Slashdot Mirror
Chinese Gov't Reveals Microsoft's Secret List of Android-Killer Patents
walterbyrd (182728) writes "A list of hundreds of patents that Microsoft believes entitle it to royalties over Android phones, and perhaps smartphones in general, has been published on a Chinese language website. The patents Microsoft plans to wield against Android describe a range of technologies. They include lots of technologies developed at Microsoft, as well as patents that Microsoft acquired by participating in the Rockstar Consortium, which spent $4.5 billion on patents that were auctioned off after the Nortel bankruptcy."
Well, that's one way to handle repeat articles, delete the original one.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
Motorola? And that was purely for its patent portfolio (the rest was just icing). $4.5B would have been a pittance to Google if it thought any of the Nortel patents were worth more than the potential litigation fees. Of course, they may also have something in the Motorola portfolio that they can use to smack MS down with, so maybe it's actually a case of Mutually Assured Destruction via patent lawsuits.
... not stupid enough, Microsoft additionally wants to keep the patents secret. So, if your company reach a success level that can bother them, even if you try avoid most of the IT patents (which is impossible, because they're TOO generic), "SURPRISE, this is the list of patents you infringing and had no idea because we keep them in secret!"
Groklaw... where art thou? You're going to miss the fun... let the patent killing begin. Gentlemen, start your engines.
How nice to have the 800 pound gorilla on our side :)
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
...in the mobile world. All they will do send a lot of people towards Apple and they will accomplish nothing.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Doesn't it warm the free-market cockles of your heart that levels of 'market transparency' in "intellectual property", and the licensing thereof, that a regulatory action taken by commie chinese is the biggest boost it's had in years?
Good work on that free market, guys.
"We Own Ideas".
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
.
Now Microsoft is faced with a marketplace in which Windows no longer has a monopoly. Unfortunately, Microsoft never really learned how to innovate, so what is left?
Patent lawsuits, of course.
The once powerful Microsoft, a company that could kill off a start-up just by announcing an intent to compete with it, is now reduced to trying to maintain its power over the industry via legal bullying.
And the fact that Microsoft had to buy some (most?) of the patents to use in its bullying merely underscores the appearance that Microsoft still does not know how to innovate.
The sheer number of subsisting patents combined with the obfuscatory language of patent claims has defeated the purpose of making it "patently obvious" which inventions in common use are encumbered.
Which is better for progress and why?
On the one hand, you can search and violate one patent under a distorted definition of "willful". On the other hand, you can not search and end up violating three patents. But I thought recent Federal Circuit decisions made it harder to get enhanced damages by punishing recklessness.
I find the innovation posts decrying the lack of innovation at Microsoft, Apple, etc. quite amusing.
Big companies have rarely been known for innovation, and often known for acquisition of the innovative. As far as I know, the sole exception is IBM at this point in time, though there was a time when HP did a lot of research and innovation as well.
But Apple has never been an innovator; they bought the ideas and companies that caught their interest and marketted them. The same with Microsoft. They bought DOS. They partnered with IBM on OS/2 leading to a lot of the technology behind Windows. They bought SQL Server from Sybase ASE (SQL Server is modified ASE 10.) I'm not even sure they coded Office instead of buying the pieces elsewhere.
"Innovation" in the minds of a lot of people is about bringing new products to market, not inventing technologies. And who is to say that researching something that never makes it to market isn't a waste of time and energy? What good did Nortel's patent portfolio do them in the face of incompetent and abusive management practices? They were the Canadian king of the telecom markets, right up there with AT&T, but management managed to kill them off. Yet one can't deny they invented a lot of key telecom technologies.
To sum up: Innovation is overrated. And in a world where it's "all been done before" such as IT, "innovation" is often no more than repackaging something that was done 20+ years ago that people forgot about.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Or is that just another idea that somebody else invented, but Apple perfected? Then Microsoft steals the idea from Apple?
In the early 1990s, Apple was suing everybody over this "look and feel" nonsense.
Apple has to be the ultimate patent trolling software company. Especially considering their patents are mostly over silly design issues that Apple did not even "invent."
But as horrible as Apple is, Microsoft comes close.
Heck no, I make good money on my patents! Enough that I work because I want to, not because I have to (and I'm just 46). Rather than abolish patents and copyrights, make them so they can only be held by an individual - not a corporation. That would do most of what you need. And yes, I have successfully defended my patent from infringers (never had to take it to court - hold up their product, hold up my patent and a product which uses my patent, ask them to explain the difference - and after 30 seconds of silence, just offer a nice licensing deal).
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
If Microsoft knew of a real violation and failed to take immediate action I would find against Microsoft. After all, if others are investing in a product they deserve immediate action if they infringe. To stand back and allow another company to wade deeper and deeper into product sales and development without being notified is an unfair and unreasonable action. In cases where infringement is claimed but is not proven then the fines against the plaintiff should be punitive.
Can't innovate? Litigate!
If Microsoft made, licensed, or distributed a competitive mobile device, people would choose to buy it over iPhones or Android phones. However, they don't and people don't and so those great minds at Microsoft look at the situation and say 'we've got to knock off our competitors' rather than 'we've got to have a product that people prefer over our competitors.' If Microsoft can use it's patent acquisitions to force Google to pay big royalties, they can drive up the price of Android phones and make them less-attractive to buyers, who will then theoretically be more likely to look at Microsoft devices. That's one way to help buyers make the 'right' choice but it is not a very stellar example of a free-market economy in action. Microsoft would probably be more at home making smartphones on a captive basis for the Communist Chinese government, complete with built-in Bing filtering. Microsoft is an enormous wet blanket on technical innovation and moving technology forward and things will probably not improve until they are a shrunken shell of their present self...which will probably take another 10 or 15 years.
All Patents have a useful life and depending on when these were submitted most should be getting close to end of life of nearly there over the next few years.
That's the silver bullet as it were for patents, there's a built in life expectancy much like Replicants.
http://www.uspto.gov/inventors...
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
I'm pretty sure Google/Android have nothing to worry about. If in fact Microsoft holds valid patents that might be "Android killers" it is most likely that Google holds patents that could easily be "Windows killers." While the cold war and it's Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) mentality is over, at least between the US and Russia, it is alive and well in tech companies. The difference is the US and Russia practiced MAD with nuclear bombs. Tech companies do it with patents.
Is buying a smurfberry "providing feedback"? [...] if you don't settle now you'll face an expensive discovery process and have to hand over your source code to us to prove that your code doesn't do what the patent says it does. Not a big deal for OSS, but for proprietary software the prospect of handing over the family jewels to the competition isn't a good one.
Then one can short-circuit the discovery by making the engine free but keeping the data that it uses proprietary. For example, a game that allows players to buy Smurfberries could have the program itself under a free software license but the non-program assets copyrighted to Studio Peyo with all rights reserved.
They can pull the "Doctrine of Equivalents" card
At which point the defense can pull the "obvious to one skilled in the art given the prior art as of the patent's priority date" card. A publisher rich enough to license the "Smurfberries" name probably has the money for such an obviousness defense.
Micro$oft have for long now been patent trolls who don't do much anything useful. Vista was a disaster, Seven was an improvement, but Eight is totally fucked up. I was sat before a computer with a starting view that looked almost exactly like a Windoze phone's display; but this one wasn't a touch screen. Go figure.
This is going to be quite interesting, when two of the biggest software monopolies have it out with each other. I hope they both get cut down to size. The typical Micro$oft patent trolling is against a startup, that they figure as competition, that they cannot undercut or buy out, so they try to starve them by litigating the hell out of them.
There is a possibility, that I am just a little bit partial here. But I'm still left with one question: WTF? M$ believe these patents entitle them to royalties over Android phones, but from whom? Google or every fucking smartphone maker including themselves?
Every problem has a solution that is simple, easy and wrong. Selling our Liberty for a little Security is a much too de
Certainly you would not make such a series of scathing allegations without solid proof.
Would you?
It's not software. I have some patents related to loudspeaker motor designs, one related to a magnetically suspended flywheel without active compensation, and a few related to hearing aids. Physical, tangible things that I invented, built, proved - and licensed out. The money I've made from licensing has allowed me to pursue more esoteric kinds of engineering research, and take positions and start companies that most would never consider. That's been a direct benefit of my personal patents making me money.
So tell me why I shouldn't be able to have a patent on a new invention, one that has enough benefit that major CE players have licensed it (you can buy product from Microsoft, SONOS, Polk, Polycom, and a dozen other CE companies with my patented technology inside)? One that is definitely novel (the licensees certainly saw nothing pre-existing about it - and they're not known for just licensing tech just-because). Why shouldn't I take my Constitutional right to patent an invention? In less than 1 decade, it becomes public domain anyway...
Oh, and for the record - ALL patents are complete public knowledge. Before your patent is issued, it is published by the USPTO in its entirety. Description, claims, drawings - the whole thing. It's all public - even Microsoft's patents here are public. What is NOT public with Microsoft - or with my own patents - are the terms and conditions of the licenses, or which patents were actually licensed. THAT is private information - and no one should expect a right to see it. See my patents, fine - they are published by the USPTO. But want to know what I make from each licensee, or who has what kinds of rights to use each patent? Nope.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
ref
Same user, second account.
Why shouldn't I take my Constitutional right to patent an invention?
- and that is the actual problem, isn't it?
Government making it a Constitutional entitlement to protect whatever it is you want protected.
See Article 1, section 8. Patents are a constitutional power of Congress. Established with the first writing of the Constitution. A better question is why SHOULDN'T my invention have a limited (17 or 20 years, depending upon when the patent was issued) time under which I can benefit by sharing my invention with others? In my case, it actually DID foster innovation in the industry, and competing technologies sprang up.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It's nice that you make good money on your patents, but so does Nathan Mhyrvold
Mr. Mhyrvold paid me a nice sum for one of my patents - and I do get to share in royalties from his licensing of it. Not only did he end up covering the cost of the patent filing and fees, he paid enough for me to put new hardwood floors and carpet throughout my house and paint the interior. Meaning he churned a lot of the economy - and continues to do so - by buying and licensing my patent.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I will repeat
Yes, we certainly don't doubt that.
You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".