Slashdot Mirror
Antitrust Case Against Google Thrown Out of SF Court
Mark Wilson (3799011) writes "Just a few days ago Google was threatened with legal action for anti-competitive behavior in Russia. While we don't yet know if that will amount to anything, there has been some better news for the search giant in the US. A San Francisco judge dismissed a case brought against the firm by two men who thought the inclusion of Google services in Android pushed up the prices of their handsets."
Because Google provides Android free of charge (including a free device approval process) under the model that they'll make money back from people using their services.
Android is FREE. The inclusion of google services are also FREE. Any price hike is all due to the phone manufacturer, not the OS provider.
Just sayin'.
Everyone has preinstalled apps they can't remove right? Not just Maps or Youtube, I'm talking Tripadvisor etc - you have this right? I'm used to a few, my last contract I had no less than 2 screens of apps I could not remove or would ever use. Going after Google just seems insane.
A SF judge ruling on Google matters? This isn't biased at all, no sir!
It should count for Google services.
No one (wants) to remember that eh? Somehow it was anti-competitive for Microsoft to include Internet Explorer but its not anti-competitive for Google to do the same? I would love to know how they think its different?
Inclusion of a CPU pushes up the price of the hand
Central Penis Unit?
Certainly having those services included increased the price of the handset. But the same could be said for any of the software the carriers include on their phones (and usually prevent you from removing). Ditto even for hardware, having a camera or WiFi on the phone increases the price of the handset.
None of which matters. The question in an antitrust case isn't whether it increased the price, it's whether Google used it's control of the Android OS to force vendors to include other Google services as a condition of using Android at all. And the answer to that question is no, Google doesn't do that. Amazon's phone runs Android without having Google services pre-installed (although you can install them yourself). The Kindles are a really good example, they run Android without any of the Google stuff at all and there isn't even any way of installing the Google services. Several Chinese companies make Android phones without Google services. I even have that with my Galaxy S4: I flashed it with CyanogenMod, so I start out without any of the Google apps or services and have to bootstrap an installation of them myself if I want them. The only downside is that if you don't accept Google's terms for officially using Google Play Services and their apps, you can't use the related trademarks for much except referring to those apps. So no, on antitrust grounds Google's OK because they simply aren't using their monopoly on Android (although technically they don't even have a monopoly, see CyanogenMod and AOSP) to force other Google services on manufacturers, carriers or users. In fact Google isn't even being as strict as they could be legally. They'd be within their rights to deny any use of the Google services and apps except where the vendor had the full license, but Google doesn't go that far because they realize it'd be a) stupid because it would annoy users who'd then shy away from Google completely and b) not in their best interests because it'd prevent Google customers from using Google services which would reduce Google's revenue. So all they do is say "You want to use our logos and brands and have access to all the official tools? You need to take our package. Otherwise, you'll have to install things by hand like anybody else." (well, not completely by hand since once they've done it once they can just clone the firmware image and flash it straight into the phones).
So, now Google counter sues both complainants and the Lawyer for failure to do due diligence prior to filing the lawsuit?
I mean, I think the plaintiff trying to sue Google Android but paint the case as suing Android. At best, the plaintiff could sue the handset maker. We know custom ROMS exist back then. It's not like Google forbid anyone to make an android handset w/o putting any Google services. Amazon did it, as well as B&N. Failed aside, they were phones & tablets that used Android w/o any of the build in Google services and they could have use other search engine as default. The successful market of the Android phones & tablets are because they are bundle with Google services(and that require Google search engine as default per the contract), not because they were impossible to un-bundle Google services and Android. I don't think Google were telling all the phone manufacturers that they cannot make product based on AOSP and not include any of the Google services. It may be possible that HTC and Samsung are under a (very) long term contract that they won't make any Android based product w/o Google services, hence Samsung start making a Tizen. But I think it's more likely that Samsung was thinking of a way to be less dependent on Google. But then neither Samsung nor HTC have a clear monopoly in smartphone market or even android smartphone market. Samsung may have a hugh lead in android smartphone market but it still not like 80-90% Windows monopoly in the PC industry. Even if they were to sue the handset maker, I think both the Galaxy S3 and EVO 3D does have bootloader unlock. Meaning they were possible to turn those specific phone whey both the plaintiffs own into custom ROM that doesn't use any of the Google services, less useful but possible. BTW, I still don't think a case like this is comparable to the inclusion/integration of IE in Windows.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- If picture worth a thousand words, how many megapixels is it? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Two random guys from two different states bought android phones. Both thought, "Hey, you know I bet this phone would have been $15 cheaper if Google's services weren't built in. I mean I didn't look into it enough see if I can change the search or anything, but I will sue in hopes of winning that $15 back for everyone in the world!" Seems legit, I mean obviously this is about the principle.
Antitrust case isn't about cost, but about abusing of monopoly power. In the US, it's okay to have monopoly power, but it's not okay to abuse it. I think if the plaintiff truly believe that unbundle google serach would have the phone cost less. then I think everyone should sue Apple instead. It would have make an easier win. I believe if Apple were to have iOS unbundle with other Apple services, or even possible to put on devices made by other manufacturers, wouldn't those phone be cheaper? A hell lots cheaper?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- If picture worth a thousand words, how many megapixels is it? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Certainly having those services included increased the price of the handset. But the same could be said for any of the software the carriers include on their phones (and usually prevent you from removing).
How? If you charge nothing for the creation of something hoping to recoup the cost through end user use then how does it increase the price of the handset? The only time that applies is with vendor modifications where the development cost is part of the device, not with 3rd party installs that don't change the price for the end user.
No, I don't care for the quad-cpu option.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Except Google pays Apple a few tens of millions of dollars each year to have iOS use Google by default.
Unbundling Google is like unbundling the crapware on a new PC - you're removing the subsidy that's making the stuff cheaper in the end, so you're actually likely going to pay more.
I think there may be a case in that for OEMs to preload Google Play they have to also include all Google's other crap and I think they now also have to be the defaults, though I'm not entirely sure about that last bit. So OEMs could use Android without Google's services, but they don't have the option to choose which services. This is unlikely to increase the cost of Android handsets though, so probably irrelevant to this case. It may require an OEM to start a suit with regard to the forced bundling, as consumers can in theory buy a handset with an unlocked bootloader and remove the apps or even install a custom ROM without extra cost. It may be different in practise with many bootloaders not being easily unlockable, but that is entirely up to the OEMs and not Google.
If they're not going to deal with the inclusions of a payed-for OS like Windows on handsets and PCs then why would they entertain a case against a free OS?
In soviet Russia, drunk Boris Yeltsin watches you.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
You just want more RAM?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
and a bigger hard drive.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
*woosh*
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Except Google pays Apple a few tens of millions of dollars each year to have iOS use Google by default.
Unbundling Google is like unbundling the crapware on a new PC - you're removing the subsidy that's making the stuff cheaper in the end, so you're actually likely going to pay more.
I didn't say suing Apple for bundling Google search in the iOS but rather for bundling Apple services into iOS.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- If picture worth a thousand words, how many megapixels is it? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Kinda-sorta. They can use Google's services and pick and choose which services. That doesn't require Google Play Services or Google's apps. Google publishes the APIs for all their services, and anyone's free to get a developer account, generate API keys and create their own apps that access Google's services (as long as they don't abuse the services, of course). What they can't do is preload Play Services and/or Google's apps (which are copyrighted and not open-source) without an agreement with Google which is likely to require Google's core apps be the defaults. And frankly any suit by the OEMs like you suggest would die on the first motion to dismiss, since the locked bootloaders and locks apps are the OEM's and carrier's choice, not Google's. Google's quite happy with unlocked bootloaders and apps that the end-user can uninstall at will, it's usually the carriers who don't want their profitable deals disrupted by users removing the relevant apps. As far as forced bundling, they'd have to restrict the suit to just the all-or-nothing bundling of the apps without regard to Android itself and that's likely to fail on the grounds that none of the apps have monopolies (there's far too many alternatives to GMail, for instance). If they try to use Android as the underlying monopoly, the suit will fail on a motion to dismiss since the OEMs aren't required to bundle any of the apps as a condition of getting the ability to use Android.
The main issue is that the OEMs and carriers want to be able to sell access to the very lucrative search box on the phone to the highest bidder while still using Google's apps for all the other things that users expect access to like their contacts and e-mail, but Google's set terms that force them to do all their own work if they want to do that.