What's different in the new Developer Distribution Agreement?

[Arron]

Did anyone notice anything big?

Additionally it tells you to go to this specific link to look at
Transaction Fee and it doesn't even work!
http://www.android.com/support/market/bin/answer.py?answer=112622

[Streets Of Boston]

I'm curious too.
Too much text to find the differences :)

[Mark Murphy]

Streets Of Boston wrote:
> I'm curious too.
> Too much text to find the differences :)

And archive.org doesn't have the old agreement.

I have set up a change monitor for this, in case of future mods:

http://www.changedetection.com/log/android/developer-distribution-agreement_log.html

--
Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy)
http://commonsware.com | http://twitter.com/commonsguy

Android Training in Germany, 18-22 January 2010: http://bignerdranch.com

[Craigo]

> Additionally it tells you to go to this specific link to look at Transaction Fee and it doesn't even work!

When I originally clicked on it, it worked. But yea, now it doesn't.

All it said was Google takes 30%, and then gave a simple example of a
$10 app, Google would take $3 and you would get $7.

[Maps.Huge.Info (Maps API Guru)]

It hardly matters if or what the differences are. You either agree to
it or use another market. In my extensive dealings with Google, their
agreements are rarely even subjects of controversy, so just agreeing
is usually ok.

-John Coryat

"Radar Now!"

"What Zip Code?"

[Al Sutton]

There are a lot of formatting changes which make it difficult to compare (e.g. Section 1 had a 1.1 & 1.2 in the old agreement and in the new one the 1.1 & 1.2 have been dropped) so doing a diff isn't easy.

One of the interesting things in the old agreement though is 14.1 which states;

"14.1 Google may make changes to this Agreement at any time by sending the Developer notice by email describing the modifications made...."

This is also present in the new agreement so the, as I understand it (and I'm not a lawyer), the changes can't be made binding until we receive an "emailing describing the modifications made".

Al.

--

* Looking for Android Apps? - Try http://andappstore.com/ *

======

Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the company number  6741909. 

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's subsidiaries.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to android...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=.

[Fred Grott]

Maybe that change helps them extend the Android Market to other geo-locations easier as far as non US law is concerned?

Fred Grott
Android Mobile Developer
http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com/

Chat Google Talk: fred.grott Skype: fred.grott

Contact Me

--- @ WiseStamp Signature. Get it now

[Al Sutton]

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.

*** Biggest problem - changes to 7.1 & 7.2 ***

In the new agreement 7.2 states;

"If you remove a Product from the Market pursuant to clauses (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) of this Section 7.1, and an end user purchased such Product within a year before the date of takedown, at Google’s request, you must refund to the affected end user all amounts paid by such end user for such affected Product, less the portion of the Transaction Fee specifically allocated to the credit card/payment processing for the associated transaction."

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.

And in 7.2 the one year of sales rule pops up again;

"In the event that your Product is involuntarily removed because it is defective, malicious, infringes intellectual property rights of another person, defames, violates a third party’s right of publicity or privacy, or does not comply with applicable law, and an end user purchased such Product within a year before the date of takedown,:(i) you must refund to Google, all amounts received, plus any associated fees (i.e. chargebacks and payment transaction fees), and (ii) Google may, at its sole discretion, withhold from your future sales the amount in subsection (i) above. "

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.

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?

** Other stuff **

There's also some changes to the re-install rules in 3.6, a change to a URL in 4.9, they've added an Intellectual Property indemnification clause as 5.5, lots of stuff about how they'll use your app and associated publicity materials in 6.2 and 6.3, an expansion of what they can take your app down for at the end of 7.2 (but the wording seems to indicate that proof is required for the new stuff, which would most likely mean a court case), a tiny change to the indemnification in 13 (changed from all claims to all third-party claims), 

Again, this is my understanding and I'm not a lawyer, so if you act off this information it's up to you to deal with the fall-out.

Al.

--

* Looking for Android Apps? - Try http://andappstore.com/ *

======

Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the company number  6741909. 

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's subsidiaries.

[tauntz]

That one is easy - just don't remove your app from the Market -
release an update for your app that contains.. nothing - just an empty
activity ;)

Tauno

[Al Sutton]

And then you get hit by the defective clause in 7.2 and you're still liable for a years sales.

Al.
--

* Looking for Android Apps? - Try http://andappstore.com/ *

======
Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the company number 6741909.

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's subsidiaries.

[tauntz]

Sry, I wasn't trying to be serious :)

[Al Sutton]

No worries, it's just some people on this list don't have English as their first language and so humour can cause confusion :).

Al.
--

* Looking for Android Apps? - Try http://andappstore.com/ *

======
Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the company number 6741909.

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's subsidiaries.

[niko20]

I don't see a problem with section 7.1

It basically enforces a stiffer penalty on those who may create a
garbage app, with copyright infringement or malicious intent and are
asked or forced to remove the app. It doesn't affect normal
"takedowns", where you decide to unpublish your app.

-niko

> >>> For more options, visit this group athttp://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 android...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-discu...@googlegroups.com.

> >> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=.

[Al Sutton]

Unless you know every piece of copyrighted, trademarked, or patented material and take all of them into account when you develop your app you may find someone comes to you and alleges an infringement. If you keep your app up you're wilfully infringing their copyright if it turns out they're right (which may increase damages you have to pay), and if you take your app down to investigate their claim you get hit by the 1 year rule.

Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.

Al.

--

* Looking for Android Apps? - Try http://andappstore.com/ *

======
Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the company number 6741909.

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's subsidiaries.

[Jason Van Anden]

Hopefully stronger language addressing copyright, trademark and intellectual property infringement will clean up some of the bad news in the Entertainment section.  If you have not visited of this part of town of late, it is filled with A-list models kidnapped into sexy girls app servitude and sound boarded comedians.

Jason Van Anden
http://www.BubbleBeats.com

[Mark Murphy]

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 blas� 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!

[Al Sutton]

Google Cache is our friend - http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:yFs8O2VrqnkJ:www.android.com/us/developer-distribution-agreement.html+android+developer+distribution+agreement&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Got to admit though, the current T&Cs mean we won't be putting any more pay-for apps onto Market, we'll just do ad supported in the future.

Al.
--

* Looking for Android Apps? - Try http://andappstore.com/ *

======
Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the company number 6741909.

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's subsidiaries.

> 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!
>

[Fred Grott]

Yeah it needs work to clear up items....

I expect we will see a revision shortly..

Fred Grott
Android Mobile Developer
http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com/

Chat Google Talk: fred.grott Skype: fred.grott

Contact Me

--- @ WiseStamp Signature. Get it now

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!

[niko20]

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 <fred.gr...@gmail.com> 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>

> > android-discu...@googlegroups.com<android-discuss%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>
> > .

[TreKing]

One thing I noticed was a 48 hour refund window. Wasn't it 24 before?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to android...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-discu...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=.

--
TreKing - Chiago transit tracking app for Android-powered devices
http://sites.google.com/site/rezmobileapps/treking

[Piotr]

So, this is not an agreement, this is dictatorship.

[Abdul Mateen]

Down to google, if they are not allowing any more paid apps as Al Sutton said.

[niko20]

No, I think it's always been 48 hours

On Nov 10, 9:07 pm, TreKing <treking...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing I noticed was a 48 hour refund window. Wasn't it 24 before?
>

> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Mark Murphy <mmur...@commonsware.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Streets Of Boston wrote:
> > > I'm curious too.
> > > Too much text to find the differences :)
>
> > And archive.org doesn't have the old agreement.
>
> > I have set up a change monitor for this, in case of future mods:
>

> >http://www.changedetection.com/log/android/developer-distribution-agr...

>
> > --
> > Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy)
> >http://commonsware.com|http://twitter.com/commonsguy
>
> > Android Training in Germany, 18-22 January 2010:http://bignerdranch.com
>
> > --
>
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Android Discuss" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to android...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > android-discu...@googlegroups.com<android-discuss%2Bunsubscribe@ googlegroups.com>
> > .

[Androman]

Too bad. iPhone looks much more attractive now. Android started well
but now Google is going in wrong direction...

On Nov 11, 7:51 pm, Abdul Mateen <abmat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Down to google, if they are not allowing any more paid apps as Al Sutton
> said.
>

> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Piotr <piotr.zag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So, this is not an agreement, this is dictatorship.
>
> > On 11 Lis, 09:13, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote:
> > > "14.1      Google may make changes to this Agreement at any time by
> > sending the Developer notice by email describing the modifications made...."
>
> > --
>
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Android Discuss" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to android...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > android-discu...@googlegroups.com<android-discuss%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[Thomas Riley]

I just don't understand why they wanted to make these changes. The
Google Legal team have struck again?

Google wanted to push paid apps more on the market with the new market
app so developers can actually try and make some money and now they go
and chuck something in which will only annoy these paid app
developers!

Very confusing.

[Matt Kanninen]

Um, your SN says Maps API Guru? Wouldn't you recommend people become
familiar with the limitations on the google maps API and not simply
hit ok?

On Nov 10, 7:12 pm, "Maps.Huge.Info (Maps API Guru)"

[Maps.Huge.Info (Maps API Guru)]

Looks like free apps with ads is the ultimate goal. Less hassle for
everyone, the user can get them for free and no worry about charge
backs, a year of lost income or other issues that paid apps have.

When you look at it from the point of Google or a carrier, a free app
is much better for them than any paid apps. Perhaps that's behind the
change.

[Brian Conrad]

I just went to the Market looking for paid apps and found very few
listed. Did everyone suddenly pull their paid apps? Maybe they do
want to just have free apps on the Market.

- Brian

Maps.Huge.Info (Maps API Guru) wrote:

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group.
> To post to this group, send email to android...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-discu...@googlegroups.com.