Another Android Device Maker Signs Patent Agreement With Microsoft

doperative writes with this quote from El Reg: "Microsoft has nailed a second Android device maker to a patent licensing agreement. The Redmond software giant announced on Monday that General Dynamics Itronix has signed a patent agreement that will provide 'broad coverage under Microsoft's patent portfolio.' In other words, General Dynamics Itronix has agreed to licensing certain, unnamed Microsoft patents for use with Android-powered portables."

Comments

Re:Fuck Gates

[mhh91]

That's actually true, we need jobs to pay the bills, and to pay for our smartphones.

Microsoft made a deal with GDI?

[bhcompy]

Does that make Google the Brotherhood of Nod? I thought they weren't evil????

Re:Microsoft made a deal with GDI?

[kirbysuperstar]

PAGE LIVES!

Re:Microsoft made a deal with GDI?

[TheReverandND]

It's a Command and Conquer Reference

Re:Microsoft made a deal with GDI?

[ScrewMaster]

PAGE LIVES!

Unless you're talking about Buzz, in which case it was a Page Fault.

Contract implies permission required

[ciaran_o_riordan]

I've added them to the list:

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

The costs being passed on is bad enough, but it's also worrying to note that these deals include an implied admission by the signees that they need MS's permission for the distribution of their products.

That means MS can cancel their business at any time, and it implies that no one else can develop for that platform without MS's permission.

Re:Contract implies permission required

[vivian]

Does any other sector suffer as many patent lawsuits with supposed patent infringement as the software industry? I mean, I don't hear much about various
manufacturer suing each other over mechanical design patents, for example.

Dosn't the fact that there are so many cases like this indicate that the whole idea of software patents is very very broken? It's all but impossible to do a meaningful search for a patent that will help you solve a software problem, that could save you development time. Instead it is much more the ambush model - you go about your business developing something, oblivious to some obscurely written overly broad software patent that your software is supposedly infringing - then get ambushed by the patent holder.

The patent has done absolutely nothing to shorten your development time or lower your costs to bring the product to market. Quite the opposite infact - if you want to write software that does not infringe on any other patent out there, the amount of research for existing software patents that your code might infringe on, would probably take more time than it does to actually write your software, even though you are writing it with no knowledge of the patents in question .

We live in a democracy, and us developers are pretty much totally against software patents, as far as I can see. So why can't we fix this?

Re:Contract implies permission required

[the_humeister]

Does any other sector suffer as many patent lawsuits with supposed patent infringement as the software industry?

A few of them: pharmaceutical, medical devices, electronics, etc.

Re:Contract implies permission required

[Wattos]

Think about the male prostitutes(read lawyers)!! They would be out of the job if you removed software patents

Re:Contract implies permission required

[NotQuiteReal]

...So why can't we fix this?

Ahhh, grasshopper, when you can define what is broke (and for whom it is broken), only then will you know the answer.

Re:Contract implies permission required

[phonewebcam]

Breaking patents every day without knowing it huh? I noticed you used the word NOT there. Well, try that in code and see how long m$'s protection racket goons take to come knocking.

Re:Contract implies permission required

[shutdown -p now]

Dosn't the fact that there are so many cases like this indicate that the whole idea of software patents is very very broken?

Not necessarily; it can also mean any of the following:

1. Most mechanical ideas have been all patented a long time ago, and those patents have expired.

2. Patent office is better at spotting prior art or obviousness in mechanical patents compared to software patents.

3. The requirement to pay patent fees for mechanical devices is not considered onerous, and most companies just fork over the cash without going to court.

Re:Contract implies permission required

[Anonymous Coward]

So why can't we fix this?

Corruption and lobbyism.

In Europe "we" the developers and citizens have been protesting against software patents for a long time. Again and again the issue has been delayed at best. Lobby organisations won't stop until they get their precious extortion patents. We as citizens cannot keep up with 24/7 paid and well-funded professionals that constantly influence politicians with illegitimate and often illegal means.

Software patents are merely a symptom of a broken democracy.

Re:Contract implies permission required

[luther349]

we live in a corp controled goverment not a true democracy. why do good makers never sue its becouse its a physcal good they can inspect and say ok this infringes on said patents. then can change the goods looks etc. in the case of bs ip laws there is no good just millions of lines of code that has to infringe something at some point there are mfing programing languages for gods sakes thers always going to be simler lines. in other words untill we get are courts to wake up to the fact the system does not work for lines of fucking code its broken and any company can come assfuck you at will. unless of course you another mega company that has the money to clame bs on there clames.

Re:Contract implies permission required

[HyperQuantum]

We live in a democracy, and us developers are pretty much totally against software patents, as far as I can see. So why can't we fix this?

Because the developers aren't the ones with all the money.

Re:Contract implies permission required

[jellomizer]

In Europe you are so special. We are so cool that we will forget about our nations like Greece which is crumbling into nothing because they spent more then they make.

Re:Contract implies permission required

[chowdahhead]

I was an intern in the pharmaceutical industry and it gave me a perspective of how shady and deceitful of a business it is. However, it's one example of patents working as intended. Manufacturers can obtain patents on a drug, a novel delivery system, or a device. This doesn't impair other manufacturers from altering the molecule to produce a competing drug. That's why we have drug classes, and often the analogs differ from the progenitor by a single substitution. Consider the statins, a class of antihyperlipidemics and some of the most common drugs used in the US. The newer agents have trended towards improved potency and adverse effect profile, longer half-life, and reduced drug-drug interactions. The patents, applied for during the development phase, typically only have 5-10 years left once the drug is available on the US market, and at that point, vastly less expensive generics can be produced. Thus, patents allow drug manufacturers to recoup the cost of drug development, make a lucrative profit, while fostering innovation and encouraging the production of improved medicines. Good pharmaceuticals never reach obsolescence either; many of the more commonly prescribed meds used today were developed in the 60's, 70's, and 80's.

Re:Contract implies permission required

[marcosdumay]

"We live in a democracy, and us developers are pretty much totally against software patents, as far as I can see. So why can't we fix this?"

Your logic there is impecable, so you must question your premisses...

Re:Contract implies permission required

[DividedByZer0]

I'm generally against software patents but I don't see it going anywhere in the near future. Do you think we could somehow raise the standard in the meantime thus challenging the claims and decreasing the number of new patents? Then, once the standard has been raised, the courts may begin to throw out some of the older broad claims. Then, to really lock them down, we could make patents non-transferable. If you can't sell your patent (including when a company gets bought) then there would be no more patent trolls.

Re:Contract implies permission required

[ScrewMaster]

Good pharmaceuticals never reach obsolescence either; many of the more commonly prescribed meds used today were developed in the 60's, 70's, and 80's.

Except for drugs like Darvocet and Percocet ... of course, I suppose they aren't considered "good" drugs anymore. Too bad really: when I had abdominal surgery a few years ago (incredibly painful) I survived the ten days of recovery with Darvocet. They wanted to give me Dr. House's drug of choice, but I wanted something that would actually work.

Re:Contract implies permission required

[ScrewMaster]

If you can't sell your patent (including when a company gets bought) then there would be no more patent trolls.

So what happens when a company folds, or gets sold? Do any patents revert to public domain? It's not as simple as all that. Personally, as a developer, I'd rather we just abolish the whole thing. Software patents are bad for business, that is, if you're trying to actually develop something.

See. Modern age Feudalism.

[unity100]

What difference does this have from a robber baron waiting atop a bridge and asking tolls from passers ? no difference.

baron may have a right to that bridge someone else has built, or, it may not even have the right to it, but it may be claiming it. the deal is, as long as you have less standing and resources than baron in the socio-economic ladder, you cant do anything about it, but pay. Only another baron equal or greater than his socioeconomic status can challenge him.

ultimate end of capitalism, is feudalism. even if you have brief political freedom until it happens, it eventually happens - just like how it happened from roman republic to roman empire. mechanics are the same, end result is the same, just the names are different.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[_merlin]

What difference does this have from a robber baron waiting atop a bridge and asking tolls from passers ?

Why can't it be a troll under the bridge? That would be so much more cool.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[LordLucless]

ultimate end of capitalism, is feudalism. even if you have brief political freedom until it happens, it eventually happens

You do realise that patents and corporations have nothing to do with capitalism, yes? Given that they are government-granted protections, you could argue that they're antithetical to capitalism.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[PCM2]

You do realise that patents and corporations have nothing to do with capitalism, yes? Given that they are government-granted protections, you could argue that they're antithetical to capitalism.

You could argue that, but you would sound pretty stupid. For starters, how does having a government and laws make you anti-capitalist? You can't even have a stable monetary system without government-granted protection of the currency.

A corporation is a legal structure that codifies ownership of property. The corporation owns assets and conducts business; individual shareholders own portions of the total value of that entity. That is what you'd describe as anti-capitalist behavior?

Similarly, patents grant ownership of implementations of ideas. There's that O-word again.

If you really think these ideas are socialism at work, I don't think you've talked to many real socialists.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[whiteboy86]

Well then, I am awed by the Microsoft castle, it is very complete, with a Linux moat, a patent troll bridge, developer torture chambers, crooked exec tower and unfathomable scale of bug and security holes filled dungeons.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[mysidia]

Why can't it be a troll under the bridge? That would be so much more cool.

Because the troll under the bridge is the government revenue department / tax collector. The Baron is more forthcoming, the rules are simpler, even though they are just as arbitrary/made up to suit the Baron's needs; the real difference between trolls and Barons is who they want to pay, and what they do to you if you don't pay.

Barons bring non-payers before the court and collect their pay in a "civilized way"; the taxes are charged to noblemen.

Trolls charge taxes to the peasants, noblemen get free passage as a professional courtesy.

Trolls are not above using violence, or taking things by brute force, to exact their pay. If you don't pay the troll under the bridge, you might not come out alive. If you don't pay the Baron, the worst that will happen is you might be escorted to the dungeon.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[mysidia]

You do realise that patents and corporations have nothing to do with capitalism, yes?

They have some things to do with the US implementation of capitalism. They increase the cost of certain resources that could otherwise be less expensive.

They do have an effect of increasing the profitability of certain businesses.

Also, "capitalists" lobby for these laws. Now it's also true that by nature, capitalism allows companies that arise in the system to lobby for laws that are actually anti-capitalist, for selfish reasons.
Just because capitalism allowed a company to exist, does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest for the system to be pure capitalist; companies that form in a capitalist system will (by nature) try to get laws/regs that benefit them, which by nature, include laws that protect their hegemony and make it harder for a successful competitor to arise and take business.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[icebraining]

That's Free Market Capitalism, which is not the only (or even the more common) version of capitalism.

Capitalism, by itself, simply means that the means of production are privately owned and run for profit. It does not specify other roles of the government.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[mysidia]

You can't even have a stable monetary system without government-granted protection of the currency.

You don't need a monetary system to have capitalism. Trade can be done through barter and hard currencies. The government (or a widely trusted party) can make trade more efficient.

A problem with hard currencies, is the possibility of fraud, for example fake specie. Forged government notes are easier to detect, since a trusted entity installed effective anti-counterfeiting measures.

You also don't need any government protecting "ownership" to have capitalism. There is a natural concept of ownership, even in the absence of governments -- when you build something, or perform work of the hand to create something, grow something, that thing is yours; when you have built and worked on a piece of land first, that is naturally yours.

These concepts of ownership are natural rights that go way beyond any concepts we need governments for. Governments exist for our convenience, to protect our rights. It is not essential for capitalism, but it is convenient for capitalism.

A corporation is a legal structure that codifies ownership of property. The corporation owns assets and conducts business; individual shareholders own portions of the total value of that entity. That is what you'd describe as anti-capitalist behavior?

Well, a 'corporation' is a legal recognition of an arrangement people have made. You can have corporations without governments, or without government recognition; it just doesn't provide the protections the shareholders might ideally like to have.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[Belial6]

Corporations are not capitalist nor are they socialist. They are Feudal.

patents are not ownership. That is just a euphemism. Patents are government mandated monopolies. Closer to fascism than capitalism.

The fact that you would even comment on socialism means you clearly don't understand the parents argument.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[ArsonSmith]

Capitalism is nothing more than finding a way to gain from a situation. The fact that it is seen as synonymous with free market is a shame. Even the most die hard socialist is going to capitalize on the system. It is the evil part of greed, the part that is willing to blackmail another person to gain advantage. To pass regulation to gain advantage. To position other groups against each other to gain advantage. All while not actually producing anything of value to trade in a free market that has open and willing interaction between people.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[lostfayth]

I am awed by this analogy.

My kingdom for some mod points!

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[shutdown -p now]

It's definitely not stupid. In capitalism, government has only one role, to protect property. Property includes your body (as in anyone else doing harm to your body). Therefore, government making laws is definitely is anti-capitalist if those laws have nothing to do with property protection. By this definition, most laws in the US are anti-capitalist. If you don't agree with this then you should hit the books and review exactly what is capitalism.

I think you should hit the books and review the definition of "capitalism", because none that I am aware about even mention government in the first place, much less restrict what it can or can't do for the society to be considered capitalist.

Capitalism, as follows from the name, is an economic system in which the means of production (lands, factories etc) - aka things that are necessary to make money by working - aka "capital", hence the name - are privately owned.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[shutdown -p now]

You also don't need any government protecting "ownership" to have capitalism. There is a natural concept of ownership, even in the absence of governments -- when you build something, or perform work of the hand to create something, grow something, that thing is yours; when you have built and worked on a piece of land first, that is naturally yours.

What you describe is personal property, which is a more narrow concept. Personal property is literally that which you directly possess - the shirt on your back, the land on which you stand, the house in which you live, the car which you drive. Private property is much broader - you can own something, e.g. a factory, without ever setting foot in it or even seeing it. Yet, by virtue of the society recognizing your property right to said factory, you can control it - meaning that you can restrict other people from doing what they want to it. That concept is not natural - it only exists insofar as society recognizes its existence, and only if that society enforces your right for you - since you have no real way to prevent people from ignoring your property right otherwise.

And yeah, I know the old story about "private security companies", but once you start paying armed people to enforce property right which you believe to have, despite the claims some others might have that you do not, well - you have effectively established your rule over the territory you control, and now you are the government; just a very small and despotic one.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[PCM2]

patents are not ownership. That is just a euphemism. Patents are government mandated monopolies. Closer to fascism than capitalism.

So what do you call land ownership? Who says that someone else can't just come and sleep in your backyard? The government. You didn't make the land and you didn't discover it. It was here millions of years before you were ever born and it will probably be here millions of years after. So how can you "own" it?

In fact, you can't effectively own anything without laws that say it's yours.

The fact that you would even comment on socialism means you clearly don't understand the parents argument.

The fact that you would talk about "fascism" and "feudalism" means you clearly have never read a history book. Go talk to someone who profits by licensing his patents to the federal government, and then explain to me how fascist patents are. Go file a few papers and incorporate yourself as a business, and then explain to me the tyranny of corporate feudalism.

And before all else, maybe you should just sit down and take a few deep breaths.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[Richard_at_work]

All "property" is government mandated and protected, why should patents be singled out?

Natural laws of ownership aren't going to help you when I come and take your car, is it? Whats the thing stopping me from taking your car? Government backed laws and the police force and courts to enforce those laws.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[LordLucless]

Capitalism is a system of prosperity through greed.

Nice definition pulled out of your ass. Here's an actual definition: "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism)

Note that the meaning of "corporate" here isn't in reference to limited liability corporations, but the original meaning of the word as a group of individuals.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[LordLucless]

Capitalism has nothing to do with finding a way to gain from a situation. That might be called ingenuity, or entrepreneurial spirit, but it's not capitalism. Rather than repeat myself, I'll just provide a link to my response to a similar comment

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[LordLucless]

I said that you "could make an argument", not that it was an essential part of the definition.

As for the argument: capitalism arose in a period where the means of production was owned by the state. Capitalism espoused ownership by the individual - it was a movement away from strong government control, and towards private control. That is why limited liability corporations and patent protection can be seen as anti-capitalistic: they represent the very thing capitalism was trying to get away from.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[martin-boundary]

Given that they are government-granted protections, you could argue that they're antithetical to capitalism.

And if you did argue so you would be wrong.

You do realize that capitalism is government granted, don't you? Ownership rights are a legal fiction granted to the people by the power of their government, and enforced by it.

Without ownership rights, capitalism simply doesn't exist.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[LordLucless]

Ownership existed long before government did; it was called a club, and a belligerent attitude. Nowadays we just swap the club for a lawyer.

If you want to argue that point, then all rights are a legal fiction, as absent a government, there is nobody to enforce any of them. That's because the concept of a "right" isn't a political one; they're a moral concept. If we say someone has a "right", then what we mean is that it's immoral to restrict them from exercising their right. The concept of "mine" and "yours" is pretty fundamental. Even largely communal societies, like some aboriginal tribal groups, have concepts of possession, if not on the individual level, then definitely on the tribal level. Hell, even dogs have a concept of "mine" and "yours".

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[the_womble]

No they are antithetical to free market capitalism.

You could argue that they are a return to mercantilism.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[LordLucless]

You could argue that they are a return to mercantilism.

Which is what Adam Smith was writing against when he wrote The Wealth of Nations. Capitalism emerged from, and in reaction against, mercantilism. I'd say a return to mercantalism is contrary to capitalism almost by definition.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[kikito]

There is, but he's posting on Slashdot and not paying attention to the bridge at all.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[LordLucless]

Capitalism, while very desirable for our markets, will always devolve into feudalism when left unsupervised

Emphasis added. There's a reason Smith wrote that a strong government was necessary in his model - there needs to be someone around to hold everyone to the rules, and to ensure the playing field remains level (prevent antitrust, fraud, contract violations, etc). The state of the US isn't because capitalism (an economic model) failed, it's the because democracy failed - the representatives of the people no longer do their job. No economic model - capitalism, communist or socialist - can flourish with a corrupt political system.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[martin-boundary]

Quite so. All rights are indeed legal fictions (except for divine rights, but then that's trading one fiction for another).

The point of my earlier comment is not to deny that conceptions of ownership can and do exist independently of governments. You're right about that. Rather the point is that capitalism cannot exist unless such conceptions of ownership are respected (enforced), ie it all degenerates into a free for all otherwise. And that has no resemblance to the economic system we're discussing.

So viewing capitalism as independent of, or more fundamental than governments makes no sense. First, an effective force monopoly must arise, then capitalism can exist provided the government allows for it.

Re:See. Modern age Feudalism.

[LordLucless]

So viewing capitalism as independent of, or more fundamental than governments makes no sense. First, an effective force monopoly must arise, then capitalism can exist provided the government allows for it.

Neither of which was really my point; just that the optimum level of government control for capitalism to function properly is low. Not too low, of course, or you get anarchy. But ratchet up government control too high, and you move towards mercantilism.

Re:This Will Help

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure the developers are lining up for Android.

beats getting sued for an update button on ios.

500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[AddisonW]

The fact that the entire mobile developer world is now doing Android IS the reason Microsoft has been reduced to this humiliating desperation.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[gcnaddict]

It's "humiliating desperation" to legally force someone to pay you to do absolutely nothing?

Man, I hope your MBA is still eligible for a refund.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[hairyfeet]

What exactly is "humiliating" about having your patent warchest make you money? Like it or not thanks to the fucked up system we have in the west pretty much all major corps HAVE to have a patent warchest and need to buy up as much patents as possible to protect them from trolls and other corps. Now filing all those patents and buying up patents from DOA companies like Novell sure as hell ain't cheap, so why not make some of that money back?

Frankly putting those patents to work is a smart move and unlike some corps MSFT has always been good about RAND licensing. People forget with that TomTom bullshit MSFT offered TomTom the SAME price they offered to every flash and camera maker for FAT32 and basically got the finger. All those patents certainly weren't free to file or buy, so why not make money off them? maybe Linux would be doing better if those with lots of patents like Red Hat would do the same thing and license those patents under RAND to other companies.

Like it or not patent portfolios ain't cheap and are pretty much required property if you want to operate in the mobile space. I have NO doubt Android is infringing on some of MSFT's patents, it is simple math. With the amount of patents that MSFT has I'm sure pretty much any mobile company would be infringing on at least a dozen, so the smart ones just do cross licensing and call it a day. No different that I doubt ANY codec, free or not, can actually operate and not run afoul of the MPEG-LA patent pool It isn't the fault of MSFT or any other corp if you wish to pursue a "free as in beer" business plan that leaves you broke, nobody forced you to follow that path.

If companies want to not worry about the huge patent warchests of other companies buying access to them is simply good business sense. Maybe you would prefer it if MSFT took the "sue your ass off" route that Apple currently uses?

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[tripleevenfall]

It's humiliating in the sense that their floundering mobile platform isn't being seriously considered - by consumers for one, but by handset makers either.

It's desperation because Microsoft totally reinvented themselves in the mobile space, replaced one crappy platform with another, and still is flatlined in this marketplace, unable to make money, watching the PC platform slip away - so they have to resort to running a protection racket.

In my opinion that is in fact both humiliating and desperate - but I can't get a refund on my MBA as I'm not finished paying for it yet...

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[Billly Gates]

"so why not make some of that money back? "

Because I do not want to pay for it. You think the shareholders are going to let them pay for it and not us? Yeah right .

So I invested a lot of money in student loans and want to make some money back now. Therefore you owe me money right? ... frankly it is not your problem and likewise what Microsoft did to buy these patents is not my problem either.

Maybe service wouldn't cost $95 a month for one phone with a $400 price tag if these stupid trolls GO AWAY.

If you actually make a cool new invention you should have the right to enjoy the rewards on it. But software and parts is BS. You are patenting logic and math that is not inventable ... correction should not be. Maybe if these companies move to India they no longer have to worry about patents anymore. Engineers here will be SOL, but if the subsidiary is in another country you do not have to worry about being sued.

I am sick and tired of this and something needs to be done.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[Anonymous Coward]

They may as well just become a member of the MPAA and RIAA and be done with it.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[gcnaddict]

They legally fulfilled the requirements for protecting their own patents: they implemented them in production systems (i.e. they're making an attempt to use their patents to make legitimate money through sales of products based on said patents) and they see Android as infringing. Unpopular as software patents are here on slashdot, under current patent laws, they're completely justified, which is quite unlike the patent trolls slashdot is typically used to.

The problem here is that Microsoft effectively made Android anything but free, which is exactly the opposite of what Google wanted to achieve with the OEM brand perception of Android as a platform, and that in and of itself is a fantastic business strategy. I can't even remotely justify it as either humiliating or desperate; it's well-played despite being immensely back-handed.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[mysidia]

The problem here is that Microsoft effectively made Android anything but free, which is exactly the opposite of what Google wanted to achieve with the OEM brand perception of Android as a platform, and that in and of itself is a fantastic business strategy.

It's also a flagrant GPL violation for a device manufacturer to use Android code obtained under the GPL and acquire 'patent licensing' from a third party for redistribution of GPL-covered product.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[amiga3D]

It's brilliant. They make money simply by threatening people with litigation. Pure, unadulterated genius. It doesn't matter if their shitty windows 7 phones flop, they make money if android succeeds! Man, that is innovation.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[gcnaddict]

Law supersedes contract. Patent laws happen to be precisely that, so if an OEM has to license a patent to use Android code, so be it.

That said, the whole "law supersedes contract" bit is generally known to apply directly to laws as opposed to contracts signed to avoid being sued over laws, but the simple fact that HTC has yet to be sued by any creator of GPL'd code or by Microsoft means the tactic is working. Google can't risk losing its foothold, and they'd rather have Android stick around with an OEM rather than have it fall completely out of favor with that OEM over what is, in the context of current patent laws, an entirely legitimate patent claim.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[datapharmer]

so nokia isn't a major handset manufacturer?

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[hexagonc]

The problem here is that Microsoft effectively made Android anything but free, which is exactly the opposite of what Google wanted to achieve with the OEM brand perception of Android as a platform, and that in and of itself is a fantastic business strategy. I can't even remotely justify it as either humiliating or desperate; it's well-played despite being immensely back-handed.

But that's the whole misunderstanding about Android. Who ever said that manufacturing and selling an Android device was supposed to be free anyway? As a hardware manufacturer, I don't see how paying this "Microsoft" tax is much different from the other telephony-related licensing fees that cellphone OEMs already have to pay. If there's a GSM radio, then there are also patent licensing fees with Nokia that have to be paid. It's just another per unit cost to building a physical device, just like it costs $X to use Gorilla Glass or a Sony lithium ion battery. This is just par for the course. I also don't see anything particularly special about the fact that these fees have to be paid to Microsoft. The only significance that I can see is that it is a unit cost to manufacturing an Android phone that (presumably) wouldn't have to be paid by a Windows Phone 7 manufacturer. Yet, it still doesn't mean that manufacturing and selling a Windows Phone 7 device is more cost effective than a comparable Android device simply because a Windows Phone 7 device will have its own unique unit costs. Plus, I imagine that this $5 fee essentially pays for itself simply from the relative strength of the Android platform vis-a-vis Windows Phone 7.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly is "humiliating" about having your patent warchest make you money?

For a tech company, it's the surest proof that they are dead in the water innovatively. Once you are reduced to pre-purchasing your ideas just to prevent others from using them (or to force licensing fees at the threat of litigation), you aren't a legitimate business anymore; you are a protection racket.

This is even further evidenced by the massive failure/yawning mediocrity of just about everything MS has done recently. Vista was perfectly engineered to create incredibly bad PR until 7 could come along to "be what Vista should have been" and give the illusion of a resounding success. Like painting a black wall with white paint, the contrast stands out when the extremes are moved further away.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[Anonymous Coward]

so nokia isn't a major handset manufacturer?

The reason why Nokia is bending over for Microsoft is because Stephen Elop, the trojan horse from Redmond, is doing what he's supposed to do.

No return to Meego, even if the N9 is a success
http://nokiagadgets.com/?p=1897

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[cavreader]

A lot of FTA's include specific provisions with respect to patents.Countries flagrantly abusing patents as defined in the agreement can end up with additional tariffs being levied against their exports.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[tripleevenfall]

They should just completely embrace this business model and buy up Trollhaven, I mean Righthaven

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[pavon]

They legally fulfilled the requirements for protecting their own patents: they implemented them in production systems

That is not a legal requirement for enforcing patents. Microsoft themselves have lost patent lawsuits where the plaintiff did not produce any products at all, let alone implementing their patents.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[mwvdlee]

Law may supersede contract, but GPL is based on laws as well; copyright laws.
If a patent supersedes the GPL contract, than the GPL contract becomes invalid in it's entirety and copyright law ensures you can't use it at all.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[Anonymous Coward]

Still misunderstanding the world I see...

Maybe you would prefer it if MSFT took the "sue your ass off" route that Apple currently uses?

And what "sue your ass off" route would that be, exactly? The only major lawsuit that come to mind that aren't countersuits are the one against Samsung for copying Apple's designs. It's quite possible there are more, but it's definitely not some sort of "route that Apple currently uses".

It is kind of funny though, you mention lawsuits that MS has undertaken, and are currently undertaking, but somehow they *aren't* taking a '"sue your ass off" route', whereas Apple, who isn't engaged in such suits, is?

Uhm.. regardless of Microsoft, Apple is considered a quite aggressive litigious company. To the extent of even suing teenage driven Mac fan sites. Which though not patent related is RIAA-level low in my view. Some other Apple lawsuits or threats (not by a long shot an extensive list, but what turned up in a quick search) in addition to Samsung suit you mentioned and not including suits like the multitouch patent suit Apple filed against Motorola, as you excluded "countersuits".

Apple sues HTC for infringing 20 iPhone patents
Apple Threatening Patent Lawsuits Over New Palm Pre
Amazon Appstore is now live, Apple is suing for the name
The Reason Why Apple Is Suing Sanho Corp. (HyperMac) Revealed


--
“And boy, have we patented it.” — Steve Jobs, 2007.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[symbolset]

It's "humiliating desperation" to legally force someone to pay you to do absolutely nothing?

Yes. Us proud folk expect to earn what we get. We don't even like to be around folk who want to get and get giving nothing because there's no profit for us in it and their breath is sour.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[luther349]

well what can i say this is microsoft. there so called patent deal are nothing more then a money grab. this was proven after suse did the same thing got nothing in retun evently let the deal fold never renewing it and nobody got sued. sad part is most of those so called patents are probly bs anyways. i think the courts are getting tired of all these ip lawsuits. we have gone froma a ecnomy that makes good to a ecnomy that sues everyone even are own custmers or makes the thret to do so to extort money from them. and seems the only busness model we have left being nobody has any fucking jobs.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[TomHeal]

Why does this smell so much like SCO?

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[luther349]

pc platform isnt gonna slip from microsoft anytime soon. they still own the gamers market dispite the fact directx is fucking fail compared to gl 3. but they do manage to brainwsh both user and game makers thats its godsend. mostly due to shipping the worst gl drivers in the world with windows to make dx look better. so untill the brainwashed masses drop directx you will never see windows go away. and think abought it other then windows every friggen mobile phone your using and playing games on even the 3d ones are you guessed it opengl. so i may be ranting on a trend aruldy changing. why the opengl rant becouse thats what linux and every other os uses and if windows games did you would see alot more ports.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[luther349]

the mpaa and riaa heh that should be renamed fbmse faild busness model sue everyone.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[rtb61]

It is humiliating because it is a dead end, most of the patents are really old, in fact so old the protection is for 'broad coverage under Microsoft's patent portfolio.'

Meanwhile M$ products die on the vine and of course given a few years companies will simply stop paying. So double crunch for M$ not software sales and no patent sales, and of course the triple fail Ballmer complete screw of MSN 'er' Live 'er' Bing 'er', what ever other way he further manages to destroy MSN and leave what should be worth far more than Google as being worth far less than Yahoo, way to go Uncle Fester.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[NekSnappa]

So I invested a lot of money in student loans and want to make some money back now. Therefore you owe me money right?

If I use you, and the knowledge you acquired while studying by hiring you? Then yes.

For sitting on your ass eating cheetos? Then no.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[kikito]

It's humiliating that the laws allow this kind of shit.

The desperation bit ( I assume ) comes from the fact that a company whose business plan is ( allegedly ) making money by selling software is now making some money from litigations, but not from selling stuff.

Like the knight with no arms telling King Arthur "I'll bite you to death!" in the Knights of the Round Table.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[t2t10]

Unpopular as software patents are here on slashdot, under current patent laws, they're completely justified

They'd be justified if their patents were valid, but they probably are not. However, as long as they keep the licensing costs below what a legal fight would likely cost a company, companies will license.

I can't even remotely justify it as either humiliating or desperate; it's well-played despite being immensely back-handed.

Microsoft doesn't need more money (they have plenty of that), they need market share and new successful products, and they have neither and their cash doesn't seem to help them. They tried buying successful startups and integrating them into Microsoft only to have the resulting products fail miserably.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[sootman]

Microsoft already makes more from Android than from Windows Phone 7.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[PoopCat]

I am sick and tired of this and something needs to be done.

That something being posting on /.?

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[node 3]

Uhm.. regardless of Microsoft, Apple is considered a quite aggressive litigious company.

Um.... You can't ignore Microsoft when the thing I'm replying to is a comparison between Apple and Microsoft.

I never said that Apple doesn't file lawsuits. I was responding specifically to the comparison hairyfeet made between MS and Apple regarding lawsuits.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[ScrewMaster]

way to go Uncle Fester.

I've always thought of Ballmer as more resembling a psychotic Peter Boyle (R.I.P.) That, or a hairless monkey on steroids.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[ScrewMaster]

Engineers here will be SOL, but if the subsidiary is in another country you do not have to worry about being sued.

Hardly. And more to the point, if you try to import those infringing products you can still find yourself in court (not to mention with an injunction preventing you from selling anything.)

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[HappyPsycho]

Can I sue / file a FoIA request to find out what the patents themselves are?

As someone else in this thread states "as long as they keep the licensing cost below the cost of a legal battle companies will license".

As with most open source patent cases, as long as it is known what the infringing chunks of code are they will be speedily removed.

The signs of "humiliating desperation" comes from who Microsoft is targeting. Google is already being sued by Oracle right now over the Java side of things, teaming up or even suing Google separately would add even more stress to Google's legal team and would make perfect sense right now, IF the attack couldn't be easily countered / deflected.

One possible answer to this is that Microsoft is trying to build momentum in preparation for Google but as has also been pointed out laws trump contracts so other than providing income streams to show investors this has to be part of some bigger strategy Microsoft has because even they seem to (indirectly) acknowledge this isn't going to last forever.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[sunzoomspark]

> Like the knight with no arms telling King Arthur "I'll bite you to death!" in the Knights of the Round Table.
The knight actually said, "I'll bite your legs off" and the line is from the movie "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[kikito]

Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?

I stand corrected. Thanks, noble sir.

Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day

[niftymitch]

But what are the patents?

Hardware, software, patents pending.... ?
the patents that is most despise are those
that involve standards. By implementing
and complying to standards one can be abused
weeks and years later when a patent surfaces.

The patents I am most likely not going to sit on
a jury are those that involve a method to interact
with a database in a system with a plurality
of parts. These (read common gateway) are the
intent and purpose of common gateway protocols,
cookies, and yes javascript. As such they are not
novel....

Re:This Will Help

[alostpacket]

What does this have to do with developers?

I'm glad Motorola, at least, is fighting

[93 Escort Wagon]

At some point these "unnamed patents" that are allegedly being infringed need to see the light of day.

On the face of it, this situation is too similar to the SCO lawsuits for comfort - talk of unnamed, unspecified patents against which Android is infringing, and a lot of lawyers to inflict the death of 1000 cuts if the company dares trying to fight. I suspect the similarity in tactics is not a coincidence.

Interesting that, AFAIK, they aren't going after Google - but then Microsoft knows Google has lots of lawyers as well.

Re:I'm glad Motorola, at least, is fighting

[amiga3D]

It is likely Microsoft is more frightened of Google's patent portfolio. That's the only way to thrive in the software world, you must arm yourself with thousands and thousands of vague, broad and obvious patents and then waylay all the smaller, more vigorous and innovative companies that are trying to compete with you. If you can use the courts and your patent portfolio to stifle them you can continue to make money without having to adapt to new markets.

Re:I'm glad Motorola, at least, is fighting

[Anonymous Coward]

a duel between google and microsoft would likely end up in a stalemate, or Mutually Assured Destruction! Microsoft has the upper hand in older patents for desktops, but i would suspect that google could give then a beating with their online patent portfolio. besides, online is the direction that microsoft is trying to go...

It's like the USSR and the USA in the cold war. If they had taken each other on directly it would have been a disaster for both, so instead they fought it out in the back woods places like vietnam and korea.

Google seems to be trying to hurt microsoft with it's online push for office apps, an area that has been microsoft's bread and butter for a decade or more.

microsoft is attacking android oems to try to put the brakes on google's push into the mobile space.

personally i hope that google wins. sure all big companies are inherently evil, but at least google seems to want to play nice in the sandbox.

Re:I'm glad Motorola, at least, is fighting

[Raenex]

At some point these "unnamed patents" that are allegedly being infringed need to see the light of day.

It took a surprising amount of searching to find it, as most of the stories did not list the patents, but I found a couple of sites ([1], [2]) that have them. Here's the list from [2]:

• U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent") entitled: "Common name space for long and short filenames." According to Microsoft, the patent generally relates "to data processing systems and, more particularly, to a common name space for long and short filenames.
• U.S. Patent No. 5,758,352 ("the '352 patent") entitled: "Common name space for long and short filenames."
• U.S. Patent No. 6,621,746 ("the '746 patent") entitled: "Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations." According to Microsoft, the patent generally relates "to flash memory devices, and more particularly, monitoring when to perform an erase operation in a flash memory device."
• U.S. Patent No. 6,826,762 ("the '762 patent") 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." According to Microsoft, the patent generally relates "to application programming interfaces (APIs) and, even more particularly, relates to a Radio Interface Layer comprising a set of APIs." Only this patent within the group relates to the product known as the "Motorola Charm."
• U.S. Patent No. 6,909,910 ("the '910 patent") entitled: "Method and system for managing changes to a contact database." According to Microsoft, the patent generally relates "to mobile computing, and more particularly to updating a contact database within a mobile computing device."
• U.S. Patent No. 7,644,376 ("the '376 patent") entitled: "Flexible architecture for notifying applications of state changes." Microsoft states in their patent that "Briefly described, the present invention is directed at unifying state and notification architecture across devices."
• U.S. Patent No. 5,664,133 ("the '133 patent") entitled: "Context sensitive menu system/menu behavior." According to Microsoft, the patent generally relates "to the field of user interfaces for computer systems, and more particularly to graphical user interfaces wherein a user selects from a collection of graphical representations displayed upon a video screen corresponding to actual computer resources."
• U.S. Patent No. 6,578,054 ("the '054 patent") entitled: "Method and system for supporting off-line mode of operation and synchronization using resource state information." According to Microsoft, the patent generally relates to "to the support of on-line and off-line transmission and synchronization of data. More specifically, the present invention relates to systems and methods that eliminate redundant data transmission and allow multiple copies of data to be synchronized so that incremental changes made to one copy of the data can be identified, transferred, and incorporated into the other copy of the data, regardless of whether the incremental changes are made on-line or off-line."
• U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 ("the '566 patent") entitled: "Generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device." Microsoft's patent abstract describes the patent this way: The present invention includes a mobile device which provides the user with the ability to schedule a meeting request from the mobile device itself. The mobile device creates an object representative of the meeting request and assigns the object a global identification number which uniquely identifies the object to other devices which encounter the object. In addition, the mobile devic

Re:I'm glad Motorola, at least, is fighting

[93 Escort Wagon]

Thank you! I hope someone mods you up for that.

Re:I'm glad Motorola, at least, is fighting

[marcosdumay]

I wonder why nearly nobody is fighting. I know one can't judge a patent by its title, but there is no chance I'm reading such beasts...

"Common name space for long and short filenames."

Looks like those patents on DOS naming convention MS is suing every flash user with. The problem here is that Android doesn't use the DOS naming convention.

"Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations."

The hardware doesn't already do that? Can MS sue the flash manufacturers with that patent, and them go and sue the companies that use those same flash chips? Can it sue the end consumers too?

"Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer."

That is the funniest of all. It is corba over a wireless connection. I simply doubt Android uses the same APIs defined at the patent.

"Method and system for managing changes to a contact database.", "Flexible architecture for notifying applications of state changes.", "Method and system for supporting off-line mode of operation and synchronization using resource state information." and "Generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device."

All are in the format <Something we do since the 60's> in a mobile device.

"Context sensitive menu system/menu behavior."

Finally, that one isn't clear enough to know what it is talking about...

Honest question

[drb226]

Has Microsoft taken legal action towards non-Android devices? BlackBerry or webOS (Palm), for instance? Do android devices really use special software components that *happen* to fall under MSFT patents which other mobile OSes *happen* to not use?

Re:Honest question

[Trillan]

Since RIM and HP both have mobile patent portfolios of their own, I imagine there is some variety of cross-licensing at work (and possibly cash transfers, one way or the other). I think RIM and Microsoft are suing each other as well.

Re:Honest question

[TheReverandND]

I think the root of the issue is Microsoft's possession of certain Virtual Machine, JIT, and native code generation patents it uses in the .NET runtime. My feeling is they believe Davik infringes on their patents. I don't think RIM or HP are using that type of technology in their OSes.

Re:Honest question

[shutdown -p now]

Er, all RIM smartphones to date have been running Java for their userland (or at least for third-party apps).

Are you confusing MS with Oracle here, by chance? Oracle is the one suing Google over Dalvik, and the patents they brought up cover precisely the things that you've mentioned - VMs and JIT. In fact, rumor it is that Microsoft paid to Sun (and now pays to Oracle) considerable money for those same patents so as not to infringe with .NET.

Re:Honest question

[TheReverandND]

Nope not confused. The Sun vs MS Java fight was a cluster of patents on both sides. Thus why a judge ruled that whilst Microsoft had violated it's license to java, it could develop a similar system, i.e .NET. While I have heard these rumors before, I can't find anything in the .NET framework or how it works to suggest that they licensed Java tech. Oracles patents in these areas are actually pretty Java specific, whilst Microsoft's patents for .NET are very broad. (like every MS patent) The core of my belief is that Microsoft must only have something "on paper" if you will. It's something they are pretty sure will lead to a protracted legal battle so not even they actually want to go to court to enforce it, but it's enough to make companies pay. That's why I believe it's something abstract and only loosely connected to Microsoft's actual patents. And most other components of Android you could simple replace with other known non-infringing implementations, since Microsoft has also made these kinds of threats about Linux, these components are out there. But rewriting Davik is a much harder task without licensing tech from MS or Oracle. I would imagine RIM licenses Java. Everyone sues them for anything so if Oracle hasn't filed, they are licensed.

Re:Honest question

[shutdown -p now]

The Sun vs MS Java fight was a cluster of patents on both sides. Thus why a judge ruled that whilst Microsoft had violated it's license to java, it could develop a similar system,

That fight was not over patents at all, it was over licensing and trademarks. Sun owned the term "Java", and to use it to describe your implementation ("we support Java") you had to sign a license agreement with them, which, among other things, stipulated certification for conformance to standards, and lack of third-party extensions. Microsoft JVM violated that license agreement, and hence damages were sought. Here is the original story back from the day; quote:

"According to Sun's press release, "the complaint charges Microsoft with trademark infringement, false advertising, breach of contract, unfair competition, interference with prospective economic advantage, and inducing breach of contract." Specifically, Microsoft made the choice last week to ship products it claims are fully Java 1.1 compliant, but which failed to pass the Java 1.1 compatibility tests the company received from Sun in February."

Note no mention of patents here.

The judge didn't rule that "Microsoft could develop a similar system", because that would be outside the scope of the lawsuit, which was solely about Java. And, of course, since .NET was never claimed to be a JVM or to support Java, it couldn't be targeted that way to begin with.

I would imagine RIM licenses Java.

There's no doubt about that, since their implementation is honest-to-God J2ME (with extensions on top), and is labelled as such. They'd have to license it from Sun/Oracle regardless of the patents.

Re:Honest question

[TheReverandND]

Not that I wish to continue this as an argument but your retort is left with 2 flaws. 1) you appear to have highlighted breach of contract but fail to see the connection. That contract included licensing intellectual property related to java, and some of that ip would be patent licenses pertaining to the JVM. Furthermore Microsoft had patents of it own in this case that were the core of their argument that since they licensed Java and owned these other ip assets they were entitled to slam them together as they saw fit. Even though that was well beyond the scope of their Java license. So the assertion that patents were not involved would be ignorant to say the least. 2) Microsoft asked the judge upon ruling for clarification of Microsofts ability to develop similar systems and to establish to scope of Suns Java patents. The argument being that if they couldn't merge Java with these other elements could they build a Java-like system to fill that gap. And the judge indeed indicated that their prohibition on Java was just on Java and that they could develop something like it so long as they didn't infringe on Suns ip as they were now barred from using it.

The lawsuit business model

[yorugua]

Well, if this extorsion business model works for MS, then maybe they'll get to the conclusion that they don't need nokia and WP7.

To quote some Microsoft supporters...

[QuietLagoon]

... back in the last years of the 1990's...

Those who cannot compete, litigate.

Microsoft has proven to be unable to compete in the marketspace of mobile devices. So Microsoft now threatens expensive lawsuits in their attempt to remain meaningful.

Re:To quote some Microsoft supporters...

[interval1066]

Microsoft has proven to be unable to compete in the marketspace of mobile devices.

What? Shoe-horning a huge, complicated, monolithic, & proprietary OS into the blossoming, new, mobile space didn't work? Imagine that.

Re:Fuck Gates

[PNutts]

I don't know about *no* smartphones, but there would be less smartphones with shattered glass.

Help me out here

[atomicbutterfly]

There are some people (particularly on Neowin.net) who say there's nothing wrong with Microsoft pursuing these agreements to obtain money from each Android phone sold, because of the argument that if you create something and I want to use it, obviously you'd want to be paid for all that research and development costs.

What's the best way to debunk what at first sounds like a completely logical statement? I know it sounds rather like an xkcd comic (particularly http://xkcd.com/386), but still.

Re:Help me out here

[Trillan]

There really isn't one. Microsoft spent money researching, created something, and patented it. Now, they are doing what they ethically must: using previous investments (R&D, patents) to maximize value for their shareholders.

I haven't seen these patents, obviously. (I don't think we even know which they are.) I imagine some of them are broad, cover-everything patents. But some are probably fairly specific, given that Microsoft actually creates products in the same category and isn't (exclusively) a patent troll.

The flaw is that the patents are allowed to exist; the "wrong" is that conditions that allow this to happen exist, not that it's happening. The system needs reform.

Re:Help me out here

[Zerth]

Because if I'm not using any of their work, why should I pay for it?

If whatever patents MS is claiming are being infringed were valid, everyone would know exactly which ones because MS would be shouting from the rooftops the cool things they came up with that nobody had ever thought of before and all the developers would be saying "This was clearly the right thing to do once Microsoft made it obvious. We never would have thought of it ourselves, but how can we make our product without it now."

The patents in question probably are like the ones MS is suing Barnes & Noble for, most of them are stupid: displaying a webpage before downloading the background, showing download status over the content, adjusting text selection, annotating a document without changing it, using one screen to control another screen.

Re:Help me out here

[Cyberax]

"There really isn't one. Microsoft spent money researching, created something, and patented it. "

Then other people researched AND implemented it. And started selling it. Independently from Microsoft.

Now, why should MS get even a penny from them?

Re:Help me out here

[amiga3D]

Somehow I have problems equating patent extortion to human trafficking. The fact is that what MS is doing is legal. Human/gun/drug trafficking is not. Software is protected by copyright. That should be enough.

Re:Help me out here

[Trillan]

Because we (society; not you *OR* I) have decided that the first person to an idea has the right to patent it.

For no other reason.

If we (society) don't like it (as neither you nor I do), we need to change it.

Re:Help me out here

[Cyberax]

Well, we do need to change it.

Re:Help me out here

[lee1026]

Considering how much software MS writes and how long they have been writing it, it is entirely possible that whatever they patiented have already made it into engineering canon.

Re:Help me out here

[goruka]

That argument sounds meaningful, until you start looking at the actual patents involved. Far far most of software patents are obvious solutions to problems, too broad, unrelated, stuff related to an obvious (only way) to implement a specification, or simply rehashing prior art.
"research" sounds like wise people locked in a room where money is pumped and cool new revolutionary ideas are produced, but in reality it's just people realizing they did something just a *very sightly little bit different* than what it actually exists and getting a patent on it, which in exchange grants them way more protection and benefits than deserved.

The system is simply not designed for software patents to fit in. They are very easy to produce and even if some software patents *could* be considered as valid, reality is that far most should not and there is just not enough resources in this world to judge them all (or evena measure of how much protection must be granted in relation to how useful/revolutionary the idea is). So, in spite of a greater good, and considering the damage they are causing, we should get rid of them.

Re:Help me out here

[keeboo]

Somehow I have problems equating patent extortion to human trafficking. The fact is that what MS is doing is legal. Human/gun/drug trafficking is not. Software is protected by copyright. That should be enough.

What IF human trafficking (and slavery in general) were legal, would you be fine with that then?

Re:Help me out here

[TomHeal]

Software patents are essentially patenting a thought process. One thing the internet has taught me is that the world is VAST. Nearly anything I can think of, has been thought of by someone else. I think you can see the problem with patenting a thought process.

Re:Help me out here

[marcosdumay]

The system was desinged in a time that thermodynamics was the only advanced science, and just a bunch of people worked at hight tech (all on the same kind of tech). It was not designed to cope with any aspect of advanced sciences or our current R&D methodology. Software is not the exception, mechanic engeneering (where patens somewhat work) is.

Re:Help me out here

[Trillan]

Yes, I even mentioned that I have problems with the whole idea in what you replied to. But as much as I dislike most Microsoft products, blaming the company for the way the system works is just silly.

Re:Help me out here

[Trillan]

Totally agree. Got any ideas to actually make it change? I don't. Politicians in Canada have misrepresented Canadians repeatedly on issues such as these, and voting that set out and a new set in has done precisely nothing. US politicians have done the same. (I assume you're in the US.)

Re:Help me out here

[amiga3D]

I do believe I'd fight to get it criminalized. However, comparing the morality of slaving to patent trolling is more than a stretch.

Public Record

[bill_mcgonigle]

Patent licensing deals should be a matter of public record. Do whatever the hell you want with your trade secrets, but if you're using a government instrument (patents) then We the People, the owners of the government, need to see how you're using them, so we can understand if adjustments need to be made.

Re:Public Record

[Stormwatch]

Yes, let's have no government intervention.

Patents ARE government intervention. Therefore, let's have no patents.

Sounds like a great deal for me.

Re:Public Record

[bill_mcgonigle]

By all means, eliminate patents. But to have government intervention with no feedback control mechanism, that's just asking for ... well, look at the patent system today.

Re:Public Record

[renzhi]

We the People, the owners of the government,...

What kind of weed have you been smoking? Mind to share it a bit? I'd like to get into that euphoric state from time to time too.

I know, I'm getting too cynical now. But with the current trends of development on the political scene all over the world, it's hard to not be cynical.

Re:Public Record

[Dachannien]

Patent ownership isn't even necessarily a matter of public record. You *can* file with the USPTO to put a patent assignment on the record, and most corporations obtaining patent rights from their employees (who are the named inventors in the US - pretty much all foreign countries allow the corporations to apply for the patent directly) do so. But after that (and especially with patent trolls), it can be a lot of guesswork to figure out which shell company owns the patent, right up until someone files suit to assert the patent.

One could certainly make the argument that if patents are property, akin to real property, then keeping a record of ownership with the government should be required just as it is for real property. Personally, I think the process would benefit greatly from such transparency.

Huh?

[walterbyrd]

Are you accusing google of being evil in this matter? If so, why?

Re:Huh?

[bhcompy]

It's a reference

Re:This Will Help

[larry bagina]

One of the lodsys lawsuits involves an android app.

odd; what devices does GDI make that are android?

[WindBourne]

I go to GDI's website and all I see is Windows. When I search for android, I get nothing. SCAM?

That Is How IP Works!

[simm_s]

(IANAL) I am not sure why everyone seems to be upset when one company sues each other over Intellectual Property (IP) rights or when company signs an IP agreement with another company. This is how an IP economy works. The only way for companies to agree on price for IP is to have the court determine the price, settle out of court, or sign an agreement to obtain IP. Microsoft claims that some of its technologies used in Android infringe on their patents and they will negotiate a price or take a company to court. This is how IP works. This is how business works. If you run a software company make sure you have a lawyer on retainer, because that is how companies communicate discuss IP rights via lawyers. Patents are validated or invalidated by the court and that is the law in the US.

I think what people here do not like is that you can patent software. I agree! I believe it is foolish and counterproductive for the software industry. But there is no point in getting upset when you hear that one company is suing another etc etc. They do this crap all of the time.

everybody develops for android now

[mevets]

wtf? Haven't you been reading /.? Developers have decided, far and wide, that getting money for their efforts is wrong, and would rather contribute to the android malware space. That damned Apple Tax is pushing them in droves to the Android *(licensed by MicroSoft) ecosystem, where they can make nothing, but feel really really good about it.

There is no other platform than android.
There have been no other platforms before me.
[the other 8 you've probably seen].

Intellectual Property Rights are heavy

[Stedee Steve]

Microsoft and their deputy general counsel always protect the franchise, the proprietary code, and the intellectual property of their company. That's their job. That's what they do. GDI and HTC must have known of the licensing issue before going into full android production. What baffles me is why smart phone OEM's aren't using an open-source code to replace MS codes. Would it be too expensive and too time consuming for OEM's to bring the product to market if they had to out-source for source code?

Re:What about me?

[node 3]

You didn't pay MS anything, HTC did. And HTC paid Nokia, the US government (depending on the quality of their accountants), Chinese manufacturers, chip suppliers, Google (huh, I suppose it's ok to pay Google for the rights to use their properties, but not MS?), their employees, etc.

Re:odd; what devices does GDI make that are androi

[Anonymous Coward]

From the very same website you reviewed:

With the Android-based operating system, the GD300 easily accommodates current and emerging applications or 'apps' for warfighters, first responders or commercial field service users.

You haven't heard?

[symbolset]

Nokia is even outsourcing manufacturing and design now. One must wonder what they have to contribute then, except a Nokia sticker. For sure it doesn't take a lot of employees to produce the art on a sticker.

Re:You haven't heard?

[Greystripe]

What? It takes several. A Board of Directors, a CEO, a CFO, several more CxOs, some VPs, a Marketing Manager, his assistant, a middle manager and his assistant and then finally one guy who might be making 50k a year to actually do the work. Oh and a Janitor because there's no way any of those other guys are going to sweep floors and empty trash cans.

epic fail

[luther349]

hear take my money for patents you probly dont own.

Re:odd; what devices does GDI make that are androi

[plankrwf]

Well if you actually read the article and click on the link to gdi's website, you should get this link:

http://www.gd-itronix.com/index.cfm?page=Products:gd300

on which it says:
"With the Android-based operating system, the GD300 easily accommodates current and emerging applications or 'apps' for warfighters, first responders or commercial field service users."

So, they DO make android products. As to whether it is a SCAM: that may still be the case; I have no idea as to what the ratio is between MS products and Android products.
 

s/Gates/Ballmer/ in 'Microsoft' article icons?

[realyendor]

Slightly off-topic, but isn't it time to replace the image of borgified-Gates with an image of borgified-Ballmer?

Why is this not barratry?

[walterbyrd]

There is a story on groklaw about RightHaven being sued for barratry. I think that's a good thing. But, why just RightHaven and not Microsoft?

* Barratry, in criminal and civil law, is the act or practice of bringing repeated legal actions solely to harass. This action is a crime in some jurisdictions.
* Barratry also refers to the act of soliciting legal business from potential clients based on a particular event (whether or not the intent is to harass). Pejoratively, this is called ambulance chasing.
* Barratry also referred to persistently inciting others to engage in litigation or other disputes or quarrels outside of the courts. This was a crime in England.

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

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;

[isobvious]

But we’ve proved it again and again, That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld You never get rid of the Dane.

where is google?

[Gravis Zero]

i love google to death but they should be stepping up and protecting people being sued for using something they put out. if they just let this happen, it wont end, ever. also, with defending, they could find out what the hell MS is bitching about and integrate any workarounds into android so MS wouldnt have a leg to stand on from then on.

either way, MS is being really shitty about having a lower market share to something that costs nothing.

Velocity Micro Also bends over for Microsoft

[walterbyrd]

http://www.dailymarkets.com/stock/2011/06/29/microsoft-and-velocity-micro-inc-sign-patent-agreement-covering-android-based-devices/

REDMOND, Wash., June 29, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Microsoft Corp. and Velocity Micro, Inc., have signed a patent agreement that provides broad coverage under Microsoft’s patent portfolio for Velocity Micro, Inc., Android-based devices, including Velocity Micro, Inc.’s Cruz Tablet. Although the contents of the agreement have not been disclosed, the parties indicate that Microsoft will receive royalties from Velocity Micro, Inc., under the agreement. (Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20000822/MSFTLOGO) “We are pleased to have reached this agreement with Velocity Micro, Inc., to address and secure IP rights for its Android-based Cruz tablet devices,” said Horacio Gutierrez, corporate vice president and deputy general counsel of Intellectual Property and Licensing at Microsoft. Randy Copeland, CEO of Velocity Micro, Inc., said, “By entering into this agreement with Microsoft, Velocity Micro, Inc., will be able to better meet the needs of our customers with the introduction of exciting new Cruz tablets having increased performance and functionality.” Microsoft’s Commitment to Licensing Intellectual Property The patent agreement is another example of the important role intellectual property (IP) plays in ensuring a healthy and vibrant IT ecosystem. Since Microsoft launched its IP licensing program in December 2003, the company has entered into more than 700 licensing agreements and continues to develop programs that make it possible for customers, partners and competitors to access its IP portfolio. The program was developed to open access to Microsoft’s significant R&D investments and its growing, broad patent and IP portfolio.

This is absolute insanity

[mrdtr]

It's like a big bully outside the lunchroom and these companies are the bullied nerds. These companies clearly feel it's just cheaper to pay the bully (MS) their lunch money than to honestly fight it. If only the law makers realized what a disaster software patents would become, and how it doesn't protect innovation and becomes a huge expense to companies and individuals, I'm sure they would have did it differently.