Slashdot Mirror


B&N Pummels Microsoft Patent Claims With Prior Art

itwbennett writes "As Slashdot readers will recall, Barnes & Noble is being particularly noisy about the patents Microsoft is leveraging against the Nook. Now the bookseller has filed a supplemental notice of prior art that contains a 43-page list of examples it believes counters Microsoft's claim that Nook violates five of Microsoft's patents. 'The list of prior art for the five patents that Microsoft claims the Nook infringes is very much a walk down memory lane,' says Brian Proffitt. 'The first group of prior art evidence presented by Barnes & Noble for U.S. Patent No. 5,778,372 alone lists 172 pieces of prior art' and 'made reference to a lot of technology and people from the early days of the public Internet... like Mosaic, the NCSA, and (I kid you not) the Arena web browser. The list was like old home week for the early World Wide Web.'"

77 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. First post! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

    This post is prior art to everything else in this discussion!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:First post! by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why worry about prior art? Just patent it and then sue posters who can't afford to fight your lawyers.

    2. Re:First post! by Aryden · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not according to the MAFIAA. $0 dollars earned by you means millions lost by them that you owe...

  2. Why did everyone else pay? by oic0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If it was this easy to beat them and the prior art was that apparent, why did everyone else bow down and pay to troll his toll?

    1. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I suspect in large part because most companies' lawyers basically tell them "Paying the licensing fee is cheaper and surer means to an end than fighting." So far as I can tell, it basically amounts to a vast conspiracy of legal departments on both sides of the fence.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They haven't beaten them, they still need to draaaaag this through the courts, which MS will certainly ensure this is very very costly and last for years. I.e. even though MS are likely to be full of shit, they have a bigger cash pile than almost anyone else which will ensure most companies don't try to fight it, and take the easy licensing options. In legal terms, it's called a shake-down. The mafia used it rather well.

    3. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most of them were cell phone makers who were, while paying to make Android phones, getting a bigger stipend to develop Windows Phone 7 phones.
      B&N has no interesting in making WP7 based tablet. They choose Android because it was a fairly mature, stable, and most importantly, FREE.

    4. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Probably because the other companies asked their lawyers, who looked at how my MS could spend in court and said 'it's cheaper to settle', while B&N asked their developers who looked at the patents and said 'haha! These patents are ridiculous!' I doubt many companies employ lawyers who have the ability to judge the merits of the patents, which is part of the reason why patent trolling is so lucrative: the people making the decision to pay are lawyers and CxOs who will assume that a granted patent means a valid patent.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because they're device manufacturers. They're used to this sort of patent abuse; they pay the $10 or whatever and move on with life. I mean, they're doing it for their WP7 phones, it's not like $10 will destroy the handset's profit margin.

      B&N, on the other hand, is a bookstore. They picked Android specifically so they wouldn't have to pay a license fee on every device they sell, especially not to someone who had nothing to do with it. They have a legal team that's used to dealing with IP issues; they're a bookstore, IP stuff comes up from time to time. They're not used to being pushed around like this; they're usually the ones doing the pushing around against publishers. They aren't going to just lay back and put up with it.

    6. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

      I just hope Google will stand behing B&N on this one and provide the much need help. Google could push MS down without putting much of a dent in their cash.

    7. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by HarrySquatter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah because companies like Samsung and HTC never stand up to patent bullying. Oh wait, they do (see Apple countersuits).

    8. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The issue always is time and money. Battling crap patents held by large companies like Microsoft will take years and cost a significant amount of money. Even if you win and somehow manage to get damages, they won't cover the whole bill, and you've spent two or three or even more years in a sort of limbo. You can readily understand why many manufacturers have just said "Fuck it" and paid Microsoft to go away. I'm amazed that B&N is fighting this, because I cannot imagine their lawyers were advising them that this was the way to go.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      all microsoft wants is money.

      Apple doesn't care about money from patent suits, they are out to see the their competitors burn.

    10. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's only because Apple isn't interested in settling -- the only relief that Apple is seeking is to remove Android from the market.

    11. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by SomePgmr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Someone else suggested it's because they're handset makers that also have WinMo devices (or expect to, at some point).

      B&N, otoh, wouldn't care. They're not in the business of making phones.

      Though I admit that's a bit conspiratorial. And you'd think Google would've fired first...?

    12. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by reimero · · Score: 4, Informative

      Essentially it went down like this:
      MS> Android infringes some of our patents, but if you pay our fee, you can use it.
      Potential licensee> What patents does Android infringe?
      MS> You'll need to sign an NDA for further discussion.

      Companies sign the NDA, and then they're legally obligated not to comment on the specific patents. Microsoft likely doesn't actually expect to win this one. Microsoft expects to send a message that they're willing to enter costly litigation, which would likely be more expensive and more of a hassle than simply paying the licensing fee.

      --

      ----------

      Something clever
    13. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do they not cover Kipling in law school? They should.

      It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
          To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
      "We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
          Unless you pay us cash to go away."

      And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
          And the people who ask it explain
      That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
          And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

      It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
          To puff and look important and to say: --
      "Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
          We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

      And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
          But we've proved it again and again,
      That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
          You never get rid of the Dane.

      It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
          For fear they should succumb and go astray;
      So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
          You will find it better policy to say: --

      "We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
          No matter how trifling the cost;
      For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
          And the nation that pays it is lost!"

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    14. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by inode_buddha · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not true. The rules of evidence in civil cases require both parties to bring everything they have to the table. They can't ramp it up later on in the suit. Although they may be able to start a different suit after this one is over. Watch closely and see how the judge enforces this. It's going on right now in Oracle vs Google.

      --
      C|N>K
    15. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      samsung and htc both manufacture ms platforms.

      they get the money fed back to them.

      and htc in particular is an old friend of ms, they manufactured almost all windows mobile phones(even those that were sold under qtek, jasjar etc brands) and probably were in bed with ms in dev side to some extent.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    16. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by oakgrove · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sure its possible but then again, what isn't? I hope they bring whatever they have. Barnes and Nobles' lawyers are blowing holes through the current ones like a crackhead chihuahua with a Gattling gun. Send more so we can either invalidate or code around those too. The last thing MS wants is real transparency.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    17. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by javakah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not necessarily. It sounded like there was a pretty strict NDA in place. I wouldn't be surprised if it was to keep Google from knowing what the alleged infringing patents were, so Google may not have had a chance to really fight this.

    18. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem is if B&N wins, then everyone else who has had these bandied at them has a countersuit to recover the costs already paid under false pretenses. If MS brings NEW patents, then people will be inclined to look for prior art because fuck, it worked for B&N.

    19. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not signing an NDA because I'm being sent a Cease and Desist about shit that I'm not being informed about. You can't C&D me without telling me what you want me to C&D. When you raise lawsuit, I will tell the judge that you refused to inform me on what was the problem, and so I declined to enter in legal contracts under vague threats.

    20. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well if they get into a knock down drag out fight with Microsoft and WP7 and or W8 tablets catch on they could be in big trouble. Samsung also makes PCs and laptops. They really don't want to make Microsoft angry.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    21. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by poetmatt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Doesn't matter.

      This is public, not under seal. This will have effects that reach far, far beyond this single case.

      The strongest patents Microsoft can bring to bear would also suddenly become their biggest and dumbest decision. Why?

      Can you imagine how much effort would be dedicated to invalidating them? Hint: a lot.

    22. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by c++0xFF · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Good news! If I'm reading Groklaw correctly, Google's starting to get involved.

      I think the reason Google hasn't really been involved before is because Microsoft hasn't been attacking them directly. And because companies have just been rolling over, Google hasn't had a chance to back anybody up.

      Google will become involved now that someone is planting their feet, hopefully.

    23. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by c++0xFF · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe a partnership between B&N and Google Books?

    24. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by icebike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I suspect in large part because most companies' lawyers basically tell them "Paying the licensing fee is cheaper and surer means to an end than fighting." So far as I can tell, it basically amounts to a vast conspiracy of legal departments on both sides of the fence.

      Also a possible reason is that B&N is a US company and could go directly after Microsoft in a court of its choice. HTC, Samsung, et al may have subsidiaries here but they are headquartered elsewhere and can't directly access US courts as easily.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    25. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by c++0xFF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And in the meantime, the patents they bring out will probably be invalidated.

      Well, that certainly explains why the patents they're using in this suit are so laughable. Disposable ammunition.

    26. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      all microsoft wants is money.

      Apple doesn't care about money from patent suits, they are out to see the their competitors burn.

      Microsoft does not care about money. At best they will only obtain 1/3 of the license fees, the rest go to Nokia and the canadian patent troll MOSAID.

      Microsoft wants to make it prohibitively expensive to produce any Android phone.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    27. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by Riceballsan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most likely the way Microsoft cut deals with everyone. I believe the rumor is that microsoft tells the phone manufacturers every dollar they spend on the android patents, will come back to them in free WP8 licenses/marketing for windows phones etc... So basically for the other companies the options are A. Spend money on invalidating it, receive no refund, B. Spend money on something you don't need, get it all back. More or less without fighting they lose nothing unless WP8 completely fails to sell at all. Think of it as if you had a utility company, the electic company says you need to pay them $20 a month for your internet access they don't provide, but they will subtract $20 from your power bill. Does it matter to you? B&N and Amazon would be the few companies that have motivation to fight it, Microsoft has nothing to offer them unless B&N wants to make a windows powered reader later on as well.

    28. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by rkhalloran · · Score: 4, Informative

      The difference between the B&N case and the various handset/tablet makers is that the latter can just add the MS danegeld to the consumers' final bill, where for B&N the Nook is simply an 'enabler' for their main business of selling you reading materials. They want to hold down the cost to hook you easier and recoup their costs quicker. Why pay royalties to MS on what B&N sees as basically a digital shopping bag?

    29. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by Jeng · · Score: 5, Insightful

      B&N's brick and mortar stores are going to close up and blow away.

      B&N knows that they have to start distributing their titles via electronic means. This is their future, if they just rolled over they may as give up and declare bankruptcy.

      So they have a chance if they are successful, but fucked if they don't, so they must try or die.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    30. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by GNious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is if B&N wins, then everyone else who has had these bandied at them has a countersuit to recover the costs already paid under false pretenses.

      Wouldn't MS have had a chance (and incentives) to include a clause against this (counter-suit) in the license-agreement they've made the other companies sign?
      I.e., "Though the patents are valid and the party is in violation, the party waiver all right to bring suit to reclaim any license-fee, should the patents be proven invalid, or the party shown to, in fact, not be in violation" ...

    31. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by Tomato42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      HTC is selling phones with Windows, Samsung is selling computers with Windows, B&N is not selling hardware with MS soft on it. Do the math.

    32. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by strength_of_10_men · · Score: 5, Funny

      Screw the patents! Where can I get a crackhead chihuahua with a Gattling gun?!

    33. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by Tharsman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They know that wont stop Android manufacturers.

      What they want is for Android to lose it's "free" advantage by encoumbering it with patent licesning costs.

      They dont want it to fail off their own merits, just to lose that advantage. A world were some one can get a user friendly OS for free is a world that scares Microsoft. Was true with Linux despite it not being too user friendly, and is even more so with Android, due to it being much more user friendly.

    34. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by Jeng · · Score: 4, Informative

      And when MP-3's came along the music stores didn't shut down.

      Well, actually they did.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    35. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      "It's not like the CEO is personally attending to every mundane court case out there."
      true, but they should.
      We would see a lot fewer of these cases.
      If corporations are people, and they are accusing me of a crime, don't I have the right to see my accuser? so really, the majority shareholder should have to be there as well.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    36. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by hedwards · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No that's not how they work. Right now those patents are valid and enforceable, B&N is challenging them, but until they're declared to be invalid any settlements are legitimate. The USPTO decides whom to grant patents to and as long as MS owns those patents that the USPTO granted they can't be sued for using them to get settlements.

    37. Re:Why did everyone else pay? by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Right, because $5 extra dollars on a $200+ purchase makes it "prohibitively expensive".

      Citation needed.
      Nobody has yet stated the actual cost per handset.

      Mostly because Microsoft stipulates in contract that they must NOT reveal EITHER the patents they are licensing
      OR the actual dollar value.

      The second part is par for the course, but refusing to allow the licensees to specify EXACTLY which patents they
      are licensing is very very suspect.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  3. Bill Gates, visionary by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Much was made of Bill Gates failure to recognise the prominent role the Web would play when he rolled out his book(!) The Road Ahead. Not to surprised the company seems to go around blinkered. Though much of the IP they're claiming is not used for visionary purposes, as this assault on Android illustrates, it's venal.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  4. Fraud by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I find it inconceivable that Microsoft's technologists did not know of this prior art. Since patent law requires that prior art be disclosed at the time the patent application is filed, and not doing so is a violation of law sometimes turned patent fraud, I think the DOJ should go after these rat bastards for these violations.

    1. Re:Fraud by Desler · · Score: 3, Informative

      You mean except for the fact that the patent in the summary DOES mention a number of examples of the claimed prior art in its background section? For example, it specifically mentions Mosiac in it. So what fraud do you mean?

    2. Re:Fraud by Salamander · · Score: 3, Informative

      It probably has something to do with the difference between claims and description in a patent application. Claims are the part that matter. Often the claims are constructed so they *just barely* pass the obviousness test, e.g. by taking two ideas that are too obvious by themselves, but combining them in a way that's less obvious. The description can then be far more general, and is often shared between many patents, but that doesn't affect the validity of the claims *at all*. To determine the validity of a patent you have to look very carefully at what is being claimed, and only refer to the description as background to understand the claims.

      Disclaimer: IANAL and I don't give legal advice. I've just been through this nearly a dozen times.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
    3. Re:Fraud by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, except workers at the patent office have been explicitly told that it is not their job to look at prior art, that it is up to the courts to decide. This was largely in an effort to get through their enormous backlog more quickly, but any idiot could have seen that it was going to lead to abuse. Incidentally, if you're an engineer looking for a good job, I know when I graduated USPTO was recruiting heavily, they'd even put you through law school if you specialized in patent law.

    4. Re:Fraud by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, except workers at the patent office have been explicitly told that it is not their job to look at prior art, that it is up to the courts to decide. This was largely in an effort to get through their enormous backlog more quickly, but any idiot could have seen that it was going to lead to abuse.

      Holy crap. That explains what I am seeing. In one patent that I will have to fight against, the diagrams were of something that was sold back in the 60-70's. You could tell that she had seen it and simply put it down as a patent. For the life of me, I could not image how ANYBODY would pass that, unless they had never seen it themselves (which was impossible since many homes had this). And in each of these cases, I saw that the engineers were likely foreign raised (china specifically). But an order like that, would make as much sense as well.

      Thank you for the information. But what a fucking PITA. Now, I will have to deal with GD lawyers and courts. That is in NOBODY best interest.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:Fraud by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was having a similar conversation with one of our Patent Attorney's the other day. We wanted to file something, but the landscape analysis deemed there may be prior art. His advice, don't worry about it, it'll cost more for someone to challenge and highly unlikely that they'll waste their time. Sadly, we went ahead and filed and didn't worry about it, contrary to my request for a better legal opinion.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
  5. Different corporate culture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have to wonder if because B&N are from a different field, where the BS of software patents isn't prevalent, that they're approaching this with a more reasoned perspective than traditional tech. companies do. That is, most software is pretty much the same fucking thing as 20 years ago, and letting people patent shit for tacking on the phrase "on the internet" or "on a tablet" is fucking ridiculous. Thus they have a huge laundry list of examples. Then again, it could be pure naiveté and a losing strategy, as judges are generally even more inept at making reasoned assessments of technology than the utterly incompetent and over-burdened patent clerks, and might do better with only a few examples.

    Or perhaps this just stems from B&N not having the same paradoxical "we hate software patents because they hurt us but love them because they let us bully others" attitude of say Google or MS or Apple. Either way, fight the good fight B&N. You'll probably lose, but you're right.

    1. Re:Different corporate culture? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know if there is anything beyond the fact that B&N doesn't want to go forward with someone perpetually having a hand in their pocket. I'll wager their lawyers are screaming bloody murder about this, and certainly as a short-term strategy, it's probably better just to pay Microsoft's extortion demands, but in the long-term, if you trash Microsoft's crap patents, you deny them any involvement in your affairs.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  6. Perfect move by B&N by future+assassin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Looks like they did their homework and so did their lawers. Even if they were not to win this is a HUGE way to attract customers to their hardware/online stores especially when they win. You couldn't get a more massive good will gesture then this especially before christmas shopping holiday.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  7. Please can we do this to Apple too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Come on Samsung, and Google. Patents were supposed to spur innovation, not squash competition. The system is broken.

  8. What about the others? by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This will sound dumb, but what about the other companies that cut deals with MS? Can they back out of it and sue MS? It would be interesting to see law suits started against MS again, but this time, make it in multiple nations.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  9. Nooks for the Holidays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

    That's it, everyone in my family gets a Nook this year.

    Anyone care to recommend the Simple Touch, Color, or Tablet and the pro's and con's? Links to good reviews are sufficient.

    1. Re:Nooks for the Holidays by Daetrin · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Simple Touch is great if your primary interest is an eReader. My girlfriend just got one and it works great for that. Using Calibre i was even able to transfer over a little more than half the books she'd already bought from Amazon on her phone. (I'm still looking into how to handle the rest of the books.)

      On the other hand if you want a more tablet like experience you should go with the Color or Tablet. Given the marginal price difference i think the Tablet is the best buy. It's probably a tough decision for those who already have a Color to decide whether to upgrade or not, but that doesn't seem to be where you're at. In both cases it seems like "rooting" it is a simple case of installing Cyanogen on a SD card and plugging it in, something i think most people on Slashdot can probably handle.

      Here's one review i found though it's focused more on the differences between the Nook Tablet and the Amazon Kindle Fire, and gloomily predicting that the Kindle will overshadow despite the Nook's superior hardware.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  10. Re:Why were other companies so lazy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My guess is: Many patent disputes are settled with cross licensing deals. "Let me use your pantents and you can use mine." B&N is not a tech company so they don't have many chips to bring to this game. This gives them a stronger incentive to fight the patents.

  11. With news from opera by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Funny

    With news from opera that they have duplicated the faster than light neutrinos does that mean that future art is now as valid a defense as prior art?

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  12. Incompetence by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    More to the point, anyone skilled in the art should have know of such things - including any competent patent reviewer.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Incompetence by suutar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and there we find the problem. Competent patent reviewers (especially in the numbers needed) cost more than the PTO can afford, especially with Congress siphoning off much of their revenue (from patent applications). So you get either too few good ones or many not-so-good ones, and either way they can't handle the workload.

  13. Re:Prior art, Who cares. by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First off, not for another year. However, prior art STILL matters. You can not patent what you did not invent.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  14. "Prior art" does not mean what you think it does by Theaetetus · · Score: 5, Informative
    Prior art is any publication (or product) that is in the relevant industry (i.e. "art") that is "prior". That's it... That something is prior art doesn't mean it invalidates the patent. To invalidate a patent claim, you need to find either one piece of prior art that anticipates the claim - i.e. discloses, either explicitly or inherently, each and every element in the claim; or find a combination of multiple pieces of prior art that, in combination, teaches or suggests each and every feature of the claim (thus showing that the claim would be obvious to one with access to the art that existed at the time of filing).

    So, yes, everything listed by B&N is prior art, but it's not necessarily all art that anticipates Microsoft's patents, or even necessarily renders them obvious. This is merely a list of prior art generated by a keyword search... B&N hasn't yet said which piece or pieces of art, alone or in combination, teach or suggest each element of the claims. In fact, they explicitly note that some of the references Moreover, while the prior art references listed below are categorized by patent-in-suit, the references listed relate "to the general knowledge".

    Basically, it's a bit premature to claim that the list counters the patents. It may, once they've been mapped to the claims, but until then, it's just a list of art.

  15. Why isn't B&N in Europe? by AftanGustur · · Score: 4, Interesting
    My wife wants a e-reader and when I saw what the new B&N Nook Reader can do I wanted to buy two. But it appears that B&N doesn't do business in Europe..

    So, sorry B&N, you would have gotten 2 new customers if you would just sell your books and stuff to Europe.

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
  16. There is more, no MS license by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All the other tech companies are used to dealing with Microsoft itself as partner, either for a product or in commitee. B&N probably has no relationship with MS other then as an end customer of Windows. Now that alone is enough to fuel a bitter hatred.

    But basically, B&N has nothing to loose. If they loose they have to pay the same fee as if they didn't. It is not as if MS can hurt them in any other way.

    Meanwhile MS has in one move ruined ALL its attempts to appear as if it wasn't the old evil MS anymore. The MS apologists who claim MS is no longer against openess or unwilling to play fair... well... they got to crawl back under the rock they came from and claim that this time MS Mobile Windows Phone Gazillion will be it!

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:There is more, no MS license by Junta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But basically, B&N has nothing to loose. If they loose they have to pay the same fee as if they didn't. It is not as if MS can hurt them in any other way.

      Well, they do have something to lose. If they lose, Microsoft will seek a more drastic action. I think the assumption is they feel confident they can win, and if other companies reached the same conclusion that they could 'win' in court, they would still 'lose' on their business relationship.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  17. gates is the most overrated idiot going. by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, gates has a false legacy all around him. For starters, he was not the one that picked DOS. IBM did. Later on, Gates bought the rights to Unix, merged it with DOS and then sold Xenix on 286s. When it had zero performance, it was others that pointed out how foolish he was. ANother set of employees had to convince him to stick with DOS and skip Xenix. Then gates ran around screaming that 640K was more than enough. The net we all know about. I mean it continues on and on and on. The man was NOT that bright. Just in the right places at the right time, with the right ppl.

    Sadly, since MS has such a dearth of talent (esp. with that idiot balmer), they have to resort to illegal tactics.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  18. Re:Follow up should be by mooingyak · · Score: 5, Informative

    MS and Apple are nothing but patent trolls, no matter how the apologists want to spin it.

    Microsoft and Apple both produce actual products, while the standard definition of a patent troll is usually a corporation whose entire business is licensing and/or suing others while producing no products of their own.

    MS and Apple are trying to use their patents to make competing products prohibitively expensive. Also reprehensible, but a distinct activity from patent trolling.

    --
    William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  19. The Android Patent Pool by TrueSpeed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google should make a change to their Android licensing terms. If you want a licence to the Google services or to even use Android commercially you must allow your patent portfolio to be used to defend the Android OS. With other companies in collusion and forming patent pools to attack Android this seems the best solution to smack down these patent trolls.

  20. Re:Follow up should be by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think that Apple's using their patents on grounds of competition.

    I think Steve was so genuinely butthurt over the Android backstab by Schmidt that's it's personal; not professional.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  21. Re:Follow up should be by certain+death · · Score: 4, Funny

    Correction - MS and Apple both PAY CHINESE to produce actual products. There, fixed that for ya.

    --
    "My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
  22. Re:Follow up should be by icebike · · Score: 5, Informative

    MS and Apple are trying to use their patents to make competing products prohibitively expensive. Also reprehensible, but a distinct activity from patent trolling.

    Except when you follow the links and read the article (I Know, I know) you see that trolling is exactly what is going on here.
    Microsoft is trolling by proxy, using MOSAID in Canada as a non-practicing third party holder of these patents.

    They (MOSAID) specifically state that they can't be counter sued for infringements because all they do is license patents
    that Microsoft purchased from Nokia and deposited with MOSAID (after assigning themselves a free license to use them).
    MOSAID does not practice these patents. They fit perfectly your definition of a TROLL.

    Further Microsoft themselves don't practice most of these patents either, because they don't make phones. But because they licensed
    these patents they are attempting to use them as a club to beat Android. So Troll again.

    Nokia, not party to this action, retained a license when they sold these patents to Microsoft and their sock puppet MOSAID. They practice all of these patents, and therefore have stayed out of the way and kept their mouth shut on this issue.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  23. For Those Interested In The Product by hercubus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Nook Tablet (unrooted) is slightly more open than the Kindle Fire (unrooted)

    Some links:

    My takeaway is if you have your gold geek card, get the Fire (less money) and root it. If you're less adventuresome, get the Nook for more openness, but get an micro-SD card or you're stuck with only 1GB of free memory.

    --
    -- How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.
  24. Re:Stability by laederkeps · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wait a minute. Barnes and Noble (founded 1873) "isn't stable, might not exist in 5 years"? When compared to companies like HTC (1997) or Google (1998)?

  25. Re:Follow up should be by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not to mention for MSFT this really is a "heads I win, tails you lose' situation. think about it, what is the worst that will happen for MSFT? In a couple of years, maybe more as the case drags on and on AND ON those 5 patents get invalidated. The cost to MSFT? Not really anything, their lawyers are on the payroll and the court fees will be a joke. What do they gain? Well they have already made lots of money off of Android licensees, which BTW won't be affected at all by this since their contract was access to MSFT's patents not just these 5, so their contracts will still be upheld.

    So while I have always said software patents shouldn't have been allowed in the first place it was actually a shrewd move on the part of MSFT. They probably scared some away from Android, others they got paid just like they were selling WinPhone, I bet if one looks at the final numbers MSFT will have made a pretty damned nice profit without having to sell a single unit. Man I wish i could get paid for nothing like that, must be nice.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  26. Re:Follow up should be by Tharsman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bit of a derrail here but an interesting point on Job's biography is that Jobs wanted to manufacture their products here, but no one was able to get the high numbers of entry level engeniers needed to operate the factories. He personally told Obama disapointing education standards are to blame. He even stated he was not talking about engeniers with BAs, simply vocational school levels of engeniering education. (Certain regulations were also blamed but only as delay factors, not roadblocks.)

    It is sad when China beats us at a contract not due to cheap labor, but due to higher numbers of educated workforce.

    Anyways, back to patent trolling!

  27. Re:Follow up should be by walterbyrd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    for MSFT this really is a "heads I win, tails you lose' situation

    Unless msft gets sued back. Google shareholders just voted to allow Google to aquire Motorola Mobility. That will give Google a nice patent arsenal.

    It's possible that Google (and others) are getting fed up with msft's patent-parasite attacks on Android. Paybacks can be a bitch.

  28. Re:Follow up should be by painandgreed · · Score: 4, Informative

    Correction - MS and Apple both PAY CHINESE to produce actual products. There, fixed that for ya.

    Correction to the correction - MS and Apple both pay the US, Japan, Korea, Germany, and several others for actual products which are all shipped to China where a Taiwanese company is paid to have the Chinese assemble them together.

  29. Re:Follow up should be by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think Steve was so genuinely butthurt over the Android backstab by Schmidt that's it's personal; not professional.

    I'm glad he was finally able to get over it.

    --
    Have you got your LWN subscription yet?