6 ms·

It's important to note here that a big piece of Barnes & Noble's argument is bad faith on the part of Microsoft. They're characterizing Microsoft as a bully wh

It's important to note here that a big piece of Barnes & Noble's argument is bad faith on the part of Microsoft. They're characterizing Microsoft as a bully who is attempting (under cover of NDA) to use a limited number of patents (with limited scope) to extract a per-device license that is greater than what it charges for providing the entire operating system (and access to its patents) on WP7. In layman's terms, it's like if I owned a patent on a keyboard and tried to keep you from making a computer to compete with mine by charging a licensing fee for my keyboard patent that was more than the cost of my entire computer. That's what Barnes and Noble is accusing Microsoft of doing.

kenjackson 15y ago
They're characterizing Microsoft as a bully who is attempting (under cover of NDA) to use a limited number of patents (with limited scope) to extract a per-device license that is greater than what it charges for providing the entire operating system (and access to its patents) on WP7. But is that illegal? AFAIK MS is under no obligation to license these patents at all, much less under RAND. And again, MS has no monopoly on WP7, so a comparison to WP7 pricing has nothing to do with their monopoly status on the desktop. In many regards MS is doing this exactly right. They are being aggressive in the mobile space, but they are NOT using their desktop market position to accelerate it. They're not blocking bn.com from IE. They're not bunding WP7 with Windows 7. They're not saying that BN must license these patents if they want to sell Windows 7 as a retailer. To put it another, imagine WP7 was its own company. Would they be doing anything differently? I don't think so. I think they'd still be scrappy trying to leverage their assets in any way to make money and slow down competitors. They aren't using the desktop/server OS monopolies at all for any quid pro quo. What they're doing today is what they'd be able to do as a standalone company. This implies that they're not using their monopoly position as leverage.
- VengefulCynic 15y ago
  You're getting hot and bothered about legal arguments that just aren't there. Other than alleging antitrust implications by Nokia and Microsoft cross-licensing patents from (between them) a dominant position in the mobile phone industry, there aren't any legal arguments about monopolies in this filing. 98% of this filing is about misapplication of patent law and bad patents. This has nothing to do with anti-trust other than one line in one paragraph in a 70-paragraph defense and counterclaim section.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    Well I'd agree with you if not for the fact that Groklaw made anti-trust the central thesis of their blog entry, which is the article this thread is referring to. Here's Groklaw's concluding sentence: "You know how for years I've told you that I expected that one day Microsoft's anti-Linux patent threats would be an antitrust matter? That day has come, at last, and while others have apparently caved to Microsoft, Barnes & Noble had the wisdom to refuse to sign an NDA, and so it is free to speak" You may want to let them know that antitrust isn't really the crux here.
    - cooldeal 15y ago
      Sadly, Groklaw seems to have turned into a cesspool of Microsoft haters. Can't really hope for any impartiality when it comes to reporting on MS. It's doubly sad because it's such a good resource otherwise.
      - rbanffy 15y ago
        > Can't really hope for any impartiality when it comes to reporting on MS Have you taken the trouble of actually reading the patents? http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,957,233.PN.&OS=PN/6,957,233&RS=PN/6,957,233 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,891,551.PN.&OS=PN/6,891,551&RS=PN/6,891,551 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,889,522.PN.&OS=PN/5,889,522&RS=PN/5,889,522 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,339,780.PN.&OS=PN/6,339,780&RS=PN/6,339,780 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,778,372.PN.&OS=PN/5,778,372&RS=PN/5,778,372 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...

kenjackson 15y ago

They're characterizing Microsoft as a bully who is attempting (under cover of NDA) to use a limited number of patents (with limited scope) to extract a per-device license that is greater than what it charges for providing the entire operating system (and access to its patents) on WP7. But is that illegal? AFAIK MS is under no obligation to license these patents at all, much less under RAND. And again, MS has no monopoly on WP7, so a comparison to WP7 pricing has nothing to do with their monopoly status on the desktop. In many regards MS is doing this exactly right. They are being aggressive in the mobile space, but they are NOT using their desktop market position to accelerate it. They're not blocking bn.com from IE. They're not bunding WP7 with Windows 7. They're not saying that BN must license these patents if they want to sell Windows 7 as a retailer. To put it another, imagine WP7 was its own company. Would they be doing anything differently? I don't think so. I think they'd still be scrappy trying to leverage their assets in any way to make money and slow down competitors. They aren't using the desktop/server OS monopolies at all for any quid pro quo. What they're doing today is what they'd be able to do as a standalone company. This implies that they're not using their monopoly position as leverage.

VengefulCynic 15y ago
You're getting hot and bothered about legal arguments that just aren't there. Other than alleging antitrust implications by Nokia and Microsoft cross-licensing patents from (between them) a dominant position in the mobile phone industry, there aren't any legal arguments about monopolies in this filing. 98% of this filing is about misapplication of patent law and bad patents. This has nothing to do with anti-trust other than one line in one paragraph in a 70-paragraph defense and counterclaim section.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  Well I'd agree with you if not for the fact that Groklaw made anti-trust the central thesis of their blog entry, which is the article this thread is referring to. Here's Groklaw's concluding sentence: "You know how for years I've told you that I expected that one day Microsoft's anti-Linux patent threats would be an antitrust matter? That day has come, at last, and while others have apparently caved to Microsoft, Barnes & Noble had the wisdom to refuse to sign an NDA, and so it is free to speak" You may want to let them know that antitrust isn't really the crux here.
  - cooldeal 15y ago
    Sadly, Groklaw seems to have turned into a cesspool of Microsoft haters. Can't really hope for any impartiality when it comes to reporting on MS. It's doubly sad because it's such a good resource otherwise.
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      > Can't really hope for any impartiality when it comes to reporting on MS Have you taken the trouble of actually reading the patents? http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,957,233.PN.&OS=PN/6,957,233&RS=PN/6,957,233 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,891,551.PN.&OS=PN/6,891,551&RS=PN/6,891,551 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,889,522.PN.&OS=PN/5,889,522&RS=PN/5,889,522 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,339,780.PN.&OS=PN/6,339,780&RS=PN/6,339,780 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,778,372.PN.&OS=PN/5,778,372&RS=PN/5,778,372 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...