PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft gets licensing fees from Android - Google none



VTPoet
May 30th, 2011, 01:53 AM
OSNews (http://www.osnews.com/story/24800/Microsoft_Earns_More_from_Android_than_Windows_Pho ne_7) and PCWorld (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/195167/htc_android_deal_could_pay_off_for_microsoft_not_g oogle.html).

All I can do is shake my head in admiration. It's possible that MS is now making more money off Android than Windows Phone 7 and more off Android licensing fees than Google (who gives it away but nevertheless). Wow. Just wow. I wonder if Google is asking itself: Why are we developing an OS from which MS is getting licensing fees? Wow. Why should MS even develop Windows Phone 7? I think MS has just captured the golden goose. All they have to do is start suing companies that use competitive products for licensing fees (patent infringements). Microsoft is back.

I have got to buy some of their stock. I just wonder how long Google is going to sit on its hands and let Microsoft get away with this (Google declined comment on the deal)?

Edit: Sorry 'bout the typo.

And here's (http://www.businessinsider.com/htc-pays-microsoft-5-per-android-phone-2011-5) another article detailing the number of lawsuits filed against Android by Microsoft, Apple and others. The article argues that the intent may be to make Android too legally expensive to use; but, if it's used nonetheless, Microsoft will still get licensing fees (as though it were their OS!!!).

Dustin2128
May 30th, 2011, 02:04 AM
Anyone know why microsoft is getting licensing fees from android? "Allegedly infringes upon patents", sure, but which ones?

VTPoet
May 30th, 2011, 02:08 AM
Anyone know why microsoft is getting licensing fees from android? "Allegedly infringes upon patents", sure, but which ones?

Confidentiality agreements are in force. Nobody is talking.

I have to say, I don't get that. Why do companies agree to confidentiality when they're being sued? How is that not against their own interest? Barnes & Noble, after all, refused to agree and the details embarrassed Microsoft - or so we're told.

Dustin2128
May 30th, 2011, 02:11 AM
This is a joke. Seriously. How could anything like this happen in the real world? MS: List the infringing patents, or GTFO.

Dr. C
May 30th, 2011, 02:22 AM
It will be interesting to see what the impact of the case now before the US Supreme Court will have on this. Microsoft is on both sides of the patent issue. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1732635

VTPoet
May 30th, 2011, 02:30 AM
How is it that MS won't use this strategy against any and all software competitors, including Linux platforms?

If MS forces confidentiality agreements, how can Canonical, for example, indemnify anyone? Seems like Microsoft's return to dominance is a fait accompli, not as a technological innovator but as a litigious innovator.

For example: What's to stop MS from suing any company who uses the new Google Chrome OS? I guarantee you that MS probably could already claim at least a dozen major patent infringement against Chrome OS - whether justified or not.

Thewhistlingwind
May 30th, 2011, 02:38 AM
Now THATS a counterstroke.

Guess I'll have to wait a little longer.

athenroy
May 30th, 2011, 02:48 AM
There in lies a big problem with patents. If you or I for instance had stuck a patent on any one thing used by say Linux, no matter how small or obscure and wanted to press the issue, we could sue. Totally rediculous! Hope MS chokes on the money!

Thewhistlingwind
May 30th, 2011, 02:53 AM
It will be interesting to see what the impact of the case now before the US Supreme Court will have on this. Microsoft is on both sides of the patent issue. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1732635

Thats what makes this so brilliant. If they hand the case to microsoft, they're patents are nerfed, but they're already a giant, so competitors can't cut them down.

If they hand it to i4i, microsoft can continue they're barrage.

They've turned a lose-lose into a win-win.

Like I said, now THATS a counterstroke.

PhillyPhil
May 30th, 2011, 03:51 AM
The world has gone mad :P
Is it even possible for anyone to invent a new OS these days without being forced to pay someone with a patent library?
The patent system stinks.

Merk42
May 30th, 2011, 04:00 AM
This is a joke. Seriously. How could anything like this happen in the real world? MS: List the infringing patents, or GTFO.It's cheaper to pay the licensing fees than the court proceedings.

If MS forces confidentiality agreements, how can Canonical, for example, indemnify anyone?That's the thing with agreements, both parties have to agree to do it. So Microsoft couldn't 'force' another company to do it.

KiwiNZ
May 30th, 2011, 05:10 AM
The world has gone mad :P
Is it even possible for anyone to invent a new OS these days without being forced to pay someone with a patent library?
The patent system stinks.

Yes

Do your research and make sure you do not infringe of others rights and intellectual property.

JDShu
May 30th, 2011, 06:10 AM
That's the thing with agreements, both parties have to agree to do it. So Microsoft couldn't 'force' another company to do it.

... are you serious?


Yes

Do your research and make sure you do not infringe of others rights and intellectual property.

No.

Anyway, it seems bad, but as people smarter than me have mentioned, when a company starts suing over patent infringements, it means the company has lost on the market. Microsoft is losing a lot more money from failing to win the mobile market than it earns from the patents.

aysiu
May 30th, 2011, 06:35 AM
All I can do is shake my head in admiration. It's possible that MS is now making more money off Android than Windows Phone 7 and more off Android licensing fees than Google (who gives it away but nevertheless). The base Android OS is open source and cost-free, but Google actually makes money off "business deals" with handset manufacturers for the non-free parts of Android (Google Maps, Gmail, YouTube, etc.).

More details here:
http://www.androidcentral.com/google-discusses-cease-desist-order-cyanogenmod
http://hardgeek.org/how-does-google-make-money-on-android-%E2%80%9Candroid-the-cash-cow%E2%80%9D

By the way, Google can't stop HTC from paying money to Microsoft. HTC can do whatever it wants. It isn't forcing Google to pay. And, as far as we can tell, Samsung and Motorola aren't doing the same... yet.

JDShu
May 30th, 2011, 06:47 AM
The base Android OS is open source and cost-free, but Google actually makes money off "business deals" with handset manufacturers for the non-free parts of Android (Google Maps, Gmail, YouTube, etc.).


Reminds me that as a corollary of Microsoft is not making much money from the mobile market, Google is profiting a ton. Why do you think Oracle is suing them?

HappinessNow
May 30th, 2011, 07:04 AM
Reminds me that as a corollary of Microsoft is not making much money from the mobile market, Google is profiting a ton. Why do you think Oracle is suing them?

interesting to note Microsoft is developing a new mobile OS:

Mango OS (http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/320481/mango-the-next-windows-phone-version)

AllRadioisDead
May 30th, 2011, 08:04 AM
interesting to note Microsoft is developing a new mobile OS:

Mango OS (http://goo.gl/4RPYh)

It's not a new OS, it's a new version of WP7.

Macskeeball
May 30th, 2011, 08:04 AM
interesting to note Microsoft is developing a new mobile OS:

Mango OS (http://goo.gl/4RPYh)
Without clicking that short URL, Mango is just an update to Windows Phone 7. Calling it a new OS is misleading.

CreativeReach
May 30th, 2011, 08:15 AM
Microsoft is geting five dollars for every Android "HTC" phone. Because of the original HTC windows phones agreement, between microsoft and HTC.

http://androidandme.com/2011/05/news/microsoft-is-getting-5-for-every-android-phone-that-htc-sells-rant/

PhillyPhil
May 30th, 2011, 10:17 AM
sry, dp pls delete

PhillyPhil
May 30th, 2011, 10:18 AM
Yes

Do your research and make sure you do not infringe of others rights and intellectual property.

Perhaps you could give us an example of some recent ones then? Don't even think about replying 'iOS': Samsung, Motorola and Nokia have all sued for patent infringement in iOS(not to mention the patent troll Lodsys), and the only thing that stops Apple suing everyone under the sun for iOS infringements (their lawyers aren't shy) is their own infringements on others patent folios acting as a deterrent.

What sort of features would you be able to get in a brand new OS without infringing on a patent? Just one single example will suffice, LOL! :D

fontis
May 30th, 2011, 12:22 PM
LOL, this reminds me of a scene from The Godfather Part 2.


Don Fanucci: Young man, I hear you and your friends are stealing goods.
But you don't even send a dress to my house. No respect!
You know I've got three daughters.
This is my neighborhood. You and your friends should show me some respect.
You should let me wet my beak a little.
I hear you and your friends cleared $600 each. Give me $200 each, for your own protection.
And I'll forget the insult.
You young punks have to learn to respect a man like me!
Otherwise the cops will come to your house.
And your family will be ruined. Of course, if I'm wrong about how much you stole,
I'll take a little less.
And by less, I only mean - a hundred bucks less.
Now don't refuse me. Understand, paisan? Understand, paisan?...
Tell your friends I don't want a lot. Just enough to wet my beak.
Don't be afraid to tell them!


Microsoft being Don Fanucci :p
hahaha now don't tell me this is axe (the new ace)

Paqman
May 30th, 2011, 01:20 PM
I have got to buy some of their stock.

I'd think twice. MSFT shareholders are not entirely happy (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/26/ballmer_in_peril/) with the way the company is performing.



The patent system stinks.

No, the patent system is vital for protecting innovation. What's somewhat more suspect is the way that the US in particular handles software patents.

PhillyPhil
May 30th, 2011, 01:32 PM
No, the patent system is vital for protecting innovation. What's somewhat more suspect is the way that the US in particular handles software patents.

The patent system (I'm talking software) is rather excellent at *stifling* innovation.
It's used by big companies with patent folios to destroy small competition (innovation) and hurt large competition (innovation). It's also used by small companies (patent trolls) to grab cash from large (or small - eg Lodsys) companies.

The US should go the Euro way - no software patents. Every piece of open source software in existence adds weight to the argument that patents are not needed for innovation in software.

VTPoet
May 30th, 2011, 01:36 PM
By the way, Google can't stop HTC from paying money to Microsoft. HTC can do whatever it wants. It isn't forcing Google to pay. And, as far as we can tell, Samsung and Motorola aren't doing the same... yet.

Right, but the issue for Google is the viability of Android. If they don't find some way to "stop" companies like HTC from folding, then who is going to use Android? If companies are going to be paying MS licensing fees anyway, and if they're going to be effectively threatened by a Microsoft lawsuit of they don't use Windows Phone 7 (!) (choosing Android instead), then why would anyone use Android or Linux? Microsoft stated, in their victory speech, that some of the offending patents were not limited to Google, but to Linux itself. And yes, true or not, they can say whatever they want because of the non-disclosure agreement.


The base Android OS is open source and cost-free, but Google actually makes money off "business deals" with handset manufacturers for the non-free parts of Android (Google Maps, Gmail, YouTube, etc.).

So Google has nothing to lose if Android is A.) Sued out of existence or B.) Effectively becomes the "legal" property of Microsoft?


Yes

Do your research and make sure you do not infringe of others rights and intellectual property.

Does that include Linux? Microsoft stated that some of the infringed Patents did not originate with Google but with Linux. Are you therefore saying that anyone considering the use of Linux should think twice? I just wonder whether the HTC settlement sets a legal precedent?

VTPoet
May 30th, 2011, 01:43 PM
I'd think twice. MSFT shareholders are not entirely happy (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/26/ballmer_in_peril/) with the way the company is performing.

Au contraire, MS isn't going anywhere. They're "cheap". This is precisely the time to buy.

Paqman
May 30th, 2011, 02:27 PM
(I'm talking software)

Well then you're probably right, that's certainly the effect software patents are having on the market right now. In non-software terms though, patents are a good thing. I'm an engineer, and there's no way I'd risk going into business with an innovation that wasn't protected by a patent.



The US should go the Euro way - no software patents.

Europe doesn't strictly rule out software patents. I'm no expert but my understanding was that you can still patent an algorithm, and you can in some cases patent software in it's entirety. They're just a lot tougher about enforcing "non-obviousness", which is a criteria all patents have to meet anyway.

Merk42
May 30th, 2011, 02:52 PM
... are you serious?
...yes
{Company A} can persuade {Company B} to agree, but short of a gun to the head of the CEO/Shareholders, they can't force them.

PhillyPhil
May 30th, 2011, 03:38 PM
Well then you're probably right, that's certainly the effect software patents are having on the market right now. In non-software terms though, patents are a good thing. I'm an engineer, and there's no way I'd risk going into business with an innovation that wasn't protected by a patent.
I have a CS degree and write software for a living, but have just started an engineering degree, so I may come over to your way of thinking! ;)



Europe doesn't strictly rule out software patents. I'm no expert but my understanding was that you can still patent an algorithm, and you can in some cases patent software in it's entirety. They're just a lot tougher about enforcing "non-obviousness", which is a criteria all patents have to meet anyway.
They aren't permissible by law, and in 2005 they voted against making them legal. But recently the UK and Germany have let one or two through, saying there are exceptions, or circumstances in which it's ok, or something...

JDShu
May 30th, 2011, 04:48 PM
...yes
{Company A} can persuade {Company B} to agree, but short of a gun to the head of the CEO/Shareholders, they can't force them.

Threatening a lawsuit over patents is pretty clearly a "gun to the head". Sure you can call it "persuading" in the same way a gun to the head is "persuading".

Merk42
May 30th, 2011, 05:01 PM
Threatening a lawsuit over patents is pretty clearly a "gun to the head". Sure you can call it "persuading" in the same way a gun to the head is "persuading".Um or {company B} could think they're in the right and let {company A} go through with the lawsuit so {company B} would win.

JDShu
May 30th, 2011, 05:08 PM
Um or {company B} could think they're in the right and let {company A} go through with the lawsuit so {company B} would win.

In the American patent system, every software company 99% likely to be infringing on another software company in some way. This is not a secret. The patent system is that broken. In addition, a drawn out process, as you have stated yourself, is more expensive than simply paying the license fee - HTC is not going to be able to survive a lawyer war of attrition with Microsoft.

Merk42
May 30th, 2011, 06:32 PM
In the American patent system, every software company 99% likely to be infringing on another software company in some way. This is not a secret. The patent system is that broken. In addition, a drawn out process, as you have stated yourself, is more expensive than simply paying the license fee - HTC is not going to be able to survive a lawyer war of attrition with Microsoft.I'm from the US I know. Yes the patent system is broken and that's really what's to blame, not Microsoft. I forgot this is a Linux forum where it's "oh no a guy who works at Micro$oft owns a dog, so now I don't like dogs"

Still it doesn't FORCE a company to pay royalties, it just may be more economically sound to do that rather than have the lawsuit go through.

JDShu
May 30th, 2011, 06:48 PM
I'm from the US I know. Yes the patent system is broken and that's really what's to blame, not Microsoft. I forgot this is a Linux forum where it's "oh no a guy who works at Micro$oft owns a dog, so now I don't like dogs"

Still it doesn't FORCE a company to pay royalties, it just may be more economically sound to do that rather than have the lawsuit go through.

I'm not blaming Microsoft for it, they're doing the only thing they can do after losing out in the mobile market. In any case, you made the first ad hominem here and I will not engage in that further than this. There are other forums for that.

It sounds however, like you are using the narrowest definition of "force" possible. Microsoft knows that everybody infringes on patents and it knows that most companies would rather pay a kind of patent protection fee than go broke fighting them. It is, to borrow a quote, an offer that HTC cannot refuse. It sounds like we both know what's going on, and we're just arguing semantics.

fontis
May 30th, 2011, 07:36 PM
It is, to borrow a quote, an offer that HTC cannot refuse. It sounds like we both know what's going on, and we're just arguing semantics.

You have to admit though, Bill Gates pimped out the IT world completely. Gotta take give him that. He IS Vito Corleone :D

KiwiNZ
May 30th, 2011, 07:58 PM
The patent system (I'm talking software) is rather excellent at *stifling* innovation.
It's used by big companies with patent folios to destroy small competition (innovation) and hurt large competition (innovation). It's also used by small companies (patent trolls) to grab cash from large (or small - eg Lodsys) companies.

The US should go the Euro way - no software patents. Every piece of open source software in existence adds weight to the argument that patents are not needed for innovation in software.

Yes I have noted that computers and Operating systems have not advanced in the last 15 years:rolleyes:

KiwiNZ
May 30th, 2011, 08:00 PM
Perhaps you could give us an example of some recent ones then? Don't even think about replying 'iOS': Samsung, Motorola and Nokia have all sued for patent infringement in iOS(not to mention the patent troll Lodsys), and the only thing that stops Apple suing everyone under the sun for iOS infringements (their lawyers aren't shy) is their own infringements on others patent folios acting as a deterrent.

What sort of features would you be able to get in a brand new OS without infringing on a patent? Just one single example will suffice, LOL! :D

You ask me a question and then proceed to tell how I am allowed to reply so I guess I will just pass.:rolleyes:

Dustin2128
May 30th, 2011, 08:41 PM
Yes I have noted that computers and Operating systems have not advanced in the last 15 years:rolleyes:
Stifling != stopping.

disabledaccount
May 30th, 2011, 08:58 PM
You ask me a question and then proceed to tell how I am allowed to reply so I guess I will just pass.:rolleyes:That's very clever (avoid answering to the hard question)...
IMO patent wars and sick law systems are in fact preventing development of software. Software is like song - there are common elements on different levels (like notes, chords and beats) - and if someone will patant notes or chords then it would be impossible to compose new songs without "patent infringement".

Ric_NYC
May 30th, 2011, 09:00 PM
I thought "Google" was smarter than that. Working for free for Microsoft?


The silence of Google about this "patent" thing is very strange.

JDShu
May 30th, 2011, 09:19 PM
I thought "Google" was smarter than that. Working for free for Microsoft?

The silence of Google about this "patent" thing is very strange.

Google is making a hefty sum from Android, what do you want them to do? The only real action they could do is sue Microsoft for patent infringement, which would be really bad for their bottom line and reputation and at this point, its not worth it.

Ric_NYC
May 30th, 2011, 09:30 PM
The Android developers working for Microsoft and getting nothing for their work while Microsoft gets $5,00 for each phone HTC sells?

And Google says nothing?

KiwiNZ
May 30th, 2011, 09:32 PM
If these Forums are still here 10 years from now it will interesting to see all the "Google is evil" , "Google kills inovation" , threads and posts.

For those who have done Business Degrees will probably know of this, those who don't research the Woolworths methods of Vendor control and hook in . Then think of Google and what will happen in a few years.

disabledaccount
May 30th, 2011, 10:14 PM
(...)
Then think of Google and what will happen in a few years.I'm far from assuming that Google is saint, but they already have huge and growing market share - and nothing has changed - not counting some steps to defend their business against MS attacks. Of course they can chenge their way - but what for? - to destroy very good PR they have? Google has already earned astronomical amounts of money without biting everyone around...

fontis
May 30th, 2011, 10:34 PM
I'm far from assuming that Google is saint, but they already have huge and growing market share - and nothing has changed - not counting some steps to defend their business against MS attacks. Of course they can chenge their way - but what for? - to destroy very good PR they have? Google has already earned astronomical amounts of money without biting everyone around...

I have to say I agree.
I really do like Google as a company. They've done a great job marketing their products but at the same time keeping a respectful relationship with their customers. I use google products on a daily basis and I don't feel raped. I've used MS products daily for even longer, and I feel completely ravaged.

I mean, they both are successful companies in their own kind of way. MS became successful by cornering the market and rail-gunning everyone else, whereas Google became successful by simply respecting the user and thus re-inventing the web.

Of course, not everything Google touches becomes gold, but the fact that they give stuff a go and try to be there.. you gotta respect that. Patent whine and law suits like this really just worsen my opinion regarding companies like MS, Apple, etc.

PhillyPhil
May 30th, 2011, 10:59 PM
Perhaps you could give us an example of some recent ones then? Don't even think about replying 'iOS': Samsung, Motorola and Nokia have all sued for patent infringement in iOS(not to mention the patent troll Lodsys), and the only thing that stops Apple suing everyone under the sun for iOS infringements (their lawyers aren't shy) is their own infringements on others patent folios acting as a deterrent.

What sort of features would you be able to get in a brand new OS without infringing on a patent? Just one single example will suffice, LOL! :D

You ask me a question and then proceed to tell how I am allowed to reply so I guess I will just pass.:rolleyes:

!!??
I asked you two independent questions.
1. an example of a recent OS that doesn't infringe
2. features a new OS released tomorrow could possibly have that don't infringe

I know they're hard questions (I sincerely doubt you or anyone else can answer them) but if you don't know, just say so. Don't make strange excuses.

KiwiNZ
May 30th, 2011, 11:03 PM
!!??
I asked you two independent questions.
1. an example of a recent OS that doesn't infringe
2. features a new OS released tomorrow could possibly have that don't infringe

I know they're hard questions (I sincerely doubt you or anyone else can answer them) but if you don't know, just say so. Don't make strange excuses.

I will give you a clue, look at the banner of this Forum. As for question 2 , seeing the future is a sense no human has, smell, taste, sight,hearing and touch but precognition ? No.

And some free advice , temper the attitude.

PhillyPhil
May 30th, 2011, 11:08 PM
I will give you a clue, look at the banner of this Forum. As for question 2 , seeing the future is a sense no human has, smell, taste, sight,hearing and touch but precognition ? No.

And some free advice , temper the attitude.

No attitude here. Do you have an answer for Q1?

Re. Q2, what I mean is can *you* think of a feature that isn't already covered by a patent? I'll bet you can't - I'll bet no-one can.

EDIT: surely you don't mean Ubuntu? MS has already claimed that Linux infringes on multiple MS patents (not that I consider Linux 'recent' enough to answer the question anyway).

Merk42
May 30th, 2011, 11:13 PM
I'm not blaming Microsoft for it, they're doing the only thing they can do after losing out in the mobile market. In any case, you made the first ad hominem here and I will not engage in that further than this. There are other forums for that.All I'm saying, is, and I think you agree: "don't hate the playa, hate the game"

Primefalcon
May 30th, 2011, 11:19 PM
I find this whole situation sickening to be honest.....

KiwiNZ
May 30th, 2011, 11:21 PM
No attitude here. Do you have an answer for Q1?

Re. Q2, what I mean is can *you* think of a feature that isn't already covered by a patent? I'll bet you can't - I'll bet no-one can.

EDIT: surely you don't mean Ubuntu? MS has already claimed that Linux infringes on multiple MS patents (not that I consider Linux 'recent' enough to answer the question anyway).

Claiming and successfully suing are two entirely different things.

walt.smith1960
May 30th, 2011, 11:28 PM
Something to keep in mind--Bill Gates Jr. (the father of the famous one) was a corporate attorney and by some accounts a pretty "aggressive" one. Also remember that Microsoft bought-not developed-many of the programs & technologies that made their reputation. I've felt that the genius of Microsoft was more licensing and marketing than superior software development. Now they're going to show Lodsys how to do patent troll right. Of course I'm not in the business so know mostly what I read.

PhillyPhil
May 30th, 2011, 11:38 PM
Claiming and successfully suing are two entirely different things.

I'm well aware of that.
By the same token, not successfully suing (in particular: not suing at all) doesn't mean there is no infringement.

In Linux's case, MS certainly believes there is infringement (and they have actually sued TomTom over related patents).

I'll rephrase the question to be more specific - to better convey what I actually want the answer to: can you give an example of a recent OS that no-one believes infringes patents?

I have no doubt that the answer is 'no'.

And still waiting for an OS feature not covered by a patent, btw.

el_koraco
May 30th, 2011, 11:41 PM
All I'm saying, is, and I think you agree: "don't hate the playa, hate the game"

Well the playa did have a role in shaping the game.

KiwiNZ
May 30th, 2011, 11:57 PM
I'm well aware of that.
By the same token, not successfully suing (in particular: not suing at all) doesn't mean there is no infringement.

In Linux's case, MS certainly believes there is infringement (and they have actually sued TomTom over related patents).

I'll rephrase the question to be more specific - to better convey what I actually want the answer to: can you give an example of a recent OS that no-one believes infringes patents?

I have no doubt that the answer is 'no'.

And still waiting for an OS feature not covered by a patent, btw.

Current features are covered and if you have created one it is wise to apply for a patent to protect your intellectual property and earnings potential. But as for future features again precognition is not a Human sense.

PhillyPhil
May 31st, 2011, 12:05 AM
Current features are covered and if you have created one it is wise to apply for a patent to protect your intellectual property and earnings potential. But as for future features again precognition is not a Human sense.

I take it that is 'no' to both questions then.

See Android as an example of open source earnings potential that would appear to counter what you've written.
Yes
Do your research and make sure you do not infringe of others rights and intellectual property.
Yep, just make an OS with all new features, and none that pre-exist! :D

JDShu
May 31st, 2011, 12:12 AM
Something to keep in mind--Bill Gates Jr. (the father of the famous one) was a corporate attorney and by some accounts a pretty "aggressive" one. Also remember that Microsoft bought-not developed-many of the programs & technologies that made their reputation. I've felt that the genius of Microsoft was more licensing and marketing than superior software development. Now they're going to show Lodsys how to do patent troll right. Of course I'm not in the business so know mostly what I read.

Microsoft is not a patent troll in the commonly used sense. A patent troll creates nothing of value, while whatever you may think of Microsoft, they do create things. This is more like a software company threatening a non software company into submission and trying to discourage use of Android to give itself an edge.

KiwiNZ
May 31st, 2011, 12:13 AM
I take it that is 'no' to both questions then.

See Android as an example of open source earnings potential that would appear to counter what you've written.
Yep, just make an OS with all new features, and none that pre-exist! :D

Don't assume "No" to both. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do an open ended Patent search or wish the expense of hiring Patent Attorneys to research fully the question. I will leave that for you.

aysiu
May 31st, 2011, 12:19 AM
The problem with software patents is that they seem to be patents for ideas and not for actual implementations. The idea of a touchscreen interface is not particularly revolutionary, nor is the idea of an icon being pressed to launch an application, nor is the idea of a window representing a program. Whenever I read the details of these patent lawsuits, I just think the world has gone mad. If someone is stealing the actual work you've done (the actual code, the actual hardware pieces), then you have a right to sue. If you just were able to convince a judge that you should have patents on everyday parts of all software interfaces, that's madness.

PhillyPhil
May 31st, 2011, 12:21 AM
Don't assume "No" to both. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do an open ended Patent search or wish the expense of hiring Patent Attorneys to research fully the question. I will leave that for you.

You have to realise people will automatically make assumptions when a question is avoided.

In this case I think it's pretty clear you are unable to answer either question (not a surprise, I doubt anyone would be able), which is equivalent to a 'no', IMHO.

JDShu
May 31st, 2011, 12:21 AM
I take it that is 'no' to both questions then.

See Android as an example of open source earnings potential that would appear to counter what you've written.
Yep, just make an OS with all new features, and none that pre-exist! :D

lol KiwiNZ's advice is, of course, incredibly bad from a US perspective. It is pretty much impossible to make any useful software without infringing on some patent somewhere, and even if the patent being infringed is invalid, lots of companies (startups especially) don't have the time or money to get into extended law suits. Researching patents is generally ill advised because then you can be found to be willfully infringing and the payment in damages is that much greater.

On the other hand, companies are advised to apply to any patents they can for various reasons, but one is to protect themselves from another company filing the possible patent. Even Google continues to acquire patents for defensive purposes.

redbikemaster
May 31st, 2011, 12:23 AM
I agree with you, aysiu.

KiwiNZ
May 31st, 2011, 01:09 AM
You have to realise people will automatically make assumptions when a question is avoided.

In this case I think it's pretty clear you are unable to answer either question (not a surprise, I doubt anyone would be able), which is equivalent to a 'no', IMHO.

Again with those assumptions. Its just that since 2004, a date that will seem familiar, my experience here is, it is much less painful to hit ones head against a brick wall than to have a viable discussion on this topic.

PhillyPhil
May 31st, 2011, 03:46 AM
Again with those assumptions. Its just that since 2004, a date that will seem familiar, my experience here is, it is much less painful to hit ones head against a brick wall than to have a viable discussion on this topic.
Yes, I find it a little painful myself, but I guess it's doubly so when you take a position that can't be supported by examples ;)

The fact is there are inumerable examples of software patents stifling innovation (lawsuits are daily tech news), and plenty of examples of why they aren't necessary (open source software, and Europe).

It may be a futile hope (certainly feels like it) but perhaps one day the US will reform their patent system in a manner that encourages innovation instead. Perhaps with the next generation of politicians? Or the one after that.... :P

VTPoet
July 6th, 2011, 01:39 PM
Here's an update on the Android-as-Microsoft-profit-center story:

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070511-microsoft-patent-android.html

ninjaaron
July 6th, 2011, 02:23 PM
Looks like they are going to get Samsung.

http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2011/07/06/microsoft-wants-samsung-to-pay-it-15-for-each-android-handset/

Weird how different this is from the other think I know about patents on, Guitar effects pedals, which I've built. In Electronics, you cannot patent a circuit. Someone can sell exactly the same circuit with exactly the same parts and no patent is infringed. The only thing that can be protected is circuit board layout and etching, which can be copy-written, which is next to irrelevant in the final product. If you want to create a new effect that cannot be duplicated, you would have to invent a new kind of electrical component, patent it, and use that in the design of the effect.

It's can be a problem, but there are some counter measures that have nothing to do with legal action, for which everyone is glad (except for a couple of particularly angry effects designers).

It's kinda the opposite of software patents, from what I'm hearing.

DigOfTheStump
July 6th, 2011, 02:58 PM
Microsoft and their ilk are parasites, nothing more. In fact the only bottom-feeders that are worse are the lawyers and lobbyists they employ. The patent system is so badly broken I think it should just be put out of it's misery.

Ric_NYC
July 6th, 2011, 03:11 PM
Google says nothing about it. That part is very strange.

johnnybelfast
July 6th, 2011, 03:43 PM
All big companies do it. No point singling Microsoft out when all the others do it too. The system makes it that the the only way to survive is by buying and licensing patents.

aysiu
July 6th, 2011, 03:58 PM
It's the courts, not the companies, that are the problem.

If the courts allow it, I (if I had a company) would sue for patent infringement, too, because if you don't sue, you will be sued.

It'd be better if the courts said "That's ridiculous. You can't patent an idea, only an implementation."

VTPoet
July 6th, 2011, 04:55 PM
It's the courts, not the companies, that are the problem.

If the courts allow it...

Not sure I agree. Courts largely interpret the law. Both political parties like to blame lawyers, lobbyists and judges (rather than have the fingers pointed at them) but, factually, courts *interpret* the law, the legislative and executive branches *write* the law. The courts aren't the problem, it's the lawmakers. Change the law and the courts will change their rulings.

aysiu
July 6th, 2011, 05:22 PM
Not sure I agree. Courts largely interpret the law. Both political parties like to blame lawyers, lobbyists and judges (rather than have the fingers pointed at them) but, factually, courts *interpret* the law, the legislative and executive branches *write* the law. The courts aren't the problem, it's the lawmakers. Change the law and the courts will change their rulings.
Yeah, and their interpretation of the law could be "You can't patent an idea. That's silly. The whole point of a patent is to protect the hard work and actual innovation that an inventor has put forward."

Ric_NYC
July 6th, 2011, 05:32 PM
In 2011 Microsoft cannot compete with iOS or Android.

IMO this is what Microsoft is doing to "innovation":

http://photos.demandstudios.com/getty/article/3/250/MD002174_XS.jpg

Roasted
July 6th, 2011, 06:44 PM
I'm a little confused by all of this.

So the littler guys (HTC, etc.) are afraid of getting massively sued and putting out the money for court costs. So as a result, they cater to the 5 dollar per unit charge to Microsoft to squeak by.

What if, say, Google steps up and takes MS to court and wins bigtime? Would that free HTC and other companies that already accepted the agreement? Or would HTC be "grandfathered" in to their "you must pay!" notion?

Secondly, what's up with Barnes and Noble? I think what they're doing is awesome. But what's the scoop now? Are they just off the hook cause they refused, or is MS prepping to take them to court now?

In all reality, this is quite disappointing. I don't think I've ever felt anger towards an actual company like this. I mean, this just screams "we suck" from my point of view.

ninjaaron
July 6th, 2011, 09:59 PM
It's not Google's fight, and if they were to loose, it would be really bad for everybody.

MS wasn't bullshitting. They are suing Barnes & Nobles.

Also, found this line from Google


"Sweeping software patent claims like Microsoft's threaten innovation. While we are not a party to this lawsuit, we stand behind the Android platform and the partners who have helped us to develop it," Google spokesman Aaron Zamost said.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-20045551-75.html#ixzz1RMRaXSkw

Roasted
July 6th, 2011, 10:16 PM
It's not Google's fight, and if they were to loose, it would be really bad for everybody.

MS wasn't bullshitting. They are suing Barnes & Nobles.

Also, found this line from Google

I'm still not sure I understand. How can MS go after HTC and other companies like Motorola, Samsung, and LG who utilize the Android OS but they can't go after Google itself who created it? I'm not sure I get the mentality behind it.

Likewise, can't Google spark a law suit in return of MS's schoolyard bullying they're doing to HTC/Moto/Samsung/LG/etc??

ninjaaron
July 6th, 2011, 11:41 PM
I'm still not sure I understand. How can MS go after HTC and other companies like Motorola, Samsung, and LG who utilize the Android OS but they can't go after Google itself who created it? I'm not sure I get the mentality behind it.

Google is big and rich enough to put up a real fight against MS's litigation team. MS doesn't want that. Even if they won, they would spend tons of money sinking Android. MS can make tons of money off of Android while slowly choking it this way. It's a much better business move.

However, if MS does beat Barnes & Nobles and their co-defendants, it might give them the precedent they need to have a cease and desist issued to Google. Google could try to fight it, but courts would typically follow the precedent. It might behove Google to help finance Barnes & Nobles' legal battle to do as mush as possible to keep it from coming to that.


Likewise, can't Google spark a law suit in return of MS's schoolyard bullying they're doing to HTC/Moto/Samsung/LG/etc??

I'm not sure a defendant can open a lawsuit. It doesn't really make any sense. MS isn't doing anything illegal. They could try to sue MS for something else in an effort to instigate a counter suit, but I don't know if that would work and it would kinda be a waste of money anyway.

Plus, I'm pretty sure Google doesn't want a lawsuit from MS. It would be expensive, and there is always the possibility they would loose. That would be the end of the line for Android and it would probably have legal implications that could potentially effect a lot of other open source software.

There is a chance that MS is in the right, legally speaking. If MS didn't have a case, I don't think a company as big as Samsung would bend over and take it like this, Which it looks like they will. On the other hand, they are already in patent disputes with Apple, and perhaps they can't afford any more lawsuits at the moment. I dunno. It's a bad situation.

Purplerob
July 6th, 2011, 11:54 PM
Google probably makes more money from android, windows phone, and ios. They make money from something called ads!

hhh
July 6th, 2011, 11:55 PM
Wait, what? Microsoft is paying Verizon, who purchase/resell from Samsung, who have to pay Microsoft?

Chame_Wizard
July 7th, 2011, 12:12 AM
Hynting time time at Ballmer.

Bandit
July 7th, 2011, 12:18 AM
Another great reason Software Patent Laws should be discontinued.

Dustin2128
July 7th, 2011, 12:25 AM
Hm, google finances places google stock at something like 20 times that of microsoft. What would the world be like if google bought MS?

Roasted
July 7th, 2011, 03:39 AM
There is a chance that MS is in the right, legally speaking. If MS didn't have a case, I don't think a company as big as Samsung would bend over and take it like this, Which it looks like they will. On the other hand, they are already in patent disputes with Apple, and perhaps they can't afford any more lawsuits at the moment. I dunno. It's a bad situation.

I'm trying to understand this, but I don't see how Microsoft can be in the right.

If Microsoft is truly in the right, then Ford should be allowed to patent the idea of a steering wheel for a vehicle.

I just see no other way around it. I truly hope the US patent system doesn't have members with their heads up their asses for the sake of what's right in this case. Somebody needs to tone MS down a few hundred notches.

VTPoet
July 8th, 2011, 12:02 PM
I'm trying to understand this, but I don't see how Microsoft can be in the right...

Part of the problem is that MS forces all these companies to sign non-disclosure agreements. I don't think anyone really knows exactly *what* patents MS is bludgeoning these companies with. That's no doubt a deliberate effort to spread FUD. Why risk a lawsuit, use Windows 7!

However, unless something has changed, Barnes & Noble has refused to sign the non-disclosure agreement. And so, here are the five disputed patents as concerns the N&N case:

5,778,372 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=5,778,372.PN.&OS=PN/5,778,372&RS=PN/5,778,372), 6,339,780 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6,339,780.PN.&OS=PN/6,339,780&RS=PN/6,339,780), 5,889,522 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=5,889,522.PN.&OS=PN/5,889,522&RS=PN/5,889,522), 6,891,551 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6,891,551.PN.&OS=PN/6,891,551&RS=PN/6,891,551), and 6,957,233 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6,957,233.PN.&OS=PN/6,957,233&RS=PN/6,957,233).

The above comes from here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/27/barnes_and_noble_response_to_microsoft_suit/).

DigOfTheStump
July 8th, 2011, 01:29 PM
I have read the many excuses and justifications as to why Microsoft should not be singled out. "No siree, Bob. It's the patent system that's the problem, it's not Microsoft's fault at all."

Does anybody here actually support this action by Microsoft?

collisionystm
July 8th, 2011, 01:47 PM
I personally think Microsoft is getting scared of losing the stronghold in Computing. More and more people are turning to open source. Sounds like they are doing everything they can to hang on... The sad part is, everyone knows windows is a ****** product. The only thing that makes it great is drivers, games and I would say .exe files, but now we have .deb's that work fantastic.

Roasted
July 8th, 2011, 02:25 PM
I personally think Microsoft is getting scared of losing the stronghold in Computing. More and more people are turning to open source. Sounds like they are doing everything they can to hang on... The sad part is, everyone knows windows is a ****** product. The only thing that makes it great is drivers, games and I would say .exe files, but now we have .deb's that work fantastic.

I have to agree here. I think Microsoft is just acting super early with their actions. I mean, thanks to Android and iOS, Microsoft alone lost 5% of the OS market share in what, a year? year and a half? It wasn't a long time, and I think this kind of swift change in the game is what's causing them to act like this just to retain a decent position.

Quite honestly, I think it's cheap, and it will only drive me personally further away from utilizing anything at all by Microsoft. I'm talking even down to those laser mice with "Microsoft" written across them. I'm just so disappointed in them right now. It's a shame, because I began to think more highly of them. They released a half decent OS, a half decent phone OS, (notice I said half decent, not earth shatteringly amazing). I just began to think, hmm, at LEAST they're still active and somewhat allowing competition to thrive. Then this? Nope. They're killing it.

Roasted
July 8th, 2011, 07:49 PM
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20077910-266/oracle-might-seek-fees-from-android-handset-makers/?tag=cnetRiver

Looks like Oracle wants a slice of the non-deserving pie as well.

jwbrase
July 8th, 2011, 10:56 PM
I have read the many excuses and justifications as to why Microsoft should not be singled out. "No siree, Bob. It's the patent system that's the problem, it's not Microsoft's fault at all."

It's not that it's not Microsoft's fault. If you rob someone because robbery is legal, the results of your robbery are still your fault. But when robbery is legal, you're likely to see lots of people committing robbery, and that's the fault of the legal system. Microsoft isn't the only company out there that's patent trolling.

The reason not to "single out" Microsoft isn't that they're innocent little lambs, but that if there are ten wolves in the area, singling out a single wolf and shooting it won't protect your sheep. You need to shoot all ten wolves.

VTPoet
July 10th, 2011, 01:57 PM
Here's the latest. A list of companies paying the MS Patent Tax.

http://www.techdrivein.com/2011/07/list-of-companies-that-pay-royalties-to.html

The article, by the way, offers the point that if MS were truly interested in collecting on all its patent violations, it would be going after Apple, RIM and Symbian (among others I suppose). MS's targeting of Android seems selective?

Gremlinzzz
July 10th, 2011, 02:31 PM
So in the end MS wins so surrender:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av7xWys6gh4

DigOfTheStump
July 10th, 2011, 03:57 PM
It's not that it's not Microsoft's fault. If you rob someone because robbery is legal, the results of your robbery are still your fault. But when robbery is legal, you're likely to see lots of people committing robbery, and that's the fault of the legal system. Microsoft isn't the only company out there that's patent trolling.

The reason not to "single out" Microsoft isn't that they're innocent little lambs, but that if there are ten wolves in the area, singling out a single wolf and shooting it won't protect your sheep. You need to shoot all ten wolves.

I guess jwbrase, we are back to excuses and justifications again. Tell me you are not trying to diminish Microsoft's culpability in this sordid affair on the pretext that they are not acting alone and that they are all as bad as one another. No matter what you say, in this case at least, it is still Microsoft doing the suing.

Did I miss something in reading the OP's links, "Microsoft Earns More from Android than Windows Phone 7" and "HTC Android Deal Could Pay Off for Microsoft, Not Google"?

And if the article VTPoet links to has any basis in fact (http://www.techdrivein.com/2011/07/list-of-companies-that-pay-royalties-to.html) then only a true Microsoft fundie could defend this.

Sorry If my response is a rather late and a little terse. It is Sunday, my day off, and I have been stuck with a client who insists I install Windows 7 Ultimate on a machine that I say is not up to the task. I hate weekends.

Merk42
July 10th, 2011, 06:34 PM
Welcome to Linux forums, where Microsoft is always the sole bad guy, even when they're the ones being sued (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1779030&highlight=microsoft+lawsuit)

JDShu
July 10th, 2011, 09:41 PM
Chart is a few months out of date, but still relevant to the discussion:

http://technologizer.com/2011/04/19/mobile-lawsuits/

Microsoft is playing the same game as everybody else. The patent system is a mess.

Chronon
July 11th, 2011, 02:18 AM
Welcome to Linux forums, where Microsoft is always the sole bad guy, even when they're the ones being sued (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1779030&highlight=microsoft+lawsuit)
This just seems like a non sequitur.

JDShu
July 11th, 2011, 03:06 AM
This just seems like a non sequitur.

You get used to it.

Roasted
July 12th, 2011, 03:48 PM
Nothing really new, but found this on CNET today.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20078710-266/android-users-dont-fret-over-googles-fee-battles/?tag=cnetRiver

cgroza
July 12th, 2011, 07:45 PM
I see that Motorola fights Microsoft back...

Roasted
July 13th, 2011, 12:40 AM
I see that Motorola fights Microsoft back...

That's good to see. :popcorn::popcorn:

VTPoet
November 15th, 2011, 11:03 PM
Big News!

B&N has finally broken MS's cloak of secrecy. Groklaw has it all. (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011111122291296) The patent claims appear to be ludicrous.:popcorn:

aysiu
November 15th, 2011, 11:29 PM
Big News!

B&N has finally broken MS's cloak of secrecy. Groklaw has it all. (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011111122291296) The patent claims appear to be ludicrous.:popcorn:
Well...
Have others signed such agreements? If so, why would we want to buy their hobbled products? Why are they not instead doing what Barnes & Noble is doing? Seriously, Amazon et al. Why? I think the answer is obvious. The other companies don't want to deal with a litigation war against Microsoft and, more importantly, some of them deal directly with Microsoft in other ways (Samsung making laptops with Windows preinstalled, HTC also selling Windows phones in addition to Android ones) and don't want to bite the hand that feeds them.

simpleblue
November 16th, 2011, 12:25 AM
Here are the alleged patents:



Background image loading. This patent deals with an antiquated method of downloading an embedded background image. It is geared towards people using dial-up connections, which shows its age. It is a bit puzzling that it’s being applied to Android; last we checked the data rate for smartphones is well above 56Kbps.
http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ballmer-fisticuffs-300x214.jpg
Operating system provided tabs. Another head-scratcher here, Microsoft is saying that it has the rights to “tabs that work like dividers in a notebook” that are OS-generated. What’s interesting is IBM already proved this patent as invalid back in 1992 during the OS/2 days. Tabs are something that are present in all platforms on the market. Why wait until now to drag this dead horse back out?
Handles when selecting text. Are you beginning to see the pattern of ridiculousness here? Redmond’s lawyers are saying that they own the right to the handles that appear when a user selects text on a device. The problem with this one is that the patent does not provide the code that was used to achieve the handles — so who knows if B&N, or any other Android users, are actually infringing.
Annotation of electronic documents. This is the process of capturing annotations made in an e-book or similar document without changing the original copy. It sounds like Microsoft is losing a ton of money on this one.
Web browser loading status icons.
Simulating mouse inputs using non-mouse devices. So every touchscreen ever created should have to pay royalties or licensing fees to Microsoft.

VTPoet
November 16th, 2011, 12:33 AM
Yeah... whenever the subject comes up, there are always apologists for MS and patents. Now that the veil is lifted, I wonder what they're strategy will be. The patents appear to be complete bunk. Hope the justice department really does take a good look at this lawsuit and preceding lawsuits (if that's possible).

vasa1
November 16th, 2011, 04:03 AM
Big News!

B&N has finally broken MS's cloak of secrecy. Groklaw has it all. (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011111122291296) The patent claims appear to be ludicrous.:popcorn:

Thanks for the link. If it's true that the grounds are trivial or even non-existent, it looks really really bad on Google's part. Has there been some well hidden quid pro quo that explains Google's silence and inability (or unwillingness) to come the the rescue of Android vendors?

newbie2
November 16th, 2011, 12:07 PM
Well... I think the answer is obvious. The other companies don't want to deal with a litigation war against Microsoft
I think it's more like big dog scares little dog :

In the manner B&N described, Microsoft seemingly approaches each OEM and informs them rather vaguely (nothing specific) that their products are infringing on their patents. At that point there are two important questions the OEM’s must ask themselves, what’s the estimated cost of filtering through these patents, comparing them with the source and seeing if their legit and on the flip-side, what’s the cost of settlement in comparison. To expand a bit on the first thought of the two, companies must fist diagnose how expensive it will be to prove in court that they aren’t infringing and asses how solid of a case they can build all while cross referencing how does “that” cost relate to the product they’re selling. While that nice approximate number is rounded out they must also look at the second question which is, ultimately, how much the cost to settle is. Large corporations use their size and influence to intimidate smaller ones all the time, it’s not uncommon for the smaller company to simply settle when it knows that it would be far out of its comfort zone enduring a long costly battle with a company with the heft of Microsoft.
http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/32459/
:evil:

bastones
November 16th, 2011, 01:37 PM
The world has gone mad :P
Is it even possible for anyone to invent a new OS these days without being forced to pay someone with a patent library?
The patent system stinks.

Indeed it does. It's a mess really. No one can escape patent litigation anymore if you try and innovate new and awesome software. It's a shame.

t0p
November 16th, 2011, 04:05 PM
It's about time someone fronted MS with this crap. A buncha companies, big, middling, small, should join forces and say "Go on then MS... do it!" Even better, the co-op could actually start litigation against MS on as many points of law their evil geniuses/lawyers can unearth. MS are big and rich.. but are they invulnerable from the combined might of everyone else???

If assassins started eliminating MS lawyers, and MS executives started to find incriminating stuff all over the internet, what would they do? The Brain (Gates) has left the company and is now trying to buy his way into whatever heaven geeks believe in; leaving Pinky to dance on the boardroom table. Now is the time to KILL MS, in every sense of the word. Or are the victims just a bunch of abject, pathetic lusers who deserve to have Ballmer flicking his foul baboon secretions at them? I swear, people are stupid.

alexfish
November 17th, 2011, 09:45 AM
It's about time someone fronted MS with this crap. A buncha companies, big, middling, small, should join forces and say "Go on then MS... do it!" Even better, the co-op could actually start litigation against MS on as many points of law their evil geniuses/lawyers can unearth. MS are big and rich.. but are they invulnerable from the combined might of everyone else???

If assassins started eliminating MS lawyers, and MS executives started to find incriminating stuff all over the internet, what would they do? The Brain (Gates) has left the company and is now trying to buy his way into whatever heaven geeks believe in; leaving Pinky to dance on the boardroom table. Now is the time to KILL MS, in every sense of the word. Or are the victims just a bunch of abject, pathetic lusers who deserve to have Ballmer flicking his foul baboon secretions at them? I swear, people are stupid.

Think thats a wrap:
the above seams to indicate:
Simply put MS : For the birds

see this heading for you known where

Dr. C
November 21st, 2011, 04:31 AM
It is a classic bluff by Microsoft, with a lot of chips and a very weak hand, that got called. This one will prove to be very interesting.

VTPoet
November 24th, 2011, 10:59 PM
Just noodling around Groklaw and noticed the following (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20111116222255905):

"Barnes & Noble has filed a truly hilarious compilation of prior art, in a supplemental notice of prior art, which shows me that it's still not too late to keep finding more, if you happen to know of any. And it has asked for a letter rogatory to go after evidence regarding MOSAID, a Canadian firm, and its deal with Microsoft and Nokia via documents and a deposition of the CEO. MOSAID doesn't wish to voluntarily turn over anything."

Looks like B&N is trying to force other settlements into the light of day (just as I hoped) . I wonder if there isn't some panic in Redmond? Looks like this whole sham might come crumbling down around their ears. It also appears that Google is getting into the fray. I notice that patent apologists have been stunningly silent.

Linuxratty
November 25th, 2011, 01:35 AM
Confidentiality agreements are in force. Nobody is talking.



Actually,that's not so.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011111122291296

Mikeb85
November 25th, 2011, 01:55 AM
You need to understand some things about business and investing to understand why these companies are paying Microsoft anything. HTC, Samsung, and others are 'hedging' their bets. Android is hot right now, but they also want to sell an alternative, Windows Phone 7, just in case Android loses favour with the public and Microsoft makes a miraculous comeback.

The licensing deals the OEMs have with Microsoft actually give them Microsoft products for much cheaper, in exchange for a small fee on Android products and some publicity for Microsoft. There's also a reason none of these OEMs have actually disclosed the exact numbers involved.

There's also a reason Motorola doesn't pay Microsoft a dime (and isn't going to) - they don't sell Microsoft products.

All of Microsoft's lawsuits against Linux and Android are garbage, none of their complaints would ever hold up in court...

VTPoet
November 25th, 2011, 04:51 AM
You need to understand some things about business and investing to understand why these companies are paying Microsoft anything.

OK.


HTC, Samsung, and others are 'hedging' their bets. Android is hot right now, but they also want to sell an alternative, Windows Phone 7, just in case Android loses favour with the public and Microsoft makes a miraculous comeback.

Yeah, but no. That's an interesting theory but I don't buy it.

KiwiNZ
November 25th, 2011, 05:02 AM
You need to understand some things about business and investing to understand why these companies are paying Microsoft anything. HTC, Samsung, and others are 'hedging' their bets. Android is hot right now, but they also want to sell an alternative, Windows Phone 7, just in case Android loses favour with the public and Microsoft makes a miraculous comeback.

The licensing deals the OEMs have with Microsoft actually give them Microsoft products for much cheaper, in exchange for a small fee on Android products and some publicity for Microsoft. There's also a reason none of these OEMs have actually disclosed the exact numbers involved.

There's also a reason Motorola doesn't pay Microsoft a dime (and isn't going to) - they don't sell Microsoft products.

All of Microsoft's lawsuits against Linux and Android are garbage, none of their complaints would ever hold up in court...

So you are saying they are paying these license fees to Microsoft so they can be a future customer of Microsoft? with respect that makes no sense at all.

utnubuuser
November 25th, 2011, 05:33 AM
The people who own some MS stock also own some Google Stock, some Samsung stock, some HTC stock, etc, etc, etc, etc... win while loosing, loose to win...

Mikeb85
November 25th, 2011, 07:59 AM
So you are saying they are paying these license fees to Microsoft so they can be a future customer of Microsoft? with respect that makes no sense at all.

Hedging your bet amounts to buying insurance. You bet a certain amount against your primary investment so that if you bet wrong, your losses are much less.

In the case of these OEMs, they are betting most of their chips on Android, and a few on Microsoft in case Android fails - and why not? Commercially Windows has been very successful, why not phones? Also consider that Open-Source has been less successful commercially than proprietary software, so Android can be considered by many people an experiment in capitalism.

Now Windows Phone 7 licenses are approximately 8-15 dollars per handset. Windows 7 for PC much more. Samsung sells Windows Phones, and Windows PCs... Is it so inconceivable that they'd be willing to pay a fee of approx 5 dollars to protect them from any current and future litigation against Android, while at the same time receiving a discount on licenses for products they already sell?

BTW, all this information has been floating around stock-trading circles for quite some time, it's not particularly new. (all of my income for the last while has come from stock trading, so I spend a considerable amount of time researching various companies, including techs)

And hedging bets is something all publicly traded companies do (and many individual investors), for instance, companies who sell in foreign markets always make currency bets to reduce the effects of foreign exchange rate fluctuations, even if it loses them money some quarters...

Mikeb85
November 25th, 2011, 08:06 AM
The people who own some MS stock also own some Google Stock, some Samsung stock, some HTC stock, etc, etc, etc, etc... win while loosing, loose to win...

Exactly. Putting all your eggs in one basket is risky, not everyone can afford to take that risk, and not everyone can stomach it (especially not publicly traded companies).

Chame_Wizard
November 25th, 2011, 09:22 AM
Barnes & Nobles is an awesome company.:lolflag:

Too bad they aren't in Europe yet.

KiwiNZ
November 25th, 2011, 09:49 AM
Hedging your bet amounts to buying insurance. You bet a certain amount against your primary investment so that if you bet wrong, your losses are much less.

In the case of these OEMs, they are betting most of their chips on Android, and a few on Microsoft in case Android fails - and why not? Commercially Windows has been very successful, why not phones? Also consider that Open-Source has been less successful commercially than proprietary software, so Android can be considered by many people an experiment in capitalism.

Now Windows Phone 7 licenses are approximately 8-15 dollars per handset. Windows 7 for PC much more. Samsung sells Windows Phones, and Windows PCs... Is it so inconceivable that they'd be willing to pay a fee of approx 5 dollars to protect them from any current and future litigation against Android, while at the same time receiving a discount on licenses for products they already sell?

BTW, all this information has been floating around stock-trading circles for quite some time, it's not particularly new. (all of my income for the last while has come from stock trading, so I spend a considerable amount of time researching various companies, including techs)

And hedging bets is something all publicly traded companies do (and many individual investors), for instance, companies who sell in foreign markets always make currency bets to reduce the effects of foreign exchange rate fluctuations, even if it loses them money some quarters...

This whole thing is nothing like spreading ones investment portfolio.

Microsoft is the Seller, Samsung, HTC, Nokia are the customer, they BUY from MSFT. They do NOT need to go cap in hand like Oliver saying "please Sir may I have more"

Mikeb85
November 25th, 2011, 02:10 PM
This whole thing is nothing like spreading ones investment portfolio.

Yes it is. They invest their time and resources (ie. money) in creating a product, in hopes of making money from it.



Microsoft is the Seller, Samsung, HTC, Nokia are the customer, they BUY from MSFT. They do NOT need to go cap in hand like Oliver saying "please Sir may I have more"

Samsung, HTC are also sellers. They're not begging Microsoft, not by a long shot, merely diversifying their smartphone offerings. Most companies offer diverse product lines, in every business, this is no different.

Anyhow, you don't have to believe me, but it is the truth. OEMs have obviously decided that for now the fee Microsoft wants works for them, else they wouldn't pay up. Motorola, Barnes and Noble, and a few others have refused to pay MS, and Microsoft likely won't take them through the courts, because they have too much to lose.

VTPoet
November 25th, 2011, 04:40 PM
...consider that Open-Source has been less successful commercially than proprietary software...

Yes, but this doesn't characterize Android. Android may use the Linux kernel, but it's not comparable to a distro like Ubuntu. Android already outsells iOS. At this point, Android is hardly "an experiment in capitalism", and Microsoft's tactics demonstrate that.


Is it so inconceivable that they'd be willing to pay a fee of approx 5 dollars to protect them from any current and future litigation against Android, while at the same time receiving a discount on licenses for products they already sell?

Not inconceivable, but the motives you ascribe are unlikely. What you're describing is racketeering and extortion. It's on these terms that B&N is requesting a Justice Dept. investigation. It's far more likely that these smaller companies simply chose the path of least resistance. It's the same dynamic that happens when the mob tells you, the owner of the laundromat, that they want a cut. What are you going to do? You're going to pay up, and with a smile. Calling it insurance isn't far from the mark, but I think you mis-characterize the reasons they do so. KiwiNZ is right, they could have accomplished the same thing without paying MS protection money.


BTW, all this information has been floating around stock-trading circles for quite some time, it's not particularly new.

Yeah... and we all know how smart those guys have been during the last few years.


(all of my income for the last while has come from stock trading, so I spend a considerable amount of time researching various companies, including techs)

That hardly means your theories are correct. However, I admire your ability to work the market. Something I ought to consider. I read Burton Malkiel's book a while back, but it seems that his random market theories are being increasingly discredited.


And hedging bets is something all publicly traded companies do (and many individual investors), for instance, companies who sell in foreign markets always make currency bets to reduce the effects of foreign exchange rate fluctuations, even if it loses them money some quarters...

Yes, I suppose paying protection money is a kind of bet hedging.

KiwiNZ
November 25th, 2011, 06:34 PM
Yes it is. They invest their time and resources (ie. money) in creating a product, in hopes of making money from it.



Samsung, HTC are also sellers. They're not begging Microsoft, not by a long shot, merely diversifying their smartphone offerings. Most companies offer diverse product lines, in every business, this is no different.

Anyhow, you don't have to believe me, but it is the truth. OEMs have obviously decided that for now the fee Microsoft wants works for them, else they wouldn't pay up. Motorola, Barnes and Noble, and a few others have refused to pay MS, and Microsoft likely won't take them through the courts, because they have too much to lose.

It is simple, the companies that are paying have looked at the situation and believe there is a risk that needs mitigating, those that are not paying believe the risk is not sufficient to warrant payment to mitigate.

It has nothing to do with what you originally postulated that they are paying to ensure that they can use MSFT products in the future.

Time will tell what camp has made the right decision.

Mikeb85
November 26th, 2011, 04:49 AM
It is simple, the companies that are paying have looked at the situation and believe there is a risk that needs mitigating, those that are not paying believe the risk is not sufficient to warrant payment to mitigate.

It has nothing to do with what you originally postulated that they are paying to ensure that they can use MSFT products in the future.

Time will tell what camp has made the right decision.

That is exactly what I've been trying to say. I have no love for Microsoft btw, but some companies believe it necessary to deal with them, right or wrong. I also personally believe that patents have no place in our system of law, but that's another topic...

LinuxFan999
November 27th, 2011, 01:51 AM
I have no love for Microsoft either, and I think the companies that Microsoft targets should fight back.

Mikeb85
November 27th, 2011, 02:44 AM
I have no love for Microsoft either, and I think the companies that Microsoft targets should fight back.

In time.

Motorola (which Google owns, or will soon anyway) and Microsoft are currently engaged in a lawsuit, and knowing how Google operates - they'll fight it out till the bitter end, until Microsoft gives up or a court decides the matter. Barnes and Noble has also requested a federal probe into the matter.

Mikeb85
November 27th, 2011, 02:55 AM
Yes, but this doesn't characterize Android. Android may use the Linux kernel, but it's not comparable to a distro like Ubuntu. Android already outsells iOS. At this point, Android is hardly "an experiment in capitalism", and Microsoft's tactics demonstrate that.

So far a very successful experiment, but Android is still quite young. Open Source is still a very foreign concept to most companies, and few understand it. Although I heard Samsung is going to make Bada (an OS which can run on a variety of kernels, including BSDs and Linux) Open Source as well.



Not inconceivable, but the motives you ascribe are unlikely. What you're describing is racketeering and extortion. It's on these terms that B&N is requesting a Justice Dept. investigation. It's far more likely that these smaller companies simply chose the path of least resistance. It's the same dynamic that happens when the mob tells you, the owner of the laundromat, that they want a cut. What are you going to do? You're going to pay up, and with a smile. Calling it insurance isn't far from the mark, but I think you mis-characterize the reasons they do so. KiwiNZ is right, they could have accomplished the same thing without paying MS protection money.


I agree that what Microsoft is doing amounts to extortion, but there are many reasons for some companies to give in (for now anyway).



Yeah... and we all know how smart those guys have been during the last few years.

The mainstream talking heads are idiots, agreed. But most of the people who lost big are the average investor, who invested in mutual funds (which are a scam) and big banks. Most hedge funds and competent traders made a killing.



That hardly means your theories are correct. However, I admire your ability to work the market. Something I ought to consider. I read Burton Malkiel's book a while back, but it seems that his random market theories are being increasingly discredited.

I've found it easier to make money in a market such as the current one. Increased volatility and already depressed prices means you can find alot of upside in a very short time (just don't hold for too long).



Yes, I suppose paying protection money is a kind of bet hedging.

A pragmatic one...

RabbitWho
November 27th, 2011, 03:21 PM
Confidentiality agreements are in force. Nobody is talking.

I have to say, I don't get that. Why do companies agree to confidentiality when they're being sued? How is that not against their own interest? Barnes & Noble, after all, refused to agree and the details embarrassed Microsoft - or so we're told.

I assume if they agree to this Microsoft sue them for slightly less money / rights