There’s a bit of a story going on between Google, Acer, and Alibaba, a Chinese mobile operating system vendor. Acer wanted to ship a device with Alibaba’s operating system, but Google asked them not to, and Acer complied. The reason is that Acer is a member of the Open Handset Alliance, which prohibits the promotion of non-standard Android implementations – exactly what Alibaba is shipping. On top of that, Alibaba’s application store hosts pirated Android applications, including ones from Google.
This story has caused a major dust storm, but it’s really not all that complicated or even surprising. Acer is a member of the Open Handset Alliance. The OHA prohibits its members from promoting incompatible Android implementations (i.e. that do not comply with the Android compatibility program). Alibaba’s Aliyun OS uses the Android runtime, framework, and tools, but isn’t compatible, nor did it go through the program. On top of that, the Aliyun OS application store host pirated Android applications, including ones from Google.
Is it surprising, then, that Google has decided to step in? Acer is free to leave the Open Handset Alliance; in fact, there are several companies that are not members of OHA which ship and work with Android forks, the most famous of which is probably Amazon. The Kindle Fire devices all run Android, but it’s been modified pretty extensively – something Amazon could not have done had it been a member of the OHA. Not being a member makes it possible for Amazon to do what it does, but at the same time, it won’t get any support from Google in doing so.
Alibaba can still benefit from the Android ecosystem and the support it receives from Google and others – but only if they join the OHA. “So if you want to benefit from the Android ecosystem, then make the choice to be compatible,” Google’s Android boss Andy Rubin writes, “It’s easy, free, and we’ll even help you out. But if you don’t want to be compatible, then don’t expect help from OHA members that are all working to support and build a unified Android ecosystem.”
Back in April 2011, Rubin said pretty much the same thing, and explained why the OHA and compatibility requirements exist. “If someone wishes to market a device as Android-compatible or include Google applications on the device, we do require the device to conform with some basic compatibility requirements (after all, it would not be realistic to expect Google applications – or any applications for that matter – to operate flawlessly across incompatible devices),” he explained, “Our ‘anti-fragmentation’ program has been in place since Android 1.0 and remains a priority for us to provide a great user experience for consumers and a consistent platform for developers.”
While the jokes about fragmentation are easily made, the fact of the matter is that Android is actually a success story when it comes to compatibility. There’s no denying it takes additional effort from developers (compared to, say, iOS), but the fact of the matter is that the Android ecosystem consists of an insane wide variety of devices, but yet, applications compatibility is excellent. This is the case because device flexibility is a core aspect of Android (look at how iOS applications need to be specifically adapted for each new resolution Apple introduces, whereas Android applications are more fluid).
I understand Google and the other OHA members – like Samsung or HTC – want to maintain this compatibility as much as possible, since it’s beneficial to their businesses and shared interests. Incompatible Android implementations – ones that promote pirated applications, no less – can only harm Android. If Acer wants to ship incompatible forks, all they need to do is leave the OHA.
Perfectly reasonable, and as such, this is a storm in a teacup.
Google sounds like Oracle and Microsoft now! Lol. Funny how when someone copies what you claim is yours threats etc start to fly! And everyone is mad at Apple?
http://allthingsd.com/20120916/google-and-alibaba-continue-warring-…
Makes me giggle.
In what way does Google sound like Oracle and Microsoft? Why does it make you giggle?
1. Oracle sued saying Google forked Java and making an incompatible version. Now Google is saying the same about this Chineese company.
2. Microsoft used to do the same to their OEM’s if they tried to sell any other OS.
Google didn’t sue Acer. They merely reminded them of their contractual obligations that come as part of being a member of the Open Handset Alliance. If Acer persisted, they’d have been kicked out of the OHA.
Microsoft never sued any of their OEMs because of what you say either.
Edited 2012-09-16 21:49 UTC
No duh we know they didn’t sue (Yet) but originally Sun didn’t sue ether.
And no Microsoft didn’t sue they just threated companies as in this situation by saying they would not be able to sell Windows or the price for Windows would go way up for those OEMs.
This rule would only apply IF this is a fork of Android which the company said it isn’t. Just the same as Google says their implementation of Java is not a fork of Oracles Java.
You’re either incredibly biased or incredibly stupid, but either way your argument is incredibly flawed.
Oracle sued Google because of licencing. Oracle wanted a fee for all the Android handsets sold and that meant going after Google, proving that Google “stole” Java. However Oracle lost this case massively because Google proved that not only was their implementation a compete re-write from the ground up, but also that you cannot copyright a programming language any more than you can copyright speaking French.
This case wasn’t even remotely about litigation nor licencing. Google just wanted to stop piracy by reminding Acer of their obligations as part of the Open Handset Alliance. Acer could easily have rejected the OHA if they disagreed with Google.
? Interesting that Google barely mentions piracy saying: “The fact is, Aliyun uses the Android runtime, framework and tools. And your app store contains Android apps (including pirated Google apps). So there^aEURTMs really no disputing that Aliyun is based on the Android platform and takes advantage of all the hard work that^aEURTMs gone into that platform by the OHA.”
Basically Google is saying that Aliyun OS is a copy of Android (On top of the piracy which is the last thing mentioned) And Alibaba is saying its not and should not be covered under the OHA and also that their App store is open where people can put up whatever.
The part of the Oracle argument that I am bringing up is that Google’s version of Java is copy of Oracles Java.
Has nothing to do with bias.
You probably think you are trolling HC.
But your comments are so retarded that every time you write something, you make Android and Windows look better, ie.:
IOS users: retarded dimwits
Android and Windows users: Smart and Intelligent
Think about that for a while.
Google have a clear case for preventing Alibaba via the OHA. They’d have a tougher time (and one that would likely result in lengthy court battles) if they tried to stop Alibaba via the piracy route.
You’re putting Google in a no win scenario: you moan when Google use polite methods to crack down, and you’d bitch even more if Google took this whole thing to court. Much like how people like you whine about fragmentation in Android and then whine when Google try to fix it. It’s as if you have nothing better to do than just moan about Android.
Clearly you don’t understand how Java works.
Google used the Java language and built their own runtime from scratch – which is akin to taking the French language and writing a novel in it. Google did not copy Oracles Java software in any way shape nor form (that case had been through the courts and Google were cleared on all counts). Oracle just got greedy because Google’s reimplementation meant that Google didn’t have to pay royalties for JRE licences and it was suggested to Oracle during the Sun acquisition talks that there was potential ground for litigation there.
So if you think languages can be intellectual property, then I’ll copyright Latin and sue every single person on this site – starting with yourself. But clearly that would just be absurd – just as Oracles claims that the language Java is IP or your claims that Google copied Oracles runtime.
Edited 2012-09-17 07:18 UTC
Acer however is covered, and Google have quite the right to point out to their OHA^aEURpartner Acer, that working with Alibaba on that would be against the purposes of OHA.
Except for the fact that Haier, another OHA member, is already producing an Aliyun phone and that Lenovo, another OHA member, had been selling the oPhone, a clear Android fork, in addition to Android phones as long as 3 years ago…
Alibaba is the bystander here. Acer was breaking their OHA contractual obligations. Simple as that.
Google said that they have to adhere to the contract or the contract is terminated.
All tehy are saying is that Allyun is not compatible and that contradicts the OHA contract. Acer is free to go all Amazon.
Except we don’t have the contract or independent verification that OHA membership is predicated on not using Android code in non-Android OSes and/or not using Android-app compatibility unless in 100% form and/or not hosting pirated apps in competing stores and/or… whatever other excuses Rubin has used.
We know they need to comply with Google’s Android compatibility compliance when producing Android phones, but we’ve never had our eyes on an OHA agreement. Moreover, we can demonstrate that Lenovo has been violating such an agreement for as much as 3 years if it does exist (and depending on when they joined the OHA). And further evidence of another OHA member doing the same thing as Acer.
Here’s the vagueries we actually get from Google directly:
“What have members of the Alliance committed to?
All members of the Alliance have committed to making the initial version of the platform a commercial success. Some companies have contributed significant intellectual property to the Alliance that will be released under the Apache v2 Open Source license. Others are working to make sure their chipsets support the platform. Handset manufacturers and mobile operators are working to develop handsets based on the platform. Commercialization partners are working with the industry to support the platform via a professional services model.”
http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_faq.html
Didn’t see them mention much in terms of commitments beyond “to making the initial version of the platform a commercial success” — which apparently every member besides Samsung seems to be failing to fulfill.
We don’t have independent verification of the contract(and likely will never have), but we have facts(nasty buggers)
A) Allyun is an Android incomaptible, yet “compatible” OS
B) Acer was making their device with that OS
C) Acer cancelled the launch of that device when Google said something to acer
D) Acer is in OHA
Which one would contradict that Acer and Google have a contract that has anti-fragmentation clauses? Or new anti-fragmentation clauses that were added a year back.(Remember that?)
Or are you just trying to rationalize your stance on something?
E) Haier released an Aliyun phone in June
F) Haier continues to sell and support the Aliyun phone
G) Haier is a member of the OHA
Google has no legal standing in existing law to sue Acer as Oracle sued Google, therefore these cases are not equal and your response to the question “In what way does Google sound like Oracle” was erroneous.
To expand on why Google has no legal standing to sue: Oracle’s copyright and patent grants related to Java were constructed to be dependent on adherence to a contract and thus breach of contract translated into breach of copyright and patents. Google has no such requirement for Android. Google can let off as much hot air out of their mouths as they want, but that doesn’t mean they have legal leverage over Android in the same way in which Oracle has over Java.
It was you who was talking about lawsuits. To recap:
You could evade by saying that “the same” here meant that Google is saying that the Chinese company is creating an incompatible version, but Microsoft never said that about any of their OEMs trying to sell a machine with a non-Windows OS, as none of the non-Windows operating systems were an “incompatible version” of Windows. In fact, none of them were any kind of Windows OS at all. They were completely different operating systems in their own right, so Microsoft claiming that they were an “incompatible version” would have been patently false. That is not to say that Microsoft didn’t abuse their position of power over OEMs, it’s just that they weren’t abusing it in the same way as Oracle and/or Google.
As I have shown, Google cannot institute legal proceedings against Acer, thus this claim is irrelevant. What happens in the OHA or based on what parameters they choose to grant or revoke membership is entirely the OHA’s business, not the court’s.
If we want to get technical we could go to Microsoft saying that Windows could only run on MS Dos and the lawsuits related to that.
We could also say that Google could kick Acer out of OHA and Acer could sue and it could be in court.
Lawsuits are the end result.
But its funny: “It is ironic that a company that talks freely about openness is espousing a closed ecosystem. Aliyun OS is not part of the Android ecosystem, so of course Aliyun OS is not, and does not have to be, compatible with Android. This is like saying that because they own the Googleplex in Mountain View, therefore anyone who builds in Mountain View is part of the Googleplex.
Will someone please ask Google to define Android?”
The question at hand are not technicalities. It’s whether what you’re saying is accurate or not. If you assert unsupported stuff, be prepared to be called on it.
First show that these suits hinged on the same arguments Oracle used against Google (i.e. breach of copyright and patents), if they in fact existed at all.
Membership in private organizations is not subject to oversight by law, except in cases of direct discrimination based on certain controlled aspects of the person being discriminated against (race, ethnicity, gender, etc.) As Acer and Google aren’t human beings, these do not apply. Therefore, Acer would have no standing to sue. Neither OHA, nor Google as its steering member, are obliged by law to accept anybody as a member.
Lawsuits have to have a basis in law. Bringing a lawsuit that is baseless is itself punishable as a frivolous lawsuit.
Please source this quote. Parts of it seem to be from Andy Rubin, but I cannot find a quote like this anywhere on the net.
Correct and now the news: Google agrees on that. Google has no legal way to not agree on that.
Aliyun does NOT have to be compatible just like Amazon Kindle does NOT have to be compatible. Google cannot sue and has NO legal way to demand that.
And they don’t. What they did was to form the OHA, formulate compatibility as target there. All OHA members agreed. Alibaba is not a OHA member and so they did not agree but even when they could decide right NOW its not there goal any longer and leave the OHA.
But this is not about Alibaba. This is about Acer which are in the OHA and they like to stay there. To be allowed to stay in the OHA Acer needs to fullfit the goal the OHA defined: compatibility. So, either Acer does not see that as priority, does the incompatible Aliyun and leaves, or they keep to define it as priority, abort Aliyun (as long as its incompatible – what can also mean Acer works on making it compatible) and stay in the OHA. Acer cannot have both cause both are exclusive. This is what google made clear and they are right about it.
You cannot define something as your target and expect to profit from things associated to it while doing the exact opposite without consequences (except your are a politican what is worse enough).
Google made clear Acer need to decide. Either they go for compatibility, and can stay in the OHA, or they don’t, and need to leave the OHA. Acer decided.
Edited 2012-09-17 10:28 UTC
It’s not clear that the OHA actually forbids what Acer is doing. For one thing, another OHA member is already producing both Android and Aliyun phones — Haier. Secondly, Lenovo was one of the first OHA members to sell Android devices while selling an incompatible fork at the same time, the oPhone, several years ago.
At best, Google either doesn’t know what their own rules are for the OHA or they’ve been doing a shit job applying them or they are arbitrarily creating new rules now for some members based on their significance.
It is even very clear. See the Android compatibility terms linked in this article. That terms arn’t exactly new but maybe, in the case of Haier, where not enforced that stri t so far. Now they are and maybe Haier got the same choice but unlike Acer/Alibaba they stay silent and not drag all the dirt into public. Original chinese business style.
The oPhone seems to be based on a Android version that existed before the OHA was formed and was since then driven forward by Chinese Mobile with an own SDK and incompatible ecosystem (eg no google or Android apps) which has only 600 apps so far but those are highly tailored to the chinese market. Hardly the same or even in a similar situation.
My point is nothing is clear. Your theory is that Haier is okay, they can disregard the OHA requirements, just because they are quiet? Nonsense. I’d really love to see that clause: you don’t have to exclusively support Android by using AOSP code as long as you stay quiet about it and don’t become too successful… we will tell you when you ar being too loud or too successful.
Secondly, oPhone is made with old parts of Android but it is not pre-OHA, it is post-OHA. It is an Android-derived but not-Android-compatible OS. Also, Lenovo also makes the lePhone — also Android-derived, also not fully compatible.
You are now shifting excuses just an Android is: is it because it’s Android derived? Is it because it runs Android apps but not all them (which is true of virtually every Android phone; Google claims BB is fine, but BB claims to run Android apps but not all of them)? Is it because the store has pirated copies of apps (this could be remedied far more easily than banning the OS)?
Google has thrown 4 or 5 reasons against the wall. All of them are inconsistent and not clear.
Edited 2012-09-17 12:59 UTC
No, my point is that Haier will very likely not bring new Aliyun OS devices to market. They may got the same memo Acer got but unlike Acer did not forward it to Alibaba which dragged it into the public.
Second, for oPhone there exist following detail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPhone
“It is based on technologies initially developed by Android Inc., a firm later purchased by Google, and work done by the Open Handset Alliance.”
This means oPhone is not based on Google Android but.on Android Inc Android. Not only legally a huge difference but also technical.
The second part of the sentence about the OHA is a bit missleading in that its not the OHA which developes the next Android version (but also not google alone, multiple partners.coperate there independent of the OHA). What it may mean (misses proper sources) are concepts, ideas or maybe even code (like from Lenovo itself). Hard to guess without proper sources. Do you have better ones? In any case oPhone was long before Google Android and has not much in common. Not even the SDK, the apps or anything else works there. It also will not have the/a Dalvik vm since that was introduced by google later on.
Why would Haier be permitted to release Aliyun phones for a little while but then stopped? Doesn’t Google know their own rules?
Also, you keep ignoring the fact that oPhone is not old, pre-Android. Yes, it uses older Android code but it was released 2 years after the OHA was formed. Yes, that old Android code is still Android code.
And, thirdly, yes, the LePhone should also get Lenovo kicked out of the OHA, but that hasn’t happened. I’m not going to waste my time educating you and Google about it.
I am merely questioning Google’s inconsistency and lack of clarity.
Maybe they did not care? Maybe it was not on there radar? Maybe they just now realize that its not a single case but other OHA try to do the same and hence they have to do something NOW before all of the OHA do the same?
But yreally who cares? The OHA terms are known since a long time and just because google did not force them last year does not.mean they will never enforce them. That is even a legal fundament our whole system is build up on. Only if you keep on to ignore long enough you may get problems to enforce legally later. But this sin’t even a legal case so…
For oPhone its irrelevant how ling it took to bring to the market. oPhone is not.based on google Android. Point. You not agree? Please provide sources that prove your point or accept the facts.
So then Acer would not be able to then sell any other OS? Like the BB 10 OS which has a Android run time? I am confused here, the point of the OHA is to make sure ANDROID meets a standard. But if the OS is not Android as in this case then the OHA still covers it??
And there are other companies in the OHA who sell Aliyun OS and have not been “threatened” by Google with expulsion. (Haier for example)
Make up your mind Google is it because Acer is a bigger seller of Android?
The Android runtime shipped with BB10 is not Android but a compatibility layer like Wine is for win32. In fact dex do not run on BB10 but you need to repackage nust like you can run some jar’s on Android but need to repackage to dex.
That, compatibibility layers, is another story. Even Microsoft does not try to prevent e.g. Linux-Distributions or OSX to offer compatibility with Wine, Samba, etc.
The point is more that if you are going to offer a forked Android (and to get this right: all Androids are forks cause they are taken+extended with own stuff and noone ships an Android vanilla) AND if you are member in the OHA and agreed to the compatibility goal then you need to make sure your fork is compatible.
It just does not matter how much extra-things you put in your fork, how much you changed as long as certain criterias are fullfit. Two of them Aliyun failed:
1. Pass the Android compatibility test-suite.
2. Open the sources of your endproduct so all extensions, modifications, drivers are available to all others just like the Android Vanilla (and all the forks of other OHA mabufactors) are too.
No, the point is: Google can’t claim the ability to run some but not all Android apps on another OS is a valid reason to prevent access to Android while claiming that OHA members can still use rival OSes because it can already be achieved in EVERY major OS. (Maybe Aliyun is using primarily code from Android, maybe it is not. I certainly am not taking Google’s word for it.)
In either case, this does not address the matter of Haier and Lenovo actually shipping Aliyun, oPhone, and LePhone phones.
Good then that google never claimed that.
Lets stick to the facts. 1) Google claimed Aliyun is an Android fork. 2) Based on that OHA members need to confirm to the OHA terms.
From our discussion I think we are fine with 2). What you question is 1)? It would take Alibaba how ling to prove google wrong on 1) and hence invalidate the.logical consequences of 2)? 5 Minutes? Remember that only them can cause nobody else has access to Aliyun.
If they do that they could make a case, a strong point that would serious damage google, weaken its point 2) up to a level it would bring serious harm to the Android ecosystem if google.continues to demand that. Why would google risk that for a 0.001% market share clone? They need to be rather sure on that else they would not.
But Alibaba keeps silent beside its statement its not. Come on, prove and you win! Don’t prove and we know google is absolute right on this.
No, I have a hard time following any logic in this post, but I definitely disagree on both points.
Firstly, Google absolutely said that a reason for stopping the Aliyun phone release was that Aliyun says it will run Android apps but it will not run all apps fully.
Secondly, yes, I think OHA membership must comply with the terms of membership; however, I do not think it’s clear whatsoever that those terms are being enforced and/or enforced consistently. Moreover, I find nothing clear about Rubin’s/Google’s statement as to what they claim is a violation of membership: is it one or more of the several reasons they cite? All of them? Why are others allowed to violate one or more of the same rules? All of it is unclear particularly in the simple light of Haier, an OHA member, being permitted to ship Aliyun phones.
Thirdly, as to your first point, that Alibaba/Acer should be able to prove the validity of their position, I don’t see how that is so. We have lawsuits that last for years that attempt to prove whether or not code was independently developed or derived from source material… Moreover, it seems very clear that Google will change things to suit them. They already did this with SkyHook — claiming it was okay with the compatibility requirements and approving it for some manufacturers until they realized that it would actually hurt them so they changed the rules retroactively.
Fourthly, I think this inconsistency is far more damaging to the OHA than if Alibaba could prove it was an independent OS with some compatibility… After all, this inconsistency now draws questions to Google’s position on Lenovo’s and Haier’s participation in OHA, not just Alibaba/Acer’s plans for Aliyun. Currently, the actual position of the OHA seems to be: anything goes until Google decides it is a threat.
Edited 2012-09-17 13:39 UTC
I think there is a missunderstanding of what google sayed/claims. I agree that this is googles fault alone.
I spend some time puzzeling together the picture. Result is that when google talks about Android compatibility then they refer to
1) a comprehensiv set of tests an Android version has to pass. Those test for various thinks like APIs, scrern, sensors, etc. The goal is indeed application compatibility. Every Android version that is not Android Vanilla (so, in fact every Android) needs to pass that test. No test, no compatibility. Aliyun did not pass that test, they did not even try.
2) Every Android version needs to submit all its code including own extensions and drivers to Android so everybody else can a) rebuild the same image for the devices the.manufactor put on (base for e.g. Cyangomod) and b) everybody can reuse/extend on that just like with the Android Vanilla. Aliyun also failed there. Its not even possible to official get the binaries for a string-dump to compare with Android (but I am aure google found a way and did exactly that beforehand).
The intention is, that no single OHA member starts to bring problems to the ecosystem and its developers with highly incompatible versions. This is what the whole ecosystem story is about. Google likes to have one ecosystem for all Android devices and not ine.per.manufactor. We, developers and customers, like that too and it is THE essential reason Android is such a success.
The sourcecode story is interesting. Its some kindof opt-in viral effect. That means you can get out anytime but then you lose the support of the OHA and its members. Unlike GPL you have the choice to make it all propitary like Amazon did or you see the advantage in sharing, like all the OHA including Acer do, and contribute back.
For your point 3: This is nit a legal battle. Alibaba decided to make it a public PR battle and they are losing. They could win by investing that 5 minutes, prove with some well respected watchers who can confirm that google is wrong and has no valid point. This would shift the public opinion. Its an evening action and makes you win against google! When do you have that? When was it more important then now for Alibaba?
If they don’t then Alibaba just lost its face, is known in the public (where lots of us did not know about them before) as bad loser putting dirt out without prove.
For your point 4: I do not see any such harm. Google had to do it sooner or later or silently accept the fact that Android goes fragmentated among its OHA members and then the whole OHA idea would have been worthless, the ecosystem splitted and every of the parts would have been smaller then iPhone driving more attention to Apple again.
Yes, maybe google should have done so before but at least they do now. Better later then never.
It is your Google-slanted viewpoint that thinks Alibaba comes out looking bad.
Also, the requirements you list are for releasing Android. I have not seen clear proof that OHA membership prevents members from using the OSS components of the AOSP as parts of competing products while also supporting Android. In fact, fandroids have been telling me for 5 years this was possible and Lenovo has been doing it for the last 3 years.
All that is assuming Aliyun OS is built on Android. They claim it isn’t and just has an Android run time.
First only they can proof.
Second if they do, and that is really nit difficult, then they would win huge. If they don’t we know its not the truth.
Theird you can be sure that becore google went down that road they did, maybe in a non-legal way, check the product to have facts rather then being proven to ve evil, do a bad research becorehand and abuse there stand and the OHA for there private interest rather then what it was made for. Its fair to assume google k.ows what they talk about since they have lot more to lose then anybody else when proven wrong. Its fair to assume that if Alibaba does not give us the proof soon then google just nailed it.
I think in order for this to compare directly, a Linux vendor would have to ship Linux with a version of Wine on top, and an app store that had pirated Windows apps in it.
I can appreciate what Google is doing here; it’s a hybrid approach between ‘100% open’ and the iOS walled garden. If they didn’t exercise some sort of control, you’d have the phone equivalent of Linux on the desktop, and we all know how successful that was
allthingsd is definitely biased for Apple, and against Google..
Acer is part of the OHA so they either need to follow the rules or leave. If Alibaba didn’t host pirated apps I might have agreed that this resembles like Google being mean to other OS’s, but since this seems like an OS trying to be compatible with Android, with pirated apps I loose sympathy quick.
It is like Microsoft asking Dell not to sell Linux PCs because Wine is available in the repository and allow installing pirated apps.
Not really. It would be the same if there were pirated apps in the repository itself.
The pirated apps story is only one part. In my eyes the most less important one even.
Google defines certain compatibility criterias. They have a huge set of tests an “Android version” needs to pass and there is the demand that all of the code including modifications and drivers are opened so others can build up on top, reuse, etc. just like with Android itself.
The tests are one reasons we, app-developers, have a limited set of pain coming to us while making our apps proper run on all the Android devices and form-factors out there. I, as app-developer, would have a hard time to realize that someone offers a broken version of my apps for a specific device and claims it works while it doesn’t cause of differences I do not find in any other device. User complains to me, blames me, great.
That manufactors are forced to open there Android versions too is great and the reason things like Cyanogen mods for close to all the devices out there are available. Thats why we get 3th party support for our devices where the manufactor itself gave up already and moved on to newer generation devices. Its why we have a huge range of hardware drivers shipped together with Android.
Edited 2012-09-17 10:47 UTC
^aEUR| snipped early to keep an apple to pears parallel to the topic.
Wine is not written by Microsoft so there would be no copyright infringement.
? But pirated Apps are not the reason Google is using. Google is saying that you can’t use a non compatible Android fork. The Chineese company is saying its not a fork. It’s Linux with an Android compatible runtime.
Except that the statement that it’s not a fork is, for all we know, false. Google’s Android chief Andy Rubin is quoted as stating this:
Apparently they didn’t re-implement a new VM, libs and tooling like Google did with Java. Instead they simply lifted portions of the Android OS wholesale. This would make Aliyun clearly a derivative work of Android and therefore a fork.
Yet the company says: ^aEURoeAliyun OS incorporates its own virtual machine, which is different from Android^aEURTMs Dalvik virtual machine. Aliyun OS^aEURTMs runtime environment, which is the core of the OS, consists of both its own Java virtual machine, which is different from Android^aEURTMs Dalvik virtual machine, and its own cloud app engine, which supports HTML5 web applications. Aliyun OS uses some of the Android application framework and tools (open source) merely as a patch to allow Aliyun OS users to enjoy third-party apps in addition to the cloud-based Aliyun apps in our ecosystem.^aEUR
So that would then not make it a fork.
Yes, it is to be expected that the statements by Google would be denied by Aliyun’s maker (which is why I said “apparently they didn’t re-implement a new VM”). A first-order determination of whether a given code-base is derived and altered can be made pretty quickly (a simple “strings” dump will do it), but since we lack the binaries in question to do an actual confirmation, all we have are statements against statements.
Nevertheless, even without a VM, they admitted openly to incorporating (at least some of) Android’s frameworks and tooling as a drop-in, so Google clearly has a case here. Let’s keep in mind, that these aren’t just a few lines of code, it’s a substantial and non-trivial codebase.
Therefore, the case is quite dissimilar to Oracle v. Google. There, Google didn’t copy anything from Oracle’s implementation (save for a few lines of a range-check macro), and Oracle has a patent grant on Java predicated on adherence to an interoperability specification.
The Aliyun OS lifted wholesale substantial portions of the Android codebase and Google has no such patent grant for Android (i.e. one based on compatibility testing), so there is no legal leverage that can be used against downstream forks. The only leverage they have is revocation of membership in the OHA, which is not something anybody can sue over.
Google says this is against the OHA, but there are at least 2 other OHA members doing exactly the same thing (Haier with Aliyun and Lenovo with oPhone). Therefore, no, I do not find Google more credible, and no, I will not assume they are being the more truthful party in this case.
Edited 2012-09-17 11:00 UTC
Good on Google for trying to wrestle back control of Android.
Its a little heavy handed, but hey, they need leverage somehow.
As the app compatibility story proves they never lost compatibility control. Fragmentation with compatibility
So it is OK for Google to take Java and make it incompatible and call it Dalvik. But it is not Ok when some one else does the same to one of Google’s projects.
Double standards much?
Except that it is ok to fork android.. But if you do you can not be a member of OHA, did you even read the article?
Google is part of the Java steering committee. To join it (and OpenJDK), IBM had to drop Symphony for the same reason.
So you’ll have a point when Sunacle care enough to ask Google to drop Dalvik or leave the steering committee.
Hunh? They sued them.
Dude, IBM never dropped Symphony. They are even merging Symphony back into Apache OO.org giving up there own OO.org fork after a deal with Oracle to move OO.org to the APL.
Edited 2012-09-17 11:06 UTC
Acer didn’t fork Android. They wanted to release a phone based on another vendor’s OS. Like they release Windows Phones and Android phones. Did you read the article?
Alibaba is not a member of OHA. So telling Acer they will revoke any Android ecosystem privileges when they release a phone that is not branded as Android is dubious. Especially since Acer makes 100% compliant Android phones as well that would ship along side the one running Aliyun OS.
Google is using their Android OHA membership as a tool to add a barrier to entry to a competitor’s OS based on an Open Source Project.
Edited 2012-09-16 21:16 UTC
Google is totally cool with competitors offering Windows Phone, iOS, Tizen, Firefox OS, MeeGo, WebOS, BB10 or whatever open source or proprietary operating systems alongside Android.
But if you want to offer an incompatible competing OS based on Android code, they will not let you be part of the club that has early access to said code.
While I would have preferred that Google competes on merit and educating consumers about such practices, their actions are totally understandable.
You should inform Google that they should be kicking out at least 3 OHA members this week then.
Can’t do yourself? Fear the answer google would give you: who and why?
Haier is an OHA member and produces both Aliyun and Android phones. Lenovo is an OHA member and has produced both oPhone and Android phones. And Acer. Satisfied?
Do the Haier and Lenovo phones include the Official Google Android Market/Play Store?
The ones which are Android do; those which aren’t official Android do not.
Just wait what Haier is doing in the future. If they stay in the OHA but stop making new Aliyun devices then you have your answer. Not every company is that stupid (vocal) with there coperate communication like Acer.
oPhone seems to be pre Android 1.0, before the OHA was born, before Android was google. No conflict.
Acer didn’t complain. They were going ahead with an anouncement that they thought they could make because Haier had already done the same thing. Then Google threatened them, then Alibaba pointed the finger at Google, not Acer. Then Google admitted it before Acer ever blamed Google.
The OHA was started in 2007. The first oPhone came in 2009. Lenovo introduced and continues to produce the LePhone, a similar not-fully compatible but Android-derivative over the last year or two.
You have to differ what happened in private mails and what via public news-portals. Google did not do anything of that public and only once someone (eitherbAlibaba or Acer or both) made it public it became dirty.
You also do not like to argue that Acer was expecting they can violate against the one single term the OHA has, compatibility, without any consequences or do you? Just because you know someone who was driving his car drunken and did not kill anybody or slhimself does not mean you should do it too, you know.
Lenovo’s Le Phone comes with oPhone which is based on a Android version before Google bought the company behind Android. Google’s Android of today has very less in common with the Android from Android Inc (no Dalvik for example, total different APIs, etc).
No, it was dirty the instant Acer had to cancel an imminent announcement that Google had long known about.
Why should Acer expect to be stopped for doing something that someone else is doing? Your analogy falls down because police do not know the blood alcohol level of every driver in existence — however, Google certainly knows that Haier has released an Aliyun phone and that they are an OHA member.
No. You keep arguing this based on a poorly written Wiki article. Please do some research. Telling you No over and over is getting boring.
Two wrongs make a good?
See, here we see the reason for our disagreement. My believe is NOT that you can,drink and drive as long as the police does not know.
Certainly yes and they certainly did not care cause well, Aliyun OS is 0.1% market share. But once they saw that not caring results in others doing the same and riscing that the whole purpose of the OHA may die they saw the need to do something to prevent that, to keep the OHA and Android compatibility alive.
Andy Rubin explicit named the compatibility-story as one of the main goals google has. It makes sense for the whole ecosystem, for us developers and customers. We like to have that compatibility between Android manufactors. Its very important for us.
No. You keep arguing this based on a poorly written Wiki article. Please do some research. Telling you No over and over is getting boring. [/q]
Dude thus is not how it works. Either you provide sources, proof, like I did or you do the same Alibaba does: claim simething but fail to proof and at the end we know you just where wrong.
Again, you are assuming that Google is truthful, correct, and trustworthy.
You would rather presume that Haier has somehow duped Google rather than the simpler assumption that Google saw nothing wrong with Haier was doing.
Woah, woah…. Umm, this is my theory. That Google is being hypocritical and continue to move the goalposts based on their needs rather than on actual established rules.
I don’t see how you can claim the above: that Google permitted Haier to do whatever it wanted to do because it was a small fry and can somehow claim that Acer should somehow have known that there would be rules reserved for them alone that Google would decide to enforce arbitrarily?
It makes sense for Andy Rubin, Google, and fanboys like you, but that does not mean there were specific OHA rules forbidding this. There was a day where openness mattered more to them. That day seems dead now.
Sorry, this is how it does work. You are misinformed and can barely speak English. I feel zero obligation to educate you. If you cannot determine basic, well-established facts for yourself (like oPhone and LePhone being Android forks), I’m not going to spend all day educating you. Do it yourself.
Edited 2012-09-17 20:44 UTC
That’s nonsense. I already have my answer. I already have proof that 2 OHA members are doing exactly what Google claims is not permitted. Either Google doesn’t care, doesn’t know its own rules, doesn’t enforce its rules, doesn’t have these rules, or are being complete hypocrites, changing the rules when it really matters. Either way, it seems very clear that OHA members may not believe that they are required to only support one true Android.
LePhone/oPhone is not based on Google Android. Please read up on Wikipedia for example.
To the otger Aliyun OS case: I doubt any of them OHA members will in future bring out any device running Aliyun. That may also explain Alibabas try to make tgis a public case.
You can see Alibabas mind on that in there last reply. Stating Aliyun is not a Android fork but using just some opensource parts of Android. And my cat eat my homework. Sureeeeeee.
No, you are incorrect, oPhone most assuredly contains Android code.
LePhone is a different initiative than oPhone (oPhone has largely failed over the last 3 years) is 100% most-assuredly an Android fork that is not fully compatible.
No one but Google has to explain their inconsistency with respect to Haier. It seems perfectly reasonable that OHA members felt perfectly free to release Aliyun phones as Google/OHA had already permitted it.
I’m sure they will try to restrict other OHA members in the future — it doesn’t change that they’ve been inconsistent and that they do not have clear rules or enforcement of them.
Why isn’t that perfectly reasonable? (I’m not suggesting that I actually believe Alibaba, but I think that’s a perfectly reasonable arguement.)
For example, Google argues that OHA members can use competing OSes but not parts of Android. But non-OHA members are perfectly free to emulate Android apps and/or include AOSP code in their OSes. Does that mean that OHA members may someday be forbidden from using competing OSes? Certainly, it’s a reasonable possibility — the only question is when Google would decide to move the line again. One would wonder how quickly BlackBerry could be considered “against the rules.”
Edited 2012-09-17 14:49 UTC
Doesn’t BB10 include an Android compatibility layer? I wonder if Google is going to complain about that as well?
BlackBerry is not member of the Open Handset Alliance, so they are free to do what they want with the Android code.
Also, I expect that their app store contains no pirated apps.
You’re missing the point, I’m perfectly aware that BB is not a member of the OHA. The point is: Google claims members of OHA can use rival OSes, just not rival derivatives of Android — but what if those non-Android rivals start using Android code (which they can do since they aren’t members of the OHA), does that mean OHA members can no longer use any competitive OSes?
You can answer that question yourself by asking:
Is it possible that something own becomes a fork of something else cause I integrate parts of something else in[*] something own?
[*] In the case of BB10 it must be “on top of” except you plan to merge the Linux-Kernel with QNX too? When why?
Edited 2012-09-17 20:37 UTC
This is incoherent in any language so, no, I would never ask that question nor would I be able to understand what lesson you think that should teach me.
Acer joined OHA and agreed to abide by the terms. As I read the news around this, it’s quite simple. Acer was going to release a phone that ran the other OS that included a “market” hosting Google apps. Never mind that allegation that the market is hosted pirated apps, let’s pretend Acer has a license to them because of being a member in the OHA.
And there’s the rub, the license Acer has to the app is from membership in the OHA which has compatibility guidelines which this other OS does not meet. Therefore there’s no license for the Google Apps.
It is perfectly reasonable for Google to say nuh-uh for putting their apps on this other OS. If this other OS is partially compatible and the apps have problems then Google’s damaged by the appearance of faulty apps. That’s why there are compatibility guidelines in the first place.
This time, I think Google is being reasonable. Lately it’s been rare.
<off topic rant>
I’m still sore about the bait-and-switch Google Galaxy Nexus phone. It was released first and premiered on Verizon, you’d think they’d back it. Instead the drop the CDMAs like a hot potato and now I’ve got a Verizon phone with sluggish Verizon releases and minimal (if any) official Google releases. The other Galaxy Nexus’ devices have Jelly Bean from an official released download on Google’s site. The only Jelly Bean for the Verizon Nexus is a leaked version. I bought the Galaxy Nexus BECAUSE it was a Google Nexus “official” device. Silly me to expect it to be treated like previous Nexus devices.
</off topic rant>
I’m considering the new iPhone now. I’m also thinking about jumping carriers, but both are irrelevant to the topic at hand. As generally annoyed as I am with Google, in this particular case with Acer, Google so far appears to be in the right.
People who make this argument are people who don’t understand what Java is.
Google took the Java language and made their own runtime (which is akin to taking a French and writing a French novel). Google did not fork nor do anything else to Oracles Java runtime (which is what you’re implying with the Android fork comparison)
This is completely wrong.
Java is not a natural language, and Google did not simply write something in Java. They engineered an incompatible implementation of Java’s underlying design. They used Sun’s work to create a functional clone because they didn’t like Sun’s licenses.
It’s all right here: http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1592541….
I especially like page 50, where freedom-defending Google talks about how the GPL version of Java is unacceptable because it would infect all their proprietary add-ons (we certainly can’t expect the OHA to be stuck producing actually-open phones), and page 81, which shows lines of code fully copied and pasted from Java to Android.
Much of the rest of the document consists of e-mails expressing the need for Java and their unwillingness to use it on Sun’s terms, and a deposition in which a programmer is unable to deny accessing and copying Sun’s code.
In short: Google forked Java, called it Dalvik, and put up a policy of not mentioning the J-word, and not even demoing Dalvik around Sun employees and lawyers. Yeah. They know full well what they did.
That is not true, they didn’t use Sun’s Java code. And I don’t think that fork means what you think it does.
Quoting Wikipedia: “In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct piece of software.”(emphasis mine)[1]
In contrast, what Alibaba did is take Android code and build their own, incompatible OS from it. So that is a fork.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)
Like I said, page 81 of Oracle’s opening statement slideshow contains snippets of code that were copied unmodified from Java into Android. So fork, even by that strict definition, is partially true, just as reimplementation by a strict definition is only partially true, as it wasn’t done cleanly. They accessed Sun’s original code to “help” them copy it. Maybe that approach wasn’t strictly authorized, but the leaked e-mails in the linked PDF establish a firm pattern of looking the other way. They also establish that Google’s explicit goal was to get Java technology without accepting Sun’s terms, which is precisely what they’re now accusing Alibaba of doing, while simultaneously maintaining the narrative that Android is not proprietary.
I don’t think Oracles testimony is the best source for reference material in this discussion considering it’s natural bias.
You’re right that Oracle did accuse Google for directly taking code. But that wasn’t the fault of Google as that particular code in question was supplied by a 3rd party. Plus the code was made available on their versioning system to try and prevent this sort of thing from happening – Sun/Oracle had every chance to contact Google to correct this mistake long before it was even bought to trial.
But anyhow, Google had since rectified this mistake with original code.
Oh I completely agree with your statements here, just not with your conclusion.
(1)Google were 100% intending to use Java technology without accepting Sun’s terms. But as Google reimplemented Java from the ground up, their only basis is:
a/ the language (which cannot be copyrighted – eg my French example)
b/ the bytecode / virtual machine runtime concept (which is also used by a number of other languages outside of Java).
What Google did is little worse than Next/Apples derivative of C – the key difference being that Dennis Ritchie didn’t lay any claims to intellectual property.
So the Oracle vs Google case was about language and design, not about source code.
(2) Where as the Alibaba case is a clear case of software forking. So not comparable with the aforementioned trial.
Furthermore -and has been repeatedly mentioned by nearly everyone on here yet gets completely ignored every single time- Google are NOT banning Alibaba. They’re not taking Alibaba / Acer to court not any other form of forced oppression. Yes, Google have Acer an ultimatum: drop Alibaba or leave the Open Handset Alliance; but Acer could easily have chosen the latter and carried on with business as usual if they so wished. Acer were given a choice and they chose to drop Alibaba – there was no litigation what-so-ever.
Quite frankly, personal views of Google, Oracle nor the rest of IT aside, it’s bloody refreshing to see these conflicts resolved out of court and in a mature way.
[edit]
I hope it’s not too premature to say this, but it’s nice to chat to someone on a topic like this who feels passionately about their view point but is also willing to discuss it in a mature way; without lowering the tone to personal attacks nor condensation.
I may not agree with your view points, but I’ve thoroughly enjoyed discussing them with you
Edited 2012-09-17 08:04 UTC
This is a public humiliation of Acer, the worst offence in Chinese culture. Acer could have cancelled this phone a few weeks later without anyone noticing it. Google are shooting themselves in the foot. Google is a Big Brother, but China is a Giant Brother.
Edited 2012-09-17 10:33 UTC
It wasn’t google who made that story public.
What you have to understand about chinese culture of losing face in a global company is that its always 100% business related. Here Acer could only lose, either OHA or Aliyun. But that the story became public is even a more worse lose for Acer. Its a disaster to handle that situation from a chinese business perspective by bringing it into the public. Its like giving up, not having the stand and control to handle such a situation in the best interest of the company. That shows Acer is driven by less chinese business culture. Just a very poor western babarian business style to drag your weakness, your loses into the public.
The story was made public by Alibaba.
And they dragged Acer into it by naming that company explicit even against there will? What a dirty, premitive, business contra-productive freak-out. I have my doubts this is doing Alibaba any good.
It’s odd that you are drawing absurd conclusions but don’t know the facts.
Everyone knew that Acer was releasing an Aliyun phone. And then it was mysteriously canceled at the last minute. Alibaba pointing the finger didn’t implicate Acer. It forced Google to admit that it was true.
It wasn’t Acer who made the story public either. It was Alibaba who went to the press, forcing Google to react. I don’t see Acer complaining loudly anywhere.
This comment brought to you by Rabid Nationalism.
Rabid Nationalism: Confounding Marxism Since the Nineteenth-Century
Indeed two instances of copying were part of the lawsuit: One was deemed so insignificant that the judge doubted even its copyrightability. The other was never part of any shipped Android device. This does not qualify as fork in any sensible way.
One commenter on Andy Rubin’s Google+ post explained it through examples:
Apache Harmony is an implementation of Java
Mono is an implementation of .NET
LibreOffice is a fork of OpenOffice.org
X.org is a fork of XFree86
I hope it is more clear now.
Alibaba using Android code is no problem, the license allows that. Amazon and BlackBerry do it too. But Acer cannot make incompatible products from Android code as long as they are member of the OHA.
Edited 2012-09-17 17:37 UTC
Your analogy is deeply flawed. What Google did would be akin to writing novel based on french that no one who is fluent in French can actually read or understand.
Code written for Davlik won’t run on a Java JVM. There fore making it incompatible Java.
True, but the incompatibilities is a side issue as it’s not the reason Oracle sued. And quite honestly, I didn’t hear people up in arms because Next/Apple took C as the basis for Objective-C then made their new language incompatible.
Personally I don’t see the issue with Google making Dalvik code incompatible with JRE code if it means that Android runs better for it. I mean it’s not like anyone would want to write an app that works the same on Android and Windows. Plus, and if we’re completely honest, code written for Oracles JRE isn’t always 100% compatible with OpenJRE. So it’s not like things were all cosy on PC land to start with.
It will if the APIs are available.
Don’t confuse Java the language with Java the virtual machine.
It was an unfortunate decision, that Sun’s marketing decided to call both the same name. At least in .NET and Android, language and VM have different names.
Surely you don’t mean the online Chinese electronics vendor? Wasn’t aware that they shipped operating systems? http://www.alibaba.com
Yes, that’s exactly who.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyun_OS
O_O wow! Thanks!
Google made a typical Big Brother mistake:
* Nationalistic tensions are running high in China (island dispute with Japan)
* Acer could use a subsidiary to launch this phone;
* All OEMs will study this case;
* Excellent publicity for the Aliyun OS, which is Linux + HTML5 btw;
* worst-case scenario: Android/Google could even be banned from China.
* the “stop piracy in China” argument is laughable, at best.
Edited 2012-09-17 05:53 UTC
Yes, it is a fork of Android. Not just “Linux + HTML5”.
See this: http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/09/15/aliyun-app-store-confirmed-…
If it wasn’t a fork of Android then how the heck can it run Android apps? Also, it’s hosting a load of pirated apps, Googles included. (which I doubt they’re non too happy about)
Edited 2012-09-17 08:28 UTC
You do understand that Android apps can run on BB, Windows, Mac, and iOS, don’t you, because of reversed-engineered VM emulators? Are these OSes obviously based on Android too?
Edited 2012-09-17 10:57 UTC
Pretty sure a lot of those are all source code ports of Android. Which is allowed by the license.
In other words, forks.
So, let me get this right. Rather than believing Google outright say this thing is a fork of Android and the fact they’ve (aliyun) put up pirated apps on their own app store.
Plus, also Acer would be breaking their OHA agreement.
You instead believe a post on an osnews forum that it is “Linux + HTML5” instead? Oh, and that they did a clean room reverse engineering of Android whilst they’re at it? (of a very complex and large number of api’s.. allowing them to run Google Android Apps flawlessly?)
Do you realise how utterly ridiculous that sounds?
No, I don’t think it’s ridiculous to not believe a company that is now arbitrarily preventing what it has permitted for years. No, I am not basing any knowledge of Aliyun on any post here. I am reserving judgment on Aliyun, and questioning why Rubin had to claim 4 or 5 different reasons, all of which can be shown to be inconsistently enforced. Yes, I actually expect Google to have clarity on this issue, and until they do, I will doubt what they say.
Additionally, of course I believe that Aliyun hosts pirated apps on its store as it has been independently verified. However, this does not explain why Haier was permitted to release an Aliyun phone nor does it explain why Acer is being prevented from releasing an Aliyun phone and/or being threatened to be kicked out of the OHA when it is far easier to get those apps removed (either legally or just in dealing with business partners) than this whole mess is.
Thom, are you in full “google can do no wrong” mode today, releasing their press releases as fact? Here’s a different take:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/09/if-google-can-cancel-acers-licen…
Hold on, you’re linking to fosspatents.com…
A site owned and run by Florian Mueller a person known to be actively paid by Oracle to shill for them? (which they’ve admitted to in court)
A person who has a known anti-Google bias.
That site is a poisoned well for information, you’re nullifying any argument you might have by pointing to it.
Then it should be quite easy for you to show that he is wrong, shouldn’t it? OK, let’s see you do it. So far you’ve only done some name-calling. Address the argument.
You’re missing the point of the post.
There cannot be a credible argument to be made, because of the source.
Have you never heard of the concept of conflict of interest or poisoned well?
This is like saying Fox News or Russia Today are credible sources of impartial news.
Regardless of whatever is posted or said by this person everything is suspect because of past and present behaviour, and as such cannot be relied upon for any arguments or information.
Happily. The entire article is nothing but a carefully crafted appeal to equality. Not surprising considering the source.
The title itself illustrates this perfectly: “If Google can cancel Acer’s license, why should Apple have to grant one to Google?”
The problem with this is that I’m not aware of any circumstance where Google has demanded Apple grant them license to anything… Are you? If there was such an example – you would think that it would have been mentioned in the article. But it wasn’t… I wonder why?
Its just 1000 words setting up a false equivalency – badly at that. Easily demonstrated in this little gem of a quote:
Is he implying that Apple would have offered Acer a better deal? Oh wait – Apple doesn’t actually license to anyone…
Which is the point by the way… Google may have conditions setup for those who wish to work with them on Android – but those conditions are designed to be equitable. In other words Google requires a hardware maker to meet certain obligations, but they maintain the role of software supplier and let the hardware makers do their own thing (pricing, branding, customization, whatever). By the mere act of _trying_ to setup a mutually beneficial arrangement with hardware manufacturers they are demonstrating that they are in fact nothing like Apple.
Apple’s approach to “partners” is simple. Do you see Foxconn’s name anywhere on an iPhone? Samsungs? Apple’s message to their partners? Jump when we say jump and we will let you in on the piece of the pie we think you deserve to get – don’t like it we will find someone else. At the end of the day this is our platform to do with what we will – you are easily replaced if you get out of line…
That is Apple’s prerogative of course – but don’t try to create some kind of ridiculous equivalency between an alliance between independent software and hardware companies and the dictatorship that Apple has established.
Because he has discussed it numerous times and is a running meme over many posts. See here:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/07/in-lobbying-and-litigation-googl…
and for non-Mueller sourcing see here:
http://allthingsd.com/20120720/google-claims-popularity-has-made-so…
Again, show me an example of Google asking Apple to license anything to them??? All the patents mentioned in those articles were already worked around in Android ages ago (i.e. bounce scroll)…
A letter to the senate making the argument that some patents not currently considered to be SEP maybe should be is not the same thing as Google asking Apple for a license to anything. It isn’t even in the same ballpark…
It doesn’t even demonstrate that Google thinks Apple even HAS a patent they want or need – it is simply lobbying the senate.
Google is generally willing to share patents and license them to others – Apple is not. They are very different companies… Lobbying the senate to treat patents in a way that would weaken Apple’s leverage (by forcing them to license some of them that might be seen as commercially essential) is simply smart and in their best interest. It would be beneficial to their style of business and detrimental to their competitors (i.e. Apple).
It doesn’t mean, as this fictional account seems to imply, that there is some stash of patents that Google desperately needs to get it’s grubby hands on in Cupertino…
That’s a fictional summary if I ever saw one. Where in the primary post or the two posts I linked to does anyone suggest that Google “desperately needs to get it’s grubby on” Apple’s patents?
You asked a question: what is he even talking about? You suggested that there was no evidence that Google was suggesting that there are some patents that they should be granted access to. I provided links to Mueller’s thinking and from an independent, objective source that draws exactly the same conclusion as Mueller: that Google wants to change patent law to make it compulsory for Apple (and Microsoft) to license its/their desired (but not standard essential) patents.
If you want to get all conspiracy theorist on that, you can’t claim yourself any better than how you describe Mueller.
Edited 2012-09-18 04:35 UTC
So you are not able to show an example?
The title of Meuller’s article is “If Google can cancel Acer’s license, why should Apple have to grant one to Google?”
The only person who is saying that Apple should have to grant a license for anything to Google is Mueller…
Petitioning the senate to reconsider what constitutes a standards essential patent is not the same thing as asking them to force Apple to license something to Google. Hell, I’m not even aware of an Apple patent that Google would want at this point, much less need…
Do you not see the problem there? Its called a false equivalency fallacy – that article is the epitome of one.
If you ignore the fact, that AllThingsD came to the same conclusion and that Google’s biggest partner just lost a billion dollar suit… then, yeah…
Fosspatents? Really? In 2012?
“The OHA prohibits its members from promoting incompatible Android implementations…”
“Incompatible Android implementations…”
what is Alibaba’s Phone incompatibility with Android? Can not run Android applications?
That’s a good question. A.Rubin stated they analysed packages in the store and that’s indeed the case but I’m really missing technical details.
1. It did not run the compatibility tests. Google has a bigger collection of automated tests to target application compatibility. Every Android fork needs to pass those tests.
2. Aliyun sourcecode was not provided. That means all necessary changes Alibaba did (minus propitary stuff like there cloud integration) including hardware drivers and patches need to be given back to Android. This is the base for 3th part mods like cyanogen and for proper auditing, validation, reconstruction and future enhanced application compatibility testing.
This is for OHA members. Anyone can take the Android code everytime and not follow that requirements. But then they a) cannot be in the OHA and b) are ranged as incompatible.
Also when Alibaba says that they did heavy changes within Android so its not Android any longer then that opens some more questions like where in Android got the changes done? Unlike common believe Opensource does not mean you can do everything without giving back and compared to common believe most or at least lot of Android is not APL. Alibaba would be required to open any changes done in certain areas or they lose there right to use them. Compare to what google brings on the table the license-issue is serious and legally binding.
Edited 2012-09-17 21:23 UTC
AGAIN, this is you taking Google at their word. OHA has to comply with compatibility testing when submitting something they intend to be called Android. There is ZERO evidence that OHA members cannot work on competing OSSes that utilize code that’s a part of Android or non-Android code that emulates it. In fact, there are TWO HUGE GLARING examples of just the opposite being true.
The OHA terms are public since years and indirect linked in the article.
Correct but only half of the story. See the comment you replied too.
There are actually lots of evidences this is fine including Google itself naming Samsung as example of a OHA member who does with WP, Bada and Tizen competing OSes.
Please read the article and linked sources. The issue is about Android and Android forks. The OHA is only about Android and not about whatever competing other OS.
For your “googles view” point: Alibaba itself wrote its a Linux with opensource. That means they are legally forced to open the source-code. GPL and stuff you know. Why did they not? This is yet another violation not named but important cause if they would everybody could validate there statement. As it looks right now Alibaba does:
* Violate various opensource licenses.
* Does pirate propitary google software
* Does drag there ex-partner Acer into a public dirt battle.
* Fails to give just any proof.
Yes, I believe google more then Alibaba in the current situation but would be fine to switch my opinion if Alibaba gives proof and may it only by following the licenses of the opensource they use what would enable anyone to verify themselfs.
Edited 2012-09-18 08:16 UTC
I have a pre-order on the S500 Cloudmobile.
Though most people are unaware that Acer even makes Android phones.
I will be on my second when I get the S500, as my S100 Liquid is far too long in the tooth.