[coldtea]

>The person can run two threads in their brain, one that deals with Samsung and one that deals with the internal product.

There's a reason we don't make a police chief investigate their own misconduct.

"It's a perfectly OK thing to do. The person is just the host hardware. There can be multiple threads running on that hardware at the same time. They can run two threads in their brain, one that deals with investigating the case and a seperate one that might or might not did it".

"He didn't just declare himself innocent of misconduct and embezzelment out of self-interest. The independent investigating "thread" must have arrived to an impartial decision".

"In any case, it's not blatant misconduct, you only see it as such. There's no notion of misconduct in nature, it's a made up thing we invented".

[dheera]

If there's accusation of misconduct, there's a bug in the system so you isolate it and investigate it from the outside.

There's no investigation happening here, just two happy parties trying to create great products that can both be successful and be even happier. Lawyers can stay out of this happiness, inventing and injecting "conflicts" that never existed in the first place.

[maximinus_thrax]

> If there's accusation of misconduct, there's a bug in the system so you isolate it and investigate it from the outside.

Why should the investigation be from the outside?

[coldtea]

Yep.

And in any case who (and by whom) is going to be assigned from outside to investigate any misconduct in this Google-other Android vendors case? Any misconduct of prioritizing their phones other third party hw in Android wouldn't be a crime, just a bad deal for the third party vendors.

[maximinus_thrax]

You haven't answered my question.

[coldtea]

Maybe confused? I'm not the person you quoted and replied to (that was dheera).

I'm the person disagreeing with dheera in this thread, and I expanded upon what you asked, adding (to further refute dheera) that there wouldn't be any investigation from the outside.