or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by macaholic_1948

They can challenge all they want.may even win. But, collecting damages is fruitless since Google derives no income from sales of Android (since they give it away).
It's reality.
Technically speaking, Google was not a party to the trial and, thus, whether or not Android itself infringed directly was not at issue.Samsung's modifications to Android were was clearly at issue.The issue of whether or not other Android users infringed is up to discussions between the other manufacturers and Apple. HTC, I believe, has already worked a licensing deal with Apple that covers patents by both parties.And, since Google derives no economic gain from a sale of...
Linked in article.
Then I guess WSJ is wrong too.
Not really. We are both right. Or both wrong. Or both right and wrong. According to the WSJ article, it reads more like you can use an uncustomized version if Android which includes Google Search and YouTube, you have to do these other things.So it's really a combination of both apparently.
That's not what this says: "manufacturers using Android agree to preinstall specific Google Apps, set Google Search as the default search provider for all Web access points and preload Google's Network Location Provider service.…"Note the first 3 words of the quote: "manufacturers using Android...." Nowhere does it say "licensing Google apps." That's presumptive based on the quid pro quo of installing those apps in favored position in exchange for permission to use Android...
Seems like Microsoft lost a lawsuit or two over a very similar policy when it required PC vendors to pre-installed IE in a favorable position on the Windows platform. Anybody got popcorn?
By implication, IF, as IDC implies, Apple could sell more handsets by selling lower priced models, those sales have to come from...... Samsung and others, making the profit picture even bleaker for others....and Samsung. I am beginning to like... /snort.
What a great business idea — sell products at no or negative profit — for the competition. On a related note, IDC no longer needs to explain why they are doing research instead of manufacturing products. What idiocy.
New Posts  All Forums: