It's not tha Android isn't 'open', it's that Google wants an offset for all of it's free services
Both Google and Apple seem to have gone the same route - only Apple has the applications store hoop for developers to negotiate.
Google offers 'free' services from which it obviously derives benefits and since it allows anyone, seemingly, to use Android at no cost, why can't it make contractual limitations?
Next we'll have the Android pad manufacturers jumping up and down saying but we can't access the Google App Store unless we make our pad a telephone.
Rubin and Jha are experienced businessmen and undoubtedly aware of the niceties of U.S. law. If Skyhook does not have a document that specifically says it's Google or the high road it's all a matter of 'he said' which isn't the greatest evidence to fight a case over.
Recently Skyhook has inveigled it's way on to Android through an App, or two, that uses Skyhook services which sort of weakens it's case. Besides if Skyhook wants on so bad you have to wonder what THEY are doing with the aggregated data and who are they going to SELL it to?
Still, this case makes a change from the petty Samsung stole our rounded corner icons with a black line in it we have from Apple.
This application was a preliminary one for a very minor matter, the type of games lawyers play to bug each other so nothing really flows from the Boston Beaks decision.