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
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 blasï¿½ attitude because I plan on avoiding Android
Market like the plague as a publisher, except in very specific
_The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development_ Version 2.8