It would be nice if we could also compare this to Apples T&C, to see if this really is a deterrent or not to selling. I mean if they had a similiar T&C but yet lots of devs, it shows that it's not an issue that comes up that often.
-niko On Nov 11, 10:30 am, Fred Grott <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah it needs work to clear up items.... > > I expect we will see a revision shortly.. > > Fred Grott > Android Mobile > Developerhttp://mobilebytes.wordpress.com/<http://mobilebytes.wikidot.com/> > Chat Google Talk: fred.grott Skype: fred.grott > Contact Me [image: Linkedin] <http://www.linkedin.com/in/shareme> [image: > Twitter] <http://twitter.com/sharemefg> > > --- @ WiseStamp Signature <http://www.wisestamp.com/email-install>. Get it > now <http://www.wisestamp.com/email-install> > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Mark Murphy <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Al Sutton wrote: > > > Yup, some good some bad, and I may not have caught all of them. My > > > comments are my understanding, but I'm not a lawyer so you shouldn't go > > > just off my understanding of the changes. > > > Do you know of a hosted edition of the former version of the Agreement? > > I hunted but couldn't find one. > > > > The four sections cover removing your app from market and telling Google > > > you were protecting yourself because of *allegations* (yes, not claims > > > backed by a court ruling, just allegations) of infringement of > > > Intellectual property, defamation, violation of publicity or privacy, or > > > breaching the law. > > > > So if I went to a developer and said "I've just played your game and it > > > breaches my copyright" (as happened to some t*tris like games), you get > > > left with a choice; Keep the app up and run the risk of a lawsuit, or > > > take the app down and risk having to refund your last years worth of > > sales. > > > Their argument, reading more into section 7.1, is that by invoking one > > of those four allegation/infringement claims, is that they are yanking > > the app from the Market totally, meaning those who bought it cannot > > download it again (e.g., had to hard-reset their device). Hence, even if > > Google doesn't apply a proactive "kill switch", some users would be > > affected. > > > It all comes down to the implementation of "at Google's request" for the > > refund. If the refund is *only* for those users who are affected by that > > problem, this clause isn't a big deal -- there's only going to be so > > many affected people and only a portion of those will kvetch enough to > > get Google's attention. If, on the other hand, they demand a blanket > > refund on all apps sold, this clause will be hell. > > > > This is very sketchy because what is "applicable law"?, do you have to > > > comply with the laws of every country in which Google Market sells?, Do > > > you have to comply with US law where Google has it's HQ (and thus you're > > > subject to their crack-pot patent laws)?, so if you write the app in the > > > UK, and you're a UK developer, you list it on Googles Market and a US > > > developer says "that infringes my US-only patent", you could be looking > > > at refunding a years worth of sales. > > > This is certainly more troublesome. I detest agreements that use > > open-ended language like "applicable law". All we need is some remote > > village to pass a rule saying that the Button widget is illegal, and > > we're potentially screwed. > > > > 15.7 States that " You and Google agree to submit to the exclusive > > > jurisdiction of the courts located within the county of Santa Clara, > > > California to resolve any legal matter arising from this Agreement." so > > > does this mean that all developers will be signing up to being bound by > > > US law? > > > This is pretty standard fare. Most legal agreements set up the venue for > > legal jurisdiction. Every contract I put together has it set for > > Pennsylvania (USA), for example. > > > Now, I take a somewhat blasé attitude because I plan on avoiding Android > > Market like the plague as a publisher, except in very specific > > circumstances. > > > -- > > Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) > >http://commonsware.com|http://twitter.com/commonsguy > > > _The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development_ Version 2.8 > > Available! > > > -- > > > 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]<android-discuss%2Bunsubscribe@ > > googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=. -- 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=.
