4 ms·

Except Microsoft actually does innovate, and they also use their patents. They pour quite a bit of money into their research division, why shouldn't they get a

by delecti 12y ago

Except Microsoft actually does innovate, and they also use their patents. They pour quite a bit of money into their research division, why shouldn't they get a return from that investment? There are absolutely huge issues with the patent system, but Microsoft's patent licensing profits are not among them.

mythz 12y ago
Sorry explain exactly why MS deserve to make more money than the actual Company investing all the R&D into developing Android OS just because they can use their cash warchest to acquire offensive patents they're anti-competitively using to artificially inflate the cost of their competitor products? Is this the kind of ideal use of software patents that rewards innovators and end-consumers?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - mythz 12y ago
    What sad Strawman are you trying to manufacture here? It's absolutely MS's strategy to acquire offensive and broad patents to anti-competitively use to hurt their competition and devalue their products instead of trying to compete on merit. Google has every right to be able to develop their OS and license it at whatever terms or cost they see fit especially when they ultimately benefit consumers. MS tried to use their cash warchest (acquired from their Monopoly markets) to acquire offensive obvious, broad landmine patents that they hide behind NDA's so to not disclose exactly what patents Android is supposed to have infringed on so that they can extort licensing fees from Android Manufacturers into artificially raising the prices of Android devices.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
adl 12y ago
It's all fun and games in your job/startup until Microsoft comes in and demands royalties for their patents (most of them obvious implementations). But when it happens to HTC, Samsung, etc it's just: "why shouldn't they get a return from that investment?" Microsoft (or any other company for the matter) demanding patent royalties after treating to sue a product they had no hand in producing, is wrong. Earning more money form their patent extortion from a competitor's product than it's own implementation, it's just sad and pathetic.
WildUtah 12y ago
They pour quite a bit of money into their research division, why shouldn't they get a return from that investment? They should get a return. But nothing they created contributed to Android, so they shouldn't be extorting money from Android vendors. The patents that Microsoft has been willing to assert publicly against Android are dominated by FAT patents which describe a system for working around the limits of Microsoft's own file system. Nobody wants to use Microsoft's file system for its own merits -- plenty of free systems exist that have none of its drawbacks and Android uses them internally. Android uses FAT only to interchange information with Microsoft systems and others based on their backwards filesystem. The patent system has been abused to allow Microsoft to block compatibility without contributing anything technological. It's a classical failure mode of the patent system which was supposed to promote innovation and publication, not vendor lock in.

by delecti 12y ago

mythz 12y ago

Sorry explain exactly why MS deserve to make more money than the actual Company investing all the R&D into developing Android OS just because they can use their cash warchest to acquire offensive patents they're anti-competitively using to artificially inflate the cost of their competitor products? Is this the kind of ideal use of software patents that rewards innovators and end-consumers?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- mythz 12y ago
  What sad Strawman are you trying to manufacture here? It's absolutely MS's strategy to acquire offensive and broad patents to anti-competitively use to hurt their competition and devalue their products instead of trying to compete on merit. Google has every right to be able to develop their OS and license it at whatever terms or cost they see fit especially when they ultimately benefit consumers. MS tried to use their cash warchest (acquired from their Monopoly markets) to acquire offensive obvious, broad landmine patents that they hide behind NDA's so to not disclose exactly what patents Android is supposed to have infringed on so that they can extort licensing fees from Android Manufacturers into artificially raising the prices of Android devices.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

adl 12y ago

It's all fun and games in your job/startup until Microsoft comes in and demands royalties for their patents (most of them obvious implementations). But when it happens to HTC, Samsung, etc it's just: "why shouldn't they get a return from that investment?" Microsoft (or any other company for the matter) demanding patent royalties after treating to sue a product they had no hand in producing, is wrong. Earning more money form their patent extortion from a competitor's product than it's own implementation, it's just sad and pathetic.

WildUtah 12y ago

They pour quite a bit of money into their research division, why shouldn't they get a return from that investment? They should get a return. But nothing they created contributed to Android, so they shouldn't be extorting money from Android vendors. The patents that Microsoft has been willing to assert publicly against Android are dominated by FAT patents which describe a system for working around the limits of Microsoft's own file system. Nobody wants to use Microsoft's file system for its own merits -- plenty of free systems exist that have none of its drawbacks and Android uses them internally. Android uses FAT only to interchange information with Microsoft systems and others based on their backwards filesystem. The patent system has been abused to allow Microsoft to block compatibility without contributing anything technological. It's a classical failure mode of the patent system which was supposed to promote innovation and publication, not vendor lock in.