Microsoft Now Collects Royalties From Over Half of All Android Devices

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has inked a deal with Compal Electronics, which pumps out gadgets that run Android and Chrome OS, for an undisclosed sum." Microsoft has an explanatory weblog post; with this deal over half of all Android devices are licensing patents from Microsoft. Notably refusing to cooperate and instead opting for the court battle route are Motorola and Barnes and Noble.

Comments

Plan B

[Ant P.]

I guess it's more cost-effective to shakedown directly than using SCO as a proxy.

Re:Plan B

[Anonymous Coward]

Awww...is the widdle Apple fanboi jealous that MS is doing this?

Re:Plan B

[MightyYar]

You are trolling the wrong platform. This is Android, made by Google.

Re:Plan B

[Penguinisto]

It also helps that this time they're using the much more vague patent angle, and not the more-easily-discredited copyright one.

When SCO was dumb enough to chase IBM over copyright, they forgot that they had to prove copyright was actually violated (something that's 2x as impossible to do considering the whole BSD/SysV wars)

With patents, and the habit of chasing smaller companies (or those with no dog in the IT fights) Microsoft doesn't really have to prove much of anything - just whip out a ton of broadly-worded vague-but-registered patents, and even if you win the lawsuit, it'll either leave you dead broke, or your shareholders demanding your head on a platter for getting distracted.

This is also why you'll never see them go against Google directly - Google will fight back with everything they have; they would have to.

Re:Plan B

[bonch]

Android violates patents. People on Slashdot really need to get over their reactionary fear of the patent system and acknowledge that Google copied other people's ideas in the creation of its advertising platform, er, mobile operating system. You can try to portray it any way you want, but even Google knew Android stepped on several patents, as detailed in internal emails. If Android was truly free, there wouldn't be all these royalties getting paid.

Android is an asshole move anyway--it's Google trying to pump its product into a non-core market by giving it away at a price competitors can't compete with, funded by revenue in another market in which it has a monopoly. Gee, which company has done that before that Slashdotters bash all the time? But it's okay this time because it's Google and Linux. Such a childish double standard.

Expecting the usual downmods for not spouting the conventional opinion around here.

Re:Plan B

[JohnFen]

Which patents does Android violate?

Re:Plan B

[Raumkraut]

None of these Microsoft press releases claim that Android infringes their patents, from what I've seen, only that some companies (which all produce Windows phones) receive a general "IP" license from Microsoft.

Wake me up when a company which *doesn't* make Windows phones signs up.

Re:Plan B

[almostinsane]

Going by all the companies that have signed licensing agreements - a lot of them.

Re:Plan B

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFS

Re:Plan B

[Anonymous Coward]

It's open source! Surely it doesn't have to pay!

I could understand if it wasn't open source, but open source should be allowed to use anything of anybodies without any sort of legal business, after all it's open source!

I can also understand Microsoft being sued because we don't like them, but how can they sue open source? It's open source after all! They can just take the source and sell it, even if it is their in the first place!

Re:Plan B

[Anonymous Coward]

Android violates patents. People on Slashdot really need to get over their reactionary fear of the patent system and acknowledge that Google copied other people's ideas in the creation of its advertising platform, er, mobile operating system. You can try to portray it any way you want, but even Google knew Android stepped on several patents, as detailed in internal emails. If Android was truly free, there wouldn't be all these royalties getting paid.

Android is an asshole move anyway--it's Google trying to pump its product into a non-core market by giving it away at a price competitors can't compete with, funded by revenue in another market in which it has a monopoly. Gee, which company has done that before that Slashdotters bash all the time? But it's okay this time because it's Google and Linux. Such a childish double standard.

Expecting the usual downmods for not spouting the conventional opinion around here.

At least you're cool enough to expect the down-mods from unfair idiot groups that have mod and metamod protection. I've gone through completely stupid downmod periods myself, recently, so I feel your pain. Keep commenting!! I liked your double-edge sword analogy.

Re:Plan B

[Ant P.]

So how much are MS paying you for the astroturf?

Re:Plan B

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, what? Is it Microsoft's patents? or is it Apple's patents that android is infringing on! Maybe Apple and Microsoft should first figure out between themselves, who owns the patents. Talk about gang banging a little green alien!

Re:Plan B

[tragedy]

Software patents shouldn't be valid anyway, or at the very least should be held to extremely tough standards to pass through the system. They're only a marginal step above business method patents. The fact that the USPTO allows business method patents (traditionally, the canonical example of what _can't_ be patented), just shows that whole system is just a farce. Business methods, or rather, business sectors are where lettres patent originated, of course. Back in those days, they were royal proclamations granting monopolies (for example, on spice trade from the West Indies) to cronies. Today's supposedly meritocratic system (still more of a plutocracy since patent dominance goes to whoever has the most money to spam the system with applications and to litigate.

Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would support a system for which 99.9% of the real world usage is abuse. There are valid reasons for the patent system to exist, but it is, after all, a system for granting absolute monopolies. For monopolies to be allowed to exist in a free economy, there has to be a very strong justification. Given how terrible the system is, some pretty amazing justifications should need to be demonstrated for it to continue to exist.

Re:Plan B

[daver00]

I think this has to do with Microsoft's only true claim in the "linux infringes our IP" claim: FAT32, or patents relating to specific implementations of it. It sucks because FAT32 has become our de-facto standard for external storage, but it belongs to Microsoft. No as far as I'm aware, and quite contrary to certain claims in other comments, that is about it.

Re:Plan B

[DustyShadow]

It is often cheaper to sign the license than deal with a patent lawsuit that you know you will defeat.

Re:Plan B

[Anonymous Coward]

It also helps that this time they're using the much more vague patent angle, and not the more-easily-discredited copyright one.

This time? Please, Microsoft's only relation to SCO was the sale of XENIX in the late '70s/early '80s and that they suggested some tech investment firm invest in SCO, because let's face it now, everyone not involved with Linux knew the only way SCO could fuck up their case was to lie, in this case pretend they owned more than they did. The infringing code in IRIX from when SGI was brought in was in fact x86 driver code, aka the XENIX part of SVR4, aka The parts SCO had bought from Microsoft nearly 20 years prior.

But it's so much more fun to pretend like this investment firm didn't demand their investment back from SCO when it turned out that they lied, or that they were even the majority investor. The majority investor in that deal was the Royal Bank of Canada, who according the Slashcrowd are apparently a satelite/puppet/proxy to Microsoft. They're a software company, not the Illuminati, for fuck's sake.

What's even worse than the way SCO lied about how much of the SVR4 IP they owned, was how much Novell lied about it. It was a joint AT&T / Sun Microsystem project, they each owned a considerable chunk of the SVR4 IP (with smaller portions belonging to SCO and BDSi). Novell should have never had gotten away with claiming they owned the whole thing. That's also why despite Ron Hovsepian's sabre rattling about Sun openining up Solaris shortly after the SCO case, Sun went ahead and Novell never made good on their threats.

And then there's the nutjobs who thought Microsoft and Sun were funding SCO by buying licenses, as a means of financing the lawsuits. It never occurred to the tinfoil hat crowd that Sun had a hand in making SVR4 and thus knows what went into it, or that Microsoft developed XENIX which was sold to SCO. With that being said, nobody ever mentions that both were deploying x86-based Unix products (Solaris_x86 and Interix aka Services For Unix), which again, are the XENIX parts of SVR4, which were legitimately owned by SCO.

But who cares any of that, Microsoft is the illuminati and they payed SCO to sue IBM and Silicon Graphics for them because they're scared of Linux DERP DERP.

When SCO was dumb enough to chase IBM over copyright, they forgot that they had to prove copyright was actually violated (something that's 2x as impossible to do considering the whole BSD/SysV wars)

Oh bull, they fucked up because they claimed ownership of AT&T's portion of the SVR4 pie (which was at the time owned by Novell), they legitimately owned the rights to the XENIX parts of SVR4 (namely the driver-model and x86 parts), which they bought from Microsoft. The BSD/SysV wars were because SVR4, being a joint AT&T / Sun Microsystems endeavour, had SunOS code in it, which was BSD derived.

Don't kid yourself, everyone in the game knows who owns what.

Re:Plan B

[Penguinisto]

LOL! I was referring to that sudden $140m "UNIX IP licensing fee" Microsoft paid SCO directly not even six months after the whole brouhaha started... so unless you can show me some SysV code in Windows XP, 2k3, 2k8, Vista, 7...

As for the rest, someone was kind enough to record the various ways that Microsoft has snuck money into SCO the whole time.

Re:Plan B

[mcvos]

But which ones exactly? Nobody seems able or willing to specify them, and those deals happen behind closed doors.

Re:Plan B

[westlake]

I guess it's more cost-effective to shakedown directly than using SCO as a proxy.

The geek cultivates a culture of victimhood.

But Microsoft has negotiated Android licensing agreements with corporations the size of General Dynamics.

The sixth largest defense contractor in the world. The geek knows these people or at least he ought to. They build nuclear sunmarines. The NSA certified smartphones used by Obama.

They are not the sort that rolls over and plays dead for anyone.

The sort that feels any need to apologize when they flex their own legal and political muscle.

Re:Plan B

[Anonymous Coward]

This is also why you'll never see them go against Google directly - Google will fight back with everything they have; they would have to.

Don't forget that Google are in the process of buying Motorola Mobility, if Microsoft backs off from pursuing license fees from Motorola after the deal has gone through I expect Google will take the legal fight to them unless Google don't think they'll win.

Android the free OS.

[BasilBrush]

Android the free OS. Heh heh!

Re:Android the free OS.

[RazzleFrog]

Not free as in beer. And this is about hardware - not the OS.

Re:Android the free OS.

[Anonymous Coward]

MS may be making money off other peoples' work, but look at what this picture is telling us. Manufacturers would rather pay MS to not use their windows OSes. That's pretty damning!

Re:Android the free OS.

[Anonymous Coward]

And not free as in open either, oh, wait, until Google gets around to it I suppose....

Re:Android the free OS.

[icebraining]

It is in any country without software patents. Well, some versions of it, at least - Honeycomb is mostly proprietary.

Re:Android the free OS.

[icebraining]

The code used in phones (Gingerbread) is.

Re:Android the free OS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly no one cares about Honeycomb, and ICS isn't released yet. It's open for the things that matter, closed for things that literally no one gives a shit about.

Re:Android the free OS.

[PopeRatzo]

Android the free OS. Heh heh!

Microsoft's patents are on the devices, not the Android OS.

Basil, take it from me, it's always best to wait and think before hitting Submit.

Re:Android the free OS.

[BasilBrush]

If companies that use it have to pay for licences it's not free in either sense.

And it's not about hardware, it's about software. It's about Android.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070611-microsoft-android.html

Re:Android the free OS.

[BasilBrush]

Microsoft's patents are on the devices, not the Android OS.

Wrong.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070611-microsoft-android.html

Basil, take it from me, it's always best to wait and think before hitting Submit.

Funnily enough that would be my advice to you Ratzo. Do you feel stupid now?

Re:Android the free OS.

[JWW]

I guess if the cellphone manufacturers aren't willing to run Microsoft's mobile OS on their devices, Microsoft will just have to start acting like all the other patent trolls that don't make viable products either.

Re:Android the free OS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay for not open then? Because Honeycomb sucks, let's not make it open? And that's open how?

Re:Android the free OS.

[PARENA]

And not even true, because for example HTC has an agreement to AND pay Microsoft for every Android device sold AND to do more with Windows Phone 7.

Re:Android the free OS.

[ozmanjusri]

it's about software. It's about Android.

It's not about Android, it's about filesystems.

The patent in question is the old FAT32 short/long filename hack MS has been trolling everybody with for most of the decade.

Re:Android the free OS.

[click2005]

Thhats ok. I've offset my MS Tax payment by pirating their software.

Re:Android the free OS.

[poetmatt]

I don't get it, is this somehow android's fault, that microsoft is extorting android using patents, this is android's fault?

Android is free. Microsoft isn't, and that's actually the message: work with microsoft, don't work with microsoft - either way, they want your money. This is a gigantic sign to every business in existence: don't do business with microsoft.

Re:Android the free OS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even with you doing that, they are still winning.

Re:Android the free OS.

[MightyYar]

LOL, I love the idea of MS offsets. We should trade them on a central exchange. Just like people can fly guilt-free knowing that someone will plant a tree to offset their trip, they can use Android and pay you to cut the MS-related guilt.

Re:Android the free OS.

[BasilBrush]

I don't get it, is this somehow android's fault, that microsoft is extorting android using patents, this is android's fault?

Of course it's Android's (Google's) fault. They are giving away stuff that doesn't belong to them. Requiring people to pay royalties for things covered under patents isn't extortion.

Re:Android the free OS.

[BasilBrush]

You are under the mistaken belief that this is only about one patent. You need to read the rest of the article in the link I gave.

Are you saying Android doesn't have a filesystem?

Re:Android the free OS.

[oakgrove]

Yeah, that's not hard to do when MS gives you your Android protection fee money back as incentive.

Re:Android the free OS.

[oakgrove]

I offset my MS Tax by introducing people to alternatives to MS software. Someone wants a smartphone without specific needs, I suggest whatever is the best Motorola Android device on their carrier. Someone wants to open a doc file without specific needs, I suggest LibreOffice. Web browser? Firefox/Chrome. That's the best way to hit MS where it hurts.

Re:Android the free OS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, stupid.

Re:Android the free OS.

[RazorSharp]

Sarcasm? I hope so, sometimes it's hard to tell.

Re:Android the free OS.

[Penguinisto]

LOL, I love the idea of MS offsets. We should trade them on a central exchange.

They have one, sort of... I think they call it "eBay". :)

(...at least that's where I used to sell all the Windows install disks I never used a long time back).

Re:Android the free OS.

[unixisc]

Android's filesystem would be the Linux filesystem, so what exactly is Microsoft claiming? Something that's under the GPL is actually their IP? I read the cited article, and two of the patents are about filesystems, and the others are about things like managing changes to a contact database (so Thunderbird and Kontacts (in KDE) must be violating that), context sensitive menu behavior (which everyone has and whose source code is out there and GPLed), and generating meeting requests & group scheduling (wouldn't Microsoft then have something against Google Calendar?). Even the one about APIs relating to cellular technology seems to assume that Android uses Windows APIs for such calls, which would be strange if true. The only one that seems to have any merit is 6,578,054 from 2003 covering online and offline transmission of data through methods that "eliminate data transmission and allow multiple copies of data to be synchronized via incremental changes."

Re:Android the free OS.

[recoiledsnake]

I think the point is that only the manufacturers of the devices are being sued over to get a cut of their revenues on their devices.

Re:Android the free OS.

[BasilBrush]

Of course. Google themselves aren't making any money out of it - at least directly. There's only punitive damages to be got out of them. Ongoing revenues from companies profiting from Android make far more sense.

But no, that wasn't Ratzo's point. He was perfectly clear with what he said. He was just wrong.

Re:Android the free OS.

[PopeRatzo]

Wrong.

Then let me correct: The lawsuits are over hardware, not the OS.

Your original comment, "Android the Free OS, heh heh" is no less misguided. I won't go so far as to say "stupid" as you have, since you're not a stupid fellow. But your comment was somewhat high and wide of the point.

Re:Android the free OS.

[green1]

Until your allegation has been proven in court, it seems unlikely. Keep in mind both Motorola and Barnes & Noble were smart enough not to settle and ask Microsoft to put up or shut up. Being that Microsoft isn't willing to do so, it looks a lot more like a protection racket than an actual case of infringement.

Re:Android the free OS.

[Pollardito]

I guess if the cellphone manufacturers aren't willing to run Microsoft's mobile OS on their devices, Microsoft will just have to start acting like all the other patent trolls that don't make viable products either.

Look at the other side of the coin as well. The list of companies that have agreements to pay MS in order to use Android is made up of companies that are in the business of selling other MS products. Samsung and HTC both sell Windows Phone devices, and Samsung sells Windows laptops as well. Compal (Windows laptops), Acer (Windows PCs and laptops), Itronix (Windows laptops), Velocity Micro (Windows PCs and laptops), Wistron (Windows PCs and laptops), and Quanta (Windows laptops) are all also manufacturers of Windows devices. I can't find a link for Viewsonic and Onkyo, but I'm sure it's there somewhere.

This is the same sort of agreement as when MS said that computer manufacturers had to pay MS for every PC they sold whether it had Windows or not. I'm sure it's worth throwing MS a few dollars more for every Android device if it means they're not going to chop your PC business off at the knees.

Motorola and Barnes and Noble don't have any skin in the PC game, so it's likely that they won't settle prior to a lawsuit.

Re:Android the free OS.

[BasilBrush]

Then let me correct: The lawsuits are over hardware, not the OS.

Still wrong. The lawsuits relate to companies shipping phones. The phones have hardware and software. The patent infringements that we know about are software. Android.

Your original comment, "Android the Free OS, heh heh" is no less misguided. I won't go so far as to say "stupid" as you have, since you're not a stupid fellow. But your comment was somewhat high and wide of the point.

It's absolutely on the button. Android is not free in either sense of the word.

Re:Android the free OS.

[BasilBrush]

Who says Microsoft isn't willing to take it to court? More than 50% of Android manufacturers have settled, which means they believe Microsoft WILL take it to court. There is no other reason to settle.

The've fallen one by one. I can quite believe that Motorola will be able to avoid payment, because they have a huge stack of mobile patents of their own. And these things are generally sorted out by size of stack of patents. Barnes & Noble by the same reason have no chance of winning. They haven't settled yet, but they probably will. It'll cost them far more to go through court.

Re:Android the free OS.

[green1]

I love your guilty until proven guilty motif... personally I like to presume innocence until the courts have decided.

Re:Android the free OS.

[BasilBrush]

The concept of guilt, and the presumption of innocence are from the world of criminal law. This is civil law. It's both acceptable and usual to speculate on which side will win a civil case.

Re:Android the free OS.

[green1]

It is "usual" to speculate on it in both circumstances. That does not make it "acceptable" in either.

Re:Android the free OS.

[Nyder]

Of course. Google themselves aren't making any money out of it - at least directly. There's only punitive damages to be got out of them. Ongoing revenues from companies profiting from Android make far more sense.

But no, that wasn't Ratzo's point. He was perfectly clear with what he said. He was just wrong.

Ya, he's like that a lot. He got so butthurt at me laughing at him once, that he made me a foe.

It makes me laugh. =)

Bad Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

(Posting AC because I'm at work)

Those that are choosing to go the "fight it in court" route are probably making a very bad decision. First, the other manufacturers likely didn't just roll over and pay up for shits and giggles - the likely did so because there's something there. Second, and more relevantly, the fact that so many manufacturers are willing to voluntarily pay licensing fees for the patents Microsoft is wielding makes it very likely the court is going to side with them over a small handful of companies who think they're wrong. I predict this is not going to end well for companies like Motorla and B&N...

Re:Bad Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you can look at this from another POV: Since there's at least one company (with enough leverage) going to court over this, they can relax and sit this one out, without risk or paying legal fees. If Motorola and/or B&N win, they'll go after MS, if not they have nothing to lose, but meanwhile they can do business as usual without worrying about it.

Re:Bad Choice

[Kjella]

Or because they had plenty patents of their own and cross-licensed for peanuts. Or just got a good deal. Many patent trolls will give out the first licenses for next to nothing, then try to shake down the rest claiming the rest of the industry has licensed it. We'll see when it comes to court how real their claims are.

Re:Bad Choice

[91degrees]

Smaller companies may well end up paying more even if they win.

Corporate lawyers are pretty good at estimating the success of this sort of thing. Microsoft will probably offer to settle at some point, but have to carry this through a certain way because a threat of a lawsuit is worthless if you aren't seen to be willing to carry it out.

Notice how concepts such as justice and who's actually in the right don't come into this...

Re:Bad Choice

[Teun]

Or they don't want to upset Other Business with MS.

Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[miffo.swe]

I cant help drawing parallels to the Novell agreement where Microsoft in practice paid Novell hefty sums to keep going in Microsofts direction, focusing on MS technologies and products.

Would anyone except Nokia keep churning WP7 phones out when it still, one year after release has not gotten more than 0,3% of the market? I strongly suspect Samsung, HTC etc in reality gets paid for using WP7 and dont pay a dime to use Android. Ofcourse on paper they pay Microsoft for licenses, but then they get that money and ten times more back in the form of marketing contributions for WP7.

Just as with Novell that is.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[JoeMerchant]

I cant help drawing parallels to the Novell agreement where Microsoft in practice paid Novell hefty sums to keep going in Microsofts direction, focusing on MS technologies and products.

Would anyone except Nokia keep churning WP7 phones out when it still, one year after release has not gotten more than 0,3% of the market? I strongly suspect Samsung, HTC etc in reality gets paid for using WP7 and dont pay a dime to use Android. Ofcourse on paper they pay Microsoft for licenses, but then they get that money and ten times more back in the form of marketing contributions for WP7.

Just as with Novell that is.

And, yet, here I sit using a Win7 machine to write this post (and, if you check the traffic stats on most websites, I'm not alone). So, in some measure, their methods work - technical excellence bedamned. Can't blame the suits for trying in the phone market what worked so well on the desktop.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[erroneus]

"Worked well?" You make it sound like people WANTED Windows 7. They didn't and they don't. Even today, if Windows XP was an option, they would go with that. Home users and business users alike never wanted to leave Windows XP and in many offices, it's still there.

People are more than a little tired of Microsoft and they no longer believe "newer is better."

What Microsoft has done is everything in their power to force changes and expensive upgrades on everyone and as they have been leveraging their monopoly strongly, they are able to do pretty much whatever they want... until the next antitrust trial.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck gay Linux fantasy land are you living in? Everything you said is make believe bullshit.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[RazzleFrog]

What are you talking about? Windows 7 is by far the best OS Microsoft has put out and, in my opinion, far easier to use than any other desktop OS (I feel like Apple's OS has stagnated and KDE and GNOME are just poor man's copycats). The swtich from XP to 7 is an easy choice for any company since it is more secure, more stable, and more user-friendly.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Home users and business users alike never wanted to leave Windows XP and in many offices, it's still there.

Some of us didn't want to leave Windows 2000, and switched to Linux rather than Windows XP.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[CowTipperGore]

You do realize that your response is not mutually exclusive with the GP's comments? An OS can be both more secure and stable, yet unwanted by home and business users. I really like Windows 7 on my work machine but it has been a nightmare trying to migrate my uncle's small law office because a good number of their applications simply do not work.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how you make your opinion as a statement for the people. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[hedwards]

The ones who wanted it were probably using Vista. I didn't personally think that Vista was as bad as folks thought, but there were a lot of folks that did want an upgrade.

Personally, the only reason I have Win 7 at all is because it's difficult to find a price competitive laptop that doesn't have it. In the end it was cheaper to pay for the license I didn't want than it was to spend extra money and pay for somebody to take the copy off an install something sensible. Why the DoJ doesn't do anything about it is beyond me, because I don't want to pay MS for something I don't want.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[hedwards]

Win 7 may be the best Windows to date, but it's pretty mediocre compared to the other options.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[JAlexoi]

What are you talking about? Windows 7 is by far the best OS Microsoft has put out and, in my opinion, far easier to use than any other desktop OS (I feel like Apple's OS has stagnated and KDE and GNOME are just poor man's copycats). The swtich from XP to 7 is an easy choice for any company since it is more secure, more stable, and more user-friendly.

I will not use my mod points just because I disagree with you. But here's my response:
Windows 7 has been nothing like usable. Usability seriously dropped compared to XP. I mean there are so many small quirks that are damn annoying and not intuitive. I still am baffled by the overwrite dialogue every time it appears. It's the worst usability offender by far, because it uses two UX elements at the same time. Even if Gnome and KDE are "poor man's copycats"(which they no longer are), they are much more consistent. In short, I am able to operate KDE/Gnome while I'm drunk and can't understand how to do most tasks in Win7.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[agentgonzo]

Still, the GP's point is that most people would chose XP over 7. That's simply not the case. Most people would prefer the newer and better OS. Ignoring the debate that is Vista, 7 is far superior to XP in many many ways and THE VAST MAJORITY would (and did) choose 7 over XP. Fact (even if (and I say if) only for the shiny aero interface)

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[davFr]

KDE4 and Gnome were undoubtedly released before Windows 7.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[RazzleFrog]

Have you tried running them in legacy mode or whatever it is called?

People typically don't want change no matter what. That is a given. But usually after they get the newer/better/faster they hate going back even more. I remember when we migrated to Office 2007 with the new "ribbon". People went nuts but now they are completely inept if you put them in front of the old version toolbars.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at your account name and post I assume this is a novelty account? Those aren't really used here...

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[CowTipperGore]

Who chose Windows 7 over XP? When that's all you can buy from all major OEMs, that's what home and small business users get. No choice involved.

As I said, I like Windows 7 better and I was an XP fan myself. However, most people prefer what they're used to using, not the newer and better thing. The average user sees no major benefits from XP to Windows 7 but they do know that things look different. You need to realize that geeks are a tiny minority in the general population and most people are not like us.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[squiggleslash]

Personally I consider Windows 7 to be the first version of Windows since 2000 that isn't absolutely awful. As a "Have to use Windows to interoperate with others occasionally" person, I consider it to be the version of Windows I want.

Personally I don't know anyone who doesn't prefer it over XP, but, whatever...

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[CowTipperGore]

Yes, a few apps work in XP mode, although most still have various quirks. Others have required a terminal server until we can get all of those legacy apps upgraded or replaced.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[JoeMerchant]

Yes, worked well. They are suits, what do suits care about? Money. Did they make money on the desktop? It worked for them, and therefore will guide their future actions. Can't blame them for doing what they know from desktop PCs and trying to make it work in the phone world - doesn't mean we have to like it, or choose it with our wallet, but I'd be surprised if they didn't try to do to phones what they did to PCs.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[miknix]

Just wondering, why was parent modded down as troll?

Like many others in here, I'm the tech guy in the neighborhood. If I could quickly draw a quick conclusion on my experiences when going to neighbors houses (all of the persons are family heads with all kinds of jobs) to repair the computers or making them faster, it would be something like:
All of them run windows, this is a fact. Most of them don't know what is the latest version of windows and they don't care. When I suggest an update (from XP or Vista), most of them ask if the computer will work "the same". It is pointless to explain them what is new in Windows 7 because they don't really care. They just care if they have the same software they have been using for the printer/scanner for years, or if the computer will run faster or with less viruses. Before modding down, NO, I'm NOT implying they get viruses because of being running windows. They usually get viruses because they run whatever crap they find on the internet or because they plug their USB key everywhere. It is also funny to see that their antivirus never seem to detect anything, I was never told about some random popup warning about virus - for example.
When I suggest I could update the windows for them so they could "experiment it", they accept it. Some (the minority) will call me after two weeks asking for the old windows back, that the new windows is "too different". Some computers won't even install latest windows easily (I don't really have the time to spend a entire day looking for hacked drivers or whatever for other people), while other computers are simply too slow to run it. Granted I could fine tune the windows install but I don't really have the time or the patience. Most of the times is pointless to suggest an upgrade because that would require a new motherboard, etc.. etc.. To be honest, they don't even need a upgrade, because everything they needed (web browser, spreadsheet, word) was already working in the old version of windows.
I also suggested a Mac (with OSX) to the most savy of the neighbors and they ended up very interested but fact is, not a single person had the "courage" (as in being ready for a change) to buy one.

I just pointed out some facts, now I'll leave the conclusion for you to make.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[Cowmonaut]

I'll likewise not use my mod points just because I disagree with you. I've been using Windows 7 professionally and personally since its release so maybe it is just me, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Windows 7 is the most newbie friendly Windows OS to date (warning: my evidence being anecdotal). Its not really that much different than XP, and the bits that are are usually changed for good reason (not always, but usually). Its stability is also amazingly better than XP for the most part. Really the only issue I've ever come across is a tendency in a non-domain environment for user profiles to load into a temporary profile, but this seems to be the fault of the anti-virus and is easily fixed. I've seen the occasional Win7 hate on Slashdot but to be honest I'm a bit confused by it. It seems the only complaints are very obscure and a bit of a stretch.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[JAlexoi]

Stability is awesome, to say the least. But I'm not complaining about stability, it's the usability. It's the UI consistency, which Win7 does not have. There are some productivity features that are interesting. Hell, I even have an atechnical "study group" at home. 7 y/o niece, 30 y/o sister and 60 y/o mother. Windows 7 fails with them, and my sister uses Vista on her laptop.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[Anonymous Coward]

"OMG the button moved 3 inches!!?!!" != drop in usability

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[jrumney]

What value does a marketing contribution for a phone OS that noone wants have?

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[Heir Of The Mess]

You make it sound like people WANTED Windows 7. They didn't and they don't. Even today, if Windows XP was an option, they would go with that

Ha! good one. This should be awarded Troll of the week! I wish there was an option on slashdot to count troll points as +ve rather than -ve, as I have to browse at -1 to read good stuff like this.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[tragedy]

Actually, the guy seemed to be Windows XP fan, not a Linux fan.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[Gr8Apes]

What are you talking about? Windows 7 is by far the best OS Microsoft has put out ...

That still doesn't mean it's any good.

Yes, I have used it, and it's big brother 2008 R2 as well. Coded system software for it. Neither is secure in any form whatsoever no matter what MS's PR machine wishes you to think. The core problem is the fact that MS chose a run model with maximum privileges that can be throttled down, instead of minimum privileges that can be escalated via authentication, for example. Then, of course, there's the issue with dynamic code injection into system DLLs no matter what your process privs and then executing that code as "root" from the injecting process. That was actually the suggested work around for the extremely short sighted (IMNSHO) MS action in 2008 R2 of removing any meaningful security token manipulation.

No matter how pretty the outside (lipstick) the OS is still underwhelming underneath (pig).

And just a side note - OSX has stagnated? 7 major revisions in 11 years changing architecture and bringing new features while maintaining a reasonable memory and disk footprint vs 3 from MS, each requiring an order of magnitude increase in memory and disk space, one being a complete failure by any measure (Vista)? Ok, I'll admit there wasn't quite an order of magnitude increase from Vista to 7, but it did increase.

Re:Like the Novell agreement or beneficial to MS?

[virg_mattes]

The part that makes it easier for me to take is that, for a pretty sizable majority of laptops, you're not paying for the Windows license. The manufacturer pays a license fee to install Windows on the machine, but then they recover a lot (in more cases than you'd think, all) of that cost from payments that companies give them to preinstall software, like the crippleware DVD burning software or McAMantic antivirus trials. If the manufacturer has to send it out without Windows, they don't pay the license but they don't collect the fees, so it's a wash or worse for them to do it. That's why the DoJ isn't getting involved; it's not a collusion, just a business decision based on reasonable costs. You could certainly be irritated by all the bloatware they throw on, but if you're going to wipe it and install Linux then that won't matter, and if not, you get a Windows license for the time it takes to uninstall the cruft.

Virg

Ars' Article on Royalties

[WolfgangPG]

Fairly good article explaing the Royalties: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/10/microsoft-collects-license-fees-on-50-of-android-devices-tells-google-to-wake-up.ars

Quote:"Microsoft didn’t specifically reference that post, but today said “For those who continue to protest that the smartphone patent thicket is too difficult to navigate, it’s past time to wake up.” Microsoft doesn’t just collect money from other companies, it also pays out plenty to protect itself, Microsoft’s legal team notes.

“Over the past decade we’ve spent roughly $4.5 billion to license in patents from other companies,” Microsoft said. “These have given us the opportunity to build on the innovations of others in a responsible manner that respects their IP rights. Equally important, we've stood by our customers and partners with countless agreements that contain the strongest patent indemnification provisions in our industry. These ensure that if our software infringes someone else's patents, we'll address the problem rather than leave it to others.” /endquote

Re:Ars' Article on Royalties

[mwvdlee]

“Over the past decade we’ve spent roughly $4.5 billion to license in patents from other companies,” Microsoft said.

But patents don't block newcomers from innovation. No, not at all. Why would a newcomer have trouble innovating because of a couple of patents they would need to license?

Re:Ars' Article on Royalties

[sgt scrub]

It is all compatibility functionality. If phone makers would ditch VFAT and syncing with Office apps they wouldn't have to pay the devil anything.

Re:Ars' Article on Royalties

[Anonymous Coward]

They wouldn't need to license them. I can file a patent tomorrow which builds on someone else's patent, without paying a cent in licensing fees. Of course, I wouldn't be able to sell a product that was 90% someone else's work without licensing the IP; is that the nub of your complaint?

Re:Ars' Article on Royalties

[hedwards]

The problem there is that MS doesn't include support for other FS, they support NTFS, VFAT, ISO9660, UDF and that's about it. If you choose to use any other OS, then you're choosing to prevent a large group of less savvy users from being able to copy files onto it, either because you're going to need a special utility or because you need special drivers. Either way, it's not a particularly workable solution for a mass market device, and MS knows that.

A better thing would be for the DoJ and the EU to step in and tell MS, that they can't have patents for VFAT or anything else which they're throwing their weight behind to get licensing dollars.

Re:Ars' Article on Royalties

[Anonymous Coward]

If you choose to use any other OS, then you're choosing to prevent a large group of less savvy users from being able to copy files onto it, either because you're going to need a special utility or because you need special drivers.

It's time to move into the 21st century and cut the cord: DropBox, iCloud, Google Docs (etc)

Re:Ars' Article on Royalties

[Dcnjoe60]

Maybe, Android phones should just install their own driver to read btrfs or ext2 or something on a windows machine. Or better yet, the vfat file system calls are well documented, all an Android phone needs to do is intercept them and translate to what ever file format they want. The phone only needs an interface that a windows machine will recognize, not to actually store the data that way.

Re:Ars' Article on Royalties

[wintercolby]

This is why using a document synching or cloud storage service which uses a network protocol instead of a physical connection is so important. You don't need an ext4 driver to download an mpeg file from a Linux server over http or ftp.

Re:Ars' Article on Royalties

[Tapewolf]

The problem there is that MS doesn't include support for other FS, they support NTFS, VFAT, ISO9660, UDF and that's about it

UDF is the real shame - it was originally supposed to be a Universal Disk Format which could be used on HDDs too, and had that worked everyone would be using that instead. But last I looked, windows will choke if you try to use UDF on anything other than an optical disk.

Re:Ars' Article on Royalties

[robmv]

And the new Nexus phone (Nexus Galaxy) and the previous one (Nexus S) has no SD card slot, so there is no need for a VFAT enabled kernel, they probably use MTP like my Xoom does to access the internal memory. Other Samsung devices has SD Card, but not those branded as Nexus.

Re:Ars' Article on Royalties

[tlhIngan]

And the new Nexus phone (Nexus Galaxy) and the previous one (Nexus S) has no SD card slot, so there is no need for a VFAT enabled kernel, they probably use MTP like my Xoom does to access the internal memory. Other Samsung devices has SD Card, but not those branded as Nexus.

And how do you get your music/movies/etc on the phone? Using iTunes?

You plug phone in, enable USB mode, and the internal storage is mounted in disk mode, so Windows needs to be able to mount the disk at FAT32.

So the kernel needs to mount it as it's exported as a raw disk for people to copy files over with. MTP is iffy as it can require drivers and INF files, as does RNDIS mode. Mass Storage is the only real driverless mode short of having fancy installers to get their phone working under Windows.

Which may not be a bad idea for Android. Apple gets away with it. Everyone else gets away with it - it's time for Google to get down and support something on the desktop...

Re:Ars' Article on Royalties

[robmv]

Not on my Xoom, the device does not mount as a USB Mass storage device, the internal memory is only shared by MTP and I think the same is done on those Nexus devices with only internal memory (I have a Nexus One so I am not sure how they do it). The big problem with Mass storage is that when you connect it to your computer, the Android OS must disconnect from it and give exclusive access to the host. Applications that need files on that FAT filesystem, must stop doing what they are doing with them. Media storage manager must check all the device when it is plugged and it takes some time, sometimes more than a few seconds, the user do not see the new songs they copied immediately and they think the files were not copied, and plug the device again. Using MTP the media storage db is updated on the fly. It is true that MTP is sometimes flaky especially the Linux implementations have many bugs, and sometimes is not fault of the Linux implementations, but as always manufacturers that only test with the Windows implementation. Mass storage is nice, but it not an ideal solution either

Re:Ars' Article on Royalties

[tokul]

you're going to need a special utility

Such restriction never stopped Nokia or Sony.

Re:Ars' Article on Royalties

[thetoadwarrior]

Sorry but this isn't about doing what's fair. If MS was truly concerned about protecting itself then go after Android's main developer (Google) and not after a bunch of small fries who just sell the OS on their phones.

Re:Ars' Article on Royalties

[thetoadwarrior]

Likewise you lock Microsoft out of the phone and tablet market where they want to be and arguably need to be.

Re:Ars' Article on Royalties

[Anonymous Coward]

Heard of iTunes? It is this special utility you're talking about. For Apple devices. So why wouldn't it work for Android too?

Re:Ars' Article on Royalties

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's wrong with UDF and ISO9660? And there are plenty of userland FS drivers as alternatives.

Re:Ars' Article on Royalties

[hedwards]

Because I shouldn't have to trust or pay a 3rd party of the functionality?

Re:Ars' Article on Royalties

[shutdown -p now]

UDF is the real shame - it was originally supposed to be a Universal Disk Format which could be used on HDDs too, and had that worked everyone would be using that instead. But last I looked, windows will choke if you try to use UDF on anything other than an optical disk.

It won't - at least not in Vista/7 - and a lot of people format USB sticks to UDF so that they can contain 4Gb+ files while still being readable by all OSes.

In XP, it is supported, but I don't think it'll let you format one as such (so you need to use a third party tool), and it'll be read-only when mounted.

Re:Ars' Article on Royalties

[shutdown -p now]

MTP is iffy as it can require drivers and INF files

On Windows, not since Vista. It just shows up as a device in Explorer.

It does require some effort on OS X, though.

Re:Ars' Article on Royalties

[shutdown -p now]

Actually, even newer Samsung phones with an SD card (like Galaxy S2) use MTP. The point, I think, is that the phone can keep the card mounted that way, and so it's fully operational while being synced.

Re:Ars' Article on Royalties

[tragedy]

Stac? Eolas? Alcatel-Lucent MP3 patent? I'm pretty sure Microsoft lost all of those in court in the last decade. The holier-than-thou attitude from their legal department is hypocritical.

evil

[dell623]

just a reminder to us that Microsoft hasn't become any less evil just because apple are pushing the boundaries of evil.

I will buy the droid razr and the next nook color because of this and because they are great devices not made by cowardly companies.

oh and Microsoft, please sue amazon please, that might turn out to be fun.

this is pure extortion 'you violate our patents we can't tell you which ones'. Why don't you pay us a small percentage of your sales to make the problem go away?

Re:evil

[Rockoon]

oh and Microsoft, please sue amazon please, that might turn out to be fun.

Dear Dell623. We at Amazon regret to inform you that we are already licensing Microsofts IP, a fact that has obviously has been kept a secret when someone as well informed as yourself doesnt know about it.

this is pure extortion 'you violate our patents we can't tell you which ones'. Why don't you pay us a small percentage of your sales to make the problem go away?

When they sign the standard non-discloser agreement used in licensing negotiations in the industry, they find out which patents. Barnes and Noble has skillfully tricked some people that arent well informed into thinking that Microsoft refused to disclose the information, when in actuality it was B&N that refused to enter licensing talks.

Re:evil

[Anonymous Coward]

When they sign the standard non-discloser agreement used in licensing negotiations in the industry, they find out which patents. Barnes and Noble has skillfully tricked some people that arent well informed into thinking that Microsoft refused to disclose the information, when in actuality it was B&N that refused to enter licensing talks.

Why enter "a standard non-discloser agreement used in licensing negotiations in the industry", over something publicly available as are patents?

Re:evil

[Rockoon]

Why enter "a standard non-discloser agreement used in licensing negotiations in the industry", over something publicly available as are patents?

Did you expect the non-disclosure agreement to be whitelisting or blacklisting topics? Seriously?

Re:evil

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't really answer my question though. Seriously.

Why do you need a NDA to disclose which patents are being violated? They are publicly available...

Re:evil

[RazorSharp]

You didn't really answer my question though. Seriously.

Why do you need a NDA to disclose which patents are being violated? They are publicly available...

Because that's not how extortion works.

Re:evil

[Rockoon]

The list of patents that a given company is claiming another to be violating is NOT publicly available until a lawsuit progresses into the courts, at which point its publicly available and you have your information (see Microsoft vs Motorola)

Motorola had the list prior to the lawsuit, because unlike Barnes and Noble, Motorola isn't the stupid newbie to the industry.

Re:evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Again you are not answering...

Why is said list not available publicly? Patents are available publicly, and for good reason. You seek a license royalty because the patent (that is publicly available) benefited your work. In seeking a cross license agreement for someone using your publicly available patent, why on earth would you need to enter in a NDA to inform the one using your patent in his work, about the specific patent he is using?

I get you are trying to paint Barnes and Noble "Newbies to the industry" (for whatever reason that may be *roll eyes*). But really you haven't explained the basis on which you support this.

Re:evil

[Rockoon]

The list of patents that Microsoft holds is public information, ergo another invalid question.

Don't ask why a private list requires an NDA, on the supposed grounds that its public information, because its not public information.
Don't ask why a public list requires an NDA, on the grounds that somebody is keeping it a secret, because it doesn't require an NDA and nobody is keeping it a secret.

Why is it so hard to form your query as a valid logically consistent question?

Re:evil

[Anonymous Coward]

My question is quite simple. I'll use B&N as a specific example to help you out:

Why would B&N need to enter a NDA just to be informed of the patents it is allegedly violating?
Patents are public information and the list you are referring to is nothing but titles of said patents that apply to B&N's products. Listing these patents is the first step in any cross-license agreement and the first step in any lawsuit for that matter.
So what purpose exactly does a NDA serve?

If I ever get a smart phone

[assertation]

I guess I am going Apple

Re:If I ever get a smart phone

[Overzeetop]

Because they (Apple) never go after anyone with questionable patent claims or because Apple has already paid for/cross-licensed everything they need with the companies you don't like?

Re:If I ever get a smart phone

[RazzleFrog]

I assume you are being sarcastic but if not you realize that that would be completely the opposite of what you'd want to do. You would want to support Motorola or B&N who are fighting Microsoft.

Of course, pretty much every tech company nowadays has patents they are suing over so I am not sure that you can buy a phone without supporting one of them.

Re:If I ever get a smart phone

[oh_my_080980980]

Because Apple stands up for its products in court, unlike Google.

Jackass.

Re:If I ever get a smart phone

[Tridus]

I see. Why get the diet coke of evil when you can go full evil, right?

Re:If I ever get a smart phone

[Rockoon]

Google stands up for its products by licensing the IP they need.

The few actual Google products which run Android have licensed the IP. Did you think that the majority (all?) of those android devices on the market were Google products? Sorry.

Re:If I ever get a smart phone

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it a coincidence that Motorola and B&N are the only ones who have not signed up for these licenses, and are the only ones that do not have a Windows based product ?

Re:If I ever get a smart phone

[RazorSharp]

While I admit I'm a big fan of Apple products, if you don't like Apple I would recommend the new Razr Motorola is bringing out. They're the one's standing up to Microsoft, after all.

Misleading Summary, Again

[jimallison86]

That's half of all device manufactures, not half of all devices sold. Stubble difference.

Re:Misleading Summary, Again

[Sockatume]

today’s announcement means that companies accounting for over half of all Android devices have now entered into patent license agreements with Microsoft

From the article.

Re:Misleading Summary, Again

[wintercolby]

Stubble difference.

Are you using a virtual keyboard? I think Apple and Palm both claim the patents to that one, although I don't know about Swype. Licensing typos may get a little hairy.

Re:Misleading Summary, Again

[jimallison86]

Not having the best day - misread TFA and a typo. This is why I mostly just read Slashdot.

Re:Misleading Summary, Again

[wintercolby]

Sorry, I just saw it as an opportunity to make a pun. I don't mean to pick on you.

I've always wondered why Google is mostly silent

[bogaboga]

with this deal over half of all Android devices are licensing patents from Microsoft.

Why is Google silent in this matter? Now before you mod me down, I know Google have made some inconsequential comments. These have not helped at all.

Dicalimer: I am not a lawyer.

If I were Google, I would file a some lawsuit to 'force' Microsoft to reveal the patents that Android is infringing on, or force Microsoft not to mention the word Android in its licensing propaganda.

My suspicions of what is really going on:

1: Microsoft approaches an Android OEM with a 'sweet deal' relating to Android.

2: Microsoft pays the OEM some cash and a deal is struck that results in the OEM saying no word about the deal, but allows Microsoft to spread FUD.

On major OEMs like Samsung, the deal could be about future android based products that would envisage incorporating Microsoft technology (which actually exists and is interesting).

You wonder why the other party says nothing at all about the licensing. But the major thing about all this is the silence of Google.

What Google could do in addition, is to modify the non GPL portions of Android and add language that specifically prohibits licensees from entering into licensing deals like the ones Microsoft touts if they are going to be party to Microsoft's FUD.

Here's the worry: It might backfire!

The Great America Duopoly

[transami]

Does anyone else find it ironic that the broken U.S. patent system, and by extension, the broken U.S. government, along with some good-old boy corporate nepotism, is leading us right back to the old Microsoft/Apple duopoly? No more webOS, no more Meego, RIM is on the ropes and Android looks to be next.

Who looses? The customer.

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[RazzleFrog]

Huh? How do you figure? Microsoft had nothing to do with the death of webOS or RIM (not even sure what Meego is) - they committed suicide. And I see this more of Microsoft realizing they have no chance against the Android/Apple juggernauts and want to cash in any way they can. Android's market base is way too big for even Microsoft to take them down at this point.

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[Baloroth]

Oh, you mean the US laws that banned the Galaxy Tab for being a rectangle? News flash: this isnt just a US problam.

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[JAlexoi]

My problem is that they are effectively exporting that broken system.

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[webheaded]

The thing that bothers me about all this is that Google hasn't stepped into the courts really very much at all yet. These companies are getting screwed using the Google OS and quite frankly, Google should be helping them out in court. I don't understand why they haven't yet.

Also, I hate to be that guy but why do I see SO many people that don't know how to use loose vs lose? You lose a customer. You loose the hounds upon someone. That bolt is loose. You lose bolts all the time. I am not kidding at all...I see it everywhere. I think I'm starting to see this more than the people that can't use then and than right and I am perplexed.

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[JAlexoi]

News flash: this isnt just a US problam.

I "problam-e" the education system.

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[dc29A]

The thing that bothers me about all this is that Google hasn't stepped into the courts really very much at all yet.

ORLY?

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Android won't go anywhere; especially now that Microsoft vouches for it through this "pay us if you want to use it" scheme.
But the same thing can't by said about WP7; what's the point for Microsoft to maintain this niche software when they can earn more with their competitor's product (without even having to "touch" it) ?

In the end it won't *exactly* be a Microsoft/Apple duopoly, more like a Google/Apple duopoly where Microsoft is the market leader !!?!!

The lion share is for a company that doesn't sell a product, that's the wonders that can be achieved through the magic of software patents...

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, I hate to be that guy but why do I see SO many people that don't know how to use loose vs lose? You lose a customer. You loose the hounds upon someone. That bolt is loose. You lose bolts all the time. I am not kidding at all...I see it everywhere. I think I'm starting to see this more than the people that can't use then and than right and I am perplexed.

Not everybody has English as their first language.....

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

In regards to the grammar bit, this site is geared toward technical types. We tend to have poor grammar. I don't understand why, but it's true.

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[malevolentjelly]

webOS wasn't killed by patents. Neither was Blackberry. Both RIM and Palm had fantastic patent portfolios. They're untouchable compared to Google.

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[Raenex]

Also, I hate to be that guy but why do I see SO many people that don't know how to use loose vs lose?

It drives me nuts too, but this is the English language in evolution. The reason for the mistake is obvious. "lose" rhymes with "choose". I actually wish at this point that we could adopt "luce" as a spelling of loose (as in not tight) and give up on "lose".

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[Baloroth]

Well, I typed that on an Android tablet... so I'm gonna go ahead and blame Google. Its better that way.

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

People's spelling has always sucked. It's just that now most of their misspellings, being non-words, get flagged by software--leaving the misspellings that are still words but the wrong ones.

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

plus what patents could MS have? They are no where in the mobile space and have only recently joined it, where did they buy these patents from?

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[fortfive]

Well, that guy, what you are witnessing isn't necessarily poor grammer skill, but rather a messy brain. Even folks like myself, who know the different usages of lose and loose, their and there, and even who and whom, still sometimes think the right word and type the wrong one. In a /. post, where discussion is supposed to be frank and lose (!), it isn't worth the effort to apply 100% proofreading skills.

It's not a perfect world.

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[blind biker]

Also, I hate to be that guy but why do I see SO many people that don't know how to use loose vs lose? You lose a customer. You loose the hounds upon someone. That bolt is loose. You lose bolts all the time. I am not kidding at all...I see it everywhere. I think I'm starting to see this more than the people that can't use then and than right and I am perplexed.

Here, here!

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there's one simple reason Google doesn't go to court.. they know they are infringing. Occam's razor and all that.

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[green1]

more likely they just don't see it as their problem. No OEM has stopped producing Android phones due to this, so Google has lost absolutely nothing by letting other people fight the battle. I suspect if OEMs stopped producing Android phones, and cited patent concerns as the reason, Google would step up and deal with it, as it is it just isn't in their best interest to interfere, they have absolutely nothing to gain, and money to loose.

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Why all this explanation? Did you loose your mind?

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[Gr8Apes]

For a funny mod point.... sigh.

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Their their, calm down...

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[webheaded]

:(

I winced at this...even if it is a joke. xD

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[webheaded]

That's a nice start. I'd like to see them try and jump into some lawsuits WITH their business partners, but I have no idea how that would work.

Re:The Great America Duopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Meego is the phone/tablet/netbook linux distro that was being jointly developed by Nokia and Intel, which was the combination of Intel's Moblin and Nokia's Maemo. IMO it was an ill-conceived idea, and the failure can be blamed as much on Nokia's old management as Microsoft's influence. Working towards merging Maemo with Meego seemed to set back Nokia's OS, but even so it probably could have been moderately successful if it had the proper support at Nokia, but with the appointment of Stephen Elop from Microsoft as CEO the project was effectively doomed, though he decided to give it a slow lingering death rather than killing it outright, he did allow the continued development and the release of the N9, unfortunately the hardware in the N9 is a bit lacking compared to other new top-end phones the version of Meego (still more of a continuation of Maemo really, than true Meego) in the N9 is apparently very nice, however Nokia decided to limit its sales by not selling it in the US or the UK.

I guess it is debatable how much influence Microsoft had in the demise of Meego, they certainly had an effect in convincing Stephen Elop to adopt Windows Phone over what they already had, but since Elop was a MS employee up until he took the Nokia CEO post, I'm not sure he needed much convincing.

Patents suck

[komrix]

Seriously i can't believe that patents are this out of control. I mean all OS's are going to be relatively similar because it is so difficult to make a GUI from scratch that people will like.

Switch to BSD as the base instead of Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

BSD is older than Windows. It's older than Microsoft.

Re:Switch to BSD as the base instead of Linux

[Locutus]

it won't matter since it's the VFAT patent which is the main point here and a VFAT driver on BSD would also be considered under Microsoft's patent. Microsoft's saying "Linux infringes" is more about attacking Linux than it is about making money from there IP. The money they make from these patents is a drop in a bucket compared to what Windows brings in. As usual, this is all about protecting Windows, their only product they live and breath by.

LoB

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[Anonymous Coward]

MS has been in the smartphone business since about 1997. They *may* have one or two things they spent a bit of time working on... Remember WinCE was built for that market.

the toy store

[phrostie]

i've been getting frustrated with Barnes and Noble.
They have been changing into more of a toy store than a book store, but now i feel like going and buying something from them.

i'll have to look up what the 4th book in the john carter series is.

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[Anonymous Coward]

Google can't do anything about the FAT patent that everyone has to use for card storage. Consumers expect to be able to pull the SD card from a device and have it usable in something else without having to worry about file system drivers. FAT is the defacto standard for memory cards today.

The industry fell asleep on this one, when they should have all worked together to create a license and royalty free open spec file system. The blew it and are now paying the price, well, we the consumer is paying the price.

What do you expect

[MrKaos]

Microsoft are winning this game, they always have been. They will pillage the open source market and as many markets as they can and squeeze it for every cent. yes Android is pseudo open source, but it's less closed that the ms offering or apples bastardisation of bsd.

Freedom isn't as shiny as Apple or Microsoft and it's not as glamorous. Sure if that's what you choose, then go ahead, but as actual day to day user of open source software on my desktop I feel that choice is slowly being taken away from me. How long, I wonder, before I can't run an approved software stack on a motherboard at home?

I see a slow convergence of Microsoft strategies. I don't ever think they will go away, but I wish they would stop trying to impose their will on my choices. Everywhere you turn there is Microsoft throwing its weight around, cementing its monopoly. They are the MacDonalds of Information Technology.

Re:What do you expect

[RazzleFrog]

I know the anti-Microsoft tendencies are strong on this site but Microsoft is definitely not "cementing its monopoly".

IE market share has dropped from 70% in 2008 to 40% in 2011.

While Windows Desktop OS market share is still high, a large part of that is still XP and Mac has made a small dent in the total as well.

Linux continues to make huge inroads on the server OS front.

Smartphones, Windows OS is barely a blimp. And guess what - that's where the future market is. I know several people who fully expect their next "laptop" to actually be a tablet.

So believe it or not, Microsoft sees a future where it is struggling to stay alive and needs to reinvent itself.

Re:What do you expect

[Anonymous Coward]

> ... and needs to reinvent itself.

As a patent troll, if I understood correctly?

Re:What do you expect

[RazorSharp]

It would be cool if Motorola, for example, would just sell phones with no operating system. Then you could hook it up to your computer and download an open source operating system for free (like Android). Then it wouldn't be Motorola's problem if Microsoft claims mobile linux platforms infringe on their patents. They'd just have to worry about hardware, where I'm sure Motorola has a diverse enough battlechest of patents to protect themselves.

I have a feeling the telecommunications companies stand in the way of this, but I'd love to see it tried.

Re:What do you expect

[unixisc]

In the US, are such phones inexpensive - compared to getting it from the carrier? The way it works is that people more often then not get a phone from their carrier - Verizon, AT&T, Sprint... If a carrier wants their service enabled on the phone, not to mention having the phone locked w/ their service, they'll need an OS on that, be it Android, iOS, WebOS, BBX or WP7. So the moment tha carrier puts an OS on it, M$ will go after them. And in the case of the US, it'll be a lot easier, since there are more smartphone makers than carriers for microsoft to go after.

Not to mention that few people are geeks who even want to, let alone know how to, jailbreak their phones.

Re:What do you expect

[DinDaddy]

Smartphones, Windows OS is barely a blimp.

My favorite typo today.

Re:What do you expect

[jrumney]

Apparently their accountants haven't heard of "goodwill".

Re:What do you expect

[mjwx]

I know several people who fully expect their next "laptop" to actually be a tablet.

We call these people clueless.

PHB: My next Laptop will be a tablet.
IT: How will you type on it?
PHB: Then you'll get me a keyboard.
IT: 10" is too small, you can barely read the 15" laptop you have.
PHB:Then you'll get me an external monitor.
IT: OK, next question, will you give up all your windows programs.
PHB: Absolutely not.
IT: So It'll have to be windows based.
PHB:Yes.
IT: So I'll have to buy a new mouse as well.
PHB: Make it so.
IT: Why dont I just add a pair of 5 KG weights to your existing laptop. It'll be exactly the same but cheaper.

People who think the laptop is going anywhere any time soon are deluding themselves. I've worked with tablet computers for years, they never took off from their niche because of ergonomics, it's a PITA to use a tablet for 4 hours a day, let alone 8 to 12. Dont give me any guff about OS either 1) everything the business world does is on Windows, OS X and even Android does not even come close. 2) we've had a tablet capable windows UI for years (since Vista) and nothing has happened. Everyone who's tried to replace their computer with an Ipad has failed miserably, I see a sales drone try to do this at least once a month. None has lasted more then 2 days without their laptop.

Re:What do you expect

[Anonymous Coward]

My next laptop is already a tablet. I bought an Acer Iconia Android tablet and it is pretty much a 100% replacement for everything I did with my personal laptop - especially since the tablet has HDMI out and USB ports... I can connect it to my regular monitor or TV, and I can connect a keyboard/mouse... the apps are lagging a little in that I don't have a full office package yet, but pretty much everything else is in place (and LibreOffice is making claims to have a version for Android soon... so... the office thing may be solved in the near future).

Yes, you can argue that you can't do on the Android tablet... and that'd be true, but for most of the things I use my work laptop for, the tablet does just fine... reading and replying to email, web browsing, running web apps etc.

Innovation!

[cyn1c77]

The patent system was put in place to promote innovation. It's a shame that large companies are able to use it to stifle innovation through patent purchasing and subsequent bullying.

MS has evolved into a mafia-like organization. They don't innovate anymore, they just make everyone pay them a "protection" tax. (I'd say the same about Apple, but they still innovate in addition to bullying.)

Re:Innovation!

[agentgonzo]

Whether apple innovate is also questionable. They produce very good gadgets and they polish them very very well, but there's not a huge amount that they've done that is truly innovative. iPod was just a well polished MP3 player of which there were many before them. iPhone was nothing new (all-touchscreen had been done by LG prada before iPhone was released) iPad was a merging of their iPhone and tablet computers (which MS had been trying (and failing) to generate a mass-market in about 10 years previous) macbooks - flashy and well engineered, but not particularly innovative. Siri was a bought-in component that they merged into the latest phone. OK, I'll give you multitouch for them, but the point is that not everything that comes out of Infinite Loop is innovative. Very good and well designed, yes, but don't preach to them as the Gods of Innovation. They do find good innovators in the market and then copy-and-improve them or buy them outright to incorporate into their engineering team.

Re:Innovation!

[Xest]

They bought in multi-touch too.

One thing that amazes me when people talk about prior art/device evolution is how many people ignore the likes of Compaq/HPs old line of iPaqs. The iPhone etc. is more an advancement/clone of these than anything. Hell, even the name is close.

Re:Innovation!

[RazorSharp]

Hell, even the name is close.

You mean the iPaq that came out two years after the iMac?

Re:Innovation!

[quacking duck]

Combining existing technologies and polishing them so they work well together *is* (or can be) innovative. Being first to list 3rd-party components in a spec sheet (larger screen, faster CPU, etc) is not.

No honest Apple fan denies that there were mp3 players that preceded the iPod. Most were cheaper, some had more storage. But Apple combined the smallest physical HDD in an mp3 player (the HDD alone at retail price cost the same as the first iPod), a blazing fast file transfer method (compared to every other mp3 player stuck with USB1.x), and a menu interface that didn't require fiddling with arrow buttons to scroll through a huge list of songs.

Very few people got it. Never mind Slashdot's famous "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame", even die-hard Apple fans were slamming it, saying it would be another Mac Cube. My favourite /. comment in that discussion was someone dissing not just HDD but flash-based players too, saying CD mp3 players and burners were way cheaper, so why bother with anything else?

Re:Innovation!

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent system was put in place to promote innovation. It's a shame that large companies are able to use it to stifle innovation through patent purchasing and subsequent bullying.

The patents system promotes innovation by letting inventors bully others who want to use the inventions. You just don't understand how the patents system works.

Re:Innovation!

[Xest]

Last I checked the iMac wasn't a mobile device, let alone a phone.

Re:Innovation!

[agentgonzo]

They bought in multi-touch too.

I didn't know that. Thank you!

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[Anonymous Coward]

You're delusional.

competition authorities

[BBird]

Something useful the competition authorities (US, EU, ...) could do is the check MS OEM contracts, to see if and how they distort the OEM capacity to offer non-MS OSs in pcs, tablets, phones, and so on.

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[Baloroth]

The thing is, it isnt neccessarily Android that infringes. It may well be the handset makers implementation, maybe even hardware. Note Microsoft hasnt sued Google yet AFAIK. This makes it not Googles problem.

This patent was rejected, right?

[bogaboga]

Folks at Pubat claim the patent was rejected.

Re:This patent was rejected, right?

[Gadget_Guy]

You are correct that FAT is not covered by patents, but VFAT is. It is the use of the long filename addition to FAT that Microsoft licences.

Re:This patent was rejected, right?

[Locutus]

IIRC, they rejected the FAT patents but accepted the claims related to VFAT and how it stores and maps long file names.

LoB

Re:This patent was rejected, right?

[Locutus]

and it sounds like Barnes and Nobles big problem with the licensing fee Microsoft wants to extract is that it's close to the same fee they charge to license their mobile OS. ie the fee is excessive for such a small portion of the whole. But they are charging based on how it causes the competitions cost to rise in comparison to their own. B&N brings this up too.

Google is really blowing it by not stepping up both the rhetoric and the court battles on this.

LoB

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[Rockoon]

You wonder why the other party says nothing at all about the licensing.

Because both parties agreed to not discuss the specifics of the licensing deal, something that is pretty standard. They (Samsung, HTC, Apple, ..etc..) stand to gain nothing by letting their competition (Samsung, HTC, Apple, ...etc..) know what their own deal is, as their competition could then easily refuse to accept anything worse. Its the fog of war codified in a non-disclosure agreement that both sides of a negotiation typically insist upon (Barnes and Noble being the exception... but they have nothing to trade but money.. and not a lot of that as they are getting their ass handed to them by Amazon.)

P.S. Even Google licensed from Microsoft for Google-branded phones. Thats right, even Google is licensing from Microsoft.

Sony Ericsson is “patent safe” accordi

[ernstp]

Also not paying is Sony Ericsson:

http://www.xperiablog.net/2011/10/04/sony-ericsson-is-%E2%80%9Cpatent-safe%E2%80%9D-according-to-ceo/

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[bogaboga]

Here's my problem.

If an OEM is going to licence some stuff from Microsoft for use in Android, that's fine. Let them go ahead, after all Android can be 'extended', being opensource.

The trouble is that Microsoft's FUD is claiming that Android OS *is* is infringing. Let them clarify. Are they saying that the source code as downloaded from Android's website infringes or the additions/modifications to the source code by OEMs make Android devices infringe. All I would like is a clarification, and only a lawsuit can assure this.

I give Microsoft five years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Laugh all you want. That ship is sinking and sinking good.

GOOD RIDDANCE.

Re:I give Microsoft five years.

[Archwyrm]

Five years?! Needs more torpedoes.

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[Stormwatch]

Really? I always thought WinCE was meant for the PDA / pocketPC market.

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[Rockoon]

If an OEM is going to licence some stuff from Microsoft for use in Android, that's fine. Let them go ahead, after all Android can be 'extended', being opensource.

Are you forgetting about the opposite of 'extended?' Android, being opensource, may also be 'limited' by the OEM.

The trouble is that Microsoft's FUD is claiming that Android OS *is* is infringing. Let them clarify.

If you want a specific case clarified you can look at their lawsuit with Motorola where the patents that Microsoft claims are being violated by Motorola are now public information.

All I would like is a clarification, and only a lawsuit can assure this.

It seems like you are the one spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) by pretending that such a lawsuit doesnt exist. There is actual certainty (ie, no doubt) about which patents Microsoft is claiming that Motorola is infringing. Its on the public record.

Can't believe this...

[red crab]

Not only they are extracting money from phone manufacturers, grabbing them by collar; they are also bragging about in their blog. What has software industry come to?

Re:Can't believe this...

[JWW]

Exactly. Microsoft used to think of themselves as the biggest baddest software company out there, now they're bragging about patent trolling.

This is a leading indicator that they are beginning to circle the drain.

ChromeOS also implicated as infringing patents

[itwbennett]

What's notable this time around is that ChromeOS is also implicated as an infringing technology. Compal is now the third ODM company to enter into a Microsoft agreement over ChromeOS and Android. Brian Proffitt goes into more detail in this blog post: http://www.itworld.com/mobile-wireless/215897/microsoft-why-innovate-when-you-can-litigate

Motorola is fighting it?

[cmdr_klarg]

Good to know what brand of phone to keep buying.

Why would it even be Linux-related?

[G3ckoG33k]

Why would it even be Linux-related?

Android could be using any OS underneath its layer. Probably even Hurd, even if I don't know how well it would play with theGPLv3.

That is the main weakness of Android as I see it.

Re:Why would it even be Linux-related?

[tomhudson]

... or just switch the underlying OS to BSD and be done with it. After all, it worked for Apple, and any attack on BSD by Microsoft would then drag Apple into the fight.

Re:Why would it even be Linux-related?

[recoiledsnake]

Huh what?

Do you folks even think through your strategies even for a minute?

MS and Apple will most likely never sue each other over patents. Each has enough patents that apply to the other that the whole court system would be dragged down and it would take 100 years to resolve the claims. Thats why Apple is not suing MS over WP7 but suing the heck out of Android OEMs.

Also, Apple couldn't care less about what happens to anyone else using BSD. They have their own branches already, the original writers and code can go to heck for all they care.

What makes you think otherwise?

Re:Why would it even be Linux-related?

[tomhudson]

First, Apple has sued Microsoft in the past, and Microsoft sued Apple earlier this year over the "App Store" trademark

Microsoft has filed a complaint against Apple with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, claiming that the iPhone maker's attempt to claim exclusive rights to the "App Store" moniker should be voided.

In its filing with the USPTO, Microsoft says "App Store" is too much an everyday term to be trademarked.

So they definitely still do mix it up ...

Apple couldn't care less about what happens to anyone else using BSD. They have their own branches already, the original writers and code can go to heck for all they care.

Additionally, Apple has ~200 opensource projects that they do code commits to, including stuff included in *gasp* bsd and even linux. They employed FreeBSD coders to get their stuff off the ground, btw.

Re:Why would it even be Linux-related?

[sessamoid]

First, Apple has sued Microsoft in the past, and Microsoft sued Apple earlier this year over the "App Store" trademark

Microsoft has filed a complaint against Apple with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, claiming that the iPhone maker's attempt to claim exclusive rights to the "App Store" moniker should be voided.

In its filing with the USPTO, Microsoft says "App Store" is too much an everyday term to be trademarked.

So they definitely still do mix it up ...

GP said Apple and MSFT wouldn't sue each other over patents. What you've cited is a trademark dispute. Not the same thing.

Re:Why would it even be Linux-related?

[tomhudson]

That could be because they entered into a cross-licensing deal wrt patents, remember? So, while they can't sue over patents any more, they can still sue each other, which means that, contrary to the *other* assertion that was made, they aren't that friendly towards each other.

Collecting Royalties

[Anonymous Coward]

is only wrong when MS does it, please remember that.

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[oakgrove]

P.S. Even Google licensed from Microsoft for Google-branded phones. Thats right, even Google is licensing from Microsoft.

Many of your posts mention this like it is some grand revelation. Google licenses ActiveSync. Duh.

Yay Barnes & Noble

[willoughby]

I'm not an open source zealot but I'll admit that having learned B&N didn't knuckle under was a factor in my choice of a Nook Touch e-reader & in fact I bought two; one for myself & one as a gift.

Re:Yay Barnes & Noble

[Kazymyr]

My phone is from Motorola. My e-reader is from B&N. Not only they're good, but they're also Microsoft-patent-free. Win-win.

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying I want this to happen, but at this point I'm wondering if the only way this will ever get fixed is by a large US corporation threaten to move or actually move to another country in exchange for protection against the mess that is the US patent system.

Ironic

[Hentes]

Microsoft gets more money from Android then their own phones.

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[Anonymous Coward]

>> All I would like is a clarification, and only a lawsuit can assure this.

It's easy. Become a device manufacturer, get a decent success and they'll knock on your door.

Really why they should clarify to *YOU* is beyond me. They have to clarify with parties involved, which are Samsung, HTC, etc., not the general public. The fact that some people are interested in Android doesn't mean they have any right to know.

Re:Sony Ericsson is “patent safe” acco

[Anonymous Coward]

That article states the reasoning as being that they already own licenses to a lot of stuff from their parent companies and they have a lot of patents to use to fight back with.

i.e. it isn't necessarily that they aren't paying, they just aren't going to have to pay more than they already are.

Sony Ericsson is probably a minefield

[G3ckoG33k]

Sony Ericsson is probably a minefield. If they launch the combined Sony and Ericsson patent portfolio against MS, the outcome is not obvious.

Google's Strategy....

[Anonymous Coward]

These stories about the patent wars seem more familiar each day. They are growing more and more like another global industry; Organized Crime.

Google is just biding their time for Microsoft or Apple to make a small mistake in the application of their IP. Then, they just need to find a Federal prosecutor with the gumption to go after these companies on racketeering charges...

If you want to produce a smartphone, tablet or [insert device envisioned by science fiction writers long before Steve Jobs stole the mouse from Xerox, or Bill Gates bought DOS for $50k], you have to pay Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, or somebody else licensing fees. Not all that different than Vinny, Checkov, or Sean Patrick walking in to the local corner store demanding protection money. Only difference is the soldiers of the various crime syndicate will tell you what 'violations' they are accusing you of.

Combine that with the very sophisticated system for legally companies to transfer funds to lawmakers, judges, lawyers, etc (these types of bribes are called campaign contributions) and it becomes a state sponsored/supported duopoly. Yeah Capitalism!

Campaign against open source. They own your code.

[andydread]

Microsoft has warned time and time again that they are going to use this method to destroy open source and software freedom.

The strategy:
Microsoft approaches open source business
Microsoft: You know its a dangerous neighborhood. you should pay us for protection.
Business Owner: Protection? from who?
Microsoft: Well...from us really.
Microsoft: Oh and sigh this NDA you cannot talk about this to anyone ok?

This campaign is not limited to Android its an attack on all open source and software freedom.
Its a legal way for them to take ownership of other people's code that they had nothing to do with
Microsoft is making sure that companies are too scared to use open source.
The list of companies that have fallen victim to this scheme is getting long
Remember TomTom? And Bufallo? They don't make Android devices but still signed a Linux license.
They claim Open Office violates their patents. Expect them to charge for devices distributed with OO and Libre Office
Basically if your code is anything other than "hobby code" you are liable. Microsoft says you are running an "undisclosed balance sheet" and must pay them.

Non-Android Linux licensees that I'm aware of :-
Tomtom
IO-Data
Buffalo
Amazon(License for use of Linux on Amazon servers)
Fuji Xerox Co. Ltd.
Brother International.
Kyocera Mita Corp
LG Electronics,
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd

I'm sure there's more.

Bottom line If you write useful code that competes with Microsoft look for them to take ownership of your code through the use of software-patents and have a nice day.

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[q.kontinuum]

Things will become interesting with the suite against Motorola, especially if Google is successful in buying them. If Google owns Motorola and Motorola actually pays licenses to Microsoft for using Android, it will be very entertaining. If Microsoft drops the suite (presumingly because the NDA and sweet deal you proposed was not possible with a company owned by Google) it might also be quite revealing.

(I did not find a link about the current state of that case. If it was already dropped please anyone post a link. But in this case it might still be possible for Google to publish more detailed information on the case if they are able to buy Motorola.)

Re:Sony Ericsson is “patent safe” acco

[JAlexoi]

Their devices have become very attractive all of a sudden.

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[gstrickler]

The patent covers VFAT, the long-names extension to FAT. Simple way to avoid the patent, don't support long names, only support FAT on your memory cards. Of course, the license fee for VFAT probably isn't very large so that one might not be worth the the tradeoff.

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[Rockoon]

Google is paying only for ActiveSync, but is certainly paying more than a phone manufacturer would (because Google Apps Sync uses it too, not just Google's Android phones.) Microsoft would have to endanger its current arrangement with Google in order to seek revenue on patents that Google has not licensed in their Android phones.

So yeah.. you don't know why its significant.. Duh.

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[oakgrove]

Google is paying only for ActiveSync, but is certainly paying more than a phone manufacturer would (because Google Apps Sync uses it too, not just Google's Android phones.)

Wow, you are just the fount of fucking knowledge. So, Google pays more than a phone OEM because they use it in more than just phones. What other pearls do you have to bestow upon us, Captain Oblivious?

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[rabtech]

Google doesn't say anything because Android is a loss-leader for them to drive search revenues. They don't make much money off Android directly do from their point of view it isn't their problem.

Things may change with their purchase of Motorola but I suspect that they will have some difficulties here. If they use Motorola to bring out a lot of successful devices, they will piss off their OEMs. If they aren't successful then that's just more wasted money when they can let the OEMs eat the R&D and risks, all to drive search revenue to Google.

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[unixisc]

Even in Linux, I've never managed to format a card, or an USB drive, under ext2, despite trying. This should have been an option. How about HPFS - if someone formats a card using that, will it be consuming any MS patents? Also, all Linux distros include VFAT support in them as far as the cards go, so does Microsoft also collect royalties from every copy of Linux that's sold? Or recognize its free distribution as piracy?

What are the Patents?

[AftanGustur]

Can anyone post a link to the patents that Microsoft is claiming Android infringes upon?

Re:What are the Patents?

[Simulant]

Not a complete list but this is the most info I've run across: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070611-microsoft-android.html

Microsoft has

[tokul]

Microsoft has explanation how protection racket works. Interesting.

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[Rockoon]

You still don't know why its significant. Duh.

The GGPP wonders why Google is silent. Duh. Are you even reading the thread?

Perhaps this why even hairyfeet of all people can make you look foolish... because you dont even read the thread!

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[oakgrove]

Unlike you who needs no help looking foolish. All you are doing in the thread is regurgitating talking points like you just stumbled upon some great profundity. You don't know shit. You think you do when all you are doing is confirming your own bullshit. Seriously, put your posts through an objective critical filter before you start trying to throw rocks at somebody else. Practically everything I've ever read from you on here as well as Hacker News is a slight variation of Rah Rah MS and down with Google. You are a broken record that sucked the first time around. I'm glad you mention Hairyfeet; you sound just like him. Tweedle dum and tweedle dee.

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[Anonymous Coward]

you one dumb sob

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[Rockoon]

Those 'Rockoon' links on "Hacker News" are about rockets launched from balloons you retard. What a fucking dipshit.

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[oakgrove]

The dipshit is you. The only fucking moron that writes the exact same tripe on Hacker News under the exact same handle and you don't even realize you're doing it? So not only are you an intellectually dishonest bore but you suffer from amnesia too. Why don't you pull some Minority Report shit and go on ahead and drink your Google hater's r us cult cyanide^H^H^H^H^H kool-aid and spare us your future mouth diahrrea. Go on, man, make the world a better place.

Re:I've always wondered why Google is mostly silen

[oakgrove]

HaHa you one dumb ass motherfucker

You're missing a key point

[msobkow]

Any GPL software which is found to be in violation of copyright automatically has it's license revoked:

Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

and

You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

I argue that any company paying Microsoft a patent fee has lost their right to the GPL code because by their actions they "render the program non-free."

Re:You're missing a key point

[msobkow]

Any company which uses GPL software is obligated to defend against patent trolls in the courts, or they lose their right to use the software.

You didn't think the GPL was written without some requirements and conditions to protect the community from abusers, did you?

Absurd...

[alukin]

Let them patent the way man pee and every man will pay M$ pee taxes.

Nice blog

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for sharing this information really are very interesting. Voyances en directe

too loose to lose to you two losers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Programmers think languages should follow rules. English doesn't. Spelling what sounds like loozer as loser fails basic pronunciation testing. I can totally understand it. English has some structural problems that require more memorization than is ideal. I don't know how to fix that. I wish less of my brain was occupied with the idiosyncrasies of the English language.