Microsoft, Motorola Add 9 Patents To Ongoing Court Battle

FlorianMueller writes "Patent suits are the IT industry's new Christmas cards: Microsoft and Motorola just added new accusations to their row. Motorola filed another suit in the Western District of Wisconsin, for the first time also attacking the Kinect. Microsoft threw in seven patents in Southern Florida. Two of them cover touchscreen technologies and two allegedly read on Motorola's DVRs. At this stage of the game, 35 patents are in suit between the companies. Afraid to lose track of so much peace and harmony? There's a visualization available (detailed reference material included)."

Comments

All this because of Android?

[goruka]

It's hard to believe how this insane patent war between the top technology companies was simply created by Google by releasing Android. It's like seeing two completely different business models and corporate visions clash against each other, like international politics did in the cold war era. Alternatively, we could go back even further and call it "Google Allies vs the Axis of Evil".

Re:All this because of Android?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because GOOG has no patents.

Go ahead, scan through that list and try to tell me with a straight face that at least half of them aren't obvious.

Re:All this because of Android?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because GOOG has no patents.

What does Google's stock name have to do with patents? Are you really too lazy to spare the two extra keystrokes to produce "Google"? Or maybe you're just one of those people who insisted on calling SCO "SCOX" in non-market contexts (even though the stock name is longer by one letter), as if to make their opinion sound more professional.

Re:All this because of Android?

[__aamnbm3774]

I'm not saying the parent was wrong or right, but it is strange to me that you focused on how he represented the google name instead of the entire point he was trying to make. What was that about?

Re:All this because of Android?

[Locutus]

This all happened because the smartphone, netbook and tablet are growing in feature sets and demand and are a threat to Microsoft's primary income base, MS Windows OS, MS Office and even the MS Windows Server side of the income stream. Microsoft used to have lots of control over what went on preloaded computers but once Apple let the iPhone out of the bag it's been a tinderbox ready to burst into flames. When Apple showed what a well executed OS strategy could provide users without using Windows it was bad enough but it was one phone on one network by one company so it was just a thorn in Microsoft's side. Then, Google released Android to many vendors and Microsoft Windows Mobile's v6.0 was nothing new and their big 6.5 version was a major yawn. Now, we've got the iPhone OS moved onto the iPad tablet and lots of talk of Android and the ChromeOS moving to tablets and netbooks and still Microsoft has very little to compete with. What makes this worst is that Microsoft can't use much of their Windows OEM channel control to fight or stop this. The only thing they have is the legal system and they are very well versed in the legal system. They have been whipping up Partnership Agreements for years where the partner is clueless as to what they are really signing and end up losing their market just a few years later. So many companies, countries and even States have sued them over the past 20 years so they have a well polished legal division and since their technology isn't up to competing it's the only ammo they have left which has a bite.

All this because of Android but if it was not Android, it probably would have been Apple eventually. It does seem like Microsoft still has lots of OEM control considering how many years and times we've seen ARM based netbooks shown at computer conferences but none make it to market. ChromeOS might be the one product which changes that and then we'll see more of Microsoft's legal division in the press. IMO

LoB

Re:All this because of Android?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, my use of "GOOG" was to draw attention to the fact that going public reduces the control the founders may have had over the "moral direction" at Google.

Google lost their "do no evil" standing a while ago. The question is when?
Buzz?
StreetView?
Dealing with the PRC?
Google-Analytics?
DoubleClick acquisition?
IPO?

They make great stuff, and I use plenty of their services, but I also have to be cognizant of how ubiquitous they've become and that although my trust in them may be transient, my data is permanent.

Re:All this because of Android?

[Anonymous Coward]

Waaaa!

You consider those evil? I feel deeply sorry or your self imposed moral compass being totally out of whack.

Re:All this because of Android?

[HTH NE1]

SHALL WE PLAY A GAME?

Love to. Let's play Global Intellectual Property War.

WOULDN'T YOU PREFER A NICE GAME OF OPEN THE SOURCE?

2010. The beginning of the Great Patent Wars.

[mswhippingboy]

2010 may well mark the beginning of the "Great Patent Wars" where the patent system will begin consuming itself in mutually assured destruction.

Re:2010. The beginning of the Great Patent Wars.

[hsmith]

Perhaps the "giving everyone a software patent" idea is working out. Companies can't sue one another because they both have "dirt" on one another.

Re:2010. The beginning of the Great Patent Wars.

[Anonymous Coward]

BIG companies can't sue one another because they have "dirt" on eachother.
For the rest of us it is just another barrier to enter the market.

Re:2010. The beginning of the Great Patent Wars.

[MickyTheIdiot]

I really do hope that the public wakes up to what is going on with patents and so-called "intellectual property" in general and the fact that it has degraded to the point that they are simply legal clubs to hit others over the head, but we are in such a state in this country. We've got a totally un-intellectual, shallow thinking populace in the U.S. that I doubt there is any way you can get the public to speak out about it.

Re:2010. The beginning of the Great Patent Wars.

[Hasai]

2010 may well mark the beginning of the "Great Patent Wars" where the patent system will begin consuming itself in mutually assured destruction.

You know, I was just thinking that. Well, as far as I'm concerned, let the MADness begin! ];)

Re:2010. The beginning of the Great Patent Wars.

[jhoegl]

Agreed, talk about stifling creativity and inventions.
Remember that snap-on case? Where the guy that developed the snap-on system did so at home, but because he worked salary at the company the company owned his idea?
Yeah... why should I invent anything unless I am hourly?

Now you got bozos in Congress that think that a flowchart should be patented, or just a method of doing something should be patented.
Holy shit, I should patent sitting down, Id be rich!

Re:2010. The beginning of the Great Patent Wars.

[timeOday]

If big companies like Microsoft and Motorola ever decide change is needed, it will probably happen - regardless of what the public thinks (or ignores). But here's the problem, if the big boys get together and rewrite patent law, they'll probably find a way for it to entrench companies with thousands of patents while excluding little guys.

Re:2010. The beginning of the Great Patent Wars.

[alvinrod]

Begun, the Patent War has.

/yoda

Re:2010. The beginning of the Great Patent Wars.

[initialE]

They can't sue one another, yet they are suing one another. That's in the headline, not even the summary.

There are two way to achieve things

[oliverthered]

1: Don't pass a law
2: Pass a law and then make the law look so outrageous that it get repealed and never comes back again.

Re:There are two way to achieve things

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy is a Psychopath, and NT and an Autistic choosing reality. Liberty is Savant.

Congratulations, you're just in time to claim the most invalid analogy of the year.

Re:There are two way to achieve things

[oliverthered]

last time I checked it was a good 2000 years old.

Or as franklin almost said.

Two beasts and a lamb.

Method in their madness...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Start law suit;
2. Acquire patent-full dying company;
3. Add newly acquired patents to suit;
4. Recover purchase amount from competitor;
5. Profit!
6. Optionally, thumb in nose at capitalism, while claiming to be pro-competition...

Re:Method in their madness...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Pro-competition"? Why would any company ever be that?

Re:Method in their madness...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Pro-competition" or "free market" is THE pseudo-argument to make most US americans bend over and take it up the arse because it's so patriotic and capitalist and whatnot. It's the "for the children" of economic regulation.

Microsoft wants Android DEAD, and so does Apple

[blind biker]

In this battle, MS and Apple are ad-hoc allies. Definitely a clash of Titans, but currently, the bigger warchest is stacked against Android. Don't forget Oracle's salvo against Java in Android.

Re:Microsoft wants Android DEAD, and so does Apple

[RazorSharp]

I don't see what made you jump to this conclusion. Apple has never shown any evidence of seeking the top market-share position. If they did they would probably have more than one model of their phone or maybe sell iOS to hardware manufacturers. Hell, you can still only buy iPhones on one carrier! Apple seems to be doing what Apple has always done. Sell high-end/high-margin and make more money than higher volume, low-margin competitors.

Given Apple's history between Google and Microsoft, and Google and Microsoft's history with other tech companies, I would assume the opposite. That Apple would love to see Google swipe the rug from underneath Microsoft because Google can play nice with others. Right now Apple's like European monarchs during the American Civil War: they're content to watch the north and south battle one another, they'd prefer the south to win b/c that would mean greater fragmentation and less tariffs, but they're not going to interfere because the war benefits them more than a victor on either side would.

Re:Microsoft wants Android DEAD, and so does Apple

[blind biker]

I don't see what made you jump to this conclusion.

Maybe it's my flu, but your ignorance is slightly irritating. Anyhow, here is your opportunity to educate yourself. And educate yourself some more
More details and a good analysis of Apple's strategy against Android.

No need to thank me, but if you do, you're welcome. Always pleased to reduce ignorance.

Re:Microsoft wants Android DEAD, and so does Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

I would assume the opposite. That Apple would love to see Google swipe the rug from underneath Microsoft because Google can play nice with others. Right now Apple's like European monarchs during the American Civil War: they're content to watch the north and south battle one another, they'd prefer the south to win b/c that would mean greater fragmentation and less tariffs, but they're not going to interfere because the war benefits them more than a victor on either side would.

Seems you've missed quite a bit of Apple/Google animosity lately.

Steve Jobs: "Make no mistake: Google wants to kill the iPhone. We won’t let them."

"Mr. Jobs returned to the topic of Google several times in the session and even disparaged its slogan “Don’t be evil” with an expletive, which drew thunderous applause from his underlings."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/technology/14brawl.html

Re:Microsoft wants Android DEAD, and so does Apple

[Microlith]

It's not necessarily Microsoft trying to kill Android. This is Microsoft punishing Motorola for not agreeing to release Windows Phone 7 devices. Microsoft can't have Linux-based OSes exist on their own, they need to either have Windows* based devices coming out from the same vendor on the same (or similar hardware), or they need (demand) patent royalties.

It's just as abusive and anti-competitive, and the only end-result of this will be a nasty web of cross-licensed patents that ensure the mobile market is restricted to a handful of players.

Re:Microsoft wants Android DEAD, and so does Apple

[RazorSharp]

Apple has a patent agreement with Microsoft which prevents such litigation between the two. That doesn't mean Apple wants to see Microsoft succeed. Even if Apple would prefer Android to succeed rather than the Windows phones, it also doesn't mean that Apple won't sue Android carriers when they believe there is infringement.

Am I ignorant to the inner motivations of these company's CEO's? Yes, that's why my post was speculation. But unless you're actually Steve Jobs, you're just as ignorant. What made you believe that your ignorant speculation can be construed as fact whereas mine must be false? Your presumptuousness is extremely irritating.

Re:Microsoft wants Android DEAD, and so does Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has never shown any evidence of seeking the top market-share position. If they did they would probably have more than one model of their phone

I don't think so.

Almost all companies create products that suit the needs and wants of consumers, so they need many products. They adjust their products to consumers. Apple on the other hand creates one product and adjusts the people's wants to fit their one product.

Others sell via variety and features, Apple sells via marketing. Doesn't mean they're not gunning to dominate the market.

Re:Microsoft wants Android DEAD, and so does Apple

[Locutus]

there is not "Java" in Android because "Java" is a complete platform and Android is not "Java". The Dalvik virtual machine does not run Java bytecode and so it is not a "Java VM". Android does use lots of the Java class library definitions so tools used to write Java programs can be used to write Android programs if run through a bytecode converter for the Dalvik VM instead of the Java VM. This is where Sun, and now Oracle have a problem.

From what I've seen, Sun split Java up much like how Microsoft splits up a client OS and a server OS. It's an artificial split and they do it for monetary purposes only. Sun would not let mobile vendors us the full Java platform and instead required they license a special cut down version of Java called JavaME. It didn't matter that mobile devices were easily getting to the performance levels and footprint to run full Java.

I don't see Oracle having much of a leg to stand on since their class library API's are all published and there have even been many open source implementations of those class libraries which Sun nor Oracle contested.

The bundling of lots and lots of bogus patents into a case where Google or its customers will have to fight one by one and at great expense is the threat to Android. IMO

LoB

Re:Microsoft wants Android DEAD, and so does Apple

[Locutus]

Jobs does have it out for Google that's for sure. What is interesting is that, we've never seen anything which would give that any shred of truth to it. Google has said that they want to see more and more Internet connected devices and that they want to see those devices on an open Internet. Why, because it means more users eyes on their customers ads. Wasn't it some FCC spectrum they were willing to spend billions on unless it was to be used for a more open network? They make most all their money from advertising and from what I've seen, they don't charge much for using proprietary Google branded products(GMail, GVoice, GMaps, GEarth, and Google Market) on the Android platform and they give the Android platform away for free.

We know Jobs got pissed when Google was ready to release Android and because the Google CEO was on the Apple Board of Directors, there was plenty of talk about this. When Android was released and it was obvious how good it was, Jobs got even more upset because it effectively limited their growth with the iPhone. Any other capable OS on phones would have done this too but this was Google and it was his former BoD member's company. Jobs lives in a walled garden so what he sees is sometimes much different from reality. For instance he does think that Microsoft is easier to deal with than Google. But Apple/Jobs have thrown the first punches and they are also the ones moving into the mobile ad space also so it'll just feed Jobs' hatred more. Just as Google was not an enemy of Microsoft's until Microsoft decided to enter Google's search space and advertising space and called Google their enemy well before Google even started to look like they disliked Microsoft's business methods. No I don't count MSN because that was a walled garden much like AOL was a walled garden and Google was not playing in that sector.

Jobs is just mad Android is successful and he can't make bucket loads more money off the iPhone. While unlikely, he'd be doing the same if Windows Phone 7 were in Androids shoes. IMO

LoB

How is it...

[thetoadwarrior]

Microsoft has all these patents that are useful for mobile phones but they've never released a good mobile phone. Maybe it's time to give up those patents and save themselves the embarrassment that will come about from drawing attention to their awful phones.

Re:How is it...

[hedwards]

That's frequently the case. The patents are the result of research, much of which never sees the light of day. Creating a really good mobile phone is more than just having a list of patents, it requires putting them together in a way which makes sense and results in a quality product. And that part isn't easy.

Re:How is it...

[LongearedBat]

Microsoft would never do that, 'cos that would allow others to be more innovative.

I hope ALL patents are valid

[devent]

With the war right now that almost every big company in the smart phone market is battling I hope the judges make all patent claims valid and make all the parties either stop selling their products or to pay ridiculous sums to each other. Maybe then someone will awake and see how much patents really progressing technology.

I would laughing so loud if Nokia, Motorola, Google, Microsoft, Qualcomm, HTC, etc. can't sell any products in the USA anymore because all patent claims would be find valid.

Re:I hope ALL patents are valid

[Registered Coward v2]

With the war right now that almost every big company in the smart phone market is battling I hope the judges make all patent claims valid and make all the parties either stop selling their products or to pay ridiculous sums to each other. Maybe then someone will awake and see how much patents really progressing technology.

I would laughing so loud if Nokia, Motorola, Google, Microsoft, Qualcomm, HTC, etc. can't sell any products in the USA anymore because all patent claims would be find valid.

Nah, they'll just settle and cross-license. Companies have these spats all the time, and realize that a long drawn out battle is in neither's best interests. It does put other companies on notice, however, that they may be next; and create uncertainty about competitor's products.

Don't think of it as a war; but rather as large scale military maneuvers designed to show the other side what you can do; as well as warn smaller potential adversaries not to mess with you. No one really wants to fight as that is messy, costs money and may break your toys. The big guys look admiringly on each others show of power and come to agreements to avoid actually having to fight. Then you go have a beer together and plot how to get even more money out of the public coffers.

Re:I hope ALL patents are valid

[Anonymous Coward]

as well as warn smaller potential adversaries not to mess with you

Which is also why more and more patent/IP troll companies will emerge. Smaller companies simply cannot afford to create products anymore. So they settle with being IP holders and suing others with it. That way they cannot be counter-sued because they are not producing anything or conducting any kind of business other than licensing and law suits.

Sounds like a healthy economy *G*

Patents acquired by illegal behavior

[dbcowboy]

Microsoft was convicted of committing monopolization in the PC arena. During the time frame of their illegal activity they surely submitted patents with ill gained money or people or knowledge. I think Motorola should bring this up in court. Its like a bank robber taking the stolen money and investing it. The bank robber gets caught and convicted... and spends some time on parole then ends up keeping all its ill gained investments along with interest. That this not right. The money and property obtained by a criminal activity should be taken away from the criminal. Plus, as part of the settlement with the US government Microsoft was required to open some of its application interfaces to competitors. That part may have been done to some degree, but more likely the argument could be made that Microsoft is capitalizing off of illegal behavior from the past and its settlement doesn't didn't go far enough.

Re:Patents acquired by illegal behavior

[Anonymous Coward]

If a thief copies some artwork and sells it, and after he dies it comes to light that it was forgery, do you really expect his estate to give up everything they have because it was started with illegal money? Morally then, everyone but native Americans need to go back to where they came from because their ancestors murdered and took lands.

Re:Patents acquired by illegal behavior

[dbcowboy]

Microsoft is a corporation. Microsoft isn't dead yet. Two big differences... between your example and my example.

Re:Patents acquired by illegal behavior

[Your.Master]

Corporations are not fixed entities like humans. Stockholders and employees have both shifted over time. The question of how to correct a market injustice is very complicated. In non-trivial cases, there basically are not right answers.

Part of the problem is the nature of antitrust law is that all of Microsoft's actions would have been legal in different circumstances. Even if you think a tonne of stuff they did was ethically wrong, there's no legal wrong in it except that eventually they got too big to keep doing it (it's basically the flip side of the "too big to fail" bailout companies that people complain about). So it's hard to identify any individual or individuals who should bear the consequences. The legal fiction of companies being people is convenient in some ways but doesn't necessarily actually help the marketplace. If it makes sense of Microsoft, does it make sense to do that in all such cases for all companies? If not, what's the relevant difference?

So it's not really like robbing a bank. It's more like opening a big box store in a rural area, displacing all of the small businesses that cannot compete on price with their bulk purchases, distribution networks, operating capital cushion, and sheer volume.

At the end of the day

[ninja59]

we, the consumers, will simply pay more.

Funny!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would've thought he'd claim the most invalid Metaphor!

Re:Funny!

[oliverthered]

let's take a vote?

Download--must be a member of Facebook or Scribd

[PatPending]

So I clicked on the URL for the Visualizations and noticed the Creative Commons license. Then I clicked the Download button--one must be a member of Facebook (and/or Scribd) before one can download it--a needless restriction IMHO. So no download for me.

Western district of Wisconsin?

[vlm]

Motorola filed another suit in the Western District of Wisconsin,

How exactly does that work? Thats only 100 miles to the west of me, and I enjoy the bike paths along the Mississippi river, and the only upper midwestern cave that being the cave of the mounds, and ... uh ... thats about it for high technology in the western "half" of the state. Now don't get me wrong, Chippewa Falls was THE place to be technologically about three decades ago for obvious reasons and I want to visit the CFMIT someday, which is claimed to be better than Chicago's kid oriented museum of science and industry, but other than that...

Is the plan something like the defendants don't own snowmobiles and ATVs, so they won't be able to get to the courthouse, so we have a guaranteed win?

Re:Western district of Wisconsin?

[emmons]

Western District of Wisconsin's court is in Madison (right down town) and there's plenty of tech here - if you count biotech.

Still don't know why they'd file in Wisconsin though. Motorola is in Chicago.. perhaps their law firm has an office up here?

Re:Western district of Wisconsin?

[harlows_monkeys]

Cases between large companies generally can be brought in any district, because the companies have a nationwide presence. A plaintiff might pick a particular district for a variety of reasons. One consideration will be how busy the calendar is for that district. A patent case is complex, with lots of depositions, discover, rulings from the court on claims interpretation, and other things before you even got to actually holding a trial. You want a district that isn't so busy that it will take forever for your case to work through. Also, you want a district that doesn't have too many criminal cases, because the accused in a criminal case has a Constitutional right to a speedy trial, meaning that criminal cases filed after your patent case can jump it in the calendar. (I've heard that in districts where the stupid "war on drugs" is heavily fought, civil cases can take years to even get to preliminary hearings).

Another factor is the experience of the judges in the district. As I said, a patent case is complicated. An important part is deciding exactly what the words in the claims and specification mean. This is done at a pretrial hearing. The results of this hearing can make or break the case. You don't want a judge who has never seen a patent case before.

Another factor would be to avoid territory where the defendant is strong. You probably would not want to sue Microsoft in Seattle, for instance, as they are a major contributor to the Washington economy, and jurors, especially non-technical jurors, are likely to have a very favorable impression of them.

BTW, the judges in districts will sometimes specifically try to attract patent cases (or other large, complex cases) to their districts. Partly this is because they like the challenge of complex cases. That's one of the big reasons Eastern District of Texas became big in patents. One judge there was a math major, and worked as a computer programmer and system analyst before going to law school. He likes patent cases for the engineering and the intellectual challenge. Another judge there went to Texas Tech (so presumably has some interest in science or engineering, although I don't know what his major was), and became interested in patent cases when in private practice his firm defended a big patent case, and sought them out when he became a judge.

Partly it is simply to help their district--after all, they are usually residents of the district and have as much interest as anyone else who lives there in wanting to bring in new business. And yes, complex cases bring in business. I was involved as an inventor and witness in a case in Eastern District of Texas, which involved a large company. By the time it got to the trial, there were probably 100+ people combined from both sides there. That's 100+ rooms booked for a month in the local hotels (good hotels, not the cheap places). The two or three biggest conference/meeting rooms booked too (essentially each side sets up a law office for the trial, with 6-10 lawyers, a bunch of paralegals, secretaries, half a dozen IT/support people, some graphics and animation people to work on exhibits, 2 or 3 expert witnesses, the inventors and representatives of their company, and so on). Lots of room service charges, lots of meals in the hotel restaurants charges to rooms. High speed leased line for internet. During the two weeks of actual trial, dozens of people sending off suits for dry cleaning each night. That's a lot of business, especially if the trial is held in a small town in the district.

My side... Their side... What side?

[OldHawk777]

More silly proof that patent laws are broken, the folks at the patent office are overworked, and/or frequently the obvious is patented, re-patented, and the maybe patented by someone for later legal-lotto filings.

When something is very old and always proven to be broken, maybe it cannot be fixed, maybe we all need to buy into a new economic model for patents, copyrights.... FORGET IT! Corporate welfare/socialism works better with a total economic FUBAR for US and EU.

Some would say the "RU Boss Tweed" or "CN Big Brother" are the best economic models for world domination. %~P

Sure sign.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a sure sign that the software industry has matured from its double-digit growth phase and has entered the stagnant era of diminishing returns from existing technology. When an industry is new everyone is too busy to sue, then comes the consolidation shake-out phase and then the diminishing return phase. It's a desperate attempt to maintain double digit growth by any means necessary.

Uhh... source?

[Abcd1234]

I assume this was announced somewhere, and not just on the submitter's blog (where there are, oddly, no links to any sources of any kind)?

A Battle to the Death Among These Companies?

[Greyfox]

Who will win? Oh... I know! Humanity!

Circuit diagram.

[CFBMoo1]

And here we see how the Microsoft chip interfaces with the Motorola chip through the WDWA, ITC, and SDFL processors. The Motorola chip on the other hand has to route through the ITC, SDFL, and WDWI processors. What does this do? Hell if I know, but lets patent it and sue em both!

Re:funny old thing about patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop trying to sell discontinued products you fucking retard.

Mobile Patent Theme Song

[mu51c10rd]

I will defer to another posting of mine.