Slashdot Mirror
ITC Judge: Motorola Mobility Infringed Microsoft Patent
chrb writes "An International Trade Commission judge has issued a preliminary ruling that Motorola Mobility infringed one of Microsoft's patents. The disputed patent covers storing a meeting request on a mobile device, and was rejected by the European Patent Office as being 'obvious.' The judge also ruled that six other Microsoft patents were not being infringed. Experts say that this will strengthen Microsoft's hand in collecting patent fees on Android. Microsoft recently claimed that it now collects patent fees on over half of all Android devices sold."
The European Patent Office was right.
Let all those Android device makers under several patent assaults from the like of Microsoft and the like do this:
Remove the "infringing" functionality from your phones but create publicity that the features are available through an extension-like add-on like similar to Firefox or Google's Chrome browser.
Then let's see who these patent litigants will sue. How about that?
Both of those are evasions at best, and very ugly examples of media spin.
This decision is exactly the opposite of success for Microsoft.
Just another example of Slashdot astroturf from the acknowledged masters, I guess.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
It is quite easy to get preliminary injunctions. But that doesn't mean a thing. Microsoft is trying to bully competitors into licensing of their trivial patents. A dying software empire.
MS and also Apple think their trollish patent practices will strengthen them, but it is already apparent this whole patent bullying of late is turning into one big PR nightmare.
It makes waves over at Facebook and Twitter. For example lots of former Apple drones and die-hard fans are now turning away from the once idolized company. Open and friendly competition is gaining traction (the green robot stamped devices come to mind) because of this bad behavior. You accumulate patents to prevent Texan patent troll to abuse you, that is fine, but you can't use them offensively to prevent market entry for others, specifically using broadly applicable text hyperlink patent or some other creepy software pantent, that is just plain evil.
They are facing the very real reality that Windows 8 will flop. Tens of thousands of PC's are being replaced with ipads both at home, and in the enterprise.
Windows 7 and Windows 8 are not going to disappear until desktops and laptops disappear. How likely is that?
Enterprise lives and dies by spreadsheets, MS Word documents, custom software tools, and expensive 3rd party applications. Those are not manageable on "mobile devices." Besides, why an enterprise would want its workers to work while mobile? Most of them are hired specifically to sit in cubicles and work, not to relax in bars. Most work can't even be taken out of the company.
I suggest you objectively compare even the N900 from a few years ago versus a current Nokia phone with WP7 and then get back to me about whether it is a great OS or not. It's a huge step backwards for Nokia let alone comparing it to other vendors.
Even the reviews that sing the praises of WP7 go on about how it "holds promise for the future" which looks to me to trying very hard to say something good about it without anything concrete to suggest.
You totally miss the implications of his post (possibly because he forgot to add the phrase "all of" to "Once all of the patents are identified"). Just because Microsoft decided to use X numbers of patents against Motorola doesn't mean they don't have another Y waiting in line for the next court case. So your quoted source makes no difference.
Since there is no legal way to require Microsoft to reveal all of the patents they think might infringe on Android, his post is, rather than FUD, merely fantasy. The fact that it is fantasy showcases a major problem with the patent system. The law should be that if someone pays licensing fees, they can require the party they are paying to reveal all of their patents which they feel are infringed (by that particular technology), and any patents which are not revealed are automatically rendered toothless (against that particular technology), even against third parties. (Now I'm fading into fantasy... <sigh/>)
> no one has resources to track down all the reasons why they are crap, and sue Microsoft over each and every of them.
You also missed a second major problem with his post: there is no legal penalty for filing an invalid patent. Or at least, for all practical purposes.