Slashdot Mirror


How Google Drove Samsung Away

itwbennett writes "The patent licensing agreement between Microsoft and Samsung this week set off a firestorm of childish tit-for-tat between Microsoft and Google. But more telling is what Samsung had to say about its relationship with Google: 'Samsung knows it can't rely on Google. We've decided to address Android IP issues on our own,' a Samsung official told The Korea Times. The only good news to come from all of this, says blogger Brian Proffitt, is that we may be headed for a courtroom showdown over just what patents Microsoft believes are in violation, which really is what should have happened to begin with." Update: 09/30 20:05 GMT by S : As it turns out, the so-called "Samsung official" cited by The Korea Times turned out to be patent blogger Florian Mueller.

31 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Just do IT! by Asic+Eng · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can't wait to see the whole patent system destroy itself. Then we can do IT.

    Sounds nice, but it looks like more like the patent system destroying IT, right now. The lawyers are winning.

  2. FUCK you MS by sunr2007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If microsoft says that every android device violates their patents then its nothing but just a Extortion racket they are building up by threatening other vendors. Im glad that a company like B & N has balls where as HTC and samsung c not. I'm never buying any windows product ever in my life again. lets start boycotting all MS products. OTOH why Department of Justice/antitrust regularities cannot look into deals like this?

    1. Re:FUCK you MS by andydread · · Score: 2

      you can help us by signing this petition.

    2. Re:FUCK you MS by zeroshade · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately more times than not, companies will pay the license fee regardless of applicability due to it being cheaper to just pay up than to go to court....which is not how patents are supposed to work.

    3. Re:FUCK you MS by Locutus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      read up on the Barnes & Nobel issue adn you will see that Microsoft is not stating what patents are infringing and goes into massive amounts of trickery to try and get the other party to sign an NDA binding them not to tell what's going on. This is a full on abuse of the patent system and a complete leverage of money and power to force vendors into giving Microsoft money and some control of their product.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  3. Why support the lawyers? by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From TFS:

    The only good news to come from all of this, says blogger Brian Proffitt, is that we may be headed for a courtroom showdown over just what patents Microsoft believes are in violation, which really is what should have happened to begin with.

    I completely disagree with the idea that the first thing you should do in a patent dispute is to take someone to court. Look at the difference between Apple and Microsoft as far as Samsung is concerned. In the case of Apple, Samsung has been taken to court in various districts around the world and has been prevented from selling some of their products at all in certain countries. Suit has met with counter-suit, and lots of lawyers have got just a bit fatter. This will either end with Samsung having to scrap their product line, or settle this all out of court with some deal. Either way it will cost them a bundle.

    On the other hand, Microsoft negotiated a deal, during which time Samsung was not prevented from selling their products anywhere. The end result is still a deal with another company, but without the cost and PR problems that lawsuits generate.

    Why should the former be the preferred option? Yes, more details on the patents would be appreciated but the companies involved with these deals must be given more information, otherwise they would not make the deals. I imagine a lot of the patents would be the absurd type, just like Apple's patents in the Dutch case. But I am sure that some of their patents (VFAT, ActiveSync) would stand up in court though.

    1. Re:Why support the lawyers? by andydread · · Score: 2

      Yes, more details on the patents would be appreciated but the companies involved with these deals must be given more information

      What the fuck are you talking about? Microsoft is not giving the information to anyone unless they sign a NDA for public information.

    2. Re:Why support the lawyers? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 2

      I completely disagree with the idea that the first thing you should do in a patent dispute is to take someone to court.

      I think his take is that it's a good thing if this goes to court, because then we (in the sense of "OSS community") will know which patents this is about, and can either do something about it or see the patents invalidated. Whether it's good for Samsung, HTC, Goggle etc is a different matter.

      For this reason MS might well chose not to sue Google, as the mere threat "we have patents of some sort" is already useful to extort money. Suing Google would put that at risk.

    3. Re:Why support the lawyers? by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In February 2009, Google licensed Microsoft's IP for their Google-branded phones. It is for this reason that Microsoft has chosen not to sue Google.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:Why support the lawyers? by andydread · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You completely miss the point. The NDA is required before even entering to negotiations. The NDA is about PATENTS which are public information. Telling people to sign a NDA so they cannot discuss public information is part of a delberate attempt to keep alleged infringement secret from the Linux community so that they can extort money from anyone that produces a Linux device or computer from TomTom to Buffalo to ACER and others. Your support for this egregious activity is telling.

    5. Re:Why support the lawyers? by Kartu · · Score: 2

      The problem is that it is very difficult to write the rules to quantify just what should or should not be considered reasonable to be patented.

      Believe me, it's rather easy. Hint: EU. You can't have "software patents" at all.

    6. Re:Why support the lawyers? by andydread · · Score: 4, Informative
      This is about PUBLIC information. They would not even discuss what public patents were being violated. It is not common practice to sign an NDA to disclose public information. Sign a NDA to disclose to me what patents I am violating? And you think this is right? Patents filed are public and the reason for patents to begin with is to make information public. Forcing people to sign NDA so you can tell them which public patents are being violated is underhanded and egregious. I don't see how you can support this particular activity.

      I quote Barnes And Noble statement on the matter below

      At the meeting, Microsoft alleged that the Nook infringed six patents purportedly owned by Microsoft. Microsoft had prepared claim charts purportedly detailing the alleged infringement but insisted that it would only share the detailed claim charts if Barnes & Noble agreed to sign a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) that would cover the claim charts as well as all other aspects of the parties’ discussions. Noting that the patents were public and that the infringement allegations pertained to Barnes & Noble’s public product, Barnes & Noble refused to sign an NDA. Insisting that an NDA was necessary, Microsoft discussed the alleged infringement on a high level basis only. Microsoft nevertheless maintained that it possessed patents sufficient to dominate and entirely preclude the use of the Android Operating System by the Nook. Microsoft demanded an exorbitant royalty (on a per device basis) for a license to its patent portfolio for the Nook device and at the end of the meeting Microsoft stated that it would demand an even higher per device royalty for any device that acted “more like a computer” as opposed to an eReader. After sending the proposed license agreement, Microsoft confirmed the shockingly high licensing fees Microsoft was demanding, reiterating its exorbitant per device royalty for Nook, and for the first time demanding a royalty for Nook Color which was more than double the per device royalty Microsoft was demanding for Nook. On information and belief, the license fees demanded by Microsoft are higher than what Microsoft charges for a license to its entire operating system designed for mobile devices, Windows Phone 7.

    7. Re:Why support the lawyers? by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

      To crib from Kipling:

      It is always a temptation to a greedy grasping boardroom
      To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
      "We sued you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
      Unless you pay us cash to go away."

      And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
      And the people who ask it explain
      That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
      And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

      It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy comp'ny,
      To puff and look important and to say: --
      "Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
      We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

      And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
      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.

      It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any boardroom,
      For fear they should succumb and go astray;
      So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
      You will find it better policy to say: --

      "We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
      No matter how trifling the cost;
      For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
      And the comp'ny that pays it is lost!"

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    8. Re:Why support the lawyers? by webheaded · · Score: 2, Informative

      Source? I've never EVER heard this before. You can't claim something like this where no one else in the entire comments of the article backs it up and not give us some kind of source.

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
    9. Re:Why support the lawyers? by debest · · Score: 2

      Agreed. Citation *definitely* required for a comment like this one.

      I just did a quick search and found only this reference to any patent licensing agreement in February 2009, where Google paid Microsoft for their "ActiveSync" technology. Hardly enough to imply that Google has purchased a "Thou Shalt Not Sue Me over my Phones" license from Microsoft.

      --
      Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
    10. Re:Why support the lawyers? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      I completely disagree with the idea that the first thing you should do in a patent dispute is to take someone to court. Look at the difference between Apple and Microsoft as far as Samsung is concerned. In the case of Apple, Samsung has been taken to court in various districts around the world and has been prevented from selling some of their products at all in certain countries. Suit has met with counter-suit, and lots of lawyers have got just a bit fatter. This will either end with Samsung having to scrap their product line, or settle this all out of court with some deal. Either way it will cost them a bundle.

      On the other hand, Microsoft negotiated a deal, during which time Samsung was not prevented from selling their products anywhere. The end result is still a deal with another company, but without the cost and PR problems that lawsuits generate.

      The problem with this analysis is you're making an implicit assumption that both Apple and Microsoft are operating from a comparable position of strength.

      Whether we agree with their position or not, Apple has generally stated exactly how Samsung (and others) are infringing on its patents. Microsoft, on the other hand, makes very broad claims and - so far - has never stated what specific intellectual property of its own is being infringed upon. And those companies that reach a licensing agreement with Microsoft are required to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

      To my eye, that makes it look like Microsoft doesn't feel it has a legally safe claim. If that's true, then it makes all the sense in the world for them to avoid actual courtroom litigation.

      Fortunately Motorola has basically said "I call - show me your cards".

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  4. Not the Droid you're looking for. by blarkon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The major manufacturers would have only come to terms with Microsoft if they came to the conclusion that in a drawn out court battle, Microsoft would win. Small parties have won against Microsoft in the past - we saw it with an XML decision recently - all of these firms that have signed up haven't done this because they are cowed by Microsoft's awesome juggernaughty power - they've done it because their lawyers have looked at what's on the table and said "best we go with that". You go to the barricades when you think you can win. You settle when you know you're going to lose.

    Where Google hung their partners out to dry was in asserting the fiction that patents don't matter and that under the current system you could get something (an advanced phone operating system) for nothing (no patent licensing fees). Google is full of smart people. They knew these issues were around Android. They could have sorted them out a long time ago if they had so chosen. But Google didn't go and fight that fight - if they had wanted to, they could have indemnified their partners and gone directly into battle with Microsoft on this issue. Instead the company chose not to.

    They've always had the war chest and could have tied Microsoft up in court for an eternity if they knew they were in the right. Instead they've let a situation develop where they are giving away an operating system for free that has their partners putting dollars into the pocket of a competitor.

    Talk about stifling innovation is cheap - if Google were serious about all of this they would have gone to the barricades on it. If they really believed in the rhetoric, they would have either gone down swinging or taken down the "patent trolls".

    1. Re:Not the Droid you're looking for. by Hope+Thelps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The major manufacturers would have only come to terms with Microsoft if they came to the conclusion that in a drawn out court battle, Microsoft would win.

      That's obviously untrue. They will enter into an agreement with Microsoft if it's advantageous to do so. There are any number of scenarios where that would apply. For example, a 10% chance of Microsoft winning and being awarded $10 billion doesn't compare well with a straight payment of $100 million. A certainly of Microsoft losing but with Samsung paying substantial legal costs along the way doesn't compare well with a series of agreement that net out to essentially nil cost to Samsung (for example agreeing to pay license fees for Android but receiving funds for an advertising campaign for Samsung Windows devices). And so on. We'd need a copy not only of this licensing agreement but of any related deals to decide who won or lost here.

      --
      To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
    2. Re:Not the Droid you're looking for. by Hope+Thelps · · Score: 2

      You mean like the substantial legal costs they are incurring defending and countersuing Apple through various international courts? Oh right, let's ignore all that and pretend that they are just falling over being bullied by Microsoft.

      I didn't say anywhere that they were being bullied. I'm saying that they approached it rationally like any other business deal. The fact that they reached a deal with Microsoft doesn't mean that they "came to the conclusion that in a drawn out court battle, Microsoft would win" just as the fact that they hadn't come to a deal the previous day didn't mean that at that point they had come to the conclusion that Microsoft would lose. They think that overall the benefits of the deal outweigh its negatives. That's all.

      Same goes with their fight with Apple, right now they haven't made a deal with Apple to settle the issue, evidently they believe that no deal is available that would be net benefit to them. Tomorrow a deal may be on the table that would change that. The lack of a deal today doesn't mean that Apple's defeat in court is certain and if a deal is made tomorrow then that won't mean that Apple's courtroom victory would have been certain.

      --
      To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
    3. Re:Not the Droid you're looking for. by SiChemist · · Score: 2

      As I mentioned in a comment above, Samsung and HTC are in business with Microsoft. It's in their interest to play nice with Microsoft as long as they are manufacturing devices that run WP7. Maybe they are getting massive WP7 license fee discounts that are equal to the amount they are paying. That way, they win and Microsoft gets to keep talking about "the cost of using android".

  5. Re:Surprised? by westlake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm surprised the shareholders of Google haven't done more to urge Google to spend their profits on supporting Samsung.

    Samsung is a global industrial cartel with $172 billion in revenues in 2009.

    Samsung can fight its own battles.

  6. FUD rules everything around me. by pootypeople · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why should a court case be inevitable now? Microsoft will NEVER detail what patents that they believe Linux infringes on. Folks have been begging them to do so for years so that if Linux infringed on any Microsoft patents that code could be reworked. Microsoft would have little ammunition for its shakedowns if they actually put their cards on the table.

  7. Re:Just do IT! by daem0n1x · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes. The "thing" is called "parasite".

  8. It's a lot simpler than that by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Microsoft offers variable discounts instead of a fixed price to large OEMs like Samsung that buy a lot of Microsoft products. If Samsung don't play ball they could lose a lot of those discounts and their products with Microsoft software on them are suddenly a lot less competitive or have a lot less profit margin than other OEMs.
    See ASUS and the eeePC turnaround for a blatant example. The Asustek CEO gave a presentation at a trade show about how wonderful the new release was, had lunch with people from Microsoft, then issued a PUBLIC APOLOGY that afternoon that the eeePC didn't have MS Windows XP on it and cancelled the product he'd launched in the morning. Microsoft was a pitbull that had his balls by the teeth so he just had to do whatever it took (no matter how personally humiliating - total loss of face is a pretty massive deal at an Asian trade show) to get them to let go or he'd most likely lose a big advantage in the Microsoft OEM space which is a massive piece of ASUS's market.
    So Samsung, ASUS etc are screwed while B&N, Google etc do not have a special OEM discount deal so have nothing to lose.

  9. Re:Just do IT! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tomato, Tomatoe. Microsoft, Apple. Republicans, Democrats. It's all two sides of the same coin.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  10. Re:Just do IT! by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You have this strange idea that patents come from research. Where did you get this idea? Many of them come from fairly obvious ideas with some sort of twist added to it such as "over the internet" or "with a can opener on it."

    If the patents which were awarded REALLY resulted from actual hard work and protected people who actually make things, we wouldn't actually be seeing the mess of trolls and money grubbing we see today. Instead, we see mobile phone failures such as Microsoft making more money off of competitors (because their phones are better) than on their own products which they can't seem to pay people to use. We see trolls who literally make nothing at all, have empty offices in east Texas, one owner/employee/operator and a business name that makes them sound like real companies suing people for a living.

    One of the main problems is not with what you idealistically identify, but this other nonsense of derivative and adaptive patents, software patents and the existence of patent troll operations.

  11. Re:Surprised? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    Shareholders are peculiar humans who think that 6 months is long-term.

    Not really. Shareholders are in it for growth, but are generally more patient.

    Traders, on the other hand and brokers looking to churn are another thing. If nobody's impatient, they don't get the commission and miss a payment on their Audi R8.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  12. We need freedom fighters! by Fri13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please, someone working with Samsung, HTC or any of those companies, please send the documents to wikileaks. Let them to rip off the sensitive data of who leaked it to cover your asses and blow up the whole fucking shit back to Microsoft face.

    Do the right thing and show the world what kind asshole and abusive corporation the Microsoft is for whole world.

    Do the right thing.....

    At somepoint, someone need to stand up and stop the stupid chair game so everyone could actually sit down and start helping whole world without one corporation ruling what and when can be invented and brought to public.

    1. Re:We need freedom fighters! by TrueSpeed · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We already know the patents they're using. They're the same ones they used to try and shake down Barnes and Noble: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5778372.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6339780.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5889522.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6891551.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6957233.html They also demanded licensing fees that exceeded the cost of licensing WP7. They really are criminals.

  13. Like Linus Suing MS over XBox Mods by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm surprised the shareholders of Google haven't done more to urge Google to spend their profits on supporting Samsung.

    Samsung is a global industrial cartel with $172 billion in revenues in 2009.

    Samsung can fight its own battles.

    ... and lose. I bet this deal came about quicker because Apple is destroying Samsung in courts around the world. Samsung claiming that Google should be taking care of all this is like claiming that Linus should be fighting for your right to mod an XBox to run the Linux kernel on it... Yeah, Google makes a tablet version, but they didn't go out of their way to force anyone to break a patent, or use someone else's design.

    As of yet, Google has not been found in violation of any patents and they don't sell it commercially, it's free. Samsung, on the other hand, makes money for free off Android. So yeah, they have to defend it.

    The moment Google has to make licensing deals on patents, Android will cease to be free... and by that, I don't mean to companies, but to small developers just wanting to use it on homebrew devices. It'll become the Unix of the mobile OS world. Open source, but huge license fees to use so as to pay for the lawyers to protect it.

    --
    I8-D
  14. Quote attributed to Samsung in error by itwbennett · · Score: 2

    From the too-good-to-be-true department, Brian Proffitt has updated his blog post with a correction. Turns out that the quote that The Korea Times attributed to a Samsung official actually came from Florian Mueller. http://www.itworld.com/mobile-wireless/208357/how-google-drove-samsung-away