5 ms·

MS has no obligation to license their patents at a reasonable price or even at all. You may say the patents should be overturned, but that's a question for the

MS has no obligation to license their patents at a reasonable price or even at all. You may say the patents should be overturned, but that's a question for the USPTO and the courts. Their job is to maximize profits using their patents. It's still very unclear to me what MS is doing that is illegal. They have no mobile monopoly. And "demanding" design guidelines certainly isn't illegal. BN can sue because MS isn't nice to them, but that's about all I see.

rbanffy 15y ago
The problem is not that they have a monopoly on mobile (having a monopoly is not illegal), but that they are using their monopoly of desktop operating systems to exert pressure on competitors in another market (via the FAT "requirement" - because if you don't use FAT your gizmo won't work with 90%+ of the computers sold). This can be interpreted as abusing a monopoly. Another way to see it is that Microsoft is one of the richest companies on Earth because of their monopolies and when they use their prodigious resources to force companies to cave instead of litigate (because they could easily litigate said companies out of existence) it's an indirect abuse of monopoly. This is what I though on about 5 minutes. There's probably a whole lot more in there waiting for more dedicated brains.
- jimbobimbo 15y ago
  Not defending the patent for FAT - nobody prohibits device OEMs shipping a piece of software that manages data on the device without requiring the FAT to be present.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    Those devices will offer a more complicated experience because they have to do something Microsoft doesn't have to because they have the desktop OS monopoly creating a competitive burden to everyone else. Looks like leveraging a monopoly on one market to gain advantages on another to me, even if it is a subtle way. All they have to do to leverage their desktop-related monopolies is to sit tight and do nothing. And that's why it's really bad.
    - jimbobimbo 15y ago
      It worked out for Apple/iTunes just fine. I don't like this approach (and do not buy i-devices for that reason), but it is quite viable if executed right.
      - rbanffy 15y ago
        Before the iPhone, every iPod used on PCs had to be formatted with FAT, so it's fair to say it didn't work until iTunes had a critical mass. If it's hard for Apple, you can imagine it's much harder for everyone else.
scott_s 15y ago
The main claim here is that MS is using patents that are unrelated to the technology in question. If that is done willfully, then that is potentially anticompetitive. That is different than simply asking for a high price.

rbanffy 15y ago

The problem is not that they have a monopoly on mobile (having a monopoly is not illegal), but that they are using their monopoly of desktop operating systems to exert pressure on competitors in another market (via the FAT "requirement" - because if you don't use FAT your gizmo won't work with 90%+ of the computers sold). This can be interpreted as abusing a monopoly. Another way to see it is that Microsoft is one of the richest companies on Earth because of their monopolies and when they use their prodigious resources to force companies to cave instead of litigate (because they could easily litigate said companies out of existence) it's an indirect abuse of monopoly. This is what I though on about 5 minutes. There's probably a whole lot more in there waiting for more dedicated brains.

jimbobimbo 15y ago
Not defending the patent for FAT - nobody prohibits device OEMs shipping a piece of software that manages data on the device without requiring the FAT to be present.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  Those devices will offer a more complicated experience because they have to do something Microsoft doesn't have to because they have the desktop OS monopoly creating a competitive burden to everyone else. Looks like leveraging a monopoly on one market to gain advantages on another to me, even if it is a subtle way. All they have to do to leverage their desktop-related monopolies is to sit tight and do nothing. And that's why it's really bad.
  - jimbobimbo 15y ago
    It worked out for Apple/iTunes just fine. I don't like this approach (and do not buy i-devices for that reason), but it is quite viable if executed right.
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      Before the iPhone, every iPod used on PCs had to be formatted with FAT, so it's fair to say it didn't work until iTunes had a critical mass. If it's hard for Apple, you can imagine it's much harder for everyone else.

scott_s 15y ago

The main claim here is that MS is using patents that are unrelated to the technology in question. If that is done willfully, then that is potentially anticompetitive. That is different than simply asking for a high price.