>Every hard core business types we told about the ADC >said the same thing: "Sounds like Google just got >thousands of original ideas for free." >We see these as the same hardcore types who would >have envisioned and defined the ADC rules.
Hmmm, don't know what to tell you on this one. You mean that google wanted to get new ideas for them to use on their own projects? I'll give google the benefit of the doubt on this one. It does make sense for them to have included a clause saying that OHA memebers may be developing applications very similar to our own simply because it is always the same that multiple people will have the same idea. They want to protect themselves. Very few ideas are truely unique in my mind. There will be a lot of ideas that will be very similar but with a few twist. Since google says that you keep all intelectual rights then I take it to mean that that also means patent rights stay with you. If you are really worried about google or anybody stealing your idea then apply for a patent. If you do not have a patent you have no legal recourse anyway and anybody can still copy your idea as much as they want once you've gone public. I guess my point is this, you should protect your idea the same way that every other person does it, by applying for a patent. If you do not apply for a patent then it is your own fault that your idea got stollen. Nobody in their right mind would think that their idea would not get stollen or copied if they don't put some legal measures to protect it. On May 7, 2:55 am, gwatch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And you did so well constructively partitioning my points > into separate emails before you went all hyperbole. > > I'm not a blogger or journalist. > > Every hard core business types we told about the ADC > said the same thing: "Sounds like Google just got > thousands of original ideas for free." > We see these as the same hardcore types who would > have envisioned and defined the ADC rules. > > /GW > > On May 6, 8:27 pm, Incognito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Nice one! Although, from his tone it sounded as if he were one of > > those bloggers getting ready to write a story of lies,deception, and > > cospiracy. > > > On May 6, 11:17 pm, David Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Not getting any server hits? :-) > > > > David > > > > On May 6, 2008, at 8:38 PM, Google Watch wrote: > > > > > Is the Android Challenge legit or an elaborate form of phishing, > > > > or even an outright scam of sorts? > > > > > It seems that the challenge has a few glaring problems: > > > > 1) The rules favor teams and/or individuals with financial > > > > backing or resources. > > > > The Challenge is scored in 4 areas. I suggest that Originality > > > > and Indispensibility are areas that favor contributors equally > > > > whether they are poor individuals or well funded teams. > > > > However "Effective Use of the Android Platform" and > > > > "Polish and Appeal" penalize those with limited financial > > > > resources. These qualities require more time to implement > > > > thereby favoring those who could spend more time on the > > > > challenge than those who responded to the challenge > > > > in the "Willy Wonka" spirit (believing all had a chance) > > > > and had to work on the challenge in their spare time. > > > > > 2) Google discontinued support for the Challenge users > > > > while continuing to support OHA and other stakeholders > > > > (e.g., device manufacturers, MIT) thereby marginalizing/ > > > > under supporting the Challenge members. > > > > Using the Android platform, which > > > > despite being Linux and Java, is no picnic or walk in the park. > > > > The processing model is *different* (and I'll question it's necessity > > > > on a Linux platform in another post), the SDK has bugs, the > > > > documentation has inconsistencies (e.g., look at the various > > > > places where TableLayout and table row are documented), > > > > pieces of the SDK were missing (e.g., BT, etc.) and so on. > > > > And while independents were toiling away trying to slog through > > > > the Android'isms and bugs, Google was actively supporting members > > > > of the OHA (are they really on the same SDK version as we are?) > > > > Are all submitters *really* isolated from those who had more > > > > inside information? Access to the source? > > > > > 3) Participants who fail to win in round 1 stand to lose even more. > > > > When you made your submission you agreed that if Google > > > > or any of the Judges developed your idea you had no recourse. > > > > What if Google/Judges never had the idea before you submitted it? > > > > Had not yet visualized it on the Android platform before the > > > > entries were submitted? Do you think you can get your idea to > > > > market faster than the multi-billion dollar Google juggernaut? > > > > In it's most perverse form isn't it all really a way for Google > > > > to potentially get 1700+ original ideas for which they only > > > > need to pay for 50? > > > > > /GW > > > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. > > > > Try it now.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Challenge" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-challenge?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
