Slashdot Mirror
Judge Dismisses Google's Complaint Over Android Code Viewing
CWmike writes "A U.S. trade judge has rejected Google's move to block the testimony of a Microsoft expert witness in the dispute with Motorola over patents allegedly used by Android. Last week, Google accused Microsoft of violating a confidentiality agreement struck between Microsoft, Motorola and Google in the ITC case. The judge rejected Google's motion on Monday. 'The ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] finds no basis to discern from Google's statement whether Google made a reasonable, good-faith effort to resolve the matter with Microsoft,' he wrote in his ruling."
What I get out of this is that the judge says that it's none of Google's business because the lawsuit is between Microsoft & Motorola.
By the way, what is this ultra secret, mega proprietary Android source code anyway? I thought Android was open source. Didn't Andy Rubin define "open" as the ability to download and compile the source?
MS is suing Motorola, not Google suing Motorola.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Just in case anyone is curious and doesn't want to read TFA, the issue is that MS allowed an oust side consultant to view the source code provided my Motorola. Motorola's beef is that they had confidentiality agreements with MS. The judge stated that Google has no stake in the game and that Motorola would have to file a complaint.
The gist of the article is that MS believes their consultant found some dirt on Android and it's code, which Google seems to think will be very damaging to it's (Motorola's) case, and as a result, all Android devices.
I can't help but feel Google has really blundered here. I don't know if its' simply because they never had such intense competition in markets they were in (primarily search/ad revenue) and just taken by surprise, or they just assumed they could make agreements with companies who are in it for the long haul and unwilling to bargain. They know they have Google over a barrel or at least think they do, and Google has nothing to bargain with. I think it was naive of Google to assume these handset vendors would descend themselves and still remain loyal to Android if things go badly.
The Judge *denied a motion,* not *dismissed a complaint.*
I thought it was funny that Google and Android are supposed to be so open, yet they were trying to suppress source code they considered "highly proprietary."
People tend to hate closed-source, proprietary megacorporations that say one thing but do another.
Same here when I read about this. I'm still also surprised slashdot crowd believes all the crap Google says, even when the truth has hit them in the face so many times lately and before.
The truth is, almost all of Google's products are proprietary. Since they piggybacked on Linux kernel they had to open up Android some. Yet they still manage to withhold distributing said code for months at a time. A thing slashdot crowd would demand billions of damages to other companies for GPL violation. However, when it's Google it must be okay because they say they're not evil. Sigh.
Can you please be more specific? I constantly see people say the things you say and without fail, they always prove to be completely baseless. Must like what started this whole thread.
To what violations do you refer?
The gist of the article is that MS believes their consultant found some dirt on Android and it's code, which Google seems to think will be very damaging to it's (Motorola's) case, and as a result, all Android devices.
You have to understand how lawsuits work. Team A says they want to get the defendant's middle name, Team B, although they don't see the harm, they move to block it because they will not give Team A a single sliver of evidence that isn't specifically needed.
I was involved in a lawsuit where our lawyer actually blocked the subpoena of meeting minutes - which we had and which we believed supported our claim - because it wasn't necessary (you could just subpoena all the people that were there). Had me worried because the recollection of other people in the meeting seemed to be 'off' (against us). At trial, our lawyer the opposition's story went wild (the exaggerated, lied, made up things etc.) and our lawyer beat them up over it. "You were quoted saying this to the newspaper, you said this in your deposition, and now you say this at trial. Which version is the truth?"
Bottom line, limit the other side's information, limit what they can present in court, and finally, limit the arguments they can make. Chess is a lot easier if you whittle it down to just a few pieces left on the board.
TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.