Microsoft Sues Motorola Over Android-Related Patent Infringement 199
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Engadget:
"Microsoft has hit up the ITC over a total of nine alleged patent infringements by Motorola in its Android devices, specifically relating to 'synchronizing email, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power.' This should be interesting — will it result in a quick cross-licensing agreement, or a protracted court battle spanning multiple years?"
The ITC complaint was accompanied by a lawsuit in US District Court. Microsoft's Horacio Gutierrez explained the company's reasoning in a blog post.
Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
It's great to see the USS Microsoft sinking after all these years.
On to bigger and better things!
Re: (Score:2)
It amazes me how this gets +4 insightful. This is why user-based moderation doesn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like, from the description above, that the issues are not Android based, rather they are about concepts for what everyone, every OS does, to operate on the web with a mobile device.
Microsoft, though, is acting the patent troll.
Microsoft is trying to ensure that everyone that develops Android understands that they can be sued, and that rather than develop an Android phone they should be developing a Win7 Mobile phone.
I think this tactic is pathetic. It shows that they can't compete. I honestly suspe
Enemy of My Enemy, etc... (Score:5, Interesting)
There may not be much mobile love between Google and Apple, but I'm quite sure that neither one wants Microsoft to win anything in such a market.
After all, if Microsoft wins this one, what's to stop them from contriving other overly-broad patents against Apple's iPhone at the first convenient moment?
Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the MS blog post...
"Our action today merely seeks to ensure respect for our intellectual property rights infringed by Android devices; and judging by the recent actions by Apple and Oracle, we are not alone in this respect."
Android threatens the iPhone perhaps more than Windows Phone 7 does at this point.
Plus, an Apple proprietary device vs. a Microsoft operating system used by many manufacturers is a competition model that both Microsoft and Apple have been content with for a very long time. Google is an interloper.
Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some picking apart may be in order here...
Apple sued HTC over hardware patents [docstoc.com], IIRC. Microsoft merely included their (and Oracle's) name to legitimize what they were up to in the eyes of their audience. Not sure I'd want the association with Oracle, though - that particular one smells/tastes like Ellison trying to generate some revenue off of his recent purchase of Java, not (as portrayed) as some aggrieved party sick of getting ripped off (remember, Oracle just bought the thing).
Long-term, sure, Google will likely be vying w/ Apple for the #1 slot. OTOH, I don't think Apple cares if they ever quite reach #1 in the smartphone market, or any market. If they cared about market position, Verizon would be selling iPhones by now, and Dell and HP would be selling computers with OSX preloaded on them. OTOH, Apple has its own, not-so-obvious goals, mostly having to do with holding more money than the US Treasury and China combined, methinks.
Finally, one last nitpick... I sincerely doubt that Microsoft was/is cozy at all with the iPhone coming out of nowhere and basically tearing it a new arse in the US smartphone markets (and I bet that Palm hated the whole episode even worse). Globally, Microsoft was drowned out by Nokia anyway. :)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Some picking apart may be in order here...
[...] I don't think Apple cares if they ever quite reach #1 in the smartphone market, or any market.
Since we're picking things apart, perhaps you should acknowledge that Apple is very definitely #1 in the most important facet of "market share," namely share of industry profits, beating out Nokia, Saumsung, and LG combined. I contend it's a metric they most certainly care about.
See the pretty graphs at
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/21/pie-chart-apples-outrageous-share-of-the-mobile-industrys-profits/ [cnn.com]
Re:Enemy of My Enemy, etc... (Score:5, Interesting)
Another nitpick: those are estimates and they show great shakeup in the market. While Nokia was down 40% in profit, HTC was up 33%. Apple does indeed make a boatload of cash but Android is what is currently shaking up the market.
Back on topic though I wonder why MS isn't suing themselves, since they seem so keen on paying Verizon money to put Bing on Android.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As I understand, the income figures were culled from public filings. Estimation of income would only come into play when reconciling accounting rules between countries.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that there are cozy relationships.
Think of it this way: There's a pack of wolves with pack members named Oracle, Apple, Microsoft and a bunch of other (mostly smaller) wolves. There's a constant vicious competition for the alpha male position, but some ground rules have been established.
Then a big ol' wolf called Google shows up. He's from another pack and doesn't necessarily play by the same ground rules. And he threatens the dominance of all three. So he's attacked viciousl
Re: (Score:2)
This one is called Adobe and he's trying desperately to impregnate all the bitches in all of the packs.
Already done - Adobe AIR is the official first-tier development platform on those RIM tablets. It's not quite phones, but it's clearly a strongly related market as we've seen recently, and I'd be surprised if it doesn't pop up on RIM phones soon.
Re: (Score:2)
lol. Considering that the actions by Oracle concerned their Java patents, patents which Microsoft infringed and now licence for 'tasty' amounts of money.
Re: (Score:2)
There may not be much mobile love between Google and Apple, but I'm quite sure that neither one wants Microsoft to win anything in such a market.
After all, if Microsoft wins this one, what's to stop them from contriving other overly-broad patents against Apple's iPhone at the first convenient moment?
I think Apple already licenses many of these technologies as part of their Exchange ActiveSync licensing. [msexchangeteam.com] This is the reason why the iPhone had no Exchange support at release despite the demand, they first had to license it and likely decided to see if the thing succeeded before going after the license and functionality.
Companies like Apple tend to do all they can to make sure they are not infringing on technologies owned by other large companies. The problem with Android is that, technically, it's the de
Re: (Score:2)
There may not be much mobile love between Google and Apple, but I'm quite sure that neither one wants Microsoft to win anything in such a market.
It's already much more fucked up [nexus404.com] than one would think possible. Go ahead, draw another line there - but making any conclusions about who's a friend of who from it seems to be unwise given the lack of overall clarity. So far it looks more like a free-for-all "last man standing" than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that apple exists only as a foil to Microsoft. MS winning would be the ideal outcome for Apple. They can "think different" and Microsoft has no real competitor.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple and Microsoft aren't enemies; they have patent cross licensing agreements and they are in different markets. All this Apple vs Microsoft bluster is more marketing gimmick than reality. Microsoft likes Apple as the token competitor and Apple like Microsoft because it validates their proprietary approach to software.
I agree with that as far as traditional desktop/laptop computers go -- Apple don't really compete with MS, but instead sell high-end, high-margin hardware -- but with music players/phones/tablets/set-top boxes, it's all different. Apple is making MS look like the dumb, lumbering dinosaur it is, whilst building their own walled garden / revenue streams and being apparently very successful at it.
I don't disagree that Android is a threat to Apple though, and arguably to MS too... I say arguably because MS ar
Re:Worry about app devs, not Microsoft or Google (Score:5, Insightful)
It's interesting that you'd advocate for a quick and easy surrender, when in fact Microsoft may not even have a case (or even valid patents). Smells like FUD, circa 2003.
If Google came out swinging, no sweat - the devs (like everyone else) will figure that it'll settle anyway, and barring injunctions (unlikely), business will continue as usual.
You know? If IBM took the attitude that you're advocating, we'd all be paying some jackass in Utah $700/seat for Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is neither here nor there in this patent struggle. M$ is suing a customer Motorola a suicide suit, no windows mobile on Motorola. Instead of forcing Motorala to sell more windows mobile phones the nett result is the best way for Motorola to fight the lawsuit is to work to cut off the money supply to it's competitor.
All other Android users will take a similar track. Android is a free open operating system, M$'s civil suit is a threat to all of it's major customers, gang up of M$ now and they can si
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't understand why people think Google is this benevolent company trying to bring happiness and rainbows to anything. Everything they produce, free or not open source or not, has the goal of making a profit for their shareholders. If you really think about it they are following a M$ model anyway. They offer a mix of free and pay services. Why use them, because they play really really well with each other as opposed to buying many different vendor products that while they do the same thing require more time and effort to work together. Sounds a lot like the M$ server lines.
Sure Google are out to make a profit, but they make billions a year by offering a superior product and promoting innovation, not suing companies who try to get off their leash.
Re: (Score:2)
Google makes most of their money on advertising, not offering a superior product and promoting innovation.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you have against a company making a profit for their shareholders?
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe we could just kill software patents.
Comment here and advertise your blog somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
The first patent listed: U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 [uspto.gov] ("the '517 patent"), entitled "Common Name Space for Long and Short Filenames," is expiring in 2013. It's basically what others have coined the FAT patent, since it could technically be used against anything and everything that uses the FAT file system.
In any case, that patent is probably not even going to last until 2013. Since Microsoft attacked Tom Tom with it, plenty of prior art examples have already been found and submitted [groklaw.net] to the USPTO for review. I
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry,
What does a comment about copyleft have to do with patents? The answer would be "nothign", and as such would be pretty bizarred on a blog about patents. What's confusing is why YOU think anyone should rail against 10+ year old coments about something not related to what you're talking about.
Regarding the "200 patents" bit or whatever it was, that wasn't an actual lawsuit that was filed. Many predicted (including myself) at the time that Microsoft would never sue any Linux vendor over those alle
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly there are opportunities to develop new ideas for cellular phones and these merit patent protection. However, in an era of smartphones which are just replicating desktop functions that are commonly known "in the art", the validity of many of these sort of patents is suspect. This is the same as the wave of internet patents that arrived covering things that had already been done before only this time it was with "a network" attached.
Google it could try to negotiate license deals. (Score:2)
That's what it must do now, not only for itself, not only for Android phone vendors, but above all for the application developer community its platform depends on.
That's what Google could try to do, negotiate licensing deals, but they'd better not. Instead Google should, one, make MS prove Google is violating MS patents. And if so two, fight to have those patents revoked.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And Microsoft blames Motorola? How does that make sense?
Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
Translation:
We're no longer relevant in this market but we own some patents so we're going to screw as much money out of innovators as we can.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Exactly. Microsoft is going to be very dangerous in the coming years. Those who can't innovate, litigate and Microsoft has one of the most awesome collections of patents. As they decline, expect some devastating lawsuits.
MS Is Just Entering the Market (Score:2)
I've not got a dog in this hunt, but Windows Phone 7 stacks up very well against the competition. And when that has happened historically, they've been able to become dominant. Think about all of the corporate IT .Net developers and corporate IT phone choosers out there. Microsoft WILL quickly become relevant in the market.
And the phone is just one facet of their .Net/Silverlight strategy. There are much deeper things at work.
Re: (Score:2)
In the past yes...
But RIM owns the business and corporate market hard. Microsoft has ZERO chance of cracking the Blackberry nut unless RIM does something super stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
And that something super stupid could be trying to compete with Microsoft in the corporate space. RIM may have a lot of Crackberry addicted managers, but Microsoft has corporate IT - who chooses which phones will be used, and whose developers will promise the moon in order to become mobile developers instead of working on budgeting system internals.
To my knowledge, Microsoft is the only dog in the hunt that is developing a plan for corporate app distribution (i.e. outside of an App Store type arrangement).
Re: (Score:2)
To my knowledge, Microsoft is the only dog in the hunt that is developing a plan for corporate app distribution (i.e. outside of an App Store type arrangement).
What? You do realize that Windows 7 Phone not only is not backwards compatible with previous Windows Mobile versions but that Windows 7 Phone is heavily focused on consumer not corporate features, right? Two reasons why corporations are less likely to pick Windows 7 over Blackberry.
Windows mobile Backwards Compat is not a feature (Score:2)
Windows Phone 7 is not the patsy that Windows Mobile was. It's a threat. Nobody with a Windows Mobile device is dreading an upgrade to a competitive phone.
Name me one other mobile provider that has corporate development support already built into major corporations.
Windows Mobile was a place holder. Windows Phone 7 is a game changer.
Re: (Score:2)
Nokia
I see way more nokia smartphones in company use than windows mobile phones. WAY WAY more.
In fact outside the USA, nokia dominates over ALL OTHER PHONE MAKES. ALL OF THEM.
iphone and android put together are a tiny blip to Nokia outside the USA
Re:Windows mobile Backwards Compat is not a featur (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows Phone 7 is not the patsy that Windows Mobile was. It's a threat. Nobody with a Windows Mobile device is dreading an upgrade to a competitive phone.
Businesses normally don't like spending money for no reason. Many of them that currently have Windows Mobile phone will not like having to spend money on new versions of their current apps. Also they cannot upgrade their current phones to Windows 7. So that gives them no incentive to stay with Windows. They have to buy new apps and get new phones so then it offers no advantage to Windows. That puts it on par with Blackberry.
Couple that with the emphasis that Microsoft has put on Windows 7 Phone being a consumer not a corporate phone. So a brand new phone OS has fewer corporate features than their previous phone. While Blackberry is rolling out more corporate features. Gee, which one will corporations buy?
Name me one other mobile provider that has corporate development support already built into major corporations.
As I said before Windows 7 Phone is focused on the consumer market. It does not matter how much lip service MS pays to having a corporate development environment if corporations are not going to buy Windows 7 phones for their employees because it does not have the features that they need. At best only corporations that develop apps might be interested in Windows 7.
Windows Mobile was a place holder. Windows Phone 7 is a game changer.
So far the market the kept Windows Mobile alive has been the corporate market. And MS is throwing it away for the consumer market. But from what I've seen of Windows 7, they are years behind Apple and Android. Heck, they are years behind WebOS. What do you base this belief that they will be a game changer when the game passed them by years ago?
Re: (Score:2)
Windows Mobile was a place holder. Windows Phone 7 is a game changer.
iOS was a game changer, Android was a game changer, WebOS was a game changer.
Windows Mobile 7 is a knock off and they know it, which is why they're suing, as far as app development, the future is in web apps, which are usable on any platform, Silverlight was obsolete before it was even released.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
I got email delivered over a modem in the early 90's. The fact that it's now delivered over a GSM modem is hardly 'innovation', no matter what company tries to claim it as such.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I like patent 6826762, in which Microsoft patents the use of hardware independent software drivers when applied to cell phones. What moron at the patent office approved that one?
Or how about 6909910 "Method and System for Managing Changes to a Contact Database". The invention amounts to this: when the user wants to save the last phone call as a contact, you look to see whether that phone number is in the contact database. If it is, you bring that contact up for editing. If it is not, you create a new cont
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, thats pretty much exactly what the word innovation means.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious shit.. WHY??!?!@ WHY !?!?! (Score:3, Insightful)
I still want to know how the fuck you can patent checking email or checking battery strength? Or well all this chit is just stuff a guy living in a bubble and suddenly told to make a wireless phone that goes on the internet would think to add himself if he wasn't a moron.. I mean..FUCK
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Another Example (Score:5, Insightful)
This is yet more proof that software patents are stupid.
Re:Another Example (Score:5, Interesting)
Plus it puts today's earlier story [slashdot.org] into some rather sharp perspective...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I had the same thought...
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is a great thing though. If we can put this idiocy to bed once and for all, then it'll be totally worth it. As long as motorola keeps making popular android phones, they'll do just fine. The risks of pursuing this kinda of litigation are substantial when you consider what microsoft stands to lose if they lose the whole suit. It'd almost be a slap down for almost all future litigation surrounding these sorts of things, and could all-but guarantee future losses for any other actions they take lik
Protection Racket (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, one story about how Microsoft says you should develop a Windows 7 phone so that you're safe from patent lawsuits immediately followed by a story about MS suing an Android developer for patent infringement. I think maybe someone in MS PR department needs to read up on the definition of subtlety.
Re:Protection Racket (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to the mobile market, Microsoft doesn't have time for subtlety... their mobile reputation has been circling the drain for years now, hype be damned.
Thing is, unless there's an immediate injunction granted, Microsoft may not have time for the lawsuit to work its magic either... maybe they're just hoping to make off of forced royalties what they suspect they won't be making in voluntary licensing and/or sales? 'course, if that's their strategic move in mobile, their "technologies" are liable to become about as relevant as an LZW-compressed .gif file is to pictures online.
Re: (Score:2)
their mobile reputation has been circling the drain for years now, hype be damned.
Their mobile reputation has been in the drain because they haven't done anything in mobile development in years. At the same time, Apple released the iPhone, Android has gone through several iterations, and even Palm on its death bed put out a new OS, MS has only released cosmetic patches to its Windows Mobile software.
Don't Cave in (Score:2, Interesting)
Totally called it (Score:2)
Earlier today. [slashdot.org]
*shrugs* I just have a phone that sends texts and calls people, what do I know. :^P
Re:Totally called it (Score:5, Insightful)
MS: Get our mobile OS - it's good, it'll protect you from lawsuits.
All: Protect us? From who?
MS: Us, mostly...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair, it worked for for other Mafias.
Re: (Score:2)
Gangster to store owner: "get our protection. It will protect you
Store owner: "Protect us? From who?"
Gangster: "Us, mostly..."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I do thank you for that, kind sir.
However, I don't believe in karma. If such thing existed (the way it's understood in the West, which is the context in which we are speaking), Microsoft would have been bankrupt long ago, along with Monsanto, the RIAA and MPAA companies... and many, many politicians and executives would have had the equivalent happen to them.
Interesting choice of company to attack (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm .. let's see. HTC, Samsung, LG and Moto make Android phones. HTC, Samsung, and LG also make WinMo (sorry ... WP7) phones as well.
I can't imagine Moto's differentiating factor between all the other handset manufacturers are the only bits that MS has issue with. (Anyways, isn't it all just skinning on top of Google's Android?!)
Soooo, this must be a "screw you" for no longer making WinMo phones?
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC Motorola _IS_ making WinMo devices. Just not mass market phones available through the retail channel. It is all various vertical market stuff.
Pot meet kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sendo [wikipedia.org]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/01/06/microsofts_masterplan_to_screw_phone/ [theregister.co.uk]
So having based their smartphone stuff on stolen tech, they're now turning round claiming other people are stealing their tech ?
Oddly enough, it looks like Motorola were the ones who ended up with the Sendo tech.
Microsoft's Reasoning (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's reasoning is simple: We're going to get our asses kicked by Android in the mobile market, so we're going to use our vast resources to try to destroy yet another superior product. This is standard Microsoft business practice. So shameful.
Re:Microsoft's Reasoning (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems even more desperate than that. I think the smell of death has taken hold at MS -- they're toast in search, Windows Mobile went from pervasive to MIA in very short time span, they actually had tablets out years ago and now Apple seems to have a massive lead (at least in mindshare).
My guess is they figured they HAD to do this because a flop with WinMo7 would be highly embarrassing and possibly cost Ballmer his job.
Re:Microsoft's Reasoning (Score:4, Insightful)
Which begs the question: Why the hell does Ballmer still have his job? He's utterly buried that company. It's running on nothing but the installed user base of his predecessor's tenure, momentum, and fumes.
What is his vision for the future of Microsoft? Anyone? "The Wow?" What happened to that?
Re: (Score:2)
He might not have it for much longer....
Re: (Score:2)
This is standard Microsoft business practice. So shameful.
Well, no, not really. Traditionally, Microsoft has never been that litigious (yes, there's the FAT-patent-debacle, but that's an exception, not the rule). Hell, usually, they just buy up their competitors.
The fact that they're turning to patent litigation in order to make room for themselves in the market, though, is not a good sign for the company or current management, IMHO...
Microsoft's reasoning is simple: (Score:2)
We're going to get our asses kicked by Android in the mobile market, so we're going to use our vast resources to try to destroy yet another superior product.
Except Microsoft leads Android. Microsoft is third in the market [nielsen.com] with RIM in first and Apple in second. Androids are fourth, behind MS, though growing. Both Androids and iPhones are growing where RIM and Windows Mobile are declining.
Falcon
Corporate Warfare (Score:2)
Re:Corporate Warfare (Score:4, Insightful)
It's because the lawyers are running the show, and they win every time this stuff happens, no matter which side wins, the lawyers still get rich.
PATENT (Score:3, Funny)
Patent
Attorney
Trust
&
ENrichment
Tool
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe instead of trying to get rid of software patents we should be making the punitive damages much, much larger. Take it into M.A.D. territory to force a "cold" patent war.
Better to keep your mouth shut? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's think about this one. A big-shot at Microsoft tries to explain what's going on RE: a patent suit they're bringing against a competitor. Remember: it's a patent suit here.
Gutierrez:
People use smartphones for much more as well: they surf the web, play music and videos, and run apps.
They do a lot of common activities, yes.
Consumers expect more and more from their smartphones every day, making their phones resemble not so much a phone as a handheld computer.
So really, their smart phones are acting like ordinary computers, right? So perhaps we could imagine their phones in that same problem space, as they are, according to Mr. Gutierrez, basically computers.
Of course, for certain apps to run efficiently on handheld devices, they must be notified of changes in signal strength and battery power and the device must manage memory for storing data.
Of course! I mean, I and the rest of us people with tech backgrounds totally agree with you! Just as in other domains like pagers, heart monitors, etc..., it would make perfect sense that for other small, mobile devices, things like managing power or signal strength would be relevant and important for the end user to know about.
I mean, any one of us people well-versed in the field of technology would probably come up with something similar to what you did. I mean, "of course" we would!
Given the wide range of functionality smartphones offer, they also need to be able to display relevant choices for users efficiently. Microsoft’s patented technologies tackle all of these challenges.
Maybe Microsoft's patents read on some of this technology, but it sure sounds like you're trying to convince us exactly how necessary and obvious the content of these patents are in the context of computers, and I have to ask: Are you trying to win this case, or sink it?
Re: (Score:2)
30 years developing cutting-edge computer software (Score:4, Insightful)
from the linked Microsoft blog post:
"we’ve spent over 30 years developing cutting-edge computer software."
hmm... personally, I feel that they've spent 15+ of those years abusing a monopoly thus sabotaging competition and reducing innovation. If theirs can be called innovation it's only because they cut everyone else off at the knees with legal tactics and illegal marketing manoeuvres.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually it's been more like 20-25 years of that sort of thing...
More like 30 years buying cutting-edge software (Score:3, Interesting)
What do all the above and and many more have in common? None of them were originally developed by Microsoft. Most were acquired by buying other companies. Some, like IE(Core rendering engine was Spyglass Mosaic) Windows NT(Core OS was the same as OS/2 developed by IBM) and NTFS (slight modification of HPFS from IBM), were acquired in licensing deals where Microsoft was not always h
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Are you being a pedant about Micro-Soft vs Microsoft?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_BASIC [wikipedia.org]
Gates & Allen wrote a BASIC interpreter to run on an 8008 emulator. Gates & Allen improved it and made other versions of it too.
Microsoft Created HPFS (Score:2)
Juxtaposition (Score:2)
Article 1: "Microsoft may be one of the only remaining mobile operating-system providers that charges handset makers a licensing fee, but in exchange vendors get at least one important benefit: protection from intellectual property worries. 'Microsoft indemnifies its Windows Phone 7 licensees against patent infringement claims,' the company said. 'We stand behind our product, and step up to our responsibility to clear the necessary IP rights.'"
Article 2: "Microsoft has hit up the ITC over a total of nine al
Re: (Score:2)
See how far that got RIM? Fucking Canucks trying to get in on our action.
Riiight. Because BlackBerry Enterprise Server won't sell more copies of Exchange at all~
Anti-capitalist (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly why I'm ok with government trust-busting early 1900's style, even with heavy libertarian leanings.
Also, this is why I hate Ayn Rand. Yes, you can believe in libertarianism without masturbating to Ayn Rand.
This is getting real common (Score:2)
Phone patent litigation has become a core revenue stream for the big patent holders, and complaining to he ITC has become standard - it's free (or cheap) and the government does all the work. The media also does loads of free work by writing articles about how X's product imports might be blocked, even though that's never happened...
Re: (Score:2)
The media also does loads of free work by writing articles about how X's product imports might be blocked, even though that's never happened...
Sure it has: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/22/itc_upholds_qualcomm_phone_ban/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks! I've updated the wiki.
I've also started a page about Motorola:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Motorola [swpat.org]
is ballmer being forced out of microsoft? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's take a stab, shall we? (Score:2)
The rest I'm
XML Editors, Anyone? (Score:2)
Holy shit (Score:3, Informative)
I didn't think this
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1805678&cid=33762968 [slashdot.org]
would become reality so fast
The Patents (Score:2, Informative)
5,579,517 "Common Name Space for Long and Short File Names"
5,758,352 "Common Name Space for Long and Short File Names"
So, these two are the the infamous FAT patents.
6,621,746 "Monitoring Entropic Conditions of a Flash Memory Device as an Indicator for Invoking Erasure Operations"
Defrag applied to flash, really that deserve a patent?
6,826,762 "Radio Interface Layer in a Cell Phone with a Set of APIs Having a Hardware-Independent Proxy Layer and a Hardware-Specific Driver Layer"
Hmmm layering an API so that yo
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know why you got modded to 1. I'd mod you +5 for getting the patent numbers together.
5,579,517 "Common Name Space for Long and Short File Names"
5,758,352 "Common Name Space for Long and Short File Names"
So, these two are the the infamous FAT patents.
These are the only two that will stand in court. All the others have prior art. Does the droid phone support fat out of the box?
Enjoy,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just keep in mind that patent title can be "Masturbating fluffy bunnies" for all anyone cares, what it's actually about is in the claims. Patent titles are often very broad, much more so than what the patent actually claims. So don't be so quick to think that patents won't hold up in court.
Phone wars begun have they. (Score:2, Insightful)
So apple/RIM/MS/Google/Motorola/HTC are all in lawsuits against each other?
Why oh why didn't I get a law degree?
In other words, the only ones who are going to win in all this stupidity are the lawyers.
When you can't compete... (Score:2)
...Hire lawyers!
MS really are a bunch of jerks!
Of course that doesn't mean for a moment that I believe that Apple is suddenly the second largest company on the world either. I'm just waiting for that bubble to pop.
Microsoft Patent Troll (Score:2)
More than they bargained for? (Score:2)
Motorola have been in the electronics business for a considerable amount of time. Motorola demonstrated the first mobile phone in the 1970s.
Okay, maybe some of Motorola's patents have gone now. But it's still a risk to sue a company with such a diverse number of past innovations.
Some random thoughts... (Score:2)
Motorola makes other devices besides phones that use Windows. Why is Microsoft suing one of their own partners? Do they want Motorola to drop Windows all together? Dell, Acer, Symbol, Samsung etc. will all pay attention to this. Microsoft to partners: "In the future, as a Microsoft partner, we will dictate to you the OS your product uses or else we will sue you! We don't care if your hardware requirements cost more using our software."
Why not sue Google directly. Apple didn't, Oracle did. It doesn't matt
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not aware of MS promising not to sue other phone makers using other firmware.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Informative)
Didn't someone just post in the thread about Microsoft's indemnification promise that no one had ever sued a handset maker for patent infringement?
I read that post too [slashdot.org]. It said that no one had ever successfully sued a handset maker who used Linux systems for patent infringement. That remains true unless Microsoft prevails in this suit.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Freescale makes the CPUs for Microsoft. They spun their chip operations off a long while back. I suspect they'd have been a little leery of doing this stupid move (and it IS one...) if they were suing one of their critical suppliers like you hint at.