Microsoft Wants $15 Per Android Smartphone 361
sfcrazy writes "Microsoft Corp has demanded that Samsung Electronics Co Ltd pay $15 for each smartphone handset it makes based on Google Inc's Android operating system. The software giant claims to own a wide range of patents used in the mobile platform. From the article: 'Samsung would likely seek to lower the payment to about $10 in exchange for a deeper alliance with Microsoft for the U.S. company's Windows platform, the Maeil Business Newspaper quoted unnamed industry officials as saying.'"
Windows Phone (Score:5, Interesting)
How much does Microsoft want to license Windows Phone OS? My understanding is...around $15.
So, $15 to license Windows Phone 7 with a bunch of software that Microsoft paid to develop and has to maintain along with patent licenses, or $15 to license Android that doesn't contain a single line of Microsoft code but needs the patent licenses? I'm sure their patents are worth something, but this seems a wee bit overpriced.
Re:Windows Phone (Score:5, Interesting)
no doubt many have already decided to give Microsoft the money instead of fighting them and only a very few are fighting. Too bad those fights will be dragged out for years.
LoB
Re:Windows Phone (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if there are antitrust implications of licensing the patents for that same price that they sell the software for.
Re: (Score:3)
My point was that Windows license includes a patent license as well. If the patent license is the same prices as the Windows+patent license, then they are pricing Windows at $0 over the underlying patents. (Assuming that Windows uses the same patented tech that Android does, which given the nature of the products is quite likely.) This does not pass the anti-trust smell test IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the entire point. They want to A) say that Android isn't free, nor is it as profitable as a result. And B) show that for a similar licensing fee or less, you can (as a company) quit forcing your customers into a no-win upgrade cycle that Apple has gotten out of doing. Microsoft is almost certainly asking for $15 while aiming to be haggled down to around $10 with a stronger partnership negotiated for WP7, which follows Apple's one-year (or maybe they'll go to semi-annual) upgrade path. To be frank, Sa
Devil's Advocate (Score:4, Interesting)
If Google is allowed to make Android available to anyone for free, then why shouldn't Microsoft be allowed to competitively price their mobile OS at $0 as well? From that point of view it costs $15 for the mobile patent licenses either way, and WP7 is thrown in for free.
Re: (Score:2)
That's kind of expensive. I thought they were paying people to use it, no?
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's probably Bing you're thinking of.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Spoken like a true person that has never used one, and someone who definitely has never used a WP7 running the upcoming Mango release.
Re: (Score:2)
Does that release add support for out of market installation?
Add a grown up kernel underneath?
If so please do point me to the source tree, so I can build it.
Re:Windows Phone (Score:5, Funny)
Android's features from a year ago...coming in only four months from now! I'm so excited! I just love nostalgia.
Thickets of Patents all litigated in East Texas (Score:5, Insightful)
Eventually this will wind up with either Samsung entering a "mutual" royalty agreement where undisclosed patents are licensed by guys in trenchcoats, on a bridge, in fog.
Or, they'll go into court and to to patentville USA Marshall TX where every scumbag patent thicket group brings their IP litigation. It's friendlier in East Texas y'all.
It's the cost of doing business I guess.
Re:Thickets of Patents all litigated in East Texas (Score:4, Insightful)
An Open Letter (Score:2)
Dear Microsoft, you don't innovate by rent-seeking. This is why no one cares what you are doing anymore. You have become irrelevant, like the other tech giants before you.
Re: (Score:2)
In the the world of mobile operating systems they have become very very irrelevant.
Mobile is one market space where they've failed to use their Windows Hegemony on the desktop to maintain a strong position.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly are these patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone know exactly what Microsoft's patents involve? Without knowing that, it's hard to make sense of any of these stories.
Based on the published newspaper articles so far, though, I must say it looks as if patent law is being used to accomplish the exact opposite of its supposed intent. Rather than guaranteeing an inventor the sole enjoyment of revenue from its innovations for a period, it is being used by a company that is not a serious player in the market to impede others from selling their products - and to give it a substantial stream of wholly unearned revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
While your other points may be true, what makes you think MS is not a serious player in the market? They have a full blown product with 25,000 apps written for it, and are actively going to release a huge update this year and planning another one next year. It isn't some random patent troll in East Texas.
Re:What exactly are these patents? (Score:5, Informative)
They include:
(in parenthesis: page and paragraph in document where validity of patent is put in question)
Patent 5,778,372: "Remote Retrieval and Display Management of Electronic Document with Incorporated Images". This refers to loading the text of a web-page before the background image. (page 16, paragraph 33)
Patent 6,339,780: "Loading Status in a Hypermedia Browser Having a Limited Available Display Area". This basically treats putting the "Loading" message inside the page area instead of the toolbar. (page 16, paragraph 32)
Patent 5,889,522: "System Provided Child Window Controls". (page 17, paragraph 34)
Patent 6,891,551: "Selection Handles in Editing Electronic Documents". (page 17, paragraph 35)
Patent 6,957,233: "Method and Apparatus for Capturing and Rendering Annotations for Non-Modifiable Electronic Content". (page 17, paragraph 36)
Patents 5,579,517 and 5,758,352. Dealing with file name compatibility between different OS (page 14, paragraph 29)
Patents 6,791,536 and 6,897,853. Simulating mouse inputs without a mouse (page 15, paragraph 30)
Patent 5,652,913. Shared data structure for storing input/output data (age 16, paragraph 31).
Ok so you extort manufacturers. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then, what if i entitle myself to $15 worth of pirated microsoft products in return ?
Then microsoft win again, as you're using their product rather than a competitor.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a lot of money for little value (Score:2)
Embedding an entire OS (WindRiver VXWorks) costs around $15 per system. Putting Java on a Blu-ray player or phone costs in a similar range ($5-15 I believe).
Microsoft contributed nothing to the development of this phone, except being the first ones to patent specific ideas. I'm all for protecting processes, but our patent system really needs to be fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft contributed nothing to the development of this phone, except being the first ones to patent specific ideas. I'm all for protecting processes, but our patent system really needs to be fixed.
Substitute "a small inventor in his garage" though...
A small inventor in his garage contributed nothing to the development of this phone, except being the first one to patent specific ideas.
Would he have a claim to force Samsung to pay up? Would you support him, or crap all over him?
Re: (Score:2)
"Would you support him, or crap all over him?"
Can't I just IGNORE HIM??? Why do you present this FALSE DICHOTOMY???
"being the first one to patent specific ideas"
Unless you have something specific in mind, this is nothing more than a useless STRAW MAN ARGUMENT.
Please come back when you learn how to express yourself without falling into the most obvious logical fallacies.
Re: (Score:2)
Substitute "a small inventor in his garage" though...
The small inventor in his garage can't afford to defend his patent. A major corporation can violate it all they want and never pay a dime.
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung would fight him and bankrupt him in court. The patent system is not for the little guy, never was.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can!!! Have at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Before the iPhone or even the existence of Google, Microsoft was developing and selling millions of mobile devices and created many patents on them. Sure, most were nonstarters or even lame, but they showed a lot of people, including Steve Jobs, what might work and what to avoid. If Microsoft tries to recoup their investment, can you really blame them?
Not really. Part of me understands that capitalism needs this. But at the same time, the holders of the patents aren't sharing their technology, or charge absurd prices for simple ideas.
We really just need to reduce the length of software patents.
Re: (Score:3)
mmm, I would prefer the complete removal of software patents. The way software is developed, they thought process, the community. A;; this are different from software then hardware. Plus, hardware is dependent on software, so removing software from the patent process in no way inhibits it's innovation.
It should fall under copyright.
Fight! (Score:2)
Samsung Galaxy S II Astonishes With 3 Million Units Sold in 55 Days [christianpost.com]
So there is $45 million that Microsoft figures Samsung must owe at $15 a pop. At that pace Microsoft expects about $289 million a year.
I suspect, and hope, that Samsung will figure they can risk a fraction of that to fight the legal battle for a few years. Perhaps invalidate a mass of patents ah la Oracle/Google.
Re:Fight! (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes. This seems like a reasonable business choice. $15 is a ridiculous figure. I have heard that figure is what Microsoft charges for their own mobile OS. This certainly doesn't seem to be "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing. I say fight too. Also, it's a little entertaining to see all the crap go down as it has been. There seems to be a massive increase in [software] patent litigation and I have to wonder when everyone playing the game will finally realize we are all better off without it.
Re: (Score:3)
This certainly doesn't seem to be "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing.
Note that RAND is not a legal requirement for patents.
(though perhaps it should be)
Re: (Score:3)
But you have to look at the downside for Samsung if they win. They open the door to the idea that these patents are just hogwash, and then patents start getting invalidated all over the place. The next thing you know, new companies, little bitty upstarts that aren't even public companies listed on a valid exchange, are able to compete in the market. Big companies don't have a "patent club" to beat them down with anymore.
Samsung won't have any of that.
Welcome to Phase 3. (Score:2)
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Gandi
Re: (Score:2)
gandhi slept with underage women. he was also a racist. look it up.
I don't consider him any special person, really. history made him a hero but real life did not.
he had good points and bad point; but a saint or enlightened person he was definitely NOT.
Re:Welcome to Phase 3. (Score:4, Funny)
How do you know being a racist that sleeps with underage women isn't the height of enlightenment or saintly behavior?
Why does google just sit idly by? (Score:3)
One thing that makes me really sick is to see a [powerful] company like Google sit idly by and simply watch trolls like Microsoft smear the Android OS.
Does Google think Microsoft's actions elevate Android's profile?
This is what I would do if I were Google:
Change Android's licence to at least require that any patent agreement entered into by an Android licensee with parties like Microsoft particularly pertaining to Android's 'infringements' be made public at least as far as what patents are involved.
Is this too much to expect?
Re: (Score:2)
"require that any patent agreement entered into by an Android licensee with parties like Microsoft"
Bizarre way of thinking...
The only possible outcome for google in your scenario is that people will not bother to sign contracts with them.
Microsoft is at least claiming some sort of legal reason to restrain their customers, this... not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
No contracts need to be signed. The requirement is to just meet license conditions, period.
That is..."If you are to get into any patent licencing agreements pertaining to Android, these particular patents must be made public."
After-all, the patents themselves *are* public knowledge, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Because they've nothing much to win from doing that?
Samsung's might be quite willing to pay $15 per device. They're probably not about to stop shipping Android because of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Microsoft Research (Score:4, Informative)
You, Microsoft has a huge legal division expert in the following subjects
- Barratry
- Intimidation
- Patent trolling
ftfy
Re: (Score:2)
There used to be a website dedicated the the Microsoft 'Innovation' Hall of Shame, but it doesn't seem to exist anymore :-(.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think I recall that site. It said that Microsoft's only innovation in user interfaces was the combo box -- which is a terrible design.
Re:Microsoft Research (Score:5, Funny)
I think I recall that site. It said that Microsoft's only innovation in user interfaces was the combo box -- which is a terrible design.
Like the one used to assign mod points? Oh, the irony!
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know you could type your own rating into the /. rating dropdown lists; if not it's no combo box but just a plain old dropdown list.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think I recall that site. It said that Microsoft's only innovation in user interfaces was the combo box -- which is a terrible design.
Terrible design... Except when used in browsers with search suggestions and possible URL matches.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft Research (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft Research (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
"Developers, developers, developers."
Re:Microsoft Research (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft Research (Score:5, Insightful)
No. No one has. Patents are a scam, a hindrance to innovation and the free market. They must be ABOLISHED.
Re:Microsoft Research (Score:4, Informative)
Why? It's a fact, patents hinder innovation -- history shows that. [thefreemanonline.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I see a lot of people bashing Apple for patent trolling just as much as Microsoft. Sure there's a few Apple fanbois who think Apple can do no wrong, but it seems most people dislike Apple and Microsoft both.
Re:Microsoft Research (Score:5, Insightful)
So when Apple sues Samsung, everyone cheers and claims Apple has every right to defend it's patents.
Where was this? Around here the torches and pitchforks were waving about how you shouldn't be able to protect 'look and feel'.
There's plenty of hypocrisy here, you just found the wrong example.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're the only person who holds a point of view, in a sea of people with various opposing opinions, that doesn't necessarily mean that you are wrong. But, it DOES mean that you might benefit from reexamining your position.
Software patents are simply WRONG. Microsoft wants to raise the Microsoft Tax, and extend it to places where they can't compete at all, let alone directly. "If you use ANY computing device, you must PAY US!"
Simple bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple also is capable of turning a profit in the mobile space. They have devices that work well and sell on their own merits. Apple is not reduced to patent trolling to make money in wireless because they can actually make money the old fashioned way, by getting consumers to buy their products.
Re: (Score:3)
Because "making a profit" and "suing a competitor who ripped off your design (allegedly)" are not mutually exclusive?
Re:Microsoft Research (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a game of poker. You have to pay to play.
Here's what I think. If any patents used to make such threats turn out to be bad or unsupportable, they get converted to charges of extortion.
Re: (Score:2)
How many lawyers do they have in the legal division making up obfuscated obvious patents that probably won't stand up in court for the war chest, hoping to intimidate anyone without deep enough pockets to stand up to them?
It's possible MS has a case here, but that doesn't make them any less part of the problem.
Fuck Microsoft Research (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuck Microsoft Research (Score:5, Interesting)
You obviously don't understand business nor did you read the article. This isn't a research item this is a patent item. To a company a patent is an asset that can be used in trade or to beat a competitor over the head. Research doesn't necessarily lead to great inventions and what makes us think that Microsoft invented the inventions that they now own? Lots of companies buy and sell patents just like you or I would sell a used bicycle. I have four patents and one, from a job I had more than 15 years ago, has traded hands no fewer than 8 times. Did any of the interceding owners of that patent "invent" anything? No, but they owned the rights to that patent and presumably made money by selling it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What, that they can be traded? Is that the problem with houses, cars and antique porn mags too?
Re: (Score:2)
But owning a house, car or skin mag does not prevent anyone else from making similar items. Monopolies are different.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for pointing out what's wrong with the patent system again.
Sadly, it's still better than copyrights. At least patents expire, even if it is after, what, 20 years now?
Re: (Score:2)
You can blame Mickey Mouse for the copyright problem. That and Sony Bono too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act [wikipedia.org]
You can also trust in the knowledge that when Mickey Mouse comes close to being "public domain", once again our congress will extend copyrights further.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fuck Microsoft Research (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I indicated that ownership doesn't necessarily mean that an owner innovates. And at what point does owning a few patents mark you as being a troll?
Now, there are companies that I think we can all agree on produce nothing yet have large patent holdings. It's free enterprise at its best however they only exist to flog would-be licensees with the threat of litigation to get them to sign on to royalty agreements.
A software patent is a dicey proposition. If you truly make something that's an innovation an
Re:Fuck Microsoft Research (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They've got decent R&D combined with crap design, marketing and management. Not such an uncommon problem, actually.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They do make their own products. Competing products in fact. Therein lies the problem. Patents exists to provide incentive to research, you get a temporary monopoly on something you develop, in exchange for having developed it. Whether or not that should apply to software in general is an important question, but as it stands today software is patentable. If MS research patents something they own it until the patent expires, and they get to licence it.
Now, one can argue if patents are too broad, to absu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> Prior to patent every company kept its own in house guarded secrets which they literally had to write special rules to guard
Companies still have that. They have that for things that they don't want an expiring patent on.
The problem with patents, is that most of them are not terribly inventive. The net "social cost" of the pre-patent situation is far less destructive than the actual current patent system. The entire industry for the most part would be far better off if they could simply re-invent everyt
Re: (Score:2)
But if we use the steel analogy. MS is making steel, and came up with a new, better way to make more of it. They patent that technique. Samsung shouldn't be able to just waltz over, copy the design, and implement it themselves and leave MS research unrewarded for the work they did
Last time I looked, the main patent Microsoft were using to bludgeon makers of Linux devices - and certainly the hardest to challenge - was the FAT Long File Names patent. Having actually looked at the details of how it works, FAT with LFN is an abomination - unpleasant to implement, designed to maintain compatibility with OSes that haven't been in use for decades, and generally worse than the competition in all but one respect. The one "redeeming" feature of it, the reason that so many hardware manufacture
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If their R&D is so awesome, why can't they make their own products and not resort to ripping off other businesses to make money?
You fail to understand that ripping off competitors is the new industry standard. No one really makes anything new anymore. They just copy ip and wait to get sued. Success is not measured by innovation but rather the skill of your legal department. Seriously though I'm having a hard time believing Microsoft has research in social computing. Does anyone remember the Kin?
Re:Fuck Microsoft Research (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
it's almost impossible to bring a product to market without infringing dozens upon dozens of completely random patents.
+1 insightful for that bit right there.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
- shitty workarounds for 3 character hard-coded file extensions, preventing you from reading a standard format SD card without using their workaround which is the *only* solution.
- being able to back out of an upgrade after a mid-upgrade system crash, using the highly complex process of reverting the files
- patents on things which more describe the problem than the solution
As for the above list, they have proved countless times that they're not very good at it, and most of their patents are on ob
So (Score:5, Funny)
They really do lots of research, and should enjoy the results aswell.
Why did they put these benefits in Android and not in Windows?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Microsoft Research (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that something is re-invented multiple times in isolation is the very definition of obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
You, Microsoft has a huge R&D division in the following subjects - Algorithms and theory - Hardware development - Human–computer interaction - Machine learning, adaptation, and intelligence - Multimedia and graphics - Search, retrieval, and knowledge management - Security and cryptography - Social computing - Software development - Systems, architectures, mobility, and networking - Computational and Systems Biology It's the largest one in the industry. They really do lots of research, and should enjoy the results aswell.
I don't have any mod points and I'm not sure if your comment is correct but I see nothing that merits a troll rating. Can someone fix this please?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Except at, you know, the patent office; which has a huge online searchable index. I will make the wide assumption that google is aware of the internet, patents, and searching things on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like they're outsourcing shills to India now!
Re: (Score:3)
Research labs always marvel me because of this strange dance that they do with patents and science. I've worked with people from IBM Research, I can see now what's in a patent. After this disclaimer, I'm clear to go :) -> This is my opinion and does not necessarily reflect the one from my employer.
Patents are, at least in principle, a great weapon against industrial espionage. They work by, ironically, publishing your secrets to the world and gaining, in exchange, a monopoly on the design. But you *have
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess, middle finger?
Re: (Score:2)
LoB
Re: (Score:3)
*wank sign*