Ups, there was not bullying.
And, by the way, your claim was that Google forces OEM's to have enabled slurping of wifi data. So, I don't know why you bring the Skyhook case. Perhaps you will bring the Oracle case next.
Still waiting
> I know, it will never be enough.
Yes, it will never will be enough if you only bring unrelated thing, and wrong things, by the way
The 750 pages of court submissions in that link on the Verge actually answer all your supposed confusions. Seriously. The whole "technical inferiority" angle is discussed as having been invented as a way for Motorola to break off the Skyhook deal. Skyhook pass the CTS in 2009 when Google aren't paying attention but then fail when it's strategically difficult.
Basically "compatibility" is not technical at all, and entirely down to compatibility with Google strategic objectives. As Motorola quite rightly observe.
"And indeed, Skyhook ran headlong into Motorola's dependence on Google: Motorola flat-out told Skyhook that Android devices are "approved essentially at Google's discretion," and that Moto couldn't afford to risk its relationship with Google."
The key point behind the Skyhook case was that it impacted their ability to do the WiFi slurping, again, as discussed at length on that link.
Yes, you use a proof of something a The Verge article but a court ruling and a posterior appeal ruling form 2014 doesn't
And I'm the one that has to out off the blinkers.
Really?
And still waiting anything about your claim that Google forces Wifi SLURPING enabled in the smartphones
But as I know that you won't provide anything because you're wrong since the beginning and you're just bringing random links unrelated to your claim, I will leave here.
Here's another example of their shit.
I know, it will never be enough.