Nikon Buckles To Microsoft, Will Pay "Android Tax" For Smart Cameras

walterbyrd writes with news that Nikon is the latest company to agree to pay Microsoft for the privilege of using Android on its devices — as you might expect from Nikon, the devices in this case are cameras. (Microsoft's press release.)

Comments

Hey buddy

[Anonymous Coward]

You settin' up shop on my street? Nobody, I sez *nobody*... sets up shop on my street without talkin' to me foyst. OK, listen pal. Here's what I'm gonna a do for you. You just pay me a little bidda money on everything you sellz, and I'z a gonna look dee otha way, capiche?

You callin' this "extortion"? That's a big word, my friend. 'Round here we just call it biz niss.

Re:Hey buddy

[ColdWetDog]

You settin' up shop on my street? Nobody, I sez *nobody*... sets up shop on my street without talkin' to me foyst. OK, listen pal. Here's what I'm gonna a do for you. You just pay me a little bidda money on everything you sellz, and I'z a gonna look dee otha way, capiche?

You callin' this "extortion"? That's a big word, my friend. 'Round here we just call it biz niss.

It's basically an approved bribe. All legal and written out. Serves the same function, serves the same people. Might even be tax deductible.

Re:Hey buddy

[Anonymous Coward]

Its just for the per tection of da biz niss. Bad thinks heppen to da biz niss wit out per tection. Biz niss can catch fire, windows get broke, all kinds of truble. Just a taste, just to wet the beak, little brown envelope, once a weak. The only technology that they might have a case over is the fat file system for flash storage (and depending on exactly which version of that file system is in use, because the patents on their older systems have expired). Since Android is mostly non-microsoft software, they also can't charge an overly large amount (no more so than other people using that technology). Once the patent expires (and lets make no mistake, these are patents, not copyrights, and they *do* have a shelf life which is *not* measured in lifetimes but rather in half-generations), microsoft gets nothing. That day is approaching soon.

Re:Hey buddy

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds better than apple who would just show up and burn your shop down

Re:Hey buddy

[hairyfeet]

And this is different to what Apple, Motorola (now owned by Google who didn't stop the suits when they bought Motorola thus making them trolls by proxy in my book) and every other big tech company this decade has done?

If you want to fix this kind of shit you have to get to the root of the problem which is the patent system is broken and until you fix it this kind of shit will continue. This is like blaming companies who take advantage of the fact that offshoring not only incurs them no monetary penalty but they can often get tax breaks for doing so....the problem is the SYSTEM is broken and encouraging bad behavior therefor the SYSTEM needs to be fixed.

We need to push like hell for a law ending software patents, if you want protections for software copyrights and NOT patents are the logical choice and since you copyright specific works and NOT vague concepts like these shitty software "patents" you could nip this bullshit in the bud. I also personally think we need a law that says concepts required for interoperability (such as file systems and formats) should have to be published under RAND terms so that the user will always have a way to get their stuff on and off a device, but that may be just a personal beef, but no matter how you slice it these kinds of bullshit trolls and lawsuits didn't become a problem until software patents were hoisted on us and THAT is what must be fixed. You stop MSFT and they'll be a dozen more pulling the same shit waiting for their shot.

Oh and on a final note, lets get something clear: Linux and Android by extension DOES infringe on MSFT patents, how do I know? Have you seen how many patents have been filed on software since the shitty ruling that allowed software patents? EVERYBODY is infringing! Hell the whole history of computers has been standing on the shoulders of giants so frankly with as vague as these patents are you can't build shit to do with a computer that doesn't infringe! Hell I wouldn't be surprised if every possible way to build a file system or make an audio/video format isn't covered by some vague as hell "method to store files on things" style patent, the whole thing is so broken you are tap dancing in a minefield.

Is what MSFT doing shitty? yep, no doubt, but if we focus on that instead of the conditions that have ALLOWED them to behave shitty all we will be doing is playing whack a mole until the end of time. To use the famed /. car analogy if your front end is shot and eating tires you can change tire brands a billion times, the tires are still gonna keep getting eaten until you get off your ass and fix the front end. Until we fix the patents system this kind of shit is only gonna get worse.

Re:Hey buddy

[RazorSharp]

The patent system is broken, I'll agree with you there, but this is different from what any other company does regarding the patent system. This isn't exploiting a broken system, it's extortion.

Re:Hey buddy

[icebike]

Oh, climb down before you hurt yourself.

Its not Android that Microsoft is licensing, its some of their protocols, (MTP most likely).

Nikon didn't have to use MTP in their cameras, and many would be happier if they didn't, but is solves a lot of problems for them with regard to getting pictures off of the camera. It means the don't have to include any software drivers for the camera, because they can just use what is already available on end-user's machines.

It could also be some elements of Fat32, NTFS, for storage card access, or Windows Networking, for wifi access / printing.

When Android provides replacement for these technologies they manufacturers can avoid them. But until then, if manufacturers continue to use Microsoft technology patents they are going to have to pay. There are many open source replacements that Google could have provided, but these haven't caught on.

Re:Hey buddy

[sjames]

RAND is not really all that RAND unless it is based strictly on percentage of profit. Even one millionth of one penny per unit is impossible for free, open, or public domain software where we cannot determine how many copies are out there.

Re:Hey buddy

[HyperQuantum]

Extortion is just one way to exploit a broken system.

Re:Hey buddy

[andydread]

So what the fuck do you suggesst buddy? I mean you sit down at your computer and bang out some open source code that is your code yet you and possibly others have to pay MS for the privilege of using your own code? You think Joe BIden gives a fuck what you have to say about this? These are the same fuckers that worship bill gates when he shows up to petition congress. I don't know at this point what to do about it. Even the President was asked about this software patent bullshit by Lady Ada and his answer "blah we gotta protect 'intellectual property' blah blah" Then you have the current patent office head who equates litigation to innovation so what can be done? The bottom line is that Microsoft is abusing the system to put a cost on as much open source software as possible. THis is not about Android its per say its about Linux and opensource and being able to use any computing device without paying MS. Its egregious disgusting behavior.

Re:Hey buddy

[jedidiah]

This isn't about any genuine invention. Providing "replacement" technology is actually pretty trivial. Many of these predate their Microsoft counterpart. The real problem is that product configuration becomes unnecessarily complicated because suddenly extra device drivers are required.

Taxes on "being compatible" are obscene and should be viewed by everyone here as such.

Re:Hey buddy

[Type44Q]

hear hear

Re:Hey buddy

[stenvar]

yep, no doubt, but if we focus on that instead of the conditions that have ALLOWED them to behave shitty all we will be doing is playing whack a mole until the end of time

Reforming the patent system would certainly be a good thing to do. But criticizing companies over patent trolling is useful: companies like Microsoft and Apple live and die by their brand names. If these companies are starting to be perceived widely as non-innovative patent trolls, it will hurt their brands, and hence their sales, big time, and that will cause both them and other companies to tread more carefully in the future.

Re:Hey buddy

[ozmanjusri]

Its not Android that Microsoft is licensing, its some of their protocols, (MTP most likely).

Bullshit.

It's pretty widely known now that MS is extorting money almost exclusively for its ancient FAT filesystem patents. Because they were able to establish it as a defacto format during their monopoly years, they're now in a position where its ubiquitous. Not because its good, or innovative or took significant effort to develop. Just because it became the lowest common denominator.

And they'll continue milking it until somebody stops them.

It really is time for industry to route around this damage and develop a new common, free and open filesystem format, or for governments to step in and stop this abuse of their systems.

Re:Hey buddy

[icebike]

The complete list is here http://www.dailytech.com/Of+Lawsuits+and+Licensing+The+Full+Microsoft+v+Android+Story/article23088.htm

Any remnants of Fat32 is exhausted after 2013.

Re:Hey buddy

[ozmanjusri]

These are the patents from your link:

1. FAT filenames
   FAT filenames
   Flash Memory filesystem bad block hack
   Separation layer/API for telephone radio (aka a driver)
   Adding a number from dialler to contacts
   Notification API, but on mobiles.
   Pop-up menus, but on mobiles.
   Offline/online caching and reconciliation (like Notes)

Microsoft is claiming that the thought and effort that went into these ideas is worth more than $230,000,000 per annum in licensing fees.

Re:Hey buddy

[Gadget_Guy]

It's pretty widely known now that MS is extorting money almost exclusively for its ancient FAT filesystem patents.

It might be pretty widely known, but it is also pretty widely wrong. Microsoft has a massive portfolio of patents which can be used against Android, a lot of which is just useless user interface minutia. If you look at the bottom of the press release it distinguishes between Android patents and exFAT patent agreements. You can see an example of the kind of the patents Microsoft use from the various times they have had to list them publicly.

Also, it is not the ancient FAT filesystem that is patented (although Microsoft would like that), but the long filename extension to the filesystem (which is still pretty old) as well as exFAT (which was introduced in 2006). Nikon would probably need to use exFAT to work with SDXC memory cards.

Re:Hey buddy

[icebike]

And apparently they are correct, because the link I posted also has a list of companies who decided it was cheaper to pay license fees than try to beat the patents in court.

The FAT patents end this year.
The rest have several more years to run, unless someone beats them in court.

The key point here is that Microsoft is not claiming ownership of Android or ant core Android technology, but rather a miscellaneous collection of features the see in some smartphones and related devices.
Most likely nikon is using fat patents and likely MTP patents as well.

Re:Hey buddy

[Gadget_Guy]

The patent system is broken, I'll agree with you there, but this is different from what any other company does regarding the patent system. This isn't exploiting a broken system, it's extortion.

How do you think that this is different? The only way that I can see that this is different to what the other companies do is that they are asking for a license fee rather than using patents to attempt to stop the product from being sold at all.

Re:Hey buddy

[LordLimecat]

I hear they released a suitable FS called EXT2 some time ago.

Whatever the solution is, we dont need another FS.

Re:Hey buddy

[dargaud]

Why can't you use ext2 on Android? I tried and it doesn't work.

Re:Hey buddy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure why it doesn't work for you, but Android can read EXT2/3/4 fine.

Re:Hey buddy

[AmiMoJo]

FAT32 works just fine on SDXC cards. There is a limit on formatting partitions over 32GB in Windows as FAT32, but it is an artificial one and Nikon could provide a tool to do it (or just have the camera do the formatting).

As you point out the old patent is on long file names, which is why most cameras only produce short file names and the standard for digital camera file systems only requires 8.3. That's a good example of how patents old back progress.

Re:Hey buddy

[redlemming]

And apparently they are correct, because the link I posted also has a list of companies who decided it was cheaper to pay license fees than try to beat the patents in court.

Given how trivial and obvious these ideas are, this can be taken as evidence that the purpose of the patent system has little to do with its stated goals.

It can also be taken as evidence that unethical conduct is a cancer within the US legal system, that is causing enormous damage to the rest of society.

Re:Hey buddy

[shutdown -p now]

And how will a Windows or OS X machine mount that?

Unless, of course, you use something like MTP, that hides the FS from the other party. But MTP itself is also patented.

Re:Hey buddy

[hairyfeet]

And this is different than Apple, Rambus, etc did and does...how EXACTLY? Its not, when a system is broken you will have players manipulate that broken system to maximum advantage. You get rid of one and a dozen more will be standing behind them because the system ENCOURAGES this behavior. Watch this video on the stock market which clearly and plainly shows how bad laws have encouraged the shitty behavior we see now in the financial sector because you get punished for doing the right thing and rewarded for doing the wrong thing so naturally the companies are gonna do the wrong thing because it rewards them.

To use a /. car analogy if the government made it illegal for the insurance companies to investigate car claims so that there was zero risk or penalty for just setting your car on fire to get the insurance to pay out for a new car, do you HONESTLY think there wouldn't be burnt car hulks on every block? The USPTO by handing out vague software patents like candy have made it stupid NOT to be an asshole and patent every vague idea under the sun because as MSFT has shown its more profitable to do this than to make your own products. After all they don't have to pay for assembly, R&D, shipping, why go through all that shit when you can get paid just by filing a shitload of vague patents and sue everybody when some of those patents are approved?

You are bitching about the punk hitting you with a bat while ignoring the fact the cops are the ones handing the punk the bat and telling him to go have fun. if you want this stopped getting rid of the bully will never work because more will take his place, what you have to do is stop the cops passing out the bats and make them arrest the ones using the bats. In this case until we focus on the core problem, the USPTO is horribly broken and software patents need to be banned, then we are just wasting our time. if you wiped out MSFT tomorrow think it would be cotton candy and kittens for everybody ? Nope you'd have Apple and RIM and Google through Motorola and every other company who managed to get some vague patents lined up to take their place so lets focus on the task at hand which is getting rid of the core problem of software patents. Anything else is just sticking band aids on bullet wounds while ignoring the guy shooting you.

Re:Hey buddy

[hairyfeet]

And whose fault is that? If I design a product and you decide YOU want to live like a hippie why the fuck should I have to do without? You can do what you want with YOUR products but if you want to use MY stuff you should have to pay something.

This is a BIG problem with FOSS, its communism at the barrel of a gun. If you decide you want to give away your life's work? Hey good for you, whatever makes you happy but you have NO RIGHT to stick a gun to my head and make me give MY stuff away because you like communism over capitalism, that is bullshit.

So charge a buck, have a fund raising drive, whatever but don't tell me I have to give MY stuff away because you want to give away YOUR stuff, its mine, I paid to build it, if you want to buy it fine but if you don't then don't fucking use it, simple as that.

Re:Hey buddy

[hairyfeet]

To steal a line from Mel Brooks "Bullshit, bullshit aaaannnnddd bullshit". You think an Appleite is gonna give a rat's ass if Apple sues somebody? To them its all about fashion and being seen using expensive products, they don't give a shit about some product used by poor scum. And think grandma is ever even go HEAR about a MSFT lawsuit much less care?

You have MAYBE 4% of the population IF THAT that even reads tech sites, much less actually gives a wet fart about all this shit. I'm a PC retailer, think this lawsuit is gonna make me quit selling Windows 7? Not a chance because there isn't a product that can replace it, Linux is a pile of broken sick, Apple is as locked down as a cell phone so little guys like me can't make a fucking cent selling Apple crap, so that leaves only one game in town.

so if you don't focus on the root of the problem, that software patents are stupid and damaging to the system as a whole, then all you are doing is pissing up a rope. I mean did YOU see Apple's sales go down when they were trying to kill Android? Did YOU see MSFT's sales go down (as a result of, not because the X86 MHz war bubble has burst) when they called Linux a cancer? Nope, nobody cares beyond a handful of geeks. If people did care Apple wouldn't be the largest corp on the planet and MSFT wouldn't still own 90%+ of the PCs on this planet. So focus on the root or keep wasting your breath, because bitching about companies doing what the USPTO encourages with these bad patents is just a waste of time and energy and will change nothing.

Re:Hey buddy

[sjames]

You wanna keep it all locked up? Fine. You can do that, but don't then claim to be non-discriminatory whenever that might benefit you. You don't want to be a lying weasel do you?

That, o0f course, assumes you actuyally diod put hard work into it and that uit is actually something that deserves to be patented in the first place. All too often that is not the case.

Re:Hey buddy

[jrumney]

The biggest problem for a camera manufacturer like Nikon is exFAT (and VFAT, but the last patents on that will expire soon). Theoretically you can replace it with another file system, but for removable media like SDXC cards, you need to use a standard filesystem that will interoperate with PCs and other devices.

Re:Hey buddy

[jrumney]

The FAT patents end this year.

But that's not really a problem for Microsoft, because SDHC cards top out at 32GB, which will be bottom of the range by the time the FAT patents expire. Anything from 64GB up requires SDXC, and Microsoft worked hard to make sure that their new exFAT filesystem was written into the SDXC standard.

Re:Hey buddy

[jrumney]

The volume manager in Android is hardcoded to trigger automounting only on FAT partitions by default. A modified ROM would be needed to use ext2/3/4 on the SD card.

Re:Hey buddy

[icebike]

Microsoft worked hard to make sure that their new exFAT filesystem was written into the SDXC standard.

Exactly right. Wiki says:

SDXC cards are pre-formatted with Microsoft's proprietary and patented exFAT file system, which the host device might not support. Since Microsoft does not publish the specifications of exFAT and its use requires a non-free license, many alternative or older operating systems do not support exFAT for technical or legal reasons. The use of exFAT on some SDXC cards may render SDXC unsuitable as a universal exchange medium, as an SDXC card that uses exFAT would not be usable in all host devices.

However, once Fat32 falls out of patent in 2013, you can fall back to using it on anything less than 2TB.

Since the FAT32 file system supports volumes up to the SDXC's maximum theoretical capacity of 2 TB as well, a user could reformat an SDXC card to use FAT32 for greater portability

Seeing this, Microsoft put a change into windows vista and windows 7 to prevent formatting cards that big in Fat32, (although you can still do so in Linux and some devices). They force the use of exFat, because it is under patent longer.

Re:Hey buddy

[Frojack123]

Its not Android that Microsoft is licensing, its some of their protocols, (MTP most likely).

Seriously, how is this modded as Troll, when every thing is that post is exactly true?
Micro$oft isn't claiming that they own Android.

Is it just that Icebike didn't pour enough M$ hate into his post and you guys couldn't find the Mod Disagree button or what?

Re:Hey buddy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty widely known now that MS is extorting money almost exclusively for its ancient FAT filesystem patents. Because they were able to establish it as a defacto format during their monopoly years, they're now in a position where its ubiquitous. Not because its good, or innovative or took significant effort to develop. Just because it became the lowest common denominator.

And they'll continue milking it until somebody stops them.

It really is time for industry to route around this damage and develop a new common, free and open filesystem format, or for governments to step in and stop this abuse of their systems. ...
And apparently they are correct, because the link I posted also has a list of companies who decided it was cheaper to pay license fees than try to beat the patents in court.

If it costs too much to try to beat the patents in court, does this not suggest there is something wrong with the legal system? It might, of course, simply be there case there is something wrong with the patent system. However, if we have a broken patent system, a broken copyright system (as many discussions on Slashdot have clearly shown, as has the behavior of organizations like the RIAA), a broken trademark system, broken Tort law (it is not an accident that the USA is known as the Land of the Lawsuit), and problems with many other areas of law, then the conclusion logically follows that it is the legal system, in fact, that is broken.

Clearly some form of legal system seems to be necessary for society to function. Therefore, it is not the concept of a legal system that is broken, but rather the implementation.

If the lawyers have made it too expensive for the legal system to work properly, then it in turn follows that the problem with the implementation lies with the conduct of the lawyers.

The only thing that lawyers from many different areas of law have in common with how they work in their various specializations, the only aspect of legal practice that they all share and that is broad enough to affect all of these different areas of law, is legal ethics. It therefore seems highly likely that we, as a society, need to be taking a close look at legal ethics. The patent issue, therefore, is best viewed as a small aspect of a much larger problem.

Re:Hey buddy

[hairyfeet]

You don't even know what RAND means, do you? Its REASONABLE and NON discriminatory, NOT FREE. You don't have any right to try to redefine a term that has been in use for over half a century, RAND goes back to the very first computers.

But lets cut through the bull, shall we? if your product is so damned shitty you can't even pay RAND through a fund raiser or waving a tin cup maybe you shouldn't be in business, how about that? BTW ask yourself THIS question, which I have YET to hear a FOSSIe come up with a reasonable answer: Why is it that plumbers and lawyers and CEOs can ALL get paid for THEIR labor, but programmers are dity filthy things for wanting to get paid for theirs? I've never seen RMS demand that plumbers work for free, have you? How much does he get paid per lecture again? Doesn't it strike you as even a tiny bit odd that a guy that writes ZERO software (both Emacs and GCC have been FORKED to get them away from RMS) and who gets paid for HIS labor should say that YOU don't deserve to get paid for yours?

at the end of the day if you want to give away YOUR stuff? Fine and dandy but the ENTIRE POINT of RAND is so that those that do the work get paid while at the same time insuring that nobody plays favorites. your distro will get charged the same as ubuntu and Red hat and Sony and anybody else that wants the tech, no playing favorites. if you don't like that? tough, write your own software and don't steal other people's work, is that REALLY so hard?

Re:Hey buddy

[hairyfeet]

I'm glad you asked that, we should be doing an ACT UP kind of awareness campaign, complete with letters and emails making it clear that ANY congressman that doesn't vote to end software patents will be looking for a job next election. This CAN work, look at how pure Nerd rage shut down SOPA/PIPA.

but if you really want this situation to change then we ALL must work together, we need the critics and the bloggers and the nerds, make damned sure that Joe and Jane average can't surf the web without having this shoved in their face a couple of dozen times and you CAN change the system.

Re:Hey buddy

[andydread]

THIS!! I like. But it took sites like Wikipedia and Google to get involved before Joe sixpack got involved and clicked the big red button to "dial your senator and representatives" Maybe something like an "End software patents day" and this should be repeated over and over until these clowns get it.

Re:Hey buddy

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds a lot like typical Apple B.S. patent claims...

Re:Hey buddy

[sjames]

Actually, I DO know what it means. I also know that by setting a per unit price, it DISCRIMINATES by making it impossibly to comply if your software is public domain or even just freely copyable. Even moreso if single registrations aren't permitted (effectively barring the end user from complying)).

Don't LIE and claim to be reasonable and non-discriminatory when you make compliance impossible for such a large group.

Nobody is trying to take your bone away, there;s no need to growl. I explicitly urged you to make the deal you want, I just demanded that you not lie about it. I'm sorry if telling the truth is such a burden for you.

Re:Hey buddy

[stenvar]

Brand perception matters a great deal, both for profits and for stock prices. Apple's brand perception has suffered significantly already. "Appleites" are going to care if they are seen as losers for using expensive and limited products. And Grandma is going to hear about MSFT lawsuits from her grandson who picks out her next compute device.

Microsoft in particular is in deep trouble; with Windows 8, they have caved in to the Android/iPad user interface style, but Windows 8 delivers a lousy user experience both to traditional Windows users and tablet users.

Re:Hey buddy

[hairyfeet]

Oh Lord where to begin. First of all as long as Apple products are seen as "exclusive" (read expensive) then the Appleites won't care, in fact the ONLY time I saw Apple actually hurt was when they got burnt by Bumpgate. as long as their devices work? they aren't gonna worry about shit.

And what is wrong with MSFT goes a HELL of a lot deeper than the "LOL I Iz A Cellphone" UI of Win 8, they got rich off a BUBBLE and when that bubble has burst they expect things to go back to the bubble when that bubble was unnatural and won't be coming back.

What MSFT is too fucking dumb to see if that tablets and cellphones are having their OWN BUBBLE and just like the MHz war that bubble is gonna burst, but because Apple has made "thin and sleek" really the ONLY thing you can build the bubble is gonna burst even faster. MSFT is like the moron who is trying to get into flipping houses 6 months after the housing bubble popped thinking "it'll turn around" when it won't. Samsung is up to 6 cores, Nvidia 5 cores, just like Intel and AMD they've learned they can't crank the clocks without having battery life that is measured in minutes so they have no choice but to crank up the cores. i predict in less than 2 years ARM will be just like X86, with people only replacing units when they break.

But "shaming" these companies is gonna work about as well as shaming the company that makes your toaster, hell most folks don't even have a fucking clue WHAT OS is on their system, its an Apple or it Windows, that is it. They don't know shit about these companies, nor do they care. these companies would have to do something on the size of the BP oil spill for anybody to notice or give a shit and that just ain't gonna happen friend. Or have you forgotten how much dirt was brought out about MSFT during the anti-trust trial? yet they made MORE money afterward than they had ever made before? So how does that fit with your shaming idea?

Re:Hey buddy

[hairyfeet]

Actually Wiki and Google were late jumpers to the bandwagon friend, I had a LOT of customers asking me about SOPA/PIPA and it was NOT because of those two but because all the sites they went to for reviews, everything from movies to books to games, had damned near every video start with a plea to fight SOPA/PIPA. It was THE LITTLE GUYS that started the ball gathering steam, the little guys that got the word splattered onto a billion FB pages and had twitter all lit up, and it is THEY whom we must convince to jump on board. If we do this then the big boys will hop on the wagon for the free PR, just as they did with SOPA/PIPA.

Re:Hey buddy

[hairyfeet]

So in other words its communism at the barrel of a gun, because YOU have decided that ALL should be free therefor ALL must comply. Be fucking honest why don't you, even RMS doesn't lay on the bullshit THAT thick.

Again if you don't like it unlike you nobody is trying to hold a gun to your head, you are free to make your product WITHOUT using other people's property. But just because YOU have drank the koolaid and think all software should be free (so do you think programmers should starve? or that the state should pick up the check?) does NOT give you the right to force others to comply. If you think RAND is too much? Do without.

Re:Hey buddy

[sjames]

I guess expecting you to be truthful is just too much burden to bear! Awwwww.

Re:Hey buddy

[hairyfeet]

The only one not being truthful is YOU. YOU have decided that software is worthless YOU have decided you will pay nothing for it so you expect ME to do the same and just hand you what I PAID FOR either in labor or capital, just because you have dreams of a communist utopia?

Please go DIAF we've had enough of that bullshit, Your "hero" is a fucking squatter (his own words BTW) and lives off the charity of those that actually work, and you want us to be like him? Fuck RMS and fuck you if you think being a fucking bum is a worthwhile way of life. go peddle crazy somewhere else, we ain't buying.

Re:Hey buddy

[stenvar]

Or have you forgotten how much dirt was brought out about MSFT during the anti-trust trial? yet they made MORE money afterward than they had ever made before? So how does that fit with your shaming idea?

Mostly, it tells me just that you don't understand marketing, branding, correlation, or economics.

Re:Hey buddy

[sjames]

Really? You got all of that from me commenting that terms claimed to be RAND are often, in fact, discriminatory?

So what color underwear am I wearing?

Time for Microsoft to be sued out of existence

[Anonymous Coward]

They are a leach on modern businesses, their operating systems are found lacking, their office products are crap, their hardware is of the scaliest, slimiest design. In other words, they are dinosaurs in modern society.

MPAA - On warning for extinction.
RIAA - On warning for extinction.
Microsoft - On warning for extinction.

Time to open up the hunting licenses, and finish them all off.

Re:Time for Microsoft to be sued out of existence

[Anonymous Coward]

Awwwww poor widdle microsoft wubers crying cuz someone states the truth??

Microsoft hasn't innovated anything in 20 years, which is only slightly better than Apple....

Re:Time for Microsoft to be sued out of existence

[Anonymous Coward]

Awwwww poor widdle microsoft wubers crying cuz someone states the truth??

No, your post was most likely deemed "flamebait" because it was laughable Internet Tough Guy drivel that wasn't even pretending to offer a realistic solution to the problem. Ooh, you're putting them "on warning" for extinction and going to "finish them all off"?! Please.

Anyway, one may as well extend MS' lack of innovation to well over 30 years, since even the original MS-DOS circa 1981 was at best a workalike knockoff of CP/M that they bought in from someone else. In fact, while Gates may have written the first microcomputer implementation of BASIC in the mid-70s, he wasn't even the original creator of the language. MS were never, ever really innovators.

Kinect is one of the few original things they've created recently, and it's a wonder *that* managed to escape from the black hole of Microsoft Research, which- despite being well-funded and having lots of apparently talented people working there- never seems to actually translate into anything in practice. In fact, I'd guess that Kinect only escaped because- being an XBox peripheral- it wasn't as big a threat to existing vested interests and departmental politics in the Windows division.

Re:Time for Microsoft to be sued out of existence

[Mike Frett]

The real bad guys are the US Chamber of Commerce. The take money from Big companies, like Microsoft, and funnel it to organizations that bribe and Elect Judges to rule in the Company's favor and The CoC funnels that money to Ads that mostly push Propaganda lies to elect Corrupt Officials. Why do you think there are caps on jury payouts to victims?. So Big Business can make more money and give you less if you are injured at their fault.

Now it's Arbitrary Agreements, they will not stop until they can get away with Murder and wipe their ass with your Bill of Rights and Constitution. And YOU are the one giving them the money to do these things by buying their products. You contribute to your own demise, with a smile on your face and Ear buds in your Ear and Gasoline in your ride.

Stop paying people to take away your rights. If you look, with Software Patents and such, they are fighting each other now; you all better pray that they destroy each other. Better them, than us, we can rebuild.

Re:Time for Microsoft to be sued out of existence

[Redmancometh]

I dont like microsoft, but I don't know of another decent office product. Libre/OO are awful, and wordperfect is terrible. Maybe thats another part of you being voted down?

Re:Time for Microsoft to be sued out of existence

[Miamicanes]

> Microsoft hasn't innovated anything in 20 years

Scroll wheels on mice aren't 20 years old, and to the best of my knowledge, they came straight from Microsoft. Once in a great while, Microsoft *does* get *something* right.

Re:Time for Microsoft to be sued out of existence

[crutchy]

unfortunately a lot of people who have grown up with microsoft office don't realize how much time and effort they have invested in learning how to use it, asking questions and battling its problems... then they try something like openoffice and get frustrated because they can't figure something out and think its a fault of the software for not being like ms office.

i'm not saying that microsoft office is bad (i use it in addition to libreoffice) but with the notable exceptions of access and outlook, open/libreoffice can do pretty much anything that word/excel/powerpoint can do, although it would be interesting to hear any thoughts regarding what people *think* openoffice can't do that they know how to do in ms office.

Re:Time for Microsoft to be sued out of existence

[NeilBryant]

Personally, I've used MS Office since 2.0. I've taught classes in many versions. If I go boot up Word on my work machine, now, I can't find a flipping thing. It's easier to get around in LibreOffice. And all that time I spent getting good at Office feel like as big a waste of time as VisualBasic.

Re:Time for Microsoft to be sued out of existence

[Anonymous Coward]

AJAX came from MS.

I'm not an MS fan, but give credit where credit is due.

Those annoying "hiccups" in the metamod screen that cause you to click on the wrong post would never have existed, except for IE5.

Re:Time for Microsoft to be sued out of existence

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad you don't know how to read.
I was threatening them personally, just reading the landscape.

Musicians - going away from RIAA and their RICO Act members.
Movies - well - they'll get a clue someday - once our congress critters stop taking bribes.

Microsoft? the writing's on the wall with worst OS sales ever on Win 8 and that rotpad Surface piece of shit.

XBox 720 ending used game resales? No one with a brain will purchase it.
Same with Sony's PS4 - if you end resale of games, you have to take game prices down to sub 5 dollar range or you're dead.

Re:Time for Microsoft to be sued out of existence

[youn]

No wonder AJAX is complicated unless you use a library like jQuery :p

Re:Time for Microsoft to be sued out of existence

[mab]

Didn't MIcrosoft buy Kinect from an Israeli company?

Re:Time for Microsoft to be sued out of existence

[Anonymous Coward]

"The scroll wheel was invented at Microsoft in 1993 by Eric Michelman".

Yeah, so 20 years. Sarcasm?

Re:Time for Microsoft to be sued out of existence

[Ultracrepidarian]

You might google F & G SCROLLING MOUSE, L.L.C. vs Microsoft.

Re:Time for Microsoft to be sued out of existence

[LordLimecat]

their operating systems are found lacking, their office products are crap

Businesses everywhere find your words intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Time for Microsoft to be sued out of existence

[LordLimecat]

By the same logic, Linux was simply a Minix / Unix imitator, Ext3 simply expanded on Ext2, Samsung simply copied Apple who copied the previous person with a touchscreen cellphone who copied Nokia.....

I suppose that MS made Office and Exchange (which apparently there still isnt a viable competitor for for 95% of businesses) is of no account, as well.

Re:Time for Microsoft to be sued out of existence

[ios and web coder]

No it's not.

I've been writing asynch stuff for decades. AJAX is a hell of a lot simpler than most async protocols.

I don't use JQuery. That's like buying a bookstore for one pulp fiction book. I have an extremely simple AJAX routine that's about 30 lines long, and has been the workhorse of my JS apps for a number of years.

However, IE is a general nightmare in many other senses. They have a rather...unique...interpretation of many Internet standards.

Goodbye Nikon

[Freshly Exhumed]

One less brand to ever appear on my shopping list.

Re:Goodbye Nikon

[ColdWetDog]

Looks like your going to be using a pretty short list. Since you don't want to step on anyone else's intellectual toes, I'd suggest starting with this camera manufacturer,.

Re:Goodbye Nikon

[Anonymous Coward]

One less brand to ever appear on my shopping list.

Dido

Re:Goodbye Nikon

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Did she enter a licensing agreement with Microsoft?

Re:Goodbye Nikon

[Freshly Exhumed]

Wow! Using your income as a tool for protest. You're so fucking cool! As if anyone gives a shit what you buy with your meager salary.

Enjoy some good reading here: Adbusters, and then think about how you can throw off the yoke for yourself.

Re:Goodbye Nikon

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh. I'd avoid android shit anyway. It's not that great to begin with.

Re:Goodbye Nikon

[Jeremy Erwin]

Best avoid Android, then.

Re:Goodbye Nikon

[RazorSharp]

Wow! Using your income as a tool for protest. You're so fucking cool! As if anyone gives a shit what you buy with your meager salary.

Wow! You're so fucking cool! Using /. posts to mock those who take a moral stand! As if anyone gives a shit about your apathy and lack of concern for matters of right and wrong.

People don't use their income as a tool for protest because they think they're going to change things. They do so because financially supporting unethical actions is unethical itself, whether the effect is great or small. Go back under your bridge.

Re:Goodbye Nikon

[ScentCone]

So why is this guy fussing about Nikon's software licensing arrangements when vastly larger swaths of the economy are hip deep involved with the company he so hates? He's going to have to stop buying vegetables from thousands of farmers, fuel from thousands of gas stations, anti-biotics from pretty much everybody who makes them ... in fact there are millions of people in this country he has to stop interacting with, now. How exhausting.

Nikon doesn't have to play this game. But then, they do want to interact with billions of people around the world who choose to use MS-based products. They could decide that it's not important to them to work with this one software publisher. But they'd be idiots.

Re:Goodbye Nikon

[Anonymous Coward]

One less brand to ever appear on my shopping list.

Dido

I agree, he's a Dildo.

Re:Goodbye Nikon

[Jeremy Erwin]

Those all appear to be film cameras. No pesky software patents.

However, Holga isn't known for quality glass. I don't think they're known for glass, period.

Re:Goodbye Nikon

[Anonymous Coward]

OP never said anything about "hate" towards Nikon, and the rest of your post is simply a big whine-job about how hard you think it is to figure out how to make personal ethical choices in the consumer marketplace, so you just give up.

Re: Goodbye Nikon

[Gonoff]

No. She paid money to an extortionist.

Re:Goodbye Nikon

[Jeremy Erwin]

Aeneas was a bit of a Linux fan, and Dido did not not take rejection lightly.

Re:Goodbye Nikon

[Em Adespoton]

One less brand to ever appear on my shopping list.

You do realize that Nikon already pays both Microsoft and Apple for the patents surrounding its current cameras, right? Mpeg-LA as well. Nikon cameras, while using their own RAW format for image storage, also use JPEG, Quicktime MOV for video, and Microsoft's MTP for data transfer. They also use HDMI connectors as well as USB -- all of which require patents. They also use licenses from SanDisk and the SD cartel for the SD card interface, license to Microsoft for using FAT-32 to format the storage, have licenses for multiple patents on the Li-Ion batteries they use in their devices, the CCDs they use in their sensors, and also have various licenses covering hard and soft interface elements.

To offset this, Nikon holds a whack of their own patents covering everything from button layout (the reason Canon cameras have inferior button layout to Nikon), optics, CCD interface, post-processing technology, storage and transfer formats, etc.

The only thing that really surprises me here is that they were unable to perform a license trade to get the MS patents for free. I guess pay-as-you-go can be cheaper, if you don't plan to use the patent for long and don't want to give away your own patent in the process.

Re:Goodbye Nikon

[Em Adespoton]

er, FAT-32 should read ExFAT

Re:Goodbye Nikon

[Anonymous Coward]

> People don't use their income as a tool for protest because they think they're going to change things.
If they don't, they should. Well, at least that's the only argument of how free market/capitalism can make up for a better world.

Re:Goodbye Nikon

[ClickOnThis]

One less brand to ever appear on my shopping list.

So, what are the alternatives? Serious question. Another thread mentions Canon. Are there others? Someone please enlighten us.

Re:Goodbye Nikon

[thegarbz]

Canon? You mean the company that heard there may be a future in fuel cell batteries so applied for the completely non-obvious patent in using a fuel cell to power a camera?

How about Sony? Yeaaahh... no.

Actually your best bet may be Olympus. Their biggest crime appears to be corporate cooking of their own books, but from what I see they haven't gone mad with any patent wars, and unlike Canon, Nikon, and Sony who are doing their best at proprietary lock-in actually make 4/3rds and micro 4/3rds cameras which are fully compatible with a whole host of lenses and flashes from other manufacturers. Oh and they're a hell of a player in the scientific field too. Olympus microscopes are pretty much *the* scope to have.

Re:Goodbye Nikon

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd sooner avoid the Windows shit because it's pure diarrhea. Everything they make is explosive shit.

Re:Goodbye Nikon

[tuxxer]

One less brand to ever appear on my shopping list.

So, what are the alternatives? Serious question. Another thread mentions Canon. Are there others? Someone please enlighten us.

Basically most people wont embargo nikon over canon and others because of this, id suspect for most photogs, this is not even on their radar. All the major brands have their own system in place, and while a shooter can pass on a point and shoot from nikon thats under a thousand dollars, there is no chance a nikon shooter is going to move to a competitor, and possibly replace up to 10k or more worth of glass over this. Replace nikon with canon , which i shoot and its not even going to be in the top one hundred reasons why i would change systems, if they incorporated this into the dslr o/s. Tux

Re:Goodbye Nikon

[Anonymous Coward]

OP never said anything about "hate" towards Nikon,

Right, he merely implied it. Because he's obviously one of their customers, which means he's well invested in their flavor of equipment, And he's willing to give up and walk away from doing business with them because he so dislikes their approach to doing business. He's willing to deprive them of his business out of dislike for their world view.

Oy Vey

[Anonymous Coward]

They also license patents from Apple, IBM and god knows who else, but it's not a big story then.

Why try and spin it as some sort of evil "Microsoft tax", when we could actually have a discussion on the patent system, instead of some retarded online version of two minutes hate.

This site has become completely worthless as a place to discuss technology.

Re:Oy Vey

[ilguido]

That's because while some don't like the patent system at large, many, I'd say the majority, find the software patent system despicable. This article is about the latter.

Moreover this is a friendly reminder for all those who think that the Xbox/Xbox 360 makes money: the royalties from mobile system patents are collected by the EDD, those, and not the Xbox, counterbalance the losses of Windows Phone.

Re:Oy Vey

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, more shills like you in slashdot getting modded up by other shills, that's what turns this and other sites worthless. When you can't even tell the truth without people getting offended because the commercial interests of Microsoft are not getting "fairly treated".

Microsoft threatens patents regarding the code itself, on Linux itself, trying to legitimize making a free to distribute and install thing non free. Among many other effects this makes the free nature of Linux not free so they can compete even with a relative expense of Windows licenses. What's worse is each time this happens you're losing options to not support Microsoft.

Apple and IBM and god knows who else might be involved in hardware patent bs but whatever they're doing is as far as I know outside of coder's direct concerns.

Re:Oy Vey

[Anonymous Coward]

Do Apple, IBM and god knows who else claim they have patents that cover the Linux kernel? Not that I know and they certainly don't collect rent for using it, unlike Micro$oft. That's what this piece of news is about.

Software patents suck generally but this BS sucks especially.

I see you don't know jack shit about M$ and their business practices. Do your homework. http://wayback.archive.org/web/20120116153542/http://www.msversus.org/

And that older collection of abuses doesn't contain the never gems ooxml and "secure boot". M$ is one disgusting company.

Re:Oy Vey

[Anonymous Coward]

Why try and spin it as some sort of evil "Microsoft tax", when we could actually have a discussion on the patent system, instead of some retarded online version of two minutes hate.

Simple it is a Microsoft tax. This extortion is all about being able to read and write to storage and unfortunately the monopoly created by the need for fat and ntfs on chips. The rest of the obvious bullshit patents like "a button method to record to an operating system" are not even the problem as I am sure they would be tossed in the trash where they belong. As far as Nikon paying royalties to IBM, Apple etc that is complete and absolute bullshit. They do pay some royalties to Kodak as does every other company that uses digital imaging technology. Camera raw is not the issue here and neither are any of the other software solutions for digital imaging as I am sure Nikon pays for some things.

The Microsoft extortion is attached to an NDA for a very good reason, they know that after a long and costly court battle over their bullshit patents they would for ONE; come out looking like a bully in the public eye, TWO; most likely have most of their patent portfolio tossed out in court, THREE; create such ire with manufactures that they would finally band together to divest themselves of any and all attachments to Microsoft's software once and for all.

Why else would the manufactures be using only variations upon the Linux kernel and OSS with these devices? Could it be that the inflexibility and cost of closed source embedded software from Redmond is financially not possible except for a few chosen "hardware partners" like the Ford motor company and Toyota?

Re:Oy Vey

[Kalriath]

You do realise their annual reports are broken down into a little more detail than that right? You can see plain as day exactly how much Xbox brings in compared to Windows Phone (which since it's just Windows 8 is probably attributed to the Windows Division now) and how much licensing brings in. Your reminder falls flat on it's face upon reflection of that point.

Re:Oy Vey

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the GP is correct because you're not considering how deferred revenue is accounted for. It's very easy to move earnings/losses around by a few accounting tricks. Most public companies including MS do this every single quarter to massage earnings and it's a perfectly legal way to manipulate your balance sheet through the 10Q/K. I'm surprised you were so arrogant in your response without knowing such basic financial reporting stuff.

Re:Oy Vey

[Kalriath]

That's still completely irrelevant. GP (GGP now) was making a baseless claim that licensing revenue is the only thing propping up Windows Phone (which for what it's worth probably isn't even in EDD any more, since Windows Phone is actually literally Windows 8 and probably accounted for in WD now) - when the annual (quarterly?) reports quite clearly show where all the money actually comes from (deferred/manipulated or not).

Especially since I'm pretty sure they deliberately defer the shit out of every number to make as much of an on-paper loss as possible (it may be called Hollywood accounting, but it's not specific to LA).

Re:Oy Vey

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite, this particular patent is a trivial bit of software to allow longer file names in the FAT files system. FAT itself, used by Microsoft as the default file system before NTFS. However they didn't create it, FAT existed before Microsoft even existed. That's why this shakedown is pure bullshit. Had they created the entire thing, they may have had a point, but a few lines of code added to an existing systems is clear corruption only the US legal system could allow.

If you don't like the site and users that are significantly more knowledgeable correcting you, how about you simply fuck off to reddit and mod crap photos made by tweens?

Re:Oy Vey

[Anonymous Coward]

This site has become completely worthless as a place to discuss technology.

Sadly, I have to agree. It seems to be teeming with polarized trolls with nothing but bile to share.

The collapse of this site has happened quite rapidly, too. I actually remember learning new stuff, here; especially from the comments.

Now, the comments after stories are these ridiculous polarized foodfights.

Re:Oy Vey

[ilguido]

You do realise their annual reports are broken down into a little more detail than that right? You can see plain as day exactly how much Xbox brings in compared to Windows Phone[...]

The break down is about revenues, I was clearly talking about profits. I know that very well, in facts to me it's pretty clear that if the console business adds up to 70-80% of total division revenues and the division loses money (4 billions since 2002, this figure lacks the original Xbox launch and development cost, which is usually estimated at 1-2 billion more), then the console business must not be that profitable.

Confusing press release without context

[dmomo]

Here's some info on the patents that Microsoft claims android is in violation of:

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070611-microsoft-android.html

Re:Confusing press release without context

[Dexter Herbivore]

So what happens if MS loses the patent claims to Google? Does the "Microsoft tax" get paid to Google instead? Or just gets them invalidated for being obvious?

Seriously, "a record button on a computer system"... what the hell, US patent system. What the hell?

Re:Confusing press release without context

[HangingChad]

Why isn't Google sticking up for Android?

Re:Confusing press release without context

[Anonymous Coward]

And as a follow-up to that article from 1.5 years ago, be it noted that when B&N hung tough, and was willing to go to court, MS "settled" by investing $300M in a joint venture, and they became good buddies who were not going to have such silly squabbles any more.

Interesting that they have not gone after Apple's iOS on a lot of those same "patents" - have they?

YMMV

Re:Confusing press release without context

[MikeBabcock]

Yes, because we've always felt these were valid here on Slashdot:

Patents 5,579,517 and 5,758,352, issued in 1996, "relate to implementing both long and short file names in the same file system,"

Re:Confusing press release without context

[Jeremy Erwin]

At least the FAT patent expires in 2014.

Re:Confusing press release without context

[Anonymous Coward]

Android is not really an operating system in the sense of MS Windows or Ubuntu. Google just throws source code onto a FTP server somewhere. It's someone else's problem to "productize" it.

Re:Confusing press release without context

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, umsdos implemented short and long file name in a file system well before that. I don't know when the pattent was filled, but umsdos became available in linux kernel officially in july 24 1994. It was available as a patch well before. Development started in 1992.

Re:Confusing press release without context

[Technician]

WIth the publicity on this, to inforce the tax on others, I could see this taking an Ernic Ball approach.

http://news.cnet.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html
And they haven't given in..
http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/2012/11/12/ernie-ball-inc-still-rockin-11-years-without-microsoft/

Re:Confusing press release without context

[netol]

Yes but say hello to exFAT (and its new patents), specially if you care about 4+ GB

Re:Confusing press release without context

[meta-monkey]

Well, it's not really the fault of the USPTO. They can't know the state of the art in every industry, so they act more as a stamping house. "Yes, you did in fact apply on this date for a patent on something we don't seem to already have a patent for." Then if someone else wants to contest the patent, you take them to court to invalidate it. The problem then is that the side with the most money tends to win court cases.

Re:Confusing press release without context

[gl4ss]

the '97 and fat patents are possibly valid.

the others sound like bullshit because most certainly MS shouldn't be having patents on them...

Re:Confusing press release without context

[BanHammor]

They also make the Nexus line. Would you consider Gentoo not to be a real OS just because it's a user's problem to compile it from scratch?

Re:Confusing press release without context

[candeoastrum]

They also make the Nexus line. Would you consider Gentoo not to be a real OS just because it's a user's problem to compile it from scratch?

Yeah but they don't manufacture the phones. I am thinking Microsoft is going after the phone manufacturers themselves. Google is almost using them as pawns by always avoiding the line of fire, never directly stating their opinion on said patent but at the same time benefiting from selling their product. Smart business; ethical, evil eh? Its business.

Re:Confusing press release without context

[hairyfeet]

And maybe if the guys here actually read that they will see that YES Android and pretty much anything else having to do with computers infringes so the more relevant question SHOULD BE "Why are we letting such basic concepts be patented in the first place?"

And THAT is the problem in a nutshell, software patents has made the system so broken companies can make more money spamming the USPTO with vague concepts and then suing when a few of these stick than in actually building products.

These articles are like complaining "I'm tired of getting hit by punks with bats!" while ignoring there is a guy on the corner handing free bats out to the punks. Stop THAT guy and the punks won't have the bats to hit you upside the head with.

Re:Confusing press release without context

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just say goodbye to FAT altogether? Why aren't companies using an alternative, open format?

Re:Confusing press release without context

[king neckbeard]

Because Windows doesn't support anything else besides FAT and NTFS out of the box.

Re:Confusing press release without context

[inode_buddha]

Re-posting this as a non-AC so that everyone sees it:

"And as a follow-up to that article from 1.5 years ago, be it noted that when B&N hung tough, and was willing to go to court, MS "settled" by investing $300M in a joint venture, and they became good buddies who were not going to have such silly squabbles any more.

Interesting that they have not gone after Apple's iOS on a lot of those same "patents" - have they?

YMMV"

MS *really* doesn't want to go to court over these patents, nor do they want anybody knowing exactly what they are about... As for the FAT patents? Those were unenforcable long ago. http://www.geek.com/articles/law/microsoft-fat-patent-shot-down-2004101

Re:Confusing press release without context

[Rockoon]

They also make the Nexus line.

..and have a licensing deal with Microsoft specifically for Android products with the Google brand.

I am wondering why it is that in every single story about Microsoft's "Android Tax" there is about a thousand slashdotters that don't fucking know that Google pays Microsoft a licensing fee.

Google is not giving out Android and saying its free of patent issues.. Google is in fact saying that if you implement an Android device will all the features that Googles Nexus line has then you are most certainly going to have patent issues, because even Google pays such licensing fees.

Re:Confusing press release without context

[Miamicanes]

Isn't there a FAT-ish filesystem for Linux developed sometime around 1998 for running Linux under FAT that works kind of like RockRidge extensions, and allows files larger than 2gb to be chained together as two or more smaller files? From what I remember, there is, and it's even readable by Windows (using a utility to reassemble 2gb+ files), and view the long filenames. "FAT64", maybe?

From what I recall, the main problem with it is the ease with which a nontechnical user can corrupt large files (by opening the first under an OS that thinks it's just a normal FAT16 filesystem, not realizing it's just part one of several, and appending something to it).

The main reason companies like Nikon pay Microsoft is because the royalties max out at some amount they hit per-unit by mid-February in a typical year, so it's not worth dealing with the tech support costs of telling Aunt Mabel that she has to download and use a thirdparty utility to copy her "FAT64" files to NTFS to view them under Windows.

Re:Confusing press release without context

[Kalriath]

It also supports Joliet/CDFS.

But if does support Installable File System drivers, which could easily ship on the install CD - which is neither FAT nor NTFS either.

Re:Confusing press release without context

[Rockoon]

Because Windows doesn't support anything else besides FAT and NTFS out of the box.

..and UDF..

Re:Confusing press release without context

[Jeremy Erwin]

Microsoft really does need to put more thought into how it designs its operating systems. It won't have that monopoly forever.

Re:Confusing press release without context

[arf_barf]

And this explains why majority of new phones don't have sdcards and only support MTP for file transfers to a PC.

Re:Confusing press release without context

[Anonymous Coward]

Because people don't click on their ads on a camera?

Re:Confusing press release without context

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok all this time I had it backwards. In actuality, MS is the beautiful naked virgin tied to the bed, frightened for her life. The rest of the tech world is the well hung, muscled psychotic who is about to take her roughly.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Confusing press release without context

[elashish14]

I believe Android 4.2 uses MTP by default and the reason is likely so that they can get away from FAT.

Re:Confusing press release without context

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't know the state of the art in every industry

Yes, they fucking can. That's why you have to pay to patent something. And it's not like IT is some obscure industry anymore, for fuck's sake, it's literally everywhere in civilized places, the world economy is heavily depending on it, there are millions of workers in this industry and they're so passionate about their work that many even work for free in their own free time. It's ridiculous that they can't find qualified people. It's bullshit. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would even do it for free. I know I would donate some time, just to see the end of this absurd software patent war. They can and do know it, but they pretend they don't because money.

Re:Confusing press release without context

[hedwards]

It is the USPTO's fault, they're supposed to have experts that cover the range of technology in house and if they don't have it, they're supposed to bring in experts that can.

The real problem here is that the USPTO receives its funding primarily from fees that people pay when applying for patents. In order for this silliness to end, we need to change that and just make it a government service again. Additionally because of the lack of funding there isn't a whole lot of time spent verifying any of this BS is even reasonable.

Re:Confusing press release without context

[Anonymous Coward]

Split it into partitions?

Re:Confusing press release without context

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking idiot.

Re:Confusing press release without context

[LordLimecat]

and exfat

Re:Confusing press release without context

[quacking duck]

Google won't even stick up for Android developers who are being sued by a patent troll for using a Google-provided authentication API. Most of those developers are small and have buckled under and paid the extortion fee. The developer of X-Plane was hit with one of these suits, but is refusing to pay, deciding to fight it instead. They estimate it will cost $1.5 million to defend. And no guarantee they'll win either.

Apple at least stepped up to defend iOS developers against a different troll, Lodsys. Maybe not monetarily (yet), but at least they threw their weight into the courtroom, even fighting off Lodsys' attempt to deny Apple's motion.

For all the /. comments in that article assuring others that Google would step up, the developer has contact Google for help, but they have and not will offer any assistance. Not even a token defence to X-Plane or other developers using a Google-provided API, which is presumably still available to unwitting Android developers.

Re:Confusing press release without context

[MikeBabcock]

I'm pretty sure you'll find that the people who made DR DOS disagree with you on that, but those of us who remember these events remember them happening before software patents were valid at all.

Wut?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

So...Microsoft has a patent on attaching a camera to a portable computer with an operating system?

Re:Wut?

[Doctor_Jest]

You should've seen the protoype. Bill Gates couldn't even lift it to take a picture.

Re:Wut?

[ClickOnThis]

So...Microsoft has a patent on attaching a camera to a portable computer with an operating system?

I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft has patents on attaching almost anything to a computer with an OS. As patents go, they have weirder ones.

I am not a crook

[fustakrakich]

Nikon resigns...

Re:I am not a crook

[loufoque]

Was that supposed to be funny?

Re:I am not a crook

[fustakrakich]

Was it worth your time to type that?

Re:I am not a crook

[loufoque]

I'm just asking, because I'm not sure.

Re:I am not a crook

[fustakrakich]

Then flip a coin... Let fate decide

Re:I am not a crook

[bvimo]

Edge.

Some random text to keep the Slashdot filters happy. Some random text to keep the Slashdot filters happy. Some random text to keep the Slashdot filters happy.

Canon here I come

[fermion]

I am going to have replace my camera kit in the next year. MS has shown that it is never happy with just part of the pie, or letting other people have a pie without the approval of MS. Once the claws get in, they never let go.

So even though I have been a Nikon fan for many years, I am afraid my next camera will a Canon.

Re:Canon here I come

[OzPeter]

I am going to have replace my camera kit in the next year. MS has shown that it is never happy with just part of the pie, or letting other people have a pie without the approval of MS. Once the claws get in, they never let go.

So even though I have been a Nikon fan for many years, I am afraid my next camera will a Canon.

Given that the value of a good camera kit is more in the glass than anything, that's a hell of an investment you will have to be replacing (*). And what will you do when Canon decides that it is going to jump onto the Android bandwagon in order to feature comparable with the Nikon cameras? Will you do what someone suggested above and move to a Holga?

* A friend once told me a long time ago - never sell a lens that you like.

Re:Canon here I come

[Noughmad]

I don't really know anything about (semi-)professional photography, but I always assumed objectives from different manufacturers were compatible. Can't you use your old glass with the new, different camera?

Re:Canon here I come

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say that a lot of people are looking for any reason to say they are going to dump Nikon, even if it is irrational. They have had a string of QCs issues recently that have really pissed people off (see D800 left focusing problem, D600 oil problem) that they have taken months to admit to, let alone fix.

That being said, I love my Nikon kit, I just need to stop buying more.

Re:Canon here I come

[OzPeter]

I don't really know anything about (semi-)professional photography, but I always assumed objectives from different manufacturers were compatible. Can't you use your old glass with the new, different camera?

Camera manufacturers lock you in with proprietary hardware interfaces, so in general you can't mix and match between different companies. They also try and keep backwards compatibility within their own brand and Nikon supposedly has one of the best backward compatibility with its lenses of the major 35mm camera manufacturers.

Re:Canon here I come

[OzPeter]

I would say that a lot of people are looking for any reason to say they are going to dump Nikon, even if it is irrational.

You can have my F100 when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers - but I'm taking my 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S to the grave with me :D.

Though I am thinking its getting time to upgrade my D70.

Re:Canon here I come

[Telvin_3d]

Calling it a lock-is a bit strong. Cameras from different manufacturers gave different dimensions and specs. Something sized for one will not fit another. But the specs are well documented and widely used. For example, many professional video cameras from many manufacturers are compatible with Canon lenses.

Re:Canon here I come

[OzPeter]

Calling it a lock-is a bit strong.

I disagree. Yes the specs are well documented, and third party manufacturers produce compatible lenses, but you have choose - Nikon system, Canon system etc and you can not cross *that* boundary.

Re:Canon here I come

[ScentCone]

I don't really know anything about (semi-)professional photography, but I always assumed objectives from different manufacturers were compatible. Can't you use your old glass with the new, different camera?

Only in some circumstances. Most systems have different physical mounts, are built to sit at different distances from the sensor/film, have different electrical contacts for aperture control solenoids and auto-focus motor power/control. Etc.

Good lenses can usually be sold without much loss. But when you have a full collection built around a given system, it makes more sense to stick with that system, body-wise. It might mean being a little less pious about open source software ... but then, the people swearing they're not going to use Canon products are 1) Lying anyway (they probably also said they'd leave the country if Bush got re-elected), 2) Pretending they don't know that Canon as a business has thousands and thousands of employees and no doubt many thousands of devices and servers running the MS stack. If they jump ship over this story, it's for completely absurd, situational-outrage, non-reasons.

Re:Canon here I come

[Omestes]

Pentax is hugely backwards compatible. I have glass sitting around that is over 30 years old that works flawlessly on my modern SLR. The only problem is some of the newer lenses, made for crop sensors, aren't really usable on film bodies without severe vignetting (though not always, some labeled for ASP-C are actually have a 35mm image circle). Also, all however many years of class all have stabilization, thanks to in body IS (why is also why I picked Olympus for my mirrorless).

Back in the film days there were several companies making class for other big brands. Also most screw mount lenses were pretty universal (m39 for pretty much all rangefinder/Leica type cameras, and m42 for pretty much everything else. Bayonet mounts is where things went downhill for compatibility. Now the only real "open" platform out there is Micro 4/3s, but even that isn't terribly open since its only Olympus and Panasonic.

I wouldn't call it lock in, though, since there are actual physical limitations, such as flange distance, and contacts (what features do you want to ship to the lens, or keep in body?). Some of it is obviously lock in, but thats putting it a bit strong.

Re:Canon here I come

[fermion]

It is lockin. One way to minimize is to buy used kit.

Re:Canon here I come

[TapeCutter]

I have a 10yr old Nikkon SLR, cost me $1200 back then. The reason I will never buy another Nikkon is because they deliberately removed the ability to attach a mechanical remote control (shutter release cable). These cables were standard sizes, reasonably priced ~$20, and most (if not all) SLR's supported them. If I wanted to do the same thing with their camera I would have to shell out another $200 for the electronic remote that only worked with their camera.

Re:Canon here I come

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really know anything about (semi-)professional photography, but I always assumed objectives from different manufacturers were compatible. Can't you use your old glass with the new, different camera?

Camera manufacturers lock you in with proprietary hardware interfaces, so in general you can't mix and match between different companies. They also try and keep backwards compatibility within their own brand and Nikon supposedly has one of the best backward compatibility with its lenses of the major 35mm camera manufacturers.

Actually, if you want a nice camera with 25+ years of old lenses that are compatible, buy a Pentax DSLR. I have a pair of K100D's, and am happily using a set of lenses from the early 90's. Their in-body image stabilization means even an adapted screw-mount lens will have image stabilization, and any of their automatic K mount lenses will work with the body just fine. The new lenses are faster on autofocus, but some of the 80's lenses had really nice glass quality. Many of Canon's older film body lenses don't fit the new digital setup, they changed the mounting system. Pentax's K mount stayed the same from the film to digital era, just improved.

Re:Canon here I come

[radish]

Back in the film days there were several companies making class for other big brands

There still are - Tamron, Sigma etc. I have a couple of Sigma EF lenses that I love.

Re:Canon here I come

[radish]

It's lock-in in the same way that Ford lock you in to using parts designed for Fords. I'm a Canon user but my lenses are about 50/50 Canon original and third party. No, I can't use a Nikkor because they've never made an EF mount lens to my knowledge, but a number of companies do.

Re:Canon here I come

[commlinx]

I don't really know anything about (semi-)professional photography, but I always assumed objectives from different manufacturers were compatible. Can't you use your old glass with the new, different camera?

Just as a bit of additional background modern lenses and flashes may do a bit more than you'd imagine. I'm a Canon user but say I attach a 70-200 zoom lens the auto-focus motor is in the lens so if say tracking a moving vehicle in servo mode there's a constant stream of information flowing between the camera and lens to try and hold it in focus. The current focal length also gets reported back as I zoom in and out, and if a compatible flash is attached it will mechanically move reflectors to direct the most flash power into a smaller area that will still cover the scene.

Those are proprietory protocols but have been reverse-engineered by 3rd party lens manufacturers. Occasionally though the OEM will begin using some new feature / protocol that was always present in their lenses and it's not uncommon to hear that a 3rd party lens needs to go back to the factory for a firmware update to work with a newly released camera.

Re:Canon here I come

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Canon's EF protocol (used to communicate between the camera and the lens - and it's a purely electronic protocol) is not available.

Real target is not Android

[Anonymous Coward]

The real target of all this bullshit from Microsoft is the use of firmware with software other than what comes from Redmond, period. Face it Microsoft has been squeezed out of the embedded market largely because of the flexibility of OSS and the Linux kernel.

The best and only solution is for manufactures to turn on the bastards and stop using fat and ntfs period or charge more for devices that do.

This could easily be accomplished by providing a software tool with the cheaper devices to read write to Windows without the use of fat or ntfs. If Samsung, Nikon, Sony, Toshiba, Canon and all the other manufacturers got together and created a formatting tool for storage that they shared this could easily be accomplished.

Having one company dictate the format in which all portable storage devices read and write is the problem and the bastards in Redmond need to be held to task and given a full financial enema for a change.

Re:Real target is not Android

[king neckbeard]

There are a couple of problems. One is that using a different file system is quite inconvenient, since it requires installation of additional software. It also probably wouldn't solve the problem, since MS has a ton of bullshit patents. The real solution is to drop the Antitrust hammer down, probably in Europe.

Re:Real target is not Android

[citizenr]

The best and only solution is for manufactures to turn on the bastards and stop using fat and ntfs period or charge more for devices that do.

too late, that battle is lost already
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh8gLKrGeBE

Re:Real target is not Android

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a couple of problems. One is that using a different file system is quite inconvenient, since it requires installation of additional software.

No problem. They can use ext2, which is freely available and has a windows driver too. Sure, you must install that driver. But any camera comes with a CD with "drivers" and other software anyway. (Raw converter, possibly some demo version of photoshop . . .)

Re:Real target is not Android

[hairyfeet]

Won't work because as long as 90%+ of the PCs out there (which is what folks are gonna want to get those pics on to for editing and sharing) run Windows getting rid of support for MSFT file systems would be slitting your own throat.

Now as for WHY does MSFT and Apple own 90% and 10% respectively and every other OS not even owns above the margin for error? I will get hate but truth is truth, nobody has offered a compelling product with the ease of use of OSX and Windows. Even Win 8 and Vista, as shitty as they are/were is a better OS than Linux because of the devs breaking shit with itch scratching (Yeah just throw out KDE 3 and gnome 2 when shit FINALLY gets good and stable, oh and crap all over audio by replacing ALSA with Pulse, that's the ticket!) and its obvious that Google isn't any "nicer" than Apple and MSFT and by refusing to make ChromeOS anything more than a glorified thin client has made it clear they don't give a shit about the PC market.

So until you come out with a product that is truly better and easier to use than Windows you can give it up Chuck, any camera manufacturer that charged more or refused to support NTFS and FAT would get slaughtered by those like Nikon who will just write this off as a cost of doing business and keep right on selling their cameras.

Re:Real target is not Android

[rastoboy29]

mod parent up

Re:Real target is not Android

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the file system problem is solved by UDF. Every major OS (Windows, OS X, and Linux) comes with full read/write support for volumes using UDF. The only problem is that most cameras don't support it.

Re:Real target is not Android

[Anonymous Coward]

the real target is delusion. thrse guys and some other corporate mobsters and their cronie political friends had a plan to take
full control of network services. there was no plan b for them. its like some psychopathic kid that got beaten in a fight and keeps coming back for more - he just doesnt get it. he lost. its over. even if he wins it woild be a token ein. u cant fool all of the prople all of the time. these gius just keep ealking into the fist and its an embarrasement.

i can see how asian partners are starting to lose respect for theor american counterparts. they font see reality and theyre not going to. its a psychosis - sort of like the red mist people get at the casino. its hard to ealk oit of the game whrn uve lost that big. but thats what seems to have happened.

grow up microsoft. ur side looks like the sore loser. reinvent yoirself and get back in tune with reality and compromise or negotiation.
or u will continue to embarass yourselves. get it into your head. u lost. take the hit. move on.............. x

for goodness sakes... enough...dont be a child

Lets redefine Open Again? Open mean no cost!?

[tuppe666]

Right?

No wrong. I am tired of closed being the new open , and well closed being the new open [Thank you Ars]. Android is an a modular OS where various parts are under different licenses GPL2 (Linux the Kernel) most of the userland (Apache which is why Honeycomb never got released) and proprietary (most first party Applications) with various stuff happening in the cloud (maps; various storage; mail)...and nothing has changed.

Android does not protect you from patent trolls like Microsoft, but then it never did or claimed to...your choices have always been, work around the patents; pay them off; fight them in courts.

In short though this topic has nothing to do with being open...and unless your a Tizen fanboi your just trolling [lets face it iOS and Bada the only serious contenders are closed], with an off-topic comment, now if you has said "But Android is still free [beer]?" you would have least been on topic...still a troll...but on topic.

Except we do.

[tuppe666]

They also license patents from Apple, IBM and god knows who else, but it's not a big story then.

Except we do in the case of Apple *endlessly* Its not just been big news here, but in every damn newspaper worldwide. In fact very little is said of Evil Microsoft(sic) shady deals which are in the main back room affairs "While the contents of the agreement will not be disclosed" , with it being spin as a joyful agreement "Microsoft and Nikon have a long history of collaboration".

Perhaps if your not happy you could register and submit stories you feel more worthwhile, rather than attack a community.

Re:Except we do.

[Nerdfest]

Microsoft are also trying to hide the 'patents' they are using as threats.

Re:Except we do.

[Rockoon]

Except we do in the case of Apple *endlessly*

Because unlike Microsoft that happily sells licenses for its IP, Apple steadfastly refuses to sell licenses for its IP and files lawsuits instead.

Re:Except we do.

[jedidiah]

Microsoft is much more of a classic parasite. A parasite can't thrive if it destroys the host. In this respect, Microsoft is actually far less destructive than Apple. On the other hand, Apple tries to destroy companies rather than just feed off of them.

Of course the whole system is corrupt and all of the big bully companies like the status quo.

Re:Except we do.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no requirement to license out a patent. In fact, most are kept as the State-granted monopolies they are for the company's own products instead of treated as just a money-generating machine through licensing.

I read over all of their 'patents'

[Anonymous Coward]

It used to be that a patent was for something innovative. Something new. Something that is different from everything else. Something that no one ever thought of before. It wasn't 'patent for windows in car to see outside' where houses had windows for thousands of years to see outside. Likewise 'patent for window in aircraft to see outside'. How the grand majority of these were not prior art is not just whimsical, but absurd. There is no innovation here. This is merely "we are calling a phone a brand new kind of thing, and applying a computer to it, but because we called the phone a new thing, all the patents are new inventions, even though everything was created on 'non-phone computers' decades before." If a wrist watch 'computer' came along tomorrow, I would file all of the 'obvious' patents that apply to computers on it tomorrow, and reap billions for all of my 'innovation' the day after. Its how the 'modern but stupid' US patent/legal system works.

Grow up, kid.

[westlake]

You callin' this "extortion"? That's a big word, my friend. 'Round here we just call it biz niss.

Nikon is a big boy now and can take care of itself.

Founded in 1917 and a core component of the Japanese industrial cartel Mitsubishi.

You do know Mitsubishi? Employs 350,000 people? Rakes in about $350 Billion in revenues each year?

In a mature industry, all Android-related patents would be pooled, managed and cross-licensed to stabilize the business and the product.

No need to build your own customized portfolio. That hasn't happened yet and the geek won't like it when it does ---- any more than he likes the dominance of the MPEG LA pools in video compression.

Re:Grow up, kid.

[Doctor_Jest]

Most of the people here get it. They get that Software Patents are inherently evil and wrong and should be abolished... and the patent trolls of the world need to all die in a fire. Reforming the Patent system to prevent patent trolls would go a long way towards making the Patent system what it was intended for...

Until then, we'll see extortion like this from Microsoft (and everyone else).... I rather like the "hippie free-love software"... but then again I don't play in Apple's or Microsoft's sandbox.

The rest of them can suck my balls.

Re:Grow up, kid.

[RazorSharp]

Extortion doesn't necessarily have to be a big player threatening a small player. How does the age or size of Nikon change the fact that this is extortion? It doesn't change a thing, scale is irrelevant.

Re:Grow up, kid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet most people don't really get it:

The concept of ownership of ideas is inherently immoral and a disgrace to the human intellect.

It is corrupted capitalism, and it really does not matter if it's about software or something else.

Re:Grow up, kid.

[crutchy]

i don't think what nikon is paying for has a whole lot to do with android (omg i can't believe slashdot would be spreading fud!)

nikon would no doubt have heard of the open innovation network (oin), which pools patents and defends open source (linux mainly), so if microsoft was threatening nikon with a linux lawsuit, the oin would probably be all over it

ibm laywers in particular have no doubt been salivating at the prospect of a decent linux battle in court for a long time... alas for now they will probably have to continue to wait

Re:Grow up, kid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh. There's always somebody who drags the Overton Window so far to the left that it breaks.

Re: Grow up, kid.

[grcumb]

i don't think what nikon is paying for has a whole lot to do with android (omg i can't believe slashdot would be spreading fud!)

I'll reserve judgment until we learn more, but answer me this: why is Nikon, a long established company, only paying now? If they're using Android in their new cameras, then one can reasonably surmise that it might be the reason.

Re:Grow up, kid.

[dwywit]

And the exploitation of resources is something humans have been doing since, well, forever. It's something that we do, and will continue to do. Ideas are a resource - a resource that should be shared and not "owned", but there's nothing wrong with you exploiting your own expression of an idea, be it selling your novel, or your software - or even selling your rights to exploitation of that product - it's the idiots who grant patents for "rounded corners" that need fixing. I haven't got a problem with you obtaining a patent and exploiting your innovative variation on an idea (your idea or someone else's), as long as it's innovative. I guess the problem here is that it's too easy to prove "rounded corners" are innovative and deserve a patent.

Re:Grow up, kid.

[BasilBrush]

The concept of ownership of ideas is inherently immoral and a disgrace to the human intellect.

The refrain of someone who has never has any worthwhile ideas.

Re:Grow up, kid.

[chrismcb]

Most of the people here get it. They get that Software Patents are inherently evil and wrong and should be abolished...

It isn't so much that software patents are evil. It is that trivial patents are evil, whether or not they are software related. Its just that the majority of software patents are non novel and obvious.

Re:Grow up, kid.

[jedidiah]

So it's OK because you're not killing anyone. You're only evil if you are Hitler or Pol Pot? Is that it?

We should all be happy and tolerate Robber Barons because they aren't murdering anyone outright.

Now you're the one being childish.

Re:Grow up, kid.

[jedidiah]

The concept of ownership of ideas is inherently immoral and a disgrace to the human intellect.

The refrain of someone who has never has any worthwhile ideas.

No. We are just less full of ourselves.

Not all worthwhile ideas warrant the ability to STEAL the intellectual efforts of EVERYONE ELSE.

In all likelihood, you will be the abused serf rather than the Robber Baron. It's the nonsense that you are defending that will be what's used against you.

You're like trailer trash for Romney.

Re:Grow up, kid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pooling patents like that is a little thing called a monopoly and it totally and 100% illegal. It is the same thing as orgamized crime.

Re:Grow up, kid.

[stenvar]

Everything will be cross-licensed, all the stupid calendar and scrolling and FAT patents, all of it will go into the pool. The lawsuits are just the negotiation phase. Eventually everyone will pay.

The consequence of that will be to create a cozy cartel of big corporations and make it nearly impossible for startups and innovators to enter the market. You may be naive enough to think that that is a desirable outcome, but fortunately there are smarter people than you who realize that that would be disastrous for the high tech industry.

Re: Grow up, kid.

[crutchy]

answer me this: what makes you think nikon hasn't been paying licensing royalties to microsoft for use of patented technologies for years?
surely it's not merely because it hasn't garnered the attention of slashdot?

i'm not sure what the operating system in previous nikon cameras was, but android possibly opens up all sorts of opportunities for nikon, some of which may be related to closer integration with software like photoshop and lightroom. i'm not sure what technologies are required for tethering, but some may require access to certain windows features that are licensed.

mitsubishi group isn't really a conglomerate in the normal sense. nikon is an independent company that forms part of a loose knit group called mitsubishi. nikon is still a large company, but there is no single overarching mitsubishi empire. mitsubishi corporation is a large japanese corporation but it is also merely part of the group, not its parent. the japanese economy is also in deep doodoo so i'm not sure how desperate nikon is reaching out to foreign companies like microsoft to build partnerships and help secure its future if/when the shit hits the fan. i'm not sure if microsoft could help even if it wanted to in that situation (the us economy is pretty fucked as well) but i guess nikon shareholders expect the company to at least do something to try to protect their interests.

i don't even think microsoft really has much clout when it comes to android (linux) fud, since pretty much everyone now knows its just fud. if a company gets summonsed to court, they probably wouldn't even need lawyers because the media and the oin (ibm) legal arsenal would pound microsoft into the ground. only stupid companies like sco even poke sticks at ibm. i know microsoft is a big company that can afford expensive lawyers, but ibm is bigger, meaner, has more patents, and is a big investor in linux, and microsoft knows that if they fuck with linux they fuck with ibm, and that would not end well for microsoft.

Re:Grow up, kid.

[rve]

Employs 350,000 people? Rakes in about $350 Billion in revenues each year?

A million in revenues per employee sounds pretty amazing. Where did you get these numbers, and did it hurt when you got them out?

Re:Grow up, kid.

[Doctor_Jest]

*golf clap* Just because I said Software Patents are evil doesn't mean I don't think there are other evil things out there... You're on slashdot (as an AC) telling everyone else about the "big world" out there? Are you really retarded? Or did you just learn the world isn't flat and you want to share it with the rest of the tribe?

Re:Grow up, kid.

[Doctor_Jest]

I agree.. software patents are pretty much getting away with the patent system's inability to keep up with technology.... which would ruin it for the truly patentable, because there's really no subtle way to fix the trivial without screwing with the legitimate.

I can't divorce a software patent from the mathematical algorithm it came out of... I may be horribly missing the point, but I always think patents are about physical items and methods. There might be a software patent somewhere that would qualify... we've just not seen it yet. :)

Until we do, I think we should follow the EU's lead and say no to software patents. :)

May not be what it seems.

[Anonymous Coward]

Until Nikon shows us all the agreements, my money is on Nikon pays MS a bit for all the android phones, and MS pays Nikon more money for licensing Nikon's patents. Part of the agreement is that Nikon signs an NDA and MS is allowed to tell the world Nikon is paying an Android tax.

It's pretty easy to get a company to pay you for your patents if you offer to pay them even more.

Re:May not be what it seems.

[TapeCutter]

It's pretty easy to get a company to pay you for your patents if you offer to pay them even more. Mods, the AC should at least attract a +1 interesting. I very much doubt a giant like Nikon (AKA Mitsubishi) are simply "rolling over", more likely they are "playing dead".

More like Nikon is the victim.

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

One less brand to ever appear on my shopping list.

Help me understand - you are mad at the victim? Do you stop talking to friends because they paid for Windows? Don't buy anything with a Samsung-made component?

I'm sure Nikon looked at the cost of fighting and decided it made business sense to pay them. Consider the volume of Android devices Nikon sells vs. Samsung and other cell phone companies. If it doesn't make sense for the cell phone vendors, it is unlikely to make sense for Nikon to fight in court.

Frankly, your anger toward Microsoft might be better directed at Microsoft. And Google. Why hasn't Google challenged this?

Re:More like Nikon is the victim.

[Nerdfest]

Google hasn't challenged this as they haven't directly been sued, for good reason I would guess. Barnes & Noble did stand up to them, and published the jokes being used for this extortion. What Microsoft are doing should be considered criminal. I'm guessing that these companies look at the legal fees and decide that paying the extortion is significantly less expensive than paying the extortion, especially when the danger of dealing with an American company in the American legal system is taken into account.

Re:More like Nikon is the victim.

[bmo]

>Help me understand - you are mad at the victim?

The problem with danegeld is that you never get rid of the Dane.

Paying off Microsoft is the absolutely wrong "solution" to this and only emboldens Microsoft. Microsoft can point at all these people paying danegeld and say "hey, you have to pay too."

It's why we all got mad at people who paid SCO for their extortion.

Fuck Microsoft, but also fuck Nikon for financing their extortion.

--
BMO

Re:More like Nikon is the victim.

[DarwinSurvivor]

Do you stop talking to friends because they paid for Windows?

I would if they walked into BestBuy, approached the cashier and said "Please send this $100 for a windows license to Microsoft. Oh, no, I don't need a copy, thanks."

Re:More like Nikon is the victim.

[capt.Hij]

Help me understand - you are mad at the victim? Do you stop talking to friends because they paid for Windows? Don't buy anything with a Samsung-made component?

I'm sure Nikon looked at the cost of fighting and decided it made business sense to pay them. Consider the volume of Android devices Nikon sells vs. Samsung and other cell phone companies. If it doesn't make sense for the cell phone vendors, it is unlikely to make sense for Nikon to fight in court.

Frankly, your anger toward Microsoft might be better directed at Microsoft. And Google. Why hasn't Google challenged this?

I will not be purchasing Nikon products because I want other companies to understand the full price of caving in to patent trolls. I will pay a little more to support a company with a spine and a long term outlook on the situation. Unfortunately it is getting harder and harder to find such companies.

Re:More like Nikon is the victim.

[Miamicanes]

Couldn't Nikon skirt the whole patent (the enforceable and legally-tested claims, anyway) by just shipping the camera with unformatted flash, making users format them on a PC, and ignoring long VFAT filenames by only looking at the 8.3 part? AFAIK, Microsoft's chief patent narrowly covers the act of formatting a blank card as ExFAT (but not its use), long VFAT filenames (expiration imminent, if it hasn't happened already), and NTFS.

Nikon could easily save $10 by making their cameras only use FAT16 (or FAT32 filesystems created by Windows) and ext2/3/4.

Re:More like Nikon is the victim.

[Rockoon]

Google hasn't challenged this as they haven't directly been sued, for good reason I would guess.

Yes, the good reason that Google doesnt get sued by Microsoft is that Google pays Microsoft a licensing fee.

Re:More like Nikon is the victim.

[bmo]

Nikon could skirt the patent by using EXT2/3 on their disks and include a driver for EXT2/3 for Windows and OSX. Because such things already exist. It's not like Windows users aren't used to installing drivers already.

But that makes too much sense.

Why device manufacturers insist on using VFAT and FAT64 boggles my mind.

This whole situation is just pure laziness, and a reason why people should point and laugh at Nikon for paying danegeld.

--
BMO

Re:More like Nikon is the victim.

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

I would if they walked into BestBuy, approached the cashier and said "Please send this $100 for a windows license to Microsoft. Oh, no, I don't need a copy, thanks."

I think it's more like your buddy is fighting cancer and a big thug wants a dollar to make sure nothing happens to his car in the hospital parking lot.

Re:More like Nikon is the victim.

[swalve]

Because FAT is quick and easy, and that's what you want in an intermediate storage device.

Re:More like Nikon is the victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you stop talking to friends because they paid for Windows?

Yes.

Re:More like Nikon is the victim.

[Em Adespoton]

Help me understand - you are mad at the victim? Do you stop talking to friends because they paid for Windows? Don't buy anything with a Samsung-made component?

I'm sure Nikon looked at the cost of fighting and decided it made business sense to pay them. Consider the volume of Android devices Nikon sells vs. Samsung and other cell phone companies. If it doesn't make sense for the cell phone vendors, it is unlikely to make sense for Nikon to fight in court.

Frankly, your anger toward Microsoft might be better directed at Microsoft. And Google. Why hasn't Google challenged this?

I will not be purchasing Nikon products because I want other companies to understand the full price of caving in to patent trolls. I will pay a little more to support a company with a spine and a long term outlook on the situation. Unfortunately it is getting harder and harder to find such companies.

I don't believe there's currently a single producer of a commercial product containing a CCD that doesn't play the patent game. If you know of one, please let us all know.

This means that you're also not purchasing a cellular phone (even the dumb ones are patent encumbered), a computer, a television (HDMI), an automobile, or most other "digital" equipment. And if you take patent trolling seriously, it will also severely hamper what you wear, what sort of house you live in, and even what you use to clean your teeth -- because all these areas involve objects where the producer has to kick back a percentage of profits (or whatever they've agreed to) to some third party who holds patents.

The alternative to paying to license patents is to trade patents, or hold them in a MAD pool. Sometimes, paying is more lucrative to a company, especially when you don't want any strings attached should you choose to stop using the patented technology.

Re:More like Nikon is the victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the "victim" chose to cave in to Microsoft instead of fighting them. By choosing to go along with this scam, Nikon is not a victim, but an enabler of the evil and rude behavior of Microsoft. That's why Nikon will be despised. If you don't stand up to bullies, you are encouraging the bullies. Make it hurt for the bullies enough and they will back down. Nikon should have given Microsoft a humiliating kick in the crotch as their response.

Re:More like Nikon is the victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google hasn't challenged this as they haven't directly been sued, for good reason I would guess.

Yes, the good reason that Google doesnt get sued by Microsoft is that Google pays Microsoft a licensing fee.

Are you high?? Google doesn't pay M$ any licensing fee because it doesn't actually violate any of its bogus IP that M$ claims.

Re:More like Nikon is the victim.

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

Couldn't Nikon skirt the whole patent (the enforceable and legally-tested claims, anyway) by just shipping the camera with unformatted flash, making users format them on a PC, and ignoring long VFAT filenames by only looking at the 8.3 part?

As a general rule, Nikon (as all camera manufactures) doesn't supply a memory card with their cameras.

Re:More like Nikon is the victim.

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

Why device manufacturers insist on using VFAT and FAT64 boggles my mind.

This whole situation is just pure laziness, and a reason why people should point and laugh at Nikon for paying danegeld.

I guess you don't realize that devices like my TV, Blu-Ray player, projectors, etc. all read FAT-formatted SD cards. So you're asking Nikon to lose compatibility with all those devices. They would also have support calls about cards not working, etc.

Oh yeah - FAT is part of the SD standard.
https://www.sdcard.org/developers/overview/capacity/

Re:More like Nikon is the victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about UDF?

Re:More like Nikon is the victim.

[hyfe]

Yes, American companies being sued in the US can risk standing up for themselves in court, as they have a fair chance of getting a fair trial...

.. a japanese company, not so much.

Re:More like Nikon is the victim.

[Rockoon]

Are you high?? Google doesn't pay M$ any licensing fee because it doesn't actually violate any of its bogus IP that M$ claims.

Yeah, thats why Google just announced (January 30th) that it will continue with the licensing agreement with Microsoft until at least the middle of the year (July 31st) in order to continue offering ActiveSync support.

But what do I know.. just the facts and shit.. not like you fuckwads that type 'M$'

Songwriters' trade group

[tepples]

RIAA - On warning for extinction.

Even if the trade group representing sellers of recordings of music is on warning for extinction, I don't see how the trade groups representing publishers of the underlying compositions are. These are the groups that get paid when you play songs on FM, XM, or Internet radio (BMI and ASCAP), and the groups that get paid when you record a cover version of a song (Harry Fox Agency). And these are the groups whose members can sue you for accidental plagiarism* should a song you write happen to be too similar to an existing song (see Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music).

* By plagiarism I mean uncredited infringement.

Re:Songwriters' trade group

[Deliveranc3]

"get paid when... play songs on FM, XM, or Internet radio (BMI and ASCAP)"... um you mean the radio station?

Re:Songwriters' trade group

[tepples]

The radio station pays BMI or ASCAP for a license to play recordings of covered compositions.

Turnabout is fair play: DR-DOS

[tepples]

even the original MS-DOS circa 1981 was at best a workalike knockoff of CP/M that they bought in from someone else

If Oracle beats Google on appeal, then DRDOS Inc. has a case against Microsoft. The maker of CP/M reworked CP/M-86 into DR-DOS.

Re:Turnabout is fair play: DR-DOS

[Anonymous Coward]

If Oracle beats Google on appeal, then DRDOS Inc. has a case against Microsoft. The maker of CP/M reworked CP/M-86 into DR-DOS.

Even if Oracle won and the principle was upheld that APIs could be copyrighted (or was it a patent issue, I forget), wouldn't there be some sort of statue of limitations that stopped companies being sued over something that happened 32(!) years ago?

Re:Turnabout is fair play: DR-DOS

[Anonymous Coward]

If Oracle by some chance beats Google, then Oracle is doomed, as IBM will strip oracle of 100% of their profits from their inception.

Oracle database was 100% ripped off code from IBM's DB/2... 100% - not 5 lines of fucking code.

The database structure, format, API, programming language, all of it - stolen from IBM.

Goodbye Oracle if you try and succeed - you're signing your death warrant.

Karma Bites Nikon

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

I can't help but think this is just a bit of karma comeback for Nikon. A few years ago, they decided to change their RAW file format to NEF (Nikon Encrypted Format), which could be read by nothing but their own software. They graciously allowed MS, Adobe and all to purchase licenses, so that Photoshop and such could read and work with the new .nef files. To be fair, Pentax, Canon and everyone seems to be doing this now.

Re:Karma Bites Nikon

[ceoyoyo]

Got a reference for that? Five seconds of googling gets you a page describing canon's CR2 format, updated for the 6D and 5D mark III.

Canon also continues to send me updates for their free SDK that allows control of the camera through the USB port.

Also, Nikon ELECTRONIC Format files only encrypt the white balance information. It's a dick move, no question, but it's not really a show stopper. White balance metadata is of limited use in RAW files anyway.

Re:Karma Bites Nikon

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Google for Nikon encryption and look at all the stuff beginning April 2005. Nikon changed the file format written by the new DX2. This was widely seen as an attempt to lock out third-party RAW converters. While the encryption was relatively easy to crack, there was widespread concern about DMCA action by Nikon. Adobe and others resisted at first and then caved and licensed the format.

Re:Karma Bites Nikon

[Anonymous Coward]

I just bought one of Pentax's latest/greatest, and it saves in RAW and jpeg....

Re:Karma Bites Nikon

[Jeremy Erwin]

RAW files tend to be proprietary. Canon's CR2, Pentax PEF, and Nikon's NEF format are all different. Adobe has a DNG standard, as well.

Re:Karma Bites Nikon

[ceoyoyo]

Yes, YOU go read it. They encrypted the white balance information. As I said, a dick move, but not really that big a deal.

Your comment about Pentax and Canon seems to be entirely unfounded FUD.

Re:Karma Bites Nikon

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

From the Wikipedia article on raw file formats: "Providing a detailed and concise description of the content of raw files is highly problematic. There is no single raw format; formats can be similar or radically different. Different manufacturers use their own proprietary and typically undocumented formats, which are collectively known as raw format. Often they also change the format from one camera model to the next. Several major camera manufacturers, including Nikon, Canon and Sony, encrypt portions of the file in an attempt to prevent third-party tools from accessing them.[29]" article

Re:Karma Bites Nikon

[Anonymous Coward]

DNG isn't proprietary.

Re:Karma Bites Nikon

[thegarbz]

Nikon did NOT encrypt their raw format. They encrypted nothing more than the white balance information. Ultimately this didn't prevent anyone, licensed or not, from decoding the raw format.

I have one of the cameras with that encrypted white balance and know what happens when I open the NEF file in an open source and unlicensed raw converter? When I set the white balance settings to "As Shot" I don't see what colour temperature the camera chose at the time. Whoop-de-fucking-do.

Also you may want to read up on ALL of the other raw formats. None of them, and I really mean NONE OF THEM are documented. They are all proprietary. They ALL have additional hidden functionality that is useful when using the manufacturer supplied raw converter. The lone standout is Adobe proposal for a Digital NeGative (DNG) which I think so far is an optional extra on some Leica models. Otherwise it's unimplemented in cameras.

Re:Karma Bites Nikon

[Jeremy Erwin]

ah, so pentax cameras are on the list. Nikon isn't and Canon's EOS cameras aren't listed either.

Which patents??

[Burz]

The only specific one I recall them mentioning was FAT filesystem, but they've claimed to have many more that Linux/Android supposedly infringes on.

Re:Which patents??

[erroneus]

That's the thing: Microsoft has been making these claims for a VERY long time. No one has produced a list. Many such claims would be worked around if they were identified while others would likely become invalidated for various other causes under re-examination. Software patents, as it turns out, are usually quite weak.

You mean SDXC cards using exFAT

[tuppe666]

too late, that battle is lost already
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh8gLKrGeBE

Sorry couldn't you summarize the hour long video especially when you have a valid point. Which as I see it is the https://www.sdcard.org/ SD Association and includes [Canon Inc., Cardwave Services Limited, Giesecke & Devrient, Hewlett Packard, Kingston Technology, Lexar, Motorola Mobility, Panasonic, Phison, Samsung Electronics, SanDisk Corporation, Silicon Motion, Inc. and Toshiba...yeah] everybody who makes a SD Cards , as a successor to SDHC cards SDXC have chosen to use exFAT as replacement for FAT...and anyone who used those cards has to pay Microsoft royalties.

Isn't it time to trim FAT?

[erroneus]

According to some things I have read, it seems the patent(s) in question involve the FAT file system which is used on so many consumer devices.

Linus Torlvalds described long filenames long before Microsoft did it. That is prior art. But worse, FAT is a software patent and one which is decidedly used to prevent compatibility... or in this case, "tax" compatibility. I'd like to see Microsoft attempt to extract injunctive relief so that this matter can get the attention it needs.

Re:Isn't it time to trim FAT?

[Skapare]

I assume you are suggesting we make a new filesystem that is reasonably light for for embedded devices like cameras and toasters, but can still be used from ordinary user interface devices like phones, tablets, netbooks, laptops, desktops and servers. Good idea. But will it work with Windows? If you are expecting to add software to Windows to support this, I suggest calling it a "plugin" as people seem to be willing to just install those any time anyone says to.

Re:Isn't it time to trim FAT?

[erroneus]

No, I am saying a legal and patent re-examination attack.

Re:Isn't it time to trim FAT?

[AReilly]

The patents and the compatibility in question relate specifically to the way Microsoft encoded the long-file-name compatibility, and the short-form-contraction extensions into the FAT directory structure. It's an ugly hack that no-one with skill in the art would think of doing, so it's a legitimate patent. I don't know why camera makers don't just limit themselves to the 8.3 filename space and avoid even dealing with long file names: every camera I know of seems to work like that anyway.

The primary work-around du-jour (and it's a good one) is USB-PTP protocol (and variants) that avoid the question by not exposing the block device structure at all: operate more like a network file system. Makes perfect sense. This is why lots of mobile devices don't have SD card slots. Add an SD card slot and you have to support FAT or exFAT. Leave the slot out and you can run ext2 or whatever on your internal flash drive, and expose files to the external world over wifi or USB-PTP.

Since the controllers in SD cards are computers too, it would probably be feasible to build some sort of SD card variant that spoke PTP directly, but how likely is that?

Re:Isn't it time to trim FAT?

[erroneus]

That sounds like a great idea until you realize that it makes devices both limited and increasingly disposable.

But true. I love wirelessly sync'ing and browsing files on my phone and stuff. And exposure through USB is also kinda cool. But I also like being able ot add value to my devices by adding and removing storage. It also increases privacy by adding the ability to remove private data physically.

Re:Isn't it time to trim FAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why camera makers don't just limit themselves to the 8.3 filename space and avoid even dealing with long file names: every camera I know of seems to work like that anyway.

I've only ever seen cameras and small solid state video recorders save as things like IMG0001.JPG and not use any lowercase in file names either. I don't see them using vFAT at all.

An article about the Apple Lisa described how the files on disk were named one thing while the interface displayed a longer human readable name, with an interesting quirk that the long names could be the same for two different files. Pretty sure that 1983 pre-dates anything Microsoft was doing with long file names.

Microsoft: Patent Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

What authority does Microsoft have over android in the first place. Fuckin' patent trolls!

Android the other windows.

[Anonymous Coward]

American business will fail like this sooner or later.

But is it extortion?

[westlake]

How does the age or size of Nikon change the fact that this is extortion?

It is not extortion if Nikon considers the Microsoft patents valid and a useful addition to their portfolio.

This is the argument the geek cannot accept.

It has to be extortion. He has no other way of explaining what happened.

No matter how wildly improbable it is that so junior and foreign a competitor as Microsoft could bully a core component of a Japanese industrial cartel as old (1870), culturally insular, rich, proud and powerful as Mitsubishi.

Re:But is it extortion?

[andydread]

Your trolling here is not working. first of all the patents are bullshit patents that should have never been filed and should have never been granted. Sofware is already protected by copyright no need to patent swiping on a screen for gods sake. You don't get it. Software is authored works just like books and other media. Lets take books for example. Another authored work. You should not be able to get a patent on the idea of a story about wars in space. You should be able to get a copyright on your specific story(source code) about wars in space but you should not be able to go sue everyone else because they wrote a story about wars in space that is totally different from your story. If there was a patent on the idea of a story about wars in space then both battlestar galactica and star wars would infringe on that patent. THis is the problem with software patents. It should not be allowed its authored works and properly protected by copywright.

Re:But is it extortion?

[RazorSharp]

Imagine if Syd Field could patent the three-act structure. He would have owned Hollywood for the entirety of the patent's duration.

Woody Allen, with Annie Hall, could have patented the "romantic comedy." Maybe that would have been a good thing, as it would have saved us from all the horrible Annie Hall knock-offs that the 80s and 90s gave us (and continue to this day, but again, the patent would have expired).

Of course, if Hollywood could patent story ideas, Disney would have patented 'anthropomorphic animated animals' almost a century ago, and patents would extend indefinitely because the U.S. Congress feels the need to protect Mickey Mouse.

If Microsoft manages to do to patents what Disney did to copyright, then the world is screwed.

Re:But is it extortion?

[RazorSharp]

This is the argument the geek cannot accept.

So are you saying that you don't accept this argument, or are you just hanging out on a geek niche site to enlighten us to the vast truths unknown to the geek?

I'm really curious as to why you're hanging out on a 'news for nerds' site (and done so for years) if you don't consider yourself a geek.

As to your point:

It is not extortion if Nikon considers the Microsoft patents valid and a useful addition to their portfolio.

Exactly. This is extortion.

Re:But is it extortion?

[csplinter]

You accuse OP of trolling, but I find your comment to be much more antagonizing. He make an interesting point, whether you agree with software patents or not. (I don't.) Not every dissenting opinion is a troll, and to play that card reduces your credibility to those who might be more ignorant about the subject.

Re:But is it extortion?

[Alex Belits]

It is not extortion if Nikon considers the Microsoft patents valid and a useful addition to their portfolio.

There would be a remote possibility of this being valid, if Nikon knew what those patents are in the first place. There is no evidence of that, and Microsoft is known to refuse to reveal the list of patents before, when insisting on such "agreements".

This is the argument the geek cannot accept.

Let me inform you that geeks are intellectually superior to you and everyone you know. By the virtue of being intellectuals (what "geek" really means), and you not being one.

Re:But is it extortion?

[dryeo]

It is not extortion if Nikon considers the Microsoft patents valid and a useful addition to their portfolio.

But it is extortion if Nikon is only licensing these patents because it is cheaper then fighting in court. Sadly we'll never know the real motivation of Nikon paying off Microsoft.

Re:But is it extortion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it is. The cost of fighting the patents just happens to be more than the cost of paying MSFT for the license so they have chosen the path of least resistance. In the long run, everyone loses, but in the short term it makes business sense for Nikon.

Camera companies fighting for survival

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

Yeah - I get all that. In principle, I agree with you.

But the practical is different. Nikon has it's hands full with its primary competitors, and a shrinking market. Smartphones are killing the compact camera market, and new "mirror-less" cameras are eating into the D-SLR market. Canon and Sony make lots of products outside the camera business, but 75% of Nikon's sales are dependent on cameras and lenses. They are being super aggressive in the D-SLR segment to make up for that revenue, and trying to find something to fit in the space between the smartphone and D-SLR. And they need the support of Microsoft, Apple and Adobe for processing those files. Right now, they need friends - not another enemy.

I suspect the Android camera is an experiment to see if consumers will accept a compact camera that does pretty much everything a smartphone does, except for phone calls. Do consumers want Android-based cameras? Nikon makes just a single model with Android. It could be a flop, and something Nikon might drop. Do the sales justify an expensive legal fight in the USA - Microsoft's home turf.

  I'm sure they see two giants (MS and Google) about to face-off in a war, and they will pay the MS "tax" and sit this one out. This is a bit like someone fighting cancer who decides not to get involved in a conflict between nations.

Nikon is fighting for survival, so I think we should give them a pass on this one.

Continued violation

[tepples]

I'm aware of the statute of limitations that applies to violations more than several years ago as well as the laches rule blocking money damages for past infringement if the exclusive right owner is found to have intentionally delayed legal action. But anything Microsoft continues to distribute is probably considered a continued violation.

Re:Continued violation

[Anonymous Coward]

But anything Microsoft continues to distribute is probably considered a continued violation.

Yes, but to the best of my knowledge, no formal or legal action or notifiation that they believed MS to be in violation of their IP was ever taken by Digital Research against them. So legally, it could be argued, they were not aware of this alleged "continued violation".

Sure, Gary Kildall basically said he thought MS-DOS was a ripoff of CP/M in interviews and suchlike. However, I would assume the law requires a certain level of formality in notifying another company that they believe their IP is being violated such that they could then use that "awareness" against them in future.

Of course, IANAL, but I would assume that you aren't either (unless I know otherwise), so do you have any basis for believing this would count as a "continued violation"?

More loss of choice

[Gonoff]

If people buy things worse manufacturers pay protection money like that, they are finding extortion. Is it legal to fund crime like that?

It's not good news for Android?

[devent]

Isn't it good news for Android? Nikon will gladly pay Microsoft tax in a broken patent system, then to _not_ use Android.
I mean, it would be bad news if the headline were: "Nikon drops Android faced with high costs because of patents from Microsoft".
The way I read it: "Nikon pays Microsoft tax to stay with Android because it is worth it."

You can all discuss it if the Microsoft Tax is good or bad or that the patent system is broken or not. But that a company like Nikon pays to stay with Android says a lot of Android demand.

Computer Science 101 : Record Structures

[Anonymous Coward]

Once taught as record structures - dammed if I know how these got patents.
But if you are an accountant, I suppose someone has tried to patent ledgers!

Did not WANG on 8 inch sector hard sector floppies , CP/M and Commodore 64 predate MS? There were Japanese telephone exchanges, with catalog structures - NEC? Even NGEN's perhaps. DEC corp, ICL (Now Fujitsu).
As HP took over Compaq, who took over DEC, HP should be issuing their own licenses OR threatening MS to disclose prior art. Funny how these big companies never release 'aged' IP.

Ever worked in banking?
Every file has a name (IBM has generation too) , pointer to catalog, pointer to bits on the disk, and a set of attributes, dates, flags security (and in case of IBM Policy for SMS- miles ahead of the game). Maybe Fujitsu did not did not make HMET transistors for satellite/space applications and robust catalog structures for radiation error resilience.

Microsoft should shakedown Hughes, Rayethon and Boeing, and say we want 2% of that 1 billion dollar CIA satellite, because its infringing our patents.. What a record play button? Tanks Drone's - well extra for them!

Microsoft are shite

[Anonymous Coward]

No news - just more thug tactics from MicroScum.

The sooner this despicable company gets broken up and dismantled the better. Bill Gates - you are stinking capitalistic pig with no morals.

I pay MS every month, don't you?

[Anonymous Coward]

I picked up one of those HP TouchPads when they went on a fire sale. Last summer I loaded CyanogenMod 9 on it (Android 4.04) and ever since then I've been paying Microsoft $1.25 every month.

Why is everyone getting bent out of shape? I just thought this was normal. Doesn't EVERYONE pay Microsoft a monthly Android tax?

Who has Google extorted?

[walterbyrd]

I think Google buying Motorola was clearly a defensive move. Google was attempting to protect itself from the most vicious patent trolls, and scam artists in the business, namely Apple, Oracle, and Microsoft.

Who has Google extorted, and how?

the real shame is that nobody learned from B&N

[Anonymous Coward]

Barne's & Noble stood up to Microsoft, would not sign their NDA's to real public documents(patents) and was ready for court. But guess what happened? Microsoft paid them lots of money to stop the court case and settle with them. That's right, Microsoft took B&N to court and ended up paying B&N to settle.

so it's really too bad nobody learned anything from B&N.

Root of the problem --- the political system

[Taco Cowboy]

I agree that what M$ is doing is no different from extortion

I also agree that the patent system is broken

A lot of people state that the broken patent system is the root of the problem, as if someone can find a way to patch the patent system then everything is fine and dandy

I disagree

To me, the real root of the problem is the political system --- from the way the political party is structured to the funding to the way the politicians are chosen how those idiots get to determine what's right and what's wrong

As it is, the current states of affair is that the politicians prefer to keep things as it is, for they themselves are milking it as much as they can and they won't change a thing, including the patent system, unless of course, the political system gets an overhaul

Re:Root of the problem --- the political system

[Dixie_Flatline]

To be even more deconstructionist about it, the problem is that we have a culture that allows for a political system that does this sort of thing.

Nobody likes paying taxes because it feels like someone is just taking your money and you get nothing in return. It's only when you stop and think about the roads and schools that you realise that taxes actually DO something. But we still vote for people that say they'll lower our taxes because we hope one day to be in the group that's so wealthy that we 'deserve' a tax break. We're all one lottery ticket away from being millionaires. We're all one idea away from being Zuckerberg. Right?

Political change starts at the bottom, with the people and with the culture. The reason why you see equal marriage laws being passed is because of a CULTURAL shift, where we can inherently recognise the worth of LGBT people is no different from that of straight people. That started with protests and people being angry about the short shrift they were getting.

So we've started down the path already. The real work is now moving out and convincing people that are pro-patent-reform to run for office, and to convince more average people that patent reform is in their own best interests. Then you can see it move into the political space.

Microsoft? What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand. What does Microsoft have to do with Android? Wasn't it made by Google? I'm very confused

patents!

[CHIT2ME]

Thank goodness Milton Burle passed before all this bull hockey got the lawyers hyped!

Re: ...Nikon is the victim. Danegeld defined:

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.html by R.Kipling