ie8 fix
madison

IT Project Failures

Michael Krigsman
Home / News & Blogs / IT Project Failures

Android kill switch: Is Google evil?

By | October 16, 2008, 6:03am PDT

Summary: Google’s new Android phone includes a “kill switch,” allowing the company to delete applications purchased from the Android Market. I don’t trust Google,

Android kill switch: Is Google evil?

Google’s new Android phone includes a “kill switch,” allowing the company to delete applications users purchase from the Android Market. Frankly, I don’t trust Google’s intentions.

Computer World describes the situation:

In the Android Market terms of service, Google expressly says that it might remotely remove an application from user phones. “Google may discover a product that violates the developer distribution agreement … in such an instance, Google retains the right to remotely remove those applications from your device at its sole discretion,” the terms, linked to from the phone, read.

Some Google users, including ZDNet’s Christopher Dawson, call the company a friend; others question whether Google lives up to its “do no evil” corporate mantra. For example, Dennis Howlett blogged about Google’s original license (which they later modified) for its Chrome browser:

[Y]ou give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services.

Dennis believes this license provision represents:

a cynical disregard for IP rights [that] is dangerous because it strikes directly at the heart of what corporations consider confidential.

Supporting this position, when I wrote “Google is NOT your friend,” one commenter said:

Chrome was developed to ensure that user data would still be available for Google to use. Since upcoming browsers are now going to incorporate stronger privacy protection that limits Google’s access to these data, they decided to roll out a half-baked browser…. Google is definitely NOT you friend.

Although the iPhone also includes a software kill switch, which also sucks, Apple isn’t amassing enormous concentrations of personal data. Google’s invasive threat to personal privacy, on other hand, grows day by day.

If the remote kill switch is so important, why doesn’t the Blackberry have one? Apparently, Google (and Apple) just love super-user powers.

Of course, Google would never use those powers for evil purposes. Or would they?

[Image via grokdotcom.]

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “IT Project Failures”

Topics

Google Inc., Telecom & Utilities, Michael Krigsman, Computer World, Dennis, Web Browsers, Handhelds, Internet, Hardware

Michael Krigsman is a recognized authority on the causes and prevention of IT failures.

Disclosure

Michael Krigsman

Michael Krigsman writes and speaks about technology in a manner that most observers consider to be fair and balanced. Michael believes that writing about IT failures, which often have complex causes, creates a unique obligation to be reasonable and accurate in both reporting and analysis.

Michael maintains active personal and professional relationships with enterprise technology buyers, vendors, analyst firms (or individual analysts), consultants, and system integrators. As CEO of Asuret, Michael sells and delivers paid services to members of these same groups.

Vendors regularly reimburse Michael's out-of-pocket travel expenses to attend industry conferences and events. Conference organizers frequently waive entry fees when Michael attends industry events. Michael often speaks at industry conferences and events.

He is a member of the Enterprise Irregulars, a loose association of consultants, investors, industry representatives, analysts, and users of enterprise software.

For daily updates on Michael's activities, follow him on Twitter.

Biography

Michael Krigsman

Michael Krigsman is CEO of Asuret, Inc., a consulting company dedicated to reducing technology implementation failures. Asuret's suite of software tools improve the success rate of enterprise software deployments by quantifying and measuring governance issues that cause most project failures. Michael led the research effort underlying Asuret's model of collective intelligence and its practical application to reducing IT failures in consulting environments. He is a recognized authority on the causes and prevention of IT failures and is frequently quoted in the press on IT project and related CIO issues. He is considered an enterprise software industry "influencer" and provides advice to technology buyers, vendors, and services firms.

Previously, Michael served as CEO of Cambridge Publications, which develops tools and processes for software implementations and related business practice automation projects. Michael has been involved with hundreds of software development projects, for companies ranging from small startups to Fortune 500 organizations. Michael graduated with an M.B.A. from Boston University and a B.A. from Bard College. He is a Board member of the America's Cup Hall of Fame and the Herreshoff Marine Museum in Bristol, RI.

98
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

The ears are deaf, I already voiced this opinion... nt
T1Oracle 21st Oct 2008
nt
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
Open Source???
No_Ax_to_Grind 16th Oct 2008
Doesn't sound much like open source
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, it IS open source. Manufacturers (or individuals) are free to bypass
DonnieBoy 16th Oct 2008
the Google app store, and publishing mechanisms. They can replace it with their own store, and their own publishing tools that allow restricted use copyrighted material to be published.
0 Votes
+ -
Richard Stallman.
Joe_Raby 16th Oct 2008
Just because something is open-source doesn't mean the developers don't have ulterior motives for releasing it. Companies profit (and profit BIG) on open-source software.

Take OpenDNS for instance - it collects ad revenue because it forwards improper DNS lookups to Yahoo's search page.

Even Apple hides behind the BSD license for Unix because they can profit off of it. If they based OS X on the GPL, they'd never be able to, because unlike the BSD license, the GPL says you can't link open-source code with non-open-source code. That's the way that Apple can restrict the license for the closed-source, patented bits of code in OS X.

Richard Stallman even collects 5-figure monetary bonuses at expensive seminars and lectures. Doing what? Advocating the use of 100% free and open-source software.

What ends up is that the GPL is actually MORE restrictive on how developers can release their product than the BSD, in that with the BSD, the developers can put their own restrictions on the code even if it's based on earlier, less-restrictive derivative source material.

That, my friend, is why open source software is a scam.
0 Votes
+ -
No scam, we have Linux, Apache, MySQL, PostgreSQL, SAMBA, Python, PHP, Ruby
DonnieBoy 16th Oct 2008
. . . . and too many to mention. that are true open source, NO scam. Sure, as with anything, there are scammers.

And, we will withhold judgment on Android, and keep their feet to the fire, but, from all indications, Android is the real thing, and will be completely open.
0 Votes
+ -
Read before you type
Joe_Raby 16th Oct 2008
"And, we will withhold judgment on Android, and keep their feet to the fire, but, from all indications, Android is the real thing, and will be completely open."

Get your gavel out then.

Android is based on a Linux kernel, so Linux licensing still applies. Many parts of the SDK are even protected by the Apache license.

The EULA for the Android SDK still has many restrictions. Not every part of the SDK is open-source either, sorry to say.

One of the FAQ's even says that Android applications are written in Java, also covered by the Apache license.

Whether the licensing model is Apache, GPL, or BSD, every single model either puts restrictions in place, or allows the developer to. That's why the open-source concept is a made up of a house of cards.
0 Votes
+ -
Many of the open source licences are more like a granting of rights, where
DonnieBoy 16th Oct 2008
you only are required to mention the source. Others, like the GPL are just the "share and share alike" concept, where you get the use of free software, the least you can do is release your improvements under the same license.

So, no house of cards, you really can use Apache and do about whatever you want with it. You really can use the Linux kernel and make whatever modifications you want - you only have to make your modifications public if you want to distribute your changes.

These open source projects are for real! The deliver a ton of value. This is share and share alike at its best.
0 Votes
+ -
Not exactly
Joe_Raby 16th Oct 2008
"the least you can do is release your improvements under the same license."

No, that's the MOST you can do. Under the GPL, derivatives have to be released with the same rights as the originating source. You can't make it more restrictive. This is how commercialism in open-source software fails. If I take some GPL code and want to make a commercial product, I can't.

That makes it more restrictive for a developer.

Under the BSD, I can. I can also further restrict the source code under the BSD, and link it to closed-source code and sell it.

That also makes it more restrictive for a developer - one that wants to make a derivative work.

Real open-source software doesn't exist under any of the major licensing schemes. It's the software that's made by individuals with the terms "Here's the code. I don't hold any copyrights or patents on it. Do whatever you like with it - I don't care."

When a committee comes up with a licensing scheme on code, it's no longer "open".
0 Votes
+ -
Wow, you really DO mean public domain...
bmerc 16th Oct 2008
"Here's the code. I don't hold any copyrights or patents on it. Do whatever you like with it - I don't care."

That's public domain software. How on earth can you possibly recommend public domain software as a business model?
0 Votes
+ -
So, granting the right to do whatever you want with the source code
DonnieBoy 16th Oct 2008
is NOT enough? The requirement to only give the credit is too much???

Share and share alike is an evil human characteristic???

You are grasping at straws over your dislike of people cooperating on the development of software.
0 Votes
+ -
@bmerc
Joe_Raby 16th Oct 2008
"How on earth can you possibly recommend public domain software as a business model?"

You can't. Period.

"Open-source code" and "free software" (as Stallman defines it, even though the GPL disagrees with him) are not mutually inclusive.
0 Votes
+ -
@DonnieBoy
Joe_Raby 16th Oct 2008
You missed the whole point about licensing.

There are *many* things you can't do with source code under the GPL.

Also, under the BSD license, there are *many* restrictions a developer can put in place on a derivative work, making it difficult for another developer to modify a derivative work based on a previous open design. I can also commercialize a previously-free design.

They are all just a set of restrictions, much in the same way as licensing schemes for closed-source software.

I guess if Stallman actually put his money where his mouth was, he'd obliterate the GPL.

There's also a reason why companies that previously licensed under GPLv2 won't release code under v3 - because it's even more restrictive.

The fundamentals of open-source software were about releasing original software code into the public domain without restrictions. NONE! When they came up with these licensing schemes, they started saying "Here's the source code out in the open, but you can't do [this] with it, you can't do [this] with it, you can't do [that] with it...."
0 Votes
+ -
Joe_Raby: You complain that one license allows closed derivative works
DonnieBoy 16th Oct 2008
and the the other requires derivative works (that are distributed) to be public under the same license.

I think what you really HATE is that people are actually getting together and cooperating on software development and creating some very amazing projects, that are, once again, free for all to use.

And, if people are going to get together and cooperate, wouldn't it make sense to have some ground rules?
0 Votes
+ -
@DonnieBoy
Joe_Raby 16th Oct 2008
"I think what you really HATE is that people are actually getting together and cooperating on software development and creating some very amazing projects, that are, once again, free for all to use."

You completely miss the point entirely. What I hate is that people assume that GPL and BSD licensed software allows people to do whatever they want with the code. They can't.

And by the way, just because people collaborate on developing open source software doesn't mean they have to release it as free or open. That's just being naive.

OSS !== free
0 Votes
+ -
Joe_Raby: In the case of BSD, MIT, Apache, you really CAN do whatever you
DonnieBoy 16th Oct 2008
want with the code. Only the tiny little requirement to give the people credit for their work.

Then you claim that the ramifications of this freedom are bad.

The GPL fixes one ramification that YOU claim is bad and that is that you have to make you make your changes public if you distribute them. And you do not like that either.

So, you are complaining about no restrictions, in that people can do whatever they want, including keep changes private, and you complain about any extra rule to prohibit such actions.

But, in any case, the requirements are minor, and there are many great projects out there.

Really, humans organizing and doing things together for the common good is one of the great things that human beings do.

You probably hate things like city parks too!!
0 Votes
+ -
Did you really just say this?
bmerc 16th Oct 2008
"Whether the licensing model is Apache, GPL, or BSD, every single model either puts restrictions in place, or allows the developer to."

Well no shyte, Sherlock. Please indicate any NON open source license that does not do the exact same thing?
No, don't bother, because you can't, and you know it. Any claim that open source licenses are restrictive and therefore you should avoid open source ignores the fact that proprietary licenses are AT LEAST AS RESTRICTIVE IF NOT MORE.

So what is your proposed solution to this quandary? Eliminate all copyright and make all software public domain? Because that is the ONLY possible way to avoid licensing.
0 Votes
+ -
That's what's wrong with Richard Stallman's argument
Joe_Raby 16th Oct 2008
"Eliminate all copyright and make all software public domain? Because that is the ONLY possible way to avoid licensing."

Yup. That's what Richard Stallman says, but the GPL contradicts him. The GPL even respects copyright, which is pointless in the open-source world since software patents are frowned upon.

I can take code from a GPL-licensed app, modify it, and release it. I don't have to give credit to the originating developer because I can say I came up with the code from scratch. If it's modified, it's not breaking copyright. If the originating developer can't patent their work, I can republish under a commercial license and sell it without any legal recourse.

So what's stopping me from releasing a Linux, Apache, or some other clone under my own commercial closed-source license? Nothing.

*That's why current open-source software licensing doesn't work.*

If you haven't noticed already, we live in a Capitalist society. People can't live off good intentions, and charitable software development. Open-source licensing is Communism for software distribution.
0 Votes
+ -
Bullshyte...
Linux User 147560 16th Oct 2008
"I can take code from a GPL-licensed app, modify it, and release it. I don't have to give credit to the originating developer because I can say I came up with the code from scratch. If it's modified, it's not breaking copyright. If the originating developer can't patent their work, I can republish under a commercial license and sell it without any legal recourse."

Wrong again, there is this little thing called a time stamp and record of creation. It would be a simple matter for an original author to prove fraud on your part. Game over you pay the author damages.


"So what's stopping me from releasing a Linux, Apache, or some other clone under my own commercial closed-source license? Nothing."

Actually a lot... all it takes is one person to get wind of it or even suspect you had done so and issue a court order for you to provide proof you do not have GPL code. If you do... you will be paying. If you don't then life goes on.

"If you haven't noticed already, we live in a Capitalist society. People can't live off good intentions, and charitable software development. Open-source licensing is Communism for software distribution."

When you compare a development model to a political methodology you lose.
0 Votes
+ -
Bullshyte is your argument
Joe_Raby 16th Oct 2008
"Wrong again, there is this little thing called a time stamp and record of creation. It would be a simple matter for an original author to prove fraud on your part. Game over you pay the author damages."

Sorry, but that's easily modifiable. If it's compiled code, those timestamps go bye-bye too. They don't have a case, so you can countersue for damage to your reputation.

"all it takes is one person to get wind of it or even suspect you had done so and issue a court order for you to provide proof you do not have GPL code. If you do... you will be paying. If you don't then life goes on."

Wrong. If it's modified, they'd have to provide a software patent to say that it infringes on how their software works. Under the GPL, they can't do that, so under law, they don't have a case against you. I've worked with software patent lawyers before, so I know the wording of the WIPO law.

"When you compare a development model to a political methodology you lose."

You already lost your credibility to argue with a name like that.
0 Votes
+ -
Your understanding of Copyright Law and licenses is flawed.
B.O.F.H. 16th Oct 2008
Yup. That's what Richard Stallman says, but the GPL contradicts him. The GPL even respects copyright, which is pointless in the open-source world since software patents are frowned upon.

I can take code from a GPL-licensed app, modify it, and release it. I don't have to give credit to the originating developer because I can say I came up with the code from scratch. If it's modified, it's not breaking copyright. If the originating developer can't patent their work, I can republish under a commercial license and sell it without any legal recourse.

Copyright protects written material (books, code, algorithms, etc.), patents protect ideas and methodologies. The GPL is a license to use Copyrighted works in your applications, that is all it does. Your understanding of Copyright Law (and Intellectual Property Laws) is flawed.

So what's stopping me from releasing a Linux, Apache, or some other clone under my own commercial closed-source license? Nothing.

Actually, you are restricted by Copyright Law on this (also covered by WIPO and most countries intellectual property laws. It is called Copyright infringement and if you lose in court, it will cost you! This has been tested in both Germany and the United States.
0 Votes
+ -
Holy Mackerel
none none Updated - 16th Oct 2008
That post is wrong on so many levels. Where do I even begin?

The GPL even respects copyright, which is pointless in the open-source world since software patents are frowned upon.

This is not inconsistent. The GPL has no choice but to respect copyright. If you write code, it's copyrighted automatically. That's the law. No mechanism even exists to uncopyright it.

Software patents are not the law. Software patents were created by a court. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, it's simply not possible to create a software work without violating a patent.


I can take code from a GPL-licensed app, modify it, and release it.

Yes.


I don't have to give credit to the originating developer because I can say I came up with the code from scratch.

No. You can make the claim, but you are as likely to prevail as if you claimed to have come up with In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida from scratch.


If it's modified, it's not breaking copyright.

No. If that was true, one could publish Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by changing all location references to Atlantic City. Ask Vanilla Ice about modifying something without breaking copyright.


If the originating developer can't patent their work, I can republish under a commercial license and sell it without any legal recourse.

Think of your favorite movie. Is it patented? No, of course it's not patented. Do you seriously think the studio would have no recourse if you republished it? Why don't you try it and find out?


So what's stopping me from releasing a Linux, Apache, or some other clone under my own commercial closed-source license? Nothing.

No. Copyright law prevents you.

You are blathering about something you clearly are unfamiliar with.









happy
0 Votes
+ -
How so?
storm14k 16th Oct 2008
Either the source is open (you can view it) or its not. Or are you worrying about philosophies?
0 Votes
+ -
Just ask
Joe_Raby 16th Oct 2008
If you really think open-source software is anything less than a philosophy, you should ask some industry experts.

If source code is viewable, but you can't (read: not allowed to) do anything with it, it might as well be closed.
0 Votes
+ -
You need to read the open source definition. If you can not get the source
DonnieBoy Updated - 16th Oct 2008
code, modify it, and redistribute it, it is NOT open source.

Read the definition here:

http://opensource.org/docs/osd
0 Votes
+ -
Read before you type
Joe_Raby 16th Oct 2008
That's only the OSI's definition. Many companies don't abide by those rules.
0 Votes
+ -
Sure, anybody can do something immoral that is not technically illegal. But
DonnieBoy 16th Oct 2008
as a minimum, you should check to make sure the license is approved by the OSI. Then you might like it to be of the type "share and share alike". But, yes, there can be shady companies that call themselves open source and do shady things. That is true with about any type of company though.

But for the real deal, look at these projects: Linux, Apache and all of the projects they sponsor, all of the GNU sponsored projects. MySQL, PostgreSQL, Python, PHP, Ruby, Perl, . . . and too many more to mention.
0 Votes
+ -
You mean Google
Joe_Raby 16th Oct 2008
"But, yes, there can be shady companies that call themselves open source and do shady things."

Google holds many patents and practises defeating personal privacy on a day-by-day basis. Google AdSense, anyone?

Hence my original argument against Android. It isn't free or open, except maybe to Google.
0 Votes
+ -
Let's rephrase that argument in the context of laws
bmerc 16th Oct 2008
"That's only Congress' definition. Many individuals don't abide by those laws."

Well whoopie, so people break rules? And this therefore means that no rules should ever exist? Are you really a pure anarchist, who believes in the complete elimination of all governments and laws? Because that is the ONLY position one can take and be consistent with this opinion.
0 Votes
+ -
Apples and oranges
Joe_Raby 16th Oct 2008
This isn't a LAW, it's a RULE.

There's a difference. If you can't get around that, then this conversation is lost.

You can't say is "free and open" and start putting restrictions on how it is to be. Sorry but you should honestly look up those definitions in the dictionary.
0 Votes
+ -
Then you are in violation of law...
Linux User 147560 16th Oct 2008
0 Votes
+ -
It's not law
Joe_Raby 16th Oct 2008
What world do you live in where organizations make up laws?
0 Votes
+ -
to Joe_Raby
Third of Five 17th Oct 2008
Well, if they're claiming to be operating under a license that contains alterations to the code among its terms, they'd be operating under breach of contract if they didn't include it. Of course, this would be under civil law, but I believe there is precedent for the violation of an open-source license as breach of contract.
0 Votes
+ -
Open source software is what it is....
storm14k 16th Oct 2008
....software that allows you to see the source. What you may be referring to is the software license. Now in terms of this Google kill switch....does their license require that you not tamper with the kill switch? If not then whats the problem?
0 Votes
+ -
It has nothing to do with the coding type.
TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827 16th Oct 2008
I can use (insert Windows development tools) and make a closed source program that allows connection and purchase of music from iTunes. I can also create the same using only open source tools. Both are illegal, the coding type doesn't matter.

OK, too subtle? I create a closed source app that does GPS. I then create the same using open source. I release it to the Android store. Little known, I have put a wrapper around Tom-Tom's software, complete rip off of that company. Is the Open Source version or the Closed Source version illegal?

TripleII
0 Votes
+ -
Well, we do need to hold Google's feet to the fire, but, a lot of the blame
DonnieBoy 16th Oct 2008
is the US legal system. Since Google will let anybody and everybody sell applications, somebody could upload an application that had somebody else's IP in it, and, once Google found out, they would be obligated to not only stop distribution, but retrieve the copies already sent out. And, there of course is the issue if an application did something devious like collect personal information and send it to a rogue site.

Google also needs to make sure that what you publish, you understand you have made public, and can not sue Google for making available on a website. Sure, the legal descriptions sound nasty, but it is just basically "do not publish things you do not want to make public". If you have copyrighted material, that you want to publish with restrictions, do NOT do it through Google. The free publishing through Google is only for things that that you do NOT wish to copyright or restrict.
0 Votes
+ -
Lots of excuses
No_Ax_to_Grind 16th Oct 2008
Every "Evil" company has them.
0 Votes
+ -
No excusea, just a reality of the US legal system. But, since it is open
DonnieBoy Updated - 16th Oct 2008
source, you are free to create your own version that bypasses the Google App Store, and the Google publishing mechanisms - WITHOUT THE GOOGLE EULA.
0 Votes
+ -
But Google is not evil
GuidingLight 16th Oct 2008
Apple is evil for placing a 'kill switch' in the iPhone as they are doing it to protect their income.

Google is great because they are placing a 'kill switch' in Android because they are protecting us from ourselves.

Do you not realize how dangerous it is to surf the web with someone else's search engine? happy
0 Votes
+ -
Or an application serving adds.
No_Ax_to_Grind 16th Oct 2008
Something Google absolutely isn't going to allow, unless of course they get a cut.
0 Votes
+ -
We do need to hold Gogle's feet to the fire. But, the only thing they will
DonnieBoy 16th Oct 2008
block is mallware, stolen IP, things that violate users privacy. If they block anything else, you can bet there will be a lot of bad press.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
What about Skype in China?
mkrigsman@... 16th Oct 2008
Skype was well-aware the Chinese had a hole into their program. Isn't that a similar issu?
0 Votes
+ -
Sure, that is why journalists are so important. Companies can do bad things
DonnieBoy 16th Oct 2008
With open source though, it is a lot harder for companies to do bad things.

But, in any place, please do continue to hold Google's feet to the fire over zapping applications and privacy. If they are zapping applications for any other reason than IP, mallware, or privacy issues we DO want to know.

And, we DO want them to rewrite the overzealous EULA sections.
0 Votes
+ -
Eplain how Google...
omdguy 16th Oct 2008
Knows the IP of others and whether it was stolen?

You are doing nothing more than making excuses for big brother and Google is becoming more Appleesque every day.

Pat
0 Votes
+ -
They're going to block themselves?
LiquidLearner 16th Oct 2008
Google loves to violate privacy. So if they stop apps that violate privacy...
0 Votes
+ -
Unlike Apple, there will be no restrictions on the applications submitted
DonnieBoy 16th Oct 2008
to the Google store, other than you can not have somebody else's IP, or copy personal information, etc.

If you do not like Google's app store, you do not have to use it.
0 Votes
+ -
Funny, every FUD spreader has them too... nt
T1Oracle 16th Oct 2008
nt
0 Votes
+ -
Well, that is obviously not the case
GuidingLight Updated - 16th Oct 2008
Since Google will let anybody and everybody sell applications

Or not, it would now appear. If somethig makes it way past Google's eye, like a search bar for a company other then Google, I would expect that would not meet Google's criteria of "open", thereby causing the application to be wiped from the phone.

And if it is "free and open", how is it Google maintains the sole ability to control it?

I never heard of anything like that in Windows Mobile.
0 Votes
+ -
The problem is that Google must be able to remove softare that has IP that
DonnieBoy 16th Oct 2008
was not authorized, and also anything that violates the privacy or laws in any way. That is part of the problem of having a completely open system where anybody can put their software on the app store. MS and Apple do not have this problem, as they tightly control applications that can be installed.

Also, on the things that people publish through Google, Google can not publish them through the free services if you want to claim copyright on them. If you want to claim copyrights, look for other ways to publish your material - that simple.
0 Votes
+ -
Uh, why? That is not Googles job.
No_Ax_to_Grind 16th Oct 2008
And they are not liable in any way. So why do they want control? Gee, maybe because they don't want advertizing competition. Yeah... Could be.
0 Votes
+ -
If Google distributes the applications, then, they are liable, if they do
DonnieBoy 16th Oct 2008
not immediately take down applications the violate others IP. Also, if there are problems with the applications, such as recording personal info, they also need to be able to take them down.

Now, end users will be able to install their own applications that Google has nothing to do with, and in that case, Google will not do anything and have no liability.

Really pretty simple.
0 Votes
+ -
I could be wrong
Badgered 16th Oct 2008
If Google distributes the applications, then, they are liable, if they do not immediately take down applications the violate others IP.

I could be wrong, but it would seem to me that it would be the programmer's liability.
0 Votes
+ -
The ears are deaf, I already voiced this opinion... nt
T1Oracle 21st Oct 2008
nt

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix