1. "Absolutely nothing"? Let's not forget Microsoft was a huge player in mobile pre-iPhone, and many of the features we take for granted were innovated by them

1. "Absolutely nothing"? Let's not forget Microsoft was a huge player in mobile pre-iPhone, and many of the features we take for granted were innovated by them back then. The fact that Android just re-implemented them does not mean that the original innovations lost any value. 2. The oft-repeated "litigating instead of competing" meme is wrong. Windows Phone does compete on the merits. WP devices regularly get decent reviews. Most people who've tried them prefer the OS to Android. Personally I've seen WP work smoother on lower-specced hardware than Android on a more powerful device. Windows Phone actually did something innovative when it came out and differentiated itself greatly from the the iPhone. Something that, you know, Android didn't bother with until Apple started suing left and right. Arguably the only reason Android has the market share it has is because Google gives it away for free, because its search monopoly profits allow it to do so. When Microsoft did the same thing with browsers, they were being "anticompetitive", but when Google does it, it's not? If you think Google does not browbeat OEMs the way Microsoft did, look into the Skyhook lawsuit where a whole bunch of confidential licensing agreements spilled out. 3. If Google can attack Microsoft's business model, Microsoft can certainly attack Google's. People here just don't like Microsoft's attacks because they don't like patents in general. I mean, every patent ever is automatically deemed to be "broad" and "bogus", but nobody even knows how patents work.