Slashdot Mirror


LG To Pay Licensing Fees To Microsoft For Using Android

PerlJedi writes "InformationWeek reports that LG is the latest in a string of companies who have been bullied into paying 'license fees' to Microsoft for the use of Android on their products. 'Microsoft said the deal with LG means that 70% of Android-based smartphones sold in the U.S. are now covered by its licensing program. ... Microsoft does not disclose how much revenue it's obtaining from Android, Chrome, and Linux licenses, but some analysts believe it may be substantial, to the point where the company is making significant profits from the mobile revolution even though its own offering, Windows Phone, commands a market share of less than 2%, according to Gartner.'"

87 of 359 comments (clear)

  1. I'm honestly confused... by iapetus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In what way is this different to any other form of extorting money with menaces?

    "Nice mobile phone business you've got here. Would be a shame if anything were to... happen to it."

    --
    ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
    Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    1. Re:I'm honestly confused... by shentino · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The fact that the regulators are on the take with bribes perhaps?

      Remember that lobbying has an ROI of %22,000

    2. Re:I'm honestly confused... by zero.kalvin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is it me or Microsoft is behaving like some sort of a successful patent troll ?

    3. Re:I'm honestly confused... by RobertLTux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the bribes came in when "somebody" bribed the patent office to allow the actually invalid patents to be issued

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    4. Re:I'm honestly confused... by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm confused also, I thought Android was a Google product but apparently MS owns the patent?

    5. Re:I'm honestly confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's extortion because if you asked them exactly what Patents you are licensing they will refuse to tell you, unless you pay first, and sign an NDA.

      So it's basically,
      "Buy this box"
      "Can I see what's in the box?"
      "No"
      "How about pick it up and shake it a bit?"
      "No"
      "Well, I don't want to buy it then"
      "Ok, see you in court"
      "Hang on a minute, maybe I will buy it then"
      "OK, but before you do, please sign this NDA, we don't want you telling any other mug, sorry future customers, what's in the box"
      "That doesn't sound very fair"
      "Ok, see you in court then"

    6. Re:I'm honestly confused... by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OK, I should RTFA article before commenting. MS is claiming that "certain components of Android and Chrome OS violate its patents" and therefore they have the right to charge license fees. Now I'm confused as to why Google hasn't taken MS to court to settle this one way or another.

    7. Re:I'm honestly confused... by SharkLaser · · Score: 3, Funny

      the bribes came in when "somebody" bribed the patent office to allow the actually invalid patents to be issued

      [Citation needed] Microsoft has a huge R&D division, larger than any other company in the industry has. Their patents are invalid, they're good patents given after lots of research. Microsoft spends billions a year to do it, so it's only fair that other companies pay up if they want to profit from the results of Microsoft's R&D.

    8. Re:I'm honestly confused... by zero.kalvin · · Score: 2

      I am not saying they don't do R&D. But it seem to me that they are spending more and more time "extorting" money from others.

    9. Re:I'm honestly confused... by paiute · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft isn't patent troll. They do actual research and spend billions a year on Microsoft Research. No one else in the industry has such an good R&D department. Patent trolls don't do research, they just bully companies. Microsoft is within all their rights to ask for payments on their patents, because they actually do lots of research.

      Microsoft must have the most inefficient R&D process in history if they are such a good department doing such a lot of work yet none of it seems to make much of a difference in the end products.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    10. Re:I'm honestly confused... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, I'm sure Microsoft totally bribed the patent office because it's not like the patent office will just rubber stamp _anything_ anyway.

      Your dweeby neckbeard fantasies are amusing to me.

    11. Re:I'm honestly confused... by jdgeorge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I imagine there are several possiblities including the following:

      1. Microsoft really has some defensible patents that are essential for these device manufacturers. Could be hardware-related or software-related. It's hard to tell, but so far the agreements have all been with hardware companies, haven't they?
      2. Microsoft is offering reasonable licensing terms to the device makers, so the licensing agreement costs significantly less than the cost of litigating.
      3. Microsoft may be using these negotiations to advance their Windows Phone OS goals, along with #2.
      4. The manufacturers entering these agreements don't already have agreements with Microsoft, but actually want to do business with Microsoft in the mobile device or other areas (personal computers, TVs, etc.)
      5. These manufacturers don't have the patent resources to play hardball.
      6. Some combination of the above.

    12. Re:I'm honestly confused... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2

      Ask what the "certain components" are or wat patents are violated and you get no answer.

      And I personally don't considering "patent every little idea that has been in OSes forever" good R&D, though it may be proftiable since you apparently can extort money from others because of it.

      Yeah.. thanks to the Obama admin. patents have been "fixed." Instead they just approve them faster than ever. This type of idiocy is just going to accelerate.

      I.P. law was not intended to become a weapon, it was intended for the fair sharing of NEW ideas. It's become just another corporate law paradise with everyone else left out in the cold as usual.

    13. Re:I'm honestly confused... by Missing.Matter · · Score: 4, Informative

      unless you pay first, and sign an NDA.

      That's not true at all. The NDA is required, but not paying up front.

    14. Re:I'm honestly confused... by laurelraven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft has a huge R&D division, larger than any other company in the industry has. Their patents are invalid, they're good patents given after lots of research. Microsoft spends billions a year to do it, so it's only fair that other companies pay up if they want to profit from the results of Microsoft's R&D.

      The real question here is, how is Android profiting from Microsoft's R&D? Maybe it would help if Microsoft ever actually said which patents were being violated, and how. Have they?

      --
      RTFA is Known to the State of California to cause cancer.
    15. Re:I'm honestly confused... by zero.kalvin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because ( and I could be mistaken) Microsoft haven't approached Google with this, so there is no legal standing for Google to go after MS. So as long as MS is approaching the phone sellers, Google has it hands tied. ps, I am not a lawyer but this is my understanding of the situation.

    16. Re:I'm honestly confused... by Missing.Matter · · Score: 3, Funny

      So all of Microsoft's products just appear out of thin air?

    17. Re:I'm honestly confused... by zero.kalvin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would agree with you if we knew what those patents are. But it seem to me with the whole NDA thing these patents are probably worthless.

    18. Re:I'm honestly confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You mean these patents? That is really "years of R&D". Stop trolling, most of that stuff has prior art and/or is obvious. It will not hold water if challenged in court. Why do you think MS was so keen to keep everyone who saw the stuff under strict NDAs?

    19. Re:I'm honestly confused... by SadButTrue · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When has this ever gone to court? The most advanced case is Microsoft vs B&N as far as I know. And the case there is looking very weak. Even if the few claims from the few patents left in the case are found to be both valid and infringed they are so narrow at this point that they are easily worked around.

      The problem MS has with their software patents is that they were VERY late to the OS game.

      --
      grape - the GNU free, open source rape
    20. Re:I'm honestly confused... by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      2. Microsoft is offering reasonable licensing terms to the device makers, so the licensing agreement costs significantly less than the cost of litigating.

      I think it's pretty clearly this. That is, licensing Microsoft's patents is not cheaper than how the handset manufacturers were doing business before, but now that the legal challenge is on the table, they've run the numbers and it will be cheaper to license the patents.

      But I do think Microsoft is taking advantage of the current mobile market, in which all of the various Android handset makers are in close competition with one another. HTC, Samsung, Motorola, etc., all need to invest their full attention and resources on the competition at hand, not open a second front in the courts (where they only stand to save money, not earn profit). If any one of those vendors were to invest significant time and funds on a protracted legal battle against Microsoft, it stands to lose its position in the market versus its competitors, who would then eat its lunch. That's what's really making it cheaper to license the patents -- avoiding a lawsuit is always going to be cheaper than risking your entire business.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    21. Re:I'm honestly confused... by allcar · · Score: 3, Informative

      But they do still use blackmail tactics. They will not reveal what patents are concerned. They will not even tell companies that they are threatening to sue until they have signed an NDA. That is not the behaviour of an host, moral company simply seeking fair payment for their R&D. It is extortion.

    22. Re:I'm honestly confused... by Pieroxy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ...it's only fair that other companies pay up if they want to profit from the results of Microsoft's R&D.

      You see, the problem with patents is that even if you didn't benefit from Microsoft R&D, you have to pay up. How is that fair?

    23. Re:I'm honestly confused... by SharkLaser · · Score: 2

      They do, but you need to sign NDA. It's common business practice - Google requires it too.

    24. Re:I'm honestly confused... by interval1066 · · Score: 2

      Yes. After Bell Labs, MIT, the US Navy, CERN, Stanford University, and Xerox PARC did all the hard work, and probably didn't patent 90% of thier research, yeah, Microsoft products appear out of thin air.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    25. Re:I'm honestly confused... by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      Well, Kinect is pretty damn amazing. Though the rest of their crap is average at best, and software patents in general are illegal. Yes I know that laws have been made that make software patents legal, those laws violate the concepts and purpose behind patents and are themselves illegal. Software is math and math can not be patented.

      Besides that: most if not all of the patents in question are invalid: http://androidcommunity.com/barnes-noble-reveals-microsofts-android-patents-in-detail-20111114/

    26. Re:I'm honestly confused... by tonywong · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These are agreements between multi-billion dollar corporations. I don't understand why individuals should care how the specifics of licensing deals should be exposed between companies like Microsoft, LG, or Google. Each of them have their own lawyers, engineers and negotiators to look out for their own interests, if you haven't noticed.

      If you don't like the patent system, reform it by lobbying your government. The megacorporations are just playing by those rules and really don't give a hoot about what the average consumer thinks.

    27. Re:I'm honestly confused... by poetmatt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hahahahaha. oh look, it's that guy who posts BS. Let's debunk you again. I will call you out every fucking time you do this.

      First off, we know you're a shill. Second off, microsoft owns zero of the technology they have patented, nor have they even developed it. A patent does not correlate to either a: having researched the technology or b: having developed it. The real good stuff they do isn't patented at all, and they keep it private and confidential for a reason. It's not like they dont' do research, it's just that it isn't tied to the patents.

      It only correlates to c: the USPTO provided them monopoly privilege over alleged technology which probably has already been implemented and patented elsewhere (even by microsoft themselves).

      Oh and it does correlate to d: they're using the patent exortion to further their R&D, thus making the DOJ ever closer to being ready to throw even more antitrust claims at Microsoft.

    28. Re:I'm honestly confused... by hedwards · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's completely illegal and really ought to be the focus of an antitrust probe. You can't send a letter demanding payment for allegedly infringing upon a patent and be required to sign an NDA to see the patent. That's not a legitimate move and quite frankly, the MS execs that thought of that ought to be dragged out into the street and beaten severely with chairs.

      Patents are public information for a reason, one should be able to look them up to figure out if one is or isn't violating one.

    29. Re:I'm honestly confused... by hedwards · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not true. Barnes and Noble saw the patents decided not to pay and as a result the patents are now known to be completely ridiculous.

      You can't sign an NDA in a situation like this and expect for it to hold up in court if the party decides they want to fight it. For one thing those patents become a part of the law suit and for another no court is ever going to go for the notion that one doesn't have the right to see the patents before opting to settled, consequently there is no legal basis for MS' NDA.

    30. Re:I'm honestly confused... by elashish14 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's ridiculous - there's far too much potential for abuse and is an obvious case of racketeering seeing as we already know that the patents are bogus. While it should be illegal for any patent licensing agreement to be covered by a NDA, I guess you couldn't expect such sensibility from any country that would allow software patents in the first place though.

      Another victory for bribing politicians! And another step by America towards becoming an irrelevant country with an artificial, inflated Imaginary Property Economy.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    31. Re:I'm honestly confused... by miltonw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Microsoft owns the patents based on years of R&D and they legally ask for companies to pay to use their patented technology.

      Well, therein lies the problem. It isn't proven that Android actually uses their patented technology - Microsoft won't even disclose which patents they claim are being infringed. Without that proof, what Microsoft is actually demanding is money for nothing. And that is "legal" how? It's extortion, plain and simple.

      Without Microsoft disclosing which patents, proving that those patents are valid AND those patents are being used by Android, the whole thing is simply a con. "It's cheaper for you to just give us money than for you to go to court and force us to prove anything."

      If Microsoft were legal and honest, they would disclose the patents. They refuse. That says it all.

    32. Re:I'm honestly confused... by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      [Citation needed] Microsoft has a huge R&D division, larger than any other company in the industry has.

      Remember that on balance sheets, programmers can be counted as R&D. The D stands for Development, so it's not like Micosoft is spending $9billion annually on research.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    33. Re:I'm honestly confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I thought it was pretty much an "open secret" that its the FAT long filename stuff?

    34. Re:I'm honestly confused... by Dyinobal · · Score: 2

      ya but then who would feed all those lawyers who would be out of business? Think of the lawyers man!

    35. Re:I'm honestly confused... by silverglade00 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      After Bell Labs, MIT, the US Navy, CERN, Stanford University, and Xerox PARC did all the hard work,

      Sounds like tax dollars paid for most of that, so we should get most of it for free.

    36. Re:I'm honestly confused... by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreeing to a licensing fee doesn't mean that that patents are necessarily valid. It could equally mean that the victim company's risk analysts said that the cost of "licensing" was less than the cost of fighting it in court.

      It isn't a question of satisfying "some forum trolls", but rather a public demand to know what these patents are, so that folks like, say, Google, can engineer ways to stop "violating" these "patents".

      That Microsoft wants to keep it a big secret says that they are more interested in making money (and spreading FUD) than in not seeing their alleged intellectual property violated. IMO, it is a gross perversion of the system.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    37. Re:I'm honestly confused... by Missing.Matter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While it should be illegal for any patent licensing agreement to be covered by a NDA

      Why do patent licence deals have to be public knowledge? I might not want my competitors to know what technology I'm using in my product.

      seeing as we already know that the patents are bogus

      No you don't. All you know know is what are in the B&N case. They may not be all patents. But in the end even those are in fact patents legally granted to MS, and no matter how "bogus" you consider them you can't just violate them outright and not expect to be sued.

    38. Re:I'm honestly confused... by s73v3r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, that is completely unacceptable. There should be NO NDA whatsoever needed to see these patents. For one, patents are supposed to be publicized. If I knew what patents Microsoft was talking about, I could go look them up in the patent database and get the specifics myself.

      The idea that you should have to sign an NDA so you can't tell others what patents were involved is absolutely disgusting, and is only appealing to Microsoft, and their fanboys that would excuse their every action.

    39. Re:I'm honestly confused... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Considering that B&N chose to fight, I think it is more likely that the reason is #4, the companies that settled want to do business with Microsoft in the future (or do so already and want to continue to get good terms).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    40. Re:I'm honestly confused... by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, Kinect is pretty damn amazing.

      Didn't Microsoft buy the company that created it?

      Microsoft Research seems to be the place where they put all the smart people they don't want to lose to competitors, then ignore everything they do.

    41. Re:I'm honestly confused... by PIBM · · Score: 2

      Actually, very specific criterias need to be met so that a programmer can be approved in the R&D billing. It might depend on where you live, or what are the incentives for doing R&D, but the rules are pretty stringent here.

    42. Re:I'm honestly confused... by s73v3r · · Score: 2

      No, this is patent trolling behavior. The fact that they won't even mention which patents are in question solidifies it.

      Further, one of the characteristics of a patent troll is that they get more money from "settlements" than they get from their own products. Case in point: Microsoft made more money off of Android "licensing deals" last year than they did from sales of Windows Phone licenses.

    43. Re:I'm honestly confused... by poetmatt · · Score: 4, Informative

      The FAT patent has been worked around 2 years ago. there are no royalties to be paid for it today.

      That was a poor attempt at a shakedown. Patents and any form of open source don't mix, and can't be reasonably enforced on it either.

    44. Re:I'm honestly confused... by s73v3r · · Score: 2

      Most non-patent troll companies seek return on the research through making products that incorporate that research. Patent trolls, like Microsoft here, make most of their "returns" by extorting other companies.

      Microsoft made more money through Android "licensing deals" last year than they did with Windows Phone.

    45. Re:I'm honestly confused... by steveg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes.

      They could be overturned.

      Not easily, however. The litigation costs are high enough that it's cheaper to pay the protection racket. Multi-billion dollar corporations make decisions like this all the time -- if it's cheaper to cave to ridiculous claims than to fight them, then they'll roll right over. Even if they could win the fight.

      And if the fight is in East Texas (like it commonly is) even poor quality patents are frequently upheld, so winning is up in the air no matter how strong the case against the patent holder.

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
    46. Re:I'm honestly confused... by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, it happens more frequently than you would think. MS is no longer under DoJ supervision and in many of those cases the companies are getting their royalty money back from MS. MS also has the ability to turn the screws on the Windows licenses that those companies have.

      B&N is in the unusual position of not having or needing a license for Windows and wouldn't be getting any kickbacks for paying the extortion money.

      As for flimsy patents, the courts are completely unpredictable, Blizzard was able to convince a court that Glider infringed upon its WoW copyright by making an in memory copy of the game even though that's expressly not infringement under the law.

      Copyrights are even worse as evidenced by Apple's ridiculous rounded rectangle patent trolling. And don't forget about the TX court of no turn downs where anybody can get money for somebody elses fictitious patent infringement.

    47. Re:I'm honestly confused... by penix1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While it should be illegal for any patent licensing agreement to be covered by a NDA

      Why do patent licence deals have to be public knowledge? I might not want my competitors to know what technology I'm using in my product.

      WTF?!?!? Your "competitors" already know your technology BECAUSE you filed for the patent. That is the whole point of patents. You tell everyone what your invention is and everyone agrees that you get exclusive rights to it for a limited time.

      seeing as we already know that the patents are bogus

      No you don't. All you know know is what are in the B&N case. They may not be all patents. But in the end even those are in fact patents legally granted to MS, and no matter how "bogus" you consider them you can't just violate them outright and not expect to be sued.

      I see a better way around it. Do what Red Hat was trying to do in Delaware with SCO and have Google take the Android code base to a judge and have it declared "non-infringing". That ought to wake Microsoft up.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    48. Re:I'm honestly confused... by Pope · · Score: 2

      MS licenses some of the tech behind the Kinect from a small company called GestureTek, who started doing camera/computer interaction stuff back in the 80s. They had a system called Mandala that worked with Amigas in the 90s.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    49. Re:I'm honestly confused... by anonymov · · Score: 2

      Yes, that's why it would make sense for licensee to make licensor sign NDA. Not the other way around.

    50. Re:I'm honestly confused... by anonymov · · Score: 2

      What. I know what NDA is, you still miss the part where it doesn't make sense for licensor to force NDA on licensee about which patents were in the deal.

      Go check B&N's negotiations story - "You're infringing on our patents, and we'll tell you which patents are those after you sign this NDA". You mean MS was just going out on a limb to help B&N and others with this, so those poor darlings won't accidentally tell competition about their future product lines and ruin themselves?

    51. Re:I'm honestly confused... by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 2

      Microsoft has a huge R&D division, larger than any other company in the industry has.

      I doubt that. MS has never innovated much of anything. All of their software products were a result of acquisitions of other companies and their IP, not innovation.

      --
      Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    52. Re:I'm honestly confused... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      How is it unethical? One company says "Here is an NDA, sign it and we can negotiate, don't and we can hash this out in court" and you have the choice, A or B. Don't act like this is Peter Pudfucker in his basement getting a knock on his door from Ballmer in a Darth helmet outfit, these are multinational conglomerations, I think they are big enough boys to ask their legal teams what they should do, don't you?

      While I still think software patents are too broad and shouldn't have been allowed in the first place as you end up arguing over which math is "allowed" and which math "infringes" you got to admire the brass balls on MSFT, their product bombs (And Ballmer is gonna torpedo Windows this fall with Win 8 because he refuses to accept he's lost) so the lawyers figure out a way to make a profit even out of a loss. Maybe MSFT should adopt the old SCO meme "Pay your $699 license fee, you cocksmoking teabaggers!" as it does seem appropriate.

      Oh and just to REALLY piss off the fanboius, why does Google get a pass for product dumping when they spend a billion a year on Android only to give it away and MSFT gets nailed for IE? As was brought up in the MSFT case people are lazy and stick with the defaults and Android by default is a Google datamining gift from the Gods, so why no outrage? Could it be because you treat corporations like ballclubs and cheer and boo like wrestlers instead of realizing they ALL would throw you into a lion's pit wrapped in chops if it would give them an extra 30% profit for the year?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    53. Re:I'm honestly confused... by s73v3r · · Score: 2

      You're not talking logic at all. You used nothing logical in your post. You said that signing the deals was evidence that MS's patents are valid, when, without knowing the patents in question, you cannot make that conclusion at all.

      The only logical conclusion you can come to is that the companies felt that the costs for paying the MS license fee was less than fighting it out in court. That's it.

    54. Re:I'm honestly confused... by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The basis behind original idea of patenting requires openness about what is actually patented, so that other inventors can either plan to incorporate your inventions into theirs (and pay you for it) or plan their inventions not to infringe on your patents.

      By obfuscating which patents are being infringed on, microsoft's behavior becomes unethical, as they are going against the aforementioned purpose of patents, making it harder for companies not directly involved to plan their current and future inventions.

      Unfortunately this "patent obfuscation" combined with "mass patenting of everything even remotely patentable", while unethical, has become modus operandi. Inventors not only cannot easily check which patents they may be infringing upon, they can't even ask a company with patents if they are infringing and if they are, what exactly they're infringing upon (so they could plan on either incorporating or going around the said patents)!

    55. Re:I'm honestly confused... by wiedzmin · · Score: 2

      Patent office needs no bribing, they're very good at approving stupid patents on their own. I mean come on, patent to IBM for "half-day out of office messages", what?

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
    56. Re:I'm honestly confused... by mariasama16 · · Score: 2

      It's completely illegal and really ought to be the focus of an antitrust probe. You can't send a letter demanding payment for allegedly infringing upon a patent and be required to sign an NDA to see the patent. That's not a legitimate move and quite frankly, the MS execs that thought of that ought to be dragged out into the street and beaten severely with chairs.

      Patents are public information for a reason, one should be able to look them up to figure out if one is or isn't violating one.

      Have you paid attention to the B&N vs Microsoft lawsuit currently ongoing? The patents ARE revealed, at least in that case. B&N's trying to get an antitrust probe in play and are saying that MS is engaging in patent misuse. Its all over on Groklaw.

  2. Better than Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple won't even license it's "rectangular touchscreen" patents for Android phones.

    At this point I hate Apple alot more than I hate Microsoft.

  3. That's messed up ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, Microsoft is getting paid for every Android device sold in the US ...

    And people think the patent system isn't broken.

    I wish we had a clear list of the patents Microsoft is asserting are being infringed, because from TFA:

    Microsoft has also sought licensing deals from vendors whose products run Linux, which the software maker also claims violates its patents.

    That's just sad, really ... you can't build anything without paying Microsoft for the privilege of not getting sued. I'm betting a good deal of those patents are likely stupid things that had been in other operating systems before MS copied and patented them.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:That's messed up ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is why it should be required to disclose offending patents whenever you go to another person and say "hey. your product infringes on my patents. Pay me or I'll force you to spend millions defending yourself in court."

      Because if you're NOT willing to disclose what patents of yours are being infringed upon, it's fucking obvious you either:

      1. Know the patents you hold are trivial and will get thrown out on a review.

      2. Know the patents are weak, and that the offending company can EASILY change the code such that they don't infringe anymore.

    2. Re:That's messed up ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What do you mean? Microsoft doesn't even tell them what patents are being infringed, but they have a large number of them so everyone is scared that they really do have something valid. Should that be allowed?

    3. Re:That's messed up ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How does that mean the patent system is broken? Microsoft is just collecting royalties on technology they invented and developed.

      That's one theory ... but since Microsoft has never publicly identified all of the patents, just how many of them would be valid, and how many of them would be technology which had been invented by someone else?

      You have to figure, pretty much anything which had been in Berkely UNIX shouldn't be patentable because we all know about it ... anything which was widely taught in schools and in text books shouldn't be patentable because it was common knowledge and available to any "skilled practitioner" ... anything which had been implemented in another OS before MS had it shouldn't be patentable because of prior art.

      If this is truly technology that Microsoft solely created from scratch, then maybe ... but if they copied something else that had been done before (which, isn't exactly unprecedented) then all they've done is co-opt someone else's invention by patenting it first.

      so that other companies can use technology invented by other companies who would otherwise keep the details secret.

      My problem is that MS wants to have their cake and eat it too ... they regularly insinuate that Linux violates its patents, but they won't say which ones are being violated. So, they are keeping it secret and then suing over it.

      So, Microsoft patents stuff that might make many of us want to march on the Patent Office with torches and pitchforks because we learned it in first year CS class.

      I'm sorry, but the USPTO is staffed with morons who are pushing through patents and collecting fees for it, Microsoft hasn't offered up full public disclosure to which patents are being infringed, and, let's face it, just because Microsoft has more lawyers doesn't mean they're playing within the rules of the game.

      So, on face value ... I don't have enough information to know what they claim is being violated, and I don't have enough trust in any large corporation to take them at their word.

      But we all know that absolutely stupid things get granted patents, and those often cover things that have been around for a long time and had already been done by someone else.

      So, unless you have any actual information to suggest all of these patents are 100% MS invented, and wouldn't be invalidated by a court challenge ... you're just assuming they're all good. For those of us who remember the MS of the 80's ... well, I'm not willing to extend them the benefit of the doubt on this.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:That's messed up ... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 2

      What makes you think they don't have to disclose which patents are covered? They don't have to discuss it publicly, but I'm sure MS buries LG and Samsung and Google et. al. in paperwork about just which patents are infringed on.

      But neither party really wants to give up how they're doing things. Samsung doesn't really want to say 'we might be violating this patent on an implementation of some icon technology' because that tells all of their competitors that might be a better way to do things, and might be worth getting a licence for.

      You don't usually patent code, you patent ideas and algorithms - just because I can easily change the code doesn't necessarily mean I've changed the algorithm, and if I picked the previous algorithm for a reason re-inventing it might be tricky if I want to match the performance. You don't patent a specific implementation of an idea.

    5. Re:That's messed up ... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Except that Microsoft is being hush hush about what patents are involved, meaning that even if the patents in question are valid Microsoft is trying to hide them from others so that those others cannot find a way to avoid infringing on them. That does not help innovation in any way (the purpose of patents in the US).
      Additionally, the fact that B&N has chosen to fight Microsoft on this suggests that there is something wrong going on here. B&N is the only company that MS has approached so far that has no particular interest in building a device (either presently, or in the future) that runs a Microsoft OS, which suggests that the other companies have settled in order to keep relationships with Microsoft on a positive footing, rather than because the MS patents are anything worth mentioning.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re:That's messed up ... by Locutus · · Score: 2

      look at all the stories on the what Microsoft has done with Barnes & Noble regarding patent IP and Android. This is the trickery they use and the big issue BN is having is the price they want for a small element of the over OS. ie they want as much or more than they charge for licensing their entire Windows CE OS.

      Also notice that those who have signed all have some form of other licensing arrangement with Microsoft and therefore they can strong arm them with threats of denying those other licenses or something like that. Barnes & Noble does not license any Microsoft software nor does Motorola Mobility that I know of. Do you notice Motorola Mobility is not doing Windows Phone 7.x and even claimed they would no longer be doing Windows Phone phones well before the Google purchase.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  4. Re:lol slashdot by Linzer · · Score: 2

    "OMG MICROSOFT IS MAKING MONEY"

    Actually, some of the more reasonable /. readers would probably find this a lot less objectionable if it was a case of Microsoft making money by selling Microsoft products.

    --
    Gravitation is a theory, not a fact.
  5. I'm guessing it's related to FAT32 by Markos · · Score: 4, Informative

    If it is indeed for the file system, then it's understandable.

    1. Re:I'm guessing it's related to FAT32 by PCM2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it is indeed for the file system, then it's understandable.

      Good guess. I hadn't thought of that.

      Now, if by "understandable" you mean "comprehensible," then sure. But how is it reasonable? From the article (by Bruce Perens):

      Indeed, the FAT patents have been invalidated for being non-innovative in Germany, and only survived invalidation in the U.S. through a patent office appeal in which opponents were not allowed to participate. It would take a trial in court to finally settle the issue, a trial that Microsoft would likely have lost.

      But justice is too expensive. A trial to invalidate the eight patents Microsoft brought against TomTom, none of them poster-boys for innovation, would have cost more than TomTom had to spend, perhaps in excess of $10 million dollars.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  6. Re:I wonder.. when will Google start... by larry+bagina · · Score: 2

    Google gave HTC a couple patents to countersue Apple. So far, Oracle is the only party suing them directly (at least over android -- they were sued over the linux scheduler a couple years ago).

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  7. And they think companies will use Windows Mobile? by vinn · · Score: 2

    Ok, let me see if I got this right: they're extorting patent royalties from third party mobile vendors. They're almost certainly making them sign a contract with a time commitment on it. Then later this year they expect these same mobile vendors to ditch Android development and use Windows Mobile instead? All the while they need to continue paying the extortion.

    Yeah... that's gonna work well. It virtually guarantees Windows 8 on a mobile device is DOA.

    --
    ----- obSig
  8. This kind of stuff needs to stop by Anon-Admin · · Score: 2

    One of the patents that Microsoft uses in these type cases is “loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area” Seems to me this is way too vague to be a valid patent.

    Here is a link to the actual patent http://www.patents4software.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/6339780.pdf

  9. If they disclose it would be easier to cope with by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    " Microsoft owns the patents based on years of R&D (Microsoft Research is the largest R&D center on the industry) and they legally ask for companies to pay to use their patented technology."

    How do you know they own the patent? Because LG paid? That is not an argument.

    "Microsoft owns the patents based on years of R&D (Microsoft Research is the largest R&D center on the industry) and they legally ask for companies to pay to use their patented technology."

    If they disclose it would be easier to cope with. Maybe one can remove any offending code, but one is not given the chance to do that...

    This is why their tactics are bad.

    Maybe someone came up with the idea, without consulting their R&D's ideas. Regardless of how many billions Microsoft poured into it.

    That is only one reason why Microsoft sucks and why it approaches extortion.

  10. Re:And they think companies will use Windows Mobil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They don't give a damn if companies use WM...they don't need them to. WM exists so that they have a platform on which to use their patented technologies so as to avoid appearing to be a blatant troll. The real money is in doing nothing and getting paid for it via ridiculous patent law.

  11. You are making some assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure, if you take it as a given that Google is lying and Microsoft is telling the truth, your post becomes reasonable.

    1. Google does not believe that Android infringes any Microsoft patents.
    2. Neither this nor any of the other licensing agreements reveal what MS patents are used in Android.
    3. When Barnes and Noble was approached by Microsoft to make such a deal, MS refused to even tell B&N what patents were involved, and how they were being infringed. It was "trust us, your product infringes big-time, so pay up".
    4. B&N told MS they wouldn't agree to anything without specifics. MS showed them the allegedly infringed patents, B&N laughed their asses off and revealed to the world, and told mighty MS "go ahead and sue us and see where it gets you". MS is now suing B&N, and B&N has filed antitrust complaints against MS.
    5. Even if you take the most pro-MS view possible, the MS patents revealed by B&N cover a tiny subset of Android's capabilities. Yet MS demanded higher licensing fees for use of these patents than what they charge to use all of Windows Phone 7.

    Put it this way - do you honestly believe that Microsoft Research laid the groundwork for Android? Do you believe Android developers paid any attention to any "patented inventions" from Microsoft?

    I can't tell whether you are a) a shill b) hopelessly naive or c) sarcastic. I certainly hope it's c).

    1. Re:You are making some assumptions by Renderer+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Funny

      Put it this way - do you honestly believe that Microsoft Research laid the groundwork for Android?

      No, that would be Apple.

    2. Re:You are making some assumptions by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      No, that'd be roundwork. Those corners, aren't they just devaaiiiiiiine!"

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  12. Re:MS Tax by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Insightful

    See the many clarifications above. If they were legitimate patents, they would't be playing this stupid black-box bullshit.

    I'm hoping the BN Nook suit actually gets this list into the public record already. I'm sure some intern at Google could probably code around them in about 25 minutes, by the way they're insisting that the list is sooper sekret.

  13. Re:If they disclose it would be easier to cope wit by Barsteward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    yep, i think the reason is more like"You currently have a microsoft licence - want to keep it???"

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  14. Re:And they think companies will use Windows Mobil by TheoCryst · · Score: 2

    I think this is a big reason why the Nokia deal is so important to Microsoft. In pretty much every aspect, it appears that Microsoft is ultimately trying to push Nokia+WinPhone as a product in and of itself, with little thought given to the OEMs. In my humble opinion, this is the right strategy. Microsoft can't (and doesn't want) to compete with Android directly, since they'd be going up against an entrenched and inexpensive foe with whom the carriers and OEMs already have a strong relationship. And after Windows's dominance in the 90s, they know exactly how futile competing against that can be.

    But by betting heavily on Nokia, Microsoft has guaranteed themselves a partner who will build hardware specifically tailored to their OS (and vice versa) and who will never have to choose between putting marketing dollars behind Windows Phone or Android.

    --
    Warning: Contents May Be Flammable. Keep Out Of Reach Of Children.
  15. Why? by JustNiz · · Score: 2

    I can't understand why all the companies that Microsoft is blackmailing, especially Google, don't form a cohesive group to fight back. At least to finally oblige Microsoft to reveal the actual details of whatever their supposed Linux/Android copyrighht claim is.

  16. Pirate everything. by unity100 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That is basically what it came down to. Microsoft is basically making everyone pay to them regardless of what they do - even if you use linux, you have to pay them. and they are doing these on THREATS of litigation and do not even feel the need to actually show their patents. they are not suing anyone either - they are threatening to.

    this is extortion. period. there is no other explanation or definition for it.

    so, basically we are going to end up having paid to microsoft, EVEN if i do NOT use microsoft products, because microsoft was successful in threatening the producers to pay them out of fear.

    i dont approve that. i choose a product, when i choose a product. if i was going to choose a microsoft product, i would do so. when i have not chosen a microsoft product, that means i have NOT chosen to PAY them.

    if they take my money through ANY means out of my own choices, then it means they are robbing me. period.

    i dont see any other option but to pirate, to get my money back, which was taken away from me through these illegal means.

    the problem is, most of microsoft's products are crap, and i evade them as much as possible. so, what am i going to do now, since i am being cashed by microsoft even when i do NOT use their product ? pirate the other software which was supposed to be NOT microsoft ? this is a pinch.

    1. Re:Pirate everything. by unity100 · · Score: 2

      'legal' is only valid when you actually show what you claim. if you dont, it is just threatening.

  17. i dont know whether you are stupid or not. by unity100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Microsoft alleges that their patents are violated. they do NOT show, or say, or even let you peek at what patents were violated. they may basically be bluffing, and there is no way to know that. you cant sue them for their own patents either. they dont sue anyone, ending up having to show their patents either. they are just THREATENING to sue, and extorting money over their alleged patents. we do not even know whether they have patents or not.

  18. The Worst Part of This by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2

    The worst part of this was revealed by Barnes & Nobel when they said that part of the demanded secret licensing agreement was that it gave Microsoft design approval over future devices. That should never have been agreed to, or allowed. Giving Microsoft that power allows them to control the entire future progress of the Android hardware ecosystem, meaning that they could cripple future Android hardware because their Windows phone is not competitive. It would be like AMD not being allowed to release new processors without Intel approval. If that had ever happened do you think that AMD64 would have ever seen the light of day?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  19. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  20. Triple damages of 1 penny - about right by Rob+Y. · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It would be nice to have one of these suits actually go to a court where the judge actually understands the 'value' of these patents. Even if they're valid, they're worth about 1 millionth of the cost of the phone. Have some judge set damages of a penny and let's be done with this crap.

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  21. Re:FAT by bzipitidoo · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've tried running Windows with an ext2 file system. Windows can read other file systems with help from drivers, but it's never 100% compatible. When I tried it, it was also a pain to use, because you had to remember to manually start the driver after booting up. And still need NTFS or FAT to boot.

    MS of course prefers that it not be easy to use a different file system. I keep hoping their loser business strategies will eventually send them into bankruptcy. It would serve them right. But there is still an amazing amount of blind love for MS out there. Apple also gets way more love than they deserve.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"