Slashdot Mirror
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.
I guess it's more cost-effective to shakedown directly than using SCO as a proxy.
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.
HTTP/1.1 400
Not free as in beer. And this is about hardware - not the OS.
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.
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
/endquote
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.”
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!
I guess I am going Apple
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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
And not free as in open either, oh, wait, until Google gets around to it I suppose....
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.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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!
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.
"His name was James Damore."
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...
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.
:T:R:A:N:S:
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.
It is in any country without software patents. Well, some versions of it, at least - Honeycomb is mostly proprietary.
Dilbert RSS feed
The code used in phones (Gingerbread) is.
Dilbert RSS feed
Or they don't want to upset Other Business with MS.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
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.
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.
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.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
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.)
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.
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
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.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Folks at Pubat claim the patent was rejected.
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.
"His name was James Damore."
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?
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/
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.
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?
"His name was James Damore."
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.
Really? I always thought WinCE was meant for the PDA / pocketPC market.
Circumcision is child abuse.
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.
Here's the secret to immortality:
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.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
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.
"His name was James Damore."
Thhats ok. I've offset my MS Tax payment by pirating their software.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
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?
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
Good to know what brand of phone to keep buying.
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
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.
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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
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.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
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.
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?
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.
Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
Yeah, that's not hard to do when MS gives you your Android protection fee money back as incentive.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
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.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Not having the best day - misread TFA and a typo. This is why I mostly just read Slashdot.
Sorry, I just saw it as an opportunity to make a pun. I don't mean to pick on you.
Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
Sony Ericsson is probably a minefield. If they launch the combined Sony and Ericsson patent portfolio against MS, the outcome is not obvious.
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
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
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.
Sarcasm? I hope so, sometimes it's hard to tell.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
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.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
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.)
Trolling is a art!
Their devices have become very attractive all of a sudden.
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).
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
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.
"His name was James Damore."
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.
"His name was James Damore."
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?
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
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.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
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?
This space for rent.
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.
This space for rent.
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.
Can anyone post a link to the patents that Microsoft is claiming Android infringes upon?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Microsoft has explanation how protection racket works. Interesting.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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?
"His name was James Damore."
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!
"His name was James Damore."
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.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Those 'Rockoon' links on "Hacker News" are about rockets launched from balloons you retard. What a fucking dipshit.
"His name was James Damore."
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.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
HaHa you one dumb ass motherfucker
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
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.
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.
Five years?! Needs more torpedoes.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
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.
First, Apple has sued Microsoft in the past, and Microsoft sued Apple earlier this year over the "App Store" trademark
So they definitely still do mix it up ...
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.
First, Apple has sued Microsoft in the past, and Microsoft sued Apple earlier this year over the "App Store" trademark
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.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
I love your guilty until proven guilty motif... personally I like to presume innocence until the courts have decided.
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.
Any GPL software which is found to be in violation of copyright automatically has it's license revoked:
and
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."
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
It is "usual" to speculate on it in both circumstances. That does not make it "acceptable" in either.
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.
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. =)
Be seeing you...
Let them patent the way man pee and every man will pay M$ pee taxes.