Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Wants $15 Per Android Smartphone
sfcrazy writes "Microsoft Corp has demanded that Samsung Electronics Co Ltd pay $15 for each smartphone handset it makes based on Google Inc's Android operating system. The software giant claims to own a wide range of patents used in the mobile platform. From the article: 'Samsung would likely seek to lower the payment to about $10 in exchange for a deeper alliance with Microsoft for the U.S. company's Windows platform, the Maeil Business Newspaper quoted unnamed industry officials as saying.'"
You, Microsoft has a huge legal division expert in the following subjects
- Barratry
- Intimidation
- Patent trolling
ftfy
Trolling is a art,
If their R&D is so awesome, why can't they make their own products and not resort to ripping off other businesses to make money?
How much does Microsoft want to license Windows Phone OS? My understanding is...around $15.
So, $15 to license Windows Phone 7 with a bunch of software that Microsoft paid to develop and has to maintain along with patent licenses, or $15 to license Android that doesn't contain a single line of Microsoft code but needs the patent licenses? I'm sure their patents are worth something, but this seems a wee bit overpriced.
And the worms ate into his brain.
Eventually this will wind up with either Samsung entering a "mutual" royalty agreement where undisclosed patents are licensed by guys in trenchcoats, on a bridge, in fog.
Or, they'll go into court and to to patentville USA Marshall TX where every scumbag patent thicket group brings their IP litigation. It's friendlier in East Texas y'all.
It's the cost of doing business I guess.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
They really do lots of research, and should enjoy the results aswell.
Why did they put these benefits in Android and not in Windows?
Deleted
Dear Microsoft, you don't innovate by rent-seeking. This is why no one cares what you are doing anymore. You have become irrelevant, like the other tech giants before you.
Does anyone know exactly what Microsoft's patents involve? Without knowing that, it's hard to make sense of any of these stories.
Based on the published newspaper articles so far, though, I must say it looks as if patent law is being used to accomplish the exact opposite of its supposed intent. Rather than guaranteeing an inventor the sole enjoyment of revenue from its innovations for a period, it is being used by a company that is not a serious player in the market to impede others from selling their products - and to give it a substantial stream of wholly unearned revenue.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Which of the patents in question are both a result of something dreamed up in MSR and something not so obvious that it hasn't been co-invented multiple times elsewhere? Oh, you don't know. Because, the patents in question haven't even been revealed since the licensees are under NDA. So, basically, you just threw a bunch of blather on the screen as fast as your fingers could hit a ctrl-c and a ctrl-v. Or do you just have those combo's hotkeyed to your mouse or something?
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
It probably BSOD'd.
Yeah, because surely Slashdot doesn't have hundreds of thousands of unique visitors some of which hold the former view and some of which hold the latter. It's just one guy in his basement. And you. And me.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
*wank sign*
No. No one has. Patents are a scam, a hindrance to innovation and the free market. They must be ABOLISHED.
Circumcision is child abuse.
One thing that makes me really sick is to see a [powerful] company like Google sit idly by and simply watch trolls like Microsoft smear the Android OS.
Does Google think Microsoft's actions elevate Android's profile?
This is what I would do if I were Google:
Change Android's licence to at least require that any patent agreement entered into by an Android licensee with parties like Microsoft particularly pertaining to Android's 'infringements' be made public at least as far as what patents are involved.
Is this too much to expect?
I think I recall that site. It said that Microsoft's only innovation in user interfaces was the combo box -- which is a terrible design.
Like the one used to assign mod points? Oh, the irony!
Yes. This seems like a reasonable business choice. $15 is a ridiculous figure. I have heard that figure is what Microsoft charges for their own mobile OS. This certainly doesn't seem to be "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing. I say fight too. Also, it's a little entertaining to see all the crap go down as it has been. There seems to be a massive increase in [software] patent litigation and I have to wonder when everyone playing the game will finally realize we are all better off without it.
I see a lot of people bashing Apple for patent trolling just as much as Microsoft. Sure there's a few Apple fanbois who think Apple can do no wrong, but it seems most people dislike Apple and Microsoft both.
So when Apple sues Samsung, everyone cheers and claims Apple has every right to defend it's patents.
Where was this? Around here the torches and pitchforks were waving about how you shouldn't be able to protect 'look and feel'.
There's plenty of hypocrisy here, you just found the wrong example.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I'm more inclined to believe Slashdot gives IBM a pass is because, unlike MS, they don't have an arrogant jackass for a CEO that goes around laughing at their competitors and intentionally crashing competitor's products at trade shows. The guy is a no-class buffoon. That's probably got a little something to do with why Slashdot seems to have a collective chip on its shoulder towards MS vs other mega-corps.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
It's a game of poker. You have to pay to play.
Here's what I think. If any patents used to make such threats turn out to be bad or unsupportable, they get converted to charges of extortion.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Fix what? It's a troll because it is. Everybody MS has licensed its patents to so far in the Android space is under NDA so there is no way the OP could know if the patents in question are from MSR or the man in the moon. He just copy-pasta'd a bunch of crap to get first post and kick off the comments with some pro-MS blather.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
If Google is allowed to make Android available to anyone for free, then why shouldn't Microsoft be allowed to competitively price their mobile OS at $0 as well? From that point of view it costs $15 for the mobile patent licenses either way, and WP7 is thrown in for free.
How do you know being a racist that sleeps with underage women isn't the height of enlightenment or saintly behavior?
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Except at, you know, the patent office; which has a huge online searchable index. I will make the wide assumption that google is aware of the internet, patents, and searching things on the internet.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
How about Jobs deliberately misquoting Samsung even after Samsung had publicly corrected it? http://blogs.forbes.com/elizabethwoyke/2011/03/02/oops-steve-jobs-misquotes-samsung-at-ipad-2-event/ How about Jobs laughing at their competitors and calling them copy cats? http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/steve-jobs-slams-android-samsung-and-ipad-2-rivals-as-copycats-50003016/ AND then going ahead and blatantly copying Android notification system. Yep, year of the copy cat it is. Except this time it's Apple doing the copying.
But you have to look at the downside for Samsung if they win. They open the door to the idea that these patents are just hogwash, and then patents start getting invalidated all over the place. The next thing you know, new companies, little bitty upstarts that aren't even public companies listed on a valid exchange, are able to compete in the market. Big companies don't have a "patent club" to beat them down with anymore.
Samsung won't have any of that.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I think I recall that site. It said that Microsoft's only innovation in user interfaces was the combo box -- which is a terrible design.
Terrible design... Except when used in browsers with search suggestions and possible URL matches.
mmm, I would prefer the complete removal of software patents. The way software is developed, they thought process, the community. A;; this are different from software then hardware. Plus, hardware is dependent on software, so removing software from the patent process in no way inhibits it's innovation.
It should fall under copyright.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Because "making a profit" and "suing a competitor who ripped off your design (allegedly)" are not mutually exclusive?
Research labs always marvel me because of this strange dance that they do with patents and science. I've worked with people from IBM Research, I can see now what's in a patent. After this disclaimer, I'm clear to go :) -> This is my opinion and does not necessarily reflect the one from my employer.
Patents are, at least in principle, a great weapon against industrial espionage. They work by, ironically, publishing your secrets to the world and gaining, in exchange, a monopoly on the design. But you *have to* have a design, otherwise the system just doesn't work. Those big companies don't patent every single dreamed idea, otherwise the problem today would be immensely worse: we would be drowning in an almost-literal patent sea, and the system would have collapsed on its own weight a few years ago (which hasn't happened). So, instead, there's the situation we have now, more or less workable.
A common workflow: you do R you know some idea is either viable or not (although you work on something that looks worthy, the project cemetery is quite big :) ); assuming that you found something useful, you submit your project to a few people, from now on the Great Old Ones (once, I was one of them :) ); assuming that your project is cool enough (it's not blatantly obvious, it's novel, it's useful, it can make money some way, you have means to know someone is infringing your patent and protect it, etc.), the Great Old Ones may or may not decide to pay the cost of a patent for your project.
So, what should be the norm, at least from the point of view of those corporations? Before you work on something you check the bloody patent index. If you find something related to whatever you want to do, either build something slightly different, or sign a contract with the pricks that got there first (if it's a great idea, someone's bound to come up with the same thing; sadly, that someone was you).
There are a few problems today. Patents trolls (which exist), patent litigations (which are proliferating), abusive patent royalties (which leave the little ones behind), ambiguous filings (which I, I'm afraid, can't offer a solution for, because language is ambiguous by definition). A solution would be to impose a fixed royalty (assume 0.5 % of total related sales) to be paid to the owner company, cheaper patent registration fees, and shorter patent duration (essentially, I'm proposing devaluing the whole thing). A possible alternative for this solution that would work really well with copyright is a quadratic-growing year-to-year fee (cheap to buy, expensive to keep year-to-year, and after you stop payments it's on the public domain).
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
If you're the only person who holds a point of view, in a sea of people with various opposing opinions, that doesn't necessarily mean that you are wrong. But, it DOES mean that you might benefit from reexamining your position.
Software patents are simply WRONG. Microsoft wants to raise the Microsoft Tax, and extend it to places where they can't compete at all, let alone directly. "If you use ANY computing device, you must PAY US!"
Simple bullshit.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The fact that something is re-invented multiple times in isolation is the very definition of obvious.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"Developers, developers, developers."
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Can't for the life of me find out what Patent numbers Microsoft owns here that are "part of" Android phones. What exactly is Samsung supposed to be licensing here???
Someone please help a poor Google weary fool.
It seems not all results are enjoyable. Many companies do a lot of research, but do not enjoy the results as well.
I guess one has to add something else to the mix, e.g. big money, army of lawyers and pocket government.
Here's the thing - When Apple sues to defend it's patents - it lists them, usually with evidence...
When Microsoft intimidates to get licensing for it's patents it doesn't - it's a protection racket, ye-olde mob style "Pay your insurance and we'll make sure you don't get beat down" - When Microsoft actually starts listing the patents it's licensing then I might support them more but in the mean time I want Samsung to stare them down.
This certainly doesn't seem to be "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing.
Note that RAND is not a legal requirement for patents.
(though perhaps it should be)
Why? It's a fact, patents hinder innovation -- history shows that.
Circumcision is child abuse.