Well, it's not *just* patents. Motorola also had a special Java license. That might well be nice insurance against Oracle. (We don't really know, because the details of the license aren't public. Which, itself, is interesting.)
That really isn't interesting. Why would a company make their business dealings public? Especially if no everyone gets the same deal? If Motorola's license is transferrable (which many software licenses are not) then I would expect to see Oracle try to block the sale, or work to revoke Motorola's Java license (that is IF the license would legalize any "patent violations" that may exist in Android).
Unfortunately, your options are: 1) continue licensing your OS from your competitor and hope they don't screw you over, 2) license your OS from someone who isn't competing against you or 3) build your own OS.
IMHO, the current Android vendors will see their costs increase because they will now have an Android competitor that keeps their OS up to date. Their choices will be to either increase their costs or go to a stock OS. If everyone uses stock Android, the. Why would anyone use a phone that isn't made by Google? I know that Motorola won't technically be "Google" but that is how it will be seen.
The same is true for GoogleTV. Who will build one if they have to compete with Google itself?
If you were HTC or Samsung, how comfortable would you be in using the OS of your competitor? Would you REALLY believe Google when they said that they won't give Moto preferential treatment?
The company for which I work is developing their plan for allowing people to use employee owned tablets and smart phones. Some of the requirements are that the device be kept locked and that they grant the company the ability to remote wipe it. I don't have any problem wth this requirement because I would want the device wiped anyway. There are other security related requirements, but that is just the cost of being able to use your phone/tablet.
I've posted this before, but what the hell. Everyone with common sense can see Samsung was imitating the iPhone was recent releases.
Imitation is a necessary aspect of fair competition. Without it competitors would be forced to engage in conscious avoidance of competing designs, which I generally see as an overly burdensome thing. I think our IP-centric culture has blinded us to the fact that human progress owes a great deal to people imitating and even duplicating what others have done in the past.
There is imitation and the the is what Samsung did, but you knew that. I find it hard to believe that you are that misinformed.
"Also, note that Apple is only suing Samsung for producing a device that looks a lot like the iPhone in many more ways than just a rectangular icon grid."
Apple isn't suing Google over the Android UI, just Samsung for making the Android UI look more like the iPhone UI than other Android phones.
Which particular aspects of the iPhone UI do you think should be owned exclusively by Apple? If Apple were to sell its UI as a product (just the UI, not the operating system), what would the sales brochure look like?
Too bad Palm is sort of out of business. They came up with the buttons-below-the-touchscreen concept that's been copied by just about every touchscreen-enabled device since 1997.
The Aandroid phone manufacturers were all cell phone manufacturers. Going to Android wasn't that much of a jump, they just changed the vendor of the OS. None of them have ever built a tablet before, or probable even dreamt of a tablet. They don't have any starting point so don't know what goes into making a good tablet.
Also, Android was good enough for a phone, but good enough doesn't scale.
Where can I get a prescription to the drugs that you are taking? When Apple went from the 68K to the PPC, they supported 68K apps via a 68K emulator. When they transition to Intel, they supported (an still support) PPC via Rosetta.
Now, if you would have said that they don't feel a need to be held hostage to backward compatibility (in that the Intel Macs don't support 68K emulation), that would be correct. Plenty of time is given to allow people to transition away from reliability on older systems. After all, IMNSHO, Windows would be a far better OS if they didn't maintain compatibility with poorly written DOS and Windows 3.x applications.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is an easier solution, how about just send everything via HTTPS.
Go and hire someone who can do Human Factors designs for user interfaces.
I suppose this is one way to try and increase the user count of Google+.
How is Google open? They are very public about things, beta this alpha that but much of Googles software is closed.
You must not read any of their comments about Android.
Yes. But, if they go for the locked ecosystem that seem to become so popular these days, they can try and solve the problem at the source.
But Google is open. Why would they go from an open playing field to a locked down, curated, one?
So, A tablet in A movie, that doesn't look like the iPad or Galaxy Tab, is prior art?
Change is bad.
A non-transferrable license means that it can not be a part of the sale. That would result in it being transferred to the new owner of the company.
Well, it's not *just* patents. Motorola also had a special Java license. That might well be nice insurance against Oracle. (We don't really know, because the details of the license aren't public. Which, itself, is interesting.)
That really isn't interesting. Why would a company make their business dealings public? Especially if no everyone gets the same deal? If Motorola's license is transferrable (which many software licenses are not) then I would expect to see Oracle try to block the sale, or work to revoke Motorola's Java license (that is IF the license would legalize any "patent violations" that may exist in Android).
Unfortunately, your options are: 1) continue licensing your OS from your competitor and hope they don't screw you over, 2) license your OS from someone who isn't competing against you or 3) build your own OS.
IMHO, the current Android vendors will see their costs increase because they will now have an Android competitor that keeps their OS up to date. Their choices will be to either increase their costs or go to a stock OS. If everyone uses stock Android, the. Why would anyone use a phone that isn't made by Google? I know that Motorola won't technically be "Google" but that is how it will be seen.
The same is true for GoogleTV. Who will build one if they have to compete with Google itself?
If you were HTC or Samsung, how comfortable would you be in using the OS of your competitor? Would you REALLY believe Google when they said that they won't give Moto preferential treatment?
You're Dan Lyons, aren't you?
The company for which I work is developing their plan for allowing people to use employee owned tablets and smart phones. Some of the requirements are that the device be kept locked and that they grant the company the ability to remote wipe it. I don't have any problem wth this requirement because I would want the device wiped anyway. There are other security related requirements, but that is just the cost of being able to use your phone/tablet.
I stand corrected. You out pedanticed me :)
More appropriately, Dalvik is not the JVM. Dalvik does run Java, compiled to Java byte code then converted for the Dalvik engine.
Imitation is a necessary aspect of fair competition. Without it competitors would be forced to engage in conscious avoidance of competing designs, which I generally see as an overly burdensome thing. I think our IP-centric culture has blinded us to the fact that human progress owes a great deal to people imitating and even duplicating what others have done in the past.
There is imitation and the the is what Samsung did, but you knew that. I find it hard to believe that you are that misinformed.
Such as, say, the phone's shape?
Which particular aspects of the iPhone UI do you think should be owned exclusively by Apple? If Apple were to sell its UI as a product (just the UI, not the operating system), what would the sales brochure look like?
Good thing you were able to find a Samsung phone that doesn't look like an iPhone, rather than looking at every news article about the suit. Like this one. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/yowza-apple-hits-samsung-with-lawsuit-over-iphone-clones/12360
Too bad Palm is sort of out of business. They came up with the buttons-below-the-touchscreen concept that's been copied by just about every touchscreen-enabled device since 1997.
You mean, like this pre-Palm device? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_Newton_MP100.jpg
The fact that the entire mobile developer world is now doing Android IS the reason Microsoft has been reduced to this humiliating desperation.
Wha? When did Android take over "the entire mobile developer world"?
I suppose that is one way to comply with the law.
What do you buy if you just want a good tablet experience? Most people don't want an iPad or Android experience.
That's east, they ask the OS to do something that only a rooted phone can do, like running a process that requires root privileges.
The Aandroid phone manufacturers were all cell phone manufacturers. Going to Android wasn't that much of a jump, they just changed the vendor of the OS. None of them have ever built a tablet before, or probable even dreamt of a tablet. They don't have any starting point so don't know what goes into making a good tablet.
Also, Android was good enough for a phone, but good enough doesn't scale.
Anyone who has watch "Royal Pains" knows this.
Where can I get a prescription to the drugs that you are taking? When Apple went from the 68K to the PPC, they supported 68K apps via a 68K emulator. When they transition to Intel, they supported (an still support) PPC via Rosetta.
Now, if you would have said that they don't feel a need to be held hostage to backward compatibility (in that the Intel Macs don't support 68K emulation), that would be correct. Plenty of time is given to allow people to transition away from reliability on older systems. After all, IMNSHO, Windows would be a far better OS if they didn't maintain compatibility with poorly written DOS and Windows 3.x applications.