Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Android The Courts

Antitrust Case Against Google Thrown Out of SF Court 62

Mark Wilson (3799011) writes "Just a few days ago Google was threatened with legal action for anti-competitive behavior in Russia. While we don't yet know if that will amount to anything, there has been some better news for the search giant in the US. A San Francisco judge dismissed a case brought against the firm by two men who thought the inclusion of Google services in Android pushed up the prices of their handsets."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Antitrust Case Against Google Thrown Out of SF Court

Comments Filter:
  • by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Saturday February 21, 2015 @03:22PM (#49101597)

    Because Google provides Android free of charge (including a free device approval process) under the model that they'll make money back from people using their services.

    • Antitrust case isn't about cost, but about abusing of monopoly power. In the US, it's okay to have monopoly power, but it's not okay to abuse it. I think if the plaintiff truly believe that unbundle google serach would have the phone cost less. then I think everyone should sue Apple instead. It would have make an easier win. I believe if Apple were to have iOS unbundle with other Apple services, or even possible to put on devices made by other manufacturers, wouldn't those phone be cheaper? A hell lots

      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        I think if the plaintiff truly believe that unbundle google serach would have the phone cost less. then I think everyone should sue Apple instead. It would have make an easier win.

        Except Google pays Apple a few tens of millions of dollars each year to have iOS use Google by default.

        Unbundling Google is like unbundling the crapware on a new PC - you're removing the subsidy that's making the stuff cheaper in the end, so you're actually likely going to pay more.

        • Except Google pays Apple a few tens of millions of dollars each year to have iOS use Google by default.

          Unbundling Google is like unbundling the crapware on a new PC - you're removing the subsidy that's making the stuff cheaper in the end, so you're actually likely going to pay more.

          I didn't say suing Apple for bundling Google search in the iOS but rather for bundling Apple services into iOS.

  • by Todd Knarr ( 15451 ) on Saturday February 21, 2015 @06:49PM (#49102485) Homepage

    Certainly having those services included increased the price of the handset. But the same could be said for any of the software the carriers include on their phones (and usually prevent you from removing). Ditto even for hardware, having a camera or WiFi on the phone increases the price of the handset.

    None of which matters. The question in an antitrust case isn't whether it increased the price, it's whether Google used it's control of the Android OS to force vendors to include other Google services as a condition of using Android at all. And the answer to that question is no, Google doesn't do that. Amazon's phone runs Android without having Google services pre-installed (although you can install them yourself). The Kindles are a really good example, they run Android without any of the Google stuff at all and there isn't even any way of installing the Google services. Several Chinese companies make Android phones without Google services. I even have that with my Galaxy S4: I flashed it with CyanogenMod, so I start out without any of the Google apps or services and have to bootstrap an installation of them myself if I want them. The only downside is that if you don't accept Google's terms for officially using Google Play Services and their apps, you can't use the related trademarks for much except referring to those apps. So no, on antitrust grounds Google's OK because they simply aren't using their monopoly on Android (although technically they don't even have a monopoly, see CyanogenMod and AOSP) to force other Google services on manufacturers, carriers or users. In fact Google isn't even being as strict as they could be legally. They'd be within their rights to deny any use of the Google services and apps except where the vendor had the full license, but Google doesn't go that far because they realize it'd be a) stupid because it would annoy users who'd then shy away from Google completely and b) not in their best interests because it'd prevent Google customers from using Google services which would reduce Google's revenue. So all they do is say "You want to use our logos and brands and have access to all the official tools? You need to take our package. Otherwise, you'll have to install things by hand like anybody else." (well, not completely by hand since once they've done it once they can just clone the firmware image and flash it straight into the phones).

    • Certainly having those services included increased the price of the handset. But the same could be said for any of the software the carriers include on their phones (and usually prevent you from removing).

      How? If you charge nothing for the creation of something hoping to recoup the cost through end user use then how does it increase the price of the handset? The only time that applies is with vendor modifications where the development cost is part of the device, not with 3rd party installs that don't change the price for the end user.

  • So, now Google counter sues both complainants and the Lawyer for failure to do due diligence prior to filing the lawsuit?
  • I mean, I think the plaintiff trying to sue Google Android but paint the case as suing Android. At best, the plaintiff could sue the handset maker. We know custom ROMS exist back then. It's not like Google forbid anyone to make an android handset w/o putting any Google services. Amazon did it, as well as B&N. Failed aside, they were phones & tablets that used Android w/o any of the build in Google services and they could have use other search engine as default. The successful market of the And

COMPASS [for the CDC-6000 series] is the sort of assembler one expects from a corporation whose president codes in octal. -- J.N. Gray

Working...