Slashdot Mirror
B&N Sought DoJ Inquiry Over Microsoft Patents
Meshach writes "There's an interesting story at the WSJ about how Barnes & Noble lobbied the Justice Department to open a new antitrust probe against Microsoft regarding their abuse of the patent system. B&N saw Microsoft filing a slew of frivolous patents in order to stop the development of handheld devices, potentially affecting their Nook reader. The article mentions how Microsoft has a similar racket going with various Android device manufacturers, but B&N does not have the cash reserves to support similar licensing, and is fighting back."
Reader qantr points out related news: Chinese telecoms firm Huawei has confirmed that Microsoft is demanding royalty payments over products running Android.
Support B&N with your wallets. Most of all, don't buy Microsoft products.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
So the next best thing we can hope for is that the interests of various corporations align with the general geek consensus for an open Internet and the right to develop software:
For an open Internet: Google
For the right to copy (not infringing copies): the Consumer Electronics Association.
Against patents: B&N, Google/Motorola, various Linux foundations.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
that B &N is showing MS that they have balls which other big companies like Samsung , HTC din't. It doesnt matter whether B & N succeed or not atleast they have shown the intent to fight Troll called MS. This could be the next David Vs Goliath fight.
See my submission for Bloomberg's non-paywall version: http://slashdot.org/submission/1842986/barnes-noble-urges-us-to-probe-microsoft-o
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
What they're doing is avoiding a lawsuit against Google, and instead going after licensees of Android. If they went after Google, Google would fight it and thus reveal the origin of the inventions they are claiming.
They come to some arrangement, which looks like it's really a fake agreement (e.g. you pay us $45 million, and we pay you $45 million back in marketing and discounts - which is what the Samsung deal is rumoured to be). They they present the payment to them as a license fee for Android to create a false cost associated with Android.
All done under NDA so the details of the fraud are not revealed and investors are kept in the dark.
A trial on Microsoft’s patent claims against Barnes & Noble is scheduled for February in Washington.
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-08/barnes-noble-urges-u-s-regulators-to-probe-microsoft-on-mobile-patents.html
At least we'll finally see what patents Microsoft has been using to strong arm manufacturers of Android based phones into patent licensing. The must-sign-a-nda-or-we-wont-tell-what-you're-infringing-on tactic they've been using on everyone feels really underhanded to me, and I'm no Microsoft hater.
I figure there actually has to be something substantial in those patents to merit virtually all the big names in Android phones agreeing to license them at the amount MIcrosoft has been asking.
Depends. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and if the patents in this case are needed to stay interoperable with the Windows environment, and the fees demanded border to extortion (i.e. the product is no longer competitive with Microsoft's product), then I suspect the DOJ might find that interesting.
the android companies that have caved into MS and paid them. Hopefully B&N and Google/Motorola will win out over MS, while those companies that signed with MS will be forced to continue paying.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
And in ten years, once Microsoft has destroyed Android and taken over it's place in the market for billions in revenue, the case might finally finish winding through the courts. We've been here with Netscape. Legal action runs at a snail's pace compared to most industries - but in the fast-moving world of technology, it's glacial.
Microsoft is taking ownership of other people's code through the abuse of software-patents. This is scary. The notion that you cannot sit down in front of your computer and write successful code without Microsoft attacking you with a team of lawyers using dubious and obvious software-patents is scary. All you code are belong to Microsoft. They didn't write it but the own it anyway. This egregious behavior is something that Microsoft actually promised in their Halloween document. This is not just against Android. Its campaign to sink open source particularly Linux in the marketplace. By making it an expnesive hassle to deploy Linux vendors will just use windows instead. Its not noble. Its sleazy. MIcrosoft's Steve Balmer has been treating to use sleazy tactics and they are doing it now.
Here is how it works :
Microsoft Approaches open source company
Microsoft: My what a nice open source company you have here
Microsoft: You know this is a dangerous neighborhood you need some protection.
Business Owner: Protection? From who?
Microsoft: Well...From us really.
Microsoft: Oh and sign this NDA you cannot talk about this to anyone. Got it?
Its egregious sleazy software-patent extortion tactics.
The real question is how does the greater open source community stop them. So far only Shuttleworth has pledged to fight them in court if they come knocking on Ubuntu's doorstep
If you think this is about Android then you are sadly mistaken. This is about LInux and open source victims include:- TomTom, Buffalo, IO-DATA, Kyocera MIta etc. None of those produce Android products. They are now beating drums that Open Office and Libre Office violates their patents. Look for them to start suing anyone that distributes Open Office or Libre Office in a successful product.
This is their strategy against open source in general If you write open source software that competes with Micorosoft expect them to make it very expensive for you in the marketplace if your product becomes successful.
Microsoft is using gangster extortion tactics.
In Barnes & Noble's own words to the court:-
At the meeting, Microsoft alleged that the Nook infringed six patents purportedly owned by Microsoft. Microsoft had prepared claim charts purportedly detailing the alleged infringement but insisted that it would only share the detailed claim charts if Barnes & Noble agreed to sign a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) that would cover the claim charts as well as all other aspects of the parties’ discussions. Noting that the patents were public and that the infringement allegations pertained to Barnes & Noble’s public product, Barnes & Noble refused to sign an NDA.
Insisting that an NDA was necessary, Microsoft discussed the alleged infringement on a high level basis only. Microsoft nevertheless maintained that it possessed patents sufficient to dominate and entirely preclude the use of the Android Operating System by the Nook. Microsoft demanded an exorbitant royalty (on a per device basis) for a license to its patent portfolio for the Nook device and at the end of the meeting Microsoft stated that it would demand an even higher per device royalty for any device that acted “more like a computer” as opposed to an eReader.
After sending the proposed license agreement, Microsoft confirmed the shockingly high licensing fees Microsoft was demanding, reiterating its exorbitant per device royalty for Nook, and for the first time demanding a royalty for Nook Color which was more than double the per device royalty Microsoft was demanding for Nook. On information and belief, the license fees demanded by Microsoft are higher than what Microsoft charges for a license to its entire operating system designed for mobile devices, Windows Phone 7
So Microsoft is not trying to license their trivial, dubious software-patents under Fair Reasonable and NON Discriminatory terms. They are trying to drive up the cost of open source beyond what it would cost to purchase windows from them. They are sleazy slimy bullies. Will no longer use or recommend their products to ANYONE.
If they have a valid claim, Microsoft should not be allowed to hide it under a blackmail-as-nda bushel basket. If they do have something valid, I suspect it is very trivial to work around and they know it. Hence their wisper campaign against Linux / Android whilst steadfastly refusing to show actual proof.
And when did Brinksmanship become an acceptable / legal business practice? Perhaps it was part of the Supreme Court horseshit decision about Corporate Personhood...
You don't understand the patent system. Even if the patent is frivolous, it takes expensive litigation to invalidate one patent, forget the thousands Microsoft has registered for Pg Up/ Pg Down to double click.
The patents are frivolous, software patents, with a lot of prior art and can be said to apply to absolutely any computing device these days:
http://www.geekwire.com/2011/microsoft-cites-new-patents-vs-android
The major phone and tablet makers who signed deals with Microsoft are Samsung, HTC who are also coincidentally the only major Windows Phone manufacturers.
Also Microsoft has been in less of a hurry to go after companies with major Windows PC manufacturers like Asus, Acer, Sony etc.
Microsoft is clearly using these patents to stifle Android, and this raises serious anti trust concerns. Many of these patents would not stand up well to a challenge, and many like the FAT patent and the filename system are patents companies are forced to use to maintain compatibility with existing standards.
Also, Microsoft charges more to license these patents than it does to license its Windows Phone operating system:
"The book retailer claims also that the fees Microsoft was demanding were equal to or greater than those it demanded for an entire operating system, Windows Phone, even though the patents covered only "trivial and non-essential design elements" of the Android user interface".
Microsoft finally agreed to talk to them about the patents without an NDA, B&N's lawyers looked at them and explained to Microsoft they don't cover their devices, as the patents covered features the devices didn't have.
Microsoft came back and explained those were just a few of the patents they had, that they could go back and find patents B&N did infringe on if they didn't sign a license agreement.
Yes, same tactics as IBM used in the 80's :
My own introduction to the realities of the patent system came in the 1980s, when my client, Sun Microsystems--then a small company--was accused by IBM of patent infringement. Threatening a massive lawsuit, IBM demanded a meeting to present its claims. Fourteen IBM lawyers and their assistants, all clad in the requisite dark blue suits, crowded into the largest conference room Sun had.
The chief blue suit orchestrated the presentation of the seven patents IBM claimed were infringed [...]
After IBM's presentation, our turn came. As the Big Blue crew looked on (without a flicker of emotion), my colleagues--all of whom had both engineering and law degrees--took to the whiteboard with markers, methodically illustrating, dissecting, and demolishing IBM's claims. [...] Confidently, we proclaimed our conclusion: Only one of the seven IBM patents would be deemed valid by a court, and no rational court would find that Sun's technology infringed even that one.
An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"
After a modest bit of negotiation, Sun cut IBM a check, and the blue suits went to the next company on their hit list.
In corporate America, this type of shakedown is repeated weekly. The patent as stimulant to invention has long since given way to the patent as blunt instrument for establishing an innovation stranglehold. [...]
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Both parties interested in talking want the NDA.
If you feel you're being shaken down for money, signing an NDA doesn't benefit you. Would you sign an NDA with an extortionist?
Every company in the industry that enters into licensing talks with any other company signs NDA's before doing so. Both parties interested in talking want the NDA.
This is only true if what they are licensing is confidential technology. Patents are public. I've been in patent licensing talks. There were no NDAs. In fact the licensor wants it known that you signed a license and are paying royalties which is the case here with the Android users.
Microsoft wanted them to sign a NDA to even tell them what software-patents they were purportedly violating. Software-patents that are public information. They refused to sign a NDA to discuss public information. The purpose of patents is for the betterment of the arts by producing information to the public on how your invention works. If people are violating your public software-patents then tell them which ones they are violating so that they can stop violating them. Its that simple. Forcing them to keep secret the software-patents that you are extorting them over is sleazy. This is mobster extortion tactics.
I know nothing about patent law, but it seems to me in the first instance that this is less about Evil Micro$haft, per se, as it is about the inherent problems in the patent system. Any large scale producer can and will do the same thing, using patents as a way to maintain the cross-licensing cartel that exists among the big guys, making the barrier of entry prohibitively expensive to anyone else.
Secondly, there ought to be (or maybe there is?) a method by which one can get a declaratory judgment against a particular patent holder, which would work as follows: You present your product to them, show them the feature set. You allow them to examine it for a period of 60 or 90 days or whatever. Then they have to tell you ALL of their patents which they hold that you are violating, including patents pending. If they do not present their patents at that time, you can receive a court order stating that you are not liable to them. Any patent they fail to present can't be brought up later in a fishing expedition, unless it turns out that you concealed a feature set of your product. A future revision of your product remains generally protected and would only be at risk to the extent that it effects a material change in its operation that would newly infringe upon the previously declared patents, or upon patents issued subsequent to the judgment but that predate the revision.
Perhaps this is unworkable in practice, shifting too much work from the manufacturer to the patent holder. (E.g., imagine you're a private inventor and you patent a truly unique and novel software method. And Samsung gets a "declaratory judgment" by burying you in 10 million lines of source code so that you can't even tell if your patent is in there or not, effectively hiding their violation in plain sight. The 90 days pass and bewildered, you fail to present any counterclaim. They wind up stealing your invention and not paying you a dime.) Still there ought to be a middle ground that better minds than mine can devise. Eliminating software patents, sure maybe, but this is an issue that could arise in a hardware context as well.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
"Microsoft has already extracted per-device royalty agreements for Android products from at least 10 companies, including Samsung, the world's largest smartphone maker, HTC, Compal Electronics (whose customers include Dell, HP and Toshiba), Quanta Computer, Wistron, General Dynamics Itronix, Velocity Micro, Onkyo, Acer, and Viewsonic."
Wow. Those deals are secret, all right. If you want the terms for licensing check here Typical industry terms are 1% of gross profit on the product per patent. I guess there must be at least one moron around here.
"Invent" FAT? Um... how about a more accurate "implemented a singly linked list allocation system".
There were three ways to do it (yes, I know this is incomplete, but only three where in use) - allocation map, linked list, contiguous files. All of these had at several implementations by the time Microsoft released FAT. Which is why FAT is not patented.
Putting extended names into multiple directory entries (VFAT) was patented. Shouldn't have been. CP/M used multiple directory entries to cover file "extents" (data, not name). But is similar enough. Unix used "inode" extension to increase data coverage as well. And, Unix put filenames INTO a file - and this is isomorphic to VFAT. The only argument that would hold is that Unix only permitted 14 character file names. But, if a directory file was large enough to break into two allocation inodes, a filename may be split into two inodes. Exactly the case that happens with VFAT.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061