8 ms·

If these numbers are accurate, then yuck!!! My disgust for software patents just went up even further. More seriously, I have a question for those who know mor

by tsycho 13y ago

If these numbers are accurate, then yuck!!! My disgust for software patents just went up even further. More seriously, I have a question for those who know more about this... 1. Are these generic, broad "idea" patents and hence there is nothing Google/OEMs can really do here to avoid licensing them? If not, why don't they use an alternative implementation to avoid the conflict? 2. If the answer to #1 is yes, how does Apple avoid this problem? Are they also licensing from Microsoft? Or is Apple in some sort of a mutual cross-licensing agreement here to fight the common enemy Google?

VladRussian2 13y ago
>1. Are these generic, broad "idea" patents and hence there is nothing Google/OEMs can really do here to avoid licensing them? If not, why don't they use an alternative implementation to avoid the conflict? no alternative implementation would help as it is not about some specific patents, it is more about [litigation] threat that some patents in the vast portfolio can be found that may be in some sense considered violated. Basically it is racket called Android Licensing Program - you pay "protection money" to MS in exchange for it not bothering you. What interesting here is that Google seems to leave its OEMs to fend for themselves, thus instead of fighting one Google over 2B/yearly pot (the show that first row tickets for would sell like for Superball), MS extorts fifty million here and hundred million there which is much easier and safer.
- masry 13y ago
  Sorry but this sounds like bullshit to me. By that logic Microsoft could get money from anyone who's ever made a software product because "some patents in the vast portfolio can be found that may be in some sense considered violated." I buy the other argument more, the one that says Android does horribly infringe on Apple's and Microsoft's patents because it's a copied product and that's what happens when you make a copied product.
- thetrb 13y ago
  Do they also get money from Motorola?
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/just-like-one-week-ago-when-foxconn.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/just-like-one-week-ago-wh... "Google's Motorola Mobility, which prefers litigation even though it's a grossly unsuccessful strategy for Google " and http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/setback-for-google-german-court-finds.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/setback-for-google-german...
    - afsina 13y ago
      fosspatents is an Oracle and MS shill.
- belorn 13y ago
  Microsoft used the same method back with SCO. Eben Moglen called it "the be very afraid tour" back in 2007.
- bostonpete 13y ago
  > What interesting here is that Google seems to > leave its OEMs to fend for themselves This might have been a valid criticism a couple of years ago but at the moment I believe Google is defending claims by Microsoft against Motorola claiming that Android device makers don't need third-party patent licenses. So it certainly seems like they're doing their fair share to stand up to MS -- more than any other OEM (it's not like Samsung is some mom and pop shop that couldn't put up a fight).
nickff 13y ago
>2. If the answer to #1 is yes, how does Apple avoid this problem? Are they also licensing from Microsoft? Or is Apple in some sort of a mutual cross-licensing agreement here to fight the common enemy Google? They are all in a sort of standoff, as they cannot sue each other without putting themselves at risk of counter-claims. In addition, there are a number of cross-licensing deals between various large patent-owning entities, as you correctly surmised. Microsoft found a way around these issues, by suing Android implementers (such as Samsung, HTC, etc.), who do not have such large patent portfolios with which to make a "second strike".
- recuter 13y ago
  Why doesn't google consider an attack against their vassal states aggression against its empire? Like a Cuban missle crisis of sorts.
  - nickff 13y ago
    I am not sure if you are asking me, but in case you are: I do not know.
  - camus2 13y ago
    Sony or Samsung are not vassal states of Google.
  - shmerl 13y ago
    A good question, which probably is the reason why Google didn't drop Motorola case against MS (even though it wasn't a good one). But really Google can do more than that.
- anuraj 13y ago
  Apple has a cross licensing agreement with MS, done at the time of Steve Jobs.
  - mistermann 13y ago
    I wonder if (and how far) Steve Jobs was looking into the future when he did this, and how well, if at all, it has served Apple considering their more impressive innovations since then.
naner 13y ago
It isn't clear that Google is one of the companies who pays them. If Microsoft went after Google it seems like Google would have made a stink about it. Microsoft generally goes after companies they expect to be compliant (such as Amazon, who was already paying a patent fee for using Linux on their servers). It seemed like in the past their method was to say they have patents covering X (in the past X was Linux) and you can license them for some specified amount. I don't think they were specific. If you refused, they would throw out some specifics and take you to court (see TomTom). I haven't paid much attention to patents in the mobile space so I'm not sure if things have changed. I'm pretty sure Apple has a cross-licensing agreement with Microsoft, they appear to be more focused on a common enemy these days.
- sirkneeland 13y ago
  didn't they sign a patent deal in 1997? Not sure if it's still valid or not...
melling 13y ago
Maybe it's more. This story has been around for a while. Back in May the estimate was $3.4 billion. http://www.zdnet.com/microsofts-most-profitable-mobile-operating-system-android-7000015094/ http://www.zdnet.com/microsofts-most-profitable-mobile-opera... Kind of surprising that people didn't see this coming 2 years ago and make more noise. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/microsoft-vs-android/8529 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/microsoft-vs-android/8...
shmerl 13y ago
MS attempts to do everything possible to hide what patents they use for protection racket. Most probably because those patents are garbage and can be otherwise invalidated. Barnes and Noble almost got to that point, but MS quickly bribed them to prevent that from happening. Unfortunately, besides B&N no one had the guts to fight these racketeers.
- tzs 13y ago
  You are a bit confused. When Microsoft sued Barnes and Noble, the patents they were suing over were disclosed in their public court filings. Over a dozen were identified [1]. [1] http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070611-microsoft-android.html http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070611-microsoft-andro...
  - shmerl 13y ago
    So they did disclose them? No doubt under pressure from B&N. If you look at those patents, you'll see that they are bizarrely trivial. Such things should never be patentable in the first place. Surely invalidating them can be not so easy, but it can be possible. It's one of the reasons why MS attempts to push NDAs as much as possible (we are lucky this was disclosed in those cases). Probably only a minority of their patents are non trivial, and most of these racket attacks are based on these kind of junk patents.
    - tzs 13y ago
      > If you look at those patents, you'll see that they are bizarrely trivial. They may or may not be trivial, but I've only known the patent numbers for an hour, and you only knew them for 15 minutes when you posted--and it is not possible to have read them in sufficient detail to make such a judgement in that time. To find out what a patent actually covers you have to read more than just the title and the abstract. The title and abstract are mostly useful for determining what a patent does not cover rather than determining what it covers. The title just tells you the broad area the patent is in, and the abstract narrows that down a bit, but both will cover a lot of ground. That's why they are most useful for exclusion, not inclusion. To find out what the patent actually covers, it is the claims that matter. The claims are interpreted in light of the specification, so you must read that to understand the claims. For instance, a patent might have a title of "Acoustic Repelling of Mosquitoes", which seems really broad, but when you read the specification and claims, it might turn out that the patent only applies when the mosquitoes are a specific species, exactly three sound generators are being used, they are arranged in an equilateral triangle, the temperature is above 95F, and it is daylight. (Actually, to really tell what is covered, you need to check the file for the patent from the patent office. The examiner and the applicant often go back and forth arguing over whether a claim should be allowed. The arguments and concessions the applicant makes to convince the examiner to allow the claim become limits on the claim).
eyesee 13y ago
Apple and Microsoft have in place a broad patent cross licensing agreement since 1997[1] in the settlement of the QuickTime lawsuit against Microsoft. [1] http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/13/3239977/apple-and-microsoft-cross-license-agreement-includes-anti-cloning http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/13/3239977/apple-and-microsof...
tzs 13y ago
> If the answer to #1 is yes, how does Apple avoid this problem? For at least what is problem the main money maker for Microsoft's patent licensing, the patent or patents covering aspects of the FAT32 filesystem, Apple escapes liability because Apple does not use FAT32 in iOS. Android does use it (for removable media).
stonemetal 13y ago
Apple and MS have had a cross licensing agreement since the 90s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...

by tsycho 13y ago

VladRussian2 13y ago

>1. Are these generic, broad "idea" patents and hence there is nothing Google/OEMs can really do here to avoid licensing them? If not, why don't they use an alternative implementation to avoid the conflict? no alternative implementation would help as it is not about some specific patents, it is more about [litigation] threat that some patents in the vast portfolio can be found that may be in some sense considered violated. Basically it is racket called Android Licensing Program - you pay "protection money" to MS in exchange for it not bothering you. What interesting here is that Google seems to leave its OEMs to fend for themselves, thus instead of fighting one Google over 2B/yearly pot (the show that first row tickets for would sell like for Superball), MS extorts fifty million here and hundred million there which is much easier and safer.

masry 13y ago
Sorry but this sounds like bullshit to me. By that logic Microsoft could get money from anyone who's ever made a software product because "some patents in the vast portfolio can be found that may be in some sense considered violated." I buy the other argument more, the one that says Android does horribly infringe on Apple's and Microsoft's patents because it's a copied product and that's what happens when you make a copied product.
thetrb 13y ago
Do they also get money from Motorola?
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/just-like-one-week-ago-when-foxconn.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/just-like-one-week-ago-wh... "Google's Motorola Mobility, which prefers litigation even though it's a grossly unsuccessful strategy for Google " and http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/setback-for-google-german-court-finds.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/setback-for-google-german...
  - afsina 13y ago
    fosspatents is an Oracle and MS shill.
belorn 13y ago
Microsoft used the same method back with SCO. Eben Moglen called it "the be very afraid tour" back in 2007.
bostonpete 13y ago
> What interesting here is that Google seems to > leave its OEMs to fend for themselves This might have been a valid criticism a couple of years ago but at the moment I believe Google is defending claims by Microsoft against Motorola claiming that Android device makers don't need third-party patent licenses. So it certainly seems like they're doing their fair share to stand up to MS -- more than any other OEM (it's not like Samsung is some mom and pop shop that couldn't put up a fight).

nickff 13y ago

>2. If the answer to #1 is yes, how does Apple avoid this problem? Are they also licensing from Microsoft? Or is Apple in some sort of a mutual cross-licensing agreement here to fight the common enemy Google? They are all in a sort of standoff, as they cannot sue each other without putting themselves at risk of counter-claims. In addition, there are a number of cross-licensing deals between various large patent-owning entities, as you correctly surmised. Microsoft found a way around these issues, by suing Android implementers (such as Samsung, HTC, etc.), who do not have such large patent portfolios with which to make a "second strike".

recuter 13y ago
Why doesn't google consider an attack against their vassal states aggression against its empire? Like a Cuban missle crisis of sorts.
- nickff 13y ago
  I am not sure if you are asking me, but in case you are: I do not know.
- camus2 13y ago
  Sony or Samsung are not vassal states of Google.
- shmerl 13y ago
  A good question, which probably is the reason why Google didn't drop Motorola case against MS (even though it wasn't a good one). But really Google can do more than that.
anuraj 13y ago
Apple has a cross licensing agreement with MS, done at the time of Steve Jobs.
- mistermann 13y ago
  I wonder if (and how far) Steve Jobs was looking into the future when he did this, and how well, if at all, it has served Apple considering their more impressive innovations since then.

naner 13y ago

It isn't clear that Google is one of the companies who pays them. If Microsoft went after Google it seems like Google would have made a stink about it. Microsoft generally goes after companies they expect to be compliant (such as Amazon, who was already paying a patent fee for using Linux on their servers). It seemed like in the past their method was to say they have patents covering X (in the past X was Linux) and you can license them for some specified amount. I don't think they were specific. If you refused, they would throw out some specifics and take you to court (see TomTom). I haven't paid much attention to patents in the mobile space so I'm not sure if things have changed. I'm pretty sure Apple has a cross-licensing agreement with Microsoft, they appear to be more focused on a common enemy these days.

sirkneeland 13y ago
didn't they sign a patent deal in 1997? Not sure if it's still valid or not...

melling 13y ago

Maybe it's more. This story has been around for a while. Back in May the estimate was $3.4 billion. http://www.zdnet.com/microsofts-most-profitable-mobile-operating-system-android-7000015094/ http://www.zdnet.com/microsofts-most-profitable-mobile-opera... Kind of surprising that people didn't see this coming 2 years ago and make more noise. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/microsoft-vs-android/8529 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/microsoft-vs-android/8...

shmerl 13y ago

MS attempts to do everything possible to hide what patents they use for protection racket. Most probably because those patents are garbage and can be otherwise invalidated. Barnes and Noble almost got to that point, but MS quickly bribed them to prevent that from happening. Unfortunately, besides B&N no one had the guts to fight these racketeers.

tzs 13y ago
You are a bit confused. When Microsoft sued Barnes and Noble, the patents they were suing over were disclosed in their public court filings. Over a dozen were identified [1]. [1] http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070611-microsoft-android.html http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070611-microsoft-andro...
- shmerl 13y ago
  So they did disclose them? No doubt under pressure from B&N. If you look at those patents, you'll see that they are bizarrely trivial. Such things should never be patentable in the first place. Surely invalidating them can be not so easy, but it can be possible. It's one of the reasons why MS attempts to push NDAs as much as possible (we are lucky this was disclosed in those cases). Probably only a minority of their patents are non trivial, and most of these racket attacks are based on these kind of junk patents.
  - tzs 13y ago
    > If you look at those patents, you'll see that they are bizarrely trivial. They may or may not be trivial, but I've only known the patent numbers for an hour, and you only knew them for 15 minutes when you posted--and it is not possible to have read them in sufficient detail to make such a judgement in that time. To find out what a patent actually covers you have to read more than just the title and the abstract. The title and abstract are mostly useful for determining what a patent does not cover rather than determining what it covers. The title just tells you the broad area the patent is in, and the abstract narrows that down a bit, but both will cover a lot of ground. That's why they are most useful for exclusion, not inclusion. To find out what the patent actually covers, it is the claims that matter. The claims are interpreted in light of the specification, so you must read that to understand the claims. For instance, a patent might have a title of "Acoustic Repelling of Mosquitoes", which seems really broad, but when you read the specification and claims, it might turn out that the patent only applies when the mosquitoes are a specific species, exactly three sound generators are being used, they are arranged in an equilateral triangle, the temperature is above 95F, and it is daylight. (Actually, to really tell what is covered, you need to check the file for the patent from the patent office. The examiner and the applicant often go back and forth arguing over whether a claim should be allowed. The arguments and concessions the applicant makes to convince the examiner to allow the claim become limits on the claim).

eyesee 13y ago

Apple and Microsoft have in place a broad patent cross licensing agreement since 1997[1] in the settlement of the QuickTime lawsuit against Microsoft. [1] http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/13/3239977/apple-and-microsoft-cross-license-agreement-includes-anti-cloning http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/13/3239977/apple-and-microsof...

tzs 13y ago

> If the answer to #1 is yes, how does Apple avoid this problem? For at least what is problem the main money maker for Microsoft's patent licensing, the patent or patents covering aspects of the FAT32 filesystem, Apple escapes liability because Apple does not use FAT32 in iOS. Android does use it (for removable media).

stonemetal 13y ago

Apple and MS have had a cross licensing agreement since the 90s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...