LG To Pay Licensing Fees To Microsoft For Using Android 359
PerlJedi writes "InformationWeek reports that LG is the latest in a string of companies who have been bullied into paying 'license fees' to Microsoft for the use of Android on their products. 'Microsoft said the deal with LG means that 70% of Android-based smartphones sold in the U.S. are now covered by its licensing program. ... Microsoft does not disclose how much revenue it's obtaining from Android, Chrome, and Linux licenses, but some analysts believe it may be substantial, to the point where the company is making significant profits from the mobile revolution even though its own offering, Windows Phone, commands a market share of less than 2%, according to Gartner.'"
I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
In what way is this different to any other form of extorting money with menaces?
"Nice mobile phone business you've got here. Would be a shame if anything were to... happen to it."
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact that the regulators are on the take with bribes perhaps?
Remember that lobbying has an ROI of %22,000
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the bribes came in when "somebody" bribed the patent office to allow the actually invalid patents to be issued
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
the bribes came in when "somebody" bribed the patent office to allow the actually invalid patents to be issued
[Citation needed] Microsoft has a huge R&D division, larger than any other company in the industry has. Their patents are invalid, they're good patents given after lots of research. Microsoft spends billions a year to do it, so it's only fair that other companies pay up if they want to profit from the results of Microsoft's R&D.
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has a huge R&D division, larger than any other company in the industry has. Their patents are invalid, they're good patents given after lots of research. Microsoft spends billions a year to do it, so it's only fair that other companies pay up if they want to profit from the results of Microsoft's R&D.
The real question here is, how is Android profiting from Microsoft's R&D? Maybe it would help if Microsoft ever actually said which patents were being violated, and how. Have they?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's completely illegal and really ought to be the focus of an antitrust probe. You can't send a letter demanding payment for allegedly infringing upon a patent and be required to sign an NDA to see the patent. That's not a legitimate move and quite frankly, the MS execs that thought of that ought to be dragged out into the street and beaten severely with chairs.
Patents are public information for a reason, one should be able to look them up to figure out if one is or isn't violating one.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's completely illegal and really ought to be the focus of an antitrust probe. You can't send a letter demanding payment for allegedly infringing upon a patent and be required to sign an NDA to see the patent. That's not a legitimate move and quite frankly, the MS execs that thought of that ought to be dragged out into the street and beaten severely with chairs.
Patents are public information for a reason, one should be able to look them up to figure out if one is or isn't violating one.
Have you paid attention to the B&N vs Microsoft lawsuit currently ongoing? The patents ARE revealed, at least in that case. B&N's trying to get an antitrust probe in play and are saying that MS is engaging in patent misuse. Its all over on Groklaw.
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that is completely unacceptable. There should be NO NDA whatsoever needed to see these patents. For one, patents are supposed to be publicized. If I knew what patents Microsoft was talking about, I could go look them up in the patent database and get the specifics myself.
The idea that you should have to sign an NDA so you can't tell others what patents were involved is absolutely disgusting, and is only appealing to Microsoft, and their fanboys that would excuse their every action.
Triple damages of 1 penny - about right (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be nice to have one of these suits actually go to a court where the judge actually understands the 'value' of these patents. Even if they're valid, they're worth about 1 millionth of the cost of the phone. Have some judge set damages of a penny and let's be done with this crap.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
The basis behind original idea of patenting requires openness about what is actually patented, so that other inventors can either plan to incorporate your inventions into theirs (and pay you for it) or plan their inventions not to infringe on your patents.
By obfuscating which patents are being infringed on, microsoft's behavior becomes unethical, as they are going against the aforementioned purpose of patents, making it harder for companies not directly involved to plan their current and future inventions.
Unfortunately this "patent obfuscation" combined with "mass patenting of everything even remotely patentable", while unethical, has become modus operandi. Inventors not only cannot easily check which patents they may be infringing upon, they can't even ask a company with patents if they are infringing and if they are, what exactly they're infringing upon (so they could plan on either incorporating or going around the said patents)!
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's ridiculous - there's far too much potential for abuse and is an obvious case of racketeering seeing as we already know that the patents are bogus. While it should be illegal for any patent licensing agreement to be covered by a NDA, I guess you couldn't expect such sensibility from any country that would allow software patents in the first place though.
Another victory for bribing politicians! And another step by America towards becoming an irrelevant country with an artificial, inflated Imaginary Property Economy.
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:4, Insightful)
While it should be illegal for any patent licensing agreement to be covered by a NDA
Why do patent licence deals have to be public knowledge? I might not want my competitors to know what technology I'm using in my product.
seeing as we already know that the patents are bogus
No you don't. All you know know is what are in the B&N case. They may not be all patents. But in the end even those are in fact patents legally granted to MS, and no matter how "bogus" you consider them you can't just violate them outright and not expect to be sued.
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF?!?!? Your "competitors" already know your technology BECAUSE you filed for the patent. That is the whole point of patents. You tell everyone what your invention is and everyone agrees that you get exclusive rights to it for a limited time.
I see a better way around it. Do what Red Hat was trying to do in Delaware with SCO and have Google take the Android code base to a judge and have it declared "non-infringing". That ought to wake Microsoft up.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, that's why it would make sense for licensee to make licensor sign NDA. Not the other way around.
Re: (Score:3)
What. I know what NDA is, you still miss the part where it doesn't make sense for licensor to force NDA on licensee about which patents were in the deal.
Go check B&N's negotiations story - "You're infringing on our patents, and we'll tell you which patents are those after you sign this NDA". You mean MS was just going out on a limb to help B&N and others with this, so those poor darlings won't accidentally tell competition about their future product lines and ruin themselves?
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't like the patent system, reform it by lobbying your government. The megacorporations are just playing by those rules and really don't give a hoot about what the average consumer thinks.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I thought it was pretty much an "open secret" that its the FAT long filename stuff?
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt that. MS has never innovated much of anything. All of their software products were a result of acquisitions of other companies and their IP, not innovation.
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Informative)
Not true. Barnes and Noble saw the patents decided not to pay and as a result the patents are now known to be completely ridiculous.
You can't sign an NDA in a situation like this and expect for it to hold up in court if the party decides they want to fight it. For one thing those patents become a part of the law suit and for another no court is ever going to go for the notion that one doesn't have the right to see the patents before opting to settled, consequently there is no legal basis for MS' NDA.
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes.
They could be overturned.
Not easily, however. The litigation costs are high enough that it's cheaper to pay the protection racket. Multi-billion dollar corporations make decisions like this all the time -- if it's cheaper to cave to ridiculous claims than to fight them, then they'll roll right over. Even if they could win the fight.
And if the fight is in East Texas (like it commonly is) even poor quality patents are frequently upheld, so winning is up in the air no matter how strong the case against the patent holder.
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it happens more frequently than you would think. MS is no longer under DoJ supervision and in many of those cases the companies are getting their royalty money back from MS. MS also has the ability to turn the screws on the Windows licenses that those companies have.
B&N is in the unusual position of not having or needing a license for Windows and wouldn't be getting any kickbacks for paying the extortion money.
As for flimsy patents, the courts are completely unpredictable, Blizzard was able to convince a court that Glider infringed upon its WoW copyright by making an in memory copy of the game even though that's expressly not infringement under the law.
Copyrights are even worse as evidenced by Apple's ridiculous rounded rectangle patent trolling. And don't forget about the TX court of no turn downs where anybody can get money for somebody elses fictitious patent infringement.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You're not talking logic at all. You used nothing logical in your post. You said that signing the deals was evidence that MS's patents are valid, when, without knowing the patents in question, you cannot make that conclusion at all.
The only logical conclusion you can come to is that the companies felt that the costs for paying the MS license fee was less than fighting it out in court. That's it.
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreeing to a licensing fee doesn't mean that that patents are necessarily valid. It could equally mean that the victim company's risk analysts said that the cost of "licensing" was less than the cost of fighting it in court.
It isn't a question of satisfying "some forum trolls", but rather a public demand to know what these patents are, so that folks like, say, Google, can engineer ways to stop "violating" these "patents".
That Microsoft wants to keep it a big secret says that they are more interested in making money (and spreading FUD) than in not seeing their alleged intellectual property violated. IMO, it is a gross perversion of the system.
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Interesting)
...it's only fair that other companies pay up if they want to profit from the results of Microsoft's R&D.
You see, the problem with patents is that even if you didn't benefit from Microsoft R&D, you have to pay up. How is that fair?
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:4, Interesting)
[Citation needed] Microsoft has a huge R&D division, larger than any other company in the industry has.
Remember that on balance sheets, programmers can be counted as R&D. The D stands for Development, so it's not like Micosoft is spending $9billion annually on research.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, very specific criterias need to be met so that a programmer can be approved in the R&D billing. It might depend on where you live, or what are the incentives for doing R&D, but the rules are pretty stringent here.
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I'm sure Microsoft totally bribed the patent office because it's not like the patent office will just rubber stamp _anything_ anyway.
Your dweeby neckbeard fantasies are amusing to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's extortion because if you asked them exactly what Patents you are licensing they will refuse to tell you, unless you pay first, and sign an NDA.
So it's basically,
"Buy this box"
"Can I see what's in the box?"
"No"
"How about pick it up and shake it a bit?"
"No"
"Well, I don't want to buy it then"
"Ok, see you in court"
"Hang on a minute, maybe I will buy it then"
"OK, but before you do, please sign this NDA, we don't want you telling any other mug, sorry future customers, what's in the box"
"That doesn't sound very fair"
"Ok, see you in court then"
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Informative)
unless you pay first, and sign an NDA.
That's not true at all. The NDA is required, but not paying up front.
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Informative)
If they disclose it would be easier to cope with (Score:5, Insightful)
" Microsoft owns the patents based on years of R&D (Microsoft Research is the largest R&D center on the industry) and they legally ask for companies to pay to use their patented technology."
How do you know they own the patent? Because LG paid? That is not an argument.
"Microsoft owns the patents based on years of R&D (Microsoft Research is the largest R&D center on the industry) and they legally ask for companies to pay to use their patented technology."
If they disclose it would be easier to cope with. Maybe one can remove any offending code, but one is not given the chance to do that...
This is why their tactics are bad.
Maybe someone came up with the idea, without consulting their R&D's ideas. Regardless of how many billions Microsoft poured into it.
That is only one reason why Microsoft sucks and why it approaches extortion.
Re:If they disclose it would be easier to cope wit (Score:4, Interesting)
You are making some assumptions (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, if you take it as a given that Google is lying and Microsoft is telling the truth, your post becomes reasonable.
1. Google does not believe that Android infringes any Microsoft patents.
2. Neither this nor any of the other licensing agreements reveal what MS patents are used in Android.
3. When Barnes and Noble was approached by Microsoft to make such a deal, MS refused to even tell B&N what patents were involved, and how they were being infringed. It was "trust us, your product infringes big-time, so pay up".
4. B&N told MS they wouldn't agree to anything without specifics. MS showed them the allegedly infringed patents, B&N laughed their asses off and revealed to the world, and told mighty MS "go ahead and sue us and see where it gets you". MS is now suing B&N, and B&N has filed antitrust complaints against MS.
5. Even if you take the most pro-MS view possible, the MS patents revealed by B&N cover a tiny subset of Android's capabilities. Yet MS demanded higher licensing fees for use of these patents than what they charge to use all of Windows Phone 7.
Put it this way - do you honestly believe that Microsoft Research laid the groundwork for Android? Do you believe Android developers paid any attention to any "patented inventions" from Microsoft?
I can't tell whether you are a) a shill b) hopelessly naive or c) sarcastic. I certainly hope it's c).
Re:You are making some assumptions (Score:5, Funny)
No, that would be Apple.
Re: (Score:3)
No, that'd be roundwork. Those corners, aren't they just devaaiiiiiiine!"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hahahahaha. oh look, it's that guy who posts BS. Let's debunk you again. I will call you out every fucking time you do this. [slashdot.org]
First off, we know you're a shill. Second off, microsoft owns zero of the technology they have patented, nor have they even developed it. A patent does not correlate to either a: having researched the technology or b: having developed it. The real good stuff they do isn't patented at all, and they keep it private and confidential for a reason. It's not like they dont' do research, it's
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Informative)
The FAT patent has been worked around 2 years ago. there are no royalties to be paid for it today. [arstechnica.com]
That was a poor attempt at a shakedown. Patents and any form of open source don't mix, and can't be reasonably enforced on it either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft owns the patents based on years of R&D and they legally ask for companies to pay to use their patented technology.
Well, therein lies the problem. It isn't proven that Android actually uses their patented technology - Microsoft won't even disclose which patents they claim are being infringed. Without that proof, what Microsoft is actually demanding is money for nothing. And that is "legal" how? It's extortion, plain and simple.
Without Microsoft disclosing which patents, proving that those patents are valid AND those patents are being used by Android, the whole thing is simply a con. "It's cheaper for you to just give us money than for you to go to court and force us to prove anything."
If Microsoft were legal and honest, they would disclose the patents. They refuse. That says it all.
i dont know whether you are stupid or not. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
the difference is that lawyers do the extorting.
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
I imagine there are several possiblities including the following:
1. Microsoft really has some defensible patents that are essential for these device manufacturers. Could be hardware-related or software-related. It's hard to tell, but so far the agreements have all been with hardware companies, haven't they?
2. Microsoft is offering reasonable licensing terms to the device makers, so the licensing agreement costs significantly less than the cost of litigating.
3. Microsoft may be using these negotiations to advance their Windows Phone OS goals, along with #2.
4. The manufacturers entering these agreements don't already have agreements with Microsoft, but actually want to do business with Microsoft in the mobile device or other areas (personal computers, TVs, etc.)
5. These manufacturers don't have the patent resources to play hardball.
6. Some combination of the above.
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Microsoft is offering reasonable licensing terms to the device makers, so the licensing agreement costs significantly less than the cost of litigating.
I think it's pretty clearly this. That is, licensing Microsoft's patents is not cheaper than how the handset manufacturers were doing business before, but now that the legal challenge is on the table, they've run the numbers and it will be cheaper to license the patents.
But I do think Microsoft is taking advantage of the current mobile market, in which all of the various Android handset makers are in close competition with one another. HTC, Samsung, Motorola, etc., all need to invest their full attention and resources on the competition at hand, not open a second front in the courts (where they only stand to save money, not earn profit). If any one of those vendors were to invest significant time and funds on a protracted legal battle against Microsoft, it stands to lose its position in the market versus its competitors, who would then eat its lunch. That's what's really making it cheaper to license the patents -- avoiding a lawsuit is always going to be cheaper than risking your entire business.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well they managed to Legally obtain Legally valid Patents for those Legally patented technologies.
Wouldn't it be a shame if they just left them in the drawer?
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft isn't patent troll. They do actual research and spend billions a year on Microsoft Research. No one else in the industry has such an good R&D department. Patent trolls don't do research, they just bully companies. Microsoft is within all their rights to ask for payments on their patents, because they actually do lots of research.
Microsoft must have the most inefficient R&D process in history if they are such a good department doing such a lot of work yet none of it seems to make much of a difference in the end products.
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:4, Insightful)
After Bell Labs, MIT, the US Navy, CERN, Stanford University, and Xerox PARC did all the hard work,
Sounds like tax dollars paid for most of that, so we should get most of it for free.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, Kinect is pretty damn amazing. Though the rest of their crap is average at best, and software patents in general are illegal. Yes I know that laws have been made that make software patents legal, those laws violate the concepts and purpose behind patents and are themselves illegal. Software is math and math can not be patented.
Besides that: most if not all of the patents in question are invalid: http://androidcommunity.com/barnes-noble-reveals-microsofts-android-patents-in-detail-20111114/
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:4, Informative)
Well, Kinect is pretty damn amazing.
Didn't Microsoft buy the company that created it?
Microsoft Research seems to be the place where they put all the smart people they don't want to lose to competitors, then ignore everything they do.
Re: (Score:3)
MS licenses some of the tech behind the Kinect from a small company called GestureTek, who started doing camera/computer interaction stuff back in the 80s. They had a system called Mandala that worked with Amigas in the 90s.
Re: (Score:3)
No, this is patent trolling behavior. The fact that they won't even mention which patents are in question solidifies it.
Further, one of the characteristics of a patent troll is that they get more money from "settlements" than they get from their own products. Case in point: Microsoft made more money off of Android "licensing deals" last year than they did from sales of Windows Phone licenses.
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Most non-patent troll companies seek return on the research through making products that incorporate that research. Patent trolls, like Microsoft here, make most of their "returns" by extorting other companies.
Microsoft made more money through Android "licensing deals" last year than they did with Windows Phone.
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Ask what the "certain components" are or wat patents are violated and you get no answer.
And I personally don't considering "patent every little idea that has been in OSes forever" good R&D, though it may be proftiable since you apparently can extort money from others because of it.
Yeah.. thanks to the Obama admin. patents have been "fixed." Instead they just approve them faster than ever. This type of idiocy is just going to accelerate.
I.P. law was not intended to become a weapon, it was intended for
Re: (Score:2)
Look at it this way: patents expire after 20 years, so the faster they get approved the faster they will expire. Otherwise, you can have patents first requested 20 years ago that get granted and then allow the company to sue the pants off someone who used it 5 years ago, and it is still valid for another 20. Now, they would get approved 19 years ago and someone would be able to use it next year. If they patent everything now, 20 years from now there won't be any patents left.
Hey, I didn't say it was much be
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm honestly confused... (Score:4, Interesting)
When has this ever gone to court? The most advanced case is Microsoft vs B&N as far as I know. And the case there is looking very weak. Even if the few claims from the few patents left in the case are found to be both valid and infringed they are so narrow at this point that they are easily worked around.
The problem MS has with their software patents is that they were VERY late to the OS game.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is too many patents, so it has gotten too confusing and expensive to figure out, so it is cheaper and easier to pay the big patent h
Re: (Score:2)
nothing. the regulators are already investigating, and microsoft's making their own case much, much worse.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you go after a GPL violator? Not to say that I'm against it but If you are that little guy in the shed typing out a brilliant FOSS project and some big software company finds out and develops a, closed source, commercial app from it; you still are the guy who hasn't enough money. How are you going to go after them? Ok, usually that is not the case, usually your project will reach some success and mass before attracting code robbers but still I'm not sure going after a GPL violator applies always.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're that guy then sorry you don't. Life isn't fair. Get over it.
Guido says ya got a lovely phone here. (Score:2)
Shame if it would burn down. Really. All these apps. Be a real shame. Just sayin'. ya looked at that contract yet?
Better than Apple (Score:4, Informative)
Apple won't even license it's "rectangular touchscreen" patents for Android phones.
At this point I hate Apple alot more than I hate Microsoft.
That's messed up ... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, Microsoft is getting paid for every Android device sold in the US ...
And people think the patent system isn't broken.
I wish we had a clear list of the patents Microsoft is asserting are being infringed, because from TFA:
That's just sad, really ... you can't build anything without paying Microsoft for the privilege of not getting sued. I'm betting a good deal of those patents are likely stupid things that had been in other operating systems before MS copied and patented them.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is why it should be required to disclose offending patents whenever you go to another person and say "hey. your product infringes on my patents. Pay me or I'll force you to spend millions defending yourself in court."
Because if you're NOT willing to disclose what patents of yours are being infringed upon, it's fucking obvious you either:
1. Know the patents you hold are trivial and will get thrown out on a review.
2. Know the patents are weak, and that the offending company can EASILY change the code suc
hey... wait a second... this seems familiar (Score:2)
DON'T FORGET TO PAY YOUR $699 LICENSING FEE YOU COCKSMOKING TEABAGGERS!!!
Re: (Score:3)
What makes you think they don't have to disclose which patents are covered? They don't have to discuss it publicly, but I'm sure MS buries LG and Samsung and Google et. al. in paperwork about just which patents are infringed on.
But neither party really wants to give up how they're doing things. Samsung doesn't really want to say 'we might be violating this patent on an implementation of some icon technology' because that tells all of their competitors that might be a better way to do things, and might be
Re: (Score:2)
The main patents that always come up here, is in being able to understand long file names on Windows. See, if you're only ever running linux by itself that would be one thing, but if you want to connect it to a windows machine, whether that's an Android device, which is sync'd with windows, or with a Linux computer that is talking to Windows over the network you're now directly into something that is reasonable for MS to patent, which is how to talk to their own product. And probably 90% (or some clearly
Re: (Score:2)
And people think the patent system isn't broken.
Huh? This is exactly what the patent system is for. Microsoft developed some technology and filed a patent. They were granted that patent. They sell devices in the mobile sector that ostensibly use these patents. A competing product is taking advantage of these technologies without licensing them. Microsoft has entered into agreements with these companies to allow them to continue making money while paying their fair share for technology they are not otherwise supposed to use
I'm betting a good deal of those patents are likely stupid things that had been in other operating systems before MS copied and patented them.
Pure conjecture based on persona
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you mean? Microsoft doesn't even tell them what patents are being infringed, but they have a large number of them so everyone is scared that they really do have something valid. Should that be allowed?
Re:That's messed up ... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's one theory ... but since Microsoft has never publicly identified all of the patents, just how many of them would be valid, and how many of them would be technology which had been invented by someone else?
You have to figure, pretty much anything which had been in Berkely UNIX shouldn't be patentable because we all know about it ... anything which was widely taught in schools and in text books shouldn't be patentable because it was common knowledge and available to any "skilled practitioner" ... anything which had been implemented in another OS before MS had it shouldn't be patentable because of prior art.
If this is truly technology that Microsoft solely created from scratch, then maybe ... but if they copied something else that had been done before (which, isn't exactly unprecedented) then all they've done is co-opt someone else's invention by patenting it first.
My problem is that MS wants to have their cake and eat it too ... they regularly insinuate that Linux violates its patents, but they won't say which ones are being violated. So, they are keeping it secret and then suing over it.
So, Microsoft patents stuff that might make many of us want to march on the Patent Office with torches and pitchforks because we learned it in first year CS class.
I'm sorry, but the USPTO is staffed with morons who are pushing through patents and collecting fees for it, Microsoft hasn't offered up full public disclosure to which patents are being infringed, and, let's face it, just because Microsoft has more lawyers doesn't mean they're playing within the rules of the game.
So, on face value ... I don't have enough information to know what they claim is being violated, and I don't have enough trust in any large corporation to take them at their word.
But we all know that absolutely stupid things get granted patents, and those often cover things that have been around for a long time and had already been done by someone else.
So, unless you have any actual information to suggest all of these patents are 100% MS invented, and wouldn't be invalidated by a court challenge ... you're just assuming they're all good. For those of us who remember the MS of the 80's ... well, I'm not willing to extend them the benefit of the doubt on this.
Re: (Score:3)
Additionally, the fact that B&N has chosen to fight Microsoft on this suggests that there is something wrong going on here. B&N is the only company that MS has approached so far that ha
Re: (Score:3)
Also notice that those who have signed all have some form of other licensing arrangement with Microsoft and therefore they can strong arm them with threats of denying those other licenses or so
I'm guessing it's related to FAT32 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I'm guessing it's related to FAT32 (Score:4, Insightful)
If it is indeed for the file system, then it's understandable.
Good guess. I hadn't thought of that.
Now, if by "understandable" you mean "comprehensible," then sure. But how is it reasonable [linuxplanet.com]? From the article (by Bruce Perens):
Indeed, the FAT patents have been invalidated for being non-innovative in Germany, and only survived invalidation in the U.S. through a patent office appeal in which opponents were not allowed to participate. It would take a trial in court to finally settle the issue, a trial that Microsoft would likely have lost.
But justice is too expensive. A trial to invalidate the eight patents Microsoft brought against TomTom, none of them poster-boys for innovation, would have cost more than TomTom had to spend, perhaps in excess of $10 million dollars.
And they think companies will use Windows Mobile? (Score:3)
Ok, let me see if I got this right: they're extorting patent royalties from third party mobile vendors. They're almost certainly making them sign a contract with a time commitment on it. Then later this year they expect these same mobile vendors to ditch Android development and use Windows Mobile instead? All the while they need to continue paying the extortion.
Yeah... that's gonna work well. It virtually guarantees Windows 8 on a mobile device is DOA.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't give a damn if companies use WM...they don't need them to. WM exists so that they have a platform on which to use their patented technologies so as to avoid appearing to be a blatant troll. The real money is in doing nothing and getting paid for it via ridiculous patent law.
This kind of stuff needs to stop (Score:3)
One of the patents that Microsoft uses in these type cases is “loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area” Seems to me this is way too vague to be a valid patent.
Here is a link to the actual patent http://www.patents4software.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/6339780.pdf [patents4software.com]
Why? (Score:3)
I can't understand why all the companies that Microsoft is blackmailing, especially Google, don't form a cohesive group to fight back. At least to finally oblige Microsoft to reveal the actual details of whatever their supposed Linux/Android copyrighht claim is.
Pirate everything. (Score:5, Interesting)
this is extortion. period. there is no other explanation or definition for it.
so, basically we are going to end up having paid to microsoft, EVEN if i do NOT use microsoft products, because microsoft was successful in threatening the producers to pay them out of fear.
i dont approve that. i choose a product, when i choose a product. if i was going to choose a microsoft product, i would do so. when i have not chosen a microsoft product, that means i have NOT chosen to PAY them.
if they take my money through ANY means out of my own choices, then it means they are robbing me. period.
i dont see any other option but to pirate, to get my money back, which was taken away from me through these illegal means.
the problem is, most of microsoft's products are crap, and i evade them as much as possible. so, what am i going to do now, since i am being cashed by microsoft even when i do NOT use their product ? pirate the other software which was supposed to be NOT microsoft ? this is a pinch.
Re: (Score:3)
The Worst Part of This (Score:3)
The worst part of this was revealed by Barnes & Nobel when they said that part of the demanded secret licensing agreement was that it gave Microsoft design approval over future devices. That should never have been agreed to, or allowed. Giving Microsoft that power allows them to control the entire future progress of the Android hardware ecosystem, meaning that they could cripple future Android hardware because their Windows phone is not competitive. It would be like AMD not being allowed to release new processors without Intel approval. If that had ever happened do you think that AMD64 would have ever seen the light of day?
Re: (Score:2)
If I was a multi-billion dollar company, I could get away with it too. As all I have is a nice selection of firearms and a few $5 wrenches, I'm limited to bullying those within 1000 feet or so.
The new "license for parking on my street", and "tax for kids making noise that I can hear" is working out well though. in FY 2011, I made $12. Maybe I should see about expanding it into other markets. Maybe I can get a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and learn th
Re: (Score:3)
"OMG MICROSOFT IS MAKING MONEY"
Actually, some of the more reasonable /. readers would probably find this a lot less objectionable if it was a case of Microsoft making money by selling Microsoft products.
Re: (Score:2)
How so? If Microsoft owns patents used by the product you're making you either license the patent or do something else.
Re:MS Tax (Score:4, Insightful)
See the many clarifications above. If they were legitimate patents, they would't be playing this stupid black-box bullshit.
I'm hoping the BN Nook suit actually gets this list into the public record already. I'm sure some intern at Google could probably code around them in about 25 minutes, by the way they're insisting that the list is sooper sekret.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:FAT (Score:4, Informative)
I've tried running Windows with an ext2 file system. Windows can read other file systems with help from drivers, but it's never 100% compatible. When I tried it, it was also a pain to use, because you had to remember to manually start the driver after booting up. And still need NTFS or FAT to boot.
MS of course prefers that it not be easy to use a different file system. I keep hoping their loser business strategies will eventually send them into bankruptcy. It would serve them right. But there is still an amazing amount of blind love for MS out there. Apple also gets way more love than they deserve.