3 ms·

> Microsoft shaking down Android vendors Please can we stop saying this? I can write a whole essay on how licensing patents is the norm in tech industries, and

> Microsoft shaking down Android vendors Please can we stop saying this? I can write a whole essay on how licensing patents is the norm in tech industries, and how Microsoft (and Apple) are using patents exactly as they were meant to be, and so on. But since you're a Google employee (IIRC), I'll just point out that it was Google that was actually convicted and made to pay 14 million for doing what you are accusing Microsoft of doing.

mda 13y ago
I would love to see that essay of yours. I think this issue is not enough said and he should not stop at all.
- throwawaykf02 13y ago
  Not an essay, but did post a slightly more expansive comment just upthread :-)
magicalist 13y ago
This Ars Technica article[1] lists the five patents they were demanding ridiculously high license fees for. Please, by all means, explain how demanding the same fee they would for licensing Windows Phone itself[2] for such ridiculously terrible patents is exactly how the patent system is supposed to work. Patent cross licensing is incredibly common in the tech world, but this was not an example of that. This was Microsoft taking the playbook from the RIAA and the porn industry and betting they can get a large chunk of money out of companies by setting the license fee at the perfect level so that it was safer to settle than to countersue. [1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/long-battle-likely-in-microsofts-newest-patent-infringement-suit/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/long-battle-likel... [2] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/long-battle-likely-in-microsofts-newest-patent-infringement-suit/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/long-battle-likel... edit: below, afsina provided an even more detailed look at the three patents that became key to the barnes and noble ITC complaint: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/the-three-patents-microsoft-is-hammering-the-nook-withand-why-they-may-be-invalid/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/the-three-patents...
- throwawaykf02 13y ago
  >Please, by all means, explain how demanding the same fee they would for licensing Windows Phone itself[2] for such ridiculously terrible patents is exactly how the patent system is supposed to work. 1. Those are just 5 patents they asserted in that one lawsuit. The portfolio they actually license probably has hundreds and maybe even thousands in it. They only asserted these 5 because a) it's practically impossible to sue over more than a few patents, and b) they thought these were the likeliest to get B&N on. 2. I am not sure what the "ridiculously high license fees" were... Were they ever even revealed? To my knowledge, the actual terms of any of their Android deals is not known to this day, and the $10/phone figure is complete speculation. This is true of almost any IP licensing deal by any company in the world ever. These deals are typically closely guarded trade secrets. My hunch is, MS is actually licensing for a lot less than $10/phone, and is instead negotiating for a stronger commitment from manufacturer's on the Windows Phone front. 3. Patents give holders a right to sue others if they infringe. Infringers can try to avoid lawsuits by negotiating a license. Or they can argue that they don't infringe or the patent is invalid, which often (but not always) ends up in court. That is how the patent system was designed to work. Microsoft chose to use it by negotiating licenses for the most part. Apple chose to not license and used their right to sue instead. Now one may complain about the quality of the patents involved, but... 4. ...On what basis did you judge those patents to be "terrible"? Really, I am curious as to what you think the patent covers and why it's terrible. I ask because the default for tech media or HN is that all patents are "terrible" but when I drill down into it, most people are woefully uninformed about how they work. It's actually quite difficult to truly evaluate the quality of a patent. From a legal perspective, it requires reading not only the patent, but the entire file wrapper including all the cited prior art, the office actions and the applicant's responses. From a layman's perspective, judging the novelty of something, especially if it's old, is difficult because it's very difficult to envision the state of the art at the time of filing and appreciate what is being claimed; things too easily appear obvious in hindsight, and some of the patents on there are from 1994!
  - magicalist 13y ago
    You didn't address the actual point of contention here. How is asserting these patents in court, or using them to get an import ban via the ITC, an example of how the patent system is supposed to work? They cow a company with patents over things barely invented (B&N actually argued that they weren't invented at all, at least not by Microsoft) that should have never had a patent issued for them in the first place, and you argue that once they do agree to a patent license they are getting to license totally awesome things? "Hate the player not the game" is not an excuse when the charge was "Microsoft shaking down Android vendors". The RIAA (and now the porn industry) was also granted the right to sue and recover up to $150,000 per infringement of their copyrighted works. Now, one might complain that the Copyright Act wasn't written in a world where individual songs could constitute an infringement act, nor did Congress intend the higher damages amount to apply to individuals not engaged in a profit-making venture, but... In any case, you sound reticent to start reading the patents. Here's a good starting place: Barnes and Noble's response to Microsoft's ITC complaint: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/MSvB&Nanswer.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/MSvB&Nanswer.pdf Yes, the patents really are terrible.
throwawaykf02 13y ago
Too late to edit, but as pointed out down-thread, I'd like to note that my use of the word "convicted" in this post was inaccurate, as this was a civil case. The correct wording should have been something along the lines of "A federal jury ruled in favor of Microsoft and ordered Google to pay 14 million in damages."

mda 13y ago

I would love to see that essay of yours. I think this issue is not enough said and he should not stop at all.

throwawaykf02 13y ago
Not an essay, but did post a slightly more expansive comment just upthread :-)

magicalist 13y ago

This Ars Technica article[1] lists the five patents they were demanding ridiculously high license fees for. Please, by all means, explain how demanding the same fee they would for licensing Windows Phone itself[2] for such ridiculously terrible patents is exactly how the patent system is supposed to work. Patent cross licensing is incredibly common in the tech world, but this was not an example of that. This was Microsoft taking the playbook from the RIAA and the porn industry and betting they can get a large chunk of money out of companies by setting the license fee at the perfect level so that it was safer to settle than to countersue. [1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/long-battle-likely-in-microsofts-newest-patent-infringement-suit/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/long-battle-likel... [2] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/long-battle-likely-in-microsofts-newest-patent-infringement-suit/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/long-battle-likel... edit: below, afsina provided an even more detailed look at the three patents that became key to the barnes and noble ITC complaint: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/the-three-patents-microsoft-is-hammering-the-nook-withand-why-they-may-be-invalid/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/the-three-patents...

throwawaykf02 13y ago
>Please, by all means, explain how demanding the same fee they would for licensing Windows Phone itself[2] for such ridiculously terrible patents is exactly how the patent system is supposed to work. 1. Those are just 5 patents they asserted in that one lawsuit. The portfolio they actually license probably has hundreds and maybe even thousands in it. They only asserted these 5 because a) it's practically impossible to sue over more than a few patents, and b) they thought these were the likeliest to get B&N on. 2. I am not sure what the "ridiculously high license fees" were... Were they ever even revealed? To my knowledge, the actual terms of any of their Android deals is not known to this day, and the $10/phone figure is complete speculation. This is true of almost any IP licensing deal by any company in the world ever. These deals are typically closely guarded trade secrets. My hunch is, MS is actually licensing for a lot less than $10/phone, and is instead negotiating for a stronger commitment from manufacturer's on the Windows Phone front. 3. Patents give holders a right to sue others if they infringe. Infringers can try to avoid lawsuits by negotiating a license. Or they can argue that they don't infringe or the patent is invalid, which often (but not always) ends up in court. That is how the patent system was designed to work. Microsoft chose to use it by negotiating licenses for the most part. Apple chose to not license and used their right to sue instead. Now one may complain about the quality of the patents involved, but... 4. ...On what basis did you judge those patents to be "terrible"? Really, I am curious as to what you think the patent covers and why it's terrible. I ask because the default for tech media or HN is that all patents are "terrible" but when I drill down into it, most people are woefully uninformed about how they work. It's actually quite difficult to truly evaluate the quality of a patent. From a legal perspective, it requires reading not only the patent, but the entire file wrapper including all the cited prior art, the office actions and the applicant's responses. From a layman's perspective, judging the novelty of something, especially if it's old, is difficult because it's very difficult to envision the state of the art at the time of filing and appreciate what is being claimed; things too easily appear obvious in hindsight, and some of the patents on there are from 1994!
- magicalist 13y ago
  You didn't address the actual point of contention here. How is asserting these patents in court, or using them to get an import ban via the ITC, an example of how the patent system is supposed to work? They cow a company with patents over things barely invented (B&N actually argued that they weren't invented at all, at least not by Microsoft) that should have never had a patent issued for them in the first place, and you argue that once they do agree to a patent license they are getting to license totally awesome things? "Hate the player not the game" is not an excuse when the charge was "Microsoft shaking down Android vendors". The RIAA (and now the porn industry) was also granted the right to sue and recover up to $150,000 per infringement of their copyrighted works. Now, one might complain that the Copyright Act wasn't written in a world where individual songs could constitute an infringement act, nor did Congress intend the higher damages amount to apply to individuals not engaged in a profit-making venture, but... In any case, you sound reticent to start reading the patents. Here's a good starting place: Barnes and Noble's response to Microsoft's ITC complaint: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/MSvB&Nanswer.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/MSvB&Nanswer.pdf Yes, the patents really are terrible.

throwawaykf02 13y ago

Too late to edit, but as pointed out down-thread, I'd like to note that my use of the word "convicted" in this post was inaccurate, as this was a civil case. The correct wording should have been something along the lines of "A federal jury ruled in favor of Microsoft and ordered Google to pay 14 million in damages."