Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Well that validates the 'weasel word' disclaime (Score 3, Interesting) 180

Google et al. said something, IIRC, like 'we do not collect and pass on any info to the NSA'. Technically true, but also completely irrelevant to whether or not the NSA was actually collecting data.

They didn't mention the NSA: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.html That post is unequivocal, and is in direct contradiction to statements by the post like:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court does not review any individual collection request.

and

The FBI uses government equipment on private company property to retrieve matching information from a participating company

Which directly contradicts a statement here: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/google-uses-secure-ftp-to-feds/ Unfortunately, all such statements in the Post's article aren't on the slides; they are the Post's annotations on the slides, and the author doesn't provide any evidence to support them. Take from that what you will.

Comment Re:Microsoft (Score 1) 661

And care to link some of those anti-google and anti-apple marketing or patent trolling Microsoft is doing? Because they are not.

Uh, what? It's pretty easy to find these: http://www.i-comp.org/ (Microsoft funded, run by Burson-Marsteller of the facebook fiasco.). "When evil needs public relations, evil has Burson-Marsteller on speed-dial." - Rachel Maddow

Comment Re:Yet more FUD (Score 2) 154

Why does slashdot keep posting [INSERT-PERSON-AGAINST-COMPANY-X] inane anti-[INSERT-COMPANY-X-PRODUCT] ramblings? Surely if there is such a looming threat, someone besides a repeatedly discredited hack has to be writing about it.

All fans of company X and their products, please copy and store for future use. You're welcome.

Now that you're done with a sarcastic response, perhaps you'd actually like to respond to the issue. Florian Muller has, in the last week alone, tried to scare up a bogus "serious Linux copyright threat" and got roundly slapped down as inane. He clearly no understanding of copyright law, patent law, Linux or Andriod. Why slashdot keeps posting his blog as if he was an expert on these is baffling.

Android

37 Android Patent Lawsuits 154

An anonymous reader writes "37 lawsuits have been filed against Android in a little more than a year, the latest one of them being Microsoft's lawsuit against Barnes & Noble, Foxconn and Inventec. ReadWriteWeb says 'the number of patent lawsuits related to the Android operating system is unprecedented' and shows an infographic that is also available on Twitpic and as a PDF file, on Scribd. The first two suits were filed in March 2010 by Apple and MobileMedia against HTC. The original source of the chart, the FOSS Patents blog, says that Android's market share is only one factor, other reasons being that Google's patent portfolio is 'far too weak for what's undertaken in connection with Android'; that Google doesn't do 'inbound licensing' from trolls; and that Google tends to ignore patent issues because Google itself is rarely sued: in most of these cases, Android device makers are under attack."
Android

Who's Behind the Google-Linux License Ruckus? 241

jfruhlinger writes "Yesterday, news broke that Android might have a Linux copyright problem, which would be big trouble for Google, already locked in an IP struggle with Oracle over the mobile platform. Blogger Brian Proffitt looks deeper into the alleged violations. He notes that, while it's possible that Google's on shaky ground, the motivations behind the news release are murky: the lawyer who outlined the violation is an ex-Microsoft hand, and the news was widely propagated by gadfly Florian Mueller, who's tangled with Google over patent issues in the past. Moreover, the alleged violations are in header files, and it's not clear that those are copyrightable; if they are, no actual copyright holders have come forward to complain."
Android

Does Android Have a Linux Copyright Problem? 292

An anonymous reader writes "TheRegister says Google's attempt to purge copyright from header files has put mobile developers at risk of being forced to reveal their own source code, according to legal experts. This time it's not patents or Android's reinterpretation of Java that's causing problems, but the Linux code that compiles down into Android itself. The discussion started with a Huffington Post article by IP lawyer Edward Naughton, who has serious doubts about Google's approach to the Linux kernel header files. He in turn links to copyright law professor Ray Nimmer's blog post on disclosure risks on copyleft platforms. And IP blogger Florian Mueller believes Google faces a serious Linux copyright issue."

Comment A better source... (Score 3, Informative) 122

Here's a better dissection of Google's letter: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110216210828960

Some choice parts excluded from the OP's articles:

> materials identified by Oracle as infringing in fact created by a third party and released into the public domain

> the only two files allegedly containing "copied" code were created by Google and provided to Oracle for use in open source releases of Java

Comment Re:I agree (Score 2) 596

Except Google did offer real searches where they thought they were the deciding factor: "torsoraphy". The "Bing String" showed that Microsoft's algorithm would republish Google's search results as their own. There's no way outside of reviewing Bing's algorithm and logs how many real search results are "powered by Google".

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't steal; thou'lt never thus compete successfully in business. Cheat. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...