• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Microsoft to cash in digital camera biz: collecting royalies on flash memory!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Wozster
Originally posted by: Amused
They have a patent on FAT. If YOU had the patent, you better believe you'd be cashing in on it. So why blame them?
Click to expand...

[COUGH]
***bull$hit***
[/COUGH]

This is called a "submarine patent".

They let everyone think that the technology is free to use, then once the entire world is using it (twenty years later) they try to cash in on it.

More info here
Click to expand...

What is bullsh!t? Who cares how long they let it be free? The fact of the matter is, it's THEIR intellectual property and they have the right to do whatever they want with it. You have NO right to use it without their permission.

Get over it. The world is not there to serve you and you are not entitled to the work product of others.
 
Originally posted by: SammySon
This will just drive up costs for the consumer.
Thanks MS!.
rolleye.gif
Click to expand...

Yes, how DARE they charge for their product!!! :|
rolleye.gif


If YOU held the patent, you'd be cashing in, too. So don't act as if MS is some evil entity for doing exactly what you would do.
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Wozster
Originally posted by: Amused
They have a patent on FAT. If YOU had the patent, you better believe you'd be cashing in on it. So why blame them?
Click to expand...

[COUGH]
***bull$hit***
[/COUGH]

This is called a "submarine patent".

They let everyone think that the technology is free to use, then once the entire world is using it (twenty years later) they try to cash in on it.

More info here
Click to expand...

What is bullsh!t? Who cares how long they let it be free? The fact of the matter is, it's THEIR intellectual property and they have the right to do whatever they want with it. You have NO right to use it without their permission.

Get over it. The world is not there to serve you and you are not entitled to the work product of others.
Click to expand...

Eh, ATOT is a bunch of commie music and software pirates.
 
If YOU held the patent, you'd be cashing in, too. So don't act as if MS is some evil entity for doing exactly what you would do.
Click to expand...

Why did they wait so long before charging?
You're OK with that?

 
It's more than just enforcing patents...there are issues of reliance and estoppel involved. What MS did is probably not strictly illegal, but it's shady. If protection of patent rights was the key issue here, then MS should've charged for licensing its FAT patent from day one, or at least give some notice of doing so in the future. Instead, by licensing it for free, it knew it could acquire market share much more quickly, and then once FAT dominated the market and was relied on a standard, MS can start charging whatever it wants for it and knows companies will have to pay up because they've already invested so much in it.
 
Originally posted by: yellowperil
It's more than just enforcing patents...there are issues of reliance and estoppel involved. What MS did is probably not strictly illegal, but it's shady. If protection of patent rights was the key issue here, then MS should've charged for licensing its FAT patent from day one, or at least give some notice of doing so in the future. Instead, by licensing it for free, it knew it could acquire market share much more quickly, and then once FAT dominated the market and was relied on a standard, MS can start charging whatever it wants for it and knows companies will have to pay up because they've already invested so much in it.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Thanks yellowperil

The word "extortion" immediately comes to mind in this particular patent enforcement.
 
Kind of like GIF... when Unisys found out their patented LZW algorithm was being used in CompuServe's GIF, they wanted royalty fees, which would have forced CompuServe to charge developers a licensing fee after GIF was used for free for a longtime and made a standard.

Anyways, it's probably a way for Microsoft to give a higher value to its IP so that when they cross-license with another company, this patent will look more valuable in the trading.

Nobody wants to be another Xerox!
 
bah, I wonder if the impact on their bottom line is worth the negative press they'll get over this. Maybe this is just about setting a precedent...
 
Well think of how much royalties that they have 'let slip' due it it being free for 'years'. Doesn't matter if they didn't decide to charge then. It is theirs and they can charge it now. 0.25c is not much I'll pay that to use FAT.

Koing
 
Koing, So if a "long lost relative" of the person who invented the couch decides to go ahead and start charging fo their invention you're OK with paying them?

NO FSKING WAY are you OK with that.
 
Originally posted by: Wozster
Koing, So if a "long lost relative" of the person who invented the couch decides to go ahead and start charging fo their invention you're OK with paying them?

NO FSKING WAY are you OK with that.
Click to expand...

I would be OK with paying a royalty. It's within their rights to ask for it. If someone makes some specially designed couch then we'd have to pay him back somehow for his efforts. We have patents to reward the inventor, to allow information to spread, create competition, etc.
 
I would be OK with paying a royalty. It's within their rights to ask for it. If someone makes some specially designed couch then we'd have to pay him back somehow for his efforts. We have patents to reward the inventor, to allow information to spread, create competition, etc.
Click to expand...

You are right.
IF they enforce it immediately; not years later.

 
Originally posted by: Wozster
I would be OK with paying a royalty. It's within their rights to ask for it. If someone makes some specially designed couch then we'd have to pay him back somehow for his efforts. We have patents to reward the inventor, to allow information to spread, create competition, etc.
Click to expand...

You are right.
IF they enforce it immediately; not years later.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree that it's kind of sketchy. Same outrage that happened with GIF.

But, they're probably doing this to give value to their IP. It's the same reason why some companies will sue another that is infringing on a patent that is not currently in a profitable industry. It gives more value to an IP which they can then include in cross-licensing with other companies.

The article does say that they're capping the fees at $250k. That's nothing for a huge company, but gives Microsoft's IP a big boost.
 
Originally posted by: Wozster
If YOU held the patent, you'd be cashing in, too. So don't act as if MS is some evil entity for doing exactly what you would do.
Click to expand...

Why did they wait so long before charging?
You're OK with that?
Click to expand...

Me being OK with it has nothing to do with it. No matter WHAT they do with it, it is THEIR'S to do. All the righteous indignation in the world is not going to change that.

If you don't like it, don't buy it.
 
Originally posted by: Wozster
I would be OK with paying a royalty. It's within their rights to ask for it. If someone makes some specially designed couch then we'd have to pay him back somehow for his efforts. We have patents to reward the inventor, to allow information to spread, create competition, etc.
Click to expand...

You are right.
IF they enforce it immediately; not years later.
Click to expand...

Again, when they choose to charge is not up to you to control or regulate, nor should it be. It doesn't change the fact that it is their right to do as they please with their property.
 
Again, when they choose to charge is not up to you to control or regulate, nor should it be. It doesn't change the fact that it is their right to do as they please with their property.
Click to expand...

Until it makes it's way to a judge and jury.

 
Originally posted by: Wozster
Again, when they choose to charge is not up to you to control or regulate, nor should it be. It doesn't change the fact that it is their right to do as they please with their property.
Click to expand...

Until it makes it's way to a judge and jury.
Click to expand...

Why should it? Why should you or anyone else have ANY control over another's property? Because they let you use it for free and now you're spoiled?

FAT is not a necessity. Nor is it a right. It is MS's property to do as they choose.
 
Originally posted by: Wozster
The article does say that they're capping the fees at $250k. That's nothing for a huge company, but gives Microsoft's IP a big boost.
Click to expand...

True, gotta give them a Thumbs-Up for that!
Click to expand...

Yeah... in my worthless opinion, I think it really does show that they're just trying to put some value to it to add to their patent portfolio for future licensing deals. Companies always cross-license portions of their patent portfolios with each other.
 
Why should it? Why should you or anyone else have ANY control over another's property?
Because they let you use it for free and now you're spoiled?
Click to expand...

You just proved my point for me. Thanks!
 
Originally posted by: Wozster
Why should it? Why should you or anyone else have ANY control over another's property?
Because they let you use it for free and now you're spoiled?
Click to expand...

You just proved my point for me. Thanks!
Click to expand...

What point? That you mistakenly think your own selfish desires trump their property rights?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top