Judge Dismisses Google's Complaint Over Android Code Viewing 87
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."
Suing themselves (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Just in case anyone is curious and doesn't want to read TFA, the issue is that MS allowed an oust side consultant to view the source code provided my Motorola. Motorola's beef is that they had confidentiality agreements with MS. The judge stated that Google has no stake in the game and that Motorola would have to file a complaint.
The gist of the article is that MS believes their consultant found some dirt on Android and it's code, which Google seems to think will be very damaging to it's (Motorola's) case,
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, hate it when I do that.
"I think it was naive of Google to assume these handset vendors would defend themselves and still remain loyal to Android if things go badly."
Re:Suing themselves (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought it was funny that Google and Android are supposed to be so open, yet they were trying to suppress source code they considered "highly proprietary."
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what I thought. Isn't it supposed to be open in the first place? What's the confidentiality agreement for?
Re: (Score:2)
The truth is, almost all of Google's products are proprietary. Since they piggybacked on Linux kernel they had to open up Android some. Yet they still manage to withhold distributing said code for months at a time. A thing slashdot crowd would demand billions of damages to other companies for GPL violation. However, when i
Re: (Score:2)
I still generally like Google in most things (though I switched to DuckDuckGo for my main search engine), but their approach to open source is definitely questionable at times.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you please be more specific? I constantly see people say the things you say and without fail, they always prove to be completely baseless. Must like what started this whole thread.
To what violations do you refer?
Re: (Score:2)
According to the article, the code in question wasn't even being supplied to handset vendors. In any case, this isn't a breach of contract of the person MS showed it to was also under a confidentiality agreement and currently employed by MS (Note: IANAL). It does seem odd though that the source is supposed to be open but they are stating it is proprietary info.
Re: (Score:2)
Just in case anyone is curious and doesn't want to read TFA, the issue is that MS allowed an oust side consultant to view the source code provided my Motorola.
An "oust side" consultant: what an excellent egg corn [wikipedia.org]! :-)
Re: (Score:3)
The gist of the article is that MS believes their consultant found some dirt on Android and it's code, which Google seems to think will be very damaging to it's (Motorola's) case, and as a result, all Android devices.
You have to understand how lawsuits work. Team A says they want to get the defendant's middle name, Team B, although they don't see the harm, they move to block it because they will not give Team A a single sliver of evidence that isn't specifically needed.
I was involved in a lawsuit where our lawyer actually blocked the subpoena of meeting minutes - which we had and which we believed supported our claim - because it wasn't necessary (you could just subpoena all the people that were there). Had me worrie
Case dismissed (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 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:2)
It hasn't been finalized yet. Buying a company isn't like buying Twinkies or Cheetos, it can take months or even years to finalize a purchase.
Re: (Score:3)
You've obviously never been confronted with the vast array of Cheetos now available on the market. I'm still waiting on the final results from my research team before I can make a decision between the Cheetos Fantastix Chili Cheese Flavored and the Crunchy Flamin' Hot Limon Cheese varieties.
Re: (Score:2)
At least Twinkies are still dependable...
Re: (Score:1)
God-Damn Sno Balls!
Re: (Score:1)
It hasn't been finalized yet. Buying a company isn't like buying Twinkies or Cheetos, it can take months or even years to finalize a purchase.
It can take months or even years to "finalize a purchase" of Twinkies or Cheetos, too.
If you know what I mean.
(I'm talking about poop.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:No standing? (Score:5, Funny)
Come on this isn't rainman, he's not going to memorize a private key.
Protip: Ctrl c, Ctrl v.
Re: (Score:2)
Ctrl v does nothing...
Ctr-V quotes the next character, which is useful if it's a special one. Try typing Ctrl-M, for example. Now try Ctrl-V Ctrl-M.
Re: (Score:2)
Hah, for some reason I envisaged them taking him into a room on the Google campus where he could browse the code on a workstation with no outside connection and a legal pad for taking notes. If they just sent him a tarball of the code why even include the secrets part Microsoft would have to ask permission to view ?
Re: (Score:1)
Hence the golf joke.
I'm guessing his answer to Google's dumbfounded attorneys was likely "because fuck you. That's why..."
Google may suffer from hiring attorneys with the same sort of beautifully hopeful world view that they have. That's probably a bad idea. Lawyers should be hopelessly corrupt bastards.
They just need to be on *your* side...
Re:No standing? (Score:4, Funny)
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)
>> 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
What you said.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No standing? (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you do when Google withholds the source for months like they did with Honeycomb? Add a sleep command in there?
Re: (Score:3)
I think maybe we have different ideas of "open."
"Here's the source, have fun looking, but here's what you're not allowed to do with it" isn't.
So "more heavily policed" == less open. Thus the OPs point: some parts of Android are more open than others.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And Google too, apparently.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
At least per the GPL definition of source ASM may or may not be source just as C may or may not be source. What matters is not what language it is in but whether or not it is the "preffered form of the work for making modifications".
Re:No standing? (Score:4, Interesting)
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."
Re: (Score:3)
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]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft, apparently.
Re: (Score:1)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People tend to hate closed-source, proprietary megacorporations that say one thing but do another.
Re: (Score:2)
What changed, you ask?
Oh, I know the answer to this one! Their CEO made public statements against privacy, they collected huge amounts of data about everyone that make things like the proposed UK ID database look like children's toys, and they decided that copyright was something that only applied to other people.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
To me, evil = ethically questionable or worst.
Google to me has crossed that line, at least their mobile division.
"Feigning" friendship and "betraying"/turning on your partners definitely qualifies as "evil" in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
While the same partners welcomed the move? Wow....
Let's also hear your thoughts on steve jobs stealing somebody's liver...
Re: (Score:1)
That must be why Samsung is re-evaluating it's options.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE77G1HX20110817?irpc=932 [reuters.com]
They would be fools to rely on Google now, Google would be directly competing with them.
Google will always have the edge, being the makers of the OS, they control the features nd they have "first access".
Re: (Score:1)
Really modded down because you disagree with me.
Why do I bother anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
You have any proof that the Ipad is an original idea because I have proof that its not. Who did Apple copy is the real question. [dailymail.co.uk] So its ok for Apple to steal the idea from the originators of the idea? This hypocrisy from Apple followers is astounding. We know the real reason for all this recent Google hate. Anyone with a brain can see right through this charade. The massive amounts of negative comments started right around the time when Apple and Google parted ways. its obviously because the Apple
Re: (Score:1)
With the constant love that Google and its products get on Slashdot and have gotten for over 10 years, you're bothered by some negativity? Is Slashdot supposed to ignore judicial events like this because Google was on the losing side?
Just to get Technical (Score:2)
The Judge *denied a motion,* not *dismissed a complaint.*
Here's the secret, bro... (Score:1)
It's about money, dude. MONEY.
Any objections to this ruling (Score:2)