Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Most Profitable Mobile Operating System: Android
puddingebola writes "Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has a piece of commentary discussing Microsoft's profit from their patent claims on Android. From the article, 'To some, Windows 8 is a marketplace failure. But its flop has been nothing compared to Microsoft's problems in getting anyone to use its Windows Phone operating systems. You don't need to worry about Microsoft's bottom line though. Thanks to its Android patent agreements, Microsoft may be making as much as $8 per Android device. This could give Microsoft as much as $3.4 billion in 2013 from Android sales.'"
Why not?
If you're going to make a claim like that, you should at least say why. If they're valid, legitimate patents then I see no reason why the company shouldn't make money off them. That's how the system works.
In the current patent regime, it is far more likely that the patents involved are total bullsh*t. It's Microsoft that has to justify itself here. Of course it will never do that because the entire Android community could then try to code around this kind of larceny and extortion.
Although some things boil down to "being compatible".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
...in an extremely limited and entirely self-serving way.
Redhat and Suse deserve those billions far more than Microsoft does. Even Canonical has a better claim.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
From the Constitution: "...by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their..." The patents are from the Jurassic age, in software years.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
this isn't how the system is designed or intended, this is how the system has been perverted.
making money off products you do not have any involvement in via patent extortion is a sign of a broken system and this is already reaching antitrust investigations.
So if Windows Phone were shutdown.
There would be no barrier to native Office for Android, or Office for Apple iOS devices. [Just like the old days, competing with Wordstar and Lotus or Borland]
Even better they could shift the developers for Windows Phone over to developing Mobile versions of all their Apps and tools to Android and iOS versions.
They should "own" the Mobile App market on Android and iOS, and stop loosing money on Windows Phone.
The current mindset of tossing good money after bad.. is just plain stupidity and stubborness.. its a culture of "we can't be wrong".
But Microsoft are justifying themselves. They are going to court where companies justify themselves. IANAL but if I read the news correctly they are currently crashing Motorola in each and every court they sue each other. Of course none of the cases is over yet but the "justification" has certainly began.
Because this is not how patent settlements work. Patent settlements do not list patents they license the entire portfolio related to the product. This means that if tomorrow MS invents something and Google puts it in Android Samsung will be able to use it because they are paying for it even though it is not invented yet. Actual patents are only shown in court and they are certainly showing some patents when suing Motorola. The Motorola case will certainly prove if MS has relevant patents as the legal system defines them although I am sure /. people will invent a "rounded corners" meme and claim that the judge is corrupted or something.
Solution to what? Microsoft is being careful here to (1) license, at reasonable rates, its IP, and (2) concentrate only on phone manufacturers (meaning they're at least ahering to the spirit of the original Appeals Court ruling legalizing some software patents, which said that it's OK to patent software as long as it's a part of physical device. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Diehr I believe, though I may have the wrong case, I'm going by memory.)
While we can have a debate about the fairness of forcing hardware makers to license patents on a FRAND basis, it'll never be the same issue that it is for software. Hardware makers expect to have per-object costs, they're never going to have any kind of business model that does not expect a certain about of revenue per thing produced.
I don't see any evidence that HTC, Samsung, et al are fuming about having to pay money to Microsoft. They are upset about Apple's armtwisting, but that's largely because Apple's hostility to Android to begin with, with patents being used and abused to attempt to close the competing platform down rather than make money from it, and Apple's reluctance to license FRAND patents on the technologies it uses to build iPhones at the going rate.
Microsoft isn't really being much of a problem here.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Microsoft won't justify themselves, they just have to threaten to take away the Windows licence form that company and thats probably why they won;t go after Google.
In a relatively short period of time, that may be irrelevant... Windows Phone isn't selling for shit, and even Microsoft knows it. That leaves threats and patent pseudo-trolling as their only real income option in the mobile space.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
If Google could "single handily invalidate all of their obvious, worthless and prior art ridden patents one by one" and just charged $5 for the Android license every Mfg would save $3 per device. So why not just do it? It's money on the table for the whole ecosystem. Maybe they can't do it as easily as you think.
no comment
Courts of law are not the only judge of what's bullsh*t. Since it's pretty clear the current court system is flawed, allowing massive abuse of the patent system, I think it's fair to ask Microsoft to justify itself to the large audience, and explain what value it's adding. This way we can make a determination whether or not it's acting like a parasite.
Microsoft isn't really being much of a problem here.
You seem to be confusing form for content. Yes, MS is following the form of "FRAND" but what they are FRANDing is itself not reasonable. If MS had a legitimate set of patents, they wouldn't keep them a secret. FFS patents are public documents.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
It's like slashdot is Vaughan-Nichols's own private distribution channel. Slashdot stories quoting or linking to him in reverse chronological order:
Microsoft's Most Profitable Mobile Operating System: Android: May 09, 2013
Microsoft's "New Coke" Moment?: May 06, 2013
Windows: Not Doomed Yet: April 19, 2013
UEFI Secure Boot and Linux: Where Things Stand: August 03, 2012
Linus' Lessons On Software Dev Management: September 26, 2011
7 Days With a Google Chromebook: July 18, 2011
Linux-Friendly Alternatives To Skype: May 19, 2011
Bill Gates Doesn't Work At Microsoft Anymore: June 23, 2010
Here Come the Linux iPad Clones: March 12, 2010
Fast Wi-Fi's Slow Road To Standardization: December 10, 2009
Apple Pushes Unwanted Software To PCs, Again: September 28, 2009
London Stock Exchange To Abandon Windows: July 03, 2009
Confirmed Gmail / Google App Outage: May 14, 2009
Why It's Not Business As Usual For Microsoft: June 09, 2008
Malware vs. Anti-Malware, 20 Years Into The Fray: May 06, 2008
Truth Behind the ClearType/OpenSUSE FUD: April 12, 2007
Groklaw No Front for IBM: February 15, 2007
That was only the first 3-4 pages of google results.
So why not just do it? It's money on the table for the whole ecosystem.
If one company stands up to MS and loses, MS will certainly charge them more for the licensing. But if they win, all the manufacturers will benefit equally as the patents will be invalidated for everyone. So the risk of failing in a challenge is not proportional to the benefit of wining the challenge.
As it is now, each manufacturer can just pass the licensing fees through to the end customer and since all the major android manufacturers (presumably) have roughly the same licensing costs there is no competitive disadvantage to paying the microsoft tax.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
What are they waiting for?
A list of exactly what is being violated?
To put it in perspective, consider the SCO-Linux lawsuits. While this isn't exactly the same, it is the same sort of hurdle.
Company A: Your stuff violates some of our stuff! Pay us or else! ...
Company B: What stuff?
Company A: A lot of stuff! 68 things enumerated over thousands of places to be precise. Now pay us or else!
Company B: Um, what stuff is it exactly?
Company A: Oh, you'll find out in court. Consider yourself served!
And for those that agree (settle out of court), it seems common for a "deal" to be offered, with one of the rules being that they don't divulge that information.
Maybe that's not the case here, but I'm betting that's at least part of it (the other part being bogus or weak patents). There may even be a couple valid ones, but as far as I know, that hasn't been fully identified.
That's just like people who legally immigrated to the US getting all mad at the illegal immigrants. "I had to jump through these ridiculous hoops so they damn well should too" instead of "I had to jump through these ridiculous hoops and they suck so much I wouldn't wish them on anyone else." Sure, it is "fair" for a very narrow-mind definition of fair.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
There's no such thing as a legitimate software patent.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Because the legal system that we have created is designed to let companies like Microsoft do exactly what they are doing. This is completely normal.
I knew a guy that bought an AMC Pacer. He loved it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1975_AMC_Pacer_base_model_frontleftside.jpg
Samsung and HTC are massive multi-billion dollar companies. They can stand up for themselves and enter into business agreements as it suits them. They know exactly what's in these patents and why it is worth licensing them. They don't need a bunch of pathetic "open source advocates" (aka M$ haters) making up paranoid conspiracy theories.
Wrong. (I can't believe I'm replying to an AC) Think about it: Barnes and Noble called them out on it *and won* since they have a good argument for the Doctrine of Laches (regarding the NDA's). Which estopped MS from collecting anything on the patents in question. Barnes and Noble were able to do this because they don't offer any other MS products. Samsung et al *do* offer other products with MS, and to call them out may have impacted their other licensing agreements in an unfavorable way. Hence they folded to the racket.
C|N>K