8 ms·
Microsoft Takes Legal Action Against Barnes & Noble over Android
- nkassis 16y agoAnyone has a list of the patents in question? It seems like if the description is right, it has something to do with the UI. I was expecting something like the usual patent suit over the FAT filesystem used on SDCards or something like that. This is more serious.
- potatolicious 16y agoDammit Microsoft, just as I was starting to feel sympathetic towards the underdog smartphone player, you pull something like this.
- protomyth 16y agoThis isn't a new thing. I would bet HTC's cost on the license was probably pretty cheap, but if you don't make a WP7 device, then expect to pay some cash. I do find it strange I haven't seen anything from Google on this sort of thing.
- bad_user 16y agoNot their first time - Motorola and HTC were the first ones. They tried branding themselves as the underdog with Bing too; but somehow I have trouble picturing them as the underdog. You can do business with them, you can buy their products, but they don't deserve sympathy. No company does actually; you should treat them just as they treat you.
- barista 16y agoHere's a more comprehensive infographic of who is sueing who. http://www.mobilemarketingwatch.com/infographic-whos-suing-who-in-mobile-10120/ http://www.mobilemarketingwatch.com/infographic-whos-suing-w... Nothing to feel sympathetic for anybody. They are all in the business to make money.
- zmmmmm 16y agoThere's one thing I will point out on that diagram: there are no arrows emerging from Google. Not that we should feel sympathy for them, and perhaps it might just be that they don't have enough of a portfolio, but I think it's worth noting all the same.
- Lewisham 16y agoThat most probably means one of two things: 1. Google hasn't got any relevant patents (unlikely) 2. Google has a number of defensive patents in other things, and have threatened to countersue anyone who comes after them (like Sun before Oracle), which explains the cowards going after the smaller manufacturers instead.
- tzs 16y agoMost of the companies being sued over mobile patents are bigger than Google.
- nl 16y agoErr, no. Apple is bigger than Google, but the others are all smaller, generally considerably so. Samsung probably gets close, but I can't work out the valuation of the whole Samsung corporation. If I'm understanding the company structure correctly the Samsung Electronics subsidiary is valued at $19B [1], vs $185B for Google. Nokia is $31B. Edit: Unless you meant bigger on the linked graphic? In that case, yes, you are right. But that only indicates revenue (from mobile, in early 2010), not profits or valuation. [1] http://www.google.com/finance?q=SEO%3A005930 http://www.google.com/finance?q=SEO%3A005930
- tzs 16y agoAnother measure would be number of employees. Google has 24k. Bigger on the linked graphic are Oracle (105k), Nokia (132k), Hitachi (360k), Sharp (64k), LG (177k), Apple (49k), Samsung (276k), and Motorola (60k). Another measure would be total assets. Google has $58 billion. Oracle has $60 billion. Hitachi has $95 billion. Nokia has $57 billion. Apple has $75 billion. Samsung has $294 billion. Microsoft has $86 billion. I would consider total assets to be a better measure than market cap when it comes to determining whether the company is larger or smaller in the context of a lawsuit.
- rbanffy 16y ago> just as I was starting to feel sympathetic Surely you are not serious.
- marshray 16y agoThey really had been failing in such a pathetic sort of way with most of their recent "innovations" that I, too, did feel a tiny bit sorry for them. But not any more. Now that they have dared to attack real innovative companies that actually make and innovate stuff that people want to buy that faint spark of pity is gone.
- hristov 16y agoThat should teach you.
- hollerith 16y agoDammit U.S. and international patent law for enabling Microsoft to pull something like this.
- mrspeaker 16y agoIs there a reason for the "Click Here to Install Silverlight" link at the top of the page? Is there a video or something on this page about the legal action, or is it just a friendly suggestion?
- protomyth 16y agoSeems to be a standard Microsoft home site thing.
- rbanffy 16y agoThat's the only way someone will install this thing, after all... No other site will do that.
- unp3rs0n 16y agonetflix
- rbanffy 16y agoI'd rather not use Netflix.
- Locke1689 16y agoAnd we all know that the web habits of the majority of broadband internet users is primarily based on rbanffy.
- rbanffy 16y agoI can't speak for the majority of broadband users. I can only say I'd rather not use Netflix than install Silverlight. I have lived just fine without it anyway and chances are my TV can do it on its own without Silverlight.
- 16y ago
- megamark16 16y agoIf you can't fight 'em, sue 'em. When will the software patent insanity end?
- marshray 16y agoWhen it's someone other than lawyers writing the law.
- podperson 16y agoI think if we have someone other than lawyers writing laws things will get worse, not better. The patent system has serious problems, so does Microsoft Windows. Do you think Windows would be better if it weren't developed by software engineers? http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html
- marshray 16y agoI think the patent system would be better if it didn't exist. This has nothing to do with Microsoft Windows.
- podperson 16y agoI'm kind of bummed that someone who can't comprehend my post got upvoted way more than I did. It's hard to guess what the world would be like with no patents, but I suspect at minimum you'd see a lot of obfuscation, such as drugs with impossible to identify active ingredients and devices designed to be impossible to figure out or repair.
- joebadmo 16y agoYour analogy doesn't really hold, because software engineers probably use the software they create, so they have an incentive to make it good. Lawyers have an incentive to make laws such that you need more lawyers, which the patent system succeeds at marvellously. That's not to say that there's really an alternative, just pointing out the perverse incentive structure.
- cbo 16y agoThis reminds me of Ballmer's claims that Linux infringes on Microsoft patents. They ultimately resulted in nothing, I see this heading in the same direction. It seems more like a scare tactic than anything else. If they really wanted to go after Android, Google or Samsung would probably be included. Instead, they're going after some lower profile (though still very recognizable) manufacturers. To me that says they want publicity, not necessarily legal results.
- bradleyland 16y agoI'm afraid not. This is something else entirely. Microsoft is rapidly losing their relevance and they're fighting to find a way forward. Something I wrote back in October when the Microsoft/Acacia patent licensing news hit. "Microsoft has identified patents as the most effective attack against anyone seeking to profit from FOSS. Rather than attack FOSS directly, you dump as much money as you can in to littering the intellectual property space for a given product with patent mines. Step on a patent mine and all of the sudden you’re paying Microsoft (or someone else) for sitting on their ass and building a patent portfolio rather than innovating with any real products." http://www.bradlanders.com/2010/10/08/the-new-patent-troll-economy/ http://www.bradlanders.com/2010/10/08/the-new-patent-troll-e...
- Newky 16y agoI'm in no way a lawyer so I hope what I say is at least feasible, but I would like to see Google come to the defense of their platform, after all the widespread adoption of android is what has it where it is today. Especially in terms of market share.
- ChuckMcM 16y agoNot sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. It presumably adds weight to consolidating Android patent litigation (Apple vs HTC, Oracle vs Google, Microsoft vs B&N, Etc.) On a related note, when I was first pitched on the idea of OpenMoko and 'Open Source Phones' in general, I responded that the existing infrastructure anti-bodies wouldn't take kindly to something like that existing. When Google went there with their psueudo-OSS (POSS) product, at least they have the capital to defend against spurious attacks. So the good news is that all around the table everyone has gone 'all in' (to use the poker vernacular). That suggests to me that this is the end of the beginning. My prediction is that we will have 6 to 10 years of litigation ahead (it is time limited by patent lifetimes in terms of starting new litigation beyond that time frame). At best, we'll get Google holding out to the end. That will result in a pretty definitive doctrine for creating an open source phone by 2020. At worst, these will collapse into an MPEG-LA or Public-Key-Partners scenario creating a leech like entity that bleeds the public dry, enriches the players, while allowing them to side step direct blame. (such a settlement would most likely 'require' that nobody portion of the fees paid back to the rights holders be public) Nothing particularly disruptive on the horizon unfortunately. I keep hoping for a 'wifi' smart phone that uses a network built with the white-space bands in the US. Of course they would keep a low profile, given the nature of their threat, but they would also have to raise probably 200 - 300 M$ to deploy and haven't seen that either. The pessimist in me thinks there will be a run on Vaseline.
- famousactress 16y agoUgggh. Since the idea behind patents is to promote innovation, and not prevent it.. why can't that be a measure evaluated in the process of granting or enforcing the patent? Microsoft should have to provide a compelling argument for how much money went into the 'research' around these UI paradigms, how without that investment these ideas would have never come about, how allowing them time to recoup that investment is better for the world than allowing other entities to copy the work. In short, we're all collectively allowing these companies to file and enforce these patents ... we should expect them to prove to us that they're worthy.
- Peaker 16y agoOr maybe just try disallowing patents altogether for a couple of decades to see how that works out?
- famousactress 16y agoDon't get me wrong.. I'm as cynical as the next guy about the patent system.. but I do think the merits of the lucid arguments for it ought to be considered in a re-think. If you're spending loads of money on research to make an idea possible, and that idea is easily copied in a way that undercuts your ability to profit.. then I guess I get that. I just think you ought to have to _prove_ it. Effectively, this would come pretty close to eliminating software patents altogether... but presumably wouldn't hurt the abilities of biotech, pharma, medical devices and the like where (I assume) the research dollars are often very real.
- possibilistic 16y agoPatents are disgusting as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't matter the industry. I'm in biotech, and despite the tedious work involved in the process of investigative research--despite the sometimes massive materials and labor cost--patents do not make any sense. In the end, the products of molecular cloning can be distributed essentially just like software. It's just information. You should not be able to corner off and control information space. If I want to work in a given area according to my interest, I should not have to pay royalties or join an exclusive research team.
- potatolicious 16y agoThere's at least a potential defense of patents in traditional industries. When something takes tens of millions of dollars of research to create, there's some case to be made for limited-term exclusivity. But when it comes to something like UI, which someone hacked up over the course of a few hours... does this justify exclusivity for years? Patents were created to balance the harmful effect of exclusivity and monopoly with the cost of creating innovation. In software the cost of creating innovation is practically free in comparison to traditional industries, and IMHO the scope of protection needs to be proportionate.
- kenjackson 16y agoBut when it comes to something like UI, which someone hacked up over the course of a few hours... does this justify exclusivity for years? In theory though that shouldn't justify a SW patent either. It seems like if we really held true to the non-obviousness test things would be better. Ironically MS has a court case in the Supreme Court to weaken patents, which would in turn makes it easier for BN to overturn MS's patents.
- TillE 16y agoDeveloping a new drug costs about $1 billion on average, from initial research to final testing and regulatory approval. A temporary monopoly of several years seems entirely appropriate, even necessary if you expect private industry to be involved in pharmaceutical research.
- mrspandex 16y agohttp://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2011/03/21/android-patent-infringement-licensing-is-the-solution.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2... has some more details
- marshray 16y agoIt amazes me that anyone really believes that stuff. I posted this comment there, don't know if it'll show up: If Microsoft truly had "innovated" all this great smartphone user experience, why is it that nobody seems to want a phone with a Microsoft OS? But the really stupid thing is that Microsoft is far more vulnerable to patent litigation than anyone else at this point. Barnes & Noble can survive a judge's order blocking sales of Nook a lot longer than Microsoft can survive a shutdown of Windows or Office. The obvious conclusion is that Microsoft itself doesn't believe it can innovate in a fair market competition. Like stars, the end state for large technology companies is a black hole of litigation and patent trolling.
- magicalist 16y agopatents: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=deQCAAAAEBAJ&dq=5778372 http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=deQCAAAAEBAJ&dq=5... http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=JvQAAAAAEBAJ&dq=5889522 http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=JvQAAAAAEBAJ&dq=5... http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=DwEJAAAAEBAJ&dq=6339780 http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=DwEJAAAAEBAJ&dq=6... http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=oKgVAAAAEBAJ&dq=6891551 http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=oKgVAAAAEBAJ&dq=6... http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=jJcVAAAAEBAJ&dq=6957233 http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=jJcVAAAAEBAJ&dq=6...
- nkassis 16y agoDoug Engelbart isn't listed on any of these patents, funny but I'm pretty sure his NLS system would make him the inventor of most of this.
- sshconnection 16y agoWarning: if this article already made you angry, reading the actual patents will turn your rage up to 11. These are some of the most general and obvious patents I've seen used in a lawsuit like this in a while.
- Capital 16y agoThe question is are these methods general and obvious only because it's been the norm for almost 20 years? I would say, yes.
- klochner 16y agoA more appropriate question may be whether those methods would be general and obvious in present day if they hadn't been invented 20 years ago. I would say, yes.
- sshconnection 16y agoDisplay a loading image while waiting on a document? The only "innovation" that got them the patent was that they claimed displaying a smaller image on a smaller screen was somehow groundbreaking. Don't wait for a background image to finish downloading before displaying web page text? Who would think waiting was a great idea in the first place? I don't think either of these is somehow an feat of software engineering that should grant them the ability to extort money from companies creating innovative software in 2011.
- moondowner 16y agoIf you can't lead the wave, ride on it.
- rbanffy 16y agoOr crash it so nobody rides it.
- FlorianMueller 16y agoI have listed the patents in my blog post on this: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/microsoft-sues-barnes-noble-foxconn-and.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/microsoft-sues-barne... 1 of them was previously also asserted against Motorola. 4 of them weren't. Since Microsoft already has 23 patents in suit against Motorola, Barnes & Noble will know that the 5 patents asserted today are but a small selection of Microsoft patents allegedly infringed by Android.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- bodski 16y agoIf Barnes & Noble refused to pay (which is what Microsoft says), it's actually a matter of fairness that Microsoft enforces its patents because otherwise those who respect Microsoft's rights would be at a competitive disadvantage versus non-paying infringers. Jeez Florian, you have come a long way since your campaign against software patents. A few days ago you blow up the Bionic GPL issue as if it was an unprecedented tactic used by Google (and were soundly rebutted on LWN by the way ;) and now this. Have you received funding from Microsoft at any point, perchance?
- ZeroGravitas 16y agoDoes it actually make sense to talk about "respecting" "rights" granted to you by a patent before it has been proved in a court of law? There's clearly some disagreement about what "rights" they have or there wouldn't be lawsuits happening to establish exactly what they are.
- svlla 16y agothey already reached a settlement with Amazon last year. MS is going to get their way with B&N too.
- rbanffy 16y agoSadly, it only enables them to troll even more.
- tzs 16y agoMobile is getting too complicated. At last count that I saw: Apple: suing 2, being sued by 3 Toshiba: being sued by 1 Sony-Ericsson: being sued by 1 Sharp: being sued by 3 Samsung: being sued by 2 RIM: suing 2 Qualcomm: suing 1, being sued by 1 Oracle: suing 1 Nokia: suing 8, being sued by 2 Motorola: being sued by 3 Microsoft: suing 3 B&N: being sued by 1 LG: being sued by 2 Kodak: suing 5 HTC: being sued be 2 Hitachi: being sued by 1 Google: being sued by 1 Elan: suing 1
- devmach 16y agoThat's why you never build your business in US...
- marshray 16y agoIt really doesn't matter. If you want to sell products into the US or the industrialized world in general, you are put at risk by the patent system.
- devmach 16y agoSure... But as i see, the patent system in US is a mess. That can make my business fragile : I develop some app and then some troll sues me, so now instead investing in innovation , i have to invest my lawyer ! Maybe you have to do more paperworks in other Countries (ex. Germany) but your business is not in danger because bad use of patents. Sure other countries have also patent trolls but the system is not bad and currupt as US.
- marshray 16y agoWhat I'm saying is that being based somewhere other than the US does not make you immune to the effect of US patents. Even if you refuse to sell your product into the US market (good luck), as in this case, your customers can be sued in the US.
- JonoW 16y agoI normally defend Microsoft, but then they pull crap like this. This lawsuit dance is ridiculous.
- rdl 16y agoI think if Microsoft wanted to declare "developer friendliness", they would unilaterally declare that they won't engage in offensive patent actions, and encourage all other companies to do the same. Or, just make it entirely opt-in; they promise not to sue anyone who won't sue them. I suspect it would cost them not much more than their current startup outreach efforts, and would build a lot more goodwill.
- wynand 16y agoI hope an American lawyer can answer this (or at least someone with a good knowledge of the US legal system). What can an individual (even one outside of the US) do to effect change in the software patent landscape? Who needs to made aware of the problems in the patent system? How can these people be reached? What will it take to get them to introduce changes that reduce the number of these lawsuits? Is there anyone running a website dedicated to 1) cataloguing obvious ideas to act as prior art, 2) collecting cases for use in lawsuits involving software patents, 3) systematizing steps for how individuals can make a change?
- forgotAgain 16y agoThe hypocrisy of Microsoft is really a turn-off. Microsoft statement on this new action against Barnes and Noble: Their refusals to take licenses leave us no choice but to bring legal action to defend our innovations and fulfill our responsibility to our customers, partners, and shareholders to safeguard the billions of dollars we invest each year to bring great software products and services to market? Then there is their statement regarding their appeal of the $290 millions dollar judgement against MS for infringing on i4I. This case can be summed up in one world – balance,” Microsoft’s David Howard, corporate vice president and deputy general counsel for litigation, said in a statement. “The current approach taken by the Court of Appeals improperly tilts the scales to reward invalid patents. That approach needs to be corrected in favor of a system that ensures the process for obtaining and defending patents is clear, reasonable and doesn’t unduly burden the system or innovation.
- tzs 16y agoWhat hypocrisy? The two quotes you give do not show any sign of hypocrisy. Microsoft's position is that software should be patentable, but that the standard for obtaining software patents is off and the courts are not doing a good job dealing with them. Both of the quotes you give are consistent with this view.
- rbanffy 16y agoAnd by trying to publicly extort a company that hasn't access to endless legal resources that made a really successful product using patents that are blatantly obvious and/or a rehash of things invented by others a long time ago while at the same time pretending patent reform is needed is what? And to think someone just ruined their reputation by putting Microsoft in the top 5 more ethical companies in the software business...
- forgotAgain 16y agoIn the first instance they are wrapping themselves in the righteousness of their claims which are at best questionable. In the second they are lamenting how wrong it is that a company has to defend itself against spurious claims.
- eschulte 16y agoThere's no point being angry with Microsoft as, like any company, their stated goal is to make money. Anger should be directed at the US patent system which creates an environment in which businesses must act this way -- not an entirely fair statement given that companies like Microsoft no doubt influence patent legislation, and do so generally for the worse. If this bothers you don't rage against companies for playing the game, donate to the EFF https://www.eff.org/ https://www.eff.org/ or call your elected representatives.
- rch 16y agoDoes anyone make generic mobile hardware yet? The concept seems to have paid off for personal computing.
- CountSessine 16y agoHow feasible is this? To have interchangeable and commoditized component smartphones? Probably not feasible at all I would think. The desktop pc gives up a lot of performance and simplicity for compatibility and modularity. But the constraints that they're designed within are pretty simple - maximize performance and minimize price, and try not to pull any more than 15 amps out of the wall. Smartphones need to optimize for CPU performance, component price, power draw, component size, rf stability, and then they still need to have an attractive design to appeal to fickle phone customers. I don't know how much leeway they would have to establish a uniform hardware design to minimize os and driver customization that would be necessary for an installable-os platform.
- rch 16y agoI disagree. There are some interesting multi-core SoC parts hitting the market, ARM is 'in', the move to solid state storage is effectively complete, and multi-touch screens provide a rich interface without the bulk of keyboards and pointing devices. Go back and look at the OQO, but swap in modern hardware and VM tech. Include 802.11 if it is cheap and efficient enough, but provide a slot for drop-in 4g, bluetooth, DRM (the Nook/Kindle plug... probably not an iPod but maybe a Zune plug), etc. --note that having only one 'net' slot pressures providers to bundle content, allow subscribers to extend connectivity plans to cover a content device... it gets complicated but it both creates a product quality incentive and provides opportunities for providers to profit by differentiation. Build in something like Xen and plan on syncing the user disk image to the network, and run expensive processes on external devices (or AWS) when available. Dock to your laptop to build the presentation; deliver it from your this thing. Dock the thing to any TV and play a movie, without having to move the content from one device to another. etc. etc. etc. I fully expect these to be commodity parts made by the likes of Dell or HP inside of 8-12 years.
- 16y ago
- ig1 16y agoHow is this even legal in the US? - in the UK you can only sue the producer of violating product and not the distributer, and even threatening a distributer without having first won a court case against the producer is illegal (to stop companies strong-arming distributers with patent threats regardless of the validity of the patents which the distributer can't reasonably expected to be knowledgable about). It seems in this case the lawsuit is against functionality in Android and B&N are merely the distributer.
- ams6110 16y agoMicrosoft claims that the patents infringed include "natural ways of interacting with devices." I checked my thesaurus and alternative words for natural include: normal, ordinary, everyday, usual, regular, common, commonplace, typical, routine, standard, established, customary, accustomed, habitual. I thought patents were supposed to be issued only for "novel" innovations?
- guelo 16y agoAs a software engineer I pledge to never work for or in any other way assist the following companies as long as they continue their anti-competitive abuse of software patents that is harming our industry and the future of mobile computing: Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, Kodak, RIM. Will other devs pledge with me?
- clavalle 16y agoThis is a fine idea. I think, along the same lines as a talent revolt, an organization wherein developers can pool a monthly fee to push our interests as an industry that thrives on actual innovation might be in order. Say $30-$50 a month/dev or other interested individuals to go to funding a 'Patent Defense Fund' for members, building and maintaining a prior art database, and buying useful patents for the use as the little guy's nuclear deterrent.
- etherael 16y agoDoes there exist some organisation which acts as an umbrella treaty against patent abuse. For example a centralised pool of patents held by all member companies in the organisation is used as a deterrent against patent abuse, in the event that any member of the organisation is attacked with a patent, all other members attack the aggressor with their patents? Patents seem to be enough of a thorn in the side of business that it would be beneficial for at least a significant amount of businesses to participate in such an organisation. If this does not exist, why not?
- robrenaud 16y agoIf you don't want to build anything, it doesn't matter. Patent trolls are basically ghosts with guns. There is nothing to really shoot at to kill. You can potentially take their gun away by invalidating their patents, they have no big downside risk. There is no profitable software development portion of the company that you can blow up.
- etherael 16y agoExcept in this particular instance, and in many other instances, it's not just pure patent trolls doing the abuse. Microsoft (and many of the other players in this war) does actually have a profitable software development portion of the company that could be blown up.
- clavalle 16y agoThere are patent defense organizations like Allied Security Trust, RPX and the Open Invention Network but it seems like these are for major players and/or have very limited scopes
- forkrulassail 16y agoDoes anyone see a gap here for a PatentWar app that runs on Android?
- forkrulassail 16y agoSimilar to drug wars but no drugs, just pools of patents :)
- ck2 16y agoAll they really want to do is make Android devices cost more so their fee for software on their own hardware will look competitive. Interesting how they aren't suing Google directly?