Foxconn must pay Microsoft for EVERY Android thing it makes Microsoft will collect a royalty for every device built by Foxconn that runs Google operating systems Android or Chrome OS. Hon Hai, the parent of the Chinese electronics behemoth, confirmed today it has inked a deal to license unspecified Microsoft patents on smartphones, tablets and TVs built by Foxconn that use Google's …
> MS bought DOS from Seattle Computer
Completely correct, it was SCP that stole from Gary.
Both SCP and MS were CP/M OEMs. It was alleged that SCP disassembled CP/M BDOS using a widely available tool to do so and then used Intel's 8080-8086 translator to arrive at an initial QDOS that was needed to develop the company's 8086 based S100 board for their Zebra series when CP/M-86 was running late.
(MS's FAT disk system was added later, the original QDOS used CP/M file system).
That QDOS was a rip off of CP/M is an urban myth, there is no forensic evidence to support this assertion and Gary / DR would have been able to sue were that the case. As far as I can tell he as a person and certainly DR would have had the funds to pursue such a case and contrary what is often mentioned in various internet sites, it was illegal to copy code at the time of the alleged incident.
"It stole DOS from Gary Kildall"
It did no such thing, it legitimately purchased QDOS and associated royalties. There is nothing wrong with a company buying technology that they don't have but want to offer/develop. I speak as someone who has just had the company he works for purchased by a large IT multi-national.
> The GUI was invented by Xerox.
> Who did NOT license it to Apple or MS.
Apple paid heavily for a visit to PARC Labs and this included an implied licence for anything they saw. At the time there were no patents for 'look and feel' only copyright on the code (which Apple did not get nor steal).
MS copied Apple and others.
This post has been deleted by its author
> Samsung may not be bothered about a massive legal fight
Since M$ is desperate for Samsung to make Winphones, any move to extract $ from them on the Android side of the house would almost certainly result in twice that figure being demanded as inducement to smooth the winmobes through the factory.
Althoguh one thing I do find comical.
by Microsoft’s campaign to force Linux, Android and Chrome OS device makers to license its patents.
Linux, Android which is build on linux, and Chrome OS which is built on Lnux. So really the place the patent is being infringed is Linux. It's just that Android and Chrome OS are a few of the commercially sold Linux distros. You can't really claim royalties on something that's given away for free.
I'd imagine it's either some kind of ancient algoythm burried deep in the kernel which can't be removed with ease, or it's to do with the filesystem (again)
Probably perfectly valid patents, which were probably infringed without intention but infringed nonetheless. Sadly nothing that can really be done about it.
And I imagine the reason Microsoft refuse to name the patent publically is because if they do, the 101 linux gurus will dive headfirst into the kernel code, find the infringing section and begin working on methods to bypass it, locking out microsofts cash cow.
I'd imagine it's either some kind of ancient algoythm burried deep in the kernel which can't be removed with ease, or it's to do with the filesystem (again)
Pardon my pedantry, bit It's rather "algorithm buried" (algorithm is not a Greek word, it's Arabic) and my Firefox aspell thingy highlighted this for me.
Now, if this is true why not going for Red Hat, Google, Facebook, 500 top supercomputers, millions of servers and everyone whose using Linux kernel with all of those buried algorithms? Besides all the mess with patent, it's still very unlikely that one can patent any math, BTW.
There is a strong feeling though, that what MS is claiming to be their IP is an exFAT long filenames implementation. This is a separate issue, and Linus Torvalds allegedly has the priority, since he had done it long before MS did. On the other hand, everyone bothers about fat because of MS monopoly. So even if they legally can patenting this is, in fact, an abuse of this monopoly. Alternatively, it would be fair to legally force MS to support some alternative filesystems, which they've been ignoring for ages.
"by Microsoft’s campaign to force Linux, Android and Chrome OS device makers to license its patents.
Linux, Android which is build on linux, and Chrome OS which is built on Lnux. So really the place the patent is being infringed is Linux."
...oh you've not been paying attention, Microsoft has no patents on the Linux Kernel, everybody knows that code all belongs to SCO..... doesn't it Daryl.... ha
This was the challenge Stallman put to MS and they didn't reply, some may say couldn't.
I would challenge MS to do the same here, however Google don't really care, as long as people keep searching, they will turn a profit. Android only allows most people to search more. Foxcon or any other company that has rolled over to play with MS have made a business decision, this will be based on maximising profits. If this is done by paying a MS fee, then that is what suits them.
Doing the right thing will only be considered if there is a financial advantage.
So may even say didn't give a fuck about, since in the end, what could RMS do against MS? Sue them? What do you expect, put your glove in MS's face and then meet them at dawn on the field with their witnesses?
It's about money, period. A threat needs only be vaguely plausible to be real when it's backed by billions of dollars.
"It's about money, period.".
Odd thing to say. Of course it's about Money. Why do you think Microsoft, Samsung, Apple, Foxconn etc are in business? They are in business to make money. Even Google is in business to make money, although they don't make money directly from the users or by selling Android, they do it by selling advertising.
When you get down to the brass tacks (tax?) this is all about screwing Linux and FOSS. Microsoft wants Linux DEAD. Microsoft wants FOSS DEAD.
I try very hard to not use MS products as much as possible with one exception - the Xbox.
A turning point is coming. We are either going to be free of them or subject to them with no alternative.
Listen/watch Eben Moglen.
I thought the one bit that had raised its head above the parapet was the handling of long filenames.
Since this comes down to an interoperability feature, perhaps someone should try and get this added to the EU stuff forcing them to publish the APIs on the network to allow interoperability. Seems daft that they're forced to allow interoperability on network access to files but not on microSD cards.
But generally demanding money for unspecified lists of patents should be accounted as demanding money with menaces.
...in this august establishment, if memory serves, is that some of the patents probably concern the implementation of FAT within the Linux kernel. But all the enforced secrecy simply discredits what may be a perfectly legitimate claim, and merely feeds suspicion that MS doesn't actually have any confidence that its claim would stand up to challenge. Instead it prefers to frighten its targets into paying up merely to avoid the expense of years of inconclusive litigation. As I said earlier: it's a protection racket by any other name.
"But all the enforced secrecy simply discredits what may be a perfectly legitimate claim, and merely feeds suspicion that MS doesn't actually have any confidence that its claim would stand up to challenge. Instead it prefers to frighten its targets into paying up merely to avoid the expense of years of inconclusive litigation. As I said earlier: it's a protection racket by any other name."
Let me explain to you how this works. because you haven't got a clue. The only people that need be impressed by Microsoft's claims in this matter are Samsung's lawyers. And the only "challenges" to which Microsoft's claims need stand up, are "legal challenges". You seem to think that your dissatisfaction as expressed in the comments section of this article are a matter of concern for Microsoft, Samsung, their lawyers, or anyone else. It isn't.
Since Samsung has had no qualms about using SEPs to counterattack Apple - a very expensive tactic with close to no chance of success - there is no reason to think that they would have any fear in entering into a legal battle with Microsoft. Especially if they thought that it was winnable.
And I wonder where this idea that Microsoft has to publicly reveal what patents are being licensed or claimed as infringed, originated.That people not even peripherally involved with the matter might want to know, is understandable, but their opinions have no bearing whatsoever on the matter.
The problem with your position is that it assumes that Samsung's lawyers are completely incompetent. And you also seem to be assuming that you have a better understand and more knowledge of the issues and the patents in question than Samsung's lawyers do. And considering that this is the 19th (publicly announced) royalty agreement between Microsoft and an wide array of Android manufacturers, you also seem to think that you know better than all those lawyers too. You don't.
"And considering that this is the 19th (publicly announced) royalty agreement between Microsoft and an wide array of Android manufacturers, "
That should be "And considering that this is the 19th (publicly announced) royalty agreement between Microsoft (and other IP holders) and an wide array of Android manufacturers..."
Dear Turtle, your ad hominem attack does you no credit. Good manners cost nothing, and help keep the discussion focussed on the matters in hand.
As for your actual points. Yes, you are quite correct on the points of fact (as far as they can be known), but there is more at stake than simply who is entitled to know what, isn't there?
Software patent law (esp. in the US, it seems), is currently a disgrace and a laughing stock that is ill serving both businesses and the consumers. Though it is doing very well for trolls, sharks, and lawyers.
While MS may well be perfectly within their rights to act as they are doing, the point is that their actions in this matter are of genuine interest to 'outside' observers (regardless of their 'rights', or lack of them, in the matter).
On the face of it we see MS acting in an oppressive manner typical of it's history in actively generating FUD in order to entrench it's monopolistic hold on the market. Whether it is entitled to act in this way is irrelevant. Whether it will be able to continue to act in this way remains to be seen.
MS is not a charity, it is a slave to the financial demands of its share holders. We may pity MS, we may resent MS' bullying hubris. We may also like to comment on what MS does because some of what they do, big as MS is, has an impact on myself and others.
That's the deal -- in exchange for disclosure, you get a period of commercial exclusive control.
(IIRC, there was a recent U.S. case in which a patent was invalidated, precisely because upon closer examination, it didn't actually disclose crucial details.)
So it seems distinctly countrary to reason, that one can enforce patents AND simultaneously require an NDA or other secrecy over which patents are being licensed.
Is the FAT patent really of any relevance anymore? According to http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/03/ms-patent/ Linus Torvalds himself smashed it by pointing out that the patented mechanism has been described in 1992 in comp.os.minix well before MS (re-)invented it. However the article states that this may yet be overruled and I admit to not having kept up to date. Also it may only apply to one out of oh so many jurisdictions. In any case this looks like pretty strong evidence to me that that patent is dead.
Also you say: "The problem with your position is that it assumes that Samsung's lawyers are completely incompetent."
It would seem that's your position, too, when you state "Since Samsung has had no qualms about using SEPs to counterattack Apple - a very expensive tactic with close to no chance of success - [...]"
Perhaps Samsung is paying a quarter of a tenth of a penny per phone and thus chose not to fight while MS were happy they could point more impressionable lawyers of other companies to the fact that Samsung are paying to tell them they better follow suit, then extract more from the naive ones? We'll never know.
Here's a theory...
Maybe Microsoft have people signing up to licensing deals that give their IP away for free. Crazy eh? However most of the deals are with companies that already deal or partner with Microsoft anyway. In fact they seem to be their main target.
Microsoft seem very ready to do a deal and settle. So perhaps they are just saying - we will give you a patent licence which is worth £100m in exchange for agreeing £100m in Windows licences for mobile products. Net cost of the 'licence' is zero, avoids trying to go through the courts and pay expensive lawyers fees.
Microsoft then get tie in from a partner who has to keep developing for their platform with IP that would probably not stand up to scrutiny of the law courts.
Therefore they have '19' agreements but in fact no-one has paid them a penny, but MS get to pretend their IP against android is worth something, that lawyers are looking at it and saying "you better pay up as Microsoft will wipe the floor with " when in fact it's nothing of the sort.
The whole exercise for Microsoft is to spread FUD and get tie in to their own product and income from windows licensing rather than get ongoing income from royalties.
My understanding is that Microsoft make more money from royalties on iOS and Android than they do from Windows Phone.
Patents I'm aware of are Long filename support in vfat, iDevices might use it in the camera connection kit, but not otherwise. Androids that have SD card slots use it. The other one I know of is Activsync. iDevices, and a lot of Androids support it.
"My understanding is that Microsoft make more money from royalties on iOS and Android than they do from Windows Phone."
Is this understanding based on reading comments in the echo chamber of web-comment pages, or based on any actual direct experience of the matter?
Constantly repeating made-up "facts" doesn't make them true.
I'm not sure that the iDevices would need to worry about VFAT, this is just a theory, but my tiny limit experience is that they don't show up as a "disk" when connected to Windows. The real killer that hits everyone else is the usage of removable memory. Owners expect to be able to remove the SD cards from their phones and just plug them into any old standard PC (which means Windows in practice). Therefore the format on the SD card needs to be something that Windows is able to read.
iDevices don't have removable storage. So no need to support FAT there.
iDevices don't show up as disks when plugged into a standard PC. So, again, not need to support FAT there.
Of course for the users that means no cheap memory expansion and means they need to run SW such as iTunes, but it should mean there was no need to ever go near FAT and MicroSoft lawyers which follow it around.
Patent defence should work like trademark defence, so that everyone knows the exact nature of the infringement and can avoid doing the same. Of course there is no incentive for Microsoft (or any other patent holder) and its lawyers from doing this as picking off alleged infringers one by one when they become profitable enough is too much of a money spinner. And there's no incentive for the law makers to make disclosure compulsary as their snouts are in the trough too.
. In a memo to his senior executives, Bill Gates wrote, “If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.” Mr. Gates worried that “some large company will patent some obvious thing” and use the patent to “take as much of our profits as they want.”
I don't see a problem with this stance and the behavior of MS at the moment. If they weren't patenting and enforcing the payment of royalties for the use of these payments, IBM, Google, Apple, HP et al would still be doing so and MS would be nowhere. Pointing out a problem which you can't do anything about is just that.
Personally I don't think that all software patents should be got rid of, but the system clearly needs a serious shake up.
Then the internal memory can be EXT3 or whatever, not FAT/FAT16/FAT32
Hence no MickeySoft tax.
Everyone should just move to EXT3/4 or something and then microsoft can get flak about how they don't support the standards that linux, apple, canon, nikon and everyone else do.
There's probably more than FAT in that 'broad license' but I bet it's a good chunk of money that MS could be denied just by changing the filesystem
"Everyone should just move to EXT3/4 or something"... Well, NOT EXT4, 'cause it has, errm, 'limited' compatibility with Windows and Mac OS X. Why is this important? Many people want their phones to be able to connect to their computers... and the vast majority of desktop and laptop computers run Windows or OS X. I am willing to be corrected on this, but so far as I know the _only_ way to read/write EXT4 from a Mac is to buy a commercial product, from, I think, Paragon. And, that's better than Windows, as there appear to be ways to _read_ EXT4 from Windows, but not to _write_ it. If i'm incorrect in this, please point me to where I can get the required software, I would _greatly_ appreciate it.
EXT3 has its own compatibility problems, but those could probably be overcome. I know that Paragon (again!) has a commercial driver set which will allow Macs to read/write EXT2/3/4 but I can't seem to locate any open source driver sets which have been in development past around 2005/6 and which are therefore written for PPC, not Intel, systems, and which will therefore not work on current Macs. Perhaps someone who is deeper into the FOSS culture could enlighten me on the current state of FOSS Mac or Windows EXT2/3/4 driver sets?
The reason vendors use FAT file systems on a large number of different devices (flash drives, cameras, memory cards, etc) is that most O/Ses out there will read/write FAT file systems out of the box. No need to install new drivers. No need to use special apps to connect. Just plug the silly things in and go. Vendors will move to EXT* when they can reliably make money selling devices using EXT* file systems to the general public. You know, the people who don't know and don't care what file system their device uses, so long as when they plug it in, it bloody works.
"If I need my phone to use a FAT file system to operate with my Windows PC, then didn't I buy a license to use FAT when I bought my copy of Windows 7?"
You have a license to use FAT _on the system you installed Win7 on_. You don't have a license to use it anywhere else, such as on your phone, unless you somehow managed to install Win7 on your phone. And even then you'd need a separate license for each additional device (SD card, flash drive, etc) which you want to use FAT on.
And even then you'd need a separate license for each additional device (SD card, flash drive, etc) which you want to use FAT on."
You mean all of those 100's upon 100's of floppy disks I used to have were each individually required to have a licence when I FAT formatted them? Oh noes! I is a criminal!!!
I suspect you meat to say cameras, phones, tablets etc rather that SD cards,flash drive etc.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
