Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android Google The Courts

Judge Dismisses Google's Complaint Over Android Code Viewing 87

Posted by samzenpus
from the it's-outta-here dept.
CWmike writes "A U.S. trade judge has rejected Google's move to block the testimony of a Microsoft expert witness in the dispute with Motorola over patents allegedly used by Android. Last week, Google accused Microsoft of violating a confidentiality agreement struck between Microsoft, Motorola and Google in the ITC case. The judge rejected Google's motion on Monday. 'The ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] finds no basis to discern from Google's statement whether Google made a reasonable, good-faith effort to resolve the matter with Microsoft,' he wrote in his ruling."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Dismisses Google's Complaint Over Android Code Viewing

Comments Filter:
  • If google looses, they'd just be paying themselves. Only the lawyers will be winners in this case.... wonder if thats happened before.
    • MS is suing Motorola, not Google suing Motorola.
    • If google looses, they'd just be paying themselves. Only the lawyers will be winners in this case.... wonder if thats happened before.

      IIRC when a defendant buys the plaintiff the case is normally dismissed.

      • by bws111 (1216812)

        Maybe that is the case. However, the defendant is Motorola, and the plaintiff is Microsoft, so that does not apply.

  • No standing? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wsxyz (543068) on Wednesday August 17, 2011 @07:08PM (#37124402)
    What I get out of this is that the judge says that it's none of Google's business because the lawsuit is between Microsoft & Motorola.

    By the way, what is this ultra secret, mega proprietary Android source code anyway? I thought Android was open source. Didn't Andy Rubin define "open" as the ability to download and compile the source?
    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by chaboud (231590)

      This could be, for instance, private keys for market signatures, etc. There are some bits that you show *nobody* if you want things to be even remotely secure.

      Microsoft did actually screw up on this one. There was a clear procedure for disclosure in this case. Google was supposed to have been notified in advance of the inclusion of a 3rd party and be given 10 days to object. That process was violated.

      Clearly, Google's lawyers don't play enough golf.

      • This could be, for instance, private keys for market signatures, etc. There are some bits that you show *nobody* if you want things to be even remotely secure.

        Come on this isn't rainman, he's not going to memorize a private key. It's probably some secret sauce in the Google Android apps, which aren't open source.

    • by CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) on Wednesday August 17, 2011 @07:23PM (#37124470)

      By the way, what is this ultra secret, mega proprietary Android source code anyway? I thought Android was open source. Didn't Andy Rubin define "open" as the ability to download and compile the source?

      All the source is open but some is more open than others. Now let's all stop posing awkward questions and focus on how evil Apple and Facebook are, those damn liberal elites and lame-stream social media that hate us real internetians.

      • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

        >> All the source is open but some is more open than others.

        Please go on. Don't be shy. And if you can't provide the evidence, please just shut the fuck up with your Apple whoring.

        • Re:No standing? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) on Wednesday August 17, 2011 @07:54PM (#37124664)

          >> All the source is open but some is more open than others.

          Please go on. Don't be shy. And if you can't provide the evidence, please just shut the fuck up with your Apple whoring.

          "Over the past few months, according to several people familiar with the matter, Google has been demanding that Android licensees abide by "non-fragmentation clauses" that give Google the final say on how they can tweak the Android code [businessweek.com]—to make new interfaces and add services—and in some cases whom they can partner with."

          Or I could have just said: Honeycomb. "Open" indeed.

          BTW, they have pills for Tourette's now.

          • Or you can say that anybody can take the code, fork it and do whatever they want.

            Or...

            "mkdir android ;cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ;repo sync ;make"

            Now weep.

            • by Anonymous Coward

              I tried that. Now, where's Maps and all the rest that's supposed to be part of "The Android Experience?" And where do I install the binary?

              But what I really would like to know: what's with all the complile time errors?

              Boo-hoo.

            • by rickb928 (945187)

              What you said.

            • by wsxyz (543068)
              That's exactly the point. If that's how open Android is, what could be so sooper secret about the code that Google didn't want anyone to see?
            • Re:No standing? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by bonch (38532) * on Thursday August 18, 2011 @01:53AM (#37126490)

              What do you do when Google withholds the source for months like they did with Honeycomb? Add a sleep command in there?

          • by Yamioni (2424602)

            BTW, they have pills for Tourette's now.

            I've seen those! They're red, and round, and usually have a strap that goes around the back of your head.

        • Re:No standing? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by bonch (38532) * on Thursday August 18, 2011 @01:52AM (#37126486)

          Have you not been following Android news in the last few months? Google withholds Android source from non-privileged partners, and they use compatibility clauses to control how vendors use Android. There have even been accusations from vendors that they throw out artificial obstacles for phones that use competing services like Bing. A Google email said they "use compatibility as a club to make [vendors] do what we want."

          • by andydread (758754)

            Have you not been following Android news in the last few months? Google withholds Android source from non-privileged partners, and they use compatibility clauses to control how vendors use Android. There have even been accusations from vendors that they throw out artificial obstacles for phones that use competing services like Bing. A Google email said they "use compatibility as a club to make [vendors] do what we want."

            [citation-needed]

      • by crutchy (1949900)
        "open source" doesn't necessarily mean "free". i'm sure if you paid microsoft enough money you could have access to Windows source code too. that's why the term "free and open source" was coined. there's also freedom and there's free beer. android source is apparently free as in free beer. just because you're not allowed to do anything with it (without google's permission) doesn't mean its not free. its just not free as in freedom.
    • Where can I download the source to Android 3, 3.1, or 3.2?
      • by geekoid (135745)

        Microsoft, apparently.

      • Where can I download the source to Android 3, 3.1, or 3.2?

        From vendors.

        You can get the Asus Transformer versions here: http://www.asus.com/Eee/Eee_Pad/Eee_Pad_Transformer_TF101/#download [asus.com]

        • That's just the GPL'd kernel source - in other words, barely-modified Linux kernel. Real useful.
          • by rdnetto (955205)

            It actually is pretty useful - thanks to it, mine is running Ubuntu now.

            But I do agree that it's completely separate to the Android source.

      • by Jonner (189691)

        Where can I download the source to Android 3, 3.1, or 3.2?

        Indeed, the source they're referring to could be some that has not yet been released under a Free/Open Source license. If Google is the copyright holder, they have no legal obligation to release it though this is harmful to the Android community. However, it seems unlikely that unreleased code implements some patent, but the released code doesn't.

        • Then they should stop calling it open.

          Here is the source to most of OS X (including the most recent version which was released mere weeks ago:) http://www.opensource.apple.com/ [apple.com]

          The AOSP is no more open than, and in some ways arguably more closed than Apple's OS, and yet Google is somehow the darling of the open source world.

    • by gl4ss (559668)

      Didn't Andy Rubin define "open" as the ability to download and compile the source?

      yeah he did. he just didn't define which source or from which machine! (surely he can just apt-get it himself, but not so true for the rest of us to the extend you might have thought from his definition).

  • The Judge *denied a motion,* not *dismissed a complaint.*

  • are to filed at the courthouse in Redmond, WA.

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon

Working...