More in MS vs Android: Want to control 'design elements and hardware of Android tabs

[Bateluer]

http://www.androidcentral.com/barne...-strategy-against-its-android-powered-devices

- Microsoft asserts that they take credit for Android as a whole because of the patents supposedly in violation

-When examined, these patents "cover only arbitrary, outmoded and non-essential design features" but Microsoft demands "prohibitively expensive licensing fees", in an attempt to have "veto power" over Android's features

- Part of the license agreement is that Microsoft controls "design elements, requiring designers to adhere to specific hardware and software specifications in order to obtain a license"

- The patents in question all have significant cases of prior art, showing Microsoft neither came up with the idea nor had a right to patent it.

Its common knowledge among tech enthusiasts that most of MS's and Apple patent suits are bogus and have many cases of prior art, but that third bullet point takes it to a whole new level.

Microsoft being able to dictate to HTC/Samsung/Asus/MSI/Lenovo/B&N/etc what hardware they could include in their Android tablets? Reminds me of the XP/Netbook licensing terms, MS sold XP licenses to netbook makers but the netbooks had to have a smaller than10in screen, 1024x600 max res, 1GB max RAM, single core CPU, etc. Tablet makers are able to make a tablet using any hardware they choose, from any vendor they choose, and skin Android in almost anyway they wish. If the consumers like it, they buy it. Would you be comfortable with MS limiting Android tablets to Qualcomm Snapdragons when hardware like the Tegra 3, OMAP5, Krait, Exynos 4210 exist?

Last credible reports had MS making more money on their licensing agreements with HTC & Samsung then they did on WP7 devices. By taking this to the DoJ, Barnes and Noble is swinging hard.

 

[Fire&Blood]

Arstechnica has some very good articles on the subject. I like WP7 but making more money off the Android devices than their own OS is pathetic. As tempting as it is to ride the patent system flaws via exploiting Android OEM's, Microsoft should be more focused on improving their own. Litigation against Android alone can't propel them into gaining market share. More than 2/3rds of patents owned by Microsoft were acquired elsewhere.

I don't think B&N can do much on their own but a few more of those could force the gov to come in and force M$ to dial it back a it.

 

[AstroManLuca]

That seems crazy to me. It's one thing to demand a cut of the profits, but to be given such incredible control over all aspects is going too far. What are they going to do, force all Android handsets to suck so WP7 seems better in comparison?

 

[zoiks]

Typical MS. They pulled similar crap a long time back when they demanded getting royalties off IBM PC Dos. The justice dept put an end to that after a suit was filed.

 

[Mopetar]

Would be nice to have a few more sources verify this information. It seems difficult to believe that Samsung, HTC, and other companies that have licensed patents from Microsoft would agree to these terms.


Outside of that, this seems like a completely stupid thing for Microsoft to do if they want to stay out of the crosshairs of several different regulatory agencies.

Also, the prior art defense is usually considered the last ditch effort in a court case. Usually the patent contains some details that might set it apart from the identified prior art. It's usually better to show that your device doesn't infringe on the patent, which as Samsung and other companies have shown isn't that hard considering that they've shipped changes to their products to work around potentially valid patents in a number of weeks.

 

[mosco]

Would be nice to have a few more sources verify this information. It seems difficult to believe that Samsung, HTC, and other companies that have licensed patents from Microsoft would agree to these terms.

I believe this could be true. I think the fact that these companies decide they have to submit to these terms show just how valid MS's claims are in the court of law. If all this stuff that MS has a patent on was hard to defend and cover things so "arbitrary" wouldn't these companies or google do something about it?

 

[Bateluer]

I believe this could be true. I think the fact that these companies decide they have to submit to these terms show just how valid MS's claims are in the court of law. If all this stuff that MS has a patent on was hard to defend and cover things so "arbitrary" wouldn't these companies or google do something about it?

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011111122291296

There's more details for you, but its from a source that's not known to be friendly to MS. But its easy to believe since MS has pulled these tactics before.

B&N doesn't make what Samsung and HTC make. For all its strengths, the Nook Tablet is not a Galaxy Tab. Err, HTC has yet to actually make a tablet that completely suck. Both HTC and Samsung are both embroiled in lawsuits with Apple, and entirely possible that MS only wanted royalties, which HTC/Samsung paid in order to avoid another massive lawsuit.

What is clear, however, is that the patent system needs a MAJOR rework to address its problems. Until thats done, who ever has the most cash will win and the consumer will be worse off for it.

 

[_Aurel_]

I believe this could be true. I think the fact that these companies decide they have to submit to these terms show just how valid MS's claims are in the court of law. If all this stuff that MS has a patent on was hard to defend and cover things so "arbitrary" wouldn't these companies or google do something about it?

HTC, Samsung, all have had prior business relationships with Microsoft, whether its outlook email support that comes built-into Android phones software, or developing hardware to put Windows on it. What Microsoft did was charge these companies a fee to continue developing Android devices without being sued, in exchange for lowering the cost for putting Windows Phone 7 on their phones or having their marketing costs taken care of.

Barnes and Noble provides no financial incentive for Microsoft to leverage anything over, and suing them out of existence or profitability is the only thing that makes sense to Microsoft in order to stop Android's growth in another sector.

These deals that Microsoft has with HTC and Samsung amount to nothing more than 'buying' market share, in exchange for favors and are highly suspect. If you don't think that this isn't going to end well for Microsoft, then you're highly delusional. They've gotten in trouble for far less.

 

[runawayprisoner]

I think irregardless of proof of prior art or unreasonable demand from Microsoft, there is still the possible fact that Android blatantly copied features off of elsewhere, and is now facing consequences for it.

Looking at it from that point of view, at least the Android team is not completely innocent. In that case, I think part of the punishment is due.

 

[akugami]

I think irregardless of proof of prior art or unreasonable demand from Microsoft, there is still the possible fact that Android blatantly copied features off of elsewhere, and is now facing consequences for it.

Looking at it from that point of view, at least the Android team is not completely innocent. In that case, I think part of the punishment is due.

From a pure law standpoint, MS (and Apple) has grounds to sue Android OEM's. MS & Apple owns patents that are clearly being infringed by Android OEM's.

However, in all honesty, many of those patents are of dubious nature. Hell, most patents are of dubious nature. Until they fix the Patent (any bullcrap you want) Office, patent lawsuits will continue with the regularity we see now.

 

[Fire&Blood]

From a pure law standpoint, MS (and Apple) has grounds to sue Android OEM's. MS & Apple owns patents that are clearly being infringed by Android OEM's.

However, in all honesty, many of those patents are of dubious nature. Hell, most patents are of dubious nature. Until they fix the Patent (any bullcrap you want) Office, patent lawsuits will continue with the regularity we see now.

Nicely put.

To make a car analogy, Microsoft isn't suing for stealing their (elsewhere obtained) ABS, forced induction and 4WD IP, they are suing because others are using turn signals and car horns. They have several patents related to system file naming, file name shortening in list view and adding a digit suffix for identically named files.

 

[Deeko]

From a pure law standpoint, MS (and Apple) has grounds to sue Android OEM's. MS & Apple owns patents that are clearly being infringed by Android OEM's.

However, in all honesty, many of those patents are of dubious nature. Hell, most patents are of dubious nature. Until they fix the Patent (any bullcrap you want) Office, patent lawsuits will continue with the regularity we see now.

What's funny, considering the crap they get in threads like this, is that Microsoft was at the forefront of patent reform that just got shot down recently. Until the rules of the game change, a company would be foolish not to play by them.

 

[runawayprisoner]

From a pure law standpoint, MS (and Apple) has grounds to sue Android OEM's. MS & Apple owns patents that are clearly being infringed by Android OEM's.

However, in all honesty, many of those patents are of dubious nature. Hell, most patents are of dubious nature. Until they fix the Patent (any bullcrap you want) Office, patent lawsuits will continue with the regularity we see now.

The fact is that the patents exist, meaning someone else already did it before and they wanted to commercialize it, no?

Whether the system is broken or not, the fact remains that if there is a case for Apple and MS to take to court, then Google, or its OEMs, infringed upon something that was granted legal protection. There is no way to go around that.

Say, I did my homework, you copy it, and then I tell on you to the teacher, would you plead that another student called B already did his homework the same way?

I don't think that makes any sense at all.

 

[s44]

MS has to be nicer to HTC and Samsung because they need top-tier WP7 manufacturers.

B&N, not so much.

 

[alent1234]

From a pure law standpoint, MS (and Apple) has grounds to sue Android OEM's. MS & Apple owns patents that are clearly being infringed by Android OEM's.

However, in all honesty, many of those patents are of dubious nature. Hell, most patents are of dubious nature. Until they fix the Patent (any bullcrap you want) Office, patent lawsuits will continue with the regularity we see now.

quick scan of the patent numbers shows they are pretty old. late 90's and early last decade.

if these are so obvious and bogus then it should be simple for google and its partners to code around them. not like you can patent the concept of browser tabs or whatever. you can patent the method

 

[Red Storm]

Say, I did my homework, you copy it, and then I tell on you to the teacher, would you plead that another student called B already did his homework the same way?

I don't think that makes any sense at all.

I don't think that analogy is right. 😛

It's more like, Student A is in trouble for doing his homework with a pen because Student M filed for the right to be the only one that can use a pen to do his homework. Is that legal? Yes. Is it stupid? Yes.

The real issue is the idiot(s) who awarded Student M that sole right.

 

[runawayprisoner]

I don't think that analogy is right. 😛

It's more like, Student A is in trouble for doing his homework with a pen because Student M filed for the right to be the only one that can use a pen to do his homework. Is that legal? Yes. Is it stupid? Yes.

The real issue is the idiot(s) who awarded Student M that sole right.

The problem is, student M did not ask for the right to be the only one that can use "a pen". He asked for the right to use that one "unique pen".

The pen itself might not be unique, and might be the second, or third, or forth, or fifth one of its kind in the entire world, but it is still a unique pen in that sense. And also, it doesn't mean "every single pen", in which case, student A can very much use a different pen and get away with it.

There's actually a difference depending on how much detail you want to go into. Also the "pen" is not the only way to do your homework. You can use a pencil, a marker, a piece of chalk, or heck, you could even type your homework on a computer, you can even go up to the teacher and do a one on one where you explain every single problem that you solved.

It's not the right to use the pen that's stupid. It's the decision to use the pen knowing that the use would be illegal that's stupid. You don't try to run a red light and complain that the red light is stupid... right?

 

[akugami]

quick scan of the patent numbers shows they are pretty old. late 90's and early last decade.

if these are so obvious and bogus then it should be simple for google and its partners to code around them. not like you can patent the concept of browser tabs or whatever. you can patent the method

I'm not saying that MS or Apple does not have legitimate patents. No one in their right mind can make that argument without being laughed off of the message board. However, and age doesn't matter, many of them are of dubious nature. Forget the age, read the patents. A lot of them should not have passed the obvious test. And that applies to most patents out there.

 

[alent1234]

They weren't obvious when they were thought up. Browser tabs aren't obvious and it took many years for them to come along.

 

[runawayprisoner]

I'm not saying that MS or Apple does not have legitimate patents. No one in their right mind can make that argument without being laughed off of the message board. However, and age doesn't matter, many of them are of dubious nature. Forget the age, read the patents. A lot of them should not have passed the obvious test. And that applies to most patents out there.

Depending on the patent and circumstances, a "dubious" patent may still be invalidated when presented in court. A patent is not a sure fire way to win a case. It's just a cause for the lawsuit.

Having said that, I believe the "dubious" patents are not those that would win MS the case. If MS wins the case, by any chance, that's likely because Android blatantly violated "non-dubious" patents.

 

[theeedude]

http://www.reghardware.com/2011/11/15/samsung_bada_outshipped_microsoft_windows_phone_in_q3/

Poor old Microsoft. Even Samsung's Bada smartphone OS is more popular than yours.

So the latest figures from market watcher Gartner reveal. In Q3, just under 2.5m Bada smartphones shipped around the globe, it said today.

But only fractionally more than 1.7m handsets with a Microsoft OS shipped during the same period.

It'll surprise no one to learn that Android was pre-loaded on most of the smartphones that shipped during the period: just under 60.5m of them.

MS is still hanging on to their pipe dream that if they only hamper Android enough, the world will go WP7's way. They should really just accept being the company whose products people would pay NOT to use, and be glad to be collecting royalties on Android.

 

[BladeVenom]

Microsoft is nothing more than a patent troll now.

 

[Deeko]

Microsoft is nothing more than a patent troll now.

A patent troll that's what..the 4th most profitable company in the world? That's impressive!

 

[akugami]

Microsoft is nothing more than a patent troll now.

Patent trolls don't make products. Microsoft (and Apple) does. You can call them patent bullies, but patent trolls is definitely not it.

Depending on the patent and circumstances, a "dubious" patent may still be invalidated when presented in court. A patent is not a sure fire way to win a case. It's just a cause for the lawsuit.

Having said that, I believe the "dubious" patents are not those that would win MS the case. If MS wins the case, by any chance, that's likely because Android blatantly violated "non-dubious" patents.

You are forgetting that a company as old as Microsoft has amassed such a large number of patents over the years that they can easily keep bringing in patent lawsuit after patent lawsuit. Sometimes it's cheaper to pay the man than fight him. Android OEM's are still for profit corporations.

Microsoft has made every attempt to keep the patents it licenses to Android OEM's as secret as possible. If they were not of dubious nature, why the secrecy?

I repeat, 90% of all patents out there are bullcrap.

 

[akugami]

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20111116222255905

It's interesting that Barnes and Nobles is fighting Microsoft tooth and nail over this. They have little ties to Microsoft and MS is suing over the B&N Nook. I do think the MS patents may be dubious. First because of how secret MS wants to keep the patents in question. Second we don't see the exact agreements between the Android OEM's and MS, which many speculate to contain kickback clauses (even if not specifically mentioned) if the Android OEM's produces WP7 devices. And Barnes and Nobles produced a 43 page document outlining prior art to the 5 patents MS is suing the Nook over.