With Microsoft pursuing Android makers for licensing, and now this, soon everybody will be making more money from Android than Google. Even Apple can now ask for licensing fees from Android makers.

Samsung was not listed as one of the companies that bought this portfolio, so now Apple have more ammo in their fight with them.

For some reason I expected Apple, with their gigantic hoard of cash to be the winner of this auction.

So much for "Open".

Google likes to dub its system as "Open", but it's only open as long as it works in Google's favour.

This is not true openness.

When something is truly open, then even development repositories are always accessible for the current version in development, let alone finished versions.

Google's justification doesn't really add up, and there's a strong chance that the decision will serve only to undermine the use of the <video> tag completely. This is not a move promoting the open web. If anything, it is quite the reverse.

As I see it, Google is doing Adobe a huge favour. This isn't about openness at all. It's all about proprietary stuff. Google is pushing WebM, which it owns. But this will result in more support for Flash, which Adobe owns.

This is major hypocrisy.

In one of James Gosling's article's bullets about the Oracle-Google lawsuit, we find the following nugget (emphasis is mine):

Google did have a financial model that benefited themselves (that they weren't about to share). They were partly planning on revenue from advertising, but mostly they wanted to disrupt Apple's trajectory, and Apple's expected entry into advertising. If mobile devices take over as the computing platform for consumers, then Google's advertising channel, and the heart of its revenue, gets gutted. It doesn't take much of a crystal ball to see where Apple is going, and it's not a pretty picture for Google or anyone else.

Anybody who argue that Google didn't create Android to compete with Apple's iPhone, is deluding themselves.

Another idiotic 10 points list from Don Reisinger.