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."

23 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 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.
    3. 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."
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

  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).

  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 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%.

  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: 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. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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!