Is it? My reading of #2 suggests Google just didn't want phones with ancient or beta versions of Android in the market with Google branding. Fairly reasonable demand, if you ask me.
#1 is right up the alley that busted Microsoft, though.
#1 is right up the alley that busted Microsoft, though.
To be clear, I have not read the original agreements to confirm this is the case, it's just my interpretation of #2.
I think that would have been acceptable - my reading of #2 is that if you sold phones with a fork of Android, even if that phone did not have Google branding, Google would not allow you to sell *any* phones with Google branding. That does seem very similar to the Microsoft example.
Requiring that someone cannot use Google branding on any device they manufacture or sell, if they also manufacture or sell devices without Google branding that use ancient versions of Android, is entirely illegal in the EU.
Then the rule was overly broad, since it also prevented them from selling Android phones without Google branding. I think Amazon was involved in that lawsuit after it had issues finding a manufacturer that wasn't bound by that rule.
That could include deprecated versions and any forks.
Judging only by gp's message, it also targets any would-be competitor's fork of Android.