Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:He is right (Score 1) 311

by fidget42 (#37115362) Attached to: Analysis of Google's Motorola Acquisition

Well, it's not *just* patents. Motorola also had a special Java license. That might well be nice insurance against Oracle. (We don't really know, because the details of the license aren't public. Which, itself, is interesting.)

That really isn't interesting. Why would a company make their business dealings public? Especially if no everyone gets the same deal? If Motorola's license is transferrable (which many software licenses are not) then I would expect to see Oracle try to block the sale, or work to revoke Motorola's Java license (that is IF the license would legalize any "patent violations" that may exist in Android).

Comment: Re:I don't think they are surrounded (Score 1) 311

by fidget42 (#37115326) Attached to: Analysis of Google's Motorola Acquisition
Unfortunately, your options are: 1) continue licensing your OS from your competitor and hope they don't screw you over, 2) license your OS from someone who isn't competing against you or 3) build your own OS.

IMHO, the current Android vendors will see their costs increase because they will now have an Android competitor that keeps their OS up to date. Their choices will be to either increase their costs or go to a stock OS. If everyone uses stock Android, the. Why would anyone use a phone that isn't made by Google? I know that Motorola won't technically be "Google" but that is how it will be seen.

The same is true for GoogleTV. Who will build one if they have to compete with Google itself?

Comment: Re:"arrogance"? (Score 1) 214

by fidget42 (#36966766) Attached to: What 'Consumerization of IT' Really Means For IT
The company for which I work is developing their plan for allowing people to use employee owned tablets and smart phones. Some of the requirements are that the device be kept locked and that they grant the company the ability to remote wipe it. I don't have any problem wth this requirement because I would want the device wiped anyway. There are other security related requirements, but that is just the cost of being able to use your phone/tablet.

Facebook Bans Google+ Ads 548

Posted by samzenpus
from the a-friends-list-too-far dept.
Barbara, not Barbie writes "Not content with making it hard for people to export their Facebook contacts to Google+, Facebook has now banned all ads from app developer Michael Lee Johnson, who ran an ad saying 'Add Michael to Google+.' Facebook sent him the following message: 'Your account has been disabled. All of your adverts have been stopped and should not be run again on the site under any circumstances. Generally, we disable an account if too many of its adverts violate our Terms of Use or Advertising guidelines. Unfortunately we cannot provide you with the specific violations that have been deemed abusive. Please review our Terms of Use and Advertising guidelines if you have any further questions.'"

"I may kid around about drugs, but really, I take them seriously." - Doctor Graper