Microsoft Agrees To License ActiveSync To Google

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Agrees To License ActiveSync To Google

Posted by kdawson on Monday February 9, 2009 @12:13PM from the kitchen-sync dept.

JacobSteelsmith writes "Microsoft agreed today to license ActiveSync to Google. Google is using ActiveSync as part of Google Sync, which enables the synchronization of data between mobile devices and, presumably, Google Calendar and your contacts stored at Google. 'Microsoft's vice president of intellectual property and licensing, Horacio Gutierrez, said in a statement that the Google license is "a great example of Microsoft's openness to generally license our patents under fair and reasonable terms so long as licensees respect Microsoft intellectual property."'"

34 of 133 comments (clear)

Cue Activesync Connector for Android by TJ_Phazerhacki · 2009-02-09 12:15 · Score: 2, Funny

Permanent beta in 3...2...1...

--
Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
1. Re:Cue Activesync Connector for Android by Daengbo · 2009-02-09 16:01 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Google Apps aren't beta for paying customers. Stop spreading FUD.
  
  --
  Put identity in the browser.
Oops. Hell freezing over? by rainer_d · 2009-02-09 12:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

OTOH, after AAPL licensing it, they would look stupid if they refused GOOG.
And with this step, it *is* the de-facto standard.
Intersting thought, that the only thing being left of MSFT in a couple of years is a protocol to sync wireless clients to a server...

--
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
1. Re:Oops. Hell freezing over? by jaseuk · 2009-02-09 12:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually this is one of the missing pieces in the Google Apps puzzle. They've gained push e-mail and synching on anything that supports ActiveSync which includes Windows Mobile devices & iPhone/iPod Touch.
  Once they finish off Google gears for offline gmail, then they have pretty much fixed the problem off offline / mobile access to GMail which makes Google Apps alot more appealing.
  Most of the complaints against the use of web services is that you lose out when on the road or internet connection is down.
  It's almost the Exchange Alternative everyone has been looking for.
  Jason.
2. Re:Oops. Hell freezing over? by sexconker · 2009-02-09 12:42 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Do you talk in stock symbols to make yourself look smart? Or did you really not realize that using "Apple", "Google", and "MS" would have used only 1 more character than what you did, would have been much more readable, and would have made you look like far less of a tool? (And that completely ignores your effort on the shift or caps lock key.)
3. Re:Oops. Hell freezing over? by Ethanol-fueled · 2009-02-09 13:14 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  As long as you don't mention JAVA. My JAVA stock just fell through the floor after two of their good barristas left.
4. Re:Oops. Hell freezing over? by aaarrrgggh · 2009-02-09 13:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Even more at issue is the fact that Google's offering compete directly with Microsoft's server offerings. Apple was just licensing a connector component for handhelds to use MS Servers.
5. Re:Oops. Hell freezing over? by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-02-09 13:24 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  For the record, Microsoft often refers itself as MSFT even outside stock quotes. For example, on public Microsoft newsgroups and forums, whenever a Microsoftie replies to a thread in his official capacity (typically support guys, but devs come there to help as well), his name will be suffixed with "[MSFT]".
6. Re:Oops. Hell freezing over? by quarterbuck · 2009-02-09 15:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It is the convention to refer to companies by stock quotes in financial forums (yahoo finance for example). Maybe the poster is more familiar with those boards than with slashdot.
  We should welcome all outsiders to our board (onboard?) no? With the recent market situation it is a case of "poor, hungry, huddled masses" :-)
  
  --
  http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
7. Re:Oops. Hell freezing over? by pnevin · 2009-02-09 15:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  RFC 666
8. Re:Oops. Hell freezing over? by lusidd · 2009-02-09 19:52 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Push e-mail is still not available (at least for a WM phone).
9. Re:Oops. Hell freezing over? by molarmass192 · 2009-02-10 04:41 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Well ... yes ... MS invented and implemented it as an ActiveX control. However, MS wasn't the first to integrate it natively into JavaScript, that honor goes to Mozilla. MS only followed suit in IE 7.0. On that note, we were leveraging dynamic image loading in JavaScript to do ajaxy things in HTML long before XMLHTTP ever came around.
  
  --
  
  Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
woopee by LWATCDR · 2009-02-09 12:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Really this is ...
Okay why can't we have an open standard to sync data with mobile devices?
I mean just how hard would it be? I don't use outlook under windows and I do use Linux. I want some way to sync my phone to all my systems.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
1. Re:woopee by Constantine+XVI · 2009-02-09 12:51 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  We do. It's called SyncML. Google now supports it as well (though calendar sync isn't 100% together yet)
  
  --
  "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
2. Re:woopee by jrumney · 2009-02-09 13:00 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Alternately, use SyncML, which is already available on a large number of non-Microsoft handsets with plugins available for Windows Mobile, Outlook, Exchange and other non-compliant software.
3. Re:woopee by bcrowell · 2009-02-09 13:13 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Okay why can't we have an open standard to sync data with mobile devices?
  
  Because your mobile devices are proprietary systems, and the companies who sold them to you don't want use every possible piece of functionality as a revenue stream.
  If you want to synchronize your files between various devices, using open-source software, try unison. It's free, it's open source, it's fast, and IMO it's of very high quality. I use it to sync two desktops, a server, and an ARM-based network appliance (NSLU2). The key is that none of these are locked down systems sold to you by a cell phone company.
  
  --
  Find free books.
4. Re:woopee by mathfeel · 2009-02-09 15:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I use scheduleworld.com and have pretty much given up of synchronizing with Gmail because every time I do it, Gmail complete mess up the first-name/middle-name/last-name of the contact because gmail assume that the display name is in the form of firstname lastname. Is this a nonissue with English-speaking world? Where I live, I want different display format for different names. F-L for Western names and L-F for Asian names. To me, Gmail contact is pretty feature-limited.
  
  --
  The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
What'd they license? by QuantumG · 2009-02-09 12:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

Does anyone actually know what was licensed here? Was there even a patent involved or is this journalist just expecting sense to spew out of the mouth of a Microsoft executive when he should know better?

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
1. Re:What'd they license? by _Sprocket_ · 2009-02-09 12:48 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  A chair. With a hand-written note saying "Gonna fucking kill you." All very valuable IP.
2. Re:What'd they license? by Tacvek · 2009-02-09 16:33 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  An above poster suggested that they licensed the Exchange ActiveSync protocol, which would allow Android phones to grow support for syncing contacts/calendar-events with your exchange server, and receiving push email. I have no doubt that a patent is involved, but the licensing also mostly likely included protocol documentation and permission to implement such a system. That makes good sense to me, so I'd put money on this being what was licensed. This has nothing to do with the PCPhone ActiveSync protocol.
  
  --
  Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
Re:Hah! That's a joke by LiENUS · 2009-02-09 12:42 · Score: 2, Informative

All the "Activesync Protocol" is, is good old PPP.
Umm what? It looks like he's just using ppp to connect the device up to his computer. ActiveSync is as much PPP as email is ethernet.
Re:Hah! That's a joke by horza · 2009-02-09 12:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

"a great example of Microsoft's openness to generally license our patents under fair and reasonable terms so long as licensees respect Microsoft intellectual property"
I translate this as: "we bought this thing ages ago, we used it to drive somebody we didn't like out of business, it no longer provides us with any competitor advantage, and the code base is a mess anyway."
Isn't industry moving to SyncML? This guy was watching ActivSync creep up 3 years ago.
Phillip.

--
Property for sale in Nice, France
moar plz by Eil · 2009-02-09 12:45 · Score: 2, Funny

Horacio Gutierrez, said in a statement that the Google license is "a great example of Microsoft's openness to generally license our patents under fair and reasonable terms
Cool, can you point us to all the other examples?
1. Re:moar plz by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-02-09 13:29 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Cool, can you point us to all the other examples?
  Sure. You might want to look at the current list of specs covered by the Open Specification Promise (that means no licensing fees, royalty-free, and a patent non-enforecement guarantee) for a start.
Re:Hah! That's a joke by DaHat · 2009-02-09 12:45 · Score: 3, Informative

I suspect I am not the only one who now feels dumber having read your comment.
Your saying that Active Sync is just PPP is like claiming that... DNS is just ARP... one (can and in the case of Active Sync) may use the other... but is not absolutely required to... and even when such a low level protocol is used, it is the higher level data that matters to applications.
If it was that simple... don't you think there'd be more FOSS implementations of ActiveSync than there is if it was just PPP... oh right, it's not!
To recap... PPP: Layer 2 protocol, Active Sync: (likely) Layer 3-5 protocol

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
The world is not all black and white by Locke2005 · 2009-02-09 13:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

A company as big as Microsoft cannot be completely evil. Likewise, a company as big as Google cannot be completely non-evil. MS does play a big role in driving standards, for better or worse. Heck, MS might even be more diligent in getting Silverlight supported on all platforms, whereas I _still_ can't get Flash 8/9 support for my Wii or Android phone. Despite Ballmer's threats to "kill Google", his primary responsibility is to make money for MS shareholders, not to put Google out of business. Besides which, isn't MS planning on abandoning the Zune and getting out of the MP3 player/PDA market anyway? (I wonder if they will still push their OS for cellphones.)

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
*yawn* by Ritz_Just_Ritz · 2009-02-09 13:13 · Score: 2

I just tried it with my windows mobile 6.1 phone (Samsung Blackjack II) and followed the instructions to the letter. No joy. It was good for about 20 minutes of aggravation though. Maybe Google can harness that angst for their next datacenter project. grrrr...
Re:Hah! That's a joke by nxtw · 2009-02-09 13:48 · Score: 5, Informative

What Google has just done is to license PPP from Microsoft. Nice job.
Don't believe me? Read this. [handhelds.org]
All the "Activesync Protocol" is, is good old PPP.
No. Google licensed Exchange ActiveSync, a protocol runs on top of http(s) to provide calendar and contacts synchronization and push email for mobile devices. It only requires an internet connection - unlike BlackBerry, which requires special network support.
On the client side, Exchange ActiveSync is implemented by the iPhone (since firmware 2.0), Windows Mobile devices, and some Sony Ericsson and Nokia devices. Microsoft Exchange is the most popular server, but other closed- (Zimbra) and open-source (Z-Push) implementations exist.
Re:The bottom line... by gwait · 2009-02-09 15:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's not clear at all from the article that Google are actually using the "Microsoft Active Sync" software directly. It says they licensed the "technology".
I expect they made their own "two way" sync product for google that does not interoperate with active sync, maybe?
It's an incredibly obvious idea, just another lame patent locked down by big dollars.
You could argue that two way information sync has been going on since the first two people had an agreeable conversation.

--
Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
This Benefits Both Companies by qazwart · 2009-02-09 15:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

Google benefits because they can now easily sync to Exchange servers. Before, Google's Exchange synchronization tool required you to keep Outlook as you default Email account and have it installed on your PC and your PC up and running and logged into your account. Even then, it wasn't too smooth.
By licensing ActiveSync, Google can now synchronize their calendar (and gmail) to people's MS Exchange server calenders (and email).
For Microsoft, it takes a bit of pressure off of businesses who are finding Exchange's proprietary technology confining.
Microsoft's Exchange Server is one of the major components that tie businesses to Microsoft based solutions. This monopoly is beginning to fray. Non-Windows portable devices keep on multiplying, and employees are demanding to be serviced by the IT department. In order to prevent companies from abandoning Exchange Server, Microsoft is allowing non-Windows devices some access.
By allowing non-Windows devices access to Exchange, Microsoft hopes to keep their Exchange monopoly alive. Windows systems are still first class Exchange citizens, but by allowing basic synchronization with non-Windows devices, Microsoft has relieved the pressure on companies to abandon Exchange.
Re:See? by mike_sucks · 2009-02-09 17:41 · Score: 3, Funny

We're not evil! Honest injun!
Fucking racist whiteys.

--
-- "So, what's the deal with Auntie Gerschwitz et all?"
Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-09 19:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

They didn't license the software, they licensed the protocol for emails, contacts, calendar to be pushed to devices. MUCH different than the software you are complaining about.
Re:Why? by dhavleak · 2009-02-09 21:34 · Score: 2, Informative

...It often has to be reinstalled...

...I just bought a CF card reader/writer for my HP PDA (compare 15 minutes to transfer an mp3 with ActiveSync to 10 seconds directly)...
It sounds like you're mistaking the Desktop ActiveSync program (now called WMDC) with Exchange Server ActiveSync (the protocol) that Google licensed. The ActiveSync protocol is one of the few things about Windows Mobile that Just Works.
not a standard at all by speedtux · 2009-02-10 03:22 · Score: 2, Informative

And with this step, it *is* the de-facto standard.
No, it's not. It's only a standard for Microsoft and Apple mobile phones, and for Microsoft Exchange. There are a lot of people using those devices, but that doesn't make it a de-facto standard. For it to be a de-facto standard, there would have to be a lot of implementations of the protocol, and there aren't. SyncML may or may not have fewer users, but it has far more implementors.
Intersting thought, that the only thing being left of MSFT in a couple of years is a protocol to sync wireless clients to a server...
If Exchange goes away, ActiveSync becomes meaningless.