2 ms·

I'll take that over weaponized patents. Microsoft is showing restraint, even if it's only because of their mutual interest in knocking Apple down a peg. I'll cr

by mkr-hn 14y ago

I'll take that over weaponized patents. Microsoft is showing restraint, even if it's only because of their mutual interest in knocking Apple down a peg. I'll criticize Microsoft as soon as they use those patents to block competitors.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
JoshTriplett 14y ago
Extorting fees for every Android device sold shows restraint? Maybe by comparison to Apple, but I prefer not to grade on a curve. And as for blocking competitors, how many vendors have looked at Android and reconsidered due to the current litigation environment and imposed fees? I don't have an exact number, but I'd bet on "at least one". So, please criticize away. :)
- mkr-hn 14y ago
  Is it every device? I haven't been able to find a good overview that lists companies that have signed on and companies that haven't, or details on the specific patents. I couldn't speculate on what might have been without more information.
  - JoshTriplett 14y ago
    Set your spin filters to maximum and try this Microsoft article from last year: https://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2011/10/23/microsoft-s-new-patent-agreement-with-compal-a-new-milestone-for-our-android-licensing-program.aspx?Redirected=true https://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/... I think they've sued a few more vendors into joining since then.
    - mkr-hn 14y ago
      I don't see much in the way of details. It looks like a blanket license, which isn't a bad thing if Microsoft has something other companies want. By that understanding, a licensee could use Metro or something derived from it. My understanding is that patent-related legal services are extremely expensive. A few dollars per device is easier to deal with than months of patent research every time a manufacturer wants to change something. Especially if a company with patents has one the manufacturer wants to use.
      - JoshTriplett 14y ago
        > It looks like a blanket license, which isn't a bad thing if Microsoft has something other companies want. "Not getting sued" should not need to be a product. > My understanding is that patent-related legal services are extremely expensive. A few dollars per device is easier to deal with than months of patent research every time a manufacturer wants to change something. As I said, I don't want to grade on a curve. Both of those options suck.
      - spinchange 14y ago
        If only settling with Microsoft indemnified ODMs from future litigation risk! This is not about providing a cheap alternative to patent-related legal services, it's about a dynastic enterprise using the threat of a flawed patent system against it's partners and former partners to regain lost competitive advantage in the market place! The silver lining is still a silver lining just for Microsoft. Sales of Windows phone 7 speak for themselves (and the ODMs)

by mkr-hn 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

JoshTriplett 14y ago

Extorting fees for every Android device sold shows restraint? Maybe by comparison to Apple, but I prefer not to grade on a curve. And as for blocking competitors, how many vendors have looked at Android and reconsidered due to the current litigation environment and imposed fees? I don't have an exact number, but I'd bet on "at least one". So, please criticize away. :)

mkr-hn 14y ago
Is it every device? I haven't been able to find a good overview that lists companies that have signed on and companies that haven't, or details on the specific patents. I couldn't speculate on what might have been without more information.
- JoshTriplett 14y ago
  Set your spin filters to maximum and try this Microsoft article from last year: https://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2011/10/23/microsoft-s-new-patent-agreement-with-compal-a-new-milestone-for-our-android-licensing-program.aspx?Redirected=true https://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/... I think they've sued a few more vendors into joining since then.
  - mkr-hn 14y ago
    I don't see much in the way of details. It looks like a blanket license, which isn't a bad thing if Microsoft has something other companies want. By that understanding, a licensee could use Metro or something derived from it. My understanding is that patent-related legal services are extremely expensive. A few dollars per device is easier to deal with than months of patent research every time a manufacturer wants to change something. Especially if a company with patents has one the manufacturer wants to use.
    - JoshTriplett 14y ago
      > It looks like a blanket license, which isn't a bad thing if Microsoft has something other companies want. "Not getting sued" should not need to be a product. > My understanding is that patent-related legal services are extremely expensive. A few dollars per device is easier to deal with than months of patent research every time a manufacturer wants to change something. As I said, I don't want to grade on a curve. Both of those options suck.
    - spinchange 14y ago
      If only settling with Microsoft indemnified ODMs from future litigation risk! This is not about providing a cheap alternative to patent-related legal services, it's about a dynastic enterprise using the threat of a flawed patent system against it's partners and former partners to regain lost competitive advantage in the market place! The silver lining is still a silver lining just for Microsoft. Sales of Windows phone 7 speak for themselves (and the ODMs)