Microsoft Asks US Court To Ban Kyocera's Android Phones

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Asks US Court To Ban Kyocera's Android Phones

Posted by Soulskill on Monday March 9, 2015 @12:20PM from the because-kyocera-is-totally-making-bank-off-your-patents dept.

angry tapir writes: Microsoft has asked a court in Seattle to ban Kyocera's DuraForce, Hydro and Brigadier lines of cellular phones in the U.S., alleging that they infringed seven Microsoft patents. The software giant charged in its complaint that some Kyocera phone features that come from its use of the Android operating system infringe Microsoft's patents.

148 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Shouldn't they be after Google? by ZorinLynx · 2015-03-09 12:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

>complaint that some Kyocera phone features that come from its use of the Android operating system infringe Microsoft's patents.
Wouldn't that mean Microsoft should be going after Google, and not Kyocera? Google produces the software, after all.
1. Re: Shouldn't they be after Google? by Sylak · 2015-03-09 12:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  IIRC Google negeoated patent protections/licensing for certain things in android, anything beyond that is the responsibility of the phone manufacturers because it's their software changes
2. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 12:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Patents don't work like that. You don't fight the big players. You kill the small guys. In this case, Kyocera is the small guiy. It's a great system.
3. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 12:31 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Google is compliant; Google currently pays Microsoft for each Google branded handset that runs Android. All other manufacturers also pay MS for each Android handset they sell. Kyocera has not signed on yet apparently but they will need to also sign a licensing agreement with MS. Remember to pay your MS tax Android fanboys.
4. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by roc97007 · 2015-03-09 12:32 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  >complaint that some Kyocera phone features that come from its use of the Android operating system infringe Microsoft's patents.
  Wouldn't that mean Microsoft should be going after Google, and not Kyocera? Google produces the software, after all.
  Good point, but (given that IANAL) when you litigate issues like this, you don't go after the company with truckloads of cash that's highly motivated to fight it to the last breath in court. You pick a smaller target that's more likely to settle. Not only getting you the cash, but also establishing a precedent.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
5. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by Microlith · 2015-03-09 12:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Google could actually fight back, while the handset vendors are far more likely to buckle if their business is threatened with a block. They also resist tipping their hand to reveal what patents they want licensed, but Google would actually demand to see it - and possibly file a patent counter-suit.
6. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by Chess_the_cat · 2015-03-09 12:38 · Score: 2
  
  Google would demand to see what? Google already acknowledges Microsoft's patents and pays a licensing fee. Samsung also pays. They paid $1 billion to MS last year to use Android.
  
  --
  Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
7. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by sg_oneill · 2015-03-09 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Google pays the patents. It also has a lot more to lose. If an individual handset manufacturer loses in a MS battle, that handset suffers. If Google loses *all* handsets, 'cept MS and Apple, lose. Best to keep it out of court.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
8. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by exomondo · 2015-03-09 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't that mean Microsoft should be going after Google, and not Kyocera? Google produces the software, after all.
  If that were how patents worked then I'm sure Microsoft would have shut down Linux long ago.
9. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by tk77 · 2015-03-09 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  Android is open source and from what I understand, is not the part thats licensed on the phones. The companies license the ability to use the proprietary google apps on the devices (and use the android name/trademark?)
  I believe (and IANAL) the issue comes in when the software is then on a device thats being sold. Android itself isn't the issue, because its not being sold by Google. Selling devices with Android on it however, is the issue and why MS goes after the "smaller" companies.
  The real question is, why isn't Google offering protection for the companies under the licenses they get for the gapps? Probably because they know they infringed and the licensing fees wont cover paying for all the companies selling devices with it.
10. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by wrench+turner · 2015-03-09 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  Motorola (Google?) is not compliant; they are in fighting Microsoft in court. http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... Arstechnica reports that most cell phone makers pay Microsoft royalties on each phone but Kyocera and Motorola are not paying.
11. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by exomondo · 2015-03-09 13:07 · Score: 2
  
  We've already seen what patents they are, they've been revealed in court and were made public by the Chinese government. The question is whether they are valid.
12. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by Rich0 · 2015-03-09 13:25 · Score: 0
  
  Really?
  I think most of their patents are around FAT32, and Google doesn't use that on any of their phones (no SD cards or USB storage mode, so compatibility-wise it isn't needed). I'm not sure what else MS is claiming these days.
13. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by arth1 · 2015-03-09 13:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So much for Microsoft's reassurances that they increase their patent portfolio for defensive purposes.
  It's sad that the patent system is the biggest obstacle to becoming an inventor and entrepreneur. The minute you make anything successful, the sharks gather.
  That surely wasn't the intent of the patent system.
14. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by Chess_the_cat · 2015-03-09 13:37 · Score: 0
  
  Motorola Mobility does not pay but Motorola Solutions does pay. And didn't Google sell Motorola Mobility to Lenovo anyway? The point is that Google used patented code and left all Android vendors exposed.
  
  --
  Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
15. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 13:58 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Google: microsoft android patent list
  Then you will see articles detailing the Microsoft/Android patent situation.
  The list of patents was secret until last year, then China spilled the beans.
  http://www.zdnet.com/article/310-microsoft-patents-used-in-android-licensing-agreements-revealed-by-chinese-gov/
16. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 13:58 · Score: 0
  
  Settlements don't establish precedent.
17. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  Not really.
  Precedents are only established when there is a court decision. When there is an agreement, there is no precedent created.
18. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by squiggleslash · 2015-03-09 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  No. Google isn't making the product, they're supplying a component and not even doing that directly (that is, it's not as if Google is burning ROMs and sending them to Kyocera to be soldered into each device. Kyocera downloads a copy of the operating system, heavily customizes it, and then copies that to every device.)
  And in fairness, most phone makers already license the technology from Microsoft. It's not clear why Kyocera feels that they don't need to. My guess would be the usual patent negotiations dance is going on, where Kyocera feels Microsoft is asking for too much, and is threatening to find ways to invalidate the patents in question.
  Lest anyone's confused, this isn't the giant "OMG! Microsoft is going to close down Lunix with patents!" event everyone's scared of. The patents are known. Microsoft has been making money hand over fist for years now from Android licensees. Other phone makers don't see it as a problem. And, for what it's worth, in my view they're the "right" kind of patent enforcement - regardless of the validity of the patents, something I can't comment on, Microsoft is limiting itself to raising revenue from actual hardware makers. Not that I like patents, but there's "It sucks that the first person to invent something gets a monopoly" and there's "It sucks that the first person to think of something gets to prevent others from describing the same idea in a form a computer can understand."
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
19. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by ArhcAngel · 2015-03-09 14:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The point is that Google used patented code and left all Android vendors exposed.
  Whoa there Tex...It has NEVER been proven/disproven so all that we know for sure is Microsoft alleges Android is infringing some nebulous patents that they refuse to reveal.
  
  Aint nobody got time for another Apple/Microsoft 15 year court case so most vendors are choosing to pay.
  
  --
  "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
20. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by pete6677 · 2015-03-09 14:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There was a time when you had to patent a thing, as opposed to an abstract idea. Imagine if someone had been able to patent "using a mechanical device to cool the air". Refrigeration technology would have been held back for decades.
21. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by ArmoredDragon · 2015-03-09 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  Motorola Mobility does not pay but Motorola Solutions does pay. And didn't Google sell Motorola Mobility to Lenovo anyway? The point is that Google used patented code and left all Android vendors exposed.
  Microsoft didn't invent those patents. They bought them from Nortel who really was using them defensively and never sued any Android OEMs.
22. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by ancientt · 2015-03-09 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  The courts have recently been unkind to software patents. Google has lots of money for lawyers and they could spend less on lawyers than they're paying Microsoft if some (any?) of the patents were to be invalidated. Google has agreements with MS that may hinge partially on not going to court with them. However, a win for Kyocera could save them mucho dinero.
  Google may be able to support Kyocera without breaking their agreements and it could be a big win for them without jeopardizing anything except money. They have money to spare.
  Not so much "demand" as "cite."
  
  --
  B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
23. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 15:33 · Score: 0
  
  There is still such a thing as a precedent for settlement. It's not a legal thing, it's a persuasion thing.
  See this list of corps? They all bought our "licensing package", see?
  Besides, nothing ruins a company like unnecessary litigation.
24. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 15:34 · Score: 0
  
  > So much for Microsoft's reassurances that they increase their patent portfolio for defensive purposes.
  That's the problem with defensive.
  Take any victim who decides to train and get strong to defend him/herself.
  But a time comes when interests mandate such defensive resources are used to attack. The first thing which is said: "the best defense is an offense." And there you have it, Ethics go down the drain, the former victim acquires pride in being a predator etc. etc. Power corrupts.
  But in the case of M$ it's not so: they were that way from the very start -- even since that letter/manifesto back then. :-)
25. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by Pinhedd · 2015-03-09 15:52 · Score: 1
  
  No. It's the vendor that performs the commercialization and hence the infringement. Google doesn't offer patent indemnity to Android vendors like Microsoft does to Windows Phone vendors.
26. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by sumdumass · 2015-03-09 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  Google purchased Motorola mobility who had a crapload of patents that MS may be violating.
  https://gigaom.com/2014/01/30/...
  I'm not sure that MS can go after Google and come out clean. The low hanging fruit- especially since MS bought nokia likely will not have as much defensive posturing to fall back on.
27. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by thesupraman · 2015-03-09 16:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I assume you are intentionally pointing out that refrigeration WAS held back for decades because the ice supply companies (huge at the time) did exactly this?
  Of course with submarine patents, etc these days 'decades' can be much much longer..
28. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 16:52 · Score: 0
  
  Patents have almost always been used to stifle competition. The Wright brothers pretty much killed off the fledgling aviation industry in the US by patenting everything related to aviation - including things invented by Chanute and Lilienthal. Patents need to have limits, but abusing them isn't anything new - just more widely reported.
29. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by John.Banister · 2015-03-09 17:18 · Score: 2
  
  I think it's doubly sad that any court allows a patent infringement suit to be filed where the party claiming infringement doesn't have to show exactly what patents are infringed upon and specifically how as part of the filing. Any court that permits such a thing has to be seen as irredeemably corrupt forever after and should be replaced with someone honest.
30. Re: Shouldn't they be after Google? by tlhIngan · 2015-03-09 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC Google negeoated patent protections/licensing for certain things in android, anything beyond that is the responsibility of the phone manufacturers because it's their software changes
  It's not just patents that Google licenses - it's also avoidance. Apple went after Samsung because of TouchWiz - not Android. Android was fine (there were plenty of Android phones on the market) as it didn't violate the so-called "rounded corners" patent that involved a grid of icons with a static grid on the bottom (because on standard Android, there was no screen like that - the grid of icons, and the static grid, were not on the same screen - you have the app launcher, you have the home screen, and the widgets break up the grid of icons on the home screen).
  Samsung, however, decided the default Android launcher was crap and decided to take inspiration from somewhere else.
  (This was way back in the Galaxy S days, where the first impression everyone got on turning it on was "It's an iPhone!")
  It's why no Nexus phone was every held up - running default Android meant it automatically either used licensed patents, or worked around other patents. Heck, if you wonder why Nexus phones don't have external storage - don't you see that as an elegant workaround for the FAT32 patents? Especially since Android doesn't support Mass Storage anymore so there's absolutely no reason to support FAT32.
31. Re: Shouldn't they be after Google? by viperidaenz · 2015-03-09 18:51 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I have a Moto G, pretty vanilla version of Android 5.0.
  It supports USB Mass Storage just fine and FAT32 formatted usb drives.
32. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 22:00 · Score: 0
  
  You have to show us the "patented code" used in android, or shut the fuck up.
33. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by N+Monkey · 2015-03-09 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  >complaint that some Kyocera phone features that come from its use of the Android operating system infringe Microsoft's patents.
  Wouldn't that mean Microsoft should be going after Google, and not Kyocera? Google produces the software, after all.
  IANAL and I didn't check the details, but if MS are trying to use the International Trade Commission path, then that body can only block the import of products into the US which are determined to be infringing their patents, hence they target the manufactures/importers.
34. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 22:43 · Score: 0
  
  They can't go after Linux...
  Everything that is in Linux has been public for far more than 20 years.
  IBM has more patents than anyone - and could if they wanted go after MS.
  It just isn't worth the expense.
35. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by serviscope_minor · 2015-03-09 23:04 · Score: 1
  
  Surely they have to tell the court what patents are being infringed in order to get an injunction? Does this case reveal it? I couldn't find any information though.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
36. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by unapersson · 2015-03-09 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  Motorola Mobility does not pay but Motorola Solutions does pay. And didn't Google sell Motorola Mobility to Lenovo anyway? The point is that Google used patented code and left all Android vendors exposed.
  There is no such thing as patented code.
37. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by jbolden · 2015-03-09 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  Google has tried to step into these suits. The problem legally is that Google doesn't sell Android licenses per device so it is unclear if there is a patent violation if they are the ones doing it. This is another area where the legal status of open source is ambiguous.
38. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by jbolden · 2015-03-09 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  It wasn't. This expansion was caused by a bunch of Republican judges who liked patent law. It has been a disaster for software. What we need is black letter law from congress on software patents. This isn't particularly partisan so I don't see why congress can't just do this.
39. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by FirstOne · 2015-03-10 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  A fair amount of M$ patents over Linux are invalid, because Microsoft duplicated and distributed Linux internally.
  That distribution kicked in the patent clause of GPL. Thus estoppling all licensing claims their patents against Linux.. I.E. They authorized duplication, distribution, and use by their Employees/Sub-contractors/etc all of which are 3rd parties to M$ corporate patent port folio.
  A similar claim can be made for Nokia android phones, which Nokia android phones of which Micosoft paid 7.2 Billion for.
  Any decent lawyer can easily point out these estoppel conflicts and moot a motion for a pretrial injunction.
40. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by SQLGuru · 2015-03-10 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  At Mobile World Congress this year, Kyocera was showing off a demo unit running Windows Phone....their first Microsoft device in years. What's the over/under on that unit failing to make it to market........or conversely what's the over/under on Kyocera pushing MORE Windows Phone units in order to save money on the patent settlement?
41. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-10 01:06 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe the patents are about ceramics, and only Kyocera uses these technology.
42. Re: Shouldn't they be after Google? by thegarbz · 2015-03-10 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  Hate to break it to you but Android versions at the time, and Android versions now have always had a static grid on the bottom and looked everybit like Touchwiz did at the time they were sued. Either Android was every bit as guilty or you did a horrible job of explaining what the differences were.
  Also while we're at it there's very technical reasons why USB Mass Storage mode is disabled by default. They involve blocking of the file system, the resulting work arounds to make the feature worked caused positioning of the device such that you could run out of diskspace yet still install a few hundred MB more apps. Users complained about this a LOT which is why the scheme was rethought and USB Mass Storage disabled for the internal devices. Though for devices with SD Cards you can still enable USB Mass Storage in ways that vary from device to device, but expect any app that uses that device to crash when you connect your computer. Speaking of connecting your computer, disconnecting a USB Mass Storage session while writing to the device could cause complete data loss, though not brick your phone as it was partitioned, MTP can not.
  Feel free to put that conspiracy theory away now, especially since we still use FAT32 for external SD cards which are free to move between devices.
43. Re: Shouldn't they be after Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-10 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  i don't think so.... it identifies itself as a MotoG (or its model name) in the Computer display.
44. Re: Shouldn't they be after Google? by thegarbz · 2015-03-10 01:24 · Score: 2
  
  Really your Motor G shows up as a Removable Drive in Windows? Because every bit of my Google-fu says it doesn't, says it's unsupported, Verizon's website says it's unsupported, Motorola's website says support was removed, and Google's android site provides a big list of technical reasons of why USB Mass Storage is not supported on Android for the internal memory of a device anymore.
45. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by MBGMorden · 2015-03-10 02:35 · Score: 2
  
  The Wright brothers pretty much killed off the fledgling aviation industry in the US by patenting everything related to aviation
  Patents also helped here though - sometimes designing around them spurs innovation.
  The Wright Brothers had a "warping wing" method for turning the plane that they had patented. To get around that patent aileron's were invented - and were a far superior technology.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
46. Re: Shouldn't they be after Google? by gl4ss · 2015-03-10 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  you're understanding it backwards.
  reading fat32 discs is different from showing up through the usb as an usb mass storage drive. it's a bit of a crapshoot of how the phone shows up to the OS. most show up nowadays as a removabe media device, not as a real drive.
  there's an advantage to that though, as then the drive doesn't need to be unmounted from the phone OS, instead the files are visible to both.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
47. Re: Shouldn't they be after Google? by rHBa · 2015-03-10 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  I think he was referring to external USB Mass Storage, i.e FAT32 formatted USB drives.
48. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by KingMotley · 2015-03-10 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, no on all points.
  There is no patent clause for internal distribution in the GPL.
  Microsoft didn't put the code in linux, so they can't be legally bound by a license for code regarding it.
  You, are obviously not a lawyer. Any decent lawyer could tell you that.
49. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by TemporalBeing · 2015-03-10 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Surely they have to tell the court what patents are being infringed in order to get an injunction? Does this case reveal it? I couldn't find any information though.
  May be, may be not. Even so, they could do so by sealing the filing so only the parties in the case can read it; all it takes is for Microsoft to claim trade secret, harm to its business, etc for that to happen. And the judges in Seattle (or WA for that matter) are typically in their back pocket for one reason or another - it's a very friendly state towards MS, but then, MS pours a lot into funding various public things (f.e education) there too so there's the whole "don't bite the hand that feeds you" thing going on there.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
50. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by TemporalBeing · 2015-03-10 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Settlements don't establish precedent.
  No they don't. But they work well to load the coffers and scare everyone else into paying up, especially when the other party is gagged on the topic as part of the settlement, which is what MS tends to do - so even if they pay out (B&N) then the other party can't counter MS's story as to why, etc.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
51. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by FirstOne · 2015-03-10 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Their is no such thing as internal distribution for a CORPORATION/VIRTUAL PERSON(non-pural).
  Merely using Linux (by copying/distribution in anyform, subject's them to GPL license, like any other type of software. One always needs a valid license to even to just install a program, to do otherwise would make all M$ programs fair game to pirate.
52. Re: Shouldn't they be after Google? by viperidaenz · 2015-03-10 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  reading fat32 discs is different from showing up through the usb as an usb mass storage drive.
  What? It does both. IT shows mass storage devices, reads FAT32 and writes FAT32.
53. Re: Shouldn't they be after Google? by viperidaenz · 2015-03-10 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  I can plug a USB drive in to the USB OTG connector and it shows up in Android as a drive.
54. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-10 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  So, I hate MS as much as the next guy, but you're reading that wrong.
  They are using this for "defensive purposes". but that doesn't mean the same thing as you think it does. They want 15$ per device - kyocera tells them to get bent. They don't want to ban the sale of the phones, just get a cut. Then no one else can come into the market and use kyocera as precedent. It's a kind of estoppel, one where you can't selectively enforce your patents. HTC (Duh, used to be mS), Samsung, LG, Google all pay their 15$ per phone to MS.
  Kyocera could be seen to be trying to negotiate the price on this "protection money" and MS is hardballing them at 15$ a device because then they know the other manufacturers would want the same deal.
  It's a bunch of golf course billionaire asshole nonsense. IOW, nothing to see here.
55. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-10 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  Settlements don't establish precedent.
  Of course they do. They don't set a legal precedent, but I assure you, when a handset manufacturer is deciding whether to cave to MS or fight, they're gonna look at and think long and hard about what those who have made that decision already have done.
56. Re: Shouldn't they be after Google? by Shagg · 2015-03-10 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  didn't violate the so-called "rounded corners" patent that involved a grid of icons
  FYI, those are two different patents. The infamous "rounded corners" patent has to do with the physical hardware, it has nothing to do with icons/grids, etc.
  
  --
  Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
57. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by exomondo · 2015-03-10 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  That distribution kicked in the patent clause of GPL. Thus estoppling all licensing claims their patents against Linux.. I.E. They authorized duplication, distribution, and use by their Employees/Sub-contractors/etc all of which are 3rd parties to M$ corporate patent port folio.
  I don't think that's correct, what are you considering to be the definition of "distribution" in this context? If my employer installs software on their machines I don't need a license to it, nor do I have any claim to it because my employer is the licensee, not me, they didn't distribute it to me. Just like if I use my friend's TIVO I am not a licensee of the Linux kernel within it and he is not bound to supply me with the sourcecode should I request it because he has not distributed it to me.
  Also you mentioned "duplication" and "use by their employees/sub-contractors" neither of which appears to have any relevance to the GPL so I'm not sure why you said that, is there a reason you believe that has some relevance here?
58. Re:Shouldn't they be after Google? by cthulhu11 · 2015-03-11 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  Show of hands -- how many even knew that Kyocera a) was still in business and b) makes phones?
Always nice to collect money for no work by innocent_white_lamb · 2015-03-09 12:25 · Score: 2

It's nice to be able to collect money from others in exchange for absolutely nothing.
How can you steal someone's idea if you actually came up with it independently? That should be enough to invalidate their patents on its own. If you and I both come up with the same idea at around the same time, then that idea is "obvious".

--
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
1. Re:Always nice to collect money for no work by bobbied · 2015-03-09 12:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There is a catch 22 in the law here... Patents are public records so anybody can just copy a patent and claim they came up with it... If you hide patents from public view, you'd never be able to know if you violated one prior to the holder filing suit, but you'd have a obvious "it's obvious" argument in that case. IMHO: Patents are issued for way too many obvious things and rarely really have any unique content. I wonder if they really are necessary.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
2. Re:Always nice to collect money for no work by steveg · 2015-03-09 14:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The nature of the way patents are written is that they *are* hidden from public view -- while in plain sight.
  And are they necessary? Economists Michele Boldrin and David Levine make a *very* compelling case that they are not. The purpose of patents and copyright is to provide incentive to cause creators to create ("Promote progress" in the words of the Constitution), but the evidence that they show makes a really strong case that intellectual property actually retards progress.
  And Gates made that point himself in an internal Microsoft memo many years ago. "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."
  
  --
  Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
3. Re:Always nice to collect money for no work by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 23:37 · Score: 0
  
  It would also be nice if anti-trust regulations were enforced properly, but it seems laws are only selectively applied to some large corporations.
4. Re:Always nice to collect money for no work by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-10 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  The nature of the way patents are written is that they *are* hidden from public view -- while in plain sight.
  And are they necessary? Economists Michele Boldrin and David Levine make a *very* compelling case that they are not. The purpose of patents and copyright is to provide incentive to cause creators to create ("Promote progress" in the words of the Constitution), but the evidence that they show makes a really strong case that intellectual property actually retards progress.
  And Gates made that point himself in an internal Microsoft memo many years ago. "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."
  Example of impenetrable and obfuscatory text: "said combinatory alternatives, under permutation, need not necessarily be neither non-exclusive nor non-inclusive". And you have to defend against this sort of stuff in court, where the presumption is that "a granted patent is valid" holds unless the jury can see through it... A patent holder's lawyer can play his fish forever with this sort of thing, and only reel it in when it's essentially dead. 'Nuff said.
5. Re:Always nice to collect money for no work by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-10 08:04 · Score: 0
  
  It's nice to be able to collect money from others in exchange for absolutely nothing.
  Yep. Go ask any MBA, it's the default American business model.
6. Re:Always nice to collect money for no work by viperidaenz · 2015-03-10 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  That's what engineering notebooks are supposed to be for.
  To prove you actually invented something, showing how you did it and when.
7. Re:Always nice to collect money for no work by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-11 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  Example of impenetrable and obfuscatory text: "said combinatory alternatives, under permutation, need not necessarily be neither non-exclusive nor non-inclusive". And you have to defend against this sort of stuff in court, where the presumption is that "a granted patent is valid" holds unless the jury can see through it... A patent holder's lawyer can play his fish forever with this sort of thing, and only reel it in when it's essentially dead. 'Nuff said.
  Like so much of US law, the patent system has been created and maintained by legal professionals looking out for the interests of their profession, at the expense of society.
  The legal profession is in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to the nature, scope, and form of the law. That patent law and precedent is written (by practicing legal professionals) to allow nonsense like the above creates an artificial demand for the services of legal professionals, and thus represents unethical practice of law.
  This can be considered a violation of a legal professionals oath to uphold the Bill of Rights, since the right to ethical practice of law is certainly one of the rights "retained by the people" under the 9th Amendment. Even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided when reasonably possible.
  Bill of Rights issues aside, current patent law can be considered to directly violate the pre-Bill of Rights constitution, since it actually can deprive an inventor of the exclusive use of their invention. After all, if I come up with an idea, I have invented it and would expect to be able to use it, as a citizen in a free country. If somebody else can, with a patent or a threat of a patent action, prevent me from using that idea, then I clearly don't have ANY use of my invention (we don't even need to consider the "exclusive" modifier in this case).
  The reality of discovery (aka invention) is that many people are likely to come up with similar ideas, without knowing of each others work. This is especially true in this age of information overload, but we can point to many examples even centuries ago. This is so well established it has even been given a name: Stigler's Law - "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." My invention may or may not ALSO be somebody else's invention, but so long as it is mine independently of the others I should have a right to use it in the designs I work on (think of this as an example of freedom of thought, an universal and inalienable right).
  If the lawyers administering the patent system choose not to acknowledge this, then the entire system needs to be thrown out on a legal ethics basis (and the lawyers need to be encouraged to find new jobs in fields without ethics requirements).
And so... by roc97007 · 2015-03-09 12:25 · Score: 1

...It begins. We knew this would happen eventually.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
1. Re:And so... by bjwest · 2015-03-09 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  Welcome to the reading world. You must have just learned to read, or been on an African safari for the past few years if you think this has just started. MS makes a significant portion of their bottom line on Android licensing, and if it weren't for the Chinese government, we still wouldn't know what the hell they claim to control.
  I just hope Kyocera has the balls to fight this shit and win.
  
  --
  
  --- Keep the choice with the user..
2. Re:And so... by JBMcB · 2015-03-09 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  I just hope Kyocera has the balls to fight this shit and win.
  Well, Samsung, LG, Sony, and HTC all pay the MS tax on their Android devices. Does Kyocera have a larger legal war-chest than those companies?
  
  --
  My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
3. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 12:53 · Score: 0
  
  That was a trademark issue, possibly a valid one. Fluke could say that the cheaper meters were knockoffs that devalued their brand. I think they had a point - the company could have easily made blue multimeters. What about multimeter function is inherent in the color of the plastic? Nothing.
  MS has a patent portfolio that is arguably broad, and they have a history here in which they threaten litigation against FOSS without disclosing which patents are to blame, sometimes through sketchy third parties like the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO). Android may not be exactly FOSS, but kyocera is certainly a competitor, and if anything is devalued here, it's the protection money that google, samsung and htc are seen to pay MS as extortion. You might have a point if kyocera was making a knockoff windows phone, but they aren't, they're making an android branded phone.
  So the arguments to be making here are about the merits of the patents. Many in the tech industry feel patents on software are ludicrous, some believe they are necessary, and some believe both or neither, depending on the case.
4. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 13:00 · Score: 0
  
  But patents on the the color yellow are ok? The multimeters had no resemblance to the Flukes, it wasn't even the same shade of yellow. Heck, Snap-On should sue Craftsmen for having red toolboxes.
5. Re:And so... by roc97007 · 2015-03-09 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  I just hope Kyocera has the balls to fight this shit and win.
  Well, Samsung, LG, Sony, and HTC all pay the MS tax on their Android devices. Does Kyocera have a larger legal war-chest than those companies?
  Almost certainly not. Even if you go up to the parent corp (of which Kyocera Communications is a subsidiary) they still have less than a quarter of the revenue of Sony, for instance, and they don't have the motivation of, say, Google to fight. They'll settle.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
6. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 13:16 · Score: 0
  
  the multimeters in question weren't actually blocked directly by Fluke, but they were a close enough shade of yellow, and had the same pattern in the grey, that it violated their IP
7. Re:And so... by Dutch+Gun · 2015-03-09 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  I just hope Kyocera has the balls to fight this shit and win.
  It probably won't, and even if it did, it wouldn't change anything. We need to get rid of software patents altogether. The fact that Microsoft has a war chest of profitable patents for cell phone software pretty much should disabuse anyone of the notion that software patents are necessary in order to compete and innovate in the market. They're nothing more than leverage for extracting licensing fees from others for solving software problems in the same obvious way that your patent happened to solve a problem. Copyright is more than enough to protect a company's intellectual property.
  With such a volume of software patents, the problem for developers in navigating patent minefields is growing beyond all reason, as it's all but impossible to avoid accidentally infringing. It's holding back rather than helping innovation. The entire *point* of patents is not to establish or assert some natural rights of inventors, but to protect innovation by artificially granting an time-limited monopoly. The fact that everyone is forced to cross-license patents from each other, or the invention of software "patent pools" shows how far we've come from that ideal. It's beyond absurd, and it needs to stop. When both the EFF and Forbes are both in agreement that software patents need to go, can we just get rid of the damned things?
  
  --
  Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
software patents shouldn't be a thing by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 12:36 · Score: 1

Seriously. So many features that are "obvious" are patented for no real reason.
1. Re:software patents shouldn't be a thing by tk77 · 2015-03-09 12:46 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously. So many features that are "obvious" are patented for no real reason.
  Many features are "obvious" after someone else comes up with them.
2. Re:software patents shouldn't be a thing by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 14:20 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  another thing that's obvious is that you're an idiot
3. Re:software patents shouldn't be a thing by tk77 · 2015-03-09 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  says the AC...
4. Re:software patents shouldn't be a thing by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 22:36 · Score: 0
  
  Is tk77 your real name? You are as anonymous as AC.
5. Re:software patents shouldn't be a thing by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 23:30 · Score: 0
  
  It is entirely possible to infringe software patents without knowing about them. It even happened to me, an algorithm (for efficient convolution of digital audio with low latency) I came up with entirely on my own, and without much effort, was patented by some company I never heard about before others told me about the patent. At least one other open source developer run into similar problems by independently inventing the same algorithm. And there are probably many cases where a developer infringes software patents without being aware of their existence, it is just never found out, as it is not like every piece of code is constantly monitored for potential patent issues.
No one should buy Microsoft products by faragon · 2015-03-09 12:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's an example of moral misery. In my opinion.
1. Re:No one should buy Microsoft products by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 17:25 · Score: 0
  
  It's not like many of us have a realistic choice in our various industries.
2. Re:No one should buy Microsoft products by Threni · 2015-03-09 20:51 · Score: 0
  
  No compromises, though. Can't decide whether to get a laptop or a tablet? Get a Microsoft Surface. It's the size and weight of a laptop, with a poor battery life, balanced out by a full size keyboard...but you can lug it around and use the touch screen - on the apps which support it - just like you would if you were using one of the more popular tablets from Apple or Android.
3. Re:No one should buy Microsoft products by johanw · 2015-03-09 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  Whan it is about their phones, no one does.
Microsoft still evil by MechaStreisand · 2015-03-09 12:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

For everyone who thinks that Microsoft has turned over a new leaf under Nadella, here's the proof that they are still evil at heart.

--
Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
1. Re:Microsoft still evil by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 13:16 · Score: 0
  
  and so is google: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/
2. Re:Microsoft still evil by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 15:04 · Score: 0
  
  This isn't Microsoft being evil, this is lawyers being evil.
3. Re:Microsoft still evil by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 16:20 · Score: 0
  
  You mean using the exact same means and methods as GPL uses to protect its property and licensing arrangements..... the courts.
  If you want to remove software patents etc then GPL will have to die too, as that is simply another form of licensing that is legally enforceable.
4. Re:Microsoft still evil by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 17:13 · Score: 0
  
  Microsoft's lawyers being evil. It's an evil from a capital E, on the whole new level of magnitude.
5. Re:Microsoft still evil by MouseTheLuckyDog · 2015-03-10 00:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Doh! GPL uses copyrights not patents.
So what exactly ARE these patents? by rHBa · 2015-03-09 13:04 · Score: 2

I keep hearing about Microsoft's Android patents but I still don't know what they are?
1. Re:So what exactly ARE these patents? by buckfeta2014 · 2015-03-09 13:10 · Score: 2
  
  FAT file system for SD cards, among other things.
  
  --
  Buck Feta. You know what to do.
2. Re:So what exactly ARE these patents? by Nyder · 2015-03-09 13:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I keep hearing about Microsoft's Android patents but I still don't know what they are?
  The patents are that they will tie you up in court for years at costs way beyond what you'd pay if you just gave in.
  Apparently it's a new idea when you add: on a cellphone to it.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
3. Re:So what exactly ARE these patents? by gronofer · 2015-03-09 13:16 · Score: 2
  
  In its complaint, Microsoft alleged that some of the features of the Kyocera smartphones infringe patents the software company holds in the areas of power management for enhanced battery life, "self-aware" devices that respond to changes in the user's surroundings, text messaging and doing multiple tasks on a computing device at the same time.
  So they have patented self-aware phones, and other amazing innovations like doing multiple tasks at the same time on a single device.
4. Re:So what exactly ARE these patents? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 13:57 · Score: 0
  
  I hope I could mod WTF
5. Re:So what exactly ARE these patents? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 14:04 · Score: 0
  
  Microsoft kept the list secret as long as it could. Then last year, the Chinese government published the list. It's 310 different patents for all kinds of vague concepts.
  Google: microsoft android patent list
  You will see a bunch of articles from last year, when the list was made public.
6. Re:So what exactly ARE these patents? by exomondo · 2015-03-09 14:08 · Score: 2
  
  I keep hearing about Microsoft's Android patents but I still don't know what they are?
  There's a link in here.
7. Re:So what exactly ARE these patents? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 20:35 · Score: 1
  
  The FAT32 patent expired in 2013, however there is exFAT which is still under a patent. Getting into a patent war can be very messy, time consuming and expensive so it is no wonder many firms pay to avoid litigation. I suppose you can say this is the modern day version of extortion. :)
  
  In case you are wondering how Linux in general is able to avoid the FAT and now exFAT patent on a technicality, according to this article .
8. Re:So what exactly ARE these patents? by serviscope_minor · 2015-03-09 23:06 · Score: 1
  
  Well surely the court system isn't so insane that they can ask for an injunction to ban the phones without revealing what patents are alleged to be infringed. Surely...?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
9. Re:So what exactly ARE these patents? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-10 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  That's because Microsoft usually only ever reveals the actual patents in question under NDA.
  Looks like they have released info this time, though, and they're a bunch that hasn't been openly used before. All software patents that never should have been granted, but that doesn't make it any cheaper to deal with.
10. Re:So what exactly ARE these patents? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-10 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  I keep hearing about Microsoft's Android patents but I still don't know what they are?
  Ars Technica has a list in their article.
11. Re:So what exactly ARE these patents? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-10 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  Microsoft is an American company. Kyocera is a non-American company who would have to pay the American company to play in their market.
  Unfortunately, yeah, the court system is gonna do that all day every day if they can find any reason whatsoever to justify it.
12. Re:So what exactly ARE these patents? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-10 11:15 · Score: 0
  
  Link to the two .docx files here (WARNING, I make no guarantees about their safety. Use LibreOffice or something).
  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/chinese-govt-reveals-microsofts-secret-list-of-android-killer-patents/
Compete in the marketplace, not the courtroom by QuietLagoon · 2015-03-09 13:12 · Score: 2

Didn't Microsoft used to say, when it was being sued by competitors for its monopoly tendencies, that companies should compete in the marketplace, and not in the courtroom?
1. Re:Compete in the marketplace, not the courtroom by dbIII · 2015-03-10 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  They said it, but it was no coincidence that Bill Gate's dad was a very good lawyer and Microsoft did very well from day one. There's a long list of clever tricks, from a MITM thing between the DOS developer and IBM to offering Spyglass royalties for every copy of Internet Explorer sold ($0). Using legal loopholes to dominate the market and lobbying to close them before others can use them is a lot of what MS has been about.
Making Popcorn for The Show by Zamphatta · 2015-03-09 13:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

I really hope Kyocera doesn't back down & settle out of court. I'd love to see this go forward and see if Microsoft's patents really would hold up legally. I doubt they would, but that's all theory 'til it's tested out.
1. Re:Making Popcorn for The Show by QuietLagoon · 2015-03-09 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  Shouldn't google indemnify Kyrocera for any patent issues in Android?
2. Re:Making Popcorn for The Show by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 15:59 · Score: 0
  
  Considering Kyocera is a spin off from qcom I doubt it. They probably have licenses already from MS too as they were one of the few companies that made WinCE phones and had full access to *all* of the source code (which meant a lot a few years ago with WinCE).
  My guess kyocera said 'we paid you already' and MS is 'we want MOAR'.
  Having been watching the phone ip wars for many years they will both back down and setting for a rate which 'both parties agree on' and no one outside of that boardroom will ever find out what it is.
  This is pretty standard for this sort of IP. QCOM pretty much patented the method to sue and get what they want. Give it about 6-9 months and the whole mess will go away. Kyoceras customers will pay 2-3 dollars more per device.
3. Re:Making Popcorn for The Show by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  Posting AC as have moderated. They will settle. I really wish Google had shut MS down when they first tried it on anet android. Now I wish Google would fight and win then demand a refund with interest for all fees paid. The patents look like total rubbish, if you think software patents should exist at all.
4. Re:Making Popcorn for The Show by Zamphatta · 2015-03-09 17:53 · Score: 1
  
  Good question. I think might be immune to this, since they signed an agreement with Micro$oft like most other cellphone makers. They'll probably back Kyrocera monitarily if it comes to a court case though, 'cause they'd like to see the patents challenged and not be the ones in the middle of it.
So They Must Be Good? by bill_mcgonigle · 2015-03-09 13:32 · Score: 1

If they weren't any good they would flop in the marketplace and not worth suing over, so I see this as a signal from Microsoft that Kyocera is making some good phones. Anybody here have specific models to recommend (preferably with CM11 on it)? Samsung has gone all nuts with no storage or battery options, so since I'm looking for a new vendor, might as well be one that's fighting a bully.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
1. Re:So They Must Be Good? by tanderson92 · 2015-03-09 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about their most recent phones, but the Kyocera Rise is a piece of crap. It's buggy and slow, just about the only thing it has going for it is that it is one of the last phones which has a full keyboard. Also the price.
2. Re:So They Must Be Good? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 14:46 · Score: 0
  
  I take it you've never used a Kyocera phone. I have a Hydro sitting in front of me and the only word that really fits is paperweight. It's a horrible phone to use, feel for anyone that has to rely on it. For me I was just trying to trim it up for brag rights but it's junk.
3. Re:So They Must Be Good? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 15:18 · Score: 0
  
  You, sir, are an idiot.
4. Re:So They Must Be Good? by pfleming · 2015-03-10 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Kyocera doesn't have an unlocked bootloader (at least on the Hydro, assume it's pretty much the same across the board) so good luck with CM anything.
Did Google negotiate patent licensing for android? by DougPaulson · 2015-03-09 13:51 · Score: 5, Informative

@ ZorinLynx: "Wouldn't that mean Microsoft should be going after Google, and not Kyocera? Google produces the software, after all."

It would except microsoft knows it doesn't have a legal leg to stand on and the smaller players are easier to extort than the behemoth of Mountain View, California.

@Sylak: "IIRC Google negeoated patent protections/licensing for certain things in android, anything beyond that is the responsibility of the phone manufacturers because it's their software changes"

No, google never negotiated patent 'protection' from Microsoft in relation to Android. Microsoft has refused to reveal what these patents are. but is quite happey to fund Patent Trolls to go after legitimate companies. See :Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols: Patent trolls under attack, but not dead yet.
how by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 14:18 · Score: 0

do they know something "infringes" without seeing the code? are they patenting the idea of basic functionality?
In related news.... by Patent+Lover · 2015-03-09 14:38 · Score: 4, Funny

All 7 U.S. Kyocera phone owners cried foul!
1. Re:In related news.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 17:17 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  That's twice as many as Windows Phone users worldwide! Kyocera has to compensate Microsoft for all those lost sales.
2. Re:In related news.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 18:21 · Score: 0
  
  make that only six. mine was replaced with another manufacturer's phone a few years ago.
3. Re:In related news.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-10 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  They are actually quite nice. All the ruggedness of top Samsung offerings (water, immersion, and drop resistance), similar hardware, good battery life, and as a kicker they have from the factory wireless charging. Downsides are a low resolution screen and a meh camera. A good trade off considering they are less than a fifth of the price.
  When rooted they make excellent privacy/corporate phones for their resilience and a price that lets them be remote wiped or thrown away without much sense of loss. That is their real virtue. Good luck explaining why you broke or lost your $800 phone to your boss, but if it cost $110, well accidents happen.
List of Patents (Chinese!) by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 15:08 · Score: 3, Informative

Well, it seems that despite Microsofts NDA to try to keep its patents secret, the Chinese government simply published the list of claimed infringing patents Microsoft asserts. Sadly its in Simplified Chinese, but the english in brackets tells yo what they're about (badly spaced).
It's difficult to take fluff like this seriously (Method and System for Managing Changes to a Contact Database?? Method And System For Configuring A Timer?? Garbage FFS, the patent office joking again).
Common Name Space for Long and Short Filenames
Method And System For Configuring A Timer
Loading Status in a Hypermedia Browser Having a Limited Available Display Area
RadioInterface Layer in a CellPhone witha SetofAPI's Havinga Hardware-Independent Proxy Layer and a Hardware-Specific Driver Layer
System Provided Child Window Controls
Context Sensitive Menu System/Menu Behavior
Flexible Architecturefor Notifying Applicationsof StateChanges
Handheld Computing Devicewith External Notification System
Browser Navigationfor Devices Witha Limited InputS ystem
Methodand Systemfor Managing Changes toa Contact Database
Simulating Gestures ofa Pointing Device Usinga Stylusand Providing FeedbackThereto
Highlevel Active PenMatrix
SoftInputPanel SystemandMethod
Synchronizing OveraNumberof Synchronization MechanismsUsing FlexibleRules
MonitoringEntropic Conditionsofa FlashMemory DeviceasanIndicatorfor Invoking ErasureOperations
Methodand Systemfor Creating Multi-Lingual Computer Programs by Dynamically LoadingMessages
Communicating Multi-Part Messages Between Cellular Devices Usinga StandardizedInterface
Methodand Apparatus ForCapturing And Rendering Annotations For Non-ModifiableElectronicContent
Selection Handlesin Editing ElectronicDocuments
Methodand Systemfor File SystemManagement Usinga Flash-Erasable,Programmable, Read-OnlyMemory
Remote Retrievaland Display Managementof Electronic Documentwith IncorporatedImages
Computer Systemfo rIdentifying LocalResources
Event Architecture For System Management in an OperatingSystem
Exchange ActiveSyncEAS
Extended FileAllocationTable,exFAT
Remote Desktop Protocol,RDP
1. Re:List of Patents (Chinese!) by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 17:21 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, wow "Configuring A Timer"? I just adjusted my microwave for new DST, where do I sign up to compensate Microsoft for infringed IP?
yup, this is definitely /. by BurgEnder · 2015-03-09 15:48 · Score: 0

How come it wasn't as big a deal when Apple did the same thing to Samsung? Because nowadays hating "M$" has become a prerequisite for getting your "geek cred" card renewed, but being a neckbeard-having, skinny-jeans wearing tool whose smartphone case has a cutout where the Apple logo is so other tools can see you're a member of the "club" is totally acceptable.
1. Re:yup, this is definitely /. by syockit · 2015-03-09 16:37 · Score: 2
  
  It was a big deal. You probably missed the party.
  
  --
  Democracy is for the people; you only vote once per season and we'll do the rest of the work for you don't have to.
2. Re:yup, this is definitely /. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-10 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  What's really funny are the young hipsters who rant about some of Microsoft's behavior that happened before they were even born. But that's okay, their biases create shortages in C# developers. So I'll keep programming in .Net and laugh all the way to the bank.
Re:Did Google negotiate patent licensing for andro by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 15:52 · Score: 1

It would except microsoft knows it doesn't have a legal leg to stand on and the smaller players are easier to extort than the behemoth of Mountain View, California.
Cool story, Bro. They have to go after the maker of the device. Almost all of the Android device makers pay a royalty to Microsoft. Samsung, for instance, could damn well afford all the lawyers it needs. But they pay. They sure wouldn't do that if Microsoft didn't "have a leg to stand on." Microsoft makes more money from Android than Google does.
Honestly by Trogre · 2015-03-09 15:55 · Score: 1

What Geniuses.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Re:Did Google negotiate patent licensing for andro by gl4ss · 2015-03-09 16:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

ah but paying ms and then getting the money back in wp, windows etc licenses - and cross licenses - helps samsung.
it keeps the smaller players out from the market.
never noticed how the western phone market is lacking all the new manufacturers? that's not a coincidence and this is how they're keeping them out.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Nokia++ by sansprivacy · 2015-03-09 17:01 · Score: 1

Dude, they own Nokia and all its IP. What more do they need to dominate the future retro-cell revival market?
1. Re: Nokia++ by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 19:30 · Score: 0
  
  Own Nokia, since when? Nokia abandoned Windows Phone to its fate, and cut their losses by selling the mobile division to Microsoft. Nokia licensed (some of) their IP to Microsoft for a limited time, and the bit concerning smartphones expires in December. Android phones playing Nokia Tune will most probably be available to the public next year, and as some of you remember, they already had these as prototypes before Elop left. But for starters we'll get the N1 tablet.
2. Re:Nokia++ by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-10 21:18 · Score: 0
  
  Except of course; they only purchased the handset business (now Microsoft Mobility) and a small amount of IP - the remaining IP is licensed from Nokia which is still in business (just a lot smaller).
Are the patents valid? by fustakrakich · 2015-03-09 17:42 · Score: 1

We will never know until there is sufficient resistance. In the meantime, suck it up. This world is your making.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Kyocera should stop this infringing behavior now by John.Banister · 2015-03-09 17:52 · Score: 1

I'd like to see a Sailfish OS Brigadier. Perhaps they could also work with the Blackphone people and make a phone that's resistant to both an adverse digital and physical environment.
Re:Did Google negotiate patent licensing for andro by Billly+Gates · 2015-03-09 17:55 · Score: 1

Not if they get a lawyer like this one?

--
http://saveie6.com/
Let's Barbra-Streisand them by m.alessandrini · 2015-03-09 20:09 · Score: 1

I suggest everyone buy a Kyocera phone as his next phone. Time to fight patent trolls with our wallets.
Windows10 phone sales still down? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 20:16 · Score: 1

Those who can't write code, troll those that do.
Defensive patents? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-09 22:19 · Score: 0

Where are all the Microsoft fanboys who keep claiming that Microsoft use their patents defensively?
This proves them wrong (again).
If you can't beat em, by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-10 00:19 · Score: 0

Litigate the shit out of them!
Fuck you microsoft. Patent abusing ass clowns.
I have Kyocera Hydro. i agree to sell it ot Balmer by user.aaaaa · 2015-03-10 01:28 · Score: 0

for $100 (and i plan use that opportunity to kick his ass for broken Skype)
they are not a bugs. they are Patented MS features by user.aaaaa · 2015-03-10 01:29 · Score: 0

!!!! balmer dik suker
Re:Did Google negotiate patent licensing for andro by oh_my_080980980 · 2015-03-10 04:15 · Score: 1

LMOL, umm yes Potsy they would pay Microsoft. Court battles can be lengthy and costly. So it's cheaper to pay than to litigate. Not too mention, Samsung carries Windows line of phones. So if they decided to fight Microsoft in court, they could lose Microsoft's business. Again, better to pay the hush money. Now Google on other hand.....
Re:Did Google negotiate patent licensing for andro by Archangel+Michael · 2015-03-10 04:27 · Score: 1

It isn't cheaper to pay than to litigate, it simply costs less NOW, but dare say it costs more in the long run. I like the IBM model better, the smoking remnants of SCO stands as a testimony to anyone daring to take on IBM. It cost a lot of money to burn SCO to the ground, but it serves as a reminder to all, "don't fuck with me"

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:Did Google negotiate patent licensing for andro by Ravaldy · 2015-03-10 05:45 · Score: 1

I doubt that's the main reason new manufacturers aren't breaking the market in North America.
I'd be more of the opinion that the difficult and hostile retail market in North America is the main cause, not the other manufacturers.
Re:Did Google negotiate patent licensing for andro by Ravaldy · 2015-03-10 05:55 · Score: 1

Didn't you just confirm he was right?
Every case is different since it depends very much on how stubborn both parties are. That is why companies like MS, Google and Apple make large cash deals for unlimited use of the patents they need access to. The other parties know very well the courts will force a reasonable settlement that doesn't ruin the defendant.
Don't let the headlines confuse you. Many patent cases don't even make it to court, they more often are settles behind closed doors.