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.
The main ones are long filenames in FAT, ex-FAT for > 32GB SD cards, and ActiveSync.
There are alternatives for all of these, but in the case of Activesync alternatives, they are not as good, and in the case of FAT, it means getting the same filesystem drivers onto other computers and devices.
All Google needs to do is offer a commercial licence, for a small fee, to all Android OEM's that indemnifies them. This way if Microsoft has an issue with Android or Linux they can take on Google directly. But, we all know that would never happen because Microsoft clearly knows that Google would single handily invalidate all of their obvious, worthless and prior art ridden patents one by one.
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.
any good reason not to use UDF for large flash cards? it has read and write support in linux, mac and windows. I use it for USB sticks.
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.
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?
Funny you say that. I have a Windows Phone. Several people I know have Windows Phones. We all like 'em quite a bit. Bought 'em at a local Verizon store. Much better than the alternatives.
Why all the FUD?
I don't respond to AC's.
Yeah?
coverage: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/feds-may-use-subpoena-powers-to-study-patent-trolls/
explanation: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2013041110212889
give it a few months. The wheels are turning, slowly but surely.
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.
Why are manufacturers paying this extortion rather than banding together and trying to fight it like any other patent troll?
What is Google's position on this and why aren't they indemnifying manufacturers that use Android or fighting this themselves?
Or, maybe being a writer for ZDNet he writes things which are frequently of interest to us?
Three whole times in 2013 so far, wow, there must be some kind of conspiracy.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
There's no such thing as a legitimate software patent.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
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.
Well I agree that the system is broken in various ways, but the point of the patent system is to make money off things that you aren't involved in. To allow & encourage people to publish their inventions in return for a cut whenever someone uses that invention. It is supposed to encourage invention, by allowing a monopoly to the first person to do something. They are not supposed to have to make a working product, just to publish their idea so that someone else might.
Now whether that's a good idea anymore is another discussion, but what you describe is what patents are designed to do.