Slashdot Mirror
Skyhook Wireless Sues Google Over Anti-Competitive Practices
dwightk writes "According to a lawsuit brought by Skyhook Wireless, Google allegedly forced Motorola, among other Android handset makers, to use Google's own location services instead of alternatives like Skyhook's. Quoting the lawsuit: 'In complete disregard of its common-law and statutory obligations, and in direct opposition to its public messaging encouraging open innovation, Google wielded its control over the Android operating system ... to force device manufacturers to use its technology rather than that of Skyhook, to terminate contractual obligations with Skyhook, and to otherwise force device manufacturers to sacrifice superior end user experience with Skyhook by threatening directly or indirectly to deny timely and equal access to evolving versions of the Android operating system and other Google mobile applications.'"
John Gruber points out another interesting excerpt from the complaint regarding Google's procedure for determining Android compliance, which includes what Skyhook calls an "amorphous outline of additional, non-standardized requirements" that "effectively gives Google the ability to arbitrarily deem any software, feature or function 'non-compatible.'"
Skyhook had links to Allen & Company (http://www.skyhookwireless.com/whoweare/management.php).
Allen & Company had George Tenet of CIA fame as a managing director.
The NSA likes Google, the CIA is/was close to Skyhook.
This seems more like an interagency turf war over next gen real time phone tracking than the free market.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
They haven't been found guilty yet. Totally agree with the sentiment of your post mind you, I
just think it's worth taking a wait and see approach on this one...
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
1) This requirement only applies to Android that is bundled with Google's proprietary apps/services. If you take Android without Google's integration and market... you can use what you want.
2) There are many alternative markets out there.
3) You can use alternate location services in apps from the market...
4) Google tried to work with Skyhook requesting examples of their location data.... Skyhook refused... so since Google couldn't guarantee it would work with their services... etc
Why don't we just wrap it up and say most companies are evil. The bigger they are the more unethical stuff we'll point out. Sure Microsoft has done unethical stuff, but it's ran by people. People are greedy and will do anything to get richer. Google is ran by people, thus they're greedy.
So whats the solution? Android has to either support everything in one standard or have multiple standards to encompass everyone's tech? Basically this would create a bloated (and more expensive) OS or more Android fragmentation (your device does geo-location this way with these results while mine does it another way with other results).
I guess it's a thin line between between closed and controlled vs open and free. As more and more of these headaches (lawsuits, fragmentation) crop up for Google/Android we find more and more reasons why Steve Jobs has a point in everything he says is a benefit in his iOS closed model.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
"effectively gives Google the ability to arbitrarily deem any software, feature or function 'non-compatible.'".
How is this different from what other companies do in their 'App Approval' process? It seems to me that this lawsuit may cross into other areas if Google is found guilty.
Scope Creep applies in more areas than software development!
I'm not sure if Google is really the bad guy here. Skyhook's concept is cool and all, but there may be other reasons Skyhook wasn't considered for providing location data in Android. If they'd made a decent offer and provided a service that's up to par, why should Google go to all the trouble of setting up their own location tech? Wouldn't it have been much cheaper and easier to just use Skyhook?
and everyone does it, intel requires you to use a certain combo of intel chips in your laptop before you can slap a 'centrino' (or whatever 'ino is the flavor of the day) on it, AMD does the same, MS undoubtedly has some requirements before you can put a big shiney 'designed for windows XX' sticker on anything..
Since the base of android is supposed to be open source, everyone should be free to take that, build a phone OS on it, use skyhook, but google has every right to stop you from using the android name on that device
sure, it goes against the idea that android is supposedly completely free/open, but google has a right to protect their platform, and the experience on that platform
People, what a bunch of bastards
No, you are getting 'stuff' for selling your private information. Nothing in the corporate world is free...
TFA reads like Skyhook wrote it. I'm going to have to Google for a less biased FA. Oh look, here's one. Facts minus editorializing.
Oh, and this is a very interesting wrinkle on it:
Free Martian Whores!
Whereas Apple, who dropped Skyhook too, had also replaced the functionality with their own implementation isn't doing the same thing?
All we have here is a company getting pissy their limited business model has been replaced on two very popular platforms. Tough titties. If they want, they can release their own applications that use their implementation, and then compete in the market. Too easy though, they know their toast is done. They're looking for a payout from the big boys before shutting up shop.
I don't see the evil side yet. Google shouldn't be forced to make their Maps application compatible with every location service out there. Why don't Skyhook work with other mapping software manufacturers, or roll their own?
If they are actively stopping Skyhook's software from working on the device then that is evil, but Google shouldn't be forced to integrate Skyhook with Maps any more than MS should be required to make IE compatible with Firefox plugins, or provide an OpenGL mode for all their games. They're free to do it if they want, but they don't have to.
which is totally what she said
What did Google do yesterday? What did they do the day before? Perhaps you could share a calendar showing the other 5 things they've done in the last 7 days?
/. view certainly seemed to be put up or shut up.
Isn't it just so very fashionable to proclaim the burgeoning evil of Google these days.
A competitor has accused Google of something. Perhaps, we should wait and see if it is true? When Microsoft said Linux was using its patents without permission did we just accept it as fact? The
Google offers a mobile platform that you can use without paying them. Even if they did require that it came with their map program is that really 'evil'? Sure, we'd like everything 100% free and optional but that doesn't make 99% free and optional 'evil'.
Is it an act of evil if I give £1,000 to a foreign aid charity and ask that the money not be used to promote 'organic' farming? I'm sure they'd appreciate complete freedom, but I doubt they'd think I was on a slippery slope to pure evil.
TFA reads like Skyhook wrote it. I'm going to have to Google for a less biased FA.
We're trusting google to provide an unbiased view of itself?
You can't take the sky from me...
This is posted in the "Know your rights" section.
A couple of quick items:
- Android is released under the Apache license. So skyhook and any handset manufacturer, if they don't like the direction google is taking the platform, can do whatever they want to the software. This is the definition of open source.
- Conversely, open source doesn't mean skyhook can force a developer to do something. Lots of business who want to make money by inclusion in a project get upset when open source projects say no. See Reiser or any other open source bug tracker.
- On top of the apache licensed Android, Google provides a set of pretty popular apps (Google Apps). Most but not all manufacturers use those apps. My guess is that if you pick up these apps, then that is where google is saying you have to use their location based service. So far these apps are good enough people generally use them, but eventually Microsoft or some other big player will pay enough $$ to a manufacturer that google maps / google search etc will go away on some handsets.
- Google also offers the Android Market, another natural place of control. Many OS Distro's use marketplaces, update channels etc to monetize their platform. This also obviously creates lock-in.
- Almost every open source project doesn't let you take their brand with your changes. So if you want to make lots of changes you probably can't call your OS "Android" vs Sense or MotoBlur. This also is common to Mozilla, Redhat etc etc. Mozilla was really picky about this (see Iceweasel).
- Skyhook is suing Google for violating it's patents on doing location. This includes ""Server for Updating Location Beacon Database". Reading these patents will make you wish software patents were toned down a bit I think.
- Skyhook is itself not an open source contribution to the handset, but apparently a pretty costly proprietary app on top of the handset with big royalties and patents with no patent pledges. In other words, if someone tries to do location service and to give it away for free, prepare to be sued by Skyhook.
- Apple dropped Skyhook from the iphone 4 I believe? Be interesting to know why given they had been a customer and skyhook claims to have the best tech.
- Open source being "nice". Big business in open source seem to still plan on using the layers above to fight for $.
So some shades of grey in this :) Be interesting to see how the case evolves.
Not yet, but getting there. Giving past examples, remember Apple was the white knight of /. from circa 2000 - 2005, and then there was the Linux flavor of the year until that flavor gets too 'popular' or too 'successful' at which point the /. moves to support another flavor etc., I give it at least another year, maybe two before Google is considered the new "evil". I'm not sure who will replace them as the new "white knights". Maybe the folks with Meego?
I mean seriously I remember when RH got started and the rah, rah cheerleading people here gave RH. "See someone can make a commercial linux and be sucessful!". They they actually became successful and then SuSE became the next big thing(tm). Then SuSE started to be successful, got bought out by Novell and then the community went, "look at Debian, it is the ONE TRUE LINUX (tm)". It started to be successful and then came Ubuntu. Now Ubuntu's successful and you are starting to hear the complaints of "Well it's controlled by one man's vision" and "They don't give enough back."
I've seen it enough now that I've come to the conclusion that there is a large group of people here who just hate success.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
I'm not looking for Google's view (which they haven't even made public yet). The googling turned up the FA linked in the summary, so clearly we can expect Google to provide a view biased against Google. If they're going to give a result that makes them look bad, that's pretty good evidence that they can be trusted to provide an unbiased view.
Free Martian Whores!
As a result of Google forcing Skyhook's partners to breach their contracts, Skyhook lost millions of dollars of licensing revenue and is seeking reparation.
You don't get anywhere by suing companies that decide not to use your product. The Google situation is not at all similar -- the allegation is that Google PREVENTED Motorola from using Skyhook's product.
I see a lot of dumb comments above about how Google shouldn't be forced to integrate Skyhook's location services, but this isn't about Google integrating Skyhook's location services. This is about Motorola choosing to use Skyhook on Android, and Google refusing to allow it.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
SkyHook had a contract to supply Motorola (worth tens of millions of dollars - lifeblood to a company of that size) and when Andy Rubin (a Google VP) heard about it, he phoned up Motorola. "Conversation" ensued, involving the use of a "stop ship" order to prevent Android from shipping on that Motorola hardware. When the dust settled, Motorola was using Google's location services, not Skyhook's.
This has nothing to do with Google integrating anything, and it's totally evil. Quote from Google-IO: "If you believe in openness, if you believe in choice, if you believe in innovation from everyone, then welcome to Android" - Vic Gundotra, another Google VP. I don't think so Vic. You and Andy ought to talk...
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Supposing the "conversation" was to remind Motorola that *they* were breaching their contract with Google in relation to the non-free google services bundle, and that this contract pre-dated Motorola's contract with Skyhook? In that case, Google has done nothing wrong.
Source: e-week
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Here's what happened. Motorola agreed as part of the contract with Skyhook, to intentionally disable Google Location Service. Google says you cannot access the app store without all of Android being functional, and that they can't have Skyhook as the exclusive location software, and that it has to have both. Skyhook is making it out that Google Location spys on you without consent. (My Droid tells me how it works and asks if I'm sure I want to turn it on, and promises the info is anonymous, so that's a blatant lie). They also say that Google isn't saying it has to support both, they're saying it has to be always-on, which is false. Google Location Service is off by default on my phone, so I doubt there's a requirement that it can't ever be turned off. Further, my Droid phone came with a GPS Navigator software, and Layar Augmented Reality Browser, both of which show me the Skyhook logo when I run them, and both of which run fine with Google Location Services turned off, and in that case rely exclusivly on GPS and Skyhook data.
So I'm inclined to believe Skyhook is lying, or stupid. Skyhook tried to force Motorola to disable Google Location Service or else Skyhook would terminate their contract. Google said you can't do that or we won't let it on the app store, since without the full Android API we can't say the other location apps will work and it will harm the customers. Skyhook seems to be deliberately misstating this as Google Location Service being required to be "always on" and always spying on the user without consent (the repeatedly refer to it as tracking data without permission, and calling it a malicious and inferior product). Since my Samsung phone uses both Google Location Service and Skyhook, and since GLS is off by default AND doesn't mislead me, I'm inclined to believe that Skyhook is lying through their teeth.
Further, Skyhook said another draconian condition is that Motorola should have a box informing the user that Skyhook will be logging nearby WAP, just like the GOogle Location Service does when you turn it on. Skyhook says this is evil of them. Fucking hypocrites, lying and saying Google presents no information that GLS logs nearby wireless networks, and then having the gall to call being asked to do so themselves unreasonable.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
That's not what happened, though. It's not that Skyhook is incompatible. Skyhook software is allowed. My Droid came with Skyhook software on it, and on the first page with Google Maps bumped to page 2 of the app list. The issue is that Skyhook tried to force Motorola to make Skyhook always on, and make it so the user cannot use Google Location Service, or any software that relies on Google Location Service, such as Google Maps. Google said "no, you can use Skyhook as the default but you are not allowed to disable parts of the AndroidOS API" and Skyhook is crying. The Motorola AndroidOS implementation is what was decided "non-compatible", because they disabled part of the API. It's not Skyhook that's not compatible.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
what the fuck ?!?
Android is open-source, freely available, freely downloadable, freely compilable. Google has no control on it, as proven by the countless chinese clone-maker shipping iClones running un licenced. Or Koolu having ported android on the openmoko's freerunner.
the only thing the google licence is the closed source proprietary part : the "google experience" - the collection of google apps ported to the android system. See how Cyanogenmods is able to create ports of newer versions of the OS (because android is free/libre) but reqire the users to make a backup of their google apps, because they don't have a licence to provide them.
motorola wasn't forced to drop skyhook for the mere reason they wanted android. If they really wanted both android and skyhook badly, they could have used the open-source android and bundled their choice of aps.
the problem stems from the fact that motorola wanted the google applicstion pack too. And its licencing terms
to compare with microsoft: it would be as if microsoft either licenced a paid windows to oems, which contains IE, MS Office, Visual Studio. (and requires no other alternative). Or gave away free copies of windows only, including the source, and let the oem combine their choice of software (firefox, thunderbird, openoffice.org, eclipse, etc.)
the licence requirement are dubious, but none the less, the phhone makers are free to use a different suite of apps (as done on FreeRunner and chinese iClones)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]