Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Continues Android Legal Assault

shmlco writes "According to an article on AllThingsD, Microsoft is continuing its legal assault on Android. On Monday the company sued Barnes & Noble, Foxconn International and Inventec over the company's Nook e-reader, alleging patent infringement. To quote Microsoft deputy general counsel Horacio Gutierrez, 'The Android platform infringes a number of Microsoft's patents, and companies manufacturing and shipping Android devices must respect our intellectual property rights. Their refusals to take licenses leave us no choice but to bring legal action.'"

16 of 344 comments (clear)

  1. Not Microsoft's Fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is what happens when you institutionalize bribery in government. If our politicians weren't so easy to bribe, and the voters weren't so stupid this would not be an issue.

    Garbage in, garbage out. And Americans vote for corrupt garbage.

    1. Re:Not Microsoft's Fault by Merk42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bribery does require consent between the two parties, but the third party (the consumer) is the one getting raped.

    2. Re:Not Microsoft's Fault by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh please! Isn't this what the FOSS community has been wanting for years? Haven't all the FOSS guys said 'if MSFT has patents lets see them"? Well here you go, now it is up to the courts to ultimately decide.

      Now personally I've always thought software patents are a BAD IDEA in giant 50 foot neon letters since we all stand on the shoulders of giants and all software comes down to math anyway, so it basically lets good math implementations get locked up by whomever gets to the USPTO first.

      But on the other hand I've seen dickish behavior by BOTH sides such as everyone cheering TomTom even though MSFT offered them the same RAND license for FAT32 they offer everyone else and got the finger even though they did invent the bloody thing. And RAND is something we should support, as RAND makes tech available without making it a barrier to enter which is how we got the name RAND in the first place Reasonable And Non Discriminatory.

      So maybe it is better this way, just let the courts sort it all out so that then either Linux developers can pay some RAND license and never have to deal with whatever the patents cover again, find a way around it even it if doesn't work as well like Theora, or just throw out everything that is covered and find new ways of doing it.

      But if MSFT just files lawsuits against Linux for every patent they think is infringing then FOSS guys can't scream FUD! and can finally look at the patents in question while the courts sort the whole mess out. Seems like whichever side you're on (and personally I don't really HAVE a side on this one, since I use Windows on the desktop, Linux on the server, and dumbphones so that I can just get bloody calls instead of waiting for a battery to recharge) you should be happy that this mess is finally gonna get sorted out.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re:Not Microsoft's Fault by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not Microsoft's Fault

      Nothing is ever Microsoft's fault, according to Microsoft.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  2. IF they hold the patents by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is it that if they hold the patents for what the android phones are doing, then why didn't they make a decent phone themselves to start with? How is it that google took their intellectual property they dreamed up and made something so much better than their own crap?

    1. Re:IF they hold the patents by oGMo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ideas are easy, implementation is hard. MS allegedly has some pieces of paper that say "we thought of this first! you can't use my idea!" Google has an actual piece of software that works pretty well. If patents worked at all like they should, MS could only patent their actual implementation of something, not the mere concept itself.

      --

      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    2. Re:IF they hold the patents by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is why patents are supposed to only cover implementations, not ideas.

    3. Re:IF they hold the patents by poetmatt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Remember, the more litigious the company, the less innovative.

      Apple is not excluded and obviously neither is MS. The only time a company goes "nuclear" with the patent option is when they are betting that in the short term they can make a profit off extortion. Given the open source nature of the products and the sheer size of the companies MS is going after, this is so hilariously shortsighted I don't know where to begin, not to mention how easy it is to get around a patent with GPL'd software.

    4. Re:IF they hold the patents by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Because those who can, do. Those who can't, litigate.

      Those who can do.

      Those who can't teach.

      Those who can't do either litigate those who can.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:IF they hold the patents by harl · · Score: 5, Informative

      No that's how patents work. In the States there used to be a prototype requirement. If you couldn't make it you couldn't patent it.

      Then they removed it.
      Then patent trolls appeared.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
  3. SCO anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    SCO didn't die in vain, they were just sacrificed to make this kind of insane posturing and attitude of corporate entitlement seem normal. We got most of our shock at those tactics out of the way over the years McBride & Co attacked Linux, clearing the path for bigger fish, like Microsoft, to publicly act the same without as much backlash.

    Good marketing effort. Idiots.

  4. Wow REALLY Bad Patents by SerpentMage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I am uneasy about patents, a case for truly innovative products can be made. But this is not innovation. This is patenting whatever one can. Like:

    Enable display of a webpage’s content before the background image is received, allowing users to interact with the page faster;

    You have got to be effen kidding me. That's a patent? Who was the bonehead that thought something like that is innovation?

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
  5. Re:List of these important patented innovations by binkzz · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Microsoft-created features protected by the patents infringed by the Nook and Nook Color tablet are core to the user experience. For example, the patents we asserted today protect innovations that:

    - Give people easy ways to navigate through information provided by their device apps via a separate control window with tabs;

    - Enable display of a webpageâ€(TM)s content before the background image is received, allowing users to interact with the page faster;

    - Allow apps to superimpose download status on top of the downloading content;

    - Permit users to easily select text in a document and adjust that selection; and

    - Provide users the ability to annotate text without changing the underlying document.

    Sorry for not using preview :-"

    --
    'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
  6. Dear Microsoft.... by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For a very short period it seemed to the more gullible among us, that you're starting to be a decent company. Thankfully, you've show in no uncertain way that you have not changed, and are still that douchebag bully in dire need to be body-slammed on concrete. I hope that one day it finally happens.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Dear Microsoft.... by straponego · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Give them a break. It must be hard to admit that they absolutely cannot compete by giving customers value; that they are totally incapable of delivering products that customers want; and that they have no intention of ever attempting to create products which equal or surpass those of their competitors; and that the only way they can think of to remain in business is to waste everybody's time and money through extortion.

      Me, I'd find that embarrassing.

  7. Re:USPTO problem by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is the result of letting companies get patents that boil down to numbers and abstract generic processes. I think the only way to fix it is to reform how patents are granted, for what, and for how long. If USPTO simply can't handle the load they're under, then they should complain to their bosses for more resources, reform their practices, or change applicant's expectations.

    I'm just sick and tired of the intellectual property arms race/cold war that's been going on now for some time.

    Visualize this scenario: Alien civilization arrives on earth tomorrow. Wants to engage in trade, they desperately want food and what they have to offer is very advanced technology, much of which at some point infringes on IP held by Earth companies. We explain how the process works and they boggle, "The only way we ever were able to develop space travel was by rolling back IP laws - bar one: All processes or inventions are Fair Use after no more than 5 years (one of theirs is roughly equivalent to one of ours) with financial incentives to those who release their ideas to the public immediately.

    You people are still driving cars?!?

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar