Microsoft Files Legal Action Against Samsung Over Android Patent Dispute

DroidJason1 writes: Microsoft has filed a contract dispute lawsuit against Samsung over what Microsoft claims is a breach of contract by Samsung involving Android patent royalties. Back in 2011, Samsung voluntarily entered into a legally binding contract with Microsoft in a cross-licensing IP agreement involving Android patents. Samsung has grown over the past few years and now believes that Microsoft's recent acquisition of Nokia nulls the agreement. Microsoft has gone to court and is asking to settle the disagreement with Samsung in order to continue the original agreement.

Comments

Laugh all the way to the bank

[CptChipJew]

The only people winning this are the IP lawyers.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank

[queazocotal]

You can't really comment without seeing in full, the original agreement, and preferably scrutinising it in detail, along with any precedent in the relevant courts.

There could have, for example, been agreements as to Microsoft not doing some things in the phone space - such as for example selling android phones - that it's reasonable to argue (from Samsungs perspective) Microsoft has breached, voiding the original deal.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank

[Belial6]

That would be one sweet booby trap if Nokia management started work on those android phones post sale agreement, pre-sale completion, just to have it blow up on Microsoft as revenge for the gutting Microsoft performed on Nokia.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank

[andydread]

Mod me flamebait, but I am with Microsoft on this one. As mentioned in their press release at http://www.microsoft.com/en-us..., Samsung agreed that "Microsoft will receive royalties for Samsung’s mobile phones and tablets running the Android mobile platform".

I don't know how Samsung thinks it can use Microsoft products without paying for them. I paid for my copy of Windows, and I expect Samsung to do the same.

its very simple. They are not using microsoft products. This is not about Windows. This is Microsoft's attempt to use software patents to steer people away from using Android and Chrome OS on their general purpose computing devices. this is about software patents that should have never been filed and should have never been granted. The supreme court has recently spoken regarding this matter. loading text before images is not patentable along with the myriad of other junk software patents that Microsoft is using against Android.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank

[SkunkPussy]

TBH if microsoft have continuously failed to gain traction in the mobile phone market, I don't really see why its reasonable for them to tax the companies who've made a product people want to use.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank

[rmdingler]

I'm no lawyer of any account, however, the Microsoft press release (by David Howard) is impeccable ... it's the first link in TFS.

It's difficult to read it and not feel all warm and fuzzy about Microsoft and their seemingly reluctant, no other recourse lawsuit of Samsung, their dearest friend.

I don't know who's right or wrong here, or even if that belief set enters into the equation, but Microsoft looks good out of the gate.

Re: Laugh all the way to the bank

[queazocotal]

"Whether you think Microsoft's position is meritless or not, Samsung entered into a contract with them. They didn't ask a court for a legal opinion, they just stopped paying. You can't make unilateral decisions like that. "

Err - no.
In very rare circumstances do you ask a court to rule on a contract before anything has happened.
Their general response will be 'dismissed, you bear court costs, that's why you pay lawyers'.
The courts are in general not interested in offering legal advice - that's what you get expensive lawyers for.

This is exactly how contract law normally works.
X does something.
Y thinks they breached their contract, and consults their lawyers who agree that X breached the contract and has no right to future payment.
X says they diddn't, and their lawyers disagree.
Y stops paying.
X takes Y to court for non-payment.

Y cannot - at the first step - in most cases ask the court for an opinion.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be one sweet booby trap if Nokia management started work on those android phones post sale agreement, pre-sale completion, just to have it blow up on Microsoft as revenge for the gutting Microsoft performed on Nokia.

It's possible, but in this instance, it's more likely just their own slimy business practices catching up with them.

Back in April, the Chinese government released the list of 310 patents Microsoft was using to extort Android vendors. M-Cam (a global IP underwriting group) analysed the patents and found that the patents were mostly non-commercial, expired or invalid.

They speculated that:

”With this disclosure, China may be attempting to counteract Microsoft’s chokehold on the smartphone market. By disclosing the detailed list of these patents, companies who currently pay a license to Microsoft for the Android platform may discover that they have patents on the same technologies which precede Microsoft’s patents. This may create an opening for them to either negotiate a better deal or demand that Microsoft license from them,” M-Cam’s report said.

So it looks like Samsung might not only have a good case to halt payment, but may also have grounds for a countersuit to get back the money MS has already illegally extracted.

Re: Laugh all the way to the bank

[Type44Q]

Give credit where credit's due: those who run Microsoft are smart enough to realize that improving and securing their [wretched] products isn't part of their formula for success (it may even run downright counter to it).

Samsung: so sue us

[mveloso]

Samsung's penalties have been pathetically small, so there's no real cost to them when it comes to violating and/or ignoring other people's IP.

Samsung's position is entirely rational, but less than ethical.

Re:Samsung: so sue us

[machineghost]

Wait, since when did ethics have anything to do with IP law?

Re:Samsung: so sue us

[thegarbz]

Samsung's position is entirely rational, but less than ethical.

How can you comment on the ethics of what Samsung is doing without actually having read the contract in full? For all we know the contract had a no competition clause which Microsoft may have violated by buying Nokia.

That's the life of contracts. I'm involved in the shutdown of a major industrial plant in my city. The way these things happen is that you look at the costs of running, and you look at the costs of the alternatives. The alternative costs include things such as legal wrangling over details of contracts you're trying to get out of.

It would be unethical to NOT try and get out of a contract which is costing you money for no good reason. This is just standard business practice and it's no different to arguing with your ISP who wants to charge you a full month even if your connection was unavailable for a week (been involved in this one as well and ended up getting a full month free).

Re:Samsung: so sue us

[Tough Love]

Samsung's position is entirely rational, but less than ethical.

You don't know that, because you don't know the full story.

Re: Samsung: so sue us

[Karlt1]

But that argument becomes a double edged sword, since M$ patent licenses cover the standardized memory card file format(oopsey - standard essential ) . So what's good for the goose is good for gander so to speak..

"Standard essential" is not Just some arbitrary term that judges slap on a patent. The patent holder decides to agree to license their patent under FRAND in exchange for being a part of the standard. MS never tried to become part of a standard or did they agree to license the particular patent under FRAND.

Change of circumstances/

[maroberts]

A number of factors could have changed since 2011, apart from the possibility of patents expiring.

Samsung could have had a cross licensing agreement with Nokia, meaning Microsoft was getting paid twice. Also the US IP law has become more hostile to abstract patents, which probably form the bulk of Microsofts patent portfolio. Ironically Microsoft has probably picked up a bunch of Nokia patents, which may be much more useful in a patent slinging fight.

Re:Change of circumstances/

[Insomnium]

AFAIK microsoft did not get any nokia patents with the buyout. As such nokia has left the market and samsung can no longer cross license with nokia, instead have to pay them and have to rethink their spending on frivolous microsoft patents.

In my opinion, keeping patents secret while saying someone is infridging one should be sued for libel or similar. If a company wants royalties from patents, they should say how much and from which patents. For a long time companies just say "they are infridging" and do not specify and are not called out on their bullshit. Top that with tons of obvious patents that should never have been granted. The system is fundamentally broken.

Summary silly -- Contracts are always voluntary

[Etherwalk]

"Samsung voluntarily entered into a legally binding contract..."

As opposed to what, being forced to sign under threat of listening to executive Karaoke?

Re:Summary silly -- Contracts are always voluntary

[CaptQuark]

There are plenty of cases where a contract is unenforceable and therefore not legally binding. http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

~~

Re:Timewarp to 2003

[Dutch Gun]

People all over are arguing the *new* boss is different.

When the new boss quickly laid off a huge percentage of the workforce and used the term "synergies" three times in the e-mail that informed them of those layoffs, it pretty much told me all I needed to know.