EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

Re:EU hits Google with second antitrust charge by kyrra on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @11:48AM (#11535285)

While the Fire Phone may not have done well, all the Amazon Fire products are Android based. This includes the Fire Phone, Fire Tablets, and Fire TV.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU hits Google with second antitrust charge by scholia on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @02:03PM (#11536380)

> all the Amazon Fire products are Android based

They are based on AOSP, but Amazon is expressly forbidden from using the Android name, and it can't use the Play store, so it's not really in the Android (TM) market.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU hits Google with second antitrust charge by wnevets on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @02:12PM (#11536456)

>but Amazon is expressly forbidden from using the Android name

source?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU hits Google with second antitrust charge by scholia on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @02:27PM (#11536602)

While the documentation itself is available to you under the Apache 2.0 license, note that proprietary trademarks and brand features are not included in that license. Google's trademarks and other brand features (including the Android stylized typeface logo) are not included in the license. https://source.android.com/license.html

Android is a proprietary trademark wholly owned by Google.

See also: Leverage over manufacturers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU hits Google with second antitrust charge by wnevets on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @03:50PM (#11537225)

maybe I'm dumb but I'm missing the part where Android is a proprietary trademark.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU hits Google with second antitrust charge by cdibona on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @05:06PM (#11537760)

The term Android is not trademarked. Even the bugdroid is released under a cc-attrib license. Funnily, the term 'droid' is trademarked and licensed by lucasfilm/disney mostly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU hits Google with second antitrust charge by scholia on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @10:39PM (#11539277)

> The term Android is not trademarked.

Google quote: "Android™ should have a trademark symbol the first time it appears in a creative."

Brand Guidelines http://developer.android.com/distribute/tools/promote/brand....

Yes, I do know who you are -- in fact, we have met -- but Google should not be using Android™ if it's not trademarked ;-)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU hits Google with second antitrust charge by cdibona on Sunday April 24, 2016 @12:17AM (#11558530)

I agree, obviously. Lemme look into it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU hits Google with second antitrust charge by cdibona on Sunday April 24, 2016 @12:29AM (#11558552)

Oh, derp, I was thinking of something else. That makes a lot more sense (that We'd trademark)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU hits Google with second antitrust charge by scholia on Monday April 25, 2016 @06:00PM (#11567720)

;-) No probs. Thanks for checking.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU hits Google with second antitrust charge by wnevets on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @05:45PM (#11537980)

I remember that being a thing when the droid phone was first launched.

[ Parent | on HN ]