Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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

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) 311 311

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) 214 214

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.
Advertising

Facebook Bans Google+ Ads 548 548

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 have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated. -- Poul Anderson

Working...