Foxconn Signs Massive Android Patent Agreement With Microsoft

Pikoro writes with news that Foxconn's parent company has entered into an agreement to pay Microsoft royalties for every Android device they manufacture, joining a rather long list of companies licensing patents for Android/Linux from Microsoft. From the BBC: "Microsoft has secured a patent deal with the world's biggest consumer electronics manufacturer to receive fees for devices powered by Google's Android and Chrome operating systems. Hon Hai — the parent company of Foxconn — said the deal would help prevent its clients being caught up in an ongoing intellectual property dispute. Microsoft says that Google's code makes use of innovations it owns. Google alleges its rival's claims are based on 'bogus patents.' 'The patents at issue cover a range of functionality embodied in Android devices that are essential to the user experience, including: natural ways of interacting with devices by tabbing through various screens to find the information they need; surfing the web more quickly, and interacting with documents and e-books.'"

Comments

Massive

[jamesl]

Beware all stories with "Massive" in the headline.

Re:Massive or tiny?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, how can you tell it is "massive". It looks like all details are confidential. It is unclear which patents are involved, what FoxCon gets in return, how much money is exchanging hands, what is really "covered" by the agreement, etc. It might as well be a "tiny: deal, just focussed on "massive" publicity: "We don't really have anything but with patents you can always do some handwaving, so lets put out a press release how good friends we are, generate some publicity to show Microsoft is still relevant and what a friendly company Foxcon is. As long as they spell our names right any publicity is good publicity. Deal?".

wince

[Anonymous Coward]

Before everyone gets in a twist. Remember MS was in the phone market for 9-10 years before iPhone/Android... They may have some patents here. They did extensive work in this field. Also remember patents expire eventually. I remember people walking around proudly with their ipaq's and chicklet wince phones and spouting how the dreamcast runs wince.

Let me put it to you this way. When MS and the OEMs first came out with the WinCE phone people were excited (windows in my pocket). The actual result was awful. However MS was up to basically the 7 or 8th version of wince before iPhone came out (and apple blew them away).

MS put a ton of work into this. Sure it is MS (or M$ as a lot of people like to say). But in this case I think they may deserve a bit of recompense. There will probably be a few of you out there that disagree with me and call me a troll. But I saw the amount of work they put into it. It was blindingly obvious that they worked really hard on it. It just rather bad at what it was supposed to do.

Re:wince

[h4rr4r]

I will disagree with you. Hard work does not mean you deserve to get paid. Lots of people work very hard and produce unpopular products that never make money. This is simply rent seeking.

Re:wince

[inode_buddha]

It's called "the free market" and MS lost that one. However hard they worked actually doesn't mean shit.

My observation is that most companies *love* the free market as long as they own it. Its when they don't own it that they start to act like assclowns.

Welp, too bad you can't have everything.

Re:wince

[TheDarkMaster]

The problem occurs when their patents are pretty vague and broad, saying roughly that "I invented the wheel" when it is clearly a lie. And it becomes even worse in a ridiculous justice system as the USA, where you have to pay dearly for proving that the crook is lying.

Re:wince

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

I would like you to invent something, spend millions of dollars developing it, and then have some other little upstart steal the idea and get rich off your idea without giving you a single dime or line of recognition.

I don't care about liking or hating a company, but I hate the double standard of Slashdot that only certain companies deserve respect and others don't.

There have been, and I can guarantee there will be, Ask Slashdot questions where some little startup or individual wants to find out how to protect their IP or patent, even implement their own DRM. Of course everyone on Slashdot falls over themselves flooding advice on how the "little guy" can protect themselves through patents or copyright, even offering DRM schemes.

But when some large corporation wants the same security with IP they have invested millions or even billions in suddenly the mood changes and everyone on Slashdot demands open, freely exchanged access to IP, free market bullshit, and open this open that garbage.

You can't have it both ways.

Yes, Microsoft has shitty business ethics and guess what, they have been called on each and every one of them and have paid dearly for it. Microsoft is no longer king in any market because of the fallout of their aggressive anti-competitive business ethics in the 80's and 90's. But Microsoft still has a right to protect their IP just like any independent startup, individual, or whatever the current beloved company you feel should succeed more than others.

If Microsoft "invented" something before Android, before iPhone, before any current Smartphone, then they have a right to license and protect that IP, period.

This is how patents SHOULD WORK. Microsoft is being agreeable to cross license their ideas with a company willing to pay licensing to produce products using those ideas. This is the original intent of a patent, to protect the inventor, but allow other companies to use and improve upon the idea..

Instead companies like Apple and Google create a patent portfolio to use as ammunition to slaughter each other in the marketplace. Apple refuses to cross license, and when they do cross license because of consumer pressure or legal action, they demand obscene licensing or royalty fees in an effort to cripple their competition. This is how patents ARE ABUSED.

So yes, no article about Microsoft is ever going to get respect on Slashdot, but I have little respect for double standards. Microsoft has a right to protect their IP and are doing so in a way that allows other companies to succeed off of their past work. Microsoft could be shitheads and refuse to license their IP and thus cripple the Android platform, but I think Microsoft realize that their past IP is about all they have left as they cannot create a winning product in spite of the efforts they made in inventing portions of that product.

Re:wince

[thaylin]

If the hard work resulted in VALID patents.

Re:wince

[h4rr4r]

These patents are bullshit and you know it. MS is running a protection racket, else they would share the patent numbers without a NDA. MS cannot cripple android by not licensing. All they would do is lose in court.

If I go patent the idea of determining even or odd via mod, that should not get me anything.

Honestly I would be fine with no patents on software.I don't want it both ways. I really want to see IP go away.

Apple is a problem. So far I do not think google has sued anyone, but who knows how long that record will last.

Re:wince

[jedidiah]

> I would like you to invent something, spend millions of dollars developing it,

NOTHING we are talking here about represents a large investment here. Although that's not really the point. It's yet another distraction that corporate shills like to throw out.

Patents are meant to encourage companies to disclose interesting things that would not otherwise see the light of day. Patents are not about "rewarding investment". They are not about sweat equity. They are not a virtual land grab.

There is no hypocrisy here because the Slashdot crowd complaining about Microsoft here would raise the same issues for Tivo and any number of other companies.

Re:wince

[Anonymous Coward]

WinCE stalled at 5.x and was superceded by Windows Mobile (WinMo).

WinMo ended at 6.5.3. It has not yet been functionally replaced, but it is no longer actively developed.

Windows Phone 7 is NOT WinMo. Oddly enough, WinPhone 7.5 isn't WinPhone 7, and WinPhone 8 isn't WinPhone 7.5 either. They just keep breaking it. The mind boggles.

I'm not sure what they're going to do about WinMo 6.5.3. It's used on a metric crap-ton of devices that businesses rely on, but the latest development environment that works with it is the aging Visual Studio 2008. The latest .Net framework is Compact Framework (.NetCF) 3.5. If you want to see what happens when an operating system release gets well and truly "stuck" on an old version, look no further. Nobody is making WinPhone 7-8 software. Businesses are still actively developing WinMo 6.5.3 software with an old IDE. When they EOL .Net 3.5, they're going to have a huge problem on their hands. Barcode scanners aren't going to be replaced with ones running the vastly-inferior-for-the-task WinPhone operating system. And .NetCF stopped at 3.5 for WinMo. Microsoft is screwing the proverbial pooch here.

In my day-job, I'm a .Net developer. I build and maintain a system consisting of several types of software (web apps, Winforms apps, SOAP services, WCF services, libraries, CLI apps, and a WinMo app, and all using a massive SQL Server database with reporting services, a.k.a. SSRS) all working together to run a company's main data services. All of these are in VS2010, except for the WinMo app and the SSRS report templates, which are in VS2008. All of them use .Net 3.5 SP1. Upgrades aren't out of the question, and in fact would be welcomed. But Microsoft isn't providing them. You'd think they'd want heavy users on an "upgrade treadmill", but they're not bothering with it. It's really quite odd. At this point, there's a huge demand for them to start that "treadmill" in this market and they just won't do it.

The only answer is to fire Ballmer. (Out of a cannon, if necessary. He is a clown, after all.)

Re:wince

[Anonymous Coward]

Please detail how M$ 'spent millions of dollars developing...' such ideas as 'tabbing through screens', etc. was developed by M$. Such idiotic drooling. M$ spent zero on 'developing' and stole most of these ideas from prior art, etc. They don't deserve a dime for most/any/all of it. They're just another excellent example of a criminal corporation. M$ rightly deserves its criminal reputation amongst the enlightened. :)

Re:wince

[c]

I would like you to invent something, spend millions of dollars developing it, and then have some other little upstart steal the idea and get rich off your idea without giving you a single dime or line of recognition.

Exactly. Someone busts their ass, comes up with a great idea, patents it, builds it, markets it, and then some dipshit comes along and adds some obvious, trivial modification like "on a computer", "on a phone", "on a bicycle", etc to your idea, patents this trivial change, and rakes in the dough.

Or were you thinking of something else?

That's the crux of the problem. Few have a beef against the idea that if you innovated, it's nice if you get paid. The problem is that there's an incredibly tenuous link between patents and real innovation, and it's to the point now where most smart people treat them as entirely independent things.

Now, since patents and innovation are largely considered unrelated, the only way someone can determine whether a patent truly represents innovation is by looking at the patent itself. Absent that, and particularly in scenarios where someone refuses to identify the patent(s), the only sane assumption one can make is that it's not innovation.

Hence the present situation with Microsoft, and pretty much anyone else who waves around patents without allowing verification, not to mention those who wave around whatever shit they can get rubber stamped by their patent office.

Microsoft may have done some innovation and may have the patents to prove it, but given their history as an abuser of the patent system, legal system, innocent chairs, and the very word "innovation", nobody is going to just take their word for it.

Re:wince

[andydread]

Do you write code? So its ok for you to write code and for me to come along and to use a patent to take ownership of your fucking code? OK glad to know your position. Microsft are shitheads because they didn't write ANY of the code in Linux yet they are suing over code that is not theirs. And your pathetic defence of them suing people that make devices with Linux is woefully pathetic.

Re:wince

[CannonballHead]

There's a long list of companies, including Samsung, apparently. You really think they can't afford lawyers to stand up to Microsoft? Or HTC?

While I don't particularly like the insane patent wars ... I'm not sure Microsoft isn't on fairly solid "patent" footing. I seriously doubt that a company as big as Samsung or Foxconn *actually* just say "oh, okay Microsoft, even though those patents clearly aren't valid and clearly have no application here, we'll pay you anyways."

If you don't like it, don't encourage it.

[QilessQi]

If you agree with Microsoft's position, and believe that they're owed licensing fees, fine: just be aware that the cost of the licensing fees is being passed on to the consumer.

If you don't agree with Microsoft's position, one thing you can do is to not purchase from any company participating in such agreements. Even better: purchase from a company that isn't, and send a letter to a company that is, so they understand that they're cutting off their own air supply.

If you want to make something go away, make it unprofitable for the parties involved.

Re:If you don't like it, don't encourage it.

[cdrudge]

If you don't agree with Microsoft's position, one thing you can do is to not purchase from any company participating in such agreements. Even better: purchase from a company that isn't, and send a letter to a company that is, so they understand that they're cutting off their own air supply.

Unfortunately, that's not really an option unless you just don't want a cell phone. The amount of licensing and cross-licensing in the cell phone industry makes it impossible for you to avoid a manufacturer that has a deal with a company you don't agree with their position.

Re:If you don't like it, don't encourage it.

[dkleinsc]

just be aware that the cost of the licensing fees is being passed on to the consumer.

This is a common belief, but it's only true if the market in question is a fully competitive market or a monopoly, which cell phones aren't (they're an oligopoly).

If it's a fully competitive market, then the cost of the cell phone is as low as the manufacturer can possibly make it, so any increase in costs have to get passed on 100% to the consumer or the company will go under. In an oligopoly, though, each manufacturer has enough pricing power that the actual price is usually significantly higher than that (because manufacturers know there's more to be made by everyone keeping the price artificially high than by winning sales by competing on price).

If it's a monopoly, then the cost of a cell phone is whatever the manufacturer feels like, so any increase in costs will get passed on 100% to the consumer because there's nothing to stop the monopolist. In an oligopoly, though, what can stop them is their competitors who may use this as an opportunity to grab market share by providing the same product for less.

The upshot of all this: The price might go up to account for some or all of the cost, the profits (and thus investment returns) may go down to account for some or all of the cost, or the company might cut costs in other ways to pay for it. But an automatic "All cost increases get passed to the buyers." is very much an oversimplification.

The protection racket is still going on ...

[slb]

I can see why they agreed to pay.

Foxcon legal department assessed the cost of litigation to fight against bogus patents potentially higher than just pay those damn mafioso.

Also the behavior of the US justice in Apple vs Samsung may have told them that the mafioso business of extortion through patents is somewhat tolerated in this country. Well not much different finally than doing business in China, but at least in China the extortion by the members of the army or the Central Committee is not hiding behind patent laws and China never pretended to be a free market.

Re:The protection racket is still going on ...

[TheDarkMaster]

When you enter the lawyers game, you have already lost.

Re:The protection racket is still going on ...

[jedidiah]

> Grow up.

You first.

Foxconn has to engage in ADULT risk analysis here. Just to get started, they need to dedicate considerable resources should they decide to fight these patents head on. That money is gone regardless of the results and those results are very unpredictable.

Juries can be fickle things and the potential negative consequences are most dire.

Realizing that discretion may be the better part of valor is a big part of "adult" thinking.

Foxconn actually has something to lose. Some idiot posting in a web forum does not.

Re:Google challenge

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they're not paying. Therefore they couldn't care less.

Re:Google challenge

[Chrisq]

Challenge how? Think of it this way, I say that you should pay me to use your index finger while typing and you agree, would an onlooker do more than say you are being silly? You might think that they should invalidate the patent, but say I have a separate patent for every possible finger on every key on the keyboard, plus one for looking at each pixel on the screen - and each would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to challenge then you can see why they aim at the general anti-competitive behaviour and changing the system.

Microsoft DID break new ground

[Miamicanes]

As fashionable as it is to hate Microsoft and gripe about how badly Windows 8 sucks, the fact IS that Windows Mobile WAS groundbreaking back in the early 00s. It might have been utterly dysfunctional out of the box as an operating system for making voice calls, but as the operating system for a pocket-sized laptop with wireless data capabilities, it picked up the ball where Palm dropped it and ran even harder. Had Microsoft left well enough alone, and reacted to Android by creating proper APIs for implementing alternative 'phone' and 'launcher/homescreen' thirdparty apps (instead of delegating the task to HTC and calling it a day, then later throwing the baby out with the bathwater so it could port Danger's OS from Java to C# and rebrand it as "Windows Phone"), WinMo8, 9, or 10 would have been a strong alternative to Android today instead of the crippled, unloved, locked-down joke we have now that's turned into a cancer destroying desktop Windows as well.

Lots of the things we take for granted in Android were "there" and worked fine in Windows Mobile 5/6, too... and more importantly (for patent purposes), did NOT work well AT ALL in PalmOS (if they worked at all), and barely worked in Android & IOS until 2010 and beyond. The biggest single problem high-end WinMo phones had was hardware -- US Carriers weren't in any hurry to push the envelope, and HTC was perfectly content to give them the minimum they asked for. And HTC made the ill-conceived decision to eliminate the 'windows' and 'ok' hardkeys in an effort to be more iPhone-like, without stopping to consider the fact that all of Microsoft's usability testing up to that point TOOK FOR GRANTED that the device would have two physical buttons that required at least a little bit of physical force to trigger (hence, the in-pocket touchscreen activations that caused endless misery if you got a text message or phone call that went straight to voicemail).

Anyway, the point is that once in a great while, Microsoft *does* manage to do something right, even if it completely drops the ball in other related areas. WinMo had plenty of warts, but circa 2005/2006, it WAS pretty much the best thing you could get if you wanted wireless internet connectivity in a device that could (sort of) limp along and make voice calls in a pinch. And it sure as HELL beat walking around with a Palm Vc or Handspring Visor and $129 18" cable to plug it into your clamshell phone for data a few years earlier, or limping with a later PalmOS phone that was good for making voice calls and managing an address book, but fell flat on its face the moment you tried doing anything that involved realtime network communication with a responsive UI (the UI froze whenever the phone was sending or receiving data due to the way PalmOS Garnet's network stack was stapled onto it as an afterthought).

Also, I believe a big chunk of Microsoft's patent portfolio came from its acquisition of Danger (the Sidekick's maker), which had plenty of its own innovations.

Foxconn doesn't make Android devices

[Anonymous Coward]

Bogus deal, Foxconn only makes the hardware not the device. It's a contract manufacturer. This will cover only devices Hon Hai make for itself which presumably why the strange wording of the press release, talking about HonHai while implying it covers Foxconn's contract manufacturing.

"While the contents of the agreement are confidential, the parties indicate that Microsoft will receive royalties from Hon Hai under the agreement."

Hon hai is not Foxconn, as I said Foxconn is a contract manufacturer, it competes with everyone else to manufacture devices. If they tried to add a fee, they'd simply price themselves out of the market, Hon Hai on the other hand does make a few devices, and this cover those.

Hon Hai also are fools to pay the Danegeld because Microsoft has a lot of these fluff troll patents and has donated many to 'independent' third party trolls. Sooner or later the next troll will demand money, and the next and the next.

More lucrative than Windows Phones

[T.E.D.]

So how much more money is Microsoft making off of Android than they are off of their own phones?

Death Spiral?

[lord_mike]

Doesn't the usual life cycle of a company typically end with it becoming an patent troll as it nears the end of its life? When Kodak, Polaroid, Xerox and other companies were struggling to stay alive during massive changes in the market, they managed to extend the life of their company by a few years by by gong on a patent licensing crusade. The real tell for Microsoft will be if its patent licensing ever becomes the majority revenue maker in the company. That's generally the true sign that the end is near.

It's certainly not a good sign for the future of Microsoft's mobile business if they are making more money off of a competitor's product than their own.

Re:Death Spiral?

[h4rr4r]

It is not a good sign for Foxconn either. You never pay the danegeld. I am not suggesting they are near any sort of real danger for now, just that this only makes them less competitive and it only makes MS bolder in rent seeking from Foxconn.

Re:Microsoft loses nothing

[ackthpt]

Microsoft loses nothing because they are collecting for these patents. Likely they are trying to collect enough that even if they lose them in court, their court costs are covered by the patent fees. Meanwhile they have effectively sown a cloud of trouble over Android even though they (microsoft) don't even have anything competitive in this market.

Tl;dr -- it galls me, the chutzpah of these assholes!

This is Microsoft's new business model: World's Largest Patent Troll.

See, even if they lose in the future of technology, they can leech off those who innovate.

Keep it vague

[Anonymous Coward]

So to paraphrase your post. Basically they tweaked PalmOS.

If their patents had any value, you wouldn't have to cover them with an NDA before listing them. If their patent list can't stand scrutiny then the patents themselves can't have value that stands up to scrutiny.

Normally when Slashdot discusses patents there's a number, the magic patent number, the thing that's remarkably missing with Microsoft. The last one they made the mistake of being open with, was long filenames in a filetable, later invalidated because Amiga had it sooner.

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/03/ms-patent/

Re:Microsoft loses nothing

[rwise2112]

Microsoft loses nothing because they are collecting for these patents.

Not only that! They could potentially be collecting twice for the same device. Say HTC/Motorola/Samsung gets Foxonn to manufacture the phone, both companies potentially get to pay Microsoft.

Re:Massive or tiny?

[Eirenarch]

I don't think the publicity aims to show that Microsoft is relevant or that Foxcon is friendly company. It aims to show Android OEMs that they must pay when Microsoft visits them.

That tears it!

[jbeaupre]

I'm voting with my wallet. I'm definitely not going to be buying an iPhone made by Foxxcon. Who's with me?

IE is the fastest browser

[andrewlivi]

"The patents at issue cover... surfing the web more quickly"

Brilliant, if you're not the fastest just patent the idea of being fast and sue everyone.

Re:Microsoft loses nothing

[NatasRevol]

Things have changed since then.

Companies can have products AND be patent trolls.

Re:Microsoft loses nothing

[thaylin]

When I was young we did not call crap like windows 8 actual products.

Apple OEM licenses Android patents from Microsoft

[citizenr]

This is brilliant. Company that mainly makes Apple products will license "Android patents" from Microsoft.
Lets rephrase that. Microsoft hates Android, Apple hates Android, Apple tells its biggest client "go fetch". Foxconn does what its being told and promises to pay for something that doesnt exist and doesnt belong to a person it is giving money to. Whats more it will pay for every Android device it makes ... except it doesnt make any, it makes Apple devices.

Its an equivalent of Nokia licensing imaginary Android patents from Microsoft ... oh wait, Nokia DID license those too haha. Whats next? Dell licensing those patents? HP? Maybe Lexmark or Adobe? or Procter & Gamble?

Re:Microsoft loses nothing

[jedidiah]

Ultimately, a troll is someone extracting money for something they don't really own. Whether or not such a person is a "non practicing entity" is really a red herring. It distracts from the really important question.

Should there even be a "property interest" in that thing to begin with?

If not, then they are a troll.

It's not the toll that makes the troll.

Patently Absurd

[tuppe666]

Except this is just what happened in real life in a deal between IBM and SUN back in the 1980's

http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html

here how it ended "An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?" "

Re:Apple OEM licenses Android patents from Microso

[transporter_ii]

Interesting, but with some searching, Foxconn does actually make android/chrome devices:

Google Glass project said to be made by Foxconn in California
FoxConn Making An Amazon Phone For 2013
Acer Android phones...made by FoxConn

Granted, it seems to be a small percentage of what they do for Apple, it isn't exactly..."they don't make any"

Sadly true perhaps, but...

[QilessQi]

...there is at least one primary manufacturer who won't play ball with Microsoft. From the article:

One manufacturer still holding out on Microsoft's Android licensing agreements is Motorola Mobility, which is in ongoing patent litigation with Microsoft — drawing
Google, Motorola Mobility's owner and driving force behind Android, into the fray.

Re:Massive or tiny?

[Sockatume]

I don't think you understand who Foxconn are. They do the actual manufacturing work for almost everyone in the tech business, from Apple and Motorola to Nintendo and Sony; the aforementioned "clients" they want to shield. In terms of who it affects, it's huge.

Re:Apple OEM licenses Android patents from Microso

[Sockatume]

Foxconn isn't just an "Apple OEM", they make portable electronic devices for nearly everybody, including - yes - Android devices.

Re:Microsoft loses nothing

[ackthpt]

Considering there's a requirement for the infringed to disclose to the infringer (in this case, the Linux community as a whole...), they're basically guilty of racketeering, extorting agreements and settlements out of the commercial players.

That's NOT how it's supposed to work, folks.

That's now how it's supposed to work, but if we take anything from RAMBUS vs SDRAM manufacturers or SCO vs Linux distributors, just because they are wrong, doesn't mean they can't cover up evidence, shread documents or relentlessly sue people in the hopes of getting them to cave in and using the winnings to augment their warchest for suing more and larger targets. Microsoft already has a Bucket o' Lawyers and plenty of cash on hand so they're doing this. They've lost the innovative edge, if they even had it, because most everything they roll out as a product or service is something someone already had.