Google pays $140 Million a year to Firefox to be the search default. Given the choice, I believe they would prefer to keep the $140 Million and just have people use Chrome.
There is a difference between direct and indirect patent infringement. Google provides the Android source, but the companies that are being sued are directly infringing by selling and distributing products based on these patents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_infringement_under_Unite...
Google naturally has the choice to indemnify Android distributors and protect them from patent infringement. Google chooses not to do this, presumably because they do not want to expose themselves to the costs of direct patent infringement.
Does the Nexus One or Nexus S blur this line at all? In that case, it seems like Google is doing more than simply making the source code available. Those phones actually carry its brand.
the software maker specifically notes that the deal will allow Samsung to offer products using Linux without concern that Microsoft will sue it or its customers.
Social is too important for one company to control the market. This is a great start for Google+, but Google is fighting with one arm behind their back given the network effects of Facebook.
Tests To Run: 10935 | Total Tests Ran: 10935 | Pass: 7061 | Fail: 3874 | Failed To Load: 66
The fast majority (80%) of the error log appears to be in section 15.2.3, with half of the rest also being in section 15. This would imply that around 1/3 of the entire test suite is just in that section of the specification; as the test itself describes, its coverage is currently incomplete.
I was pretty certain that Opera's reported score couldn't be that bad. I am definitely very suprised.
Overall, I have to say, I am a huge fan of having these thorough tests come to web standards. So that browsers can't just say "We support HTML5". I am really tired of the buzzword nature of standards recently. Hopefully, this will get all browsers to step up their game.
I can help with that, I am running Nightly 7.0a1 (2011-06-29)
My results:
Tests To Run: 10935 | Total Tests Ran: 10935 | Pass: 10732 | Fail: 203 | Failed To Load: 0
The core issue is this - enterprises can reduce testing and maintenance costs for their internal apps because they can control and standardize their browser enviroment. Sites that cater to users at large (like a yahoo) have no control over what browsers their users choose. So, they have to bear significantly higher testing costs.
I haven't heard a persuasive argument for enterprises to change their web development practice and bear significantly higher testing costs. So my expectation is that they will continue on the path that they have been on traditionally.
