dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
18

FF4me
@rr.com

FF4me to El Quintron

Anon

to El Quintron

Re: Quanta Signs Android Deal With Microsoft

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

FF4me

Anon

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.


El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron to FF4me

Premium Member

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.

FF4me
@rr.com

FF4me

Anon


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
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron

Premium Member

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 Member
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA

markofmayhem

Premium Member

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...

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron

Premium Member

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.
El Quintron

El Quintron to markofmayhem

Premium Member

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.

markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA

markofmayhem

Premium Member

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.

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron

Premium Member

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 ··· 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"

TuxRaiderPen2
Make America Great Again
join:2009-09-19

TuxRaiderPen2 to markofmayhem

Member

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 Member
join:2003-09-06
Columbus, OH

disturbed1

Premium Member

said by TuxRaiderPen2:


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-sou ··· ot-linux

markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA

markofmayhem to TuxRaiderPen2

Premium Member

to TuxRaiderPen2
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 TuxRaiderPen2:

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/ch ··· 2009073/

FF4me
@rr.com

FF4me

Anon

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.