Slashdot Mirror
Google May Prevent Samsung From Adding Viv AI Assistant To Galaxy S8 (ibtimes.co.uk)
New submitter drunkdrone quotes a report from International Business Times: Samsung is reported to be equipping its upcoming Galaxy S8 flagship with all manner of technical marvels in its attempt to erase the Note 7 catastrophe from memory. However, Google may throw a wrench into the works by potentially prohibiting Samsung from imbuing the phone with one of its most compelling features (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternate source) -- its AI personal assistant. Reports have suggested that Samsung planned to load the Galaxy S8 with Viv, a smartphone-based digital assistant similar to Apple's Siri and Google Assistant. Because of an ongoing non-compete pact between Samsung and Google, however, Samsung may be forced to exclude Viv from its upcoming flagship as would challenge Google's digital helper. The report adds: "According to Recode, the restriction forms part of a patent-sharing agreement Samsung signed with Google in 2014. While the pact will allow the two companies to put up a stronger, united front against Apple, it may hinder Samsung's ambitions for independence and its attempts to differentiate itself from the wider Android crowd."
Who is this the most compelling feature to?
Samsung is reported to be equipping its upcoming Galaxy S8 flagship with all manner of technical marvels
I wish Samsung could figure out how to include such marvels like a removable battery and a microSD slot.
Yeah, other countries call it bribery and corruption, but that is anti-american so they call it lobbying.
The agreement which contains this clause is an agreement in which Samsung and Google allow each other to use their patented inventions. The agreement overall allows *more* competition, Samsung can offer many features they couldn't offer otherwise due to patents.
Agreements which include a clause not to compete in specific ways, for a specific period of time, are allowable when they are ancillary to, and reasonably necessary for, a larger agreement which is otherwise in harmony with public policy, if they are limited to only reasonably necessary restrictions.
The example which set the precendent in the US was a bakery. A baker sold his business. The buyer was buying the business, not just the equipment. The seller agreed not to re-open a competing bakery in the same area within 5 years. The seller broke the agreement, re-opening his bakery down the block, directly competing with the person who had purchased his business. The court ruled that the non-compete agreement was legal because:
It was part of a larger transaction, selling the bakery.
It was necessary to that larger transaction - you haven't really sold your business if you re-open it two blocks down.
The agreement was limited to a) that town only and b) five years. The seller was free to open a bakery somewhere else.
Am I the only one that think removing stuff I did not want in the first place is a compelling feature? It's becoming more and more clear that I am no longer in the target market for smartphones.