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?

[TheReverandND]

It's a Command and Conquer Reference

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

[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.

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.

[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: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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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].

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: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.