8 ms·

Microsoft's Anti-Android FUD Campaign in Full Swing

22 points by emilsedgh 16y ago

rbanffy 16y ago
This is not surprising. Ballmer doesn't like the idea of losing his job in disgrace and Windows 7 Phone, while competitive, is still based on Windows CE. If you ignore the GUI, the underlying OS is every bit as sophisticated and modern as... Symbian. These are the patents Microsoft mentioned to the International Trade Commission. They may or may not the the patents mentioned in the Motorola lawsuit. 5,579,517: Common name space for long and short filenames 5,758,352: Common name space for long and short filenames 6,621,746: Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations 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 6,909,910: Method and system for managing changes to a contact database 7,644,376: Flexible architecture for notifying applications of state changes 5,664,133: Context sensitive menu system/menu behavior 6,578,054: Method and system for supporting off-line mode of operation and synchronization using resource state information 6,370,566: Generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device I wonder what Google could do to invalidate these patents...
- awa 16y ago
  From what I read as part of the comments in the article, it seems Google already licensed some if not all of these patents (for Nexus one) and hence kind of validate them.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    If that's true, it was a really stupid move...
  - zacharypinter 16y ago
    Is it only for exchange server support? Or did they license some of the more general/ridiculous patents?
- DjDarkman 16y ago
  Most of these are downright ridiculous... I mean damn it's like they patented common sense...
  - _delirium 16y ago
    Most of them aren't as broad as the titles indicate (often the case), though they don't exactly seem like significant technical innovation either. The first two are part of the infamous set of FAT patents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#FAT_licensing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#FAT_licen...).
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      I think the simplest way to dodge those patents is not supporting long file names. And it's really weird to have patents issued over technology in use for almost 20 years and charge licensing for it.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
If WM7 is so important, why is it that Microsoft explicitly does not support syncing with 64-bit Outlook? This has led me to conclude that they've already given up, and when my PocketPC dies, I'll be looking for an Android.
- jcromartie 16y ago
  > syncing with 64-bit Outlook How is that even a problem in the first place? I really will never understand some of the situations Microsoft gets themselves into.
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    Outlook is MS's preferred utility for storing contacts. Syncing your contacts on a winmo phone means importing them into outlook, essentially.
    - warfangle 16y ago
      His point was, what is so fundamentally different about the 64 bit Outlook APIs from the 32 bit ones that would fundamentally break syncing behavior with mobile phones? And, "How was building in this kind of incompatibility a good thing, anyways?" From what I've read of Microsoft culture, it was probably because the Outlook team wanted to sabotage the WinMo7 team for some inexplicable and kafkaesque scheme to make themselves look better. Then again, that's speculation.
  - wmf 16y ago
    I have no idea what causes this particular problem, but Office is notorious for just writing in-memory data structures to disk and calling it a "file format", which would make 32-bit and 64-bit incompatible.
    - glhaynes 16y ago
      I've heard people say that, for example, the fact that a Linux system is made of pieces from a million different projects is beneficial to its evolution because doing this kind of crap simply isn't an option. Solid, well-defined interfaces between components are a must (and if they aren't an absolute must, they won't exist - not necessarily because of laziness but because of deadlines) in systems that are made from lots of independent groups' components.
lkjuhygthyujk 16y ago
Isn't this like taking out a giant ad saying win7-mobile is so technically poor - we have decided the only way to compete with Apple and Android is in court with software patents?
- keithwarren 16y ago
  No. It is more like taking out a giant ad and saying we own lots of patents and rather than sit on a wall with a plaque we intend to extract value from them, because that is what our shareholders demand.
  - lkjuhygthyujk 16y ago
    So one business model = Apple Another = Unisys Looks like the beginning of the end....
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - sgk284 16y ago
      Apple was one of the first to sue Android, followed by Oracle, and now by Microsoft.
bhiggins 16y ago
Microsoft used to say that Linux TCO was lower than Windows. Clearly that argument it totally inapplicable to consumer phones. Their choices are very limited at this point, so I expect the patent shakedowns to continue. So far, it is working like a charm... Amazon, Salesforce, HTC, etc. I see no reason why they'd stop. Oh sure, they could try competing based on the quality of the product. But I think they realize this is too difficult for them to pull off now.
DjDarkman 16y ago
Windows Phone 7 is a really good vapor-ware. And ridiculous patents + broken patent system are the key to success
- keithwarren 16y ago
  vapor-ware? seriously? The OS has shipped to OEMs already. It actually does exist.
  - DjDarkman 16y ago
    Ok, ok, it's just crapware.
billybob 16y ago
This really seems doomed. Yes, Android's "free" status got it traction. But it appears that people like it. So if Win7 can't surpass it on that measure, manufacturers are still going to want to use what their customers will buy. I mean, even if there are patent fees, that just means the phone is a bit more expensive, right? And you'll pay more for something you want than for something you don't want, right? Price does not seem to me to be the driving factor in the handset market.
spinchange 16y ago
Microsoft is championing this FUD, but I think it's worth remembering that it didn't start with them. Apple and Oracle have set the "hidden cost of Android" conversation in motion with their lawsuits. Redmond actually has some room to make this kind of case since some of these patents have already been licensed by HTC and (from what I read here) Google. Go figure.

22 points by emilsedgh 16y ago

This is not surprising. Ballmer doesn't like the idea of losing his job in disgrace and Windows 7 Phone, while competitive, is still based on Windows CE. If you ignore the GUI, the underlying OS is every bit as sophisticated and modern as... Symbian. These are the patents Microsoft mentioned to the International Trade Commission. They may or may not the the patents mentioned in the Motorola lawsuit. 5,579,517: Common name space for long and short filenames 5,758,352: Common name space for long and short filenames 6,621,746: Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations 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 6,909,910: Method and system for managing changes to a contact database 7,644,376: Flexible architecture for notifying applications of state changes 5,664,133: Context sensitive menu system/menu behavior 6,578,054: Method and system for supporting off-line mode of operation and synchronization using resource state information 6,370,566: Generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device I wonder what Google could do to invalidate these patents...

awa 16y ago
From what I read as part of the comments in the article, it seems Google already licensed some if not all of these patents (for Nexus one) and hence kind of validate them.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  If that's true, it was a really stupid move...
- zacharypinter 16y ago
  Is it only for exchange server support? Or did they license some of the more general/ridiculous patents?
DjDarkman 16y ago
Most of these are downright ridiculous... I mean damn it's like they patented common sense...
- _delirium 16y ago
  Most of them aren't as broad as the titles indicate (often the case), though they don't exactly seem like significant technical innovation either. The first two are part of the infamous set of FAT patents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#FAT_licensing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#FAT_licen...).
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    I think the simplest way to dodge those patents is not supporting long file names. And it's really weird to have patents issued over technology in use for almost 20 years and charge licensing for it.

CWuestefeld 16y ago

If WM7 is so important, why is it that Microsoft explicitly does not support syncing with 64-bit Outlook? This has led me to conclude that they've already given up, and when my PocketPC dies, I'll be looking for an Android.

jcromartie 16y ago
> syncing with 64-bit Outlook How is that even a problem in the first place? I really will never understand some of the situations Microsoft gets themselves into.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  Outlook is MS's preferred utility for storing contacts. Syncing your contacts on a winmo phone means importing them into outlook, essentially.
  - warfangle 16y ago
    His point was, what is so fundamentally different about the 64 bit Outlook APIs from the 32 bit ones that would fundamentally break syncing behavior with mobile phones? And, "How was building in this kind of incompatibility a good thing, anyways?" From what I've read of Microsoft culture, it was probably because the Outlook team wanted to sabotage the WinMo7 team for some inexplicable and kafkaesque scheme to make themselves look better. Then again, that's speculation.
- wmf 16y ago
  I have no idea what causes this particular problem, but Office is notorious for just writing in-memory data structures to disk and calling it a "file format", which would make 32-bit and 64-bit incompatible.
  - glhaynes 16y ago
    I've heard people say that, for example, the fact that a Linux system is made of pieces from a million different projects is beneficial to its evolution because doing this kind of crap simply isn't an option. Solid, well-defined interfaces between components are a must (and if they aren't an absolute must, they won't exist - not necessarily because of laziness but because of deadlines) in systems that are made from lots of independent groups' components.

lkjuhygthyujk 16y ago

Isn't this like taking out a giant ad saying win7-mobile is so technically poor - we have decided the only way to compete with Apple and Android is in court with software patents?

keithwarren 16y ago
No. It is more like taking out a giant ad and saying we own lots of patents and rather than sit on a wall with a plaque we intend to extract value from them, because that is what our shareholders demand.
- lkjuhygthyujk 16y ago
  So one business model = Apple Another = Unisys Looks like the beginning of the end....
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - sgk284 16y ago
    Apple was one of the first to sue Android, followed by Oracle, and now by Microsoft.

bhiggins 16y ago

Microsoft used to say that Linux TCO was lower than Windows. Clearly that argument it totally inapplicable to consumer phones. Their choices are very limited at this point, so I expect the patent shakedowns to continue. So far, it is working like a charm... Amazon, Salesforce, HTC, etc. I see no reason why they'd stop. Oh sure, they could try competing based on the quality of the product. But I think they realize this is too difficult for them to pull off now.

DjDarkman 16y ago

Windows Phone 7 is a really good vapor-ware. And ridiculous patents + broken patent system are the key to success

keithwarren 16y ago
vapor-ware? seriously? The OS has shipped to OEMs already. It actually does exist.
- DjDarkman 16y ago
  Ok, ok, it's just crapware.

billybob 16y ago

This really seems doomed. Yes, Android's "free" status got it traction. But it appears that people like it. So if Win7 can't surpass it on that measure, manufacturers are still going to want to use what their customers will buy. I mean, even if there are patent fees, that just means the phone is a bit more expensive, right? And you'll pay more for something you want than for something you don't want, right? Price does not seem to me to be the driving factor in the handset market.

spinchange 16y ago

Microsoft is championing this FUD, but I think it's worth remembering that it didn't start with them. Apple and Oracle have set the "hidden cost of Android" conversation in motion with their lawsuits. Redmond actually has some room to make this kind of case since some of these patents have already been licensed by HTC and (from what I read here) Google. Go figure.