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 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
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!
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
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!
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:
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
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.
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/
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.
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.
Which patents does Android violate?