




Skyhook Wireless Sues Google Over Anti-Competitive Practices 228
dwightk writes "According to a lawsuit brought by Skyhook Wireless, Google allegedly forced Motorola, among other Android handset makers, to use Google's own location services instead of alternatives like Skyhook's. Quoting the lawsuit: 'In complete disregard of its common-law and statutory obligations, and in direct opposition to its public messaging encouraging open innovation, Google wielded its control over the Android operating system ... to force device manufacturers to use its technology rather than that of Skyhook, to terminate contractual obligations with Skyhook, and to otherwise force device manufacturers to sacrifice superior end user experience with Skyhook by threatening directly or indirectly to deny timely and equal access to evolving versions of the Android operating system and other Google mobile applications.'"
John Gruber points out another interesting excerpt from the complaint regarding Google's procedure for determining Android compliance, which includes what Skyhook calls an "amorphous outline of additional, non-standardized requirements" that "effectively gives Google the ability to arbitrarily deem any software, feature or function 'non-compatible.'"
FUD (Score:5, Informative)
1) This requirement only applies to Android that is bundled with Google's proprietary apps/services. If you take Android without Google's integration and market... you can use what you want.
2) There are many alternative markets out there.
3) You can use alternate location services in apps from the market...
4) Google tried to work with Skyhook requesting examples of their location data.... Skyhook refused... so since Google couldn't guarantee it would work with their services... etc
Re:Skyhook's funding ... (Score:3, Informative)
"... and Allen & Company." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet [wikipedia.org]
"... February 2008 to become the managing director of the secretive investment bank Allen & Company."
NSA/Google http://www.pcworld.com/article/188581/the_googlensa_alliance_questions_and_answers.html [pcworld.com]
Re:Each day, Google. Each day. (Score:2, Informative)
Whereas Apple, who dropped Skyhook too, had also replaced the functionality with their own implementation isn't doing the same thing?
All we have here is a company getting pissy their limited business model has been replaced on two very popular platforms. Tough titties. If they want, they can release their own applications that use their implementation, and then compete in the market. Too easy though, they know their toast is done. They're looking for a payout from the big boys before shutting up shop.
It's only partially about Android being "open" (Score:3, Informative)
As a result of Google forcing Skyhook's partners to breach their contracts, Skyhook lost millions of dollars of licensing revenue and is seeking reparation.
Re:Fanboys (Score:4, Informative)
This has nothing to do with Google integrating anything, and it's totally evil. Quote from Google-IO: "If you believe in openness, if you believe in choice, if you believe in innovation from everyone, then welcome to Android" - Vic Gundotra, another Google VP. I don't think so Vic. You and Andy ought to talk...
Simon.
Re:Fanboys (Score:4, Informative)
Simon
Re:Pretty simple (Score:4, Informative)
Re:"Deemed non-compatible"? (Score:4, Informative)
Android is opensource software (Score:3, Informative)
what the fuck ?!?
Android is open-source, freely available, freely downloadable, freely compilable. Google has no control on it, as proven by the countless chinese clone-maker shipping iClones running un licenced. Or Koolu having ported android on the openmoko's freerunner.
the only thing the google licence is the closed source proprietary part : the "google experience" - the collection of google apps ported to the android system. See how Cyanogenmods is able to create ports of newer versions of the OS (because android is free/libre) but reqire the users to make a backup of their google apps, because they don't have a licence to provide them.
motorola wasn't forced to drop skyhook for the mere reason they wanted android. If they really wanted both android and skyhook badly, they could have used the open-source android and bundled their choice of aps.
the problem stems from the fact that motorola wanted the google applicstion pack too. And its licencing terms
to compare with microsoft: it would be as if microsoft either licenced a paid windows to oems, which contains IE, MS Office, Visual Studio. (and requires no other alternative). Or gave away free copies of windows only, including the source, and let the oem combine their choice of software (firefox, thunderbird, openoffice.org, eclipse, etc.)
the licence requirement are dubious, but none the less, the phhone makers are free to use a different suite of apps (as done on FreeRunner and chinese iClones)