Microsoft Sues Motorola Over Android-Related Patent Infringement

suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Engadget: "Microsoft has hit up the ITC over a total of nine alleged patent infringements by Motorola in its Android devices, specifically relating to 'synchronizing email, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power.' This should be interesting — will it result in a quick cross-licensing agreement, or a protracted court battle spanning multiple years?" The ITC complaint was accompanied by a lawsuit in US District Court. Microsoft's Horacio Gutierrez explained the company's reasoning in a blog post.

Comments

Finally

[binarylarry]

It's great to see the USS Microsoft sinking after all these years.

On to bigger and better things!

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

After I reflected for a moment, could this be what Steve Jobs hinted at a few months ago?

Google and Android is a common enemy for Microsoft and Apple.

Re:Finally

[Lumpy]

There be that White Chair Whale!!! We must Throw it!

Doesnt help that they have Ahab at the wheel.

Re:Finally

[flimflammer]

It amazes me how this gets +4 insightful. This is why user-based moderation doesn't work.

Re:Finally

[HermMunster]

Sounds like, from the description above, that the issues are not Android based, rather they are about concepts for what everyone, every OS does, to operate on the web with a mobile device.

Microsoft, though, is acting the patent troll.

Microsoft is trying to ensure that everyone that develops Android understands that they can be sued, and that rather than develop an Android phone they should be developing a Win7 Mobile phone.

I think this tactic is pathetic. It shows that they can't compete. I honestly suspect that their Win7 phone will be a failure. Android is just too good, looks too good, and is a cheaply accessible alternative to their expensive phone OS.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

shut the fuck up douche bag

Re:Finally

[stephanruby]

That's probably because you haven't looked at the nine patents in question (see the complaint in this PDF).

The first patent listed is the one entitled "Common Name Space for Long and Short Filenames,". It expires in 2013. It's the FAT patent (it's not even related to mobile phones as the article implied). It was used against Tom Tom recently, and since that attempted shake-down, plenty of prior art has been found and has already been submitted to the USPTO.

The second patent seems to be the same as the first one. Can anyone explain what happened there???

The third is about "Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations". Reading its full description, this one seems kind of obvious to me, plus 2002 seems kind of late for applying for such a patent. Also with this kind of patent, Microsoft could just as well sue anyone and everyone involved in Flash memory right now. If I'm wrong in my lay interpretation, I'm sure someone will correct me.

The fourth one is entitled "Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer". This one seems so broad and yet so obvious, it was applied for in 2001 (if I'm not understanding the dates and to what they apply to, please someone tell me).

Please take a look at the rest yourself. It's no wonder Microsoft's share price went down as this was announced.

U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,758,352 ("the '352 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,621,746 ("the '746 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,826,762 ("the '762 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,909,910 ("the '910 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 7,644,376 ("the '376 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,664,133 ("the '133 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,578,054 ("the '054 patent"), and
U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 ("the '566 patent") (collectively, "the Microsoft Patents"),

Re:Finally

[davester666]

Um, this is EXACTLY how Microsoft competes.

a) we'll make you sign an agreement that if you want to sell our products, you won't also sell competing products
b) if you sell competing products, we'll tie you up in court until you can no longer afford the legal fee's

Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation:

We're no longer relevant in this market but we own some patents so we're going to screw as much money out of innovators as we can.

Re:Translation

[Eponymous Coward]

Exactly. Microsoft is going to be very dangerous in the coming years. Those who can't innovate, litigate and Microsoft has one of the most awesome collections of patents. As they decline, expect some devastating lawsuits.

Re:Translation

[thethibs]

So, if Microsoft invents it, it's not innovation, but if Apple uses it, that is innovation?

Re:Translation

[Znork]

I got email delivered over a modem in the early 90's. The fact that it's now delivered over a GSM modem is hardly 'innovation', no matter what company tries to claim it as such.

Re:Translation

[Aranykai]

Yeah, thats pretty much exactly what the word innovation means.

Re:Translation

[JonJ]

Sometimes though, the big thing isn't what you do, but how you do it.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

But whay exactly they claim as invented? Syncing information between two host????? I MEAAANNN REALLLY??????

Re:Translation

[kiddygrinder]

are you trying to suggest that microsoft has invented anything even mildly innovative in the mobile market? even as an apple hater (hey, i'm one too, just not irrationally) you must admit they at least came up with a pretty good phone interface

Re:Translation

[RightSaidFred99]

Yeah, I'm sure the patent is over "delivering mail over a GSM modem". How the fuck did this inanity get modded Insightful?

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the fucking patents moron.

Re:Translation

[hey!]

I like patent 6826762, in which Microsoft patents the use of hardware independent software drivers when applied to cell phones. What moron at the patent office approved that one?

Or how about 6909910 "Method and System for Managing Changes to a Contact Database". The invention amounts to this: when the user wants to save the last phone call as a contact, you look to see whether that phone number is in the contact database. If it is, you bring that contact up for editing. If it is not, you create a new contact pre-populating the phone field with the last number called.

Seriously. How in the world does the patent office grant such rubbish patents? Do they go out of their way to hire clueless people, or do they have a special training program?

Obvious shit.. WHY??!?!@ WHY !?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I still want to know how the fuck you can patent checking email or checking battery strength? Or well all this chit is just stuff a guy living in a bubble and suddenly told to make a wireless phone that goes on the internet would think to add himself if he wasn't a moron.. I mean..FUCK

Re:Obvious shit.. WHY??!?!@ WHY !?!?!

[jimmyfrank]

Right? I mean, hey, lets write a calendar app for a mobile phone... but wait... how on earth will we get the information on the calendar app to show up on our app that runs on our desktop. Some how we'll send data back and forth, ZOMFG PATENT INFRINGEMENT PATENT INFRINGEMENT PATENT INFRINGEMENT...sad...

Re:Obvious shit.. WHY??!?!@ WHY !?!?!

[Bungie]

It might be pretty obvious right now but it wasn't so much a decade ago. When BlackBerry shipped a full web browser on their phone it was unheard of (data rates were so expensive it would cost a fortune to use). Now every smart phone has a full web browser...and people forget that older devices never had them. Smart Phones themselves are a pretty new concept when you look back too.

Think back to the shitty phones we used a decade ago when these patents were filed. The internet on a phone was only accessed through WAP and was expensive as hell (you would never use it for trivial shit like calendar events or checking e-mail). E-mail was all done vis SMS. You were lucky if you could sync anything else on the phone using a data cable (never mind the GSM network). PDA's were still king and did the "Smart Phone" style stuff, but they used a cradle to sync, not cellular networks.

So some of the patents may be somewhat valid for the time... I'm not sure about the battery strength patent though (which is a really ancient concept for mobile phones).

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't someone just post in the thread about Microsoft's indemnification promise that no one had ever sued a handset maker for patent infringement?

Re:Hmm

[JonySuede]

If someone said that, it was wrong, before this one there was Nokia vs Apple

Re:Hmm

[hedwards]

Microsoft made the promise that anybody licensing Windows 7 for their product would be indemnified, presumably that means against parties other than MS. And also it includes the right to use any MS patents that are included in the release.

I'm not aware of MS promising not to sue other phone makers using other firmware.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia vs Apple, Apple vs Nokia, Apple vs HTC, HTC vs Apple

Re:Hmm

[causality]

Didn't someone just post in the thread about Microsoft's indemnification promise that no one had ever sued a handset maker for patent infringement?

I read that post too. It said that no one had ever successfully sued a handset maker who used Linux systems for patent infringement. That remains true unless Microsoft prevails in this suit.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe what they said was that no defendant ever lost such a case.

Another Example

[sabs]

This is yet more proof that software patents are stupid.

Re:Another Example

[Penguinisto]

Plus it puts today's earlier story into some rather sharp perspective...

Re:Another Example

[rwven]

I think this is a great thing though. If we can put this idiocy to bed once and for all, then it'll be totally worth it. As long as motorola keeps making popular android phones, they'll do just fine. The risks of pursuing this kinda of litigation are substantial when you consider what microsoft stands to lose if they lose the whole suit. It'd almost be a slap down for almost all future litigation surrounding these sorts of things, and could all-but guarantee future losses for any other actions they take like this in the future.

Of course the inverse would suck greatly. It would do nothing but hurt consumers. Something MS is famously good at already.

Almighty precedence.

Re:Another Example

[rwven]

Yeah, I had the same thought...

Re:Another Example

[Barefoot Monkey]

Indeed it does. It appears that they are using this tactic:

• Indemnify own licensees against patent lawsuits
• Sue everyone else
• Spread the word that "nobody gets sued for using Microsoft"

and collecting license fees from phone makers in the process

Re:Another Example

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus it puts today's earlier story into some rather sharp perspective...

That will be the settlement, not to license anything but to release a Windows Mobile 7 phone

Re:Another Example

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as motorola keeps making popular android phones, they'll do just fine.

Motorola has actually had a pretty BAD track record with phone. The Razr was a huge hit, and after that they literally had no hits for years and years and years. All they could do was rehash the Razr and reissue it in colors and slightly different forms but all basically the same phone. Everything else they had was junk. The whole cell division only hang on because they had some IDEN stuff to support and a few orders for really dull simple phones that sell for $20. They had no OS. They had no interface. They had nothing anyone wanted. Motorola was extremely close to collapsing entirely. They sold off whole divisions to survive. It is a miracle they didn't go chapter 11.

They fired a lot of people, brought in some new people and outsiders and gave them essentially one last chance to come up with a win, or the whole division was going to die, if not the whole company. They gave up trying to make a new phone OS and grabbed onto Android. And went back to designing.

What they came up with was the Droid/Milestone and it not only saved the division but put Motorola back on the map. The latest Droid updates have been coming at a great pace and keep the company relevant (a lesson learned from the RAZR).

So right now, for the last year, they have been doing very well. People love their Android phones. But the history with Motorola is extemely shaky, with only an occasional bonafide hit. What they have to do, or else, is keep churning out the hits. They are one big flop away from imploding.

By suing them, MS is going after a company in a pretty weak position. Motorola doesn't have the resources to go for a full-on fight with MS for very long. If it comes to that, to a war, MS will crush them like an egg. Which is probably what they want. Motorola is taking huge swaths of corporate IT mindshare away from RIM, and that leaves less room for Microsoft. The easiest way to stop that is eliminate Motorola.

Re:Another Example

[Anne Thwacks]

You are behind the times: The latest news is that Moto have locked down their latest Android offering, thus ensuring that the main selling feature of Android is removed. This is on a par with selling a car which cannot have its tyres pumped up.

Moto sales have crashed.

Sure the average Andoid user will not flash it with Leedroid, but the average nerd knows that Moto have made most stupiest mistake in marketing history, and will tell anyone who asks them what phone to buy. In a year's time, when most Android users are on 3.4, and Moto users are stuck on 2.1, every last illiterate trailer trash will know "Moto is what you dont buy".

The main lesson from the near death of IBM in the 1990s was "Please the geeks - they sell your product!". Moto seem to have misunderstood this as "Displease the geeks" and are going to die for it.

Re:Another Example

[rwven]

You're forgetting that the VAST majority of owners of the droid incredible don't know about the rom restrictions and wouldn't care if they DID know.

There's only a very small corner of the consumer market that wants to hack the crap out of their android phones. Most people just want a fancy phone.

Protection Racket

[MozeeToby]

Wow, one story about how Microsoft says you should develop a Windows 7 phone so that you're safe from patent lawsuits immediately followed by a story about MS suing an Android developer for patent infringement. I think maybe someone in MS PR department needs to read up on the definition of subtlety.

Re:Protection Racket

[Penguinisto]

When it comes to the mobile market, Microsoft doesn't have time for subtlety... their mobile reputation has been circling the drain for years now, hype be damned.

Thing is, unless there's an immediate injunction granted, Microsoft may not have time for the lawsuit to work its magic either... maybe they're just hoping to make off of forced royalties what they suspect they won't be making in voluntary licensing and/or sales? 'course, if that's their strategic move in mobile, their "technologies" are liable to become about as relevant as an LZW-compressed .gif file is to pictures online.

Re:Protection Racket

[UnknowingFool]

their mobile reputation has been circling the drain for years now, hype be damned.

Their mobile reputation has been in the drain because they haven't done anything in mobile development in years. At the same time, Apple released the iPhone, Android has gone through several iterations, and even Palm on its death bed put out a new OS, MS has only released cosmetic patches to its Windows Mobile software.

Re:Protection Racket

[Anonymous Coward]

My Palm phone does almost all, if not all, of the items mentioned in the article snippet. Guess they didn't know Microsoft invented synchronizing calendar, synchronizing email, synchronizing contacts... Oh, wait a minute, maybe Microsoft's patents are invalid?

Summary Of Horacio Gutierrez Blog Post

[Ukab the Great]

"Smart Phones are increasingly important to people's lives. They must be notified of things. That's why we're suing motorola."

+5 Informative.

Re:Summary Of Horacio Gutierrez Blog Post

[Anonymous Coward]

Why was this moderated a troll? It's a pretty accurate summary. The only thing left out was the part where he tries to frame Motorola as "not playing by the rules". As if syncing with a server required any substantial research that could have warranted a 20 year monopoly. Riiiiight...

Don't Cave in

[IRWolfie-]

I hope Motorola doesn't agree to any settlement like HTC. best for this to go to court to clear android

Let's patent this

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's patent "using the internet to make an ass of yourself". Microsoft will owe us millions! /pinky-in-corner-of-mouth

Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[FlorianMueller]

Microsoft will be around for a long time to come, and so will Google, despite all of this. So I wouldn't worry (or gloat) about them. The real concern is how all of this patent litigation will ultimately impact Android application developers. That's what I stressed in my first reaction to this. App developers invest a lot of creativity, time, money and hard work in a platform. If Google doesn't step up now and make a really serious effort to work out deals with all those patent holders, Android as a platform may be in trouble and app developers would suffer.

Google knew all along that smartphones (and mobile phones in general) are a field in which plenty of patents exist, and in which they are enforced aggressively. Google doesn't have a patent portfolio to match the portfolios of Microsoft, Apple or Oracle; so it doesn't represent a counterthreat. But it could try to negotiate license deals. That's what it must do now, not only for itself, not only for Android phone vendors, but above all for the application developer community its platform depends on.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[Penguinisto]

It's interesting that you'd advocate for a quick and easy surrender, when in fact Microsoft may not even have a case (or even valid patents). Smells like FUD, circa 2003.

If Google came out swinging, no sweat - the devs (like everyone else) will figure that it'll settle anyway, and barring injunctions (unlikely), business will continue as usual.

You know? If IBM took the attitude that you're advocating, we'd all be paying some jackass in Utah $700/seat for Linux.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[FlorianMueller]

There's too much going on there with several major patents asserting patents. They can't all be wrong at the same time, and we're talking about a notorious patent minefield. I don't say quick surrender -- but a solution must be found.

In terms of the patents concerned, I'll take a closer look at them. I've updated my blog posting with a link to an article that shows the complaints filed with the district court and the US International Trade Commission.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[wiredlogic]

Certainly there are opportunities to develop new ideas for cellular phones and these merit patent protection. However, in an era of smartphones which are just replicating desktop functions that are commonly known "in the art", the validity of many of these sort of patents is suspect. This is the same as the wave of internet patents that arrived covering things that had already been done before only this time it was with "a network" attached.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't all be wrong at the same time,

Yes, they can.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[rtb61]

Google is neither here nor there in this patent struggle. M$ is suing a customer Motorola a suicide suit, no windows mobile on Motorola. Instead of forcing Motorala to sell more windows mobile phones the nett result is the best way for Motorola to fight the lawsuit is to work to cut off the money supply to it's competitor.

All other Android users will take a similar track. Android is a free open operating system, M$'s civil suit is a threat to all of it's major customers, gang up of M$ now and they can simply gut the beast of Redmond.

Android for Google is all about creating an open environment in which it can compete and shutting down the closed M$ and Apple environments. For Android users, not Google customers, they are the end users but, for the manufacturers who choose to use Android and not be controlled by M$ or Apple, this is now a battle for independence and freedom from exploitative control by one corporation.

Keeping in mind software patents are meaningless in Europe.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[miffo.swe]

" If Google doesn't step up now and make a really serious effort to work out deals with all those patent holders, Android as a platform may be in trouble and app developers would suffer."

The problem is, there exists a couple of thousands of exactly similar patents like the ones Microsoft has that are exactly like theirs. Thanks to US patent office you can patent what the heck you want no matter how much prior art exists.

This is just Microsoft realising their platform is doomed and throwing sticks into the wheels of Android. Personally if i was hesitant to WP7 before, now we all know even Microsoft thinks it sucks and will not succeed on its own merits.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[glittermage]

Yes, like an idea about mobile phone with multiple thermometer readings.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that Florian is now a Microsoft lobbyist. "fosspatents" is a very misleading name for his blog (he actually advocates RAND), and he's used up any credibility he might have had from the nosoftwarepatents campaign. He's a marketer, and I'm sure he's worth every penny. Too bad he isn't more selective about his clients, or more ethical about letting people know which side he's on.

Behold: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/08/microsofts-use-of-patents.html. Not one mention of the "over 200 patents", and "linux is a cancer" was a long time ago, right? I cannot believe anybody consumes this apologist's effluvium, but apparently it's working splendidly.

Of course, I could be totally paranoid. But I challenge anybody (who is not a .net fanboi) to read his blog, or his comment history on /., and not reach the same conclusion.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[Sinisterduck66]

I just don't understand why people think Google is this benevolent company trying to bring happiness and rainbows to anything. Everything they produce, free or not open source or not, has the goal of making a profit for their shareholders. If you really think about it they are following a M$ model anyway. They offer a mix of free and pay services. Why use them, because they play really really well with each other as opposed to buying many different vendor products that while they do the same thing require more time and effort to work together. Sounds a lot like the M$ server lines.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[dotdash]

I can see how Google can protect itself, but I don't see how it can (or will want to) protect every phone-maker. Of course, it can (and it must) protect people licensing/buying Android/phone from it, but that won't be much different from what MS itself does.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[FlorianMueller]

Oracle sued Google over Dalvik (the virtual machine for Android), so in that case Google doesn't even have any choice. Oracle appears to hold Google responsible for every Android phone out there.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes I agree a solution must be found.

How about recognizing that software patents are an absurdity and get over with it.

I mean, Sync information between to hosts, really????

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[nschubach]

And Microsoft blames Motorola? How does that make sense?

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[falconwolf]

Certainly there are opportunities to develop new ideas for cellular phones and these merit patent protection.

Bullshit!!! Almost all patents should be revoked. Patents may of had helped at one tyme but all they do now is hold back progress, whether by the new kid on the block who does not have a patent portfolio to counter sue with, or by established players.

Falcon

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[FlorianMueller]

There are two different approaches. Oracle looks at Google as the "root cause" of all those patent infringements. So they go directly after them. Apple (which sued HTC months ago; litigation still ongoing) and Microsoft instead approached particular vendors. If you want to deal with vendors, you need to do many deals and theoretically may have to go through multiple lawsuits (although after you win against the first major vendor, the others will probably give up). The logic about going after vendors is that they're responsible for obtaining all the necessary patent licenses for their products. Patent holders can choose which avenue to go down. Theoretically they could even decide to sue commercial users.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[Flipao]

I just don't understand why people think Google is this benevolent company trying to bring happiness and rainbows to anything. Everything they produce, free or not open source or not, has the goal of making a profit for their shareholders. If you really think about it they are following a M$ model anyway. They offer a mix of free and pay services. Why use them, because they play really really well with each other as opposed to buying many different vendor products that while they do the same thing require more time and effort to work together. Sounds a lot like the M$ server lines.

Sure Google are out to make a profit, but they make billions a year by offering a superior product and promoting innovation, not suing companies who try to get off their leash.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[kiddygrinder]

if they buckle and license they'll just be giving microsoft more reason to do this bullshit again.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[man_of_mr_e]

I'm sorry,

What does a comment about copyleft have to do with patents? The answer would be "nothign", and as such would be pretty bizarred on a blog about patents. What's confusing is why YOU think anyone should rail against 10+ year old coments about something not related to what you're talking about.

Regarding the "200 patents" bit or whatever it was, that wasn't an actual lawsuit that was filed. Many predicted (including myself) at the time that Microsoft would never sue any Linux vendor over those alleged patents. And so far, they haven't. As such, again, I fail to understand why someone should rail against an imaginary lawsuit that never happened.

Oh right, microsoft bad.. don't confuse people with facts... gotcha.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[flimflammer]

Google makes most of their money on advertising, not offering a superior product and promoting innovation.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[Sinisterduck66]

Sadly all the big boys seem to sue each other over many different topics its easy enough to search the terms "microsoft sues""google sues" "Apple sues" etc... I do believe M$ has offered many good innovations in products. to me their problem in this are is that the company on the whole does not have a culture of innovation.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[QuebecNerd]

The way I see it; Google is entirely entitled to make a profit, and a big one.

It all about my perception of what what they give back to the world for what they get in revenues.

The whole open-source comunity gives alot back for what they take.

A little higher in the scale would be Google. It's value in that regard is very high. Granted many of their tools and software are self serving; they are more than usefull and yes they bring rainbows into my life.

Microsoft does offer some value back but my perception is that it's alot less value for the money.

We can go on and Sun wold have been somewhere in the higher tier giving some value back to the world with Java, OpenOffice and MySql and some good boxes.

A little higher up the chain would be Oracle with their ridiculous enterprise software license that don't really score very high on the 'give back' scale and also for slowly killing off Sun's rainbows.

At the top of the chain, often invisible we have the patent trolls that make absolutely no efforts to give anything back but instead rake in billions by questionable means.

So Yes, for a Public, For Profit company; Google has alot to teach to everybody in terms of giving back good value. If people could follow this example and give back as much as they take; the world would be a better place... They are the ultimate torrent seeders as opposed to most other who are leechers.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[FallinWithStyle]

Instead of charging upfront for their products, they offer them to their customers for free and collect revenue based on ad views... yes. You're saying their products are neither superior, nor innovative? What search engine do you use regularly? Who is your email provider? What website do you visit to host/watch videos? I'm only giving examples of their commercially successful products, of course.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[h4rr4r]

Or maybe we could just kill software patents.

Comment here and advertise your blog somewhere else.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[Anonymous Coward]

don't forget to pay your $699 linux licensing fee, you goddamn cock-smoking teabaggers!

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[mattack2]

What do you have against a company making a profit for their shareholders?

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[stephanruby]

The first patent listed: U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent"), entitled "Common Name Space for Long and Short Filenames," is expiring in 2013. It's basically what others have coined the FAT patent, since it could technically be used against anything and everything that uses the FAT file system.

In any case, that patent is probably not even going to last until 2013. Since Microsoft attacked Tom Tom with it, plenty of prior art examples have already been found and submitted to the USPTO for review. I don't have the time to look up the rest of them, perhaps someone else could do it. Here is the list (extracted from Microsoft's complaint in PDF format).

U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,758,352 ("the '352 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,621,746 ("the '746 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,826,762 ("the '762 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,909,910 ("the '910 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 7,644,376 ("the '376 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 5,664,133 ("the '133 patent"),
U.S. Patent No. 6,578,054 ("the '054 patent"),
and U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 ("the '566 patent") (collectively, "the Microsoft Patents"),

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[flimflammer]

I didn't say that their products weren't superior. I apologize if I what I was trying to say didn't come out right. I was merely stating that most of their money doesn't come straight from their products at all. It comes from the advertising space they sell on the product. Also, a large number of their popular products outside of search were actually just from absorbing other companies, so I'm not really sure how innovative I can call Google as a whole. YouTube isn't am original Google product. Neither is Google Maps, Google Docs, and even Android was originally its own entity.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why there are over 30,000 patents held in Europe.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[tomhudson]

The real root cause is assholes like you who change their story depending on which way the money is flowing. One day, patents are bad. The next day, patents are good when you decide to attack RedHat., one of your original sponsors. - "Red Hat's business model does more harm than good".

You're such an ass-wipe. Too bad nobody takes you seriously any more.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[tomhudson]

Muller is in favour of software patents - see his blog entry attacking RedHat, calling them parasites (and by extension, all open-source projects that "destroy value" by substituting free software in place of paying a quasi-monopolist. (Of course, the money isn't destroyed - it gets spent elsewhere, but Muller has his hand out looking for a new "sponsor/puppetmaster").

He's a known troll who sides with whoever he thinks will throw money his way one way or another. Witness his use of the "broken windows" argument to say that RedHat "destroys value"

I explained further above that the political perspective on this is focused on what works for the economy at large. Replacing $50 billion of proprietary software revenues with $5 billion of Red Hat revenues would be theoretically fine if Red Hat's business model were scalable and could serve as a role model for many other companies. But it's a uniquely parasitic model that can't be replicated. The only company for which it works on such a scale is Red Hat itself.

Venture capitalists used to be much more enthusiastic about open source years ago. But since Sun acquired MySQL and Red Hat acquired JBoss, there haven't really been any significant "exits" (IPOs or trade sales) of open source companies. Venture investment in open source startups has cooled off and, compared to previous levels, slowed down to a trickle.

So if I were a political decision-maker concerned with innovation policy, Red Hat would clearly not be a company for me to support. Instead, I would view its financials as an indication that proprietary software developers may very well have a point when requesting strong legal protection for the fruits of their R&D efforts.

From a pragmatic if not utilitarian perspective, it doesn't really matter if there are a few "trolls" taking advantage of the system, or if there's a problem with trivial patents, as long as patent protection favors a sustainable approach to innovation while patent abolition would simply be grist to the mills of a company like Red Hat.

The only "troll" here is Muller.

Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google

[Sinisterduck66]

nothing at all more power to them. I hate the idea that many people seem to have that just because they use open source or offer something for free they are some benevolent company so it's nothing against google just against a perception.

Enemy of My Enemy, etc...

[Penguinisto]

There may not be much mobile love between Google and Apple, but I'm quite sure that neither one wants Microsoft to win anything in such a market.

After all, if Microsoft wins this one, what's to stop them from contriving other overly-broad patents against Apple's iPhone at the first convenient moment?

Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc...

[Motard]

From the MS blog post...

"Our action today merely seeks to ensure respect for our intellectual property rights infringed by Android devices; and judging by the recent actions by Apple and Oracle, we are not alone in this respect."

Android threatens the iPhone perhaps more than Windows Phone 7 does at this point.

Plus, an Apple proprietary device vs. a Microsoft operating system used by many manufacturers is a competition model that both Microsoft and Apple have been content with for a very long time. Google is an interloper.

Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc...

[Anonymous Coward]

Words has it Windows 7 is an AT&T exclusive. The iPhone apparently continues to be an AT&T exclusive for the foreseeable future.

Given the double exclusive BS, the only meaningful competition for MS in the phone space is Apple.

Given everybody's exclusive agreements with everybody else, I wonder when the FTC will feel the need to step in.

Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc...

[Penguinisto]

Some picking apart may be in order here...

Apple sued HTC over hardware patents, IIRC. Microsoft merely included their (and Oracle's) name to legitimize what they were up to in the eyes of their audience. Not sure I'd want the association with Oracle, though - that particular one smells/tastes like Ellison trying to generate some revenue off of his recent purchase of Java, not (as portrayed) as some aggrieved party sick of getting ripped off (remember, Oracle just bought the thing).

Long-term, sure, Google will likely be vying w/ Apple for the #1 slot. OTOH, I don't think Apple cares if they ever quite reach #1 in the smartphone market, or any market. If they cared about market position, Verizon would be selling iPhones by now, and Dell and HP would be selling computers with OSX preloaded on them. OTOH, Apple has its own, not-so-obvious goals, mostly having to do with holding more money than the US Treasury and China combined, methinks.

Finally, one last nitpick... I sincerely doubt that Microsoft was/is cozy at all with the iPhone coming out of nowhere and basically tearing it a new arse in the US smartphone markets (and I bet that Palm hated the whole episode even worse). Globally, Microsoft was drowned out by Nokia anyway. :)

Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc...

[gbjbaanb]

lol. Considering that the actions by Oracle concerned their Java patents, patents which Microsoft infringed and now licence for 'tasty' amounts of money.

Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc...

[Blink Tag]

Some picking apart may be in order here...

[...] I don't think Apple cares if they ever quite reach #1 in the smartphone market, or any market.

Since we're picking things apart, perhaps you should acknowledge that Apple is very definitely #1 in the most important facet of "market share," namely share of industry profits, beating out Nokia, Saumsung, and LG combined. I contend it's a metric they most certainly care about.

See the pretty graphs at
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/21/pie-chart-apples-outrageous-share-of-the-mobile-industrys-profits/

Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc...

[ExileTechie]

Microsoft... as many fancy lawyers as they have, will have a hard time winning this one. "a total of nine alleged patent infringements by Motorola in its Android devices, specifically relating to 'synchronizing email, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power." 1. Really? Ever heard of competition? By taking control of a whole market is known as a Monopoly. No, it is not just a board game. This is Microsoft's typical response when they see they actually have competition. Now, from a legal standpoint, no I am not a lawyer, however, from the few business law classes I have taken, in order to get a patent it requires that the patent be something along the lines of a particular way of doing a task in which a normal person in the same field of expertise would not easily be able to figure out. Taking that into consideration, they would have to prove that Motorola actually infringed on a specific method or algorithm of doing these tasks which is not common or easy to figure out. 2. Synchronizing devices and information is an age old practice. It is a basic concept of the way data is transferred and the way mechanics works. Trying to claim that a common practice or thought belongs to one particular person is stupid. Did I mention before that you can't legally do that?

Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc...

[Motard]

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that there are cozy relationships.

Think of it this way: There's a pack of wolves with pack members named Oracle, Apple, Microsoft and a bunch of other (mostly smaller) wolves. There's a constant vicious competition for the alpha male position, but some ground rules have been established.

Then a big ol' wolf called Google shows up. He's from another pack and doesn't necessarily play by the same ground rules. And he threatens the dominance of all three. So he's attacked viciously.

Meanwhile, a wolf from Google's (web) pack (named Amazon) uses the distraction to screw Google's bitches (by selling Android apps).

And of course there's always a lone wolf. This one is called Adobe and he's trying desperately to impregnate all the bitches in all of the packs.

Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc...

[Tharsman]

There may not be much mobile love between Google and Apple, but I'm quite sure that neither one wants Microsoft to win anything in such a market.

After all, if Microsoft wins this one, what's to stop them from contriving other overly-broad patents against Apple's iPhone at the first convenient moment?

I think Apple already licenses many of these technologies as part of their Exchange ActiveSync licensing. This is the reason why the iPhone had no Exchange support at release despite the demand, they first had to license it and likely decided to see if the thing succeeded before going after the license and functionality.

Companies like Apple tend to do all they can to make sure they are not infringing on technologies owned by other large companies. The problem with Android is that, technically, it's the device owner that should be pursuing the licensing. Many companies that implement Android may had not done the homework needed to realize they should had gone into licensing agreements here or there.

Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc...

[shutdown -p now]

There may not be much mobile love between Google and Apple, but I'm quite sure that neither one wants Microsoft to win anything in such a market.

It's already much more fucked up than one would think possible. Go ahead, draw another line there - but making any conclusions about who's a friend of who from it seems to be unwise given the lack of overall clarity. So far it looks more like a free-for-all "last man standing" than anything else.

Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc...

[shutdown -p now]

This one is called Adobe and he's trying desperately to impregnate all the bitches in all of the packs.

Already done - Adobe AIR is the official first-tier development platform on those RIM tablets. It's not quite phones, but it's clearly a strongly related market as we've seen recently, and I'd be surprised if it doesn't pop up on RIM phones soon.

Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc...

[beakerMeep]

Another nitpick: those are estimates and they show great shakeup in the market. While Nokia was down 40% in profit, HTC was up 33%. Apple does indeed make a boatload of cash but Android is what is currently shaking up the market.

Back on topic though I wonder why MS isn't suing themselves, since they seem so keen on paying Verizon money to put Bing on Android.

Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc...

[Blink Tag]

As I understand, the income figures were culled from public filings. Estimation of income would only come into play when reconciling accounting rules between countries.

Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc...

[h4rr4r]

The fact that apple exists only as a foil to Microsoft. MS winning would be the ideal outcome for Apple. They can "think different" and Microsoft has no real competitor.

Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc...

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, if Microsoft wins this one, what's to stop them from contriving other overly-broad patents against Apple's iPhone at the first convenient moment?

The fact that Apple licensed ActiveSync for the iPhone?

Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc...

[Karlt1]

After all, if Microsoft wins this one, what's to stop them from contriving other overly-broad patents against Apple's iPhone at the first convenient moment?

One of the first things that Steve Jobs did when he came back as Apple's CEO is signed a cross licensing deal with Microsoft. They basically can't sue each other for any patents.

I had a cite but then realized it was from RoughlyDrafted so I didn't bother.....

Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc...

[ardeez]

I think you make two really good points, Apple don't seem to care so much about vast market share (although, through no fault of their own they have that with the mobile mp3 market). Also market fragmentation, i.e. more players makes MS's job a lot harder. Before they really only had to compete with Symbian. Now they've also suddenly got Apple and Android to compete with.

The fact that HTC (the only manufacturer imo that had a decent Winmo device) is now shipping on Android further highlights the danger to them gaining much market share at all, never mind being the dominant player.

Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc...

[Anonymous Coward]

haha, the m sex change team

alright! go microsoft!

Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc...

[catmistake]

Yet another nitpick: Apple doesn't care as much about the mobile market as the others in the mobile market. Once Apple realized that the desire was for a better touch-based computer or a palmtop, they spread the platform out. All the statistics talking Android gaining ground, Apple losing ground, never seem to acknowledge the rest of the Android platform, nor the rest or Apple's iOS devices. Statistics say what they want you to hear.

Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc...

[PipsqueakOnAP133]

OTOH, Apple has its own, not-so-obvious goals, mostly having to do with holding more money than the US Treasury and China combined, methinks.

Haha, it seems like Apple's goal isn't to own the entire market, it's to embarrass everybody who called it beleaguered all those years :P
Either way, whatever it is, seems like it's a working business plan.

Totally called it

[TheSpoom]

Earlier today.

*shrugs* I just have a phone that sends texts and calls people, what do I know. :^P

Re:Totally called it

[blind biker]

MS: Get our mobile OS - it's good, it'll protect you from lawsuits.
All: Protect us? From who?
MS: Us, mostly...

Re:Totally called it

[SiChemist]

I offer you a virtual +1 insightful or +1 funny. Take your pick. It will only improve your virtual karma, though.

Re:Totally called it

[blind biker]

I do thank you for that, kind sir.

However, I don't believe in karma. If such thing existed (the way it's understood in the West, which is the context in which we are speaking), Microsoft would have been bankrupt long ago, along with Monsanto, the RIAA and MPAA companies... and many, many politicians and executives would have had the equivalent happen to them.

Re:Totally called it

[rawler]

Well, to be fair, it worked for for other Mafias.

Re:Totally called it

[andydread]

Gangster to store owner: "get our protection. It will protect you
Store owner: "Protect us? From who?"
Gangster: "Us, mostly..."

Interesting choice of company to attack

[Frag-A-Muffin]

Hmm .. let's see. HTC, Samsung, LG and Moto make Android phones. HTC, Samsung, and LG also make WinMo (sorry ... WP7) phones as well.

I can't imagine Moto's differentiating factor between all the other handset manufacturers are the only bits that MS has issue with. (Anyways, isn't it all just skinning on top of Google's Android?!)

Soooo, this must be a "screw you" for no longer making WinMo phones?

Re:Interesting choice of company to attack

[arivanov]

IIRC Motorola _IS_ making WinMo devices. Just not mass market phones available through the retail channel. It is all various vertical market stuff.

Re:Interesting choice of company to attack

[DiscipleOfKane]

Back in April HTC signed a licensing deal with Microsoft. I guess Motorola couldn't agree terms. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/04/28/1754234/Microsoft-Signs-Android-Patent-Deal-With-HTC

Re:Interesting choice of company to attack

[Anonymous Coward]

It really doesn't make sense to go after just Motorola for an android IP issue when they could sue Google too. It's not like they aren't suing Google already. that why it seems like it would be a motoblur issue rather than an android one, since motoblur added some MS connectivity options to older android OS'es.

Re:Interesting choice of company to attack

[Anonymous Coward]

Its pretty obvious this is a negotiating ploy to get Motorola to make Windows 7 phones. This is going to be interesting for at least two reasons. First Motorola has shrunk and doesn't have the money or personnel to support multiple smartphone OSs. Second, I'm sure the inventor of cellular* has a lot of patents on tech MS is using. My guess is there will be a settlement where MS provides some expertise/developers to Motorola for developing a Windows 7 phone and Motorola creates something that supports windows 7 but probably treats Windows 7 like AT&T treats Android.

The alternative isn't good for either company - protracted money draining court case for both companies + terrible publicity for MS. Can you imagine the bad publicity for MS if Motorola fights tooth and nail in court to _not_ use your product?

*If you had to name one company it would be Motorola.

Re:Interesting choice of company to attack

[stephanruby]

Soooo, this must be a "screw you" for no longer making WinMo phones?

Well even if they did want to sue their own customers, it's usually considered bad form to do so. Plus out of these four companies, Motorola is the weakest one right now (before Android, Motorola had been in decline for a number of years), and when attacking a large pack -- it's far better to isolate and go after the weakest ones first.

Pot meet kettle

[Pop69]

In the past Microsoft was the one screwing over its "partner" and stealing mobile phone technology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sendo

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/01/06/microsofts_masterplan_to_screw_phone/

So having based their smartphone stuff on stolen tech, they're now turning round claiming other people are stealing their tech ?

Oddly enough, it looks like Motorola were the ones who ended up with the Sendo tech.

Re:Pot meet kettle

[phonewebcam]

Its great news. m$ sue the inventor of the cellphone. Just think what patents Motorola can fling back in their newbie faces.

Microsoft's Reasoning

[StormReaver]

Microsoft's reasoning is simple: We're going to get our asses kicked by Android in the mobile market, so we're going to use our vast resources to try to destroy yet another superior product. This is standard Microsoft business practice. So shameful.

Re:Microsoft's Reasoning

[swb]

It seems even more desperate than that. I think the smell of death has taken hold at MS -- they're toast in search, Windows Mobile went from pervasive to MIA in very short time span, they actually had tablets out years ago and now Apple seems to have a massive lead (at least in mindshare).

My guess is they figured they HAD to do this because a flop with WinMo7 would be highly embarrassing and possibly cost Ballmer his job.

Re:Microsoft's Reasoning

[glittermage]

Only one small issue with Microsoft's plan, the owner of Android is beating Microsoft silly in so many areas.

Re:Microsoft's Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

Which begs the question: Why the hell does Ballmer still have his job? He's utterly buried that company. It's running on nothing but the installed user base of his predecessor's tenure, momentum, and fumes.

What is his vision for the future of Microsoft? Anyone? "The Wow?" What happened to that?

Re:Microsoft's Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

It's even worse than that.

Microsoft made a pact with HTC when Apple sued them over the Android OS, allowing HTC to use MS's patents as a sort of shield. Now, MS is going after Motorola for using Android. Why? Because HTC is going to sell WinMo7 phones and Motorola is not.

Re:Microsoft's Reasoning

[Abcd1234]

This is standard Microsoft business practice. So shameful.

Well, no, not really. Traditionally, Microsoft has never been that litigious (yes, there's the FAT-patent-debacle, but that's an exception, not the rule). Hell, usually, they just buy up their competitors.

The fact that they're turning to patent litigation in order to make room for themselves in the market, though, is not a good sign for the company or current management, IMHO...

Re:Microsoft's Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, the sharks smell blood... And I don't mean Microsoft when I refer to "Sharks" there. Microsoft's getting rightly panicky here on a lot of things.

Re:Microsoft's Reasoning

[Svartalf]

He might not have it for much longer....

Re:Microsoft's Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people inside the company are asking the same question.

Corporate Warfare

[Nethemas the Great]

Anyone have thoughts as to what kind of a corporate war it'd take to have affects similar to what WWI and WWII had on western Europe wherein they lost their taste for military solutions to their problems? I really don't understand why this business method and software patent warfare hasn't yet soured the corporate world into rejecting them yet. I understand the anti-competitive "benefit" of destroying your enemy's capabilities but like any war it's never one sided...

Re:Corporate Warfare

[pavera]

It's because the lawyers are running the show, and they win every time this stuff happens, no matter which side wins, the lawyers still get rich.

Re:Corporate Warfare

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Maybe instead of trying to get rid of software patents we should be making the punitive damages much, much larger. Take it into M.A.D. territory to force a "cold" patent war.

wait.

[Carebears]

Microsoft is still in business? hmm.

Better to keep your mouth shut?

[Qubit]

Let's think about this one. A big-shot at Microsoft tries to explain what's going on RE: a patent suit they're bringing against a competitor. Remember: it's a patent suit here.

Gutierrez:

People use smartphones for much more as well: they surf the web, play music and videos, and run apps.

They do a lot of common activities, yes.

Consumers expect more and more from their smartphones every day, making their phones resemble not so much a phone as a handheld computer.

So really, their smart phones are acting like ordinary computers, right? So perhaps we could imagine their phones in that same problem space, as they are, according to Mr. Gutierrez, basically computers.

Of course, for certain apps to run efficiently on handheld devices, they must be notified of changes in signal strength and battery power and the device must manage memory for storing data.

Of course! I mean, I and the rest of us people with tech backgrounds totally agree with you! Just as in other domains like pagers, heart monitors, etc..., it would make perfect sense that for other small, mobile devices, things like managing power or signal strength would be relevant and important for the end user to know about.

I mean, any one of us people well-versed in the field of technology would probably come up with something similar to what you did. I mean, "of course" we would!

Given the wide range of functionality smartphones offer, they also need to be able to display relevant choices for users efficiently. Microsoft’s patented technologies tackle all of these challenges.

Maybe Microsoft's patents read on some of this technology, but it sure sounds like you're trying to convince us exactly how necessary and obvious the content of these patents are in the context of computers, and I have to ask: Are you trying to win this case, or sink it?

Re:Better to keep your mouth shut?

[vakuona]

The functionality is common in mobile computers, but is basically pervasive in mobile phones since the 90s. Who has a phone without a battery and signal strength indicator? It's beyond ridiculous! How the heck can someone patent something so obvious. It should be obvious to anyone by now that computers can simulate, and actually do anything that involves display and monitoring stuff, and this isn't something anyone should necessarily need to patent.

30 years developing cutting-edge computer software

[Anonymous Coward]

from the linked Microsoft blog post:
        "we’ve spent over 30 years developing cutting-edge computer software."

  hmm... personally, I feel that they've spent 15+ of those years abusing a monopoly thus sabotaging competition and reducing innovation. If theirs can be called innovation it's only because they cut everyone else off at the knees with legal tactics and illegal marketing manoeuvres.

MS Is Just Entering the Market

[Motard]

I've not got a dog in this hunt, but Windows Phone 7 stacks up very well against the competition. And when that has happened historically, they've been able to become dominant. Think about all of the corporate IT .Net developers and corporate IT phone choosers out there. Microsoft WILL quickly become relevant in the market.

And the phone is just one facet of their .Net/Silverlight strategy. There are much deeper things at work.

Re:MS Is Just Entering the Market

[Lumpy]

In the past yes...

But RIM owns the business and corporate market hard. Microsoft has ZERO chance of cracking the Blackberry nut unless RIM does something super stupid.

Re:MS Is Just Entering the Market

[Motard]

And that something super stupid could be trying to compete with Microsoft in the corporate space. RIM may have a lot of Crackberry addicted managers, but Microsoft has corporate IT - who chooses which phones will be used, and whose developers will promise the moon in order to become mobile developers instead of working on budgeting system internals.

To my knowledge, Microsoft is the only dog in the hunt that is developing a plan for corporate app distribution (i.e. outside of an App Store type arrangement).

Re:MS Is Just Entering the Market

[Anonymous Coward]

And the phone is just one facet of their .Net/Silverlight strategy. There are much deeper things at work.

You're giving the management at MS WAAAAY too much credit. There may be a few pie in the sky ideas from a few higher level management but as far as actual product goes, there's much more inter-company fighting over one manager's pet project versus anothers, etc.

The ONLY things MS makes ANY money on are Windows and Office (and server software in general). EVERY other endeavor has been nothing more than throwing pasta at the wall and hoping something sticks, while losing tons of cash doing so.

In the case of WP7, I expect there to be fighting over where to target it and I expect MS will focus it's energy at targeting the consumer market, where it will fail miserably against the deluge of Android devices and the quick development pace of Android OS (which MS will never be able to match) and the iPhone. I predict they won't, for example, break a critical mass of application developers and apps that would be needed to even give them a fighting chance. I also predict their focus will be on consumer devices to the detriment of business class features that would allow them to put up much of a fight against RIM.

In the end, the ONLY thing MS has going for it is lots of money (which I'll admit might help them make some ground initially), partnerships already in place (but which are strained due to everything from broken promises regarding windows CE in the past to things like HP buying a competative mobile OS to the fact that most hardware makers are going to prefer selling devices on an already established OS that costs them nothing compared to a NEW OS that they have to pony up extra for (I expect MS to heavily subsidize that in the beginning, though)). Oh, and let's not forget attempts to litigate their way into the market, as this story is an example of.

At BEST, I predict MS will be stuck at #3 and given their track record in the mobile space and coonsidering the speed at which Google and Apple have been doing software/product updates, they'll likely drift into obscurity. I must admit, I will not be shedding any tears when MS is finally chased out of the mobile space for good.

Re:MS Is Just Entering the Market

[UnknowingFool]

To my knowledge, Microsoft is the only dog in the hunt that is developing a plan for corporate app distribution (i.e. outside of an App Store type arrangement).

What? You do realize that Windows 7 Phone not only is not backwards compatible with previous Windows Mobile versions but that Windows 7 Phone is heavily focused on consumer not corporate features, right? Two reasons why corporations are less likely to pick Windows 7 over Blackberry.

Re:MS Is Just Entering the Market

[Anonymous Coward]

if you think IT chooses the phones then you have ZERO knowledge of corporate IT.

The executives are what choose the phones they use. Not some dweeb who is the email admin. and not some low level or even middle manager.

If the CEO wants a iPhone on the corporate email, your exchange dweeb is FORCED to make it work. The "crackberry" has been in business before microsoft even knew that cellphones existed. I had a crackberry in 1999.

If you think that a windows phone will make a dent, then you are either an idiot, or a msft shill.

I'm betting idiot.

Re:MS Is Just Entering the Market

[jebblue]

Think about Java. Search Dice.

Re:MS Is Just Entering the Market

[TheRaven64]

And the phone is just one facet of their .Net/Silverlight strategy

Wait, they have a strategy now? I thought their approach was the same as Google's - do loads of random stuff and then retroactively claim that any of the bits that made money were part of a plan.

Juxtaposition

[Bob9113]

Article 1: "Microsoft may be one of the only remaining mobile operating-system providers that charges handset makers a licensing fee, but in exchange vendors get at least one important benefit: protection from intellectual property worries. 'Microsoft indemnifies its Windows Phone 7 licensees against patent infringement claims,' the company said. 'We stand behind our product, and step up to our responsibility to clear the necessary IP rights.'"

Article 2: "Microsoft has hit up the ITC over a total of nine alleged patent infringements by Motorola in its Android devices, specifically relating to 'synchronizing email, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power.' This should be interesting -- will it result in a quick cross-licensing agreement, or a protracted court battle spanning multiple years?"

It's more fun if you read it with a Brooklyn accent and imagine a guy with a broken nose saying it.

Maybe add in:

"And just to make sure you understand, RIM actually invented email synchronization, but we had a little talk with the DoJ. See how far that got RIM? Fucking Canucks trying to get in on our action. See; the US government is the muscle. We are, how do you say it... the patron? the patriarch? Maybe, the godfather. Mwuahahahahahah.... Ummm, the evil laugh -- was that out loud? I'm not supposed to do that part out loud."

Re:Juxtaposition

[mandelbr0t]

See how far that got RIM? Fucking Canucks trying to get in on our action.

Riiight. Because BlackBerry Enterprise Server won't sell more copies of Exchange at all~

Anti-capitalist

[Antisyzygy]

Its interesting how companies spout out capitalist philosophy based arguments against laws when it benefits them, but are quick to use non-capitalist strategies to edge the competition out.

Re:Anti-capitalist

[Cidolfas]

That's exactly why I'm ok with government trust-busting early 1900's style, even with heavy libertarian leanings.

Also, this is why I hate Ayn Rand. Yes, you can believe in libertarianism without masturbating to Ayn Rand.

This is getting real common

[ciaran_o_riordan]

Phone patent litigation has become a core revenue stream for the big patent holders, and complaining to he ITC has become standard - it's free (or cheap) and the government does all the work. The media also does loads of free work by writing articles about how X's product imports might be blocked, even though that's never happened...

• Phone patent litigation
• United States International Trade Commission

Re:This is getting real common

[sangreal66]

The media also does loads of free work by writing articles about how X's product imports might be blocked, even though that's never happened...

Sure it has: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/22/itc_upholds_qualcomm_phone_ban/

Re:This is getting real common

[ciaran_o_riordan]

Thanks! I've updated the wiki.

I've also started a page about Motorola:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Motorola

is ballmer being forced out of microsoft?

[Dan667]

This smells like a desperation move of someone who tries to solve every problem with marketing. Buy our products because they are better? Nope, buy them out of fear. Stupid. My guess is ballmer is in the process of being forced out of microsoft.

Let's take a stab, shall we?

[MBCook]

• 5,579,517 and 5,758,352 Common name space for long and short filenames. Let's write a file system that contains long file names. But we need to let people use short ones too. I know, we'll put them in the same namespace! Obvious
• 6,826,762 Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer. We need to be able to swap out radio modules! No problem, we'll stick a new layer in there to blackbox the radio. Obvious

The rest I'm unsure about. The "scheduling from a mobile device", "offline syncing", and "context sensitive menu" things may have been innovative, but that's been around for 10+ years so at this point it shouldn't count. The flash monitoring sounds kind of obvious, but the implementation may not be (I don't know much in the area).

It's odd to argue how patents are squashing innovation and then go and use obvious patents that at this point (10+ years since devices started doing that function) are extraordinarily common.

I think Steve is just mad about his bonus.

Re:Let's take a stab, shall we?

[t2t10]

The rest I'm unsure about. The "scheduling from a mobile device", "offline syncing", and "context sensitive menu" things may have been innovative, but that's been around for 10+ years so at this point it shouldn't count. The flash monitoring sounds kind of obvious, but the implementation may not be (I don't know much in the area).

No. All those functions have been around on laptops and tablets for a long time, as well as the Apple Newton and Palm devices. Many companies have developed and sold this kind of software. Android's productivity apps could entirely be based on open, established synchronization protocols, since that functionality has been standardized long ago.

Furthermore, many of these patents are of the form "doing X on a phone", where X itself is public domain and well understood; it's doubtful that such patents should hold up at all.

However, Google needs to step up to the plate and defend their partners. For a licensing fee, they should probably provide indemnification.

Re:Let's take a stab, shall we?

[Bungie]

5,579,517 and 5,758,352 Common name space for long and short filenames. Let's write a file system that contains long file names. But we need to let people use short ones too. I know, we'll put them in the same namespace! Obvious

Actually if you read the patent it goes into the excruciating details of how (Windows 95) long file names are implemented on FAT. You see...they couldn't break file listings if the file system was used in older MS-DOS versions. So they had to fit the long file name data (which IIRC was also UNICODE) into the existing 8.3 file name structures in the FAT, in a way that Windows 95 would notice and be able to read, but MS-DOS would ignore. The method they developed is unique (from other methods that were used) and is sort of clever and retarded at the same time.

Everyone who makes FAT devices will need to use this method of storing long file names. People will most likely use the device on Windows which won't recognize LFN data stored in other ways (like OS/2's), so it's pretty much the standard.

It should be noted however that you don't violate the patent unless you store the long file name data to the file system in this manner. So if you let Windows do the writing of the LFN data, then your FAT device is not affected by the patent (for example a cameras writes 8.3 names when snapping pictures, leaves it to the user to change the file names (to long names) in Windows.

XML Editors, Anyone?

[TheNinjaroach]

Well this method worked pretty well for i4i, but I can't wrap my head around this news with that news.

Reasoning summarized

[Anonymous Coward]

"Microsoft’s Exchange ActiveSync, a proprietary technology that we developed, makes this possible."

"... seeks to ensure respect for our intellectual property rights ... judging by the recent actions by Apple and Oracle, we are not alone in this respect."

Everything else is filler.

To paraphrase, we made product that synced information back and forth (not like the palm pilot?), and everyone else is suing android, so we might as well too.

Holy shit

[AlgorithMan]

Holy shit!
I didn't think this
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1805678&cid=33762968
would become reality so fast

fake enemies

[t2t10]

Apple and Microsoft aren't enemies; they have patent cross licensing agreements and they are in different markets. All this Apple vs Microsoft bluster is more marketing gimmick than reality. Microsoft likes Apple as the token competitor and Apple like Microsoft because it validates their proprietary approach to software.

Re:fake enemies

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

Apple and Microsoft aren't enemies; they have patent cross licensing agreements and they are in different markets. All this Apple vs Microsoft bluster is more marketing gimmick than reality. Microsoft likes Apple as the token competitor and Apple like Microsoft because it validates their proprietary approach to software.

I agree with that as far as traditional desktop/laptop computers go -- Apple don't really compete with MS, but instead sell high-end, high-margin hardware -- but with music players/phones/tablets/set-top boxes, it's all different. Apple is making MS look like the dumb, lumbering dinosaur it is, whilst building their own walled garden / revenue streams and being apparently very successful at it.

I don't disagree that Android is a threat to Apple though, and arguably to MS too... I say arguably because MS are probably screwed in mobile space regardless. So MS probably just want to come to an "arrangement" with Motorola so they get a slice of the action, whereas Apple is more likely to try to stifle competition. I'm guessing anyway! :D

PATENT

[glittermage]

You know what PATENT means?

Patent
Attorney
Trust
&
ENrichment
Tool

The Patents

[Troy Roberts]

5,579,517 "Common Name Space for Long and Short File Names"
5,758,352 "Common Name Space for Long and Short File Names"

So, these two are the the infamous FAT patents.

6,621,746 "Monitoring Entropic Conditions of a Flash Memory Device as an Indicator for Invoking Erasure Operations"

Defrag applied to flash, really that deserve a patent?

6,826,762 "Radio Interface Layer in a Cell Phone with a Set of APIs Having a Hardware-Independent Proxy Layer and a Hardware-Specific Driver Layer"

Hmmm layering an API so that you have an invariant user space API and hardware driver portion. Seems like the kind of thing every OS does.

6,909,910 "Method and System for Managing Changes to a Contact Database"

Really!?!? I wonder how if my first year CS course work violates this patent.

7,644,376 "Flexible Architecture for Notifying Applications of State Changes"

Hmmmm... a publish/subscriber notification protocol, no that has never been done before.

5,664,133 "Context Sensitive Menu System/Menu Behavior"

Ha, Ha, Ha Context sensitive menus! I could have sworn I have seen things like that for the last 20 years or so.

6,578,054 "Method and System for Supporting Off-line Mode of Operation and Synchronization Using Resource State Information"

Hmmm... patenting persistent state storage as part of a synchronization process. Hmmmm... I wonder if any of the hash based synchronizer I have built in the past would infringe.

6,370,566 "Generating Meeting Requests and Group Scheduling from a Mobile Device"

Oh, doing it from a mobile device makes it so much more unique.

They are all garbage patents and if Motorola decides to fight versus cross licensing, I don't believe they will hold up.

Re:The Patents

[NullProg]

Don't know why you got modded to 1. I'd mod you +5 for getting the patent numbers together.

5,579,517 "Common Name Space for Long and Short File Names"
5,758,352 "Common Name Space for Long and Short File Names"

So, these two are the the infamous FAT patents.

These are the only two that will stand in court. All the others have prior art. Does the droid phone support fat out of the box?

Enjoy,

Re:The Patents

[shutdown -p now]

Just keep in mind that patent title can be "Masturbating fluffy bunnies" for all anyone cares, what it's actually about is in the claims. Patent titles are often very broad, much more so than what the patent actually claims. So don't be so quick to think that patents won't hold up in court.

Re:The Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Just keep in mind that patent title can be "Masturbating fluffy bunnies" for all anyone cares, what it's actually about is in the claims. Patent titles are often very broad, much more so than what the patent actually claims. So don't be so quick to think that patents won't hold up in court.

I'm sorry. The Stac, Dr. DOS, WordPerfect etc. out of court private Microsoft settlements prove you wrong. Microsoft steals other companies inventions. Just because the company didn't patent them doesn't make Microsofts actions fair.

At the end of the day, are you a computer programmer or are you just a Windows programmer? Can you take your skills to any platform or only Win32/.Net. Your not a computer programmer are you? A bit biased you are.

Re:The Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Win32 doesn't change the way C works you dumb fuck, so yea you can take your skills to any fucking platform that has a C compiler and expect to write code the same way.

But it doesn't fucking matter because if you can code for Win32/.Net well then you can code applications that will run on 90% of the computers out there. Some Mac users and some guys in their parent's basement might get pissed off and say you're not a computer programmer, but they're just convincing themselves that they're somehow gain 31337 c0d1ng sk1llz from running Linux (probably Ubuntu).

Google it could try to negotiate license deals.

[falconwolf]

That's what it must do now, not only for itself, not only for Android phone vendors, but above all for the application developer community its platform depends on.

That's what Google could try to do, negotiate licensing deals, but they'd better not. Instead Google should, one, make MS prove Google is violating MS patents. And if so two, fight to have those patents revoked.

Falcon

I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

one more website to ignore

thanks for the heads up

Doesn't Motorola makes XBOX CPUs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or at least they used to until today.

Re:Doesn't Motorola makes XBOX CPUs?

[Svartalf]

Actually, Freescale makes the CPUs for Microsoft. They spun their chip operations off a long while back. I suspect they'd have been a little leery of doing this stupid move (and it IS one...) if they were suing one of their critical suppliers like you hint at.

Phone wars begun have they.

[bobstreo]

So apple/RIM/MS/Google/Motorola/HTC are all in lawsuits against each other?

Why oh why didn't I get a law degree?

In other words, the only ones who are going to win in all this stupidity are the lawyers.

So, if Microsoft invents it, it's not innovation,

[falconwolf]

What exactly has MS invented? Invented not copied or stole?

Perhaps Altair BASIC? BASIC already existed, all Bill and Paul did was write a BASIC interpreter for the Altair and following microcomputers.

Falcon

Re:30 years developing cutting-edge computer softw

[Svartalf]

Actually it's been more like 20-25 years of that sort of thing...

Now that the political attack failed,

[Old Flatulent 1]

How quickly we forget the screw Google efforts and the fact that because the Republicans no longer control the house or the White House they are trying desperate tactics. The cost in bribes and "taking fat cats to dinner" alone to get into bed with the Democrats must have put Microsoft off the lobbyist angle. So why not try the courts?

When you can't compete...

[Nom du Keyboard]

When you can't compete any longer...
...Hire lawyers!

MS really are a bunch of jerks!

Of course that doesn't mean for a moment that I believe that Apple is suddenly the second largest company on the world either. I'm just waiting for that bubble to pop.

Microsoft Will Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

In terms of patent dispute number 1, apple had HFS file system in 1985 which could support 255 characters in a file name, but only 31 of those displayed. Probably further reading on wikipedia would reveal that the other patent infringements are nothing more than Microsoft FUD. This patent was filed in 1996. In 1994, the XFS file system could support strings up to 256 bytes in length. I am pretty sure this patent could be invalidated on the fact that this technology existed prior to their patent issuance.

These kinds of patent disputes happen all the the time, and I can not think for a second that Motorola does not have it's own arsenal of patents that could be leveraged to reach some kind of cross licensing agreement.

Microsoft is really reaching out on a limb in terms of their patent portfolio. These patents are vague, and there are many instances of prior implementations of these technologies. A context sensitive menu.......I am pretty sure Microsoft did not invent this. I think that Microsoft is attempting to gain more market share our of sheer desperation. Microsoft's ability to innovate has seriously been altered since Bill left, and the desktop market is very stagnant considering there is not a huge impetus to upgrade your operating system or office. Compounded by the fact that everyone is eating way at the Microsoft pie on several market fronts; search engines; mobile devices; operating systems; databases; web servers; and other technological fronts.

Microsoft Patent Troll

[Nom du Keyboard]

Microsoft Patent Troll.

Windows mobile Backwards Compat is not a feature

[Motard]

Windows Phone 7 is not the patsy that Windows Mobile was. It's a threat. Nobody with a Windows Mobile device is dreading an upgrade to a competitive phone.

Name me one other mobile provider that has corporate development support already built into major corporations.

Windows Mobile was a place holder. Windows Phone 7 is a game changer.

Re:Windows mobile Backwards Compat is not a featur

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows Mobile was a place holder. Windows Phone 7 is a game changer.

Bwaahahahaha, hee hee, lol, hahaha, hoyboy, good one.

Wait... You weren't being serious were you?

Re:Windows mobile Backwards Compat is not a featur

[Lumpy]

Nokia

I see way more nokia smartphones in company use than windows mobile phones. WAY WAY more.

In fact outside the USA, nokia dominates over ALL OTHER PHONE MAKES. ALL OF THEM.

iphone and android put together are a tiny blip to Nokia outside the USA

Re:Windows mobile Backwards Compat is not a featur

[UnknowingFool]

Windows Phone 7 is not the patsy that Windows Mobile was. It's a threat. Nobody with a Windows Mobile device is dreading an upgrade to a competitive phone.

Businesses normally don't like spending money for no reason. Many of them that currently have Windows Mobile phone will not like having to spend money on new versions of their current apps. Also they cannot upgrade their current phones to Windows 7. So that gives them no incentive to stay with Windows. They have to buy new apps and get new phones so then it offers no advantage to Windows. That puts it on par with Blackberry.

Couple that with the emphasis that Microsoft has put on Windows 7 Phone being a consumer not a corporate phone. So a brand new phone OS has fewer corporate features than their previous phone. While Blackberry is rolling out more corporate features. Gee, which one will corporations buy?

Name me one other mobile provider that has corporate development support already built into major corporations.

As I said before Windows 7 Phone is focused on the consumer market. It does not matter how much lip service MS pays to having a corporate development environment if corporations are not going to buy Windows 7 phones for their employees because it does not have the features that they need. At best only corporations that develop apps might be interested in Windows 7.

Windows Mobile was a place holder. Windows Phone 7 is a game changer.

So far the market the kept Windows Mobile alive has been the corporate market. And MS is throwing it away for the consumer market. But from what I've seen of Windows 7, they are years behind Apple and Android. Heck, they are years behind WebOS. What do you base this belief that they will be a game changer when the game passed them by years ago?

Worth Every Penny

[Anonymous Coward]

First, I'm honored that you have replied to my anonymous comment, but it should be noted that I did not seek this reply, my comment was directed toward penguinisto.

I would like to point out that you addressed almost nothing in my comment. Let me list some points, for clarification:

• Compensation from marketing/PR firms which represent Microsoft.
• fosspatents is misleadingly named, you are an advocate for RAND licensing.
• Despite billing yourself as "the founder of nosoftwarepatents", you are an advocate for licensing deals which legitimize software patents.
• The "over 200 patents" claim.

I'd like to add that you seem to have some alternative definition for "open" (similar to the "open" in OOXML). I suspect that you may have a different definition for the "free" in FOSS, as well.

As for the minor point about the "cancer": not all of us are stupid, we're well aware that RAND deals are generally incompatible with copyleft. We've been attacked with the RAND red herring for over a decade, and even now the Mozilla foundation is being attacked over h.264, while your benefactors know that Mozilla can't comply and remain free (as in freedom). Patent licensing is being used as a weapon against copyleft, that's why it is relevant. "We'll never know" if Ballmer meant it? Heh. Admit it: Your "ways forward" are the death of copyleft. Although, I've got to hand it to you and your mad marketing skillz, the "nothing to do with copyleft" talking point appears to have legs.

Please feel free to address the points, or decline. If you're doing what I think you're doing, I won't have much to say in response, except maybe to remind you to beware the Dark Side. Classy, well-written spam is still spam. Spam whose aim it is to harm what most of us on slashdot owe for our vocation/passion is worse karma than a 419, imho. Rationalizations notwithstanding.

It's not too late to make it right. Spill the beans on your blog, and you'll be remembered forever!

In any case, I think the tide has turned here. I've noticed that comments pointing out the above have been modded up lately. People have mixed results campaigning on slashdot...

More than they bargained for?

[gilesjuk]

Motorola have been in the electronics business for a considerable amount of time. Motorola demonstrated the first mobile phone in the 1970s.

Okay, maybe some of Motorola's patents have gone now. But it's still a risk to sue a company with such a diverse number of past innovations.

More like 30 years buying cutting-edge software

[HannethCom]

Word, Office, Excel, Outlook, Access, Powerpoint, DOS, BASIC, Internet Explorer, Visual Studio, SourceSafe, Windows NT, NTFS.

What do all the above and and many more have in common? None of them were originally developed by Microsoft. Most were acquired by buying other companies. Some, like IE(Core rendering engine was Spyglass Mosaic) Windows NT(Core OS was the same as OS/2 developed by IBM) and NTFS (slight modification of HPFS from IBM), were acquired in licensing deals where Microsoft was not always honest about their intentions.

No, BASIC was not created by Microsoft, it existed before Microsoft did, but the company that created it was bought out really early on by Microsoft. Any technology that was invented by a company that Microsoft buys out they claim as their own invention as they now own the company and usually the people that created the technology.

That being said, they did create Win16 and Win32. ADO was a really good idea that they got right the first time, then messed up up, then fixed it, messed it up again and I think have finally fixed it. Works I believe is completely Microsoft. DirectX was a Microsoft project that Microsoft was against originally.

Re:More like 30 years buying cutting-edge software

[mattack2]

No, BASIC was not created by Microsoft, it existed before Microsoft did, but the company that created it was bought out really early on by Microsoft.

[citation needed]

Are you being a pedant about Micro-Soft vs Microsoft?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_BASIC

Gates & Allen wrote a BASIC interpreter to run on an 8008 emulator. Gates & Allen improved it and made other versions of it too.

Re:More like 30 years buying cutting-edge software

[Anne Thwacks]

BASIC existed a hell of a long time before Gates wrote anything at all. it ran on Minicomputers a long time before Altair. Dartmoth college created BASIC as a tool for teaching students how to write interpreters, that was its origin. Dartmouth was churning out hundreds of graduates who could write BASIC interpreters each year!

Gates and Allen did what hundreds of teenagers did every day at the time.

However, Gates had a dad who knew someone who knew someone at IBM. The other students had girlfriends and booze. (This was the 60's).

Re:More like 30 years buying cutting-edge software

[Bungie]

Windows NT is Microsoft's own design (with no parts of OS/2) and was inspired from VMS. Microsoft realized OS/2 was being driven in a bad direction by IBM and hired Dave Cutler (and others from the Digital VMS team) to design a new OS. Cutler actually didn't like any of the OS/2 design and didn't use it in NT.

IBM wanted OS/2 to work on 286 systems under 16-bit protected mode which hampered it's multitasking and development. IBM didn't care about portability or supporting many different pieces of hardware (with a flexible driver model). They couldn't make the Windows API work correctly under OS/2 so they broke compatibility with Windows, and then demanded Microsoft change their API's to match.

NT used a very clean design which separates and abstracts everything nicely. Microsoft was able to make NT compatible with OS/2 by building things like the OS/2 subsystem (for running OS/2 applications) and HPFS IFS driver. There isn't much else in NT which borrows from OS/2 which is why OS/2 struggled and failed while NT continues to be used today.

NTFS also is quite different from HPFS, they only share the same partition number. HPFS was designed to replace FAT, and didn't have any of the extensibility and enterprise features in it's design like NTFS. HPFS doesn't support journaling, compression, file/folder permissions and other features that were in the original NTFS. NTFS 3.1 contains even larger differences which are completely beyond the capabilities (and design) of HPFS.

Some random thoughts...

[NullProg]

Motorola makes other devices besides phones that use Windows. Why is Microsoft suing one of their own partners? Do they want Motorola to drop Windows all together? Dell, Acer, Symbol, Samsung etc. will all pay attention to this. Microsoft to partners: "In the future, as a Microsoft partner, we will dictate to you the OS your product uses or else we will sue you! We don't care if your hardware requirements cost more using our software."

Why not sue Google directly. Apple didn't, Oracle did. It doesn't matter if Android is open source or not, if Google violated your patents then sue Google. I'm not suing the DOT if my automobile has a flaw. I'm suing the source.

This reeks of extortion. Why isn't Microsoft targeting other Android phones? Oh, the manufacturer also supplies Windows based phones. I think the DOJ needs to re-open the Monopoly case again, specifically the section that details how Microsoft once used office/windows pricing to abuse the hardware manufacturers. Hey IBM, you owe Microsoft $500 million for Windows licenses because you also provide OS/2. Dell only owes us a $100 million for the same amount of licenses.

Those patents listed are weak at best except for the FAT one. Hey Microsoft, users have been synchronizing network data since before 300 baud modems. Rsync pre-dates ActiveSync, and I have scheduled a meeting using a (Yes a) Motorola beeper back in 1995

Motorola owns a shit-load of patents too. Is Microsoft doing the right thing? My inner Yoda says: The patent wars they have begun.

The technology group at Microsoft and the legal/marketing group at Microsoft are not on the same corporate page: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/strange-bedfellows-eff-apache-back-microsoft-in-patent-dispute.ars

Microsoft isn't interested in cloud computing. Instead of offering services to Android users (Office, Silverlight, .net etc), they are more interested in protecting the Windows hegemony. This means they have no plan for providing internet services to non-Microsoft clients wanting to use/subscribe to Microsoft cloud applications

Lets discuss..

Enjoy,

Re:Some random thoughts...

[KarmaMB84]

If Microsoft wants licensing fees for the devices, the best way to do that is to go after the handset makers. HTC is already paying them the fees.

Re:Some random thoughts...

[PipsqueakOnAP133]

Motorola makes other devices besides phones that use Windows. Why is Microsoft suing one of their own partners? Do they want Motorola to drop Windows all together? Dell, Acer, Symbol, Samsung etc. will all pay attention to this. Microsoft to partners: "In the future, as a Microsoft partner, we will dictate to you the OS your product uses or else we will sue you! We don't care if your hardware requirements cost more using our software."

Actually, a few years ago, Motorola closed the entire division that worked on WinMo phones.
It was talked about a lot on howardforums.com; the Q9n (as forum people called it) was basically ready to ship as the next generation of Q but got canned as a result.
People lost jobs, and there's a picture floating around with the Moto building and an actual "for lease" sign. They closed down an entire building.
So... Motorola can't drop Windows altogether now. They already did, long ago.

Microsoft's reasoning is simple:

[falconwolf]

We're going to get our asses kicked by Android in the mobile market, so we're going to use our vast resources to try to destroy yet another superior product.

Except Microsoft leads Android. Microsoft is third in the market with RIM in first and Apple in second. Androids are fourth, behind MS, though growing. Both Androids and iPhones are growing where RIM and Windows Mobile are declining.

Falcon

Double standard.

[Anonymous Coward]

So M$ wants to team up to fight patent lawsuits and then make their own suits?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/30/microsoft_i4i_grumbles/

Microsoft Created HPFS

[BBCWatcher]

Microsoft did create HPFS. Well, Gordon Letwin and his colleagues did, and they were working for Microsoft. It took IBM to rescue HPFS, and it got reasonably stable in the IBM OS/2 1.3x stream (i.e. the IBM fork, also known as the first quality OS/2 release). IBM still had to swat HPFS bugs well into the 2.1x stream, though. IBM completely reimplemented HPFS in format-compatible fashion as HPFS386 since HPFS was hopeless for servers. (HPFS had a very low and very static memory cache. HPFS386 at least lifted the very low part, and for file servers a statically sized cache wasn't too much of a problem. But I'm not sure what Letwin was thinking, since dynamic caching wasn't exactly a new idea when he was working.) Since IBM had to pay royalties for the crap anyway they pretty quickly ditched HPFS386 in favor of JFS, which is quite excellent technology. Modern JFS first appeared on OS/2 and then also spread to AIX, which is now the highest marketshare UNIX platform.

Re:Windows mobile Backwards Compat is not a featur

[Flipao]

Windows Mobile was a place holder. Windows Phone 7 is a game changer.

iOS was a game changer, Android was a game changer, WebOS was a game changer.
Windows Mobile 7 is a knock off and they know it, which is why they're suing, as far as app development, the future is in web apps, which are usable on any platform, Silverlight was obsolete before it was even released.

Think this helps explain it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will we see a Windows Phone 7 from Motorola soon?

http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/362876/patent_protection_key_windows_phone_license/

Bozos at work

[kromagnon]

Let me see, Oracle is suing Google for patent infringment and copyrights. The question is why is Oracle NOT suing Microsoft for the same technology. If the judicial system had two brain cells they would have dismissed these suits - with prejudice.
The crux of Oracle's suit against Android is -
- Method And System for Performing Static Initialization (6,061,520)
- Interpreting Functions Utilizing A Hybrid Of Virtual And Native Machine Instructions (6,910,205)
- Method And Apparatus For Resolving Data References In Generated Code (RE38,104)
- System And Method For Dynamic Preloading Of Classes Through Memory Space Cloning Of A Master Runtime System Process (7,426,720)
- Method And Apparatus For Preprocessing And Packaging Class Files (5,966,702)
- Protection Domains To Provide Security In A Computer System (6,125,447) and Controlling Access To A Resource (6,192,476)
How is it that Microsoft gets away with CLR's and making commercial products with glee ?
Well. That's the control grid the Anunnakis will have made for mere mortals. All is well in the world. Now go back to sleep.

Re:Bozos at work

[josepha48]

The real issue here is that these bozos are sueing each other over software patents and all of this crap is kind of obvious to software developers that have 1/2 a brain. I start reading this crap and think OMG are they really allowing this stuff in patents now? WTF! I blame the patent examiners for not knowing which end of a computer is up.

I used to work there and in the mid 1990's many examiners refused to answer their email and were required to check it once a day.

Re:Bozos at work

[kromagnon]

You're right the USPTO is a pit.
There is also the issue of abuse of process. In this case by applying them on competitors and selectively.
/off-topic
If you want the patent office really riled up ask them about free energy devices. Here's an excerpt from the T. Henry Moray story that illustrates the other side of the patent office.
T. Henry Moray And The Suppression Of Free Energy By: Alain Prud'homme
Shortly after World War one Moray produced his first elementary device that delivered measurable electrical power. He then went on to produce a free energy device weighing sixty pounds and producing 50,000 watts of electricity for several hours.
Even thought he demonstrated his device repeatedly to scientists and engineers, he could not get funding to develop his device further such as a power station that would furnish electrical power on a mass scale.
Moray continued improving his machine whenever he had the time.
Test after test he effectively proved that his machine could generate energy devoid of any appreciable energy input. According to exhaustive documentation, no one was ever capable of demonstrating that the machine was fraudulent or that Moray had not achieved precisely what he claimed.
During one of his experiments Moray ran his device for 157 hours without any connection to external power sources, and produced over fifty kilowatts of power during the test.
He also established that an additional fifty kilowatts could be added by simply providing another tap further back in the circuit. He had proven beyond doubt that the device was generating electrical energy from free and natural sources without batteries or external power.
Even with all his demonstrations and documentation to back him up, the U.S. Because his device used a cold cathode in the tubes and he failed to identify the source of energy, the Patent Office refused to grant Moray a patent.
The patent office also presented all sorts of unrelated patents and devices as being infringed upon or duplicated by his work. Moray patiently answered and nullified these spurious objections to his patent.
To this day the U.S. Patent Office continues to ignore the patent application and the patent has still not been issued. In spite of all this the Morays still keep the patent application current.
Moray was certainly not the first nor the last inventor that the U.S. Patent Office ignored or refused to grant patents to. A quick search on the internet will confirm this.
I hypothesize that this is a way in which the US government and various vested interests try to suppress inventions in various fields.
In the 1930s various powerful people tried to obtain the device. Because he refused to sell out to these people he and his family were threatened and shot at on several occasions and his lab ransacked to stop his free energy research and public demonstrations.
His book, The Sea of Energy in Which the Earth Floats [THE SEA OF ENERGY IN WHICH THE EARTH FLOATS, For Beyond the Light Rays Lies the Secret of the Universe, The Evolution of Energy and Matter Originally compiled for the Layman in 1926 from excerpts of the Writings first presented in 1914] makes for interesting reading.
In his book Moray presents documented evidence that he invented the first transistor-type valve in 1925, far ahead of the officially recognized discovery of the transistor.
The Moray Radiant Energy discovery, using radiations from the cosmos as its power source, gives the greatest amount of energy per pound of equipment of any system known to man.
/off-topic

Isn't it dangerous to sue Motorola?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean they have their own rather large patent portfolio. Is Microsoft crazy for risking Motorola's going scorched earth?

Buy our OS or we'll sue you

[woboyle]

I think this suit is Microsoft's way of telling Motorola that they aren't happy with Motorola's migration to Android instead of using WinPhone7. Another term for that is extortion...