Slashdot Mirror
Barnes & Noble Names Microsoft's Disputed Android Patents
Julie188 writes "B&N is really blowing the lid off of what Microsoft is doing and how they are forcing money from Android. It has accused Microsoft of requiring overly restricted NDA agreements from those even entering into patent license talks. Because it is disputing Microsoft's claims, and the restrictions of its own NDA signed with Redmond, B&N has gone public. It has named in detail six patents that it says Microsoft is using to get Android device makers to pay up. Plus, B&N is also trying to force open Microsoft's other plans for stomping out Android, including the agreement Redmond made with Nokia, and Nokia's patent-troll MOSAID."
It's about damn time the patents came out.
#DeleteChrome
Time to fire up the old Nook Color and make a purchase.
NetworkWorld/InfoWorld/PCWorld/that whole cabal of sites are just horrible.
Anywho, it's nice to see a relatively big name standing up to bullies.
And lo, Nokia, how far you have fallen.
You mean the Windows Server model of security. :)
I might go out and buy another Nook to reward these guys for what they're doing.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
First, B&N chooses an open format, ePub, for the Nook.
Second, they make the Nook easily rootable.
Third, they tell Microsoft to go fuck themselves.
I'm feeling better and better about choosing Nook over Kindle every day.
Thomas Galvin
This is the only way Microsoft can make any money on OPEN SOURCE. and of course the best kind of money made is from someone else.
But I suddenly feel scared for Barnes and Noble. They are a relatively small company daring to take a stance against a mammoth. I really, really hope they don't get crushed. :(
... this whole patent mess will indeed require a martir that will set itself on fire to show how absurd it all is. The patents M$ is trying to enforce are stupid, as anyone with 1% of the brain still active can recognize. It's sad.
none
It's like my new super hero is kicking arse and taking names and has a big B&N crest in his chest.
Well played, Barnes and Noble!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
.
Those who can compete, do; those who can't, litigate.
What is the difference between a man and a parasite? A man builds. A parasite asks "Where is my share?"
Looks like Microsoft is still pursuing the security by obscurity model - and its not working out well.
I sat a .net security session at a developers conference. After 45 minutes of taking notes, the presenter hadn't repeated himself and as I realized that I put down my pen - this is why I don't develop in .net, except as stand-alone desktop apps.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
1. Loading icon in the content window of a browser
2. Compatibility of file names with current and outmoded operating systems
3. Storing input/output in a shared file system
4. Simulating mouse inputs on a device without a mouse
5. A browser that recognizes background images and displays them after the text is loaded
6. Using handles to change the size of selected text
Placing a loading status icon in the content viewing area of a browser.
Compatibility of file names employed by current and outmoded operating systems.
Storing input/output factors in a shared data structure.
Simulating mouse inputs using non-mouse devices. (Really????)
Browser that recognizes background images in an electronic document and displays the background images after text.
Putting known tab controls into an operating system for use by all applications, rather than providing tabs on an application-by-application basis.
Using handles to change the size of selection areas for selected text.
Storing and displaying annotations of text which is not modifiable.
I have a Nook. I mostly use it for reference stuff and for when I'm traveling (I generally prefer paper books, but well, the world changes). I like it, and I like Barnes & Noble. Now I'm really rooting for B&N. As a side note ... there was a thread a few days ago about "what's keeping you on Windows?" This is one of the reasons I don't use Windows. I know Windows 7 works well, probably better than any previous version. But I won't buy a product from a company that does stuff like this, i.e. abusing the patent system.
6,339,780
5,579,517
5,652,913
5,758,352
6,791,536
6,897,853
6,339,780
5,778,372
5,889,522
6,891,551
6,957,233
Saved you the trouble of RTFA.
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
I thought MS are supposed to be Staunch Champions of the Freedom to Innovate, hardy har har.
Ridiculous - leveraging a few patents on minor functionality which might cover .00001 percent of Android functionality into a patent royalty which is out of all proportion to the "size" of MS's "contribution" to the product AND putting onerous development requirements on Android developers to hamstring it's future progress so that they're own platform can prevail not on its merits, but on their ability to control the competition with patents.
This is *everything* that's wrong with the software patent system.
Although you provide a compelling argument. There are a couple of facts that you overlook here:
1) Microsoft wouldn't disclose which patents were the problem to the vendors, nor Google. As stated in the articles here, B&N had to break an NDA to show the world what Microsoft was leveraging for the lawsuits. That's piss poor behavior in my opinion, and a sign of operating in "bad faith."
2) The licensing fees are comparable to the entire cost of a Windows Mobile OS license. This is not a "reasonable" fee which is what patent law calls for.
3) The licensing agreement includes provisions that prevent the licensee from making changes to the product, and reach far beyond the scope of the patents that are owned by the patent holder. Specifically, by allowing Microsoft (in PJ's terms) veto power, Microsoft is attempting to assert full control over a product that they are trying to compete against. That is highly anti-competitive.
And of freaking course Google is releasing the OS for free. It's called OPEN SOURCE. The OS is freely available. Honestly, I can't blame Google for trying to procure patents... It's a defensive measure against cabals like this. The whole point of the lawsuits against Android makers is to use the courts to gain market share. This does great harm to the consumer by stifling competition and innovation (see Internet Explorer 6... That was a hideous mess and web technologies were stagnant until the Mozilla foundation released Firefox). That's why these licenses are problem, and that's why I don't agree with your statement that Google is the problem.
I'm only half kidding here. Patent lawyers have replaced Personal Injury lawyers as the scum of the earth. The entire patent system needs to be re-vamped, legislation passed outlawing patent squatting and technology stifling. And a firing squad for the patent lawyers.
because everyone's so scared of Microsoft. They've got such a reputation for dominating every market they enter and then screwing their partners that even the big guys are backing open standards out of fear of getting cut out of the deal by MS. It reminds me of those old west shows where the gunslingers were sitting 'round a table playing poker ready to gun each other down at the first sign of cheating...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Google licenses Android for free, because they get paid in different ways and have a strategy that stretches beyond next quarter. They don't have any kind of monopoly in any of their businesses, so the comparison with MSFT of the 90's isn't a great comparison.
It's a little like Mozilla giving Firefox away for free because they get paid in different ways. Should they be stopped because others who want to charge money for the browser can't figure out a way to compete?
Software and process patents are just a way to funnel money from innovators to lawyers.
I also submit that if Google had procured the patents in question, not only would we know what they were, they would probably not be using said patents in an offensive to gain market share.
Ordered two SAS survival books from them. Was going to order from Amazon.ca till I saw the story here. Way to go B&N.....
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Ah, yes, the surely-objective opinions of "WinSuperSite"...which find that Google is stifling competition by providing an open-sourced smartphone kernel to anyone who asks, and is oppressing the poor, abused coalition of every other smartphone vendor who banded together specifically to pay an exorbitant price for smartphone-related patents and immediately as a group set about suing over Android devices (exclusively). Curiously, they did this when Android's marketshare started to make theirs look rather foolish. Yes, they just want to protect their intellectual property, such as the milestone achievement "No. 6,339,780 placing a loading status icon in the content area of a browser." By precisely duplicating the functionality of "placing a loading status icon in the content area of a browser", Google is oppressing competition, necessitating the actions of Microsoft in demanding license fees in excess of their own product's cost for infringements that they refuse to disclose before being paid.
TL;DR: give me a break.
So *that's* what he meant - he'd just seen this list.
How can Microsoft be threatening giant corporations with such incredibly ridiculously simple, obvious, irrelevant and pre-existing patents? How can they even call them "inventions"? How can so many companies be SO afraid of Microsoft to pay them large sums of money for this? Are they that much afraid that the patent system is so broken that they will have massive losses if they litigate? Something is not right with the world!!
Patents were intended as the alternative to a trade secret. The way it was supposed to work is that rather than keep everything secret (like the old medieval guild system did) you documented how you built something and in return you got the rights to that device for a limited amount of time. Thus others could see how you did it and either license it from you for a fee or else figure out an alternative way of doing it, and after the time had expired then the information was publicly available.
As for the claim of "bogus" or "largely questionable" patents, are you seriously arguing that "placing a loading status icon in the content viewing area of a browser" (ie, put the status icon where it's actually visible when zoomed in) isn't obvious? Or loading the text first and then the images? Or using handles to change the size of selected text area (how else are you going to do it when you can't click and drag?).
The product is the phone that uses it.
Besides, how is what Google is doing releasing Android any different than what Canonical is doing making Ubuntu freely available?
I would very much like an individual to cite a piece of prior art and write of cogent argument why the claims of the issued patents are invalid. It is all too easy to fall prey to hindsight bias when dealing with patents that were filed over a decade ago.
So exploiting a poorly thought-out system for the benefit of the few is A-OK, duly noted. Don't be disingenuous, EVERYONE is behaving badly here because the system is set up not only to allow it, but to promote it.
Capitalism: "That don't befront me, as long as I get my money next Friday."
Fanboys...just shut the fuck up. Your chosen side isn't any better than the other.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Ah, bogus patents. I'm curious how that was determined. Let's read on. Surely, this will be explained. After all, it's an incredible charge to make publicly. There must be proof and some public explanation of why that word was used.
"They're doing this by banding together to acquire Novell's old patents and Nortel's old patents (the 'Rockstar' group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn't get them; seeking $15 licensing fees for every Android device; attempting to make it more expensive for phone manufacturers to license Android (which we provide free of charge) than Windows Phone 7; and even suing Barnes & Noble, HTC, Motorola, and Samsung. Patents were meant to encourage innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it."
Actually, using patents in this way is a legitimate business endeavor with no proof of "bogusness." But I am curious, if Google had in fact won these patents for itself, would that have made them "non-bogus"?
Yes bogus patents. Read the submission right here. B&N has outlined all of the patents and showed clear prior art for them. That is what makes them bogus. Sheesh. And this is what passes for "insightful" around here? This is the kind of thing that makes it easy to crack "Slashdot sucks" jokes.
LOL, so /. represents Nazis and MS is ethnic diversity??? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
The Nook Color is an Android tablet with some customizations to centralize B&N's ebook reading app; its not a "simple text reader".
Even the original Nook was a much more than a simple text reader.
While Nook Reader introduced as the new low-end device at the same time as the Nook Color might really be a simple text reader, or close enough, there's obviously value in using the same core OS as is in the earlier Nook and the contemporary Nook Color rather than maintaining devices with completely different OSs underneath.
And the exposure now works for whomever wants to release a smartphone OS, be it a Linux derivative, or whatever. Even Blackberry/RIM benefits. Meego, Unity/Ubuntu, whatever, the cat is out of the bag (insert your favorite metaphor here).
Judicious coders are now looking for prior art, and they'll probably find it. But each patent fought will be a battle by itself, cost a lot of money, and more cross-complaints will be filed. This is only the beginning, not the beginning of the end.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
This is not a "reasonable" fee which is what patent law calls for.
Voluntary RAND agreements from standards nodies call for this but where in US statutory law does it say this?
B&N REFUSED to sign any Microsoft Gagging Agreement apart from one very limited document. That is clearly documented in the filings made by B&N.
B&N are also irate about the terms MS wanted to impose on them for seemingly ancient and trivial violations.
So MS got a patent on using the kb to simulate a mouse/trackpad. There is so much prior art that will shoot that down that i want to get up an applaud B&N for exposing the MS RICO scam. I can't support them by buying a Nook as they don't ship it to my country.
I'd also like to be at a few shareholder meetings of the companies that have signed up for the MS Scam. I'd expect their BOD to get a really hard time explaining why they let MS literally screw the comany and shareholders.
Creating a full OS is HARD. By going with Linux you get out-of-the box hardware support, tcp/ip stack, wifi stack, bluetooth stack, graphics support, preemptive multitasking, flash support, card reader support, audio support, etc.
A relatively simple reader with physical buttons and no networking is fairly straightforward. Something like the Nook Color or Kindle Fire is a whole different ballgame.
yeah, google is free because instead of doing the honest thing and asking the money up front, they portray android as a free OS, when its really a means for feeding you into the google data collection machine, which profits off USER GENERATED DATA.
mmm, love having my whole life run through an algorithm so the marketing fucks can develop better methods to manipulate my consumer activity.
And you think Apple and Microsoft aren't doing the same thing with your data?
1) They didn't break an NDA. Microsoft assumed incorrectly (yet again) that the NDA which only covered one discussion or topic applied to another without getting B&N's approval. Hence there was no NDA on the later data.
Aside from that, total agreement.
The nice thing is that most of the patents listed are completely invalid patents with tons of prior art to show that, and the others apply to functions not used in Android.
Google believes that Microsoft's and Apple's purchases of patents are anticompetitive, and that the mobile patents they own are bogus. To combat this, Google is going to acquire its own (bogus?) patents.
Well, yes. That's not the first time a company says the patent system is broken and they have to get bogus patents just to defend themselves.
Arguably, by "dumping" Android in the market at no cost, Google--which has unlimited cash and can afford to do such a thing--is behaving in an anticompetitive fashion. In fact, one could argue that Google is using its dominance in search advertising to unfairly gain entry into another market by giving that new product, Android, away for free.
How do you make a monopoly with Free Software? Google doesn't control Android, anybody can make their own version, and integrate it with their own services. If you're afraid they use Android to promote use of the other Google services, you can just make a version of Android that integrates with Microsoft's online offering.
OTOH there is another type of patent troll. A patent troll who is rather incompetent at creating or marketing a specific device or process but still wants to profit off the production of the device. This is MS. MS has had years to bring smartphones to market. They have not done so. They have had years to work within the market to produce a product people want. They have not. So now they are pushing trivial patents to profit off other peoples works. This is not what patents are for.
If MS were to sue someone because they were copying key points from Xbox, there would be no issue. But people are not. Firms are using industry standard methods to develop a mobile device. Using filename, icons, and redenering techniques that MS did not develop, but merely copied from others and was the fist to patent.All they want is a share of a market that they do not have the skill to get. As a result the consumer is being asked to pay more than would otherwise be necessary. Does this sound familiar. It should because it is how MS operates. By getting a cut from ever sale even if MS has no input into that sale. Can any say naked PC?
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
If you aren't paying for the product, then you are the product.
How is what Google is doing any different from any other ad supported business? I can watch all kinds of TV without paying because advertisers are footing the bill. I go to a baseball game, my ticket is subsidized by omnipresent ads. I can subscribe to lots of magazines for free because of advertisers. Come to think of it, neither you nor I are paying to post on Slashdot either. Is all of this dishonest?
I'd be a lot more sympathetic if Google had a monopoly or if the barriers to entry for competitors was much higher. The truth is, Google could collapse as quickly as it rose.
I'm only half kidding here. Patent lawyers have replaced Personal Injury lawyers as the scum of the earth. The entire patent system needs to be re-vamped, legislation passed outlawing patent squatting and technology stifling. And a firing squad for the patent lawyers.
Be careful of what you wish for.
Canadians wanted copyright reform and got C-11.
ANDREW RYAN
swap first and last 3 letters
YANREW RAND
scramble first letters
WE R AYN RAND
Ein Volk. Ein Reich. Ayn Rand.
Patents can be obtained when someone invents a novel process or machine that had not been done before... that is what I would have said if you asked me about patents about 30 years ago. Today, patents are obtained by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers. Overwhelming majority of technology patents today are bogus litigation fuel. We all know 100% of all software patents are entirely bogus, yet they are wasting time and money that could go to R&D, instead it's going to the lawyers' pockets.
Computers and their software came this far riding on the skirts of innovation fueled by sharing, competing and communicating. This energy is being tapped today by lawyers who have nothing better to do than to sink their fangs into the arteries of innovation and suck the energy that had been fueling innovation since the 1960's.
Please note that Netscape Navigator had this functionality before the patent was submitted.
Patentus invalidus.
"That don't befront me, as long as I get my money next Friday."
Source: John Lee Hooker, "House Rent Boogie" (later covered by George Thorogood)
Free Martian Whores!
According Barnes and Noble this about open source software in general not just Android. They mention Tomtom and other non-Android device manufacturers. Microsoft is on a campaign to kill open source in the marketplace. More info available here and a damning PDF with lots of juicy information here
Except I submit that if your paying for the product, then you're still the product (and now a bit poorer).
Do you believe that your cable company isn't selling your viewing history? Last time I looked, I was paying them...
Do you believe that your ISP isn't selling your browsing history (if they aren't actively injecting ads into your browsing experience)? Last time I looked, I was paying them...
Do you believe that your grocery store isn't selling your purchase history (unless you're willing to pay 10% more to opt-out of their "we won't screw you if you carry this" card, AND decide not to pay with a trackable (credit/debit card, etc) form of currency)? Last time I looked, I was paying them...
How about Visa/Mastercard/Discover/Amex? Do you believe that they're not data mining as fast as they can? Fortunately, I'm not paying them directly, but many do (and they still have their hands in every transaction).
Deciding to pay for things so that you're not the product is a fools quest... /frank
And the worms ate into his brain.
B&N didn't break an NDA. They signed an NDA covering a single meeting, where the specifics on the patents weren't given. Microsoft then apparently forgot they hadn't signed the same NDA as everyone else and sent them information on the patents.
a lot of editorial comments, branding WP7 as Windows Mobile, and obvious misleading lines. The headers to the patents involved misled me to believe that the patents covered broad UI concepts with huge areas of scope with 15 years of prior art. Patent 5,889,522 for example was stated as claiming "putting known tab controls into an operating system for use by all applications rather than providing tabs on an application-by-application basis."
That sounds wicked general and its a really old UI concept that seems obvious to anyone who switched to Firefox back in the day for exactly that reason. Until you read the actual patent and discover that in reality they are claiming the implementation of the UI SDK framework that comes as part of the OS. Oh yeah, and the patent was filed back in 1994. I'm not sure how many operating systems offered tab-centric UI support in the SDKs for third party apps back then, but I'm thinking prior art will be a little hard to come by, and tabs sure as hell didn't seem like such a duh-concept back before they were ubiquitous, much less a specific object implementation of a tab control in a common UI SDK for the OS.
After reading a few of the actual claims from some of the patents, I stopped wasting my time and discarded the whole patent table. After the TFA came out and stated that Microsoft was pure evil, which was unfortunately at the very end, I felt dirty for having even clicked. What MS is doing may be wrong, and it certainly hinders innovation, but let us not pretend that one company serving its shareholders' interests is going to be evil while another company doing the same damn thing is going to be the Shining White Knight of our fantasy.
People have known for decades that it's sometime useful to give users feedback about something that takes a long time, by displaying a progress meter or at least "Please wait" or "loading" or "initializing the galaxy." When GUIs got popular, displaying it as an icon was natural. When small screens started to get more popular, it became somewhat common to eschew fixed-position widgets in favor of using the entire screen as a "content area" because there was so little to spare for scrollbars, status displays, or whatever.
Yet despite this situation, no one could figure out how to display a loading status icon in a content area. Or at least no one easily could. But then Microsoft Research applied themselves to the problem, and with a lot of insight, experiments, trial and error, hard work, and just plain luck, they figured out how to do it. I've never seen a Microsoft handheld computer, but presumably they used the novel solution in a product. But nobody wanted it, so it died. And Microsoft, too, may some day die.
The secret for how to display a status icon in a content area, could become lost when Microsoft dies. But no. Not willing to let their efforts be buried by the sands of time as a lost trade secret, they took advantage of patent law, which gave them a brief monopoly (a mere 20 years within the millennia that people have been doing mathematics) for which We The Public received public disclosure for how their invention works.
And what did Google and Barnes & Noble do? They renegged on the disclosure-for-monopoly deal!! Instead of having to figure out on their own, how to display a status icon in a content area, they dishonorably read through all of Microsoft patents, learned all the secrets ("aha! That's how to display a status icon, where the icon is in the content area! Ingenious!") and defied the monopoly.
And here you all are, blaming the victim, Microsoft. Yet without Microsoft, would you know how to display an icon inside a content area instead of outside it? Or would you be pounding your keyboards in frustration? "It doesn't compile!" or "It doesn't run right! There's my icon, but it's outside of the content area! How did they do it!" or "There's my icon inside the content area, but WTF, it doesn't say 'Loading'! How is the user supposed to know it's loading something, if I can't figure out how to make the icon say 'Loading'?!" Please, people, think of the inventors and their technical solutions. Without the monopoly, they might not have had any incentive at all, to solve the long-standing mystery.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
That might explain why phone manufactures like Samsung and HTC (who make both Android and Windows phones) are willing to take the deal but B&N is not.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Barnes and Noble did the world a favor and maybe we can all return the favor.
Amazon accepted to pay Microsoft while Barnes and Noble is fighting them over their absurd patents.
At the moment many are wondering whether to buy a Kindle Fire or a Nook Color or Nook Tablet.
I have a Nook Color and I love it.
The stock software is ok and color children books are nice, so I would happily recommend the product to non technical people.
The stock software can also do youtube videos etc.
For me, the killer feature was the micro SD card that is bootable. I put Cyanogenmod on it, got the Google market etc.
This lawsuit makes me want to recommend the Nook to more people. I used to feel the kindle fire was just the same (minus the micro SD so hacking is a bit less friendly).
But if Amazon is paying Microsoft, then buying a Kindle Fire is scoring against the Open Source camp.
Judicious coders are now looking for prior art, and they'll probably find it. But each patent fought will be a battle by itself, cost a lot of money, and more cross-complaints will be filed. This is only the beginning, not the beginning of the end.
This is the knock-down argument for why what Microsoft is doing is illegitimate. If it doesn't matter whether the patents are valid because they have a thousand other patents in their back pocket then you're not paying for a patent license, you're paying protection money against ruinous litigation. You either have to pay up or you have to play Russian roulette with a machine gun where every dud costs you a million bucks in legal fees.
That's the problem with mutually assured destruction. It only works when the entities are the same size. Otherwise it's a war of attrition, so the big guy only needs to force an equal dollar amount of each party's cash into a big pile (called "retainer fees") and then set it all on fire and wait for the little guy to either capitulate or go into bankruptcy. And compared to Microsoft, B&N is the little guy.
It is quite important that these patents are invalidated as soon as possible. Wouldn't it be a good idea to set up a website where people can submit prior art to these specific patents? Perhaps a site where also similar cases like this one can be handled?
No, this is what they cited. This is what's on the table. Yes, there are more, but many may be much more shaky than the ones cited.
Community efforts can get the supporting evidence. It doesn't take money at that point, it takes proper citation of prior art. There's more than BN that want to see this done. Google has likely known which #s were cited, but now it's exposed, and each can be knocked down where prior art can be cited or methods argued. It's just the beginning, but it's another way to get the issues dealt with.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
A patent troll is someone who has patents, not devices. From this point of view, MS is not a patent troll because it has been in the smart phone business before there were smartphones.
Microsoft is a troll because they don't have any sales volume. The problem with trolls is that everybody who makes something is infringing everybody else's patents, which leaves all the producers on the same footing with respect to one another and lets them negotiate a cross-license, but trolls don't make anything. So they have you over a barrel and they can extort whatever they want out of you. And that's what Microsoft is, because even if you had a genuine legitimate patent that WP7 infringes, the damages are based on sales volume and since nobody is buying WP7 devices Microsoft could just shrug it off. Which makes them a troll.
a multi billion patent portfolio and then that?
That was way too many words to say something that should have been much simpler:
A troll is someone infected with the misanthropic attitude that is fostered by the ability to attack without fear of retribution. Therefore, Microsoft is a troll.
So what happens to the companies that have already entered into an agreement with MS?
Now that we know what the patents are, they must feel a bit embarrassed about this?
And if B&N win on this will those other companies be able to get out of their agreements with MS?
Ryans Tutorials - A collection of technology tutorials.
I think Barnes & Noble should get the Nobel Peace Prize.
Google licenses Android for free, because they get paid in different ways and have a strategy that stretches beyond next quarter. They don't have any kind of monopoly in any of their businesses, so the comparison with MSFT of the 90's isn't a great comparison.
It's a little like Mozilla giving Firefox away for free because they get paid in different ways. Should they be stopped because others who want to charge money for the browser can't figure out a way to compete?
Software and process patents are just a way to funnel money from innovators to lawyers.
No it's exactly like Microsoft in the 90's. Netscape was threatening their business by building a layer between the user and the OS so MS decided to cut them off at the feet by offering competing software for free and bind it closely to their moneymaker Windows. Google was concerned Apple was building a layer between them and their customers so they decided to cut Apple off at the feet by offering a competing product for free that was bound closely to their moneymaker services. It's hard to find a closer parallel than that.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Not really, if the sources are available - anyone can disable information gathering.
He presented his opinion. I have more respect for him that people who responded with mod downs and ad hominem attacks. There can be more than one opinion on a discussion board.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Are you really that stupid? Google isn't bundling Android with their search results. As absurd as that sounds, that would be the only way to draw a parallel to ms in the 90's. I know this is Slashdot google hater hour but please have a little intellectual honesty mixed in with the trolling once in a while.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
No, this is what they cited. This is what's on the table. Yes, there are more, but many may be much more shaky than the ones cited.
But that's the problem. Shaky doesn't really matter; it still costs a million dollars to defend from a shaky patent.
And the real problem is the preliminary injunction. The aggressor goes to court with a packet of patents and asks for the victim to be prevented from selling their product while the court is sorting out the infringement. The victim only has a short period of time to prepare a defense to that motion before the judge rules on it, and the patents are presumed valid unless the victim can provide the invalidating evidence right away. If they can't, their product is off the market for a year or more while case is litigated. Even if they ultimately win, it doesn't matter because by then the product is years old and irrelevant to the marketplace.
In the meantime, if they come up with a new product, they get a new lawsuit with a new set of patents and a new injunction. Until they pay the protection money.
Why is it OK for Google to steal their ideas and then give the resulting product away?
Misunderstanding of patents: you can acquire a patent even if you're not the inventor, and you can negotiate (without actually litigating) with it even if there exists prior art that would theoretically invalidate it on the basis of the cost of legal action; two people can invent the same thing independently without looking over each others' shoulders (it's quite common). The fact that company A has a patent for X, and company B does something resembling X, doesn't mean that B has, in any way, stolen from A. In fact, if you want to copy off of someone else's work, patents are possibly the most difficult way of going about it.
The companies involved have plenty of other sources of revenue with which to recoup the costs of developing technologies like the mouseless mouse click. Invalidating patents doesn't mean invalidating software licenses for entire software products, nor does it make hardware sales disappear. They'll be okay, I promise.
Patents were well-intentioned, but not designed to perform to expectations. They still don't protect small inventors. There's no useful definition of "reasonable" license fees. We're moving in the direction of first-to-file, which screws independent inventors who don't constantly troll the patent lists to see if their idea was previously patented.
It's the other way around : Android comes with the Google apps, gmail, calendar, Google search as default, etc. Not to include these apps means you cannot be Android certified. iOS devices still have 55% of mobile internet usage share, Apple could have switched all those users to their own maps, yahoo search or circumvented Google search for Wolfram Alpha as they have done with Siri. So Google built their own platform where their services are the default or it isn't Android.
The principle of the matter is the same :undermine the competition by offering your version, tied to your products for free.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Couldn't have said it better myself. +1 Well Said Thank you.
It's the other way around : Android comes with the Google apps, gmail, calendar, Google search as default, etc.
I cannot believe you just actually wrote that. Google goes so far as to send C and D letters to small time modders to make sure that their proprietary apps are not included without paying up. You basically have it completely backwards. Furthermore you are double clueless as there are quite a few phones that come equipped with Bing as the default search and they are still "Android certified". You are spreading FUD.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Interesting that the slide show is from Cravath Swaine and Moore, the same lawyers IBM hired when tSCOg sued them.
I cannot believe you just actually wrote that. Google goes so far as to send C and D letters to small time modders to make sure that their proprietary apps are not included without paying up.
This is what I said. If you want the full Android experience you have to go through Google.
You basically have it completely backwards. Furthermore you are double clueless as there are quite a few phones that come equipped with Bing as the default search and they are still "Android certified". You are spreading FUD.
I stand corrected. Verizon did in fact make Bing the default on some phones. Seems like biting that hand that feeds you to me though. And it doesn't change the rational Google, in my opinion, had for creating Android in the first place.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Your reality check, while pessimistic, is correct in most regards. Let's say for a moment, that Google still wants to stay in the market. Let's also say that patents as the law is written suck, and that Google also wants to continue its Android business models.
There are a dozen+ Android licensees, most of whom have paid the Microsoft Tax. Microsoft isn't embarrassed about making more money from Android than their own stuff. If you take a dozen licensees, plus Google, and use that as your cost divisor, the net per licensee plus Google plus whomever else wants to get involved is actually not so bad. Is it enough for some patent peace? Probably not. There is some irrationalism involved concerning Jobs' claim that he'd burn $40B to defend his IP in the iPhone/iPad/iJunk.
Although you may believe that the litigation is endless, there is an end, it is finite, and it can be won. The broken NDA brings the light to the matter in a big way. BIG way. Yes, it's only the beginning, and a lot of money needs to be burned, but remember that both sides will be burning it; not quite a wash as consumers will end up paying for a lot of the mess, but so will shareholders.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Er ... ah ... no. It is impossible to steal the idea. It is like saying that, if I place the milk in front of the cheese in the refrigerator because I use it more often, someone stole me idea since they do it too. Of course, to really be on a par with Microsoft, I have to claim it was my idea even though people have been doing it since before I was born ;-)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Maybe we need something like this:
http://thedigitalfirehose.blogspot.com/2011/11/patent-transparency.html
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
My bad. I misread.
You don't have to be a lawyer to file a complaint.
Why can't some well-meaning Fawkes mask owner(s) stage "Operation Toilet Clog" and clog up the judicial system with bogus complaints?
Serious lulz off that one, aye?
did you read the patents.there total bs. i had a felling Microsoft had no real case with weak ass patents rember they tried this bs before with there shadow company sco and the company was destroyed in court. now that we know the so called patents they will also be tore apart in court and probably get more then b&n willing to fight back.and a nda just to talk abought your no called volition is probably illagle on its own.
You'd be amazed at how easily rejection can come. The courts have rules about such things, to prevent trivialities from clogging the gears of justice. Then they can sanction you, and the bailiff can throw you in the can for abuse. If you don't believe me, let me tell you about a park in the lower west side of Manhattan that you won't stay at tonight. Not my choice, rather, civility is exercised in strange ways when you're the 99%.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Patent lawyers have replaced Personal Injury lawyers as the scum of the earth.
Why are you insulting ambulance chasers like that?
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
This seems like a really foolish thing for a convicted monopoly to do.
Microsoft started it's Android patent protection program in full, and their judicial oversight just ended Both events are April 2011... clearly coincidence and happenstance.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
I'm only half kidding here. Patent lawyers have replaced Personal Injury lawyers as the scum of the earth. The entire patent system needs to be re-vamped, legislation passed outlawing patent squatting and technology stifling. And a firing squad for the patent lawyers.
Someone had this on their .sig here a while back.. "behind every sleazy lawyer is a sleazy client"... if you don't get rid of the funding, there will always be more lawyers.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
I'm only half kidding here. Patent lawyers have replaced Personal Injury lawyers as the scum of the earth. The entire patent system needs to be re-vamped, legislation passed outlawing patent squatting and technology stifling. And a firing squad for the patent lawyers.
Be careful of what you wish for.
Canadians wanted copyright reform and got C-11.
Sorry, I'm not understanding the relationship between "copyright reform" and "the Balanced Refugee Reform Act". It would appear that C-11 is related to immigration, not copyright reform?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft has held back the progress of computing by possibly some 15 years from what we could have now...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
... is the same day M$ starts marching towards oblivion
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Find the actual names of the USPTO employees that approved these patents. I'm betting they no longer work there, having long retired to the tropical island they were somehow able to purchase in cash. I'm serious here.
Huh? Freeware, Open Source? I'm the product?
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Just curious - since Android uses Linux as its kernel, is this list of patents representative of the "best" that MS has as claims against Linux? I.e., are these the best of the famed 237 patents Ballmer claimed that Linux violates? If so ... that's, uh, pretty weak.
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh
Although you provide a compelling argument. There are a couple of facts that you overlook here
Unless he's Paul Thurrott of winsupersite.com, he just copied and pasted somebody else. Instead of being clear about that upfront, he just linked to it at the very end.
>Sorry, I'm not understanding the relationship between "copyright reform" and "the Balanced Refugee Reform Act". It would appear that C-11 is related to immigration, not copyright reform?
In Canada we reset the bill numbering after a federal elections.
You referenced bill C-11 of the 40th (previous) parliament.
I was talking about bill C-11 of the 41st parliament (the current one).
Confusing, eh?
My touch pad on my old laptop is older than the 2004 patent.
Hmmm....
I guess I need to read the rest of the patent.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.