4 ms·
I don't exactly understand the objection to this. Microsoft has the patents (and they don't seem to be spurious patents). Google used techniques covered by the
by cwyers 11y ago
I don't exactly understand the objection to this. Microsoft has the patents (and they don't seem to be spurious patents). Google used techniques covered by the patents in Android without paying Microsoft or indemnifying their OEMs. Microsoft is actively competing with Android. They should let the Android OEMs by because... why? Even assuming for a moment that patents are inherently wrong (rather than our current patent system being flawed in execution) and that Microsoft believes it to be wrong... it exists. They gain nothing by unilaterally disarming. Why should they let the Android OEMs use these patents for free?
- throwawaykf05 11y agoAnd the reason they have these patents are because, contrary to the article, they were doing smartphones long before Apple or Google came to the table. MS was actually one of the bigger smartphone players at the time. Sure, these were not the "modern" touchscreen smartphones that Apple popularized, but MS developed a bunch of technologies that, behind the revolutionized UI, are used by modern smartphones to this day.
- throwaway2048 11y agoThe act of never leaving a cent on the table is what i find loathesome about a ton of companies.
- cwyers 11y agoI can make a case for leaving money on the table for your customers, or your employees, or for some greater social good. I'm not seeing a case for leaving money on the table for your direct competitor in the abstract, though.