Professional Documents
Culture Documents
)
SKYHOOK WIRELESS, INC., a Delaware )
corporation, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. ______________-BLS
)
GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, )
)
)
Defendant. )
)
INTRODUCTION
prohibiting unfair and deceptive trade acts and practices stemming from Google's
anticompetitive conduct and Google's bad faith, knowing and intentional interference with
plaintiff Skyhook's contractual and business relations with Motorola, Inc. and other current and
potential customers. As a direct result of Google's actions, Skyhook has suffered actual damages
that exceed tens of millions of dollars. Further, in order to prevent serious and irreparable harm
to Skyhook, defendant Google must be enjoined from persisting in these wrongful acts.
of mobile computing devices such as smartphones and laptops has increased, so too has demand
for mobile applications that utilize and share with others the current location of users' mobile
computing devices. Skyhook's technology was designed to meet this growing demand, and
3. Skyhook and Google are competitors in the location positioning space. There was
a time when Google tried to compete fairly with Skyhook. But once Google realized its
positioning technology was not competitive, it chose other means to undermine Skyhook and
2304198
damage and attempt to destroy its position in the marketplace for location positioning
technology. In complete disregard of its common-law and statutory obligations, and in direct
opposition to its public messaging encouraging open innovation, Google wielded its control over
the Android operating system, as well as other Google mobile applications such as Google Maps,
to force device manufacturers to use its technology rather than that of Skyhook, to terminate
contractual obligations with Skyhook, and to otherwise force device manufacturers to sacrifice
superior end user experience with Skyhook by threatening directly or indirectly to deny timely
and equal access to evolving versions of the Android operating system and other Google mobile
applications.
THE PARTIES
existing under the laws of Delaware with a principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts.
5. Skyhook is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant
Google Inc. ("Google") is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Mountain
View, California. Google conducts business within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and
has claimed that over the past year alone it generated $2.2 billion worth of economic activity in
Massachusetts.
7. Venue is proper in Suffolk County pursuant to Mass. Gen. L. c. 223, § 8(4) and c.
93, § 42A because Skyhook’s principal place of business is in Boston, Suffolk County..
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
and intelligence. Founded in 2003, Skyhook pioneered the Wi-Fi Positioning System and today
2304198 -2-
provides location information to tens of millions of mobile devices. Skyhook currently employs
9. Early location technologies – Global Positioning System (GPS) and cellular tower
triangulation – suffer shortcomings that result in mobile consumers receiving slow and
inaccurate location information. For example, GPS systems can take a very long time to acquire
a location fix and they do not work well indoors or in dense, populated areas (if at all). Cellular
tower triangulation is notoriously inaccurate, usually placing the end-user over 200 meters - and
up to 5,000 meters - from their actual location. As a result, location-based applications and
services were niche products used by very few consumers and only in very specific use cases.
10. To help combat the drawbacks of these early location technologies, Skyhook
pioneered locating, tracking, and using the hundreds of millions of Wi-Fi access points located
throughout populated areas to provide fast and accurate location information. Skyhook invested
tens of millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of hours of labor to research, develop, and
11. Skyhook's Wi-Fi Positioning System determines the location of a Wi-Fi enabled
device using a database of known Wi-Fi access points. Skyhook has compiled a massive
reference database of the known locations of over 250 million Wi-Fi access points. To build this
database, Skyhook deployed drivers painstakingly to survey streets in tens of thousands of cities,
towns and populated areas worldwide, identifying Wi-Fi access points and plotting their
geographic locations. In addition, Skyhook's database is continually improved with data that is
gathered in the process of location queries. Skyhook's extensive coverage area includes most
populated areas in North America, Europe, Australia and in certain major Asian countries.
12. Skyhook integrates its Wi-Fi Positioning System into its proprietary XPS
positioning system ("XPS"). XPS is a hybrid positioning system that uses XPS client software
running on a user's device to integrate and synthesize Skyhook's Wi-Fi Positioning System, GPS
satellite data, and cellular tower triangulation to provide faster and more accurate location
2304198 -3-
Google Pushes Google Location Service To Tap Into Location Data Collection Market
percent of its revenue from advertising. Google collects massive amounts of information about
its end users from its search, Gmail, and other applications to enable it to more effectively target
advertising to individual users. Google is currently the dominant player in terms of such data
collection.
14. Google's ability to charge advertisers increases with the amount, quality, and
uniqueness of the data Google obtains. Google has now recognized the immense value of
location information to support advanced advertising and monetization models that are core to
Google's business. To catch up to Skyhook and others in the field, Google therefore developed
and now gives away for free its own location platform, Google Location Service.
2007, after the expiration of an evaluation license between the parties, Google asked Skyhook to
provide Google with data from Skyhook's confidential and proprietary database of known Wi-Fi
access points. Growing skeptical of Google's motives, Skyhook declined to provide this highly
technology for commercial use. Instead, shortly thereafter Google began offering Google
16. Google's business strategy and goals differ from Skyhook's. Skyhook develops
premium location determination technology for which mobile device manufacturers are willing
to pay a fee because Skyhook's technology attracts application developers and enhances the end
better end user experiences, Skyhook’s technology has also generated a valuable database of
aggregate and anonymous location transaction information that Skyhook currently licenses to
2304198 -4-
17. On information and belief, Google, on the other hand, focuses on collecting end-
user location information and related location data with the goal of monetizing it as advertising
revenue. To advance that objective, Google gives away its inferior location determination
technology and bundles that inferior technology with its Android operating system and various
Google applications. Unlike Skyhook, Google tracks phones when the user is unaware and in a
way and to an extent that is never clearly disclosed to the end consumer. Google knows that the
more devices that include Google Location Service, the more data Google can collect about
Google Publicly Represents Android As Open Source And Pro-Innovation, Then Unfairly
Uses Its Exclusive Oversight Of The Platform To Force OEMs To Use Google Location
Service
18. Android is Google's open source operating system for mobile devices, and a
corresponding open-source project led by Google. Given Google's success in search and other
endeavors, there were high expectations for Android. Since the launch of Android, the
popularity, among end users, of phones running Android has rapidly increased. This trend has
19. On information and belief, when Google launched Android, its stated goal was to
create an open platform that carriers, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and developers
can use to make their innovative ideas a reality and to ensure that "no industry player can restrict
or control the innovations of any other." Indeed, it was generally understood that part of the
impetus behind Google's desire to launch Android was to ensure that Google itself would not be
locked out of mobile devices by other parties, such as cell carriers or manufacturers. Google
adds that the goal of the Android Open Source Project is "to create a successful real-world
product that improves the mobile experience for end users." Google continues to publicly
20. Google maintains the Android Compatibility Program, which describes what it
means to be "Android Compatible" and what is required of developers and device builders to
achieve compatibility with the Android Operating System. Google states that in order to
2304198 -5-
distribute Android devices, and to leverage all of the benefits of the Android ecosystem, which
includes access to all the third party applications and services available in the Android Market,
device builders must participate in the Compatibility Program and must be deemed Android
Compatible.
apps ecosystem." Google also states that "[a]nyone is welcome to use the Android source code,
but if the device isn't compatible, it's not considered part of the Android ecosystem."
Furthermore, Google has explained that: "Devices that are Android compatible may seek to
license the Android Market client software. This allows them to become part of the Android app
ecosystem, by allowing users to download developers' apps from a catalog shared by all
compatible devices. This option isn't available to devices that aren't compatible."
steps. The first step requires each Android-enabled device, and its embedded software, to be run
against the Compatibility Test Suite (CTS), a software-based test platform that objectively
evaluates whether the device and software are compatible with the published Android
specifications. The second step involves a review of the device and software based on an
Definition Document (CDD). This entirely subjective review, conducted solely by Google
employees with ultimate authority to interpret the scope and meaning of the CDD as they see fit,
effectively gives Google the ability to arbitrarily deem any software, feature or function "non-
23. On information and belief, Google has notified OEMs that they will need to use
condition of the Google Apps contract between Google and each OEM. Though Google claims
the Android OS is open source, by requiring OEMs to use Google Location Service, an
application that is inextricably bundled with the OS level framework, Google is effectively
creating a closed system with respect to location positioning. Google's manipulation suggests
2304198 -6-
that the true purpose of Android is, or has become, to ensure that "no industry player can restrict
develop their business partnership. After a first suite of Skyhook-enabled Motorola products
failed to launch as planned under an initial agreement due to a Motorola corporate and product
restructuring, Skyhook and Motorola concluded extensive negotiations in September 2009 and
entered into a licensing agreement (the “Motorola Contract”). In exchange for Motorola's
commitment to use XPS on Motorola's Android wireless devices, Skyhook made significant
concessions. Under the Motorola Contract, Skyhook is contractually prohibited from disclosing
the substance of the terms of the agreement in a public filing without Motorola's express consent.
25. Throughout the negotiations, Motorola repeatedly expressed its intent to offer end
users a "differentiated Android platform," in accordance with the purported public message of
Google. Motorola indicated that Skyhook would be an essential part of Motorola's plan to
differentiate the Android wireless devices and provide a better end user experience than other
Android mobile devices. Prior to final execution of the contract, Motorola notified Skyhook that
it had reviewed the Android compliance documents as well as Motorola's own specific
contractual agreements with Google, and determined that no restrictions would prevent execution
of the Motorola-Skyhook agreement. Skyhook expressed its commitment to Motorola. All told,
Skyhook invested over $1.5M into its relationship with Motorola, hoping for a fruitful return on
its investment.
26. After entering into the Motorola Contract, the parties engaged in several months
of intense integration and optimization product development along with exhaustive product and
field testing. Among other things, Skyhook’s XPS software was tested for Android compliance
using Google’s own CTS. Motorola confirmed that XPS met the requirements for Android
compliance, and the parties worked to roll out XPS on Motorola’s next Android device, slated
2304198 -7-
Google Intentionally Interferes with the Skyhook-Motorola Contract
27. On April 27, 2010, Skyhook issued a press release announcing its partnership
with Motorola to deploy Skyhook's XPS positioning system across much of Motorola's portfolio
28. On information and belief, shortly thereafter, Andy Rubin (Google's Vice
Executive Officer of Motorola, Inc. and Chief Executive Officer of Motorola's Mobile Devices
business) multiple times to impose a "stop ship" order on Motorola preventing Motorola from
29. As one means of cloaking its improper "stop ship" order with an air of legitimacy,
Google unreasonably and without justification claimed that embedding Skyhook's XPS client
software in the Android wireless devices would render the devices no longer Android
Skyhook. Skyhook is informed and believes that at least one other company, a location
technology hardware and software provider which also uses a hybrid/terrestrial based approach
to determine location, has been allowed by Google to continue to run on Android despite also
Motorola and Skyhook wholly unrelated to Android compliance. For example, Google insisted
that Motorola modify the platform to notify its users that Skyhook collects certain data from the
devices - and to do so in a way that inaccurately implied that Skyhook was collecting personally
identifiable data. Google also insisted that Motorola run Google Location Service and Skyhook's
XPS "side-by-side" and simultaneously at all times on all Android wireless devices. Google’s
insistence on these issues had no bearing on supposed Skyhook compliance issues. Also, such a
“side-by-side” approach would require a substantial technical overhaul, and would ultimately
harm the end user experience, creating power management issues and negatively impacting
device performance. But, on information and belief, Google knew that if its Google Location
2304198 -8-
Service is collecting location data on the same device at the same time as XPS, that will enable
Google to collect more and better location data because of Skyhook's accuracy and precision.
31. Skyhook is informed and believes that Google knew that if Skyhook did not
accede to the demands, it could and would force Motorola to ship its Android wireless devices
without XPS but with Google Location Service as the platform supplier of location data. Google
knew or should have known that this was a breach of the Motorola Contract.
32. Skyhook refused to accept Google's demands. As a result, Google persisted with
its "stop ship" order and Motorola shipped its mid-July device without XPS. Instead, the device
was rolled out in mid-July with only Google Location Service, in direct breach of the Motorola
Contract. As none of these devices was preloaded with XPS software, as would have occurred
but for Google's interference, Skyhook lost millions of dollars in royalties provided under the
Skyhook's database that would have occurred but for the deprivation of data from these phones.
33. After several years of negotiations, on or about April 1, 2010, Skyhook entered
into a licensing agreement with Company X, a mobile OEM with substantial global market share
in the Android market (the "Company X Contract"). Like the Motorola Contract, under the
Company X Contract, Skyhook is contractually prohibited from disclosing the substance of the
terms of the agreement in a public filing without Company X's express consent. Company X,
prior to the final execution of its contract with Skyhook, notified Skyhook that Company X had
reviewed the Android compliance documents as well as its own specific contractual agreements
with Google, and determined that no restrictions would prevent execution of the Company X
Contract.
34. On information and belief, Company X was committed to providing its users with
the best performance, and, to that end, chose Skyhook rather than Google as its location
provider. Company X was committed to rolling out its next line of Android phones preloaded
with Skyhook's XPS technology. The phones, with the XPS technology, were deemed Android
2304198 -9-
complaint after passing the CTS. As such, Company X began to roll out its latest Android phone
to various distributors.
35. Shortly thereafter, Motorola learned that Company X was planning on shipping
its Android wireless devices with Skyhook. On information and belief, Google refused to
provide such a waiver to Motorola. Google then informed Company X that it was issuing a "stop
ship" order to Motorola on all Android devices embedded with Skyhook technology. On June
36. Subsequently, Company X started shipping its new Android device, with Skyhook
technology, to retail channels and end users in two major European countries. On July 2, 2010,
Skyhook publicly announced its partnership with Company X. On information and belief, in
response to the press release, Google issued a direct "stop ship" order to Company X, demanding
that no additional Android devices be shipped with Skyhook technology. Google raised the
Google's declaration given that Google had raised no compliance issues prior to and through the
product's initial launch. Google further demanded that Company X use Google Location Service
instead of XPS.
37. Company X complained to Skyhook that Google was preventing it from choosing
the superior location service provide and hurting the end users. Company X was forced to drop
XPS, and continued the launch of its Android device with Google Location Service. As a result,
Skyhook has lost millions in expected royalties under the Company X Contract. In addition,
would have occurred but for the deprivation of the data expected from these phones.
COUNT I
38. Skyhook hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs
2304198 - 10 -
39. At all material times, Google knew of the existence of the Motorola Contract.
40. Google knowingly induced Motorola to breach the Motorola Contract. Among
other things, Google (i) instructed Motorola to stop shipping phones with Skyhook's XPS
embedded therein; and (ii) forcing Motorola to ship their Android wireless devices with Google
and/or means.
interference will irreparably harm Skyhook unless Google is enjoined by the Court from the
actions complained of herein.
COUNT II
44. Skyhook hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs
45. Skyhook had an existing business relationship with Motorola, Company X and
potential business relationships with others interested in licensing Skyhook's XPS positioning
system for use with and in Android Compatible Devices.
Motorola, Company X and Skyhook's potential business relationships with others interested in
licensing Skyhook's XPS positioning system for use with and in Android Compatible Devices.
48. Google's actions have harmed Skyhook's business relationships with Motorola,
Company X and other current and potential customers. Skyhook's loss of these advantageous
business relations resulted directly from Google's improper and unlawful actions.
2304198 - 11 -
49. Skyhook is without an adequate remedy at law, because Google's continued
interference will irreparably harm Skyhook unless Google is enjoined by the Court from the
COUNT III
51. Skyhook hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs
53. Skyhook is informed and believes that at all relevant times Google was engaged
in trade or commerce within the meaning of Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93A, §§ 1 and 11.
54. Skyhook is informed and believes that Google’s unfair acts and/or deceptive
practices include, without limitation, interfering with Skyhook’s contractual and advantageous
business relationships; unfairly and improperly excluding Skyhook’s XPS positioning system
from the market for Android devices; controlling the Android Compatibility Program in such a
way so as to unfairly exclude competitors chosen by Google from the market for Android
devices; and instructing Motorola and Company X that they were under a “stop ship” order and
were prohibited from shipping phones with Skyhook’s XPS embedded. These acts and practices
occurred primarily and substantially within the Commonwealth within the meaning of Mass.
55. Google's wrongful actions described herein were willful and knowing.
56. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing knowing and/or willful unfair
acts and practices of Google, Skyhook has suffered and will continue to suffer significant harm
in the form of loss of money and property, including but not limited to loss of royalties
2304198 - 12 -
57. Skyhook is without an adequate remedy at law, because Google's continued
interference will irreparably harm Skyhook unless Google is enjoined by the Court from the
Wherefore, Plaintiffs request that the Court grant the following relief:
enjoining Google and its officers, directors, employees, attorneys, agents, representatives, and
servants, and all persons acting under, in concert with or for them, from taking any action that
C. Trebled money damages against Google, with any interest if appropriate, for
Counts III;
E. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
By its attorneys,
Of counsel:
2304198 - 13 -