Al Sutton wrote: > They alternative is what HTC, Nokia, etc. do, which is to base yourself > outside the US so you can sell fully functional units to anyone not in > the US and take part in discussions about any software/hardware concept > you want.
Agreed. While unfortunate, Google's policy is standard fare for many US-based tech firms, particularly larger ones (e.g., ones with in-house legal counsel). I've heard the same policy stated at a wide range of firms, mostly "name brands". > this is hardly the position a company that claims to be open should take. Open versus closed has little to do with it. Being a large target and a magnet for patent suits does. Of course, it would be lovely if a Google-sized enterprise would take a shot at getting some of these things declared unconstitutional through the courts, but we can't exactly blame them if they elect to eschew such a strategy. > it doesn't strike me as logical that a google android engineer is given an > incentive not to participate in discussions on a google android forum. You are welcome to petition your Congressperson, if applicable, to have the laws amended. Or, donate to a cause that tries to minimize the impact of software patents (e.g., EFF). -- Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) http://commonsware.com | http://twitter.com/commonsguy Android App Developer Books: http://commonsware.com/books.html --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" 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-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
