Slashdot Mirror
B&N Responds To Microsoft's Android Suit
eldavojohn writes "You're probably familiar with Microsoft's long running assault on Android but, as noticed by Groklaw, Barnes and Noble has fired back saying, 'Microsoft has asserted patents that extend only to arbitrary, outmoded, or non-essential design features, but uses these patents to demand that every manufacturer of an Android-based mobile device take a license from Microsoft and pay exorbitant licensing fees or face protracted and expensive patent infringement litigation.' Barnes and Noble goes on to assert that Microsoft violates 'antitrust laws, threatens competition for mobile device operating systems and is further evidence of Microsoft's efforts to dominate and control Android and other open source operating systems.' The PDF of the filing from two days ago is rife with accusations including, 'Microsoft intends to utilize its patents to control the activities of and extract fees from the designers, developers, and manufacturers of devices, including tablets, eReaders, and other mobile devices, that employ the Android Operating System.' and 'Microsoft has falsely and without justification asserted that its patents somehow provide it with the right to prohibit device manufacturers from employing new versions of the Android Operating System, or third party software.' Barnes and Noble does not mince words when explaining Microsoft's FUD campaign to both the public and developers in its attempts to suppress Android. It's good to see PJ still digging through massive court briefs to bring us the details on IP court battles."
We have over the years seen giants like even IBM carefully thread around Microsoft, pussyfooting while Microsoft uses a chainmail. Its very refreshing to see Barnes and Noble taking the leaf out of their mouth and speak out, saying what everyone already thinks but wouldnt dare say.
If this keeps up, the discovery phase could be very interesting. Imagine getting subpoenas out to Motorola, HTC, Samsung and the others being extorted for specifics about their collisions with Microsoft? I would imagine that being of enormous interest to the EU and the DOJ.
HTTP/1.1 400
In Microsofts case i imagine the problem lies more with their reputation than their product. WP7 is behind the times, lacks many basic functions people take for granted in a smartphone and are just a "me too" product.
But, their biggest problem is that people regard Microsoft as a backwards, boring and utterly crappy company unable to release good products. Anyone who ever used a Windows Mobile Phone shy away from WP7 like a beaten dog from a stick. Anyone who has used Windows more or less expect WP7 being about as interesting as Windows 7 or Vista. The brand Microsoft is tarnished to the point almost no marketing in the world can save it.
HTTP/1.1 400
The Irony of it is that MSFT tarnished their brand by excessive marketing, and pushing into area's they really couldn't support. Combined with bad management decisions, and stupid internal restrictions means that Windows as a whole suffered.
MSFT came out with a tablet edition of the OS in 2002, but 9 years later still don't have a tablet edition of any other software they deploy.
When apple developed the ipad, one of the first set of included apps was a slightly dumbed down, but functional copy of their software.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
The rape of Nokia is well under way. He'll return to m$ from its smouldering ashes with a fucking sackful of them.
'Microsoft intends to utilize its patents to control the activities of and extract fees from the designers, developers, and manufacturers of devices, including tablets, eReaders, and other mobile devices, that employ the Android Operating System.'
It would be a strange system where a patent holder couldn't do these things. What precisely does B&N think patents are for?
"His name was James Damore."
Before I got my android phone, A windows mobile device was the best phone I'd ever had. This was back in 2004, mind you, when people were still impressed by colour screens and "polyphonic ringtones", while I was able to watch films and play Doom.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
When you can't come up with a better product, it's time to call in the lawyers.
Patent protection is valid even if you are not the most qualified or successful at implementing your ideas. indeed that's the point. it is supposed to stifle the competition so that you can be completive yourself or force them to pay you.
How can "outmoded" and "inessential features" be considered a defense against a patent? Isn't that the whole point of a patent? doesn't it describe a feature whose duration of being protected is exactly prescribed? It can't be outmoded during this time by definition. And if the feature is inessential then why did android choose to include it. The whole point of a patent is the right to say "no you can't include that way of doing something".
They don't seem to be arguing that the patent was obvious and incorrectly awarded. Instead they seem to be arguing designs can't be patented because designs are arbitrary. Which again is the whole point of the "design" patent. Unlike a concept patent, a design patent is much narrower protection of arbitrary features.
B&N seems instead to be arguing against patents. Better to make that argument when you are not being sued for violating one.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
It's true they were the most functional devices around for a while, I liked my HTC/WinMo combination as the best available choice for a while. I didn't want an iPhone, but I'm sure glad that it forced phone interface developers to get a grip. I now have an Android phone and tablet, they're definitely the nicest combination of interface and functionality right now.
which is totally what she said
B&N cannot expect to change the patent system, and attacking the patents will take years and tens of millions of dollars - with no guaranteed outcome. Given that Microsoft is charging more to license the patents for Android than the cost of an equivalent MS OS license, how can their actions be interpreted as anything but anti-competitive?
What exactly does the european patent office have to do with a US patent suit?
Any relevant action by a foreign patent office must be promptly disclosed to the US PTO (37CFR 1.97, 1.98). In other words, it's required by law.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Given the extraordinary broadness and obviousness of the patents mentioned in the filing, It would appear that an extraordinary variety of software released in the past ~25 years, probably including Android, does violate them. It would also appear that none of them should have been granted.
'the “display of a webpage’s content before the background image is received, allowing users to interact with the page faster,”' Wow. Feel the innovation...
> What exactly does the european patent office have to do with a US patent suit?
Do you actually believe that European witnesses shouldn't be allowed to testify in US court cases? Because that's approximately what you're saying. The EU patent office found what they believe was prior art and brought this to MS's attention. MS failed to address this in their US patent application.
Right -- it's the patent system. Some of us are living in (well, kinda) democracies. So fighting the patent system *starts* with a PR battle.
Let everyone know that *patent matters*. Don't let those dirty robber barons do their thing in the cozy dark. Shout, yell, tell everyone.
Don't go sit in a corner, slowly shake your head and mumble "they are too strong". Fight.
Well, someone needs to set a precedent that some large corporations are abusing the system. Seems to me a first step to provide insight about the need of a reform. Fighting small patent trolls is not going to make it.
while I see this as a desperate attempt from B&N, they may also have a point. Besides, what is it exclusive to B&N that MS is attacking, that is not in any other reader, including the iPad?
Are you kidding? I have a HTC Wizard phone (TI OMAP-850) which is full of cool stuff: IRDA, bluetooth, 3G/EDGE, WiFi, 1.2M camera, qwerty keyboard, etc.. I know these are not impressive specs right now but they were 4 or 5 years ago. If you asked me the question: -what can you do with it? I would answer NOTHING!
It was not good as phone, that is, the user interface was not designed for it. I was much much faster taking of my dumb phone out from my pocket and write a text message using t9 than to go through all the menus in windows mobile, launch the messaging program, slide the qwerty keyboard, wait for the screen to rotate and finally write the message. We can argue the hardware was slow, but the truth is that Microsoft made the BIG error of having the software and hardware division separated by a huge Berlin wall. I disassembled the firmware and ended up realizing that it was compiled for the previous generation of ARM CPU, the Wizard's CPU is a ARMv5 and windows mobile was built for generic ARMv4!!! They (HTC probably) could have made the software adequate for the hardware they were selling but they didn't care. Even Linux with a small desktop manager runs faster on my HTC Wizard than the original firmware!!
It was not good as a internet device, the integrated Internet Explorer was slow, and difficult to use with a pen, a real pain in the ass. I preferred to wait and see some article at home instead of accessing it "right away" through the phone using GPRS.
Activesync was a horrible thing, you cannot imagine how much contacts I lost during a sync. Syncing through exchange was also a nightmare, I can never forget this message: "there was a change in the server, all the data in your phone needs to be deleted and synced again". WTF???
The integrated windows media player was another design stupidity, believe it or not, I had to use VLC (a port of it) because windows media player wasted my battery in less then one hour.
It had an integrated "office" suite which, truth to be told, was completely useless - at least for me.
The only thing I found useful on that phone was using third party instant messaging programs which actually worked well (much better than msn messenger). Other thing that worked well was playing games which actually used the pen interface quite well.
The device at the time cost 600 euros, I paid less than half for it in a ebay bid. Still, I feel it was one of the biggest scams of my life, I just still keep it because it runs Linux and is useful for robotics applications. I hope you feel through my wording how pissed off I still am!
>> I can't help but wonder if Google isn't providing assistance and moral support to B&N, in the B&N defense of Android.
I'd chalk it up as something simpler: the dead-tree book market is imploding, B&N is trying to compete with Kindle by offering the Nook, and suddenly here comes MS wanting a cut off the top for claimed violations of dubious patents. B&N is refusing to take the hit on their declining bottom line just to satisfy a patent troll.
Of course, MS hasn't shown the spine to date to just go ahead and file against the Googleplex; they're going after the handset/tablet/e-reader makers instead because they figure they'll have a better chance of them rolling over and paying the danegeld. Nice to see B&N refusing to play the game.
SCOX(Q) DELENDA EST!!
It would be bad enough if it was priced at a similar price as WP7 but double the price?
That is the whole point — try to make Android unattractive to consumers because it is too expensive.
I would really like to see Microsoft try to compete on the strength of its products rather than strength of its lawyers. That they don't seems to me very telling: they can't and so use lawyers to distort the market to make their inferior products attractive.
If they win this round they will be back for more and more.
For some time around here, Slashdot user's general attitude seems to be that it's OK to violate patents. I guess that stems from the FOSS mentality, but just because you're willing to give your work away, doesn't mean you should expect everyone else to do the same. You have to allow that other people value their time and work in different ways than you value yourrs. And, just because you think it's not immoral to violate patents, doesn't mean it's immoral to enforce them. Someone steals your car, I'm sure you'll call the police.
B&N argument is terrible. Patents don't need marketed products to be valid. What about the "non-essential" features MS targets? Well, if one's product includes a feature that violates a patent, Microsoft won't claim the entire product violates it - they will say just THAT feature violates it. Unfortunately that means the product incorporating, or relying on it, can't exist without modification and compensation to MS.
Point Number 9? Microsoft and Nokia planned to enforce their patents and litigate patent violaters? Clearly that demonstratably invalidates Microsoft's right to pursue those cases. "Hey, why don't we both just start going after patent infringement cases?" That's illegal? I doubt it. Anyways, now I know, if police departments ever openly discuss intentions and PLAN to catch DUI offenders, well that's just predatory and any resulting arrests and convictions should just be dismissed.
Microsoft's brief quote was priceless. The issues isn't whether Microsft is over-doing it with the patent thing. The problem is that companies keep prompting them to litigate because companies keep infringing on their patents. If patent holders should not take legal recourse to stop such incidents, then exactly what IS the purpose of a patent, anyways?
Windows phone 7 doesn't really seem to fit anywhere...
To the general public, the windows brand is associated with desktop and laptop computers...
I spoke to someone who is entirely non technical, who brought up a "windows phone" they had seen advertised on tv, and then stated they would never consider buying one because "why would i want windows on a phone?"
They believed that a windows phone would be plagued with malware and blue screens of death, basically bringing all the problems from the pc to their mobile. Now while this is an incorrect assumption, that's the assumption people make when they see the brand windows.
These same people are the ones keeping windows alive on the desktop, because they believe it is an inherent part of desktop computing and often either aren't aware of any alternatives existing at all, or are of the belief that linux is for geeks and macos is extremely expensive. For phones on the other hand, these people are already familiar with existing mobile platforms.
To people who have used earlier versions of windows mobile, the brand has often left a bad taste... Earlier versions were clunky and unreliable, and that's a major disincentive to try the current version... I know several people who had windows mobile 6.x devices, and all of them hated it and have since moved to other non microsoft phones.
To people who have decent knowledge of the smartphone market, windows phone 7 is woefully behind all the other offerings and not really worth considering at this point...
And to geeks, windows phone 7 isn't unix, isn't open, and is from a company known for making poor software.
Windows, the very name gives it away, is a desktop gui system... The interface is an extremely poor fit for use with anything other than a mouse and keyboard. The brand should really be kept where its appropriate because the name has negative connotations in any other field....
The xbox was fairly successful, largely because it disassociated itself from the windows brand...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Of course B&N doesn't have all the facts. Microsoft claims there are more patents it can and will assert but would not reveal which ones without their signing an NDA first. This is extortion and blackmail on Microsoft's part. They are certainly not dealing straight and honest. But that is precisely how Microsoft has been dealing with their patent threats over the past what...? decade? Microsoft claims "Linux infringes on no fewer than X patents" and then won't say which patents they are preventing people from changing or challenging the patents. To me, it's like trying to win an argument by simply saying "you're wrong!" without providing any supporting details.
How well would it fly in court if a police officer issued you a traffic ticket but wouldn't tell you what you are being charged with? Fortunately, we have laws which make providing the specific charges and evidence to the defendant a requirement. Why we don't have this in civil cases prior to going to court is beyond me.
This also kinda reminds me of a neighbor one floor below me. She claimed that something in my area was affecting something in her area... in this case, plumbing and she wanted me to pay for repairs. I requested to look at the damages and she refused to let me see them. So I just closed the door. Don't come to me demanding money without letting me see what I am spending my money on. You would think she was the IRS or something.
I knew it was about protecting the Windows PC OS. You know, where so much of their profits come from they can afford to lose billions annually on things like WP7, Windows Mobile, MSN, BING, etc.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110427052238659
"Microsoft demanded an exorbitant royalty (on a per device basis) for a license to its patent portfolio for the NookTM device and at the end of the meeting Microsoft stated that it would demand an even higher per device royalty for any device that acted "more like a computer" as opposed to an eReader."
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus