dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1386
share rss forum feed


FF4me

@rr.com

Quanta Signs Android Deal With Microsoft

From Thinq:

Microsoft has scored a major win against Google's Android platform, convincing ODM giant Quanta to shell out on a licence to distribute both Android and Chrome.

The deal with Quanta is big news: as one of the world's largest ODMs - Original Design Manufacturers - Quanta makes a not-inconsiderable percentage of the world's gadgets. With the company now paying Microsoft for every Android or Chrome OS device it creates, that's a significant revenue stream for Microsoft to tap.

While Quanta has been silent on the matter, Microsoft deputy general counsel Horacio Gutierrez is happy as Larry. "We are pleased to have reached this agreement with Quanta, and proud of the continued success of our Android licensing programme in resolving issues surround Android and Chrome devices in the marketplace," Gutierrez claimed in a statement.

Microsoft's recent deals with Casio, Samsung, and now Quanta all have one thing in common besides the request for cash based on an as yet unproven assumption that Linux breaches Microsoft's intellectual property: every company involved is also a Microsoft customer.

Companies that do not already have a pre-existing financial arrangement with Microsoft are not, it would appear, being targeted at present - suggesting the company is using the threat of revoked licences or increased licensing fees for its Windows products to sell purported 'Linux licences.'

At some point, however, Microsoft will run out of its own customers - at which point, we predict, the threats of legal action will spread to the wider Linux ecosystem.



Pjr
Don't Panic

join:2005-12-11
UK

1 edit
Microsoft makes me sick. The sooner their bubble bursts the better it will be.


disturbed1
Premium
join:2003-09-06
Columbus, OH

1 recommendation

reply to FF4me
I can't but sneer at the stupidity of all parties involved, and the (lack) of laws which allow this to happen. Microsoft is the digital mafia extorting protection.

Microsoft is losing revenue with their own products and services, along with losing new customers, plus having trouble keeping their old customers.
Microsoft can not make a living off their own products, so instead they pay the bills from the growth of FLOSS, by offering protection.

It's sad in reality. Given the talent pool inside Microsoft, and the volume of capital at their disposal. Balmer and his cohorts are dumb asses.


Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL

1 recommendation

said by disturbed1:

It's sad in reality. Given the talent pool inside Microsoft, and the volume of capital at their disposal. Balmer and his cohorts are dumb asses.

Nothing could be better at Microsoft than a change in leadership.


BBBanditRuR
Dingbits

join:2009-06-02
Parachute, CO
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to FF4me
Well, the economy is bad, the companies being raped don't have the wherewithal to fight it out, and this apparently is the only innovation coming out of Redmond, so no surprise there.

Collectively, one day this harem that Microsoft is boinking will hopefully slip the knife in deep when they find out it isn't anything more than a shakedown.


FF4me

@rr.com
reply to FF4me
Microsoft's patent ties to Amazon Kindle Fire developer:

Microsoft’s new licensing agreement with tablet and smartphone maker Quanta Computers could have implications for Amazon’s Kindle Fire.

The Taiwan-based company is reportedly the original design manufacturer (ODM) of Amazon’s red-hot Kindle Fire -- and Research in Motion’s PlayBook -- raising the question of patent ties between the three companies.

According to gdgt, Quanta did development work on the Kindle Fire, as well as much of the hardware design and production for RIM’s PlayBook. Now that Quanta has agreed to pay Microsoft (unspecified) royalties for its tablets, smartphones and other devices running the Android or Chrome platforms, Amazon's Fire could be implicated.

-

Microsoft Adds a Notch to Its Gun Belt With Quanta Licensing Deal:

Timothy Q. Delaney, a partner with Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, told LinuxInsider.

"Google plainly intends to defend Android against Microsoft and Apple, and the Motorola patents will be useful ammunition," he said. "It means something that Motorola hasn't signed a licensing deal with Microsoft. They feel confident they are able to fend off attacks. So I do think the Motorola patents are Google's end game."

In the meantime, he continued, OEMs need peace, so they are signing the deals with Microsoft.

Probably they are hoping that Google can cut a deal with Microsoft so Android becomes royalty free, he speculated. "Or that Google will be able to fully defend Android with Motorola."

Until Google is ready to do that, though, "these companies want to sell products," Delaney observed, "and they don't want the risk of Microsoft shutting them down."

-

Microsoft Snags Android Patent Deal with Quanta, Another Big Win:

We estimate that Microsoft will make close to a billion dollars from Android



firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

1 recommendation

said by FF4me :

We estimate that Microsoft will make close to a billion dollars from Android

Which in the end doesn't mean much, it just points out the dick move they're playing out in an attempt to stay relevant by any means besides unique innovation.
--
Say no to JAMS!


Snakeoil
Ignore Button. The coward's feature.
Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1
reply to Pjr
I agree. Considering how MS got into the game, and now they expect everyone else to toe their party line.

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to FF4me
said by FF4me :

Microsoft Snags Android Patent Deal with Quanta, Another Big Win:

We estimate that Microsoft will make close to a billion dollars from Android

m$ gets big royalties from a company selling devices with Android?

It's just yet another vivid example how absurd the current patent and copyright systems become. No wonder that economy is in such a deep shit... Who needs to produce anything now? Go ahead and hire more lawyers. That will bring money, not a development and production.

I guess next time jumping monkey instead of "Developers, developers, developers, ..." will rather shout "Lawyers, lawyers, lawyers, ..."

It's the new reality of the "New Order" in the world in action
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
I agree that Microsoft is acting like a snake and this should be stopped.

What I want to know is: When is Google going to step up to the plate?

Do they have a plan?

Google is either rolling over here, or they have some kind of long term vision. I hope it's the latter...

Android is an good system for consumers, but assuming nothing is done to protect the manufacturers who load it on their phones or design hardware for it, the whole ecosystem will wind up facing significant challenges down the road.
--
I'm watching District 9 again, and I've come to realize something: Wikus's got it all wrong. If I were morphing into a 9 foot tall hyper-dextrous alien that can shoot lightning bolts and get high off cat food why would I ever want to become human again?


disturbed1
Premium
join:2003-09-06
Columbus, OH
said by El Quintron:

Android is an good system for consumers, but assuming nothing is done to protect the manufacturers who load it on their phones or design hardware for it, the whole ecosystem will wind up facing significant challenges down the road.

I wonder if that's Microsoft's entire plan.
Manufacturers and developers will be priced out of the ability to use the platform, or too scared/worried/not worth the hassle to even attempt.

Hopefully it will only be a matter of (short) time before the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act is enforced here.
IF Microsoft is not breaking the law with this imprudence, then we need new laws!


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by disturbed1:

I wonder if that's Microsoft's entire plan.
Manufacturers and developers will be priced out of the ability to use the platform, or too scared/worried/not worth the hassle to even attempt.

I'm sure that's part of the plan... but that still leaves me wondering why Google isn't stepping up to the plate. Is the market big enough when software patents aren't enforceable that Google doesn't care?

Or is this just an issue where Google keeps profiting and the manufacturers have to take the heat... if so Android's lifespan will be very short.

I really can't speak to "making laws" because Microsoft couldn't sue for software patents in Canada, however this seems to be very RIAA where most of these lawsuits are fishing expeditions where Microsoft is taking on companies who can't afford to defend themselves. Google could easily bury these lawsuits, so I'm wondering what their eventual response is going to be.
--
I'm watching District 9 again, and I've come to realize something: Wikus's got it all wrong. If I were morphing into a 9 foot tall hyper-dextrous alien that can shoot lightning bolts and get high off cat food why would I ever want to become human again?


FF4me

@rr.com
said by El Quintron:

I'm sure that's part of the plan... but that still leaves me wondering why Google isn't stepping up to the plate.

From my previous post:

"Google plainly intends to defend Android against Microsoft and Apple, and the Motorola patents will be useful ammunition," ... "It means something that Motorola hasn't signed a licensing deal with Microsoft. They feel confident they are able to fend off attacks ... the Motorola patents are Google's end game."



FF4me

@rr.com
From Taipei Times:

According to IDG News, some analysts have speculated that Microsoft is potentially earning more revenue through licensing to Android smartphone makers than it is through licensing its Windows Phone operating system.

That is because IDG projected Android to have a 39.5 percent of the smartphone operating system market share this year, compared with 5.5 percent for Windows Phone.



FF4me

@rr.com
reply to FF4me

We estimate that Microsoft will make close to a billion dollars from Android

Microsoft is also probably considering the following September 22, 2011 market projections from Gartner (see above table) in calculating it's bottom line:

Apple’s iPad is projected to account for 73.4 percent of worldwide media tablet sales in 2011, down from 83 percent share in 2010. Beyond Apple iOS and the Android operating system (OS), Gartner does not expect any other platforms to have more than 5 percent share of the tablet market in 2011.

"Google will address the fragmentation of Android across smartphone and tablet form factors within the next Android release, known as 'Ice Cream Sandwich,' which we expect to see in the fourth quarter of 2011. Android can count on strong support from key OEMs, has a sizeable developer community, and its smartphones application ecosystem is second only to Apple's."

The current buzz around Windows 8 driven by the demonstrations seen at the Build conference might be short-lived if Microsoft's push to use the new OS across devices comes at a compromise in usability. Moreover, the late arrival might limit its appeal, especially to consumers, as Apple and Android will be more entrenched by then.



El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to FF4me
said by FF4me :

From my previous post:

"Google plainly intends to defend Android against Microsoft and Apple, and the Motorola patents will be useful ammunition," ... "It means something that Motorola hasn't signed a licensing deal with Microsoft. They feel confident they are able to fend off attacks ... the Motorola patents are Google's end game."

I must of missed that, hopefully buy time they face each other in court it won't be so late as to cause manufacturers to doubt Android as a valid platform.
--
I'm watching District 9 again, and I've come to realize something: Wikus's got it all wrong. If I were morphing into a 9 foot tall hyper-dextrous alien that can shoot lightning bolts and get high off cat food why would I ever want to become human again?


FF4me

@rr.com

Larry Page - Google CEO
said by El Quintron:

hopefully buy time they face each other in court it won't be so late as to cause manufacturers to doubt Android as a valid platform.

Agreed.

Here's a recent perspective -

Google: Patent attacks on Android are not 'effective' - 14 October, 2011:

Rivals' patent-related attacks on Android are not paying off, Google's chief executive Larry Page has claimed, as the company reported big rises in revenue and profit.

On Thursday, Page said Android is "going gangbusters" and Google does not "see anything that's going to stop that". Companies suing Android manufacturers over use of the mobile operating system will only hurt themselves by doing so, he added.

"While there's been lots of people trying to attack that and so on, we see absolutely no signs that that's effective, and ultimately, we think that other companies' actions there will alienate their customers and their relationships with the other companies," Page said in an earnings call.

Google's strategy is getting stronger regarding patent lawsuits, and its proposed acquisition of Motorola Mobility shows it is "serious about protecting the Android ecosystem", he said.

Asked about those [licensing] fees, Page said Microsoft is "resorting to legal measures to hassle their own customers", which "seems kind of odd".

Page said he suspects Android manufacturers are "making good deals for themselves" in their licensing agreements with Microsoft, although he conceded that he — like most people — has not seen the details of those agreements.

Page noted a "mind-boggling" 190 million Android devices have now been activated around the world.



El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Granted Google does seem pretty confident, and for a company the size a Quanta this is probably a drop in the bucket.

I don't think Google should wait too much longer before they fight this in court though.


markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
said by El Quintron:

I don't think Google should wait too much longer before they fight this in court though.

Fight what? Excuse my ignorance, but does anyone now WHAT is being licensed?

To some, I suppose it doesn't matter. I'd love to know "WHAT" though, doesn't anybody else?

I don't like the current IP/Patent model in the US, it seems counterproductive and borderline destructive to innovation. But there are some licensing models that are not and do come close to theft.

I can't throw HDMI or Firewire ports around at will without verification and payment for use... is this similar? I should be able to make a device that is so many inches long, by so many inches wide, by so many inches deep with curved edges and brushed aluminum without Australia stopping my sales, is it more similar to that?

Anybody know "WHAT" is being licensed? Suspense! lol...
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by markofmayhem:

Fight what? Excuse my ignorance, but does anyone now WHAT is being licensed?

According to my very limited understanding of situation, Microsoft is claiming that Android is violating its patents, but rather than pursuing Google it's going after handset manufacturers that are shipping phones with Android.

From the few cases that I've read about this seems like fishing expeditions and/or cases of legal bullying against companies would couldn't (or won't for whatever reason) fight it out in long court battles.

Lastly most of these "licenses" seem to be shrouded in silence, furthering the appearance of some kind of extortion racket.

Make of it as you will, but it don't seem right.
--
I'm watching District 9 again, and I've come to realize something: Wikus's got it all wrong. If I were morphing into a 9 foot tall hyper-dextrous alien that can shoot lightning bolts and get high off cat food why would I ever want to become human again?


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to markofmayhem
said by markofmayhem:

I can't throw HDMI or Firewire ports around at will without verification and payment for use... is this similar?

I don't know if this is such a good example, because Firewire and HDMI are both physical devices and probably count as actual "inventions", and would count as patents in all jurisdictions that have patents.

The lawsuit as currently proceeding could not do so in Canada, because Canada doesn't have software patents.
--
I'm watching District 9 again, and I've come to realize something: Wikus's got it all wrong. If I were morphing into a 9 foot tall hyper-dextrous alien that can shoot lightning bolts and get high off cat food why would I ever want to become human again?


markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
said by El Quintron:

said by markofmayhem:

I can't throw HDMI or Firewire ports around at will without verification and payment for use... is this similar?

I don't know if this is such a good example, because Firewire and HDMI are both physical devices and probably count as actual "inventions", and would count as patents in all jurisdictions that have patents.

The lawsuit as currently proceeding could not do so in Canada, because Canada doesn't have software patents.

So we know it is software? Anymore details? Is it usage of licensed software? Software that mimics other software? Is it not actually software but assumed to be? (Microsoft holds more than just software patents)

I just want to know, curious is all. There seems to be this want to burn the giant. I have no problem burning giants. I refuse to light torches, though, until I know why the torch should be lit other than to just burn giants.
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by markofmayhem:

So we know it is software? Anymore details? Is it usage of licensed software? Software that mimics other software? Is it not actually software but assumed to be? (Microsoft holds more than just software patents)

I just want to know, curious is all. There seems to be this want to burn the giant. I have no problem burning giants. I refuse to light torches, though, until I know why the torch should be lit other than to just burn giants.

There's a pretty good summary here:

»www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/arc···03515923

Curiously as you keep noting, no one mentions exactly what's being licensed.

There seems to a be a very Kafka-esque feel to all of these "hearings"
--
I'm watching District 9 again, and I've come to realize something: Wikus's got it all wrong. If I were morphing into a 9 foot tall hyper-dextrous alien that can shoot lightning bolts and get high off cat food why would I ever want to become human again?

TuxRaiderPen

join:2009-09-19
reply to markofmayhem
said by markofmayhem:
So we know it is software? Anymore details? Is it usage of licensed software? Software that mimics other software? Is it not actually software but assumed to be? (Microsoft holds more than just software patents)
I don't think any one other than the thugs and the mugged know, because of all the nda bs...

I would bet that the FAT32 filename stuff is involved, along with anything else they think they can throw out there, like interacting with their exchange crud, possibly SMB stuff, its really any ones guess, and make it stick long enough to extort these companies to just pay off the extortionist v. a long drawn out and $$$$$$ court case. The license deal and "protection" money is probably cheaper over the life of the device than the court case. As in any court case the only real winners is most definitely not the plantiff or defendant. scum sucking !@$)(!)!(*) vampire lawyers.

I would love to know, as would probably everyone else, until one of these companies or some one is willing to record it all, and post regardless of the probable legal action, no one in the public will know.

said by markofmayhem:
S
I just want to know, curious is all. There seems to be this want to burn the giant. I have no problem burning giants. I refuse to light torches, though, until I know why the torch should be lit other than to just burn giants.

if its from ms or a then its just safer to light the torches, and burn it down, and be done with it. These companies are unreasonable and don't wish to play in the marketplace [sandbox] with the other companies [kiddies] nicely.

Its all about, I made this widget, pay me, and no you can't make any thing similar or better, ever! Pay me forever and ever and ever and ever, off one invention. Whats the motivation to create more? NONE.

As for google, they best be planning to step up to the plate, and start using that bat once they get the motorola deal put through. There simply is no other reason to purchase it other than to break out the RF patents from big M, and smack them around. You pretty much are not going to put a radio (mobile phone) out and not have something that is probably licensed back to Big M. Till they are 100% irrevocably in control of big m they can't do that..

This is sort of the tactic Samsung is using on crapple, OK.. snotty make a phone with out these GSM, UMTS tech... you can't... and if I was Samsung I would be looking for the least little thing to end the contract to supply ANY SILICON to them. Yeah there may be other fabs to provice the A9 etc. processors, but can they provide the QUALITY and QUANTITY of Samsung? Probably not. Yeah it probably would hurt profits thus dividends, but THAT RIGHT there is the difference between a GREAT COMPANY and a merely in it to profit company. Profit is not the only thing, sadly lost and forgetten by most. Yes, $$ and sex make the world go round, but it doesn't always work out so well.

Sadly at this point the only way to solve it, is to light the torches, and burn it down, and start over.


disturbed1
Premium
join:2003-09-06
Columbus, OH
said by TuxRaiderPen:


As for google, they best be planning to step up to the plate, and start using that bat once they get the motorola deal put through. There simply is no other reason to purchase it other than to break out the RF patents from big M, and smack them around. You pretty much are not going to put a radio (mobile phone) out and not have something that is probably licensed back to Big M. Till they are 100% irrevocably in control of big m they can't do that..

Microsoft has already made a big stink over this.

At least one patent which was claimed as the basis for the B&N extortion had this text included -
quote:
A method of browsing a hyperlink resource, comprising the following steps:
»www.itworld.com/open-source/1409···ot-linux


markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
reply to TuxRaiderPen
said by El Quintron:

Curiously as you keep noting, no one mentions exactly what's being licensed.

There seems to a be a very Kafka-esque feel to all of these "hearings"

EXACTLY... in today's age, "reporting" can be a cause just as much as back-room shadow deals, unfortunately.

I'd love to know, though. What does MS have that Google is "using"?

said by TuxRaiderPen:

Sadly at this point the only way to solve it, is to light the torches, and burn it down, and start over.

Ignorance should be avoided, not celebrated and used as motivation. I have heard speculations regarding FAT32 as well. This is why my curiosity is piqued. Really? Fat32? It has to be more, no? If not, then Google, Samsung, Quanta, et al are just as corrupt and inept as the rest of them.

But what about the other speculations? ActiveSync, Exchange connection, EAS, patented GUI elements that can not be charged for (which is why Linux is free to use), Plug and Play, Battery and Notification protocols owned by Microsoft (alternatives exist, are they not being used?), Bluetooth miniport, OBEX, etc...

Without KNOWING what MS is licensing, FOSS can't produce alternatives. Fail Google if they know.

We've avoided MS patents with work-arounds before. In fact, FAT patents were defeated in 2009! So Google is violating the FAT patent with a known-Linux IN THE DAMN KERNEL ALREADY workaround??? I think it might be something else... errr, I hope it is something else at the least!

»www.geek.com/articles/chips/clev···2009073/
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix


FF4me

@rr.com
said by markofmayhem:

Without KNOWING what MS is licensing, FOSS can't produce alternatives. Fail Google if they know.

Found more 'non-specific' details...

Android Patent Infringement - 21 Mar 2011:

The Microsoft-created features protected by the patents infringed by the Nook and Nook Color tablet are core to the user experience. For example, the patents we [Microsoft] asserted today protect innovations that:

• Give people easy ways to navigate through information provided by their device apps via a separate control window with tabs;

• Enable display of a webpage’s content before the background image is received, allowing users to interact with the page faster;

• Allow apps to superimpose download status on top of the downloading content;

• Permit users to easily select text in a document and adjust that selection; and

• Provide users the ability to annotate text without changing the underlying document.

-

Microsoft v. Android: now B&N Nook gets software patent lawsuit - March 22, 2011:

[The] actions focus on the patent infringement by the Nook e-reader and the Nook Color tablet ... bringing to 25 the total number of Microsoft patents in litigation for infringement by Android ... devices.

Barnes & Noble, Foxconn and Inventec will certainly be aware of the list of 23 patents asserted by Microsoft against Motorola.

MG Siegler rants, "Microsoft Has Become A Joke":

If you’ll excuse my bluntness, it’s all a bunch of bull****. ... The whole thing is laughable. And everyone knows that except ... Microsoft. The company ... [is] quickly losing the hearts and minds of just about everyone that doesn’t work in Redmond.
...
“Easily select text”? “Navigate through information”? ... It reads like a joke, but it’s not. Next up, Microsoft is going to sue over the ability to ... breathe. ... This is the future of Microsoft, people. ... This needs to be stopped. Microsoft is threatening innovation across a range of industries.
...
Now we’re on to licensing fees 2.0: patents. How long until Microsoft is making more money on patent licensing than from their mobile unit? ... Maybe they already are.

-

Barnes & Noble: Microsoft lawsuit is ‘scheme’ to kill Google Android - 2011/04/27

“Microsoft is misusing these patents as part of a scheme to try to eliminate or marginalize the competition to its own Windows Phone 7 mobile device operating system posed by the open source Android operating system and other open source operating systems,” B&N said in a court filing Monday. “Microsoft’s conduct directly harms both competition for and consumers of eReaders, smartphones, tablet computers and other mobile electronic devices, and renders Microsoft’s patents unenforceable.”

Microsoft said Motorola Droid phones violate Microsoft patents on data syncing and application processes.

Infographic: The 37 (and counting) lawsuits over Google Android

B&N, however, seems to be the first company with the gumption to call out Microsoft with such strong language. From its legal response, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle:

As part of this scheme, Microsoft has asserted patents that extend only to arbitrary, outmoded, or non-essential design features, but uses these patents to demand that every manufacturer of an Android-based mobile device take a license from Microsoft and pay exorbitant licensing fees or face protracted and expensive patent infringement litigation. …

Microsoft did not invent, research, develop, or make available to the public mobile devices employing the Android Operating System and other open source operating systems, but nevertheless seeks to dominate something it did not invent. On information and belief, Microsoft intends to take and has taken definite steps towards making competing operating systems such as the Android Operating System unusable and unattractive to both consumers and device manufacturers through exorbitant license fees and absurd licensing restrictions that bear no relation to the scope and subject matter of its own patents.

On information and belief, to perpetuate this scheme, Microsoft and its agents, including spokesman and chief executive officer Mr. Steven Ballmer, have publicly stated that through its patents Microsoft can dominate, control, and exclude from the market the Android Operating System, other open source operating systems, and open source applications such as Google Chrome. These statements are unjustified in view of the scope of Microsoft’s patents. Moreover, neither Microsoft nor Mr. Ballmer has ever identified to the American public the basis for these grand assertions of dominance.
B&N’s filing also describes meetings in 2010 between the companies in which Microsoft threatened legal action if the bookseller did not agree to pay licensing fees to Microsoft.

According to B&N’s allegations, Microsoft representatives were uncooperative, insisting that the meetings be held under a non-disclosure agreement. B&N continually refused but ultimately gave in, agreeing it would not publicly disclose some details about Microsoft’s patent claims. But, in B&N’s view, the meetings included no competitively sensitive material, according to the legal filing.

The document paints Microsoft as a bully that wishes to stifle the highly competitive technology industry.
On information and belief, Microsoft has also attempted to force other companies manufacturing products that use the Android Operating System to take expensive licenses to Microsoft’s patents, using the same threat of litigation based on trivial patents it made against Barnes & Noble prior to this lawsuit.

On information and belief, one large electronics manufacturer, HTC, agreed to a license involving Microsoft’s patents to avoid such a lawsuit, that may have contained controls and restrictions on HTC’s activities beyond the scope of Microsoft’s patents.

On information and belief, Amazon, who sells the Kindle eReader, entered into a license involving Microsoft’s patents that may have contained controls and restrictions on Amazon’s activities beyond the scope of Microsoft’s patents.

On information and belief, Microsoft’s activities have a significant, wide felt, and highly detrimental anticompetitive effect and restrain competition in the market for mobile operating systems by suppressing the use and development of open source mobile operating systems, including the Android Operating System, and the development of applications and devices employing the same.

On information and belief, Microsoft’s activities are part of Microsoft’s campaign to force open source software developers and users to pay expensive license fees (reducing their ability to compete with Microsoft) or to leave the market altogether.
In its original complaint, Microsoft sought monetary damages and an injunction on further alleged infringement by B&N. Microsoft also filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission.