Slashdot Mirror


HTC Is Paying Microsoft $5 For Every Android Phone

jcarr writes "According to Citi analyst Walter Pritchard, HTC is paying Microsoft $5 for each Android phone it makes. This may be related to a report from last year: MS and HTC sign patent deal. So now we can't even write a free OS?"

63 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. Software Patents. by bbqsrc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Software patents need to be abolished internationally, it's that simple.

    --
    Disagree != mod troll.
    1. Re:Software Patents. by Shikaku · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How do you think Larry page & Sergey Brin would have fared against Altavista and the like had their PageRank system not been patent protected?

      Better because of the need to hire less lawyers and less payouts.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google Count how many times the word court appears.

    2. Re:Software Patents. by solidraven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's hard to write new software that doesn't violate some US patent considering how broad they often are.

    3. Re:Software Patents. by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2

      Well, yeah. That's more a problem of the US patent system - and especially the US patent litigation systems - than of patents in general, though.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    4. Re:Software Patents. by Nursie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Innovation and patents in software are totally separate. You can get patents for things which are obvious, nebulous or even already patented by others. No innovation required.

      Conversely, you can make a carbon copy of a lot of things without necessarily stepping on the patents involved.

    5. Re:Software Patents. by erroneus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There needs to be no "protection." As it stands, if small developers need protection, it would be protection from being sued and C&D'd by larger companies and IP holding firms for their revolutionary ideas.

      Fact is, every revolutionary idea is build on other ideas that came before it and chances are that someone has a frikken software patent on the revolutionary idea's "dependencies."

      Intellectual property is not property. It's thought to be a "we thought of it first" claim but in reality that's really not the case. It just doesn't happen that way.

      And let's take another path in the same argument. SCREW SMALL DEVELOPERS who do not do what they do for the love of doing it. If you are doing it to get rich, then you're doing it wrong and you are pollution in the community. Go get a law degree and make money that way -- it would probably suit you better anyway.

    6. Re:Software Patents. by hawkinspeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you're confusing patents and copyright. They'd still own copyright on the code. Other people would then have been able to write their own implementations which may have been better or worse. It's kind of how the free market is supposed to work.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    7. Re:Software Patents. by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Copyroght protects specific software implementation. Patent protects the way you make your idea work. There is no need for software patents, as they grant far more protection to software-based ideas then other ideas.

      There should always be a right to implement the same idea in a different way legally. Normal patents work this way. Software patents, for some insane reason (read - corruption in US government that allowed creation of software patents), do not.

    8. Re:Software Patents. by JAlexoi · · Score: 2

      Obviously they couldn't sue. What they could do is not license the patents at all and demand US ITC to block imports of HTC devices. So obviously Microsoft is abusing the US patent system to enforce it's patents globally.
      That would be OK, if HTC was an US based company or the devices were manufactured in US.

    9. Re:Software Patents. by scrib · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps they wouldn't have protection for their own revolutionary ideas, but they wouldn't be prevented from sharing it with the world because any implementation required the use of someone else's revolutionary ideas. As it stands, the price of a revolutionary idea is getting sued out of existence...

      There's a phrase: "standing on the shoulders of giants." The price of building on the vast knowledge that came before you should be that someone else gets to build on yours.

      --
      Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
    10. Re:Software Patents. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

      The system may have been better due to the fact anyone in the world could develop it, however Larry & Sergey would not be credited with it as they would have no rights to the code. So in short less lawyers in short run, less money/praise in long run. Hmmm what to chose?

      That's your problem. You don't understand the issue. Copyright isn't what we want to abolish, it's software patents.

      The code that your write, or pay someone to write on your behalf, is yours. You own it. No one can directly copy that code without your permission. That is copyright.

      Software patents are more like this... Someone develops a piece of software that highlights a link when the user mouses over it. They patents this behavior as a part of their web based business. You also run a web based business and you think that it would be nifty to have links highlighted when a user mouses over them. You write, or pay someone to write on your behalf, a piece of software to do this. Your code is pristine. You or your agent wrote it from scratch, you didn't copy any of the other person's code. But, he has a patent on that behavior. He sues you and you have to pay him thousands of dollars and lawyer fees because you had the same idea but he patented it first.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    11. Re:Software Patents. by Thoreauly+Nuts · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Knowledge Sir, should be free to all." ----Harcourt Fenton Mudd

      (in response to an accusation by James T. Kirk that he didn't pay royalties on patents.)

      Star Trek Original Series Season 2 Episode 8 - "I, Mudd" (1967)
      Time of quote in Episode: 13:37

      Can I FINALLY get my nerd card now?

      --
      "Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. " ---Henry David Thoreau
    12. Re:Software Patents. by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      And Google became popular, not because their PageRank was/is better. Their interface was much cleaner and usable.

      Were you actually using the Internet when Altavista was relevant? The reason that I stopped using Altavista and started using Google was simple: Altavista used to give search results that were mostly broken links. Altavista's spidering of the web fell way behind what Google was doing and so it had lots of junk in its database.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    13. Re:Software Patents. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is that there is an IP bubble right now : some companies are valued several millions only because they own software patents. If you remove that value all of a sudden, you burst the bubble. No one will have the courage to do that.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    14. Re:Software Patents. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      You've obviously not used a Linux desktop lately. Enlightenment, for starters. It's the epitome of an "eyecandy" desktop - and it uses fewer system resources than other known "light" desktops. Open Sound Systems version 4 is another - sound beats anything on any system, IMO. Android is FOSS. Much of Google's stuff is FOSS. Ubuntu thinks they've got something with Unity desktop.

      Perhaps I should ask you to define "innovative". I've looked at many software offerings in the past that claimed to be "innovative". Some gooberhead or another figures out how to put a pretty GUI in front of NETCAP or some other system tool, or group of tools, copyrights it, and offers it under a restrictive proprietary license, for 30, 90, maybe 120 dollars. If you call that "innovative", then FOSS has no such innovative offerings. You'll be disappointed if you go looking.

      In a Microsoft eccentric world, few people are equipped to recognize real innovation.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  2. More than Windows Phone by leromarinvit · · Score: 5, Funny
    --
    Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
    1. Re:More than Windows Phone by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Funny

      Imagine if they just started selling Linux directly...

  3. Re:Don't sign dumb deals by tripleevenfall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Precisely. HTC probably decided that it was worth $5 per handset to indemnify themselves from litigation.

    Whether the fee is paid to MSFT or gobbled up by patent lawyers seems like a morally neutral thing. It's not like one group is significantly less sleazy or sucks less scum than the other.

  4. not every phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    just the phones sold in the USA, Microsoft patents aren't valid anywhere else (95% of the globe)

  5. Re:Don't sign dumb deals by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Assuming this is correct, it's because HTC chose to sign the deal. That sounds to me as a spectator like a dumb business decision, but it was HTC's to make. I understand some companies paid $699 for a Linux license not long ago - does that mean we can't write a free desktop OS?

    Several points:

    With current patent law, free has nothing to do with weather or not you infringe on a software patent. Until the law is changed, a free OS could still be open to an infringement claim.

    It may not be a bad deal for HTC - it removes the threat of litigation which may make their phones more popular amongst carrier since they don't have to worry about being caught in a lawsuit, and if MS agreed to defend claims, based on MS' patents, against HTC arising from possible infringement it further protects HTC.

    No one knows if HTC cross licensed patents - it's possible HTC is also getting money from MS for HTC patens so the deal has a revenue impact but in reality no cost.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  6. Open source will always be behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As long as we have software patents. Look at the h264/Theora/WebM fiasco. Also the font hinting patents that are expiring that caused Linux to have difficulty with fonts, and then there was GIFs until 2004.

    As future operating systems from Apple/Microsoft get ever more complex, Open sources operating systems will have to wait decades to get the good features. That's why Linux market share is so low due to so many patented goodies that are essential for modern computers.

    1. Re:Open source will always be behind by westlake · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As long as we have software patents. Look at the h264/Theora/WebM fiasco.

      The H.264 licensors include global industrial giants like Mitsubishi. Companies that have been researching video technologies since the 1920s. Companies which manufacture damn near every piece of video hardware sold on the planet.

      Google can deliver a slice of the web and the mobile market --- a generous slice, to be sure, but still only a slice. It has no significant presence elsewhere in video. It can't stop or slow development of a codec like HEVC/H.265 which is going to look very good to Netflix and has the potential for strong sales elsewhere.

      The real reason why open source often lags isn't patents or licensing.

      It is experience, organization, money. manpower. resources, markets and marketing,

    2. Re:Open source will always be behind by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      The real reason why open source often lags isn't patents or licensing.

      It is experience, organization, money. manpower. resources, markets and marketing,

      IMO figuring out what the *market* wants is the biggest issue. In general, corporate software developers build what their customers want, and open source developers build what they want. And why wouldn't this be the case? I'd hate to work for free on a project I didn't like or want to use. But that doesn't always translate to something suited to the average mainstream user...

  7. What did Microsoft invent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trouble is HTC are paying Microsoft for inventions Microsoft didn't make. HTC interface is not the crappy Microsoft one, and the underlying OS predates Microsofts entry into the handset market.

    So what exactly is HTC paying Microsoft for?

    Protection money? That's what it comes down to, MS has convinced them that Microsoft can make everyone's life so difficult that HTC can gain an advantage simply by paying the fee.

    But the B&N challenge shows Microsoft has nothing in its patent portfolio but bluster and vague threats covered with NDAs. That's why MS isn't trying to go after Google directly, rather picking off smaller players.

    1. Re:What did Microsoft invent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Trouble is HTC are paying Microsoft for inventions Microsoft didn't make. HTC interface is not the crappy Microsoft one, and the underlying OS predates Microsofts entry into the handset market

      Android predates neither WinMo, nor WinCE, sorry.

      That's what it comes down to, MS has convinced them that Microsoft can make everyone's life so difficult that HTC can gain an advantage simply by paying the fee.

      More likely they're paying for a license to use patented Microsoft tech, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's sad really, they sue and they're the bad guy, they play nice and approach infringers, offering a chance to negotiate a license peacefully, and they're still the bad guy. You don't want to deal with patents, avoid infringing on them and innovate.

      . That's why MS isn't trying to go after Google directly, rather picking off smaller players.

      Is it really? Microsoft really doesn't have much of a history of litigation, and even less one of frivolous litigation, besides that the challenges doesn;t actually show anything, as far as I can tell, there's been no judgment on the case, and therefore all any of this really says is that Microsoft says B&N is infringing, and B&N says they aren't.

      For all we know, Google has a license for the same patents. And where do you get "picking off" from? They're not even being the slightest bit hostile, the patents in question are available under RAND, and they tried for a year to negotiate with B&N (which is the opposite of "picking off") , they're asserting their IP, and being nice about it.

      Not everything they do is outright malicious.

    2. Re:What did Microsoft invent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't want to deal with patents, avoid infringing on them and innovate.

      How would one go about that, exactly? I mean, it is easy to write a piece of innovate code. But, to make it useful, you need to tie it together with stuff that isn't so innovative. For example, you might want to have a menu. Or, you might want to have say copy and paste. There are innumerable things that, if you don't provide them in your code, will make the user look at your innovation and just say, "what a pile of crap: it doesn't do any of the stuff I need it to do.". That's where people are hitting software patent issues: on stuff that has become part of what is a base layer of expectations on "how stuff works".

    3. Re:What did Microsoft invent? by ADRA · · Score: 2

      Welcome to the way all creative expression works. You find something you like and you make it a little better. Do you think Beethoven could have existed in his time if it wasn't for the countless innovators who's creative works inspired him to write in the way he did?

      If you want to go down the road of supporting UI design in the same way one pays for sheet music then fine, but frankly, if you have to worry about the knock off's substantially impacting your business, then you're probably not executing very well to begin with.

      --
      Bye!
    4. Re:What did Microsoft invent? by DrJimbo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't blame MS for playing the game, blame the government for making the rules so retarded.

      In case you haven't noticed, for the past few decades at least, "the game" has been for giant corporations to purchase whatever retarded rules they want directly from whichever politicians are in power. According to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, such purchases are a fundamental Constitutional right.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    5. Re:What did Microsoft invent? by jackbird · · Score: 2

      You mean like this? People won't mind, it's in the public domain.

  8. This has been known by Eirenarch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This has been known for some time now. The only new thing is the estimate how much they make. HTC signed the deal when Apple sued them. I guess it is not stupid decision to pay instead of get sued by both Apple and MS at the same time. They chose to fight Apple and make peace with MS.

    While I agree that software patents are bad for everyone that makes real products (including Apple and MS) I am disgusted by the fact that Google act as if patents somehow don't apply to them. It is one thing to fight for a change in the law and it is another thing to act as if the law does not apply to you.

    1. Re:This has been known by RazorSharp · · Score: 2

      Any examples of how Google acts as if patents don't apply to them? You made the statement as if it's self-evident.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  9. Protection by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's a protection racket, plain and simple. "Pay us or we'll break your legs and burn down your store"...well in this case it's "we will sue you into bankruptcy." Of course since lawyers are involved it's legal.

  10. Dumb business decision? by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So their choices were basically:

    1 - Stand up to their principles and spend millions in court fighting someone that could buy them outright. And risking injunctions that would prevent them from selling.

    2 - Agree to a pretty minor 'tax', that they can pass along to the consumer and be done with it. Most consumers wont even know its there and wont care even if they did.

    So, its a bad choice for them again why?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Dumb business decision? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      just pay the mafia what they ask. its just a tax; just a cost of doing business. right?

      RIGHT?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Dumb business decision? by tripleevenfall · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The fiduciary duty of the decision makers in this organization is not to bankrupt their company battling in court the deepest pockets they can find so posters on /. are satisfied for the moment. Their duty is to maximize shareholder wealth.

  11. I look at this as a good thing by voss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Android version of Linux is so popular that Phone manufacturers prefer to pay microsoft to not have to use windows phone.

    Microsoft does have an interesting strategy btw: Microsoft does not seem to want to kill linux anymore because they can make
    easier money just with licensing fees from companies with deep pockets.

    It also says something that the phone makers would rather pay the $5-10 per phone than use windows phone 7.

     

    1. Re:I look at this as a good thing by airfoobar · · Score: 4, Informative
      An "interesting strategy", huh? The problem is that HTC and others aren't going to let this dig into their own pockets -- we as the consumers have to pay HTC an extra $5-10 per phone so they can give it to Microsoft. And what did Microsoft do to deserve that money? It's because they have a bunch of useful patents such as:

      - Give people easy ways to navigate through information provided by their device apps via a separate control window with tabs;
      - Enable display of a webpage'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.

      This is the Microsoft tax all over again, in the form of a multi-billion patent troll. Others can't innovate around Microsoft because Microsoft is the anti-competitive assclown it's always been. Regulators and legislators take notice!! Get rid of software patents already.

  12. Corporate welfare by rwa2 · · Score: 2

    Yeah, pretty much... you pay them some money so they're not so desperate as to rob you of your livelihood. If we give them enough resources, they should be able to afford to live comfortably and quietly innovate to themselves in Redmond without getting in anyone's way. At least that's how the theory goes :-P

  13. Just the life and death cycle for businesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Don't worry, a few years after Ballmer is gone Microsoft will be purchased by Cisco or Oracle. TFA is about typical actions often taken by companies that have nothing more to sell, or no longer have any creative spark.

    Years ago Bill Gates said he wished Microsoft could have a near-death experience like Apple did because of its rejuvenating qualities. Well, It's going to get one but, unlike Apple, it won't pull out of the dive.

  14. Re:So we now we can't even write... by AkaKaryuu · · Score: 2

    I'm not so sure about that, according to Google Voice my girlfriend is my daughter.

  15. Re:Don't sign dumb deals by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Until the law is changed, a free OS could still be open to an infringement claim.

    Even changes in the law wont stop *claims* and the hope the little guys just folds due to the cost of defending oneself.

    Just having some sort of reimbursement for winning if you are sued would go a long way to help out the little guys and stop a lot of the nonsense.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  16. Sad to see giants fall... by w13rdo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft, now relegated to the position of worlds most prestigious patent troll.

  17. So we're kicking puppies now by MrKaos · · Score: 3, Funny
    Don't forget beating up on microsoft is like kicking a puppy. Open Source software has won in the server space and so criticising microsoft is like beating up a puppy. Poor little harmless microsoft wouldn't hurt mean old open source software. Everyone who has a copy of linux should pay microsoft something for not using a microsoft operating system. microsoft have never done anything bad in the past and anyone who says so is just making up stories to make microsoft look bad.

    We should look into making a real microsoft tax that people pay to make sure we get the benefit of microsoft in our lives, everywhere. After all microsoft invented logic and the concept of on or off being a 1 or a 0 so go and pay microsoft 10cents for every light switch in your house because it's the right thing to do and because they *need* you money more than you do. Microsoft Everything for Everyone Forever

    We don't need anything else because microsoft is like the standard on computers. Poor microsoft and those mean open source thieves who steal microsofts ideas by volunteering their time to writing freed software. If they had any morals they would pay microsoft to volunteer to write open source software because microsoft invented software and the idea of software so we should pay them.

    Now get of their lawn, because only they can shit on it.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  18. Re:So we now we can't even write... by toriver · · Score: 4, Funny

    according to Google Voice my girlfriend is my daughter.

    Try again without that Kansas dialect.

  19. Re:So we now we can't even write... by Alien1024 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or maybe Google detects you're in Alabama and makes an assumption.

  20. seems like the old days where dell and others by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    Back then they payed M$ per system for windows even if you go a system with OS/2 or BEOS or dos or NO os on it.

  21. And they wonder why I hate MS by JAlexoi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And they wonder why I hate MS... These assholes are abusing the faulty US patent system to effectively enable it worldwide. Why are they paying $5 for EVERY phone, even those that are not destined for US market.
    HTC is NOT an American company. The phones are not manufactured in US. I don't live in US. Why does the US patent law apply to me when I buy an HTC Android phone?!?!?!?!?!

    1. Re:And they wonder why I hate MS by Kalriath · · Score: 2

      No, because there's no such thing.

      There are some treaties related to IP, but not every country signed all of them.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    2. Re:And they wonder why I hate MS by JAlexoi · · Score: 2
      I call it faulty not because of the existence of software patents, but because invalidation of objectively invalid patents is much more expensive than paying off the owner of patent.
      And your following sentence just displays it best:

      or sued out of existence

      And that sentence also shows that the legal system should be revolutionised. There is no way anyone should become unable to protect himself and legal protection should never result in bankruptcy. Only as a result of a court decision can someone be stripped of belongings. It needs to become what as it was devised - a simple legal system where a person can comprehend the laws and defend himself.

  22. Re:Don't sign dumb deals by Shadowmist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Important thing to remember, HTC phones aren't Android phones. They're "Android plus extras, and some of those extras come from Microsoft.

  23. Re:So we now we can't even write... by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 2

    I used to think the same thing, but not any more. I can see several good reasons for the editors leaving story submissions intact, including leaving in the obvious typos and grammatical faux pas (and since this *is* a story about the legal problems of IP, this post is actually sort of on-topic)

    1. The notice at the bottom of every page: "Trademarks property of their respective owners. Comments owned by the poster." Slashdot benefits from a "safe harbor" by not editing comments. The same is true for story submissions.

    2. Editing it, even by one word, might change the meaning. "Woman and child" is a lot different than "Woman with child", for example.

    When the US and the Russians were going at it head-to-head, one Russian leader said something, and his translator "cleaned it up." The Russian noticed they didn't react as expected ("We disagree" is not the same as "We will f*ck you and sh*t on your grave"), and ordered "Now, tell them EXACTLY what I said."

    Words make a difference. Editing them, without getting the original posters' agreement that that is what they actually submitted, can cause problems.

    3. If anything, not editing a submission with bad grammar is more a reflection on the submitter than on the editors. If you don't want to look like an ignorant /(bas|f*ck|re|slash)tard/, it's not that hard - after all, you HAVE to hit preview at least once before you can submit a story.

    --
    Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
  24. WP7 by amiga3D · · Score: 2

    If android infringes on Microsofts IP I can't help but wonder why WP7 sucks so hard. It seems that they are saying that Google took Microsofts idea and implemented it better.

    1. Re:WP7 by burnin1965 · · Score: 2

      It seems that they are saying that Google took Microsofts idea and implemented it better.

      On top of that, Microsoft needs to have a major developer purge because they must have IP leaks. Android was developed and released before WP7. Or perhaps Google has their own black ops men who stare at goats using paranormal techniques to suck the IP out of Microsoft remotely.

    2. Re:WP7 by cbhacking · · Score: 2

      You guys do know that Microsoft had a mobile phone OS a *LONG* time before WP7, right? As in, before iOS, much less Android, even existed? I'm sure they've filed far more more patents in this space than you realize.

      The validity of those patents is something for the courts to decide, but with the laws as they are now, I'd actually be shocked if MS didn't have a ton of patents they can wave at Android.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  25. Re:So we now we can't even write... by Rennt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So - if we accept that editors shouldn't actually "edit" anything - why don't we just replace them with a shell script?

  26. Buying HTC by ArcRiley · · Score: 2

    I currently own an HTC phone, and due to the bootloader being locked down I swore I'd never buy another. The recent announcement about future phones bootloaders being unlocked actually had me looking at the phones they'll have available in a few months. We're already paying roughly $10 a phone for all the media codec licenses; MP3, h.264, etc (none of which I actually use on my current phone), but paying Microsoft an extra $5 feels dirty.

    1. Re:Buying HTC by burnin1965 · · Score: 2

      We're already paying roughly $10 a phone for all the media codec licenses; MP3, h.264, etc (none of which I actually use on my current phone), but paying Microsoft an extra $5 feels dirty.

      It should feel dirty, even though you are not using them at least you did receive a usable codec for your media licensing fee, you wont get jack from Microsoft for the $5 fee.

  27. Nothing lasts forever, so... by LongearedBat · · Score: 2

    I wonder how much of this sort of behaviour must happen before the tide starts turning against the patenting system.

    It's unlikely that US lawmakers will stop supporting it, as it is an important tool for ensuring US income. But perhaps other parts of the world eventually decide it's no longer worth putting up with.

    The US is an important part of the world, and always will be, but there are now several centres of the modern world (the post war era is long gone), and at some point other nations might decide that US trade threats (such as the patenting system) can fairly safely be ignored as there is plenty of good trade to be done amongst each other, especially if the US can no longer can pay its debts and plays by unfair rules.

  28. Stallman and Android by ilyanov · · Score: 2

    I think this is probably one place Stallman would be saying "I told you so" with no great enthusiasm and one place where Adam Smith finds himself with an all mighty hard-on and smug self satisfied grin that will make your skin crawl now that Ole Shylock has his pound of flesh and lo, without a drop of blood being spilled.

    --

    life is all about searching and sorting

  29. Re:Don't sign dumb deals by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 2

    HTC was one of the most important Windows smartphone makers before they went Android so this is probably fuck off money they are paying MS. As in "please take this money and fuck off without going over our past agreements with a fine tooth comb looking for reasons to sue us."

    --
    If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  30. In this case, it's just a rumour by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 2

    This is an analyst's guess as to what's in the deal between Microsoft and HTC. The timing is very suspicious - it comes a day after investors are calling for Ballmer's head on a pike, specifically because of Microsofts' failures in the mobile phone space.

    Who knows - maybe Nokia wasn't the first time Microsoft paid a handset maker a huge chunk of cash to make a deal?

    Maybe in return, Microsoft charges HTC less for each WinPhone license - or even pays HTC?

    If you believed every convenient rumour from every analyst, your head would already have exploded. This sounds like a very convenient astroturf story to try to take attention away from the Nokiasoft and Skype fiascoes, and Microsoft being passed by IBM in value.

    It would be far from the first time that an analyst released a paid opinion (remember - the courts have ruled that they can say pretty much anything they want, without facts to back it up, because they're "just opinions").

    --
    Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
  31. Re:Don't sign dumb deals by Alex+Belits · · Score: 3, Informative

    Nope. They are plain vanilla Android phones. HTC makes other phones (with identical or nearly identical hardware) that run Microsoft software. This looks more like classic Microsoft scam when they ask "per processor" fee for all hardware produced -- regardless if it does or doesn't run anything from Microsoft.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  32. Re:So we now we can't even write... by adolf · · Score: 2

    I'm confused.

    How do I pronounce the words "f*ck" and "sh*t"?