6 ms·

We could cutpaste a snippet like this for almost every major tech company on the planet, what's your point?

by _wmd 8y ago

walterbell 8y ago
Depends on whether there have been subsequent court rulings on the FAT patent. If the value of the FAT patent was reduced by court rulings, it may have factored into the donation of the patent to OIN. If the patent was upheld in recent court rulings and revenue from the patent has been increasing, that would put the OIN patent donation in a different light.
nickpsecurity 8y ago
I usually use these kind of links instead: https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-earns-2-billion-per-year-from-android-patent-royalties-2013-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-earns-2-billion-pe... https://www.wired.com/2014/01/huawei/ https://www.wired.com/2014/01/huawei/ Microsoft stay's draining billions out of the Android market in particular with patent trolling for products they didn't support one bit. Their own products were big losers. Thanks to corrupt patent law, they can still suck money out of the winners. I don't trust anything Microsoft says about open-source and patents. If there's money to be made, they might weasel into something good for them and bad for others.
- _wmd 8y ago
  This, as opposed to all the holy virgins elsewhere in the tech industry that did not, say, stifle 2 decades worth of search engine innovation with their patents, patent novel compression techniques belonging to others, completely wipe out a rich and varied mobile telephone industry by coupling a bunch of open source code alongside JAVA to access to the only search engine worth its salt and easy access to third party applications, ... I'm just picking on Google here, but you could make a list like this for any large tech company, which is my point. But somehow this always comes up in the context of Microsoft, as if somehow they are are particularly more evil than just about anyone else.
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    > stifle 2 decades worth of search engine innovation with their patents Did that company use those patents offensively? > patent novel compression techniques belonging to others Same question. Also https://xiphmont.dreamwidth.org/84214.html https://xiphmont.dreamwidth.org/84214.html > completely wipe out a rich and varied mobile telephone industry Huh? Your examples aren't very good. The biggest evil thing Google has done is join Jobs's no-poach agreement. It remains to be seen whether their China project will surpass that. On patents in particular, Google has thus far been very reasonable.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
r00fus 8y ago
At some point it was arguable whether Microsoft was making more money from Android than Google [1]. That it's even possible shows the entire corruptness of the broken patent system and Microsoft's active abuse of it. They're not just "one of the kids who benefit for misbehavior" they're the poster child. [1] https://www.quora.com/How-does-Microsoft-make-more-money-from-the-Android-than-Google https://www.quora.com/How-does-Microsoft-make-more-money-fro...
- svick 8y ago
  Doesn't them joining OIN change that?
- bepotts 8y ago
  Exactly. I think people are too eager to claim Microsoft as one of the "good" guys. Microsoft has been around since the 70's and has not been "good" through almost that entire period. So, Microsoft releases a (nice) text editor, releases a Linux subsystem, partially open sources .NET, releases an open source JavaScript framework, has an active GitHub account (filled mostly with nonsense by the way), and we're supposed to forget the 40 years prior? ExxonMobil has been investing heavily in renewable energy lately; would you tell an environmentalist that they're wrong to dislike Exxon now? Microsoft changed because they had to. That must be the context in which they are evaluated in. Joining a couple organizations, and open sourcing a couple projects doesn't negate the fact that they were forced into this position because they were losing mindshare, developer prestige, and can no longer force everyone into their playground.
  - _wmd 8y ago
    FWIW I hadn't intended to suggest Microsoft was somehow 'good', just not 'particularly bad' compared to any other company. The readers of this thread are polarized into two camps, neither of which match reality, and Microsoft discussions always end up like this. People have no problem with nuance and "on balance" regarding other huge companies (perhaps except Oracle), but when it comes to Redmond, the same tired old noise is regurgitated every single time.
another-cuppa 8y ago
Two wrongs don't make a right?
lern_too_spel 8y ago
Maybe that Microsoft was a patent aggressor prior to joining this agreement.

We could cutpaste a snippet like this for almost every major tech company on the planet, what's your point?

by _wmd 8y ago

We could cutpaste a snippet like this for almost every major tech company on the planet, what's your point?

Depends on whether there have been subsequent court rulings on the FAT patent. If the value of the FAT patent was reduced by court rulings, it may have factored into the donation of the patent to OIN. If the patent was upheld in recent court rulings and revenue from the patent has been increasing, that would put the OIN patent donation in a different light.

nickpsecurity 8y ago

I usually use these kind of links instead: https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-earns-2-billion-per-year-from-android-patent-royalties-2013-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-earns-2-billion-pe... https://www.wired.com/2014/01/huawei/ https://www.wired.com/2014/01/huawei/ Microsoft stay's draining billions out of the Android market in particular with patent trolling for products they didn't support one bit. Their own products were big losers. Thanks to corrupt patent law, they can still suck money out of the winners. I don't trust anything Microsoft says about open-source and patents. If there's money to be made, they might weasel into something good for them and bad for others.

_wmd 8y ago
This, as opposed to all the holy virgins elsewhere in the tech industry that did not, say, stifle 2 decades worth of search engine innovation with their patents, patent novel compression techniques belonging to others, completely wipe out a rich and varied mobile telephone industry by coupling a bunch of open source code alongside JAVA to access to the only search engine worth its salt and easy access to third party applications, ... I'm just picking on Google here, but you could make a list like this for any large tech company, which is my point. But somehow this always comes up in the context of Microsoft, as if somehow they are are particularly more evil than just about anyone else.
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  > stifle 2 decades worth of search engine innovation with their patents Did that company use those patents offensively? > patent novel compression techniques belonging to others Same question. Also https://xiphmont.dreamwidth.org/84214.html https://xiphmont.dreamwidth.org/84214.html > completely wipe out a rich and varied mobile telephone industry Huh? Your examples aren't very good. The biggest evil thing Google has done is join Jobs's no-poach agreement. It remains to be seen whether their China project will surpass that. On patents in particular, Google has thus far been very reasonable.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

r00fus 8y ago

At some point it was arguable whether Microsoft was making more money from Android than Google [1]. That it's even possible shows the entire corruptness of the broken patent system and Microsoft's active abuse of it. They're not just "one of the kids who benefit for misbehavior" they're the poster child. [1] https://www.quora.com/How-does-Microsoft-make-more-money-from-the-Android-than-Google https://www.quora.com/How-does-Microsoft-make-more-money-fro...

svick 8y ago
Doesn't them joining OIN change that?
bepotts 8y ago
Exactly. I think people are too eager to claim Microsoft as one of the "good" guys. Microsoft has been around since the 70's and has not been "good" through almost that entire period. So, Microsoft releases a (nice) text editor, releases a Linux subsystem, partially open sources .NET, releases an open source JavaScript framework, has an active GitHub account (filled mostly with nonsense by the way), and we're supposed to forget the 40 years prior? ExxonMobil has been investing heavily in renewable energy lately; would you tell an environmentalist that they're wrong to dislike Exxon now? Microsoft changed because they had to. That must be the context in which they are evaluated in. Joining a couple organizations, and open sourcing a couple projects doesn't negate the fact that they were forced into this position because they were losing mindshare, developer prestige, and can no longer force everyone into their playground.
- _wmd 8y ago
  FWIW I hadn't intended to suggest Microsoft was somehow 'good', just not 'particularly bad' compared to any other company. The readers of this thread are polarized into two camps, neither of which match reality, and Microsoft discussions always end up like this. People have no problem with nuance and "on balance" regarding other huge companies (perhaps except Oracle), but when it comes to Redmond, the same tired old noise is regurgitated every single time.

another-cuppa 8y ago

Two wrongs don't make a right?

lern_too_spel 8y ago

Maybe that Microsoft was a patent aggressor prior to joining this agreement.