1. thenameisnigel's Avatar
    Am I the only person who found it to be very weird that Google was quick to say that Samsung was all to blame in the whole copying situation?
    08-27-2012 06:23 PM
  2. Ry's Avatar
    Am I the only person who found it to be very weird that Google was quick to say that Samsung was all to blame in the whole copying situation?
    It wasn't weird to me.

    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums
    08-27-2012 06:44 PM
  3. thenameisnigel's Avatar
    It wasn't weird to me.

    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums
    I mean it was to me, because the fact is whether Google likes it or not, Android, and everything surrounding Android is their responsibility. Licensing is free, everything is free about it. That's the disadvantage of open-source. That's like me letting people use a proxy on my site to access the web. Everything that people do in the proxy is MY responsibilty. Same for Android. Android is Google's responsibility as long as it's open-sourced. If it was closed-sourced and everyone had to pay to license it , now THAT'S a different story.
    08-27-2012 07:40 PM
  4. Ry's Avatar
    I mean it was to me, because the fact is whether Google likes it or not, Android, and everything surrounding Android is their responsibility. Licensing is free, everything is free about it. That's the disadvantage of open-source. That's like me letting people use a proxy on my site to access the web. Everything that people do in the proxy is MY responsibilty. Same for Android. Android is Google's responsibility as long as it's open-sourced. If it was closed-sourced and everyone had to pay to license it , now THAT'S a different story.
    Android wasn't on trial here.

    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums
    08-27-2012 07:52 PM
  5. dextorboot's Avatar
    I think it's just a case of CYA.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Android Central Forums
    thenameisnigel likes this.
    08-27-2012 07:57 PM
  6. thenameisnigel's Avatar
    Android wasn't on trial here.

    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

    Technically it was. As stated, one of the topics covered in the suit was S-Voice. That's a component of Android, not a core component, BUT it's part of Android because Google allows manufacturers to change the overall feel of the operating system.
    patrao_n likes this.
    08-27-2012 09:58 PM
  7. JHBThree's Avatar
    Technically it was. As stated, one of the topics covered in the suit was S-Voice. That's a component of Android, not a core component, BUT it's part of Android because Google allows manufacturers to change the overall feel of the operating system.
    S-voice wasn't a part of this trial.

    Android was not a part of this because almost all of the accused infringement (all but 1 I believe) was brought about by samsungs implementation of touch wiz. Google is in no way responsible for what a manufacturer does in their skin.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    TWC_SouthPhilly likes this.
    08-27-2012 10:14 PM
  8. JHBThree's Avatar
    I mean it was to me, because the fact is whether Google likes it or not, Android, and everything surrounding Android is their responsibility. Licensing is free, everything is free about it. That's the disadvantage of open-source. That's like me letting people use a proxy on my site to access the web. Everything that people do in the proxy is MY responsibilty. Same for Android. Android is Google's responsibility as long as it's open-sourced. If it was closed-sourced and everyone had to pay to license it , now THAT'S a different story.
    Not remotely. It is specifically integrated into the license that android is offered under that google is not legally or financially responsible if manufacturers are sued, especially so if they're sued over features that are part of a skin.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    08-27-2012 10:18 PM
  9. thenameisnigel's Avatar
    Not remotely. It is specifically integrated into the license that android is offered under that google is not legally or financially responsible if manufacturers are sued, especially so if they're sued over features that are part of a skin.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    Apple-Samsung patent lawsuit: Galaxy Nexus sales reveal Android myth
    08-27-2012 10:41 PM
  10. Ry's Avatar
    Technically it was. As stated, one of the topics covered in the suit was S-Voice. That's a component of Android, not a core component, BUT it's part of Android because Google allows manufacturers to change the overall feel of the operating system.
    Whoa. S-Voice was NOT a part of this recent trial. Come on now.

    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums
    08-27-2012 10:51 PM
  11. JHBThree's Avatar
    What does that have to do with anything? That article discusses approximately nothing thats being discussed in this thread. Not only that, the author badly misunderstood the lawsuit in question; it had nothing to do with voice search, and everything to do with unified search results.

    I'll reiterate again: the android license specifically protects Google from liability if one of its manufacturing partners is sued.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    08-27-2012 10:51 PM
  12. thenameisnigel's Avatar
    Read the first paragraph on the page or here:


    While the trial between Apple (AAPL) and Samsung (005930) now wrapping up in San Jose, California has gotten the most attention over the past few weeks, it’s hardly the only legal battle these two behemoths are fighting. In another scuffle taking place with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, [HL]Samsung is defending its Galaxy Nexus smartphone against allegations that it copies Apple’s Siri voice assistant feature.[/HL] There are plenty of interesting points and counterpoints emerging as the two companies exchange blows, but one in particular helps reinforce the stark contrast between perceptions of Google’s (GOOG) mobile OS on the Internet, and the reality of Android.


    I bolded it , italic, underlined, and highlighter it.
    08-27-2012 10:52 PM
  13. Ry's Avatar
    Read the first paragraph on the page or here:


    While the trial between Apple (AAPL) and Samsung (005930) now wrapping up in San Jose, California has gotten the most attention over the past few weeks, its hardly the only legal battle these two behemoths are fighting. In another scuffle taking place with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, Samsung is defending its Galaxy Nexus smartphone against allegations that it copies Apples Siri voice assistant feature. There are plenty of interesting points and counterpoints emerging as the two companies exchange blows, but one in particular helps reinforce the stark contrast between perceptions of Googles (GOOG) mobile OS on the Internet, and the reality of Android.


    I bolded it , italic, underlined, and highlighter it.

    http://m.engadget.com/2012/06/29/app...-galaxy-nexus/

    As patent lawsuit guru Florian Mueller found, the clincher for the ban was the patent on unified search that's linked to Siri.

    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums
    08-27-2012 10:58 PM
  14. JHBThree's Avatar
    Read the first paragraph on the page or here:


    While the trial between Apple (AAPL) and Samsung (005930) now wrapping up in San Jose, California has gotten the most attention over the past few weeks, its hardly the only legal battle these two behemoths are fighting. In another scuffle taking place with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, [HL]Samsung is defending its Galaxy Nexus smartphone against allegations that it copies Apples Siri voice assistant feature.[/HL] There are plenty of interesting points and counterpoints emerging as the two companies exchange blows, but one in particular helps reinforce the stark contrast between perceptions of Googles (GOOG) mobile OS on the Internet, and the reality of Android.


    I bolded it , italic, underlined, and highlighter it.
    Again, the author of that article badly misinterpreted what the lawsuit was about. (Or, given BGRs credibility, they were just to lazy to actually find out)

    That lawsuit has zero to do with voice search and everything to do with unified search results.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    08-27-2012 11:00 PM
  15. thenameisnigel's Avatar
    Again, the author of that article badly misinterpreted what the lawsuit was about. (Or, given BGRs credibility, they were just to lazy to actually find out)

    That lawsuit has zero to do with voice search and everything to do with unified search results.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

    Oh, okay. I didn't know that. Well , I'm done.
    08-27-2012 11:05 PM
  16. JHBThree's Avatar
    Oh, okay. I didn't know that. Well , I'm done.
    No worries. That author wrote a very poor article.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    thenameisnigel likes this.
    08-27-2012 11:19 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD