are they complaining about development costs, or costs to the phone manufacturers who license the OS?

Both Android and Windows phone have development costs. Google saves some money by starting with the existing linux kernel, which is free as long as you obey the GPL. Microsoft saves some money by using the existing Windows NT kernel, which is free to Microsoft. Each incurs some costs in adapting a kernel originally designed for the desktop to a low-power mobile platform. So far, no systematic cost advantage (fair or not) to either side.

Google saves some money by making Android open-source (at the cost of adopting the GPL to encourage others to contribute). Microsoft chose a closed- source development model, which allows them to charge for licensing, as well as to keep trade secrets. But that's their choice; they could always have adopted a free, open-source model.

On the distribution side, Android is free to distribute (provided you accept the conditions of the GPL). That saves the phone manufacturer money (compared to Windows Phone), but that's Microsoft's choice - nothing prevents them from licensing Windows Phone for free.

Of course, if they did that, they wouldn't collect licensing fees to offset the cost of developing Windows Phone. But Google doesn't collect licensing fees for Android, so all that would do is put Microsoft in the same boat as Google of having to pay to develop their OS.

Choosing a non-free business model allows Microsoft to pass some of its development costs on to the manufacturer, saving them money. On the other hand, it costs the manufacturer; and now they're upset that they can't get manufacturers to sign up for and promote those phones? Well, that's the price of that business model. Microsoft could always decide to take a loss on the OS development to get more market share.

Microsoft's only real complaint is that Google's market share in the advertising space allows them to subsidize the fixed development costs of Android. But the same is true of any software market where one party has a dominant market position, like desktop operating systems or office software. That's not illegal or anti-competitive; it only becomes an anti-trust issue if the dominant or monopoly party abuses its position to prevent the emergence and growth of other competitors, or to leverage their dominance in one area (e.g. operating systems) to gain a monopoly advantage in another area (e.g. internet). On that score, Microsoft has a long record of misconduct (and conviction), but Google (despite Microsoft's efforts) does not.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's Wrong With The Latest FairSearch Complaint to the EU Commision About Google? A Lot ~pj Updated 2Xs
Authored by: JamesK on Sunday, July 21 2013 @ 08:24 AM EDT
"Where do they get these names? Fairness doesn't seem to me to be what
FairSearch is after."

Compare that with "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" for North
Korea or "German Democratic Republic", the name of the former East
Germany. Tyrannical and repressive states tend to pick nice sounding names.
Same thing here.

---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's Wrong With The Latest FairSearch Complaint to the EU Commision About Google? A Lot ~pj Updated 2Xs
Authored by: PR3J on Sunday, July 21 2013 @ 09:42 AM EDT

I have 2 Kurio´s for my kids and they have only a kid´s safe store on them.

I found a way to install Google Store to get some of the games my kids wanted, but it was far from a simple task. Actually you have to logon with the parent account, run out from Kurio´s interface to Android console, upload a hard to find path with the google store using an USB connection and so on.

how to install Google Play in Kurio7

The needed file was here

It was possible, but it was not easy for someone with few tech skils.

---
PR3J
----
"[T]he IQ of a mob is the IQ of its most stupid member, divided by the number of mobsters." - Terry Pratchet - Maskerade

[ Reply to This | # ]

Remember GPLd code is not free, it's only cashless.
Authored by: BitOBear on Sunday, July 21 2013 @ 03:24 PM EDT
When you license something like Microsoft WinCE (don't blame me, I didn't name
it wince 8-) you pay money up-front and money per-unit on the back-end.

When you license GPLd code you pay nothing up-front, and you pay _disclosure_ on
the back-end. That is, you "pay" the "value you add".

Both of these things are an expression of expenditures. Money paid for result.
In the former you agree to cash pricing and you get secrecy. In the latter you
agree to forgo secrecy and you get minimal cash outlay, particularly up-front.

(ASIDE: BSD style licenses are free-of-cost at both ends; the amount of growth
of BSD system is demonstrably lower. Draw your own conclusions there.)

So the actual bet is this. If I expect to add more to the system than I got
"for free", then I would want the paid license with its known up-front
and per-unit costs, which let me keep and conserve my "added value"
such that people would have to come directly to me to get those features.

If, however, I expect to make fewer modifications and additions to the code than
I got "for free", then the GPL model serves me best. That disclosure
means that people will not have to come to me for my additions.

The vendor of the GPL material gets paid the sum of all the work-hour value of
all the distributed modifications to the original system. The value they reap is
the incremental output of their entire customer base. It's actually a lot of
valuable returns.

So it's a super simple and quite business applicable to go with either of those
models. The proprietary model is very like the sale of mineral wealth, where you
get fixed monetary returns; while the GPL model is very like farming, where you
put out seed, and get back more seed in kind along.

Since most phone makers, just like most anything makers, are not interested in
making Operating Systems, they have very low expectations for
improvement-hours-spent on the operating system. So the GPL model is the
conservative choice. The phone manufacturer is likely to only end up paying for
a few dozen or hundred man hours to port and tune the operating system. The cost
is therefore capped.

The core flaw in the complaint is the claim that the price of Android is
"artificially low" (or more absurdly "free of cost altogether)
when the truth is that the price is in line with the cost. Android costs
disclosure, and most of android actually cost disclosure from someone else. The
linux kernel was publicly disclosed; the Java spec was publicly disclosed; all
the contributed code was publicly disclosed; and so forth.

The natural cost of being the controlling entity (the primary distributor) is
non-zero. The cost is good stewardship by Google and some man-hours of effort;
The return for those man hours is brand recognition and, indeed, the
pride-of-place for their ad-revenue generating market and apps.

People keep making anti-business claims against open source but that's usually
the sign of people who don't understand business despite being in the business
business.

The zeroth rule of business is "know what businesses you are _not_
in". Phone makers, and other hardware vendors, are in the hardware sales
business. They are not, and don't want to be, in the business of making (and
supporting, and patching) operating systems.

Of course GPL is a better deal for them.

The buggy-whip makers complain that the horseless carriage will put them out of
business. Yes? And? That's what happens when a better product comes along.

That's business.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's Wrong With The Latest FairSearch Complaint to the EU Commision About Google? A Lot ~pj Updated 4Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 21 2013 @ 09:43 PM EDT
RE: HTC Legend.
Nearly all Android phones let you install apps from outside
the app store. On my phone it is under settings/security. This
allows people to distribute apps via email attachments (or any
other way you want to distribute a file) and install, which is
very helpful for development/beta/personal apps and also
contributes to the existence of piracy of Android apps.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Amazon Kindle Fire and Nook
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 22 2013 @ 02:07 AM EDT
Don't the Amazon Kindle Fire and the Barnes and Noble Nook
also prove that Fairsearch's complaints are spurious. The
key parts of Android is open source and is available free to
all of Google's competitors to use freely. They can also
incorporate whatever Search Engine, default Apps, look and
feel, branding, and App Market that they want with Android.

It is ridiculous that the Fairsearch lobby organisation can
claim that Android is in any way anti-competitive. What they
are lobbying for is for unfair protection for their
uncompetitive proprietary software vendor clients, against
competitors who use the more efficient and cost effective
open source development model - the model and codebase that
is also available to them free and on the same terms as
their competitors if they choose to adopt it. This is not
what anti-trust law is about. Anti-trust law is not about
protecting and preserving uncompetitive, inefficient or
outdated methodologies, practices or companies. It is about
ensuring free competition without unfair restriction to
competition, in a level playing field.

[ Reply to This | # ]

vendors forced to include
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 22 2013 @ 04:43 PM EDT

...doesn't have the Android Market, for which is was criticized. So obviously, the complaint that vendors are forced to include it is wrong...
No, the complaint is right - the vendors were forced to include it...just it was forced by the [buying] customers, not Google.

Fairsearch (sic) seem to be of the assumption that the customers (end users) are so thick and/or only want what they are told they want (1984 anyone?) and can't make their own decisions and wants known.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another way Fairsearch is lying?
Authored by: maroberts on Wednesday, July 24 2013 @ 04:49 AM EDT
As Fairsearch includes Nokia, which was paid several hundred million by
Microsoft to drop its own phone systems based on "below cost" Linux,
is it not lying in its statements that it cannot compete with the "below
cost" Android?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's Wrong With The Latest FairSearch Complaint to the EU Commision About Google? A Lot ~pj Updated 5Xs
Authored by: HP on Tuesday, July 30 2013 @ 07:53 AM EDT
I suggest writing to the EU Commission, to make sure they understand what is at issue. Here's the page that lists who to write to:....
The page states:
In all your correspondence, please specify the name of the case and the case number.
What is the correct reference to use?

---
HP

[ Reply to This | # ]
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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.05 seconds