Microsoft, IBM Want to Seal Patents Agreements With Samsung

sfcrazy writes "The court battle between Apple and Samsung has created the possibility of disclosing the cross patent agreement between Microsoft and Samsung. Microsoft is suddenly scared and has filed a motion asking the court to seal the cross license agreement. I would like to remind that the Judge has asked both parties to make all the filings in this dispute available to the public for free." And on Monday, IBM filed for a restraining order to prevent Reuters from publishing their agreement with Samsung as well.

Comments

Makes a change from their CEO scaring us

[phonewebcam]

Which he does very well indeed.

Re:Microsoft is suddenly scared?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is far more likely that different companies get different rates depending on how well they negotiate and how much they have to offer in return (standard practise by all of the big boys). Revealing details of such agreements puts them at a disadvantage in any future negotiations and hence the demand for non disclosure is pretty standard. This has nothing to do with fear of anything but the disadvantage they would have in future price bargaining.

Re:Nerf bat in play

[Pieroxy]

Methinks we're going to see who the real villains are in this story. Apple may be evil and all, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Note that Apple being villain and all is all due to the fact that they make their patent dispute public, unlike the rest of the field which hides it under a thick veil of secrecy. I'd be very interested to know exactly who gets paid what over there.

"We all lose cool tech"

[Kupfernigk]

I doubt that is true. What this is really about is monopolistic business practices in the US and how they distort the global market. I suspect that the US Government doesn't actually want too much light shed because then the EU competition commission might get involved, and that might shame the US equivalent into action.

However, I doubt any of it is much of a brake on real technical progress. The limitation on that, at the moment, is battery technology. And that has been the limitation on mobile technical progress since the first mobile phones.

Re:"We all lose cool tech"

[MrDoh!]

Maybe, I do think though there must be a slight fear from anyone creating tech that a few key players may try and claim later. Many tech companies must be dragging lawyers in to design sessions perhaps, just to cover themselves. Having lawyers over your shoulders is going to get people thinking how not to get infringed, maybe not what's the best way to solve a problem. Having knocked out a few UI's with things that, in retrospect, /could/ be close to what Apple are claiming (though on a terminal, not a mobile device) in... late 80's/early 90's, so many of these things look familiar, and may be the thing we'd have come up with. Getting it prototyped/designed on an Amiga, then working on x-windows, with the later MS Windows versions looking very similar. If I'd have made a version for a mobile version, it'd have looked the same again, icons on the bottom, scrollable top part. That a UI I created 20+ years ago, copying my own design onto a mobile device could get me sued for crazy bucks, scares the living snot out of me. The point about it dragging in the euro stuff though is I think spot on, and why this really is going to be crazy for a time yet. The nerf bat really can take out some odd bystanders.

Re:Microsoft is suddenly scared?

[Vintermann]

Microsoft does not want to disclose which patents they're using to get royalties for Android/Linux. Apart from the VFAT patent, it is not publicly known which 235 patents Microsoft claim to own that cover the Linux kernel - they only reveal that to parties they approach to intimidate, a really bizarre and perverse state of affairs if you ask me.

MSFT investors lied to

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Microsoft has released details of the claimed license, by Samsung of its 'Android patents'. But leaks came out that Sammy would get 'marketing money' back from Microsoft, and lo and behold they did.

Here's Microsoft and their fake claim to IP rights over Android:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15106889

Here's money back from MS to Samsung:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/16/2050244/microsoft-pays-44-million-to-samsung-and-nokia-for-mango-marketing

Now suddenly they want the real details sealed? Yet they were keen to claim it was a patent license for IP claims over Android!

MSFT Investors need to wonder what the truth is here, because Samsung doesn't mind the unsealing, but yet MS does? But MS were the ones making the public claim, not Samsung!!

According to the Groklaw link...

[Areyoukiddingme]

...IBM's motion to prevent Reuters from publishing what IBM gave them has been denied already. Those of a conspiracy turn of mind will now cue the old boy network where IBM execs get together with Reuter's execs at the Old Boys Club and work out what Reuters gets for not publishing after all.

Reuters may gleefully print the whole thing, but that seems unlikely. More likely they'll excerpt it anyway, even without any alleged backroom deals.

I know I know, I read TFA. I'm sorry... it won't happen again.

Re:Of course it should be made public

[andrewbaldwin]

I think I agree with you but I have no idea wtf a pram is.

Pram is a common shortening of "perambulator" ** -- a baby carriage on wheels. These days they're not so common as baby buggies (smaller lightweight versions) have taken their place as 'traditional' prams were bigger, heavier coachbuilt affairs - more room for the baby and with bigger wheels/better suspension but not very practical for transporting in cars.

Throwing ones toys out of the pram is a common expression in the UK. It's roughly equivalent to "throwing a hissy fit" / "having a tantrum" -- ie exhibiting impotent rage and/or childish behaviour, making a lot of noise and fuss yet gaining nothing but causing inconvenience to others as they have to retrieve them [or not]

** Perambulator - in the sense it let the baby and carer go for a walk (perambulate) -- Old fashioned and I don't know anyone who still says perambulator these days [or even said it in my childhood many years ago]

Re:What is there to hide ?

[Deorus]

It's about the patent deals, not the patents themselves. It is a lot more likely that both companies are afraid of being investigated for monopolistic behavior if those deals become public knowledge.

Re:Nerf bat in play

[Chuck Chunder]

The reason it is public is because Apple are using their patents in the courts to restrict competition from entering the market rather than licencing for a reasonable sum to make money.

I don't think this has anything to do with "image". Rather they realise that this is a critical time in cornering a market that will continue to pay off for them for a long time.

Just like the iPod made the iPhone purchase a "no brainer" for many people the iPhone makes (or will make) the iPad or Apple TV (etc etc) a no brainer. Once people are invested in the iTunes/Appstore ecosystem they are more likely to stay there (and keep spending more money there).

Removing credible alternatives to the iPhone from the market doesn't just mean more iPhone sales now, it means more recurring sales down the road too.

Re:Microsoft is suddenly scared?

[Teun]

Since 1985 the EU patent office keeps a registry where you can deposit plans that could be turned into patents even though the relevant law of 1978 does specifically not recognise computer programs a patentable.
The 2005 vote in the EU parliament dismissed the idea of software patents with 648 out of 729 votes.
Besides, the individual member states don't agree so the EU commission does not have much chance to ever enforce these patents.

Now there is the possibility to patent a specific model of hardware like a phone including the firmware within but it's not easy or anywhere close to the US system.

Denied

[DeathToBill]

Anyway, the IBM motion has already been denied. If IBM can't get it, there's a fair chance Microsoft won't, either.

One of the big reasons this is interesting is that we might finally find out exactly what patents Microsoft thinks that Linux violates.