Do you honestly think that if the manufacturers didn't play ball with Microsoft, that they'd just walk away? Fuck no, Microsoft would sue the crap out of them.
2. Microsoft is offering reasonable licensing terms to the device makers, so the licensing agreement costs significantly less than the cost of litigating./quote.
Being less than the cost of litigation doesn't necessarily make the terms "reasonable".
Most non-patent troll companies seek return on the research through making products that incorporate that research. Patent trolls, like Microsoft here, make most of their "returns" by extorting other companies.
Microsoft made more money through Android "licensing deals" last year than they did with Windows Phone.
No, this is patent trolling behavior. The fact that they won't even mention which patents are in question solidifies it.
Further, one of the characteristics of a patent troll is that they get more money from "settlements" than they get from their own products. Case in point: Microsoft made more money off of Android "licensing deals" last year than they did from sales of Windows Phone licenses.
the USPTO provided them monopoly privilege over alleged technology which probably has already been implemented and patented elsewhere (even by microsoft themselves).
No, that is completely unacceptable. There should be NO NDA whatsoever needed to see these patents. For one, patents are supposed to be publicized. If I knew what patents Microsoft was talking about, I could go look them up in the patent database and get the specifics myself.
The idea that you should have to sign an NDA so you can't tell others what patents were involved is absolutely disgusting, and is only appealing to Microsoft, and their fanboys that would excuse their every action.
So then you also have absolutely no problem when people sue Microsoft for patent infringement, or when Apple sues Android makers for patent infringement, right? Or when the Android makers sue Apple for patent infringement?
>Network guy here - I've got a WebOS tablet, and 2 recent Android smartphones, none of which are usable for work due to reliance on crap apps in the software store.
You know, with Android at least, you don't have to rely on what's in the Android Market; you can sideload apps you download from the internet.
For most consumers, the idea of "openness", especially when concerning the software itself, hardly ever crosses their mind. It's not really going to be a selling point that they will latch on to.
Where did I say anything about lying? Further, how can you prove that most of the Sales & Marketing guys are lying? How can you prove that they aren't doing the same as you? You're just trying to get money from your employer, same as them.
That distinction is a meaningless one. They are both extremely shitty. The salesperson still made the conscious, free decision to take action to make our lives miserable. Giving them a pass because "the boss allows it" is just sweeping the problem under the rug.
Yes, you are completely unreasonable. You need to be caring about sales, as that's what pays your salary. Without sales, you wouldn't have a job. Granted, without a product, they wouldn't have a job either. But saying that rejecting a solution is them being shitheads is completely unreasonable. Have you been talking to the customer? Do you have any idea what the hell they want? Probably not.
Further, the solution wasn't rejected simply because it doesn't make any money. It was rejected because it doesn't solve the customer's problem in the way they want, and it would cause the customer to go to a competitor.
Then they yell at the software team "why isn't that bug from last year fixed already?"
And the software team answers back, "It's because we spent all our time trying to cover for your worthless ass cause you kept promising shit without actually consulting with us first."
No. Nothing you've said is a valid response in the slightest. Saying, "It's what sales people get paid to do!" is not an excuse. When a salesperson's bullshit causes me to have to work long hours because he couldn't be bothered to consult with Engineering and present a reasonable timeline on how long it would take to implement a feature, then he is officially a shithead, and should not get any semblance of a bonus check.
The world would work a lot better if, for every time a sales guy made engineering work late due to one of his promises, that the engineers would get his bonus check, and he'd get nothing.
What they want here, as far as I can tell, is to charge money to solve a problem that is already solved elsewhere. The engineer's response is correct, IF you actually want to solve the problem. If you want to give the customer another problem that you can then heroically step in and fix (also known as 'fuck them over') then his response was inappropriate.
No, this is completely off base. How the fuck is it "fucking the customer over" when they have REPEATEDLY told them that they want his company to solve the problem? They don't want to bother with the other shit, which would probably involve another set of consultants and sales guys, and might end up being more expensive.
Seriously, your attitude here is completely unreasonable. You can scream all you want about it being a "solved problem" and that pointing the customer to a competitor is a "good solution", but at the end of the day, that's not what the customer wanted. They wanted a more compact solution, and they wanted to deal with a company that they were already dealing with. If you can't see that, then it's no wonder that you would rally against sales people.
In this instance, the sales guy's response was correct. If your customers are telling you that they want Feature X, you probably should give it to them.
However, what routinely happens in this situation is that the sales guy will promise Feature X to the customer before even breathing a word about it to Engineering. And he'll promise it on a completely unrealistic timeline.
If more sales guys were like the one in your story, then a lot of the animosity might not be there.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, pointing out his clear MS Fanboyism somehow makes me a Mac user?
Microsoft is just collecting royalties on technology they invented and developed.
No, Microsoft is bullying other companies because they are bigger. There's no evidence whatsoever that your statement is true.
Do you honestly think that if companies didn't agree to Microsoft's licensing terms, outrageous as they might be, that Microsoft would just walk away?
Wonder why Google won't do the same so companies can counter MS?
This idea that "life isn't fair" so we should accept every little abuse committed by big companies is absolutely sickening.
The problem MS has with their software patents is that they were VERY late to the OS game.
They've had a phone OS for like 10 years now, haven't they?
Microsoft has had a phone OS for about 10 years. I would say that probably qualifies as "doing something with them".
Do you honestly think that if the manufacturers didn't play ball with Microsoft, that they'd just walk away? Fuck no, Microsoft would sue the crap out of them.
2. Microsoft is offering reasonable licensing terms to the device makers, so the licensing agreement costs significantly less than the cost of litigating./quote.
Being less than the cost of litigation doesn't necessarily make the terms "reasonable".
Most non-patent troll companies seek return on the research through making products that incorporate that research. Patent trolls, like Microsoft here, make most of their "returns" by extorting other companies.
Microsoft made more money through Android "licensing deals" last year than they did with Windows Phone.
No, this is patent trolling behavior. The fact that they won't even mention which patents are in question solidifies it.
Further, one of the characteristics of a patent troll is that they get more money from "settlements" than they get from their own products. Case in point: Microsoft made more money off of Android "licensing deals" last year than they did from sales of Windows Phone licenses.
the USPTO provided them monopoly privilege over alleged technology which probably has already been implemented and patented elsewhere (even by microsoft themselves).
[Citation Needed]
The NDA is completely unnecessary, unless you want to be able to troll other companies. It should not be allowed.
I'm talking pure logic here.
No you're not. You're talking MS Fanboyism.
No, that is completely unacceptable. There should be NO NDA whatsoever needed to see these patents. For one, patents are supposed to be publicized. If I knew what patents Microsoft was talking about, I could go look them up in the patent database and get the specifics myself.
The idea that you should have to sign an NDA so you can't tell others what patents were involved is absolutely disgusting, and is only appealing to Microsoft, and their fanboys that would excuse their every action.
So then you also have absolutely no problem when people sue Microsoft for patent infringement, or when Apple sues Android makers for patent infringement, right? Or when the Android makers sue Apple for patent infringement?
>Network guy here - I've got a WebOS tablet, and 2 recent Android smartphones, none of which are usable for work due to reliance on crap apps in the software store.
You know, with Android at least, you don't have to rely on what's in the Android Market; you can sideload apps you download from the internet.
Or you could write your own.
For most consumers, the idea of "openness", especially when concerning the software itself, hardly ever crosses their mind. It's not really going to be a selling point that they will latch on to.
Where did I say anything about lying? Further, how can you prove that most of the Sales & Marketing guys are lying? How can you prove that they aren't doing the same as you? You're just trying to get money from your employer, same as them.
That distinction is a meaningless one. They are both extremely shitty. The salesperson still made the conscious, free decision to take action to make our lives miserable. Giving them a pass because "the boss allows it" is just sweeping the problem under the rug.
Yes, you are completely unreasonable. You need to be caring about sales, as that's what pays your salary. Without sales, you wouldn't have a job. Granted, without a product, they wouldn't have a job either. But saying that rejecting a solution is them being shitheads is completely unreasonable. Have you been talking to the customer? Do you have any idea what the hell they want? Probably not.
Further, the solution wasn't rejected simply because it doesn't make any money. It was rejected because it doesn't solve the customer's problem in the way they want, and it would cause the customer to go to a competitor.
Then they yell at the software team "why isn't that bug from last year fixed already?"
And the software team answers back, "It's because we spent all our time trying to cover for your worthless ass cause you kept promising shit without actually consulting with us first."
No. Nothing you've said is a valid response in the slightest. Saying, "It's what sales people get paid to do!" is not an excuse. When a salesperson's bullshit causes me to have to work long hours because he couldn't be bothered to consult with Engineering and present a reasonable timeline on how long it would take to implement a feature, then he is officially a shithead, and should not get any semblance of a bonus check.
The world would work a lot better if, for every time a sales guy made engineering work late due to one of his promises, that the engineers would get his bonus check, and he'd get nothing.
What they want here, as far as I can tell, is to charge money to solve a problem that is already solved elsewhere. The engineer's response is correct, IF you actually want to solve the problem. If you want to give the customer another problem that you can then heroically step in and fix (also known as 'fuck them over') then his response was inappropriate.
No, this is completely off base. How the fuck is it "fucking the customer over" when they have REPEATEDLY told them that they want his company to solve the problem? They don't want to bother with the other shit, which would probably involve another set of consultants and sales guys, and might end up being more expensive.
Seriously, your attitude here is completely unreasonable. You can scream all you want about it being a "solved problem" and that pointing the customer to a competitor is a "good solution", but at the end of the day, that's not what the customer wanted. They wanted a more compact solution, and they wanted to deal with a company that they were already dealing with. If you can't see that, then it's no wonder that you would rally against sales people.
In this instance, the sales guy's response was correct. If your customers are telling you that they want Feature X, you probably should give it to them.
However, what routinely happens in this situation is that the sales guy will promise Feature X to the customer before even breathing a word about it to Engineering. And he'll promise it on a completely unrealistic timeline.
If more sales guys were like the one in your story, then a lot of the animosity might not be there.