4 ms·
Microsoft is not licensing Google's products. They're licensing their own intellectual property, which happens to be used in Google's products. I know this sou
by bradleyland 15y ago
Microsoft is not licensing Google's products. They're licensing their own intellectual property, which happens to be used in Google's products.
I know this sounds absurd to a lot of people, but it makes sense on some levels. Take the names out of the mix and it's a bit easier to detach your emotions
* PhoneCorp invents a new interface that is unique, useful, and makes phones very easy to use
* BizPhones thinks this technology is good and would also like to incorporate it in to their product
* BizPhones negotiates a licensing agreement so they can use the technology, making it possible for more consumers to enjoy the benefits, and fairly compensating PhoneCorp
Things get a little confusing when you have more parties involved. Google doesn't "sell" Android, so there are no fees to extract -- and they'd be expensive to sue -- so rather than chase that ball, Microsoft looks for companies that are making money by selling devices that use Android. Microsoft holds patents for technologies used in the product and is asking for royalties. If a handset manufacturer and Microsoft can find terms they agree to, it makes sense to just license the technology and keep on moving down the road to making more money.
This, in and of itself, does not represent a broken system, IMO. Those who invent important technologies deserve to be compensated. Where the system is broken is in the award of patents for obvious solutions to problems. Or award of patents for systems that cannot be worked around, effectively granting an IP monopoly.
A major roadblock to changing the system lies in the fact that large companies have tremendous amounts of money invested in patent portfolios. We're talking billions, maybe trillions of dollars in aggregate. No one wants to see all that investment washed a way with the flick of a legislative pen.
- fauldsh 15y agoTo further clarify. Imagine, for the sake of a nice example, that MS owned the patent to pinch-to-zoom. Google incorporate pinch-to-zoom in android but don't actually sell any product featuring pinch-to-zoom so aren't actually infringing on the patent. Some other company produces an android device and thus creates a product that uses pinch-to-zoom and thus infringes on MS' patent.
- fleitz 15y agoGreat points. Google knows they are infringing MS's patents, that's why they are shopping for their own war chest rather than going for a trial.
- orangecat 15y agoYes, in the same sense that I "know" that every nontrivial piece of software I've written likely infringes on many patents that should never have been granted.
- jsz0 15y agoIt's also worth noting that there's a long history of IP fights in the mobile especially over 2G/3G technologies yet we still have an assortment of fantastic modern SmartPhones to choose from. What Microsoft is doing is really nothing new and the handset makers were pretty quick to strike deals probably because it's nothing new to them. When Samsung makes a television they are paying a variety of companies license fees on various parts/technologies for example. Why would SmartPhones be any different?
- ltamake 15y agoSo this wouldn't be considered "patent trolling"? I know Microsoft has had quite a history with Android and I always assumed it was just them using their patents to make some quick money. Great answer, by the way. Definitely cleared up a lot of questions I had.
- bradleyland 15y agoThe term "patent trolling" is generally reserved for companies who have no intention of bringing a product to market. Keep in mind that Microsoft has a competing product in the market, and spends millions of dollars on R&D. Patents are a way of protecting a legitimate R&D effort. Imagine the disincentive with regard to R&D if a company had no protection from a competitor simply taking their idea once they came to market. The key is to protect patents from abuse, while still providing a means to protect legitimate effort in innovation for a reasonable period of time.
- orangecat 15y agoImagine the disincentive with regard to R&D if a company had no protection from a competitor simply taking their idea once they came to market. Yes, allowing any random developer to create a spreadsheet or first person shooter or social networking app would obviously bring innovation to a crashing halt.
- Steko 15y agoWow three straw men in one sentence. Well played I guess.
- azakai 15y ago> I know this sounds absurd to a lot of people, but it makes sense on some levels. Take the names out of the mix and it's a bit easier to detach your emotions > * PhoneCorp invents a new interface that is unique, useful, and makes phones very easy to use > * BizPhones thinks this technology is good and would also like to incorporate it in to their product > * BizPhones negotiates a licensing agreement so they can use the technology, making it possible for more consumers to enjoy the benefits, and fairly compensating PhoneCorp That description is clearly in favor of one side of the argument here. Here is an alternative description: > * PhoneCorp files a patent for a fairly general and obvious concept. > * BizPhones makes a phone, without reading PhoneCorp's patent. The phone sells like hotcakes. > * PhoneCorp threatens to sue BizPhones for 'infringing' its patent, if BizPhones doesn't pay a 'license fee'.
- Steko 15y agoPeople don't write hundred million dollar checks for a single obvious invalid patent. There's like 20 companies signed up. There's a reason they all sign up and it's probably pretty compelling evidence that MS has multiple unlikely to be overturned or easily worked around patents being infringed.
- kumarm 15y agoYou forgot to mention that most of them are also Microsoft's Partners and has other business interests with MSFT.
- azakai 15y agoThere are definitely reasons for them signing up. Among them: 1. The risk of being sued. Even if the patents are bogus, they will still lose a lot of money from defending themselves. 2. Microsoft sweetens the deal with other business interests of theirs. For example, a discount on Windows licenses.
- quanticle 15y ago>They're licensing their own intellectual property, which happens to be used in Google's products. The only one claiming that is Microsoft. Until the issue has been decided in court, we can't know that Google has infringed on any of Microsoft's intellectual property. According to the article, none of the claims have yet been contested in court. Therefore, we don't know for sure that Microsoft's technology is being infringed upon by Google.