Smartphones are what people currently define as smartphones.
Who are these people who define what a smartphone is? And, it almost seems pointless even asking again since after bolding it, linking to the meaning of the word 'definition' and posing the same question multiple times you still appear too dense to comprehend it, what do you believe the definition of a smartphone to be?
That definition has evolved, and will continue to change.
Rubbish, WM and Symbian smartphones don't just cease to be smartphones just because we have new ones, that's moronic and false.
Lemme get this straight, you want to allow tivoization? If so just be honest and use the BSD license, that's practically what tivoization turns the GPLv2 into anyways.
No it doesn't, you still get any code improvements/changes back, you still get to see the source code, for a BSD license these aren't guaranteed. It just means you can't load that software onto that hardware, but from a software perspective you still get all the benefits, you can take that software and use it on any other hardware you want.
The yardstick is moved by others, not me. The Model T is no longer considered a passenger vehicle, but a museum piece.
Do i have to link to the meaning of the word 'definition' again for you? Or are you just not reading? If the Model T isn't a car then what is your definition of a car?
If you wish to contest that it is others who have moved the goalposts, then please show me any state in the US or province in Canada where it would be legal to manufacture and sell a new Model T as a passenger vehicle.
That's not what it's about, it's about whether or not it is a car, you say it is not a car so then what is the definition of a car then?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
The same for "acceptable wage" or "acceptable working conditions", child labour, divorce and remarriage, same-sex marriage, acceptable birth control methods, legal forms of sex, the definition of a legal marriage (it was once illegal for blacks to marry whites), what constitutes consent, legal police searches, etc. All these have been redefined over the years, and will continue to be.
That's what you fail to understand and why you consistently fail to actually define anything, because you don't seem to be able to comprehend the fact that it's not about 'acceptable' or 'standards'. Just because it's not the wage you get today doesn't mean it's not a wage, just because it's not the computer you buy today doesn't mean it ceases to be a computer and just because the smartphone you bought 5 years ago isn't the same as the smartphone you buy today doesn't mean smartphones didn't exist before the one you bought today. If you're telling me they aren't smartphones then what are smartphones?
But you'll probably reply, just as you continuously have, by avoiding the actual definition of such things because it's obvious that you're wrong.
For a Model T, it's "Museum piece":-) I was actually given a ride in one "behind the scenes" at an auction. They had to move it, so "why not take it for a spin?" It definitely did NOT feel like I was in a car - more like a hay wagon with a motor tacked on.
So where did the car era start then and when will it finish and start again? You seem pretty happy to move a yardstick but you have no idea where it is.
For all those old chicklet-kbd PC juniors and TRS-80s (trash-80) and Commodores, the word you want is "Electronic Waste".
I think you need to read this because you're not getting it.
Again, what is the definition (see above) of a smartphone? Or a PC for that matter? Or a car?
Just search for it - the move to html5+javascript means that all those "developers developers developers" who invested so much time and $$$ in using Microsoft languages and tools feel betrayed.
I have searched for it, have you? Because all i find is a bunch of baseless assumptions and people who have no idea what they're talking about. There is no 'move to HTML5/Javascript' just support for those technologies natively alongside existing.Net technologies, HTML5/Javascript is not capable of replacing.Net, clearly some people don't understand that.
You can't produce new Model Ts and sell them as cars to the general public because you can't register them. They no longer meet the standards for a passenger vehicle (safety, emissions, etc), the same way that those old "Pocket PCs" don't meet the current definition of a smartphone.
Just because in some parts of the world you can't register them doesn't mean they aren't cars. So again, if it's not a car then what is it? If the Model T isn't a car then at what point in history do cars start? And do you actually believe they become and cease to be cars at different times in different places depending on the registration standards of that place? Is the same true of say, spacecraft?
Would you call a Newton an tablet computer? Technically, yes, but people would look at you weird if you did.
I already made this point, are you even reading before replying? See here: Of course when you buy a PC these days you don't expect to get an IBM AT but that doesn't mean the IBM AT isn't a PC anymore.
And if a 'car' is so clearly defined as something the Model T is not then what is this definition? In fact what is the definition of a PC and what's the definition of a Smartphone?
Win8? 3rd-party developers are VERY unhappy with the direction it's taken.
And what direction is that? I haven't seen any specific 'direction' apart from the UI changes, are you finding 3rd party developers unhappy about this?
So start producing and selling Model T's as cars. Let me know when you get one to be considered an automobile that I can walk into the DMV and plate with no restrictions.
Abraham Lincoln once said "If we call a tail a paw, how many paws does a dog have." When people said "5", he replied "Calling it a paw doesn't make it one"
So, out of interest, what is a Model T then, if not a car? And at what point throughout automotive history did those which were considered to be cars cease to be cars?
TBH i think you missed his point, which was that even though there is evolution of a product the basic definitions still hold, hence his use of: Those crappy devices are still smartphones, in the same way that Model Ts are still cars.. Why would you change the definition of 'smartphone' just because there has been evolution? Of course when you buy a PC these days you don't expect to get an IBM AT but that doesn't mean the IBM AT isn't a PC anymore.
In your last post, you were so confident Google has all the patents necessary to "defend" Android and its hardware partners. Now you don't know what Google patents are ?
You just said they have only have 1000 patents, however given that you can't even tell me where you came up with that from it seems you made it up. We all know they have many very valuable patents in search and analytics and that the number is irrelevant, it's the content that matters. But you seem to be fixated on this number of 1000 that you seem to think isn't enough but don't seem to actually know what they are or where that number comes from.
I don't to be told they don't, im not ignorant,
Congratulations for don'ting to be told (whatever it means). As for you ignorance , whether you don't to be told or you don'tn't,:-
Oh because it's so hard to figure out: I don't need to be told they don't, im not ignorant,, sorry you ultimately failed to decipher what that could mean (im not sure there is much else given the context).
You say Google did nothing to "acquire" patents in spite of having resources. I pointed out that the Motorola deal is acquisition of patents. Which you ignored, or couldn't understand. Not ignorant indeed.
And where's the indemnification or even an intent to indemnify its customers in fact anyone in the world using android would need google to step up and fight for them, where's the indication of them doing that? It's been many years now and we're still waiting for google to step up and help out their customers. They've always had patents that they could threaten other companies with in areas that would hurt their business (MS with Bing for example) and cross-license but they never did, yet somehow you think this will be different.
The context is, what you cleverly omitted to quote, about patents.
And the context before that was Google's Android, who's primary target market is NOT China, in fact it's everywhere that their customers are getting sued and where they are doing nothing about it. However of course you don't want to admit that so you went off topic.
China protects patents of Chinese patent office
Obviously, and you think companies don't have patents there already? Apple has a whole bunch of design patents already.
Someone mentioned western digital a while ago and until i got an apple tv i hadn't noticed it but there is a striking similarity in the design between the new apple tv and the somewhat older western digital elements external hard drive. Yes they are a coupling of basic design elements and i don't think there should be any 'protection' for such things, but it certainly looks hypocritical of apple to go after samsung when they've done a much more blatant copy of another company's design.
Clamshells are not the ideal form factor for certain conditions
That's what im stuck on though, what conditions? I can't think of any.
and iOS requires nearly zero maintenance.
But if your environment is going in that direction, to a service-based applications system then it doesn't matter what kind of device you're using. What differing maintenance issues are there? You have updates on both kinds of platform.
Having just one guy on hand in even a 100 person deployment means a $500+/yr commitment PER MacBook to support the OS (presuming you have a Windows desktop environment, which is typical , and especially where discipline specific applications are for Win only).
Well if you have windows-specific applications then moving to ipads is completely useless anyway because ipads can't run windows apps. Assuming the same services-based application model that you would need to transition to if you adopted ipads I can't see what maintenance would have to be applied to a laptop that you wouldn't need for an ipad.
How is an ipad actually better for general business tasks? I'd say it's quite the opposite. I much prefer a macbook air to an ipad, i can't think of a way the ipad is better, it's only slightly more portable.
Being able to draw on an ipad is pretty sucky compared to a pen and paper or a whiteboard and in either of those cases if it's worth keeping i'll just take a photo on my phone and i can email it.
They might have the patent certificates in some offices / warehouses. But patent itself is intangible, so exists nowhere in particular.
No, where is this figure presented, what are these patents?
They have the resources to acquire patents to protect their product but they don't
Who told you they don't? That is exactly what they are doing the Motorola deal for.
I don't to be told they don't, im not ignorant, i can see masses of lawsuits over Android and Google doing nothing to protect its customers from lawsuits brought against them because of its product.
Rubbish, look at the way a Korean company (Samsung) has been pummeled by Apple IP lawsuits in those very markets.
"Case by case basis"
Thanks captain obvious, all IP cases are done on a case by case basis.
Just look at how counterfeit Apple stores were taken down in China - one of the most lax regions for IP laws.
When are you planning to learn the difference between patents and trademarks?
Are you incapable of reading what was written? I said 'IP' laws (you even quoted it and still failed to comprehend it), which is what all of this falls under.
The simple irrefutable fact is that if you want to use Android in Google's target market you are likely to be sued for patent infringement over it and Google does nothing to protect you.
Basically microsoft has build a boat full of holes (I believe they callis something like MS-Windows) and they pnly produce software for that environment.
What are you on about? They produce software for plenty of platforms other than Windows, their own ones like their phone/Zune OS and the XBox as well as Mac OS X.
Absolutely false. In the context in which this story appeared (Google had not bought Motorola by then), Google is extremely patent poor by its own admission. It has a totality of 1000 patents, many internet, ads and search related.
Where do they have a total of only 1000 patents? And in any case number is irrelevant, it's what the patent is that matters. They have the resources to acquire patents to protect their product but they don't and they leave their own customers to fend for themselves with a product that infringes on patents in most markets.
Yes. Though, there is another category of companies which can afford to use Android - those which operate outside the software patent world. E.g. Chinese companies using Asia as the major market.
Actually i think you'll find the regulations on computer software protection as an extension to copyright cover many aspects of patents in China.
EU countries as a market on a case by case basis could be evaluated, but EU too, is much less affected than US and highly US influenced countries.
Rubbish, look at the way a Korean company (Samsung) has been pummeled by Apple IP lawsuits in those very markets.
From your refusal to acknowledge the existence of the world outside the US, you seem to be an American.
No i am not, i in no way refused to acknowledge the world outside the US, I didn't even mention the US or anything US-specific whatsoever so try to actually comprehend what is written in the post before you reply with rubbish like that and try to stay on topic instead. In fact i just know enough not to be ignorant about the fact that most of the world does in fact work with similar IP laws and that google's primary markets are respect those IP laws. Just look at how counterfeit Apple stores were taken down in China - one of the most lax regions for IP laws.
The fact remains that google's main target market and area of competition is the one in which google refuses to stand up for its own product (google's revenue in china makes up about 1% of their total), you can pretend that isn't the case but it is a fact.
I have seen companies completely change over from Linux embedded systems to Windows CE or other commercial products because the GPL v3 could be used as a sledgehammer to have all trade secrets handed over.
In as much as infringing on patents is "breaking the law"
Well it is, in the current legal system if you infringe on patents then you are breaking patent laws.
So every tech company is immoral in this respect, and very nearly equally so.
You're missing the point, it's google's product that is infringing but they aren't taking any responsibility for that infringement.
Since the other person also knows about patents, he is expected to do a research and accept the free gift only if they have patents in their portfolios to counter-sue the litigators if they pop up. Nothing immoral here in this respect.
Of course it's immoral, it's google's product, they have the patent portfolio to back their product and defend their product but they choose not to.
Do you really think Motorola, HTC, Samsung and friends do not have the ability to research for patents? That they didn't know Android could be a patent minefield?
Of course they do, that doesn't mean Google shouldn't stand behind and defend its product. Do you really think the only companies targeted by Android are those with huge patent portfolios? Obviously if you don't have a huge patent portfolio you cannot afford to use Android, because the company who made it takes no responsibility for anything illegal in it. Red Hat and Novell stood up for their products, why not google?
The difference is that before those chips didn't typically pass the QA for their originally intended clock speed.
So you're buying a lower-end chip that is better quality than it was before. They've bettered their manufacturing process but aren't passing the cost savings on, annoying but they aren't exactly obliged to do it.
Once one buys it, they have precisely no rights to dictate how the product is used.
I didn't see them attempting to do that anywhere. You bought it, you can do whatever you want with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Smartphones are what people currently define as smartphones.
Who are these people who define what a smartphone is? And, it almost seems pointless even asking again since after bolding it, linking to the meaning of the word 'definition' and posing the same question multiple times you still appear too dense to comprehend it, what do you believe the definition of a smartphone to be?
That definition has evolved, and will continue to change.
Rubbish, WM and Symbian smartphones don't just cease to be smartphones just because we have new ones, that's moronic and false.
Lemme get this straight, you want to allow tivoization? If so just be honest and use the BSD license, that's practically what tivoization turns the GPLv2 into anyways.
No it doesn't, you still get any code improvements/changes back, you still get to see the source code, for a BSD license these aren't guaranteed. It just means you can't load that software onto that hardware, but from a software perspective you still get all the benefits, you can take that software and use it on any other hardware you want.
The yardstick is moved by others, not me. The Model T is no longer considered a passenger vehicle, but a museum piece.
Do i have to link to the meaning of the word 'definition' again for you? Or are you just not reading? If the Model T isn't a car then what is your definition of a car?
If you wish to contest that it is others who have moved the goalposts, then please show me any state in the US or province in Canada where it would be legal to manufacture and sell a new Model T as a passenger vehicle.
That's not what it's about, it's about whether or not it is a car, you say it is not a car so then what is the definition of a car then?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
The same for "acceptable wage" or "acceptable working conditions", child labour, divorce and remarriage, same-sex marriage, acceptable birth control methods, legal forms of sex, the definition of a legal marriage (it was once illegal for blacks to marry whites), what constitutes consent, legal police searches, etc. All these have been redefined over the years, and will continue to be.
That's what you fail to understand and why you consistently fail to actually define anything, because you don't seem to be able to comprehend the fact that it's not about 'acceptable' or 'standards'. Just because it's not the wage you get today doesn't mean it's not a wage, just because it's not the computer you buy today doesn't mean it ceases to be a computer and just because the smartphone you bought 5 years ago isn't the same as the smartphone you buy today doesn't mean smartphones didn't exist before the one you bought today. If you're telling me they aren't smartphones then what are smartphones?
But you'll probably reply, just as you continuously have, by avoiding the actual definition of such things because it's obvious that you're wrong.
For a Model T, it's "Museum piece" :-) I was actually given a ride in one "behind the scenes" at an auction. They had to move it, so "why not take it for a spin?" It definitely did NOT feel like I was in a car - more like a hay wagon with a motor tacked on.
So where did the car era start then and when will it finish and start again? You seem pretty happy to move a yardstick but you have no idea where it is.
For all those old chicklet-kbd PC juniors and TRS-80s (trash-80) and Commodores, the word you want is "Electronic Waste".
I think you need to read this because you're not getting it.
Again, what is the definition (see above) of a smartphone? Or a PC for that matter? Or a car?
Just search for it - the move to html5+javascript means that all those "developers developers developers" who invested so much time and $$$ in using Microsoft languages and tools feel betrayed.
I have searched for it, have you? Because all i find is a bunch of baseless assumptions and people who have no idea what they're talking about. There is no 'move to HTML5/Javascript' just support for those technologies natively alongside existing .Net technologies, HTML5/Javascript is not capable of replacing .Net, clearly some people don't understand that.
You can't produce new Model Ts and sell them as cars to the general public because you can't register them. They no longer meet the standards for a passenger vehicle (safety, emissions, etc), the same way that those old "Pocket PCs" don't meet the current definition of a smartphone.
Just because in some parts of the world you can't register them doesn't mean they aren't cars. So again, if it's not a car then what is it? If the Model T isn't a car then at what point in history do cars start? And do you actually believe they become and cease to be cars at different times in different places depending on the registration standards of that place? Is the same true of say, spacecraft?
Would you call a Newton an tablet computer? Technically, yes, but people would look at you weird if you did.
I already made this point, are you even reading before replying? See here:
Of course when you buy a PC these days you don't expect to get an IBM AT but that doesn't mean the IBM AT isn't a PC anymore.
And if a 'car' is so clearly defined as something the Model T is not then what is this definition? In fact what is the definition of a PC and what's the definition of a Smartphone?
Win8? 3rd-party developers are VERY unhappy with the direction it's taken.
And what direction is that? I haven't seen any specific 'direction' apart from the UI changes, are you finding 3rd party developers unhappy about this?
How many people were disappointed when they found the iPad wouldnt be running Darwin? Lots.
Yeah i remember the uproar that caused O.o
So start producing and selling Model T's as cars. Let me know when you get one to be considered an automobile that I can walk into the DMV and plate with no restrictions.
Abraham Lincoln once said "If we call a tail a paw, how many paws does a dog have." When people said "5", he replied "Calling it a paw doesn't make it one"
So, out of interest, what is a Model T then, if not a car? And at what point throughout automotive history did those which were considered to be cars cease to be cars?
TBH i think you missed his point, which was that even though there is evolution of a product the basic definitions still hold, hence his use of: Those crappy devices are still smartphones, in the same way that Model Ts are still cars.. Why would you change the definition of 'smartphone' just because there has been evolution? Of course when you buy a PC these days you don't expect to get an IBM AT but that doesn't mean the IBM AT isn't a PC anymore.
Want to see desperation in action?
What's desperate about that?
In your last post, you were so confident Google has all the patents necessary to "defend" Android and its hardware partners. Now you don't know what Google patents are ?
You just said they have only have 1000 patents, however given that you can't even tell me where you came up with that from it seems you made it up. We all know they have many very valuable patents in search and analytics and that the number is irrelevant, it's the content that matters. But you seem to be fixated on this number of 1000 that you seem to think isn't enough but don't seem to actually know what they are or where that number comes from.
I don't to be told they don't, im not ignorant,
Congratulations for don'ting to be told (whatever it means). As for you ignorance , whether you don't to be told or you don'tn't, :-
Oh because it's so hard to figure out: I don't need to be told they don't, im not ignorant,, sorry you ultimately failed to decipher what that could mean (im not sure there is much else given the context).
You say Google did nothing to "acquire" patents in spite of having resources. I pointed out that the Motorola deal is acquisition of patents. Which you ignored, or couldn't understand. Not ignorant indeed.
And where's the indemnification or even an intent to indemnify its customers in fact anyone in the world using android would need google to step up and fight for them, where's the indication of them doing that? It's been many years now and we're still waiting for google to step up and help out their customers. They've always had patents that they could threaten other companies with in areas that would hurt their business (MS with Bing for example) and cross-license but they never did, yet somehow you think this will be different.
The context is, what you cleverly omitted to quote, about patents.
And the context before that was Google's Android, who's primary target market is NOT China, in fact it's everywhere that their customers are getting sued and where they are doing nothing about it. However of course you don't want to admit that so you went off topic.
China protects patents of Chinese patent office
Obviously, and you think companies don't have patents there already? Apple has a whole bunch of design patents already.
Someone mentioned western digital a while ago and until i got an apple tv i hadn't noticed it but there is a striking similarity in the design between the new apple tv and the somewhat older western digital elements external hard drive. Yes they are a coupling of basic design elements and i don't think there should be any 'protection' for such things, but it certainly looks hypocritical of apple to go after samsung when they've done a much more blatant copy of another company's design.
Clamshells are not the ideal form factor for certain conditions
That's what im stuck on though, what conditions? I can't think of any.
and iOS requires nearly zero maintenance.
But if your environment is going in that direction, to a service-based applications system then it doesn't matter what kind of device you're using. What differing maintenance issues are there? You have updates on both kinds of platform.
Having just one guy on hand in even a 100 person deployment means a $500+/yr commitment PER MacBook to support the OS (presuming you have a Windows desktop environment, which is typical , and especially where discipline specific applications are for Win only).
Well if you have windows-specific applications then moving to ipads is completely useless anyway because ipads can't run windows apps. Assuming the same services-based application model that you would need to transition to if you adopted ipads I can't see what maintenance would have to be applied to a laptop that you wouldn't need for an ipad.
How is an ipad actually better for general business tasks? I'd say it's quite the opposite. I much prefer a macbook air to an ipad, i can't think of a way the ipad is better, it's only slightly more portable.
Being able to draw on an ipad is pretty sucky compared to a pen and paper or a whiteboard and in either of those cases if it's worth keeping i'll just take a photo on my phone and i can email it.
Where do they have a total of only 1000 patents?
They might have the patent certificates in some offices / warehouses. But patent itself is intangible, so exists nowhere in particular.
No, where is this figure presented, what are these patents?
They have the resources to acquire patents to protect their product but they don't
Who told you they don't? That is exactly what they are doing the Motorola deal for.
I don't to be told they don't, im not ignorant, i can see masses of lawsuits over Android and Google doing nothing to protect its customers from lawsuits brought against them because of its product.
Rubbish, look at the way a Korean company (Samsung) has been pummeled by Apple IP lawsuits in those very markets.
"Case by case basis"
Thanks captain obvious, all IP cases are done on a case by case basis.
Just look at how counterfeit Apple stores were taken down in China - one of the most lax regions for IP laws.
When are you planning to learn the difference between patents and trademarks?
Are you incapable of reading what was written? I said 'IP' laws (you even quoted it and still failed to comprehend it), which is what all of this falls under.
The simple irrefutable fact is that if you want to use Android in Google's target market you are likely to be sued for patent infringement over it and Google does nothing to protect you.
Basically microsoft has build a boat full of holes (I believe they callis something like MS-Windows) and they pnly produce software for that environment.
What are you on about? They produce software for plenty of platforms other than Windows, their own ones like their phone/Zune OS and the XBox as well as Mac OS X.
Why is this modded 'Troll'? Seems to be a pretty sound rebuttal.
Absolutely false. In the context in which this story appeared (Google had not bought Motorola by then), Google is extremely patent poor by its own admission. It has a totality of 1000 patents, many internet, ads and search related.
Where do they have a total of only 1000 patents? And in any case number is irrelevant, it's what the patent is that matters. They have the resources to acquire patents to protect their product but they don't and they leave their own customers to fend for themselves with a product that infringes on patents in most markets.
Yes. Though, there is another category of companies which can afford to use Android - those which operate outside the software patent world. E.g. Chinese companies using Asia as the major market.
Actually i think you'll find the regulations on computer software protection as an extension to copyright cover many aspects of patents in China.
EU countries as a market on a case by case basis could be evaluated, but EU too, is much less affected than US and highly US influenced countries.
Rubbish, look at the way a Korean company (Samsung) has been pummeled by Apple IP lawsuits in those very markets.
From your refusal to acknowledge the existence of the world outside the US, you seem to be an American.
No i am not, i in no way refused to acknowledge the world outside the US, I didn't even mention the US or anything US-specific whatsoever so try to actually comprehend what is written in the post before you reply with rubbish like that and try to stay on topic instead. In fact i just know enough not to be ignorant about the fact that most of the world does in fact work with similar IP laws and that google's primary markets are respect those IP laws. Just look at how counterfeit Apple stores were taken down in China - one of the most lax regions for IP laws.
The fact remains that google's main target market and area of competition is the one in which google refuses to stand up for its own product (google's revenue in china makes up about 1% of their total), you can pretend that isn't the case but it is a fact.
So where's the Xoom's source?
Probably on Motorola's sourceforge page.
I have seen companies completely change over from Linux embedded systems to Windows CE or other commercial products because the GPL v3 could be used as a sledgehammer to have all trade secrets handed over.
What's the GPLv3 got to do with Linux?
FM;DR
In as much as infringing on patents is "breaking the law"
Well it is, in the current legal system if you infringe on patents then you are breaking patent laws.
So every tech company is immoral in this respect, and very nearly equally so.
You're missing the point, it's google's product that is infringing but they aren't taking any responsibility for that infringement.
Since the other person also knows about patents, he is expected to do a research and accept the free gift only if they have patents in their portfolios to counter-sue the litigators if they pop up. Nothing immoral here in this respect.
Of course it's immoral, it's google's product, they have the patent portfolio to back their product and defend their product but they choose not to.
Do you really think Motorola, HTC, Samsung and friends do not have the ability to research for patents? That they didn't know Android could be a patent minefield?
Of course they do, that doesn't mean Google shouldn't stand behind and defend its product. Do you really think the only companies targeted by Android are those with huge patent portfolios? Obviously if you don't have a huge patent portfolio you cannot afford to use Android, because the company who made it takes no responsibility for anything illegal in it. Red Hat and Novell stood up for their products, why not google?
The difference is that before those chips didn't typically pass the QA for their originally intended clock speed.
So you're buying a lower-end chip that is better quality than it was before. They've bettered their manufacturing process but aren't passing the cost savings on, annoying but they aren't exactly obliged to do it.
Once one buys it, they have precisely no rights to dictate how the product is used.
I didn't see them attempting to do that anywhere. You bought it, you can do whatever you want with it.
Also I'm mystified how this "upgrade" software works on linux.
You've never done a bios update with a bootable drive?
Possibly, though more likely, Google changes the android license agreement for the next release, adding "...and you cannot sue us".
Perhaps now, Google may reconsider GPLv3....
Yeah because adding a 'you cannot sue us' clause in the license just automatically frees from the encumbrances of the law.