Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chinese Gov't Reveals Microsoft's Secret List of Android-Killer Patents

Posted by samzenpus on from the read-it-and-weep dept.

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."

44 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. What happened the the prior article? by MrDoh! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, that's one way to handle repeat articles, delete the original one.

    --
    Waiting for an amusing sig.
    1. Re:What happened the the prior article? by Etherwalk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, that's one way to handle repeat articles, delete the original one.

      It's almost as if we were talking about the Chinese Government...

  2. If generic and common behavior patents are... by Parker+Lewis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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!"

    1. Re:If generic and common behavior patents are... by MrDoh! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. It's crazy to create 'secret rules/laws' "Don't break our rules!" "What rules?" "We won't tell you them until you break them"

      --
      Waiting for an amusing sig.
    2. Re:If generic and common behavior patents are... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      The whole concept of a secret patent doesn't make sense, since the word itself means open or visible, as in "patently obvious".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:If generic and common behavior patents are... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've always thought that was stupid, and an abuse of patents.

      We're going to threaten you with the notion that you may be violating one of many undisclosed patents. We're going to insist on a cut of revenues to license these patents to you. We may or may not tell you the patents even once we have your money.

      This should be a put up or shut up scenario.

      I also heavily expect that a great deal of these patents would yield howls of outrage as they more or less became "a system an methodology for doing something exactly like in the real world, but with a communications device/computer/phone".

      This is just a blanket extortion scheme intended to make sure there can be no competition because everybody is beholden the the big players who hold patents awarded by chimpanzees whose job it is to simply approve as many as possible.

      Now that's innovation.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:If generic and common behavior patents are... by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How long have Android phones been around? Long enough for this to apply, I'd expect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:If generic and common behavior patents are... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2

      ... not stupid enough, Microsoft additionally wants to keep the patents secret.

      There is only reason for keeping details of patents secret: you know that some of them won't stand up to open scrutiny. In other words: you do it if you are engaged in confidence trickery. So turn it into a game of bluff and wrap those who do see them up in restrictive disclosure contracts.

      It would be nice to see many of these patents shown to be invalid; then those who have been screwed by this mafia like protection racket to sue and get their money back. However: I don't expect to see that happen, the system is too broken.

    6. Re:If generic and common behavior patents are... by PackMan97 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You NEVER EVER NEVER want to search for a patent when implementing something. To do so opens you up to a willful violation of that patent and treble (x3) damages.

    7. Re:If generic and common behavior patents are... by RabidReindeer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The whole concept of a secret patent doesn't make sense, since the word itself means open or visible, as in "patently obvious".

      Irony upon irony. We're getting this list from a Communist nation - and such places are supposed to be tight with information, thus making them inferior to the open society upon which freedom supposedly thrives. With a little help from the NSA.

    8. Re:If generic and common behavior patents are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, no. The patents are visible, and you could do code review against Microsoft's known patent portfolio to create roughly the same list. The problem is, Microsoft doesn't want to do other companies' patent checking work. By keeping the list secret they get to extract patent royalties without risking Google working their way around the patents. If you want to know what the patents are, then prepare to spend time and money examining Microsoft's patents. Nobody wants to do that when it's probably cheaper to just license the patents and focus your money on actual R&D.

    9. Re:If generic and common behavior patents are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The filings from their suing of Barnes & Noble gives some insight in the mafia-like way Microsoft runs their patent extortion racket. The entire case is completely disgusting, even before you see how trivial the asserted patents were.

      In July 2010, Microsoft first met with Barnes & Noble to discuss "patent issues" related to Barnes & Noble's eReader. Microsoft specifically alleged that Barnes & Noble's NookTM was infringing six patents purportedly owned by Microsoft. When Barnes and Noble asked Microsoft for more detailed information related to these patents, Microsoft refused, claiming that the information was confidential and could not be shared unless Barnes & Noble first executed a non-disclosure agreement ("NDA"). Because both the patents and Barnes & Noble's NookTM product are public -- meaning there was no need for an NDA -- Barnes & Noble refused to sign one. In December 2010, Microsoft and Barnes & Noble then met to discuss Microsoft's assertions of patent infringement. In this meeting, Microsoft claimed that its patents were sufficient to entirely dominate and control the use of the Android by the NookTM or Nook ColorTM, but Microsoft again refused to provide the basis for these claims unless Barnes & Noble entered into an NDA. To move the process forward, Barnes & Noble agreed to a very narrow NDA -- one limited in scope to discussions relating to Microsoft's claim charts at this single meeting.

        In January of 2011, Microsoft then sent a proposed patent license agreement to Barnes & Noble. Although, as noted, the NDA executed in December was narrow and applied only to discussions of claim charts, Microsoft asserted that its proposed license agreement was confidential and subject to this NDA (which it is not). This proposed licensing agreement covered Barnes & Noble's use of Android on its existing eReader devices but is structured in such as way as to presume that Microsoft's portfolio of patents dominate, and thereby control, the entire Android operating system and any devices that use Android. Indeed, the proposed license would have severely limited and, in some cases, entirely eliminated Barnes & Noble's ability to upgrade or improve the NookTM or Nook ColorTM, even though Microsoft's asserted patents have nothing to do with such improvements. At the risk of inciting even more baseless litigation by Microsoft, Barnes & Noble does not feel comfortable sharing all of the details of the proposed license agreement in light of Microsoft's baseless assertion that it is confidential and covered by an NDA. Nevertheless, Barnes & Noble urges the Department of Justice to use its subpoena power to demand a copy of the proposed licensing agreement, and any other relevant documents, from Microsoft. Microsoft's assertion of confidentiality is simply a means to cloak its oppressive and anticompetitive licensing proposal and is another element in Microsoft's larger scheme to restrict competition in the mobile operating systems market.

    10. Re:If generic and common behavior patents are... by Virtucon · · Score: 2

      You can't keep patents secret, that by its nature is contrary to the patent process. You have to disclose how the invention works.

      The problem arises in what happens after a patent is acquired by another party and then by another. In some cases quite a few prior patent owners can fog up who actually owns it. In one personal case something I invented and was patented was owned by 8 different companies until it's wound up with the current owner. That's where the mystery comes in and Microsoft does have the right to not disclose any licensing deals with third parties. So it may have licensed to Google for $10 per device while Nikon for $1, but that's the nature of business, which is to make money. If that means inhibiting competition then that's all part of the game.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    11. Re:If generic and common behavior patents are... by timeOday · · Score: 2
      In practice, who wields a patent is at least as significant as what is in it. Getting sued by a nobody is one thing, but how would you feel getting served by IBM or Apple and their army of lawyers?

      I thought this statement in the article was interesting: "Last year, the company made a big to-do about publishing a full list of patents it owns." It hadn't occurred to me this could be secret information, but it makes me wonder if companies set up mazes of shell corporations to obscure their IP holdings, like they do to avoid taxes or to prevent prices from going up when they are bidding on something (acquiring a smaller company, drilling rights, etc).

    12. Re:If generic and common behavior patents are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      they get to extract patent royalties without risking Google working their way around the patents

      You shouldn't get to to sue someone for "infringing your rights" if that's exactly what you want them to do.

    13. Re:If generic and common behavior patents are... by Lemmeoutada+Collecti · · Score: 2

      You have to ask yourself "did he fire five shots, or six?" The real question is, do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do ya?

      It's Russian roulette with patents.

      --

      You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
    14. Re:If generic and common behavior patents are... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      China is communist exactly the way in which the US is capitalist.

    15. Re:If generic and common behavior patents are... by drakaan · · Score: 2

      That's true of every single software patent ever issued. They're all bullshit because they're not inventions, they're mathematical discoveries.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    16. Re:If generic and common behavior patents are... by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      This list is also from a nation that's famous for its industrial espionage, which is a big part of communism.

      The USA is also famous for it's industrial espionage. US Spy programmes such as Echelon pass secrets of foreign companies along to American companies. So it's not really a feature of communism.

      And in any case there hasn't been much communist about China for many a long year.

    17. Re:If generic and common behavior patents are... by turgid · · Score: 2

      Irony upon irony. We're getting this list from a Communist nation

      A Communist country where people can own companies and trade stocks and shares?

      --
      Stick Men
    18. Re:If generic and common behavior patents are... by turgid · · Score: 2

      So not Communist, then?

      --
      Stick Men
  3. Groklaw by Tough+Love · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Groklaw by halivar · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a case of "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you." In addition to her imagined enemies, she had a few (very real) obsessed haters who went to great and morally questionable lengths to "out" her (Maureen O'Gara being the weirdest and most obsessed of the small lot).

    2. Re:Groklaw by sconeu · · Score: 2

      She didn't shut down because of MOG or any of the SCOundrel's shennanigans.

      PJ shut down because of the NSA. OK, technically, it was because of the Lavabit fiasco.

      She felt that she could no longer offer confidentiality to sources, and shut down to avoid putting them at risk.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  4. But no one really cares about Microsoft... by i_ate_god · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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...
    1. Re:But no one really cares about Microsoft... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe Microsoft could increase their marketshare by 50%: And get to 1.5% of the market.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:But no one really cares about Microsoft... by Etherwalk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe Microsoft could increase their marketshare by 50%: And get to 1.5% of the market.

      3.2% according to comscore as of January. In the major European markets, they are at 10%.

    3. Re:But no one really cares about Microsoft... by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      When big groups of MBAs get together, they often decide that preventing someone else from getting money is the next best thing to getting money themselves.

      Some men just want to watch "the competition" and consumers burn.

  5. When you can't innovate... by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...what's left but to become a patent troll?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:When you can't innovate... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Burning the bridges the trolls live under? Patent reform? Thorough review of ALL patents to see if they make sense? Force Microsoft to disclose ALL patents they feel might be infringed?

      Anything would be better than the stupidity which is the current patent system.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:When you can't innovate... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course the people with massive amounts of money are interested in maintaining an inherently flawed patent system which makes them massive amounts of money.

      Film at 11.

      When Microsoft can extort a share of Android with the threat of using an unspecified list of patents, the patent system has become so utterly broken as to be useless.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  6. Ahh, everything working as it should... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  7. WORDS THAT DESTROYED THE WORLD by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

    "We Own Ideas".

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  8. Competition, Microsoft style by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Back in the 1990's Microsoft didn't have to worry about competing or innovating because of the Windows monopoly. as a result, Microsoft never really learned how to innovate and move a market forward.

    .
    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.

    1. Re:Competition, Microsoft style by johnlcallaway · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think Apple is starting to be in the same boat. They had a coolness monopoly that many people used to make decisions based on a 'cool' factor rather than on usable features/functions. For instance, zooming on a web page was 'cool', even if it still wasn't practical to use the phone to view large numbers of web pages because of the small screen (pre-mobile web page world). My daughter snatched up on of the original iPhones right away, partly because she thought the zoom ability was cool. I stuck with my Android. Now, she has switched and vows never to go back.

      After receiving an iPhone from work, it's amazing to me that anyone even buys them. It sits in my pocket, next to my S4, and is only used to view work email because of it's limited screen size, inferior built-in soft keyboards, and substandard/non-intuitive navigation features. (We are not allowed to install Touchdown and connect to the email servers, so they give us iPhones instead.)

      Apple now thinks that getting into the 'connected' world is the way to go. They think that people will buy iPhones simply because of cool toys that can connect to bikes and golf clubs and such. It's kinda innovative, but like things all Apple, it's based on things other people are already doing. Just 'cooled up'. I wouldn't be surprised if they will own the patents and protocols and make it difficult for other companies to get in on it.

      Meanwhile, Android will continue to be fragmented, which drives the ability for thousands of companies to complete and innovate.

      Apple's only saving grace is their margin is so high they don't need market share.

      They just need their iDrones to keep buying and drinking the Koolaid.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
  9. Those who can, innovate; those who can't... by tepples · · Score: 2
    I'm aware of two platitudes that reflect different mindsets:
    • "Those who can, innovate; those who can't, imitate."
    • "Those who can, innovate; those who can't, litigate."

    Which is better for progress and why?

    1. Re:Those who can, innovate; those who can't... by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      On the other hand, litigation encourages innovation through design-arounds.

      Aside from clear ownership of invention, it's also necessary to understand what is patented. Setting aside Microsoft's "we've patented this but we're not telling you which patents they are" there are cases like the "in-app purchase" patents that have absolutely no mention of purchasing in the claims (the claims are specifically about providing feedback to the developer through an app). Is buying a smurfberry "providing feedback"? I guess we'll have to wait for someone to spend a million bucks to fight it in court in order to find out.

      Even when it's clear who owns the patent and how the patent applies, if you do a workaround you'll still likely find yourself on the other end of a C&D letter advising you that your app looks like it infringes their patent and 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.

      And at the end of it all, after you've shown them your source code, shown them your workaround, shown them that you don't do what the patent says it does? They can pull the "Doctrine of Equivalents" card, and claim that despite the fact that the patent doesn't specifically name your workaround in the claims, it still applies. Enjoy your million dollar lawsuit.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  10. Damages for how many patents? by tepples · · Score: 2

    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.

  11. The innovation posts are amusing by msobkow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  12. Did Apple start the "patent bully" thing? by walterbyrd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  13. Re:For 1000s time, abolish all copyrights and pate by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!
  14. Not guilty by JimSadler · · Score: 2

    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.

  15. Microsoft's inexerable downward slide by SiliconSeraph · · Score: 2

    Can't innovate? Litigate!

  16. One thing thankfully... by Virtucon · · Score: 2

    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"