Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Files Antitrust Complaint Against Microsoft, Nokia

Posted by Soulskill on from the throwing-down dept.

x0d writes with news that Google filed an EU antitrust complaint against Microsoft and Nokia on Thursday, claiming they are using proxy companies to make smartphone-related patent claims in an attack on Google's Android business. From the article: "Google also plans to share its complaint about patent 'trolls' with U.S. competition regulators. The Internet-search giant alleges that Microsoft and Nokia have entered into agreements that enable entities such as Canada-based Mosaid Technologies Inc. to legally enforce their patent rights and share the resulting revenue. Google, which hasn't been sued by Mosaid or related firms, described its filing with European regulators as a pre-emptive measure against a developing legal hazard for Android partners. The threat is that if phone makers perceive a significant legal risk in using Android, they may opt instead for Microsoft's Windows Phone software."

51 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. War by proxy by Night64 · · Score: 2

    Europe knows it very, very well.

    --
    Grey's Law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
  2. Distrust by EzInKy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As much as I distrust Google, which is quite a bit ever since they started asking for phone numbers, they still haven't reached the same level of fear that I have Microsoft and its insistence on forcing everyone into its collective. Add to that the fact that it's also against Nokia, a company I once adored before they jumped in bed with the devil incarnate, I must now say "good on you Google!"

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    1. Re:Distrust by EzInKy · · Score: 2

      Apple is easy to avoid by buying any of the thousands of other products their software doesn't run on. Microsoft, on the other hand, wants to be on all those thousands of other products.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    2. Re:Distrust by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As long as they keep killing the competition with their competence instead of compelling us to consume their crap with coercion then I'm fine with that. I don't use google because there are no alternatives, there are alternatives to everything they offer. I use google because so far it is superior for my needs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Distrust by EzInKy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Killing the competition accomplishes the same thing. Think about it, would Google have asked for phone numbers and insisted on using real names a decade ago? They've got power now and their going to use it.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    4. Re:Distrust by mclaincausey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That doesn't make any sense. It's easy to avoid Microsoft. Try not using Google. Way harder.

      --
      (%i1) factor(777353);
      (%o1) 777353
    5. Re:Distrust by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Could you list all the products Google had out a decade ago that now require you provide a phone number and real name to use, that didn't then?

      Does Google search require this, for example? (Answer: no)
      What about GMail? (Answer: no)
      Google groups? (Answer: no)
      Google maps? (Answer: no)
      Google news? (Answer: no)
      OK, well, iGoogle? (Answer: no)
      Youtube? (Answer: no)

      OK... so what are we talking about here?

      I know that the generic Google account system recommends you give it a cellphone number, so you can recover your password more securely. But you're not required to. In fact, the only tool I'm aware of that requires you give your phone number is Google Voice, which it's required you do since its inception, because it needs it in order to work properly.

      What about real names? Well, there's Google+, but that's new. And it has plenty of competition. And in fact, the real names thing is probably why Google+ hasn't taken off. So that pretty much kills that argument.

      Real names are also required for... well, anything that uses payments (Google Play, for example, if, and only if, you buy something, and AdWords), because, well, credit cards are difficult to charge if you don't have a fucking name. But that's ALWAYS been the case, since Froogle.

      AdSense does too, but again always has done. (Yes, Google knows who I am)

      So, really, what's your argument here?

      Google has always had services that require real names and/or real telephone numbers. They're pushing the latter recently solely to help you recover lost passwords, and they're pushing the former only in relation to one service that, by no stretch of the imagination, can remotely be considered to be having monopoly power, and whose primary competitor, which pre-existed Google+ by many years, has always had the same policy.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    6. Re:Distrust by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hi EzInKy,

      Beyond being an avid reader of Slashdot comments (10+ years now!), I also work on Google account security, so am quite familiar with the phone number prompts you're seeing. Let me give you some background and maybe you can at least see our perspective on why we're doing this and why it's not necessarily "evil".

      The traditional approach to handling users who forget their passwords, or otherwise need to be identified via a non-password based mechanism, is the secret question and answer. We have spent many years trying to make secret QA work. I myself wrote the code we use to correct typos, handle different abbreviations of street addresses, normalize unicode characters etc to try and increase the success rate. Other people have analyzed the types of questions/answers provided and encouraged users to select better ones. All to no avail. People just suck at choosing these options .... some people choose absurdly easy questions like "Do I like the incredible hulk?" or "In what month did I get married?". Lots of people forget the answer, even with the hint. The suggestions we provide (library card number, frequent flyer number) are often ignored as being too much hassle. Some questions looks superficially strong ("What is my mothers maiden name?") but we've seen fraudsters from Nigeria successfully research the answer to that question starting from nothing more than an email address! To top it all off, the success rate for good users is staggeringly low. Even with all the effort we put in to handling common mistakes, the success rate is rarely higher than 25%.

      So we gave up on it. New Google accounts do not prompt you for a secret QA. Instead we ask for a phone number. The reason is that it's a kind of "second password" that cannot be guessed by random strangers unless you happen to publish it on the web (happens, but rare), most people have memorized it, and if we need a strong proof of authentication - like if you forget your password - we make an automated phone call. We have also been asking users to provide a phone number for existing accounts for the same reasons, our stats show users with phone numbers are dramatically less likely to lose their accounts.

      You may think, well, I'll never forget my password so this is irrelevant. But nowadays we also use it as a second password in cases where we aren't sure a login is really coming from you (it seems unusual or suspicious in some way). You normally just have to type it in to confirm you know it. In very high risk cases, like using an IP that's been heavily abused before, we may want to send you a message.

      You're right that the UI strongly encourages people to provide a number although it's still optional. I'd personally prefer to have the UI you suggest. However that will lead to a lot of users getting locked out of their accounts, no two ways about it. The alternatives for proving your identity are just so much harder. So there are no ideal solutions here. The numbers aren't used for anything else (certainly not advertising or anything like that).

    7. Re:Distrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It takes an unreasonably large amount of technical prowess to actually eradicate all of Google's tendrils.

      DuckDuckGo, NoScript, and OpenPGP?

      What am I missing? A robots.txt file?

    8. Re:Distrust by RivenAleem · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've used Google for years, and didn't know this was the reason behind the phone number (beyond being able to get a password reset sent to me by SMS). I've never received any unsolicited calls on my number, so I know it has not been used for marketing.

      Today was the first time they asked me to use the number for anything, when using Google checkout for the first time to buy the new Humble Bundle.

    9. Re:Distrust by oakgrove · · Score: 2

      Thank you for this very informative explanation. Sadly, it will be lost on most people as the "Google is teh Evil" meme is so strong on the internet right now. Just a suggestion (you may have done this I haven't checked), but would it be possible to summarize this and put it as a little disclaimer next to the phone number prompt so that people know what's going on and the trolls can't use it as anti-Google fodder?

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    10. Re:Distrust by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It actually is there already, at least in the current versions of the recovery interstitial. It says something like "Hey, this is important: We don't have a password recovery email address or phone number for your account. If you lose access, we may not be able to help you." and mentions that people without a phone number are much more likely to accidentally lose access to their account. I'm not sure we can make it much clearer than that, the more text on the screen the fewer people will read it.

  3. Legal Risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (Posting AC because I'm at work, not because I'm going to get modded into the stone age for what I'm about to say...)

    Google ... described its filing with European regulators as a pre-emptive measure against a developing legal hazard for Android partners. The threat is that if phone makers perceive a significant legal risk in using Android...

    Um, if there's a legal hazard in using Android, maybe that means Google/manufacturer's should license patents from Microsoft (or others). I know the current belief on /. is that everybody should be able to make whatever they want, even if they copy someone else's work but, ignoring whether or not I agree with that view, that's simply not how the world works. Sorry - it isn't. The world works such that, if you invent it and you patent it, you have the right to get paid when someone else uses it (or outright block them from using it for a time). You may not like that, and many don't, but that's how the world works. Not just the US - the world. Google may view that as a problem but the solution is simple - build Android so that it doesn't infringe on any patents or license the patents so that there's no legal risk.

    I know I'll be in the minority on this one but, sorry - the system is what the system is. It's simple, design around the patent or license it. Or don't and deal with the consequences.

    1. Re:Legal Risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Licensing patents from trolls is like paying protection money to criminals. You're only providing them resources and incentive to continue their extortion and find new victims. The only right thing to do is put the criminals out of business, not pay them off.

    2. Re:Legal Risk by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um no. While there are some here that would disregard all intellectual property, the vast majority are in disagreement about whether some IP should be protected as being valid especially in the area of software where patenting things like one-click may be ridiculous. The current situation has been a long time coming as companies like MS and Google have been stockpiling patents for defensive purposes against patent trolls. Unfortunately the cold war has now erupted into open hostilities. From what I can tell, it's easier to track who isn't suing. The situation will be addressed but it will be a bloody fight. At this point it is hard to tell which companies are using patents as weapons against competitors and which are trying to legitimately defend their IP.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Legal Risk by iserlohn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or maybe the patent system *itself* is being abused - bad patents are too prevalent and it costs to much to fight frivolous claims.

      Why live with a bad system just because it is? Is it wrong to fight for a better society that is more fair and can provide better incentives to create works?

      --
      :. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
    4. Re:Legal Risk by andydread · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why bother sitting down at your computer and writing any code? Even if your code is wholly original they still have a right to take ownership of your code through the use of trivial and obvious software patents? So if you write your own code that renders text before images and its completely your code from your brain. And its totally different from any code that MS wrote you are saying that Microsoft should be able come and take ownership of your code? The pathetic people that cheer for this kind of abuse in the marketplace do so against their own interests. pathetic.

    5. Re:Legal Risk by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's the thing. Every single one of the big phone manufacturers has a thousand patents that every other phone manufacturer has infringed on since the beginning of the industry. They all know this, but for literally decades everyone involved was smart enough to look at the situation and say "Oh hell no! I'm not starting that fight". The in strolled the new kid on the block, they bought some patents on the core technologies (enough to ensure they were inside the circle of mutually assured destruction along with the other manufacturers) but then they went and patented a few (frankly quite silly) UI patents. And so they thought to themselves, we might not be able to start the holy war on the core technologies, but we can certainly fire off just a few shots to protect our user interface. Which is a lot like the US during the cold war saying "surely the Soviets won't mind if we launch nuclear tipped cruise missiles at Kiev, after all, they're not ICBMs".

      And the result has been about what you would expect. All out patent war in the cell phone industry, with constantly shifting alliances, tactics, and weapons. We've had import bans because a photo gallery app slid just past the available pictures to communicate to the user that they were at the end. We've had court cases fought over "Swipe to unlock". We've had multi-billion dollar companies bought, sold, and gutted for their patent portfolios. And, most importantly and the issue no one seems to pay attention to, we've created an environment where there is absolutely no chance, literally zero, of a new player entering the game.

      So, you say to Google "build Android so that it doesn't infringe on patents". I say 50% of those patents are invalid, and it's just going to take the right court case to show that once and for all. Of the remaining 50%, everyone in the industry stomps all over them, to the point where even the biggest players can't be sure who owns what, who is defending what, and what their next project might infringe upon. It's broken. It's not really Apple's fault, even if they were the ones to set of Armageddon the system has been screwed up for too long to blame them. Any system that relies on cold war style MAD is going to break down eventually.

    6. Re:Legal Risk by oxdas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um, if there's a legal hazard in using Android, maybe that means Google/manufacturer's should license patents from Microsoft (or others). I know the current belief on /. is that everybody should be able to make whatever they want, even if they copy someone else's work but, ignoring whether or not I agree with that view, that's simply not how the world works. Sorry - it isn't. The world works such that, if you invent it and you patent it, you have the right to get paid when someone else uses it (or outright block them from using it for a time). You may not like that, and many don't, but that's how the world works. Not just the US - the world. Google may view that as a problem but the solution is simple - build Android so that it doesn't infringe on any patents or license the patents so that there's no legal risk.

      I know I'll be in the minority on this one but, sorry - the system is what the system is. It's simple, design around the patent or license it. Or don't and deal with the consequences.

      Software patents are not valid in Europe, so no, this is not the way the "world" works. It is the way the U.S. works, but only since 1981. Prior to that year (and for a practical purposes the early 90's) software patents were expressly forbade by the USPTO and the Supreme Court. The definition of patentable material has expanded immensely in the last 30 years in US. Europe has been drifting toward allowing software patents, but the debate is as fierce there as it is here.

      With the U.S. Supreme Court recently reasserting itself into the patent debate, this is a great time for Google to push against software patents and Europe is the place to start.

    7. Re:Legal Risk by oxdas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I just don't get the same impression of the people at Google, or Slashdot for that matter. While a few people on Slashdot are against the concept of intellectual property, the vast majority of those opposed to software patents and 100 year copyright terms do support the concept of intellectual property. As for Google, they are certainly pro intellectual property, but they too strike out at the structure of the current system.

      I see the debate as really between two world views on intellectual property. One side believes that intellectual property is akin to physical property and exists primarily to enrich its owners (for example, Florian Mueller recently compared IP to real estate). The other side believes that intellectual property is primarily for the benefit of society and that the enrichment of its owners is valid if and only if the benefits of innovation outweigh the costs to society. If you fall into the former, then the expansion of patents is just the strengthening of property rights. If you fall into the latter, then the expansion of patents is only valid if it results in increases in innovation for society at large. For software patents, the latter camp believes them to be a net hindrance to innovation and therefore invalid (whether or not someone makes money off of them becomes irrelevant).

  4. Subtle ad? by Linegod · · Score: 4, Funny

    "they may opt instead for Microsoft's Windows Phone software"

    No one is going to do that.

    --
    -- I care not for your foolish signatures.
    1. Re:Subtle ad? by oakgrove · · Score: 2

      If it is perceived that Google phones are insecure or too-costly to own, Microsoft phones could easily win over the consumers just as Microsoft browser convinced people to switch from Netscape browser in the late 90s/early 2000s.

      Except people didn't switch to Internet Explorer because they perceived Netscape as too costly or insecure. By the time Netscape had lost it was due to the fact that IE was being bundled with windows as the default and Netscape 4 was a catastrophe. Furthermore, the market forces in play right now between the competing smartphone platforms is very different than what were at play during the (first) browser wars. There is no specific parallel that can be drawn between the two that isn't also general between any other competitive products so your post brings absolutely nothing to the table as far as new or novel information. Please stop posting stupidity to me. Thanks.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
  5. Welcome to SCO 2.0 by spacepimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Same agenda, only now the desktop isn't at stake, it is the mobile market sector. Same FUD, different day. Linux was proven and hardened after SCO, but in many ways it was too late, the tech world had moved on. MS is hoping for more of the same.

    1. Re:Welcome to SCO 2.0 by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that right now, they are driving up the real cost of Android phones, making money from it, and spreading FUD. It should be quite clear after the B&N screw-up that what they're doing is extortion.

    2. Re:Welcome to SCO 2.0 by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Don't worry, if history is any indication the USDoJ will catch Microsoft red-handed for this only ten years from now and at a cost of only tens or hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.

      Of course, if history is any indication, Microsoft will be let off the hook without penalties by whoever is sitting where Ashcroft was sitting last time.

      I adore that one of the big bad guys in Freelancer is named Ashcroft.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Linux by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd like to see redHat, Suse, Canonical, etc do the same thing over the UEFI controls coming up. That really needs to be taken out of their hands.

  7. This is why I like Google by Erich · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Google is at least trying to say "Hey, this whole patent troll environment sucks. You should really do something about this problem!"

    Hopefully someone will listen to their complaint before they are forced to take matters into their own hands.

    And I think everyone also sees the next step, which is retaliation. Google just bought all those Motorola patents, and having them shut down Nokia and Apple with all those 17-year-old cell phone patents would really be a step up in the Mutually-Assured-Destruction conflict, and everyone would suffer for it.

    Taking this approach with the nukes in your back pocket seems much more civil than approach taken by the others.

    --

    -- Erich

    Slashdot reader since 1997

    1. Re:This is why I like Google by shione · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The patent row between motorola and microsoft began even before google considered buying motorola. And the motorola buyout by google was more in response to microsoft suing android phone makers so google went after motorola's phone patents before anyone else (microsoft) could grab it to add to their warchest.

      Talking purely patents, cross licensing sucks too because it locks out new players from the playing field. What we need is the abolishment of all patents or the reduction to their lifetime to a very short period.

    2. Re:This is why I like Google by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      You do know that Google didn't own Motorola until LAST WEEK, right? And that Motorola's lawsuits were launched long before Google started the process of buying Motorola?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  8. Re:Hey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry, but what? When has Google ever used patent trolls? To the contrary, Google has fought patent trolls more aggressively than any tech company.

  9. But Microsoft is suing them directly by Eirenarch · · Score: 2

    Microsoft is suing Motorola (now Google) directly. Why the hell would they hide if they already do it openly and even if they do hide behind other companies how is this illegal? Can't a company pay another company to take care of patent fights?

    1. Re:But Microsoft is suing them directly by shione · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They don't do it openly. Ask microsoft which patents android infringes and THEY WILL NOT TELL YOU. Every android phone maker that has paid the blackmail money^h^h^h settled has also had to sign a non disclosure statement. This is either because microsoft doesnt want the other phonemakers it hasnt gone after yet to create a workaround^h^h^h not infringe or because microsoft knows it's standing is very weak.

    2. Re:But Microsoft is suing them directly by oakgrove · · Score: 2

      Or you can do what Barnes & Noble did and fight back hard ending up with a sweet deal and payout. I don't know why more manufacturers don't do that as B&N won big. I'm not saying I agree with what they ended up doing but they did make out like bandits by standing up to the bully.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
  10. Business as usual by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The threat is that if phone makers perceive a significant legal risk in using Android, they may opt instead for Microsoft's Windows Phone software."

    What part of this is illegal? Isn't this how patents are supposed to work?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  11. Re:Hey by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You do know what an antitrust complaint is about don't you? It's not about having a monopoly, it's about abusing one. When has Google abused its search monopoly?

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  12. microsoft is so greedy by shione · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not only do they extract out of android phone makers many times more than make from their own windows phones but now they want to extract cash out of google as well.

    If miscrosoft spent less time sabotaging, suing and backstabbing their partners and more time innovating and focussing on their own products, maybe their company would experience more growth. Only then would it be able to turn its reputation around like IBM has.

  13. Re:Hey by oakgrove · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you have anything other than a tired disingenuous analogy you just pulled out of your ass? Because last I checked this specific anti-trust complaint is about Nokia and Microsoft backing patent trolls. Google has never done this. Furthermore, if there are legitimate complaints to be leveled toward Google then by all means do so. But to just make a blanket statement that Google shouldn't defend their interests (especially against something so underhanded as patent trolling) because "they did bad too HUr dur" is not a rational perspective.

    --
    The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
  14. Re:Hey by andydread · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So Google goes around filing suits on trivial software patents that should have never been filed and should have never been granted? Can you point me to one instance of Google conspiring with others to subdue the marketpace and kill open source software with the use of software patents? One instance? BTW what public relations firm to you work for?

  15. Re:Hey by zero.kalvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes they did, but they didn't force you to use them, and they didn't make it harder for you to use other services nor did they hid the results concerning other services. Lets not name some other company who made it difficult for others to install certain browsers on their OS, and kind of forced you to use their own browser. Good is kind of the equivalent of you going to the only supermarket in the country and when you ask them about coffee they first thing they state is their own coffee but followed by every other brand. I am sorry but that's not abusing a monopoly.

  16. Re:Hey by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, blaming Google for the actions started years ago of a company they literally bought last week is sure to prove your argument.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  17. Re:Glass houses... by oakgrove · · Score: 2

    HTC is not a patent troll. MOSAID is, e.g., non-practicing entity. The distinction is huge. HTC is a very large licensee of Android who was attacked by Apple for the express purpose of an outright shutdown. Not only was that an attack on HTC but it was an attack on Android itself. Of course Google is not going to stand there with their dicks in their hands. Contrast this with what MS and Nokia are doing. They bought a bunch of patents for the express purpose of transferring them to a text book patent troll to attack Android. Google is not attacking Windows phone and they are not attacking Nokia. The patents they transferred to HTC were for defense purposes against Apple. You can try to draw ridiculous parallels until the cows come home but ultimately as we saw with Oracle vs Google it's up to the court to sort it out. Armchair Google haters and paranoid tin hat wearers everywhere notwithstanding.

    --
    The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
  18. Typical Slashdot Bullshit by recoiledsnake · · Score: 4, Informative

    > Because last I checked this specific anti-trust complaint is about Nokia and Microsoft backing patent trolls.

    Did you really check it? Or are you just wearing your fanboy blinders?

      They're an investor in the biggest patent troll around, Intellectual Ventures.

    http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=2f9ac708-83af-42b9-9d3d-5fdf39fdc482

    --
    This space for rent.
    1. Re:Typical Slashdot Bullshit by recoiledsnake · · Score: 3, Informative

      >They invested in "Defendant Invention Investment Fund I." which is an investment fund that invested in IV.

      Umm no. That fund is completely a part of IV. IV has various funds, and Google invested only in that fund. It's not like an general investment fund or mutual fund. And Google's investment was only revealed in a lawsuit or it would be hidden even now, just like Google wants it to be. Who's twisting the truth now?

      Why don't you get an account(or login to your real account) and dare to stand behind your posts instead of hiding like a coward taking potshots at me? Or are you a Google shill or employee trying to spin the facts and posting anonymously to hide?

      --
      This space for rent.
    2. Re:Typical Slashdot Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Open source projects are now dumping? Nice theory you have there. Andriod was created because Nokia's OS efforts were a catastrophic fucking failure. Andriod's agile open development model turned out to be superior to Nokia's slow, closed model.

      That said, open source android is just a base. Google's real android product is a suite of useful premium services that get distributed and accessed on Google's terms, to earn ad revenue. These services run on the android base. You are free to build a phone with or without Google's premium services. There are even 3rd party app stores.

      If you want to talk about dumping, lets discuss how much you pay for windows as an OEM install on a new PC vs buying a retail box.

    3. Re:Typical Slashdot Bullshit by recoiledsnake · · Score: 2

      Android is not really a regular OSS project like Linux or Firefox. Development happens behind secret closed doors and some OEMs get special early access. And when the Nexus device is released to the market(not one day before that), the code is dumped over a wall to the general public and other OEMs who then get into a mad scramble to work on it(no wonder updates to existing OEM phones take ~8 months after the Nexus device) . Contrast that with Linux, Firefox etc. where you can compile the nightlies or even Windows, with everyone getting access to betas and RCs before it is released instead of just catering to special interests.

      >If you want to talk about dumping, lets discuss how much you pay for windows as an OEM install on a new PC vs buying a retail box.

      Companies can compete with Windows(retail or OEM) on price, which is exactly what Ubuntu is doing on the desktop and servers. You cannot do that with Android. Your comparison of Retail vs. OEM is nonsense, OEMs are wholesalers and get different prices like every other industry in existence. Not to mention that dumping requires a company to take a loss. Windows is one of the most profitable businesses in existence.

      --
      This space for rent.
  19. Re:Hey by mystikkman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes, blaming Google for the actions started years ago of a company they literally bought last week is sure to prove your argument.

    Microsoft and Apple have pledged to license standards-essential patents on FRAND terms and not to seek injunctions and stays based on them, Google refused to do so to the EU.

    Also, did Slashdot run a story about Apple and MS filing antitrust complaint again Motorola?

    http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/253083/european_commission_opens_antitrust_investigation_of_motorola_mobility.html

  20. Re:Glass houses... by DragonWriter · · Score: 2

    Apple is in the process of having HTC complaints against them dismissed by the ITC due to lack of standing.

    "Seeking to have" rather than "having" would be more accurate.

    It seems that Google transferred five patents key to HTC complaint just prior to the filing with the ITC (less than week). The ITC hasn't ruled on Apple's motion, but it indicates that HTC is acting as Google's proxy in this matter.

    Actually, what it shows is that when Apple launched a patent attack on HTC over importing devices using Google software -- that is, launched an attack-by-proxy on Google and the entire Android ecosystem through HTC -- Google handed HTC the ammunition to retaliate against Apple.

    Since Apple has attacked HTC for allegedly improperly exercising Apple's patents by using Google software on HTC devices, they are hardly in a position to argue credibly that HTC lacks a bona fide domestic industrial use of the patents transferred from Google merely because HTC was a patent licensee rather than the patent owner until shortly before the complaint was issued.

    Just because someone argues for something in a legal case (and just because it convinced Florian Mueller) doesn't mean it is credible.

  21. Re:Glass houses... by DragonWriter · · Score: 2

    I just pointed out that Google also uses proxies in its patent battles.

    You claimed that, but pointed to evidence of Google supporting HTC only after Apple attacked HTC as a proxy for Google. That is, while there is a sense that HTC is a proxy for Google in the Apple-Google patent war, its because Apple choose to make HTC such a proxy by attacking HTC as a way of attacking Android, not because Google made them a proxy.

  22. Re:Hey by Dishevel · · Score: 2

    Awesome link. I love random links.
    Do you have one that shows Google abusing its monopoly though?

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  23. Re:Hey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, saying "You can ONLY use youtube.com and google.com IF YOU ARE USING CHROME" would be abusing their monopoly. advertising their own products (while not penalizing their competitors) is not abusing the monopoly.

  24. Re:Hey by makomk · · Score: 2

    One of Google's updates to PageRank did downrank so-called vertical search engines. They kind of needed too because they were effectively rendering search unusable - you'd search for information or reviews about some product and just get page after page of links to searches on other websites, most of which hadn't managed to find anything. It made trying to use Google an exercise in frustration that reminded me of the bad old days and why the other search engines lost out to them in the first place. Honestly, if anything they haven't been aggressive enough about it.