4 ms·

It's too bad that even though most of those patents could be invalidated in Court, these companies fell one by one and started paying Microsoft royalties for al

It's too bad that even though most of those patents could be invalidated in Court, these companies fell one by one and started paying Microsoft royalties for all the claimed infringements. I'm pretty sure most of the big companies like Samsung and LG didn't even agree to do this for nothing, though. They most likely got a discount deal for Windows licenses, or some similar deal. Both of them make Windows laptops.

ma2rten 15y ago
That does not make sense to me. If they get a discount for Windows licenses they would have bought anyway, then they are not paying anything at all effectively.
- pluies 15y ago
  But it means a higher cost of entry for competitors in the mobile space; something that seems like a good thing for both Microsoft and the Android makers.
joelhaasnoot 15y ago
You wonder if some lawyer would take this up and make Microsoft pay back the royalties paid in addition to any damages. Would be a hefty chunck of change.
fauldsh 15y ago
I'm interested to know where this certainty that these patents wouldn't hold up in court comes from.
- abraxasz 15y ago
  Yeah, I second this point. I don't know much about the situation between Microsoft and Android's OEMs, but to me, it seems like a simple case of "I've invested money in research, came up with some useful technology that you [the OEM, that is] are paying to use". I don't see where the controverse is (other than the more general and complex debate about what should be free, etc..)
  - fauldsh 15y ago
    Consider that Apple own patents for pinch-to-zoom and the use of a gyroscope to control the rotation of a screen (turn the phone sideways, get landscape view). Given the thousands of patents all of the big companies own it becomes very believable that Microsoft would own a bunch of patents that many phones infringe on and that it would take Microsoft time to even realise it owned them (a possible reason for the delay in going after phone companies). Patents that are essential to the phone being popular (can you imagine a smart-phone without the two above features). Patents that would force most suppliers to just pay up. EDIT: Just to confirm, I am agreeing with you, I just figured I'd explain why I think their claims are likely valid. This is not to say I agree with these patents being given but I've seen so many comments that seem to assume this is all a big con that will fall apart at the slightest scrutiny.

ma2rten 15y ago

That does not make sense to me. If they get a discount for Windows licenses they would have bought anyway, then they are not paying anything at all effectively.

pluies 15y ago
But it means a higher cost of entry for competitors in the mobile space; something that seems like a good thing for both Microsoft and the Android makers.

joelhaasnoot 15y ago

You wonder if some lawyer would take this up and make Microsoft pay back the royalties paid in addition to any damages. Would be a hefty chunck of change.

fauldsh 15y ago

I'm interested to know where this certainty that these patents wouldn't hold up in court comes from.

abraxasz 15y ago
Yeah, I second this point. I don't know much about the situation between Microsoft and Android's OEMs, but to me, it seems like a simple case of "I've invested money in research, came up with some useful technology that you [the OEM, that is] are paying to use". I don't see where the controverse is (other than the more general and complex debate about what should be free, etc..)
- fauldsh 15y ago
  Consider that Apple own patents for pinch-to-zoom and the use of a gyroscope to control the rotation of a screen (turn the phone sideways, get landscape view). Given the thousands of patents all of the big companies own it becomes very believable that Microsoft would own a bunch of patents that many phones infringe on and that it would take Microsoft time to even realise it owned them (a possible reason for the delay in going after phone companies). Patents that are essential to the phone being popular (can you imagine a smart-phone without the two above features). Patents that would force most suppliers to just pay up. EDIT: Just to confirm, I am agreeing with you, I just figured I'd explain why I think their claims are likely valid. This is not to say I agree with these patents being given but I've seen so many comments that seem to assume this is all a big con that will fall apart at the slightest scrutiny.