bit-tech.net

Microsoft to make $444 million from Android

Microsoft to make $444 million from Android

Bitter rivals or feuding cousins? The patent payouts suggest the latter.

Android might be Google’s phone operating system, but Business Insider has just reported that Microsoft will make ‘$444 million in revenue from Android patent deals for fiscal year 2012 (started in July 1, 2011, ends June 30, 2012).’ This information was revealed in a ‘note from Goldman Sachs's tech analyst team.

Goldman Sachs estimates that Microsoft will earn ‘$3-$6 per Android device sold. With settlements from Samsung, HTC, and others, Goldman arrives at its estimate. It also says the patent deals will add $0.04 in EPS [earnings per share] annually for Microsoft.’ The report doesn’t state what patents the payments are for.

Google is reported to be annoyed by Microsoft’s ‘extortion’ over mobile phone patents. A Google spokespercon talking to PC Pro said, ‘This is the same tactic we’ve seen time and again from Microsoft... Failing to succeed in the smartphone market, it is resorting to legal measures to extort profit from others’ achievements and hinder the pace of innovation.

However, Business Insider says that while the $444 million payout sounds good for Microsoft, ‘it's an empty victory... the money it gets from Android is almost nothing, especially when you consider the incredible damage Android is doing to Microsoft's dominance as a computing platform.

Agree with Google that Microsoft is extorting it, or do you think this is just a case of people getting for their work? Let us know in the forum.

40 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
yassarikhan786 30th September 2011, 15:52 Quote
I wonder what the patents are? Probably something silly.
Balance Keeper 30th September 2011, 15:55 Quote
Well. Its based on legislation in force. Whether its right or wrong... Its probably others should decide. For now its just ppl are protecting their rights and getting for their work (work in buying patents included) according to legislation in force, nothing else.
I cant hope more for that legislation to change though. Patents should at least have shorter life period. Like may be 5-10 years. Dunno how much it is now, but i guess its like 50 which is totally too much.
r3loaded 30th September 2011, 15:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by yassarikhan786
I wonder what the patents are? Probably something silly.
Of course they're silly, broad and vague. Many software patents in general are along the lines of "method of transforming data to produce data in another form" or "method of allowing user interaction with software". I'm not even exaggerating...
Er-El 30th September 2011, 17:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by yassarikhan786
I wonder what the patents are? Probably something silly.
Something completely pointless and a hindrance to progress.
Snips 30th September 2011, 18:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Er-El
Quote:
Originally Posted by yassarikhan786
I wonder what the patents are? Probably something silly.
Something completely pointless and a hindrance to progress.

Maybe it isn't and that's why Google have come out talking sh!te and moaning. If it was, then why doesn't Google just stop paying?

Nice one Microsoft, make those suckers pay!
Star*Dagger 30th September 2011, 20:47 Quote
The EU should just crush Microsoft, and have its many and capable universities create an OS for Europe, there are already wonderful candidates.
The European Commission should simply require all member countries governmental agencies to use this OS. By creating an installed base the European Commission will then encourage app developers to write for that OS. And then someone in Indiana, USA will say "Hey, Id like to use that OS" and that day will be the beginning of the End of the Microsoft Hegemony.

Microsoft has hurt the PC platform, business, and the arc of human progress by its business practices and poor coding. It is high time we simply do something about it. Talk to your MEP!!!

Yours in Anti-Microsoft Plasma,
Star*Dagger
Mongoose132 30th September 2011, 21:16 Quote
You do that whilst I wait for W8 :O
Guinevere 30th September 2011, 21:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
The EU should just crush Microsoft, and have its many and capable universities create an OS for Europe

Just creating an OS from scratch does not guarantee it will be free of patent infringement issues. Not when it's possible to get a patent for almost anything these days and has been for a while.

Just abolish patents to do with software architecture and UI. Be tough on those that innovate (Hello Apple) but hey, I'd rather Apple lose a bit of revenue than continue with this farce.
longweight 30th September 2011, 21:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
The EU should just crush Microsoft, and have its many and capable universities create an OS for Europe, there are already wonderful candidates.
The European Commission should simply require all member countries governmental agencies to use this OS. By creating an installed base the European Commission will then encourage app developers to write for that OS. And then someone in Indiana, USA will say "Hey, Id like to use that OS" and that day will be the beginning of the End of the Microsoft Hegemony.

Microsoft has hurt the PC platform, business, and the arc of human progress by its business practices and poor coding. It is high time we simply do something about it. Talk to your MEP!!!

Yours in Anti-Microsoft Plasma,
Star*Dagger

Are you trolling? If not then good luck with that! ;)

You would really like to have an EU controlled OS?
Guinevere 30th September 2011, 22:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by longweight
You would really like to have an EU controlled OS?

I love the idea, Greece can run the accounts...

Hold on I mean Ireland... no I mean Portugal... DOH they're rubbish too!
What about Spain?
Belgium?
Switzerland?

Dag nam it! Isn't there anyone left in Europe who can friggin' well still do sums?
fodder 1st October 2011, 00:32 Quote
Gordon Brown is at a loose end at the moment, you could try him (grabs tin hat..)
Instagib 1st October 2011, 00:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
Quote:
Originally Posted by longweight
You would really like to have an EU controlled OS?

I love the idea, Greece can run the accounts...

Hold on I mean Ireland... no I mean Portugal... DOH they're rubbish too!
What about Spain?
Belgium?
Switzerland?

Dag nam it! Isn't there anyone left in Europe who can friggin' well still do sums?

Germany. But as they're stumping up nearly half of the EU bail out fund, i don't imagine they'll be too keen with the idea of paying for EUOS too.

Does have a nice ring to it though.

Edit; i better patent that.
fodder 1st October 2011, 00:35 Quote
Oh, and an OS commissioned by a government, are you serious? Do you remember the 1970's?

Let me put it another way, an elephant is a mouse designed to government specifications. If you think Microsoft software is bloated, you would have to reconsider it as anorexic compared to a government sponsored OS.
Instagib 1st October 2011, 00:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fodder
Do you remember the 1970's?

Nope, wasn't born. Good times?
Star*Dagger 2nd October 2011, 15:56 Quote
Funny how ppl misinterpret. I assumed it was clear that this would be open-source.

Carry on
fdbh96 2nd October 2011, 16:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Instagib
Nope, wasn't born. Good times?

:D
deadsea 3rd October 2011, 01:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Quote:
Originally Posted by Er-El
Quote:
Originally Posted by yassarikhan786
I wonder what the patents are? Probably something silly.
Something completely pointless and a hindrance to progress.

Maybe it isn't and that's why Google have come out talking sh!te and moaning. If it was, then why doesn't Google just stop paying?

Nice one Microsoft, make those suckers pay!

Right, Microsoft went after the little guys. Samsung, HTC etc...Odd considering that Google was the one that actually created the "infringing" work. The rest are facilitators at best. Says a lot about the strength of their patents.
thil 3rd October 2011, 05:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by longweight

You would really like to have an EU controlled OS?

Every six months, the location of OS's install folder would change...
SaNdCrAwLeR 3rd October 2011, 08:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
The EU should just crush Microsoft, and have its many and capable universities create an OS for Europe, there are already wonderful candidates.
The European Commission should simply require all member countries governmental agencies to use this OS. By creating an installed base the European Commission will then encourage app developers to write for that OS. And then someone in Indiana, USA will say "Hey, Id like to use that OS" and that day will be the beginning of the End of the Microsoft Hegemony.

Microsoft has hurt the PC platform, business, and the arc of human progress by its business practices and poor coding. It is high time we simply do something about it. Talk to your MEP!!!

Yours in Anti-Microsoft Plasma,
Star*Dagger

mhm...
And Google does exactly the same thing in the search engine business...
except, that Microsoft doesn't sell to 3rd parties what you do with their software... Google does...
so yeah... let's crush the "evil" empire...
let's not even speak of Apple! oh no, cuz their OS doesn't bring a default browser without actually giving you any choice on 1st run-time for which browser to use, aside for the fact you're also paying for a UNIX based system, that's pretty much like most Linux distros...

Yours in Anti-Blind people,
Booyanach
scrumble 3rd October 2011, 09:39 Quote
Err, sandcrawler, MS only give you the choice because the EU forced them into it no other reason.

As for the patents, I'm assuming that these patents are US only, and the same type of blatant patent trolling stories we read about week in week out.

When someone finally invents a teleporting device I fully expect MS or some other patent troll to pipe up claiming they came up with the concept fifty years ago, and wave a patent that actually says "Device to transport matter from one location to another"

What happened to the good old days when you actually had to create something before you could patent it.
Nexxo 3rd October 2011, 09:58 Quote
Linux, anybody? :D
Farfalho 3rd October 2011, 10:35 Quote
Without knowing what patents are, the questions remains to answer, so what you get is: If the patents are correct and Google is literally using them, they should pay. If the patents are vague and don't whatsoever mention specifically what is the technology behind it, Microsoft shouldn't receive a pence!

And, it's my 2pences, what has Microsoft done in terms of mobile phone's programming? Hasn't the Windows mobile been a rubbish thing since the first days and now with iOS and Android, isn't a little, how do I say, old and unnecessary? Can't see anything until knowledge of which patents are being used
BLC 3rd October 2011, 12:14 Quote
Hang on there a second... The royalties in question will be made from patent protection deals made with handset/tablet manufacturers, not Google. Basically an agreement that says "Pay us money or we'll sue yer a$$ for using software that violates our patents". Have Google actually admitted that they have infringed any MS patents? I doubt it...

Yet more patent trolling.
azazel1024 3rd October 2011, 13:54 Quote
Well, this is one case where I think Mircosoft has a strong case and/or deserves to be getting money from their patents. Well or they could license them for free, that is always an option.

Since most of the handset makers seem to be settling with MS on royalty deals pretty quickly in most of the cases to me suggests that the patents in questions aren't that trivial and aren't "vague" and that Andriod very much "violates" those patents.

These doesn't sound like the case of some vague patent that someone is trolling about just to try to make a buck. Sounds like something(s) legitimate.

Could also be that MS seems to be settling for relatively low royalty payments. $3-6 a pop isn't really allllll that much on a phone, when most of those phones pre-subsidized price is probably $300-600. I can't imagine handset manufacturers don't at least have a 15-40% profit margin per handset.
BLC 3rd October 2011, 14:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by azazel1024
Well, this is one case where I think Mircosoft has a strong case and/or deserves to be getting money from their patents. Well or they could license them for free, that is always an option.

Since most of the handset makers seem to be settling with MS on royalty deals pretty quickly in most of the cases to me suggests that the patents in questions aren't that trivial and aren't "vague" and that Andriod very much "violates" those patents.

These doesn't sound like the case of some vague patent that someone is trolling about just to try to make a buck. Sounds like something(s) legitimate.

Could also be that MS seems to be settling for relatively low royalty payments. $3-6 a pop isn't really allllll that much on a phone, when most of those phones pre-subsidized price is probably $300-600. I can't imagine handset manufacturers don't at least have a 15-40% profit margin per handset.

That's just the point though; as far as I am aware, Microsoft have not yet proved that Android actually infringes on their patents. This agreement with manufacturers is a litigation shield - it protects the handset makes from the potential threat of legal action by paying royalties. If I was in that position, I'd sign the agreement - sooner that than have to try and take on Microsoft's resources in court.

Here's the real nub of the argument though: Android is supposed to be free, open source and without licensing costs. If you end up having to pay Microsoft for each copy you supply, it suddenly becomes a different prospect to using a "free" operating system. (Of course it's probably not free for companies like HTC, Samsung, et al, as they're licensees of the proprietary parts of Android - the Google Apps - so they're probably already paying Google for Android.) Viewed in that light, it's hard not to be cynical about Microsoft's true reasoning behind this: are they truly defending their technology, which they believe has been infringed, or are they attempting to damage a competitor's chances in a market in which they have also heavily invested? Given the history of Microsoft's tactics, it's hard not to see this as just another opportunity to squeeze out competition.

Of course this doesn't mean I think that MS are the root of all evil though; they're just another business interested in making money, which has potentially identified another way to make more money.
Snips 3rd October 2011, 22:30 Quote
I'm sorry but Microsoft have every right to make Google pay through the nose for these infringements. If you wanted truly "Free Open Source" then maybe they should have gone off and written it using original content or their own idea.

Does every version of Linux infringe Microsoft patents? Are they all paying money to Microsoft?

I don't see what the problem is here, either they come up with their own original content or Microsoft can say "F$%£ You Pay me!"
Woodlauncher 4th October 2011, 00:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
I'm sorry but Microsoft have every right to make Google pay through the nose for these infringements. If you wanted truly "Free Open Source" then maybe they should have gone off and written it using original content or their own idea.

Does every version of Linux infringe Microsoft patents? Are they all paying money to Microsoft?

I don't see what the problem is here, either they come up with their own original content or Microsoft can say "F$%£ You Pay me!"

Are you trolling or are you being serious? If it's the latter, wow. Just wow.

Do you know how BROAD most software patents are? It is HIGHLY unlikely that Google has stolen anything. And they aren't even making Google pay, read the article.
deadsea 4th October 2011, 02:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
I'm sorry but Microsoft have every right to make Google pay through the nose for these infringements. If you wanted truly "Free Open Source" then maybe they should have gone off and written it using original content or their own idea.

Does every version of Linux infringe Microsoft patents? Are they all paying money to Microsoft?

I don't see what the problem is here, either they come up with their own original content or Microsoft can say "F$%£ You Pay me!"

Of course they have every right to defend their patents. But are they doing that? MS has not even attempted to sue google, the actual creater of infringing content. All they have done is go after the hardware manufacturers with their software patents. So the hardware guys need to decide if a few bucks per device or duking it out with MS legal team is cheaper. Kinda a no brainer decision since trickle payments are always better for cashflow as compared to lump sum legal fees/settlements.

Take on Google head on if defending their rights is what it's all about. If they win, android will become their biggest cash cow ever. Royalties for a competitiors product FTW!!. Pussyfooting around with the manufactures seems to suggest otherwise.
BLC 4th October 2011, 06:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
I'm sorry but Microsoft have every right to make Google pay through the nose for these infringements. If you wanted truly "Free Open Source" then maybe they should have gone off and written it using original content or their own idea.

Does every version of Linux infringe Microsoft patents? Are they all paying money to Microsoft?

I don't see what the problem is here, either they come up with their own original content or Microsoft can say "F$%£ You Pay me!"

But creating their own operating system rather defeats the object of using a free and open source OS - namely that someone else has done the hard work for you and given it away for free. Investing in your own OS is very costly exercise.

I have not heard of any other Linux distro/retailer that has to pay royalties to Microsoft. I can go and create my own distro tomorrow, should I want to - do I have to pay Microsoft too? As others have said, if their claims have any merits then they'd take Google on in court and Google would have no choice but to settle.
Snips 4th October 2011, 07:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodlauncher
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
I'm sorry but Microsoft have every right to make Google pay through the nose for these infringements. If you wanted truly "Free Open Source" then maybe they should have gone off and written it using original content or their own idea.

Does every version of Linux infringe Microsoft patents? Are they all paying money to Microsoft?

I don't see what the problem is here, either they come up with their own original content or Microsoft can say "F$%£ You Pay me!"

Are you trolling or are you being serious? If it's the latter, wow. Just wow.

Do you know how BROAD most software patents are? It is HIGHLY unlikely that Google has stolen anything. And they aren't even making Google pay, read the article.

Did you? Google are "annoyed" by this but still pay. If there was no validity then they wouldn't.
BLC 4th October 2011, 08:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Did you? Google are "annoyed" by this but still pay. If there was no validity then they wouldn't.

Wrong again, I'm afraid. Google have not paid a single cent to Microsoft. Microsoft have not pursued Google regarding this. Neither the bit-tech article nor any others have ever said that any of this money will be coming directly from Google. Here's some links to further reading:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/29/microsoft_extract_444m_android_payments/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/30/google_android_how_did_i_get_there/
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/222825/if_android_violates_patents_shouldnt_microsoft_sue_google.html

Microsoft are pusuing device manufacturers because, according to Microsoft, Android violates their patents at the point it is commercialised. Therefore they have nothing to gain, commercially, by pursuing Google: all they'd potentially achieve is blocking sales of Google Nexus devices. Hardly the lion's share of the Android device market.

Microsoft have not gone after Google - full stop. If their claims have validity, why aren't they pursuing Google? The PC World article makes a good analogy: if someone stole £100 from your wallet and gave his friend £5 of that money, who would you want to see punished? The guy who stole the money or the friend?

Google may not have gone about this whole thing in the best way; their major partners aren't necessarily interested in FOSS software as many of them are also licensees of Windows Phone 7 (if I remember correctly, the licensing cost per device for WP7 is around $6/$7 per device - the same amount that Microsoft is expected to extract per device from Android device manufacturers) and Google could do something to help out their partners in these patent suits. But as far as I am aware no one, not even Oracle, has yet proved in court that Android/Google infringed upon their patents.

The Oracle case may indeed have merit; it is claimed that Google distributed proprietary Java software along with Android. From some of the analysis I read a while ago it seems that this may actually be true. But the software in question was not an inherant part of the OS, it was actually software used for unit/module/link testing which should never have made it out the door. It was released, in error, only with early versions of the OS and the situation has long since been rectified. Even if you accept that, Google has still not yet settled the case with Oracle - thus, it is yet to be proven in court that Android violates anyone's patents.
scrumble 4th October 2011, 12:37 Quote
Workaround?

If, as has already been pointed out, MS are only claiming coypright infringement when android is 'commercialised', sell a 'blank' phone with a free copy of android on a disk.
Snips 4th October 2011, 14:46 Quote
Lol the Google fanfare in defence of this is quite pathetic and naive to think this will not be costing Google anything.

If it's "Free" then it shouldn't cost you anything at all. Whether it's at the source or the Commercialised state.

Their annoyance is a slap in the face of every manufacturer who took the OS in good faith from Google. Hang your head in shame Google, the so called free and Open company.
BLC 4th October 2011, 15:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Lol the Google fanfare in defence of this is quite pathetic and naive to think this will not be costing Google anything.

If it's "Free" then it shouldn't cost you anything at all. Whether it's at the source or the Commercialised state.

Their annoyance is a slap in the face of every manufacturer who took the OS in good faith from Google. Hang your head in shame Google, the so called free and Open company.

*sigh*...

The core of the Android operating system is free and open source; there are however proprietary components which are emphatically not free or open source and require a licensing agreement with Google in order to use - the terms of this license are not known, but it very likely requires some form of payment. Therefore a "complete" Android build for a mobile phone has never been entirely free or open source. How is Google being annoyed a slap in the face for device manufacturers? Or even me, for that matter? I've compiled Android builds from AOSP source code before now and I never had to pay a single cent to anyone.

For the record, since I seem to be posting in here quite a bit, I have never said that it will not cost Google anything. The point is that Microsoft are not taking Google on - they are taking on the device manufacturers because they believe that will hurt Google's business. If there is any legitimacy to Microsoft's assertions, then why don't they challenge Google in court? Microsoft have not proved that their patents have been infringed. They can hurt Google far more by getting a court to prove that their patents are indeed infringed - they could potentially block Android from being shipped on any devices at all and completely cut a competitor out of the market - but instead they are using the threat of litigation in order to gain compliance. Who would want to challenge Microsoft's legal budget? If I were running Samsung or HTC and had to face that threat, I'd sign in a heartbeat.

Please get down off your high horse and do some reading about software patents. The whole software patent system is broken and this is what is at fault. I am not saying that Microsoft is evil and that Google is the second coming of Christ. If Google believed that Microsoft infringed their patents they'd be doing the same thing!
Snips 4th October 2011, 21:17 Quote
"Please get down off your high horse and do some reading about software patents"

*sigh*...

Google aren't doing the same thing because they can't. Why is the Patent system broken? just because Microsoft is threatening to sue to ensure their product isn't copied on the Andriod OS. Come now, you can't hide behind a "I'm not a fan but" sweeping comment and then add that baby into it.

Microsoft are doing nothing wrong here and for Google to be claiming they are annoyed sounds about as much as they can do. Claim to be annoyed because they can't defend themselves while Samung, HTC, etc.. pay the bill in the first instance. That won't last long.
BLC 4th October 2011, 21:58 Quote
You're really missing the point here. MS have not sued Google. I don't know how many times I can say this... They have sued (and threatened to sue) device manufacturers, not Google. MS have not proved that Android infringes any patents, even by suing device manufacturers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Why is the Patent system broken?
Quote:
Originally Posted by r3loaded
Of course they're silly, broad and vague. Many software patents in general are along the lines of "method of transforming data to produce data in another form" or "method of allowing user interaction with software". I'm not even exaggerating...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Er-El
Something completely pointless and a hindrance to progress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farfalho
Without knowing what patents are, the questions remains to answer, so what you get is: If the patents are correct and Google is literally using them, they should pay. If the patents are vague and don't whatsoever mention specifically what is the technology behind it, Microsoft shouldn't receive a pence!

Or, for less anecdotal view, there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Microsoft are doing nothing wrong here and for Google to be claiming they are annoyed sounds about as much as they can do. Claim to be annoyed because they can't defend themselves while Samung, HTC, etc.. pay the bill in the first instance. That won't last long.

Prove to me that Google have definitively infringed patents; just a link to a news story will do. Until then, your argument has no merit.
Snips 5th October 2011, 06:39 Quote
*sigh*...

By the very fact this topic is open and the fact that Microsoft will get money from Samsung, HTC, etc.., they very fact Google or a Google spokesperson has come out and commented on their annoyance, is kind of proof they've done something.

Since you are championing Google's whiter than white company standards, show me they haven't infringed. Again, your sweeping comment of the "Patent system is broken" appears to come from your bias towards Google and nothing more.
deadsea 5th October 2011, 08:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
*sigh*...

By the very fact this topic is open and the fact that Microsoft will get money from Samsung, HTC, etc.., they very fact Google or a Google spokesperson has come out and commented on their annoyance, is kind of proof they've done something.

Since you are championing Google's whiter than white company standards, show me they haven't infringed. Again, your sweeping comment of the "Patent system is broken" appears to come from your bias towards Google and nothing more.

How does one go about proving having not done something? MS can just point out what google has infringed since it's open source, or sue for discovery. Wouldn't that be more sensible? Isn't it only natural that the accuser has to do the work.

And how does Google being annoyed prove anything? I would be plenty annoyed if a competitor was making money off of MY products. Nevermind if that move was legal or not nor if I had copied anything from them or not.

And being able to get money out of someone doesn't make the accusation valid or proven. That's a settlement, not a judgement. Look at righthaven. See how wrong that turned out.

People have agreed to pay if righting the accusation potentially costs more, much less profit oriented companies thats all bout the bottom line.

Think about it, how would one expect Google to defend android if the impending lawsuits always stay impending? "I'll sue you and have you tied up in courts for years and have all your infringing products blocked. Or you could pay me to settle this privately. Oh and you can't tell any one what we settled on" Sure Google could offer indemnity so all the lawsuits go to them...

Hmm.. Come to think of it, why didn't Google do that? Anyone know?
BLC 5th October 2011, 08:22 Quote
This is going to be my last post on this subject, unless someone can come up with a decent argument. It's starting to make my head hurt now....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
*sigh*...

By the very fact this topic is open and the fact that Microsoft will get money from Samsung, HTC, etc.., they very fact Google or a Google spokesperson has come out and commented on their annoyance, is kind of proof they've done something.

No, Google are annoyed because their partners are being sued over Android, which is hurting their product. That is not proof, not by a long shot. Proof would be a court decision that confirms, one way or another, whether a patent has been infringed. An out of court settlement does not count: it is often cheaper to simply settle these cases than to try and fight it out (which, incidentally, is part of my argument that the system is broken - it makes it easy for big companies to intimidate smaller ones with the threat of litigation and stifle innovation).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Since you are championing Google's whiter than white company standards, show me they haven't infringed.

I can't do that because nothing has been proved. Neither can you prove that Google have infringed patents. They might well be at fault - we simply do not know, because Microsoft are using the threat of litigation to enter licensing agreements. Microsoft have not even disclosed the patents in question. If they're not willing to disclose the patents, how can anything be definitively proven until it goes to court?

As with anything in life, don't be so quick to accept what others are saying - prove it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Again, your sweeping comment of the "Patent system is broken" appears to come from your bias towards Google and nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLC
Please get down off your high horse and do some reading about software patents.

Clearly you didn't take my advice, so I'll make it easier for you. Let's take a quick look at some of the stories on the Register tagged with "patent" - I'll only go back as far as the start of September...

Apple snubs Samsung's Oz patent peace offering
Innovatio targets Wi-Fi users with patent suits
T-Mobile: Samsung ban really not in the public interest
China's patent EXPLOSION could leave West behind
Apple loses bid to trademark 'multi-touch'
Samsung plots 3G iPhone, iPad bans in the Netherlands
Who owns 4G mobile technology
Apple sued for iPhone, iPad chip 'patent rip-off'
Microsoft milks Casio for using Linux
Google crams arsenal with 1,000 IBM patents
SAP coughs $20m to feds in Oracle slurp spat
Dolby wins licensing fees on BlackBerry, PlayBook
Oracle rejects Google's man for mediation
Patent wars: Apple attacks Samsung in Japan
Righthaven struggles in court and at home
Openwave sues: Asks for halt on iPad, iPhone, BlackBerry

That's only a small selection and only back as far as the start of September. And, that's only from The Register.

EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadsea
Sure Google could offer indemnity so all the lawsuits go to them...

Hmm.. Come to think of it, why didn't Google do that? Anyone know?

No idea... And this is why I said in a much earlier post that Google may not have exactly gone about this the right way. I can only assume that it's because Android is, essentially, open source software. I can see how it would be pretty hard to indemnify someone against lawsuits for a product that has been built on the work of many others. They've also gotten themselves into spats with the Linux community over GPL/Apache license terms in the past... Though Honeycomb and the Google Apps are not open source and we don't know what the licensing terms for those are.

As Microsoft have not disclosed the patents in question, it makes it hard to see exactly what their problem is. Is it with the Google-specific non-open source parts or is it part of their problem with Linux in general?
DC74 18th October 2011, 08:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by longweight
Are you trolling? If not then good luck with that! ;)

You would really like to have an EU controlled OS?

Would probably come in over budget, years behind schedule and not in a working condition, if any of our previous joint ventures with europe are anything to go by.

On the main topic though, I think some of the patents have something to do with how the OS interacts with the CPU, that in itself was probably designed by Microsoft and as such is their patent. Fair doo's to them they hold everyone by the bollocks on that. Bear in mind that Microsoft bought the original Dos and everything else since has been an evolution of that. Same as the processor, intels/AMD, Nvidia CPU's are all an evolution on the original intel 8086 processor, but since intel developed it the others had to obtain licences from them to use it.

Patents are copyrights for technology, if you use some of that tech or base your design on that and evolve it then you have to pay an amount to the company that owns the patent, simple.

I agree we need another OS company to rival Microsoft, but the more competition we have the more problems with compatibility we will encounter, this will lead to bigger OS's not leaner. So I think we're stuck with Microsoft's monopoly for the mainstream PC.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums