Comments on: Google Tells ITC Judge: Microsoft Revealed Our Secret Source Code

By: Sam Fisher

Sam Fisher — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 13:27:08 +0000

Yeah, and like the iPhone would have existed without the Blackberry or any PDA right? Or how Apple computers would exist without the IBM 5100? Or how either of those would exist without the ENIAC? I really don’t think you understand the meaning of “innovation:” to take something and make it better, which, in my opinion, they have done. Get off your high horse.

By: Sam Fisher

Sam Fisher — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 13:22:28 +0000

Most open source projects working on a new release will do so under a limited number of confidential users, unless the project is not big enough to continue without the public contributors. This is so that the actual release is as intended, and is not watered down with what one person might think needs to be included. This gives a stable base to work off of, which is incredibly important as otherwise there would be inconsistencies between phones, in this case. There’s no point in having multiple Android phones if none of them can interact with another Android device. Yes, a manufacturer may add to the code if they desire, but they cannot take away the base functionality that is required by any Android device.

By: Sam Fisher

Sam Fisher — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 13:19:29 +0000

I never once said it was a fact. In fact, if you have cared to read, my post said “chances are.” If this is the case, it’s a classic example of someone trying to catch Google in the act, instead of for what they’ve already done.

By: Ric Desan

Ric Desan — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:42:31 +0000

I find one glaring fact that underlines the downfall of innovation in this country and that is when Google was putting the effort out to create this platform, no one was even slightly interested until it became a player and held market share.

Once that occurred, let the leeches come of the wood work to try to suck down unearned money for work they didnt do.

By: Jon T

Jon T — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:04:15 +0000

Yep, like the whole Android concept would not have existed without iPhone – that’s innovation is it?

And the code they used to do it with was Java. No license required??Google has no credibility left.

By: spacemanmatt

spacemanmatt — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 23:47:44 +0000

Care to back that up, at all? Google didn’t sue start this but they are well within their rights to defend themselves.

I think you are the spoiled, whining brat if you think Google should just roll over.

By: LN

LN — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 21:30:39 +0000

Why a court will ask Google to provide Android 4.0 code when the case against Motorola is for existing products i.e Android 2.3 or older? Your argument is an assumption and not a fact.

By: Mike Bell

Mike Bell — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:50:52 +0000

Google are complete amateurs… just a bunch of spoiled, whining brats.

By: thefre

thefre — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:40:15 +0000

“Almost any open source project working on a major release will not open source that code until it is considered stable.”

Nope. I don’t have numbers, but I would actually not be surprised if the contrary was true. “Open source” is even sometimes used (but not all the times) to talk about the openness of the development process and not just the license of the end result.

By: RalphF

RalphF — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:44:12 +0000

Don’t be fooled, Google’s support of open source is about destroying the paid for software business model (and jobs) in favor of their own advertising business model. Don’t be fooled that this is just anti-Microsoft either, this is anti-all niche software (energy reporting, medical, transportation, there are tons of specialty software required in our world that the home user has no clue about). They’re perfectly happy for everything other than search to be open source and/or freely available.