9 ms·

Ex-MSFT employee here, enjoying the fact that I can comment on HN on MSFT legal affairs for once :). I love Frank.X.Shaw's move here (hiring him from Waggner E

by sriramk 15y ago

Ex-MSFT employee here, enjoying the fact that I can comment on HN on MSFT legal affairs for once :). I love Frank.X.Shaw's move here (hiring him from Waggner Edstorm was one of MSFT's best moves). Google is essentially trying to spin a situation where they were invited to be a part of a bid as a anti-competitive move. I'm slightly surprised that Google didn't see this coming - Drummond must have known that any public spat would lead to MSFT digging up any email threads between the two companies, especially those which make it seem like MSFT is trying to reach out to Google.

orky56 15y ago
These accusations are almost like patent bids. Google strikes first but Microsoft wins. Also, Google made the first move with this type of grievance. They have the luxury of setting the tone and ensuring that all other parties only have a chance to defend themselves rather than achieve anything greater than when this all started.
- tintin 15y ago
  "Google strikes first but Microsoft wins." Somehow I've got the feeling everybody is going to win. Google made the patent problem very public. This spark might light the fire of a revolution.
  - euroclydon 15y ago
    Remember when there was talk about Obama modifying the terms of underwater mortgage holders, but it was illegal? My non-lawyer opinion is that's what we'll see with patents -- future software patents may become difficult to obtain, but existing ones will have to be litigated individually.
  - napierzaza 15y ago
    Stop dreaming. Read Googles blog post. Google wants to be secure by buying up patents and over turn the Nortel patent sale. They are just whining that they don't have a toy too. Nobody is talking about overthrowing the patent system except for maybe people on HN. Google very seriously wants to be a player in this and have a patent portfolio. Read their blog post's last paragraph.
    - tintin 15y ago
      "We’re also looking at other ways to reduce the anti-competitive threats against Android by strengthening our own patent portfolio." I think you misunderstood the last paragraph. They want to challenge competition by innovation not by a patent war. Google's patent portfolio is there to protect them against unfair competition. "Patents were meant to encourage innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it."
      - alanh 15y ago
        /tintin ascribes benevolent self-disinterested intentions to Google’s legal team, and innovation in mobile to the biggest copycat in the space
        waqf 15y ago
        In tech, innovation and copying are two sides of the same coin. It's really hard to build something better than what's on the market if you're not allowed to start from what's already there.
    - kabdib 15y ago
      > Nobody is talking about overthrowing the patent system except for maybe people on HN Everyone I know /patent lawyers included/ has said that the system is broken. It's a cold war; everyone's got to have nukes, just in case the other guy uses them. Then some upstart like PRNK, ahem I mean /Lodsys/, comes along, lobs one into someone's applecart, and suddenly ICBMs are flying everywhere. What we have here, gentlemen, is a mind shaft gap.
      - lanstein 15y ago
        Assume you mean DPRK?
shareme 15y ago
Only problem with that is that others remember the substance of the emails as well.. MS wanted to set it up so that prior Nortel terms to any patent in the bid was upheld in any royalty agreement irregardless of bankruptcy..Google wanted something else.
- econgeeker 15y ago
  You're confusing the Nortel and Novell bids. MSFT invited Google to join the group bidding on the Novell patents. The email I saw was an invitation to talk about joining, which Google refused, not a proposal of any specific terms. Generally, it would be silly to expect Google to join a group and pay part of the bid, and not get a right to the patents, or have them encumbered. And at the same time, joining a group like this would by definition be cheaper than bidding against the group. So, the only reason for Google to refuse to talk about joining the group to bid on the Novell patents would be if google was planning to use them against the group, if it won them.
  - lucasjung 15y ago
    >So, the only reason for Google to refuse to talk about joining the group to bid on the Novell patents would be if google was planning to use them against the group, if it won them. I can think of at least one other reason: they saw the group bid as a potential violation of anti-trust law, and didn't want to engage in illegal (and/or unethical) behavior.
  - nl 15y ago
    So, the only reason for Google to refuse to talk about joining the group to bid on the Novell patents would be if google was planning to use them against the group, if it won them. I don't think Google actually bid on these patents at all (or not much if they did). Maybe they just didn't want them. I had the impression at the time that these patents weren't that important unless you were planning on building products with deep MS Windows integration. Given how Google bought the random IBM patents I suspect their strategy has changed since then.
    - 15y ago
guelo 15y ago
No matter what PR spin anyone puts on it Microsoft is a destructive parasite in the smartphone marketplace. Extorting money out of android manufacturers after it failed to compete is one of the most disgusting spectacles I've seen in the industry.
- yalogin 15y ago
  When you put emotion into the analysis it seems disgusting. This is business. Purely from a business standpoint do you think MS (or Google) would take it lying down when a competitor undercuts their product with a free product? Don't for a minute think Google made Android open source for philanthropic reasons. It did it purely because it wanted to use the open source as a strategic weapon to get a foothold in the field. I do believe Google strongly believes in their "Do not evil" mantra but this particular one is all business. This is NOT the linux-ms battle again. Linux/GNU was more like a movement without a business/monetary aspirations behind it. Redhat and others sprung around the ecosystem as service providers later on. Android is started/released by a business to make money. So MS is dealing with a different beast here. Google cannot think it would get away by giving their software for free. Nothing is free. It just takes time for things to settle down. The mobile world is still in its infancy. TL;DR -- Do not put emotions into a business analysis.
  - enjalot 15y ago
    Extortion can bring out emotion. Extortion is disgusting, this is the "business" being analyzed here. You can take your emotions out of business if you want, but you shouldn't take out ethics.
    - sjs 15y ago
      Using the word extortion for this exhibits a lot of emotion. Despite how we (almost?) all feel about software patents, right now that is the law and big companies have to play by those rules. I'm glad they have to follow laws even if the laws stink. It sucks. It props up MS' failed mobile division by riding on the coat tails of Google. But it is how things work right now and the manufacturers are not unhappy enough with the arrangement to ditch Android just yet, so they still feel it's a good enough deal. (aside: I agree that the philosophical differences between extortion and licensing patents is slim to non-existent but unfortunately that's just how things work right now. That may sound like hyperbole but consider the recent Lodsys lawsuits against indie devs. They honestly may as well be going around threatening to bash in knee caps. They know the small guys can't fight them but they have this crappy law on their side. I'd love for things to change.)

by sriramk 15y ago

orky56 15y ago

These accusations are almost like patent bids. Google strikes first but Microsoft wins. Also, Google made the first move with this type of grievance. They have the luxury of setting the tone and ensuring that all other parties only have a chance to defend themselves rather than achieve anything greater than when this all started.

tintin 15y ago
"Google strikes first but Microsoft wins." Somehow I've got the feeling everybody is going to win. Google made the patent problem very public. This spark might light the fire of a revolution.
- euroclydon 15y ago
  Remember when there was talk about Obama modifying the terms of underwater mortgage holders, but it was illegal? My non-lawyer opinion is that's what we'll see with patents -- future software patents may become difficult to obtain, but existing ones will have to be litigated individually.
- napierzaza 15y ago
  Stop dreaming. Read Googles blog post. Google wants to be secure by buying up patents and over turn the Nortel patent sale. They are just whining that they don't have a toy too. Nobody is talking about overthrowing the patent system except for maybe people on HN. Google very seriously wants to be a player in this and have a patent portfolio. Read their blog post's last paragraph.
  - tintin 15y ago
    "We’re also looking at other ways to reduce the anti-competitive threats against Android by strengthening our own patent portfolio." I think you misunderstood the last paragraph. They want to challenge competition by innovation not by a patent war. Google's patent portfolio is there to protect them against unfair competition. "Patents were meant to encourage innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it."
    - alanh 15y ago
      /tintin ascribes benevolent self-disinterested intentions to Google’s legal team, and innovation in mobile to the biggest copycat in the space
      - waqf 15y ago
        In tech, innovation and copying are two sides of the same coin. It's really hard to build something better than what's on the market if you're not allowed to start from what's already there.
  - kabdib 15y ago
    > Nobody is talking about overthrowing the patent system except for maybe people on HN Everyone I know /patent lawyers included/ has said that the system is broken. It's a cold war; everyone's got to have nukes, just in case the other guy uses them. Then some upstart like PRNK, ahem I mean /Lodsys/, comes along, lobs one into someone's applecart, and suddenly ICBMs are flying everywhere. What we have here, gentlemen, is a mind shaft gap.
    - lanstein 15y ago
      Assume you mean DPRK?

shareme 15y ago

Only problem with that is that others remember the substance of the emails as well.. MS wanted to set it up so that prior Nortel terms to any patent in the bid was upheld in any royalty agreement irregardless of bankruptcy..Google wanted something else.

econgeeker 15y ago
You're confusing the Nortel and Novell bids. MSFT invited Google to join the group bidding on the Novell patents. The email I saw was an invitation to talk about joining, which Google refused, not a proposal of any specific terms. Generally, it would be silly to expect Google to join a group and pay part of the bid, and not get a right to the patents, or have them encumbered. And at the same time, joining a group like this would by definition be cheaper than bidding against the group. So, the only reason for Google to refuse to talk about joining the group to bid on the Novell patents would be if google was planning to use them against the group, if it won them.
- lucasjung 15y ago
  >So, the only reason for Google to refuse to talk about joining the group to bid on the Novell patents would be if google was planning to use them against the group, if it won them. I can think of at least one other reason: they saw the group bid as a potential violation of anti-trust law, and didn't want to engage in illegal (and/or unethical) behavior.
- nl 15y ago
  So, the only reason for Google to refuse to talk about joining the group to bid on the Novell patents would be if google was planning to use them against the group, if it won them. I don't think Google actually bid on these patents at all (or not much if they did). Maybe they just didn't want them. I had the impression at the time that these patents weren't that important unless you were planning on building products with deep MS Windows integration. Given how Google bought the random IBM patents I suspect their strategy has changed since then.
  - 15y ago

guelo 15y ago

No matter what PR spin anyone puts on it Microsoft is a destructive parasite in the smartphone marketplace. Extorting money out of android manufacturers after it failed to compete is one of the most disgusting spectacles I've seen in the industry.

yalogin 15y ago
When you put emotion into the analysis it seems disgusting. This is business. Purely from a business standpoint do you think MS (or Google) would take it lying down when a competitor undercuts their product with a free product? Don't for a minute think Google made Android open source for philanthropic reasons. It did it purely because it wanted to use the open source as a strategic weapon to get a foothold in the field. I do believe Google strongly believes in their "Do not evil" mantra but this particular one is all business. This is NOT the linux-ms battle again. Linux/GNU was more like a movement without a business/monetary aspirations behind it. Redhat and others sprung around the ecosystem as service providers later on. Android is started/released by a business to make money. So MS is dealing with a different beast here. Google cannot think it would get away by giving their software for free. Nothing is free. It just takes time for things to settle down. The mobile world is still in its infancy. TL;DR -- Do not put emotions into a business analysis.
- enjalot 15y ago
  Extortion can bring out emotion. Extortion is disgusting, this is the "business" being analyzed here. You can take your emotions out of business if you want, but you shouldn't take out ethics.
  - sjs 15y ago
    Using the word extortion for this exhibits a lot of emotion. Despite how we (almost?) all feel about software patents, right now that is the law and big companies have to play by those rules. I'm glad they have to follow laws even if the laws stink. It sucks. It props up MS' failed mobile division by riding on the coat tails of Google. But it is how things work right now and the manufacturers are not unhappy enough with the arrangement to ditch Android just yet, so they still feel it's a good enough deal. (aside: I agree that the philosophical differences between extortion and licensing patents is slim to non-existent but unfortunately that's just how things work right now. That may sound like hyperbole but consider the recent Lodsys lawsuits against indie devs. They honestly may as well be going around threatening to bash in knee caps. They know the small guys can't fight them but they have this crappy law on their side. I'd love for things to change.)