Another anti-competitive win for MS by bullshit patents
I hope VirnetX takes MS for a few billion over Skype.
China's ZTE has become the latest firm to sign a licensing deal with Microsoft for its Android and Chrome patent portfolio. The firm, which is one of the world's biggest smartphone makers, has agreed to stump up royalties to MS for Android and Chrome stuff just a week after Hon Hai's Foxconn signed a similar deal. "The ZTE …
"bullshit patents"
Some of the Microsoft patents here are already well tested in court, so nothing bullshit about them....
Do you really think all of these multi billion pound companies would be coughing up the dosh if it wasn't a valid claim?
Care to mention one single patent that has been tested in court ? If not, at least one that has been specifically identified by Microsoft in their license agreements with any of the Android manufacturers ? "Some of" doesn't count as an example.
And by the way, who is saying they are coughing the dosh, the announcement lacks any specifics.
I don't get it the Barnes and Noble case showed that MS really doesn't want it to be in the open what they actually are so they can be worked around. I think at least some OEM's will have got a deal in exchange for selling Windows Phones.
If they just listed what they were then I wouldn't really have a problem with it.
Its a matter of weighing up costs - if you don't take the licence then MS threaten you with court action... legal fees soon mount up. Or MS say - give us 1cent per 1000 units you produce and we'll say nothing.
Manufacturer coughs up the tiny bit of money and saves possibly millions on legal fees
Microsoft doesn't have to spend money on legal fees. MS gets a tiny bit of money. MS gets to crow about how Android infringes their patents.
Everyone is happy - apart from the people who know that its all bullshit.
"Redmond has successfully argued that Google's Android OS is full of Microsoft-owned technology and has bagged cash from major fandroid firms including Samsung, LG and HTC."
The beauty of the statement is that It says nothing.
'Successfully argued' could mean MSFT doesn't make any announcements about those that told it to fuck off when approached by MSFT.
RedHat told MSFT to go to hell and, AFAIK, MSFT hasn't issued legal proceedings against them.
Furthermore, the statement It doesn't tell us anything about what MSFT had to give up in the CROSS-licensing agreement.
I can only conclude that the firms who enter into these deals do so for 'nuisance value' only. They simply can't be arsed litigating and are happy to pay a few pennies to MSFT (and charge the customer for it) just to get them off their back.
The MSFT marketing machine, however, loves to laud it all over the press like the Emporer did with his new clothes.
Actually, used as they should be licensing your patented innovations IS an "effective way to share technology and build on each other’s work" while still being rewarded for the work you have done.
It is when the technology should not have been patented, or when a company refuses to license it, that the main problems occur.
Easy pie for you!
1 - ZTE is getting Android from Google and if Microsoft has a problem with that, they know where Google lives and they should go get them.
2 - ZTE's lawyers have been reading Android license carefully to make sure it gives them the right to get back at Google and sue them in case Android is tainted. So far none of the Android phone manufacturers have done that.
As for your wish, Microsoft would never want that to happen for their strategy to work. See the Barnes&Noble fiasco when they had to buy B&N silence and make sure the world at large doesn't find about this.
"1 - ZTE is getting Android from Google and if Microsoft has a problem with that, they know where Google lives and they should go get them."
But damages are based on losses - until recently Google hasn't made any Android devices for Microsoft to claim as a licensing loss. However, now that they launched the Chrome Book, Microsoft are indeed going after Google....
"The FAT file system for one is a native part of Android."
Do you want to know how I know you are completely ignorant of how an operating system works?
No file system is "native" to any OS - they're bolt-on appendages, and Android can support many, of which FAT is but one.
FAT is a file system structure, of which there is a dazzling variety. Android and all other operating systems support FAT simply because it is a defacto standard, having been the original MS-DOS file system. So if you want to read and write files to a storage device, FAT is the "common denominator" format. It is in no way innovative or patentable, as there were many, similar file systems being used at the time it was chosen for MSDOS.
when FAT was implemented in Seattle Computer Product's DOS86 that later became PCDOS 1.0, the alternative was CP/M's FCB based file system which worked fundamentally differently. FCB had no FAT, instead each directory entry linked up to 16 blocks of the file (and a large file required multiple directory entries). FCB as implemented in CP/M did NOT scale well, it started to groan on file systems of a few megabytes. Also a minor detail, FCB didn't even have sub-directories (but then, neither did FAT in PCDOS 1.0, this was added in MSDOS 2.0).
Also, FCB did not have a free space map written on the disk, instead it scanned the whole directory (remember, there was only one root directory) and built the free space map in memory.
FAT was designed so the file system APIs were totally compatible with CP/M.
Now, its very possible that FAT uses features from other preexisting 1970s technology, like any of the multitudes of now obscure minicomputer operating systems, like Decision DDOS, DG Nova RDOS, etc. its been too long, I've forgotten pretty much all of what I knew of those.
It isn't FAT that Microsoft claims patents on (such patents would be long expired) but vFAT, the mangling of long file names to fit into an 8.3 format.
It probably deserves a patent, because it sure as hell isn't obvious to someone skilled in the art. No one in their right mind would invent such an abomination!
"Redmond has successfully argued that Google's Android OS is full of Microsoft-owned technology and has bagged cash from major fandroid firms including Samsung, LG and HTC"
Microsofts patent claims against Google have never been successfully tested in a court of law. Who knows one day there maybe an undisclosed balance-sheet liability in relation to the Android 'revenue'. There's a wiff of desperation about that whole strategy.
Microsoft claims are not court decisions. Besides that nobody knows what those patents are and that's why Microsoft can't risk going in court. Eventually they will have to and I wait for that day because they will have to show their cards. Oh, and Google will ask for an extensive discovery and invite those Microsoft licensees to speak openly.
> But Microsoft's claims again a number of other entities regarding the same patents have.....
When was the court case? I must have missed that one.
While you're at it, perhaps you can list the patents that Microsoft are talking about.
That way can test the veracity of their claims.
This post has been deleted by its author
I am fairly sure that the original FAT patent will be long expired since its been around since the 1980s. Microsoft were trying to get companies to license the FAT32 long file name patent but some prior art was found last year regarding this so not sure if this patent is even still valid now
www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/03/ms-patent/
Thankfully my Android phone is from a noname chinese oem so doubtful i have indirectly paid Microsoft any patent fees for my phone.
I am suprised that none of these patent license details have been leaked yet as it is an odd situation where Microsoft have all these wonderful patents but don't want anyone to know what they are.