5 ms·

Samsung is reportedly looking to lower the payment to nearer $10 per handset in exchange for an alliance which benefit the creation of new Windows Phone devices

by rfrey 15y ago

Samsung is reportedly looking to lower the payment to nearer $10 per handset in exchange for an alliance which benefit the creation of new Windows Phone devices Suggests (certainly doesn't prove) that Samsung agrees they're using MS IP, and they're just haggling over price. We have no idea from the article what the patents are for - it could be a hardware patent for all we know. Unlikely, yeah, but unless we know what the patent's for its tough to pass judgement. Tempting and entertaining, but tough.

Zaim2 15y ago
Well, they did have cross licensing agreement with Microsoft back in 2007, but that didn't cover telecommunications. http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft%2C-Samsung-in-patent-swap-deal/2100-1014_3-6177381.html http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft%2C-Samsung-in-patent-swap-dea... Maybe the they'll choose to go to court this time, as Samsung is well armed patent wise. MS' objective is clear: to make the cost of Android greater than the cost of a Windows phone license, so the "free" advantage is no longer is valid.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  These patents have already been tested in court by other Android handset manufacturers and MS won. Samsung would only be increasing the cost, reducing the likelihood of a favourable partnership deal and postponing the inevitable.
  - Zaim2 15y ago
    Do you have links/sources? I only know of Barnes & Noble and Motorola fighting against MS, afaik everyone else immediately settled.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
      Sorry, you're right, the other five didn't actually fight it, I'd thought one of them had. What I would say thought is (a) Motorola's fight isn't going brilliantly and (b) when the likes of HTC - hardly small fry - think it's best just to license, there's probably something there.
  - Hoff 15y ago
    That's not the way that patent cross-licensing works.
    - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
      So you're saying that if one handset manufacturer had had a legal ruling against them for patent violations relating to Android that wouldn't create a legal precedent?
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - Hoff 15y ago
        Just because you've won a judgement or because you have received licensing payments does not ensure your negotiation position is invulnerable, whether this is due to the patent portfolio (and your own potential for infringements of that portfolio) or the particular domain knowledge or awareness of prior art that might be available to your opponent. This particular business situation is fairly common, and can lead to so-called patent cross-licensing. A form of corporate truce. And there may well be consideration paid (and in either direction), but that's all subject to negotiation.
dhruvasagar 15y ago
Absolutely, the article is completely meaningless without that information!
- foob 15y ago
  Is that information available though? My understanding is that when Microsoft threatens companies (Amazon, for example) that they don't reveal the specific patents that Linux infringes on. If that information were public then the open source community would make an effort to rectify the situation and Microsoft would lose their hand. It makes sense but it feels so wrong that it makes me cringe. EDIT: JamieEi has a post with a list of the patents. I think that I'm right about the Linux patents being kept secret though.
  - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
    Are you seriously suggesting that anyone in their right mind would pay a patent license without knowing the patents that they're supposed to be infringing? How many millions of dollars do you think major multinationals tend to hand over on faith without seeing some sort of evidence and paperwork? MS may create FUD by talking about patent infringements in general terms but the minute you ask someone for money you need to make your case.
    - bostonpete 15y ago
      I think he meant that they don't reveal that information to the public.
      - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
        The minute they go into court filings they're public and there would be nothing to stop someone like Amazon publishing or leaking them (you can't bring a case against someone on the condition they don't talk about it).
    - lukeschlather 15y ago
      Not at all. Even if the patents are totally invalid or irrelevant, it would take years of multi-million(billion?) dollar patent litigation to prove it. Everyone loses. This way Samsung gets to ship Windows Phones, Android phones, and no one has to deal with a protracted and expensive (probably more expensive than this license) legal battle.
LXicon 15y ago
i was trying to figure out what the patents were for as well. i dug around a bit and found a description from when Microsoft was suing Motorola for using Android: "...synchronizing email, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power." http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/01/android-lawsuits/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/01/android-lawsuits/

by rfrey 15y ago

Zaim2 15y ago

Well, they did have cross licensing agreement with Microsoft back in 2007, but that didn't cover telecommunications. http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft%2C-Samsung-in-patent-swap-deal/2100-1014_3-6177381.html http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft%2C-Samsung-in-patent-swap-dea... Maybe the they'll choose to go to court this time, as Samsung is well armed patent wise. MS' objective is clear: to make the cost of Android greater than the cost of a Windows phone license, so the "free" advantage is no longer is valid.

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
These patents have already been tested in court by other Android handset manufacturers and MS won. Samsung would only be increasing the cost, reducing the likelihood of a favourable partnership deal and postponing the inevitable.
- Zaim2 15y ago
  Do you have links/sources? I only know of Barnes & Noble and Motorola fighting against MS, afaik everyone else immediately settled.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
    Sorry, you're right, the other five didn't actually fight it, I'd thought one of them had. What I would say thought is (a) Motorola's fight isn't going brilliantly and (b) when the likes of HTC - hardly small fry - think it's best just to license, there's probably something there.
- Hoff 15y ago
  That's not the way that patent cross-licensing works.
  - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
    So you're saying that if one handset manufacturer had had a legal ruling against them for patent violations relating to Android that wouldn't create a legal precedent?
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - Hoff 15y ago
      Just because you've won a judgement or because you have received licensing payments does not ensure your negotiation position is invulnerable, whether this is due to the patent portfolio (and your own potential for infringements of that portfolio) or the particular domain knowledge or awareness of prior art that might be available to your opponent. This particular business situation is fairly common, and can lead to so-called patent cross-licensing. A form of corporate truce. And there may well be consideration paid (and in either direction), but that's all subject to negotiation.

dhruvasagar 15y ago

Absolutely, the article is completely meaningless without that information!

foob 15y ago
Is that information available though? My understanding is that when Microsoft threatens companies (Amazon, for example) that they don't reveal the specific patents that Linux infringes on. If that information were public then the open source community would make an effort to rectify the situation and Microsoft would lose their hand. It makes sense but it feels so wrong that it makes me cringe. EDIT: JamieEi has a post with a list of the patents. I think that I'm right about the Linux patents being kept secret though.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  Are you seriously suggesting that anyone in their right mind would pay a patent license without knowing the patents that they're supposed to be infringing? How many millions of dollars do you think major multinationals tend to hand over on faith without seeing some sort of evidence and paperwork? MS may create FUD by talking about patent infringements in general terms but the minute you ask someone for money you need to make your case.
  - bostonpete 15y ago
    I think he meant that they don't reveal that information to the public.
    - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
      The minute they go into court filings they're public and there would be nothing to stop someone like Amazon publishing or leaking them (you can't bring a case against someone on the condition they don't talk about it).
  - lukeschlather 15y ago
    Not at all. Even if the patents are totally invalid or irrelevant, it would take years of multi-million(billion?) dollar patent litigation to prove it. Everyone loses. This way Samsung gets to ship Windows Phones, Android phones, and no one has to deal with a protracted and expensive (probably more expensive than this license) legal battle.

LXicon 15y ago

i was trying to figure out what the patents were for as well. i dug around a bit and found a description from when Microsoft was suing Motorola for using Android: "...synchronizing email, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power." http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/01/android-lawsuits/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/01/android-lawsuits/