Dell does build Android slabs
Viz., the Venue 7 and 8.
Microsoft and Dell have inked a licensing deal for each other's patents that cover the technology found in Android, Chrome OS, and the Xbox. Android handsets and tablets don't spring to mind when you think of Dell, but the Texan biz does offer the Wyse Cloud Connect HDMI stick, which is powered by Android code, for instance. …
Very much my thoughts, it's not as if any of these companies don't use MS in some way and building up the cross license deals within big companies gives all of them more power over the start ups, has anyone ever seen the true cash value of these deals? or are they really just, you pat my back I'll pat yours and we will all F*&^k anyone that gets in our way!
Genuine question BTW.
"Our agreement with Dell shows what can be accomplished when companies share intellectual property,"
Entry barriers for start ups, blocking competing technology, extorting fees for widely formulated trivial patents - and not least of all, an ecosystem of lawyers that feast on the whole mess.
I thought SCO already proved this point?!?
> Extortion:
> the act of securing money, favours, etc by intimidation or violence; blackmail
Hmmmm....
Perhaps someone should forward this article to the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary?
As of yet, not one of my current dictionaries, let alone the OED, even mentions 'frisk' as a synonym.
But then I am a somewhat older fellow, and not terribly well up on the latest idiom...
"It's not escaped our attention that, rather than get caught up in messy public courtroom feuds, Microsoft has of late leaned on companies until they sign licensing agreements well away from the courts".
That's an interesting point, the licensing deal has never been tested in a court of law. If a future Google were to win in court, all previous Microsoft Android generated revenue would be transfered to Google. See here regarding Microsoft's investment in Dell.
The settlements are mainly PR - any money changing hands is likely to be related to discounts for Windows licences - so that Microsoft can distract attention from its dismal performance in mobile space.
It would be nice to see one of these agreements challenged in the courts. Google might have done it had it held onto Motorola. Lenovo is still in bed with Microsoft, though I wouldn't expect any of the Chinese makers to bother much. No, it'll have to be a larger company that has little other business dealings with Microsoft. Might take a while for anyone to take that risk.
Microsoft is not dumb enough (yet) to take anyone to court that might win and fight back. I'm guessing Barnes & Noble were offered an out of court settlement rather than eventual death by litigation and did the sensible thing - stay alive rather than be right.,
These 'ere Nexus devices seem to be very fine bits of hardware running Android and I would imagine they violate a few of MS patents but they do seem reluctant to take Google to court over them. I guess they really dont want their remaining mobile revenue stream to dry up.
> Microsoft is not dumb enough (yet) to take anyone to court that might win and fight back
Tell me, if you think it's so obvious that these patents are simply an irrelevant shakedown, why did Samsung and Sony pay for them?
Neither are exactly best buds with MS and neither is short of either lawyers or money. And in Samsung's case, the expenditure on licensing Android is more than just significant.
I think you have to be irrationally convinced of the religious superiority of Android to convince yourself that so many companies just gave away money for absolutely nothing. I think the only reason so many cash-rich, legally tooled-up companies paid the money is because the patents are legit.
I think "denial" and "delusion" are poor things for an engineer of any description to indulge in.
@dogged - quite simple because they were offered a deal which was less that a visit to court. These agreements are sealed - we don’t know how much they are really paying.
Now would you accept a deal where you publicly agreed to pay for some patents (even if you thought they were bullshit) and get on with your company business for little or no cost or got to court again and again even if you win?
Try reading the patents then ask me what's delusional - unless of course you've not been around as long as me and you can be in denial about how un-innovative they really are because of pure (non-malicious) ignorance. Just because you think its clever and new doesn’t mean it hasn’t been done before.
To recap - the reason why people pay the MS patent tax is simply because its cheaper to do so that pay a lawyer to fight them. They wouldn’t dare pick on a company that would fight them all the way - you know the one who actually designs the infringing technology and makes good money out of it.
And by the way I think android is shit.
"If you win, you don't pay costs. The loser pays. "
Not how it works in the US courts, in that you can take a case against a company, lose, but not incur their defence costs. That's a major, major contributor to why US companies are always suing each other, because there's less risk from lobbing a sueball on dodgy grounds. And that's also why the concept of the patent troll is so common in the US. There's a nice summary titled "costs in English law" on Wikipedia that explains this, but note that the Yanks are the ones out on limb here, most civilised places have similar systems as English law.
In the scenario where a big judgement is handed down, then the "winner" will probably cover their costs, but that takes it out of the "winnings".
In passing, could I just say how much I enjoyed your exchange with Tom 7, in which I think I upvoted both of your posts. There's nothing worse than really polite debate, but debate with a sly edge can be a real joy.
Tell me, if you think it's so obvious that these patents are simply an irrelevant shakedown, why did Samsung and Sony pay for them?
These patent deals are sealed by NDAs - a huge part of the problem.
What's to say that Microsoft, in it's bid to legitimise it's non-disclosed claims against Android, offered a cash bundle for Samsung and Sony to develop Windows Phone in exchange for S & S to 'license' MS's patents at zero cost?
If you look at the deals where MS has been forced into the light - you'll see this strategy again and again - $150m - Apple... $20m - Lindows... Freebies - MikeRoweSoft... $17m - SCO... $300m - Barnes & Noble... $250m - Nokia...
MS's modus operandi from the beginning has been to give away software to build up a dependency, then up the prices; much like a drug dealer gets people hooked on his product.
MS's licensing strategy seems to be similar - pay out of pocket for licensing deals, in order to legitimise them and strike fear in other vendors in similar business; much like the Mafia might seek protection money from small businesses and grow their racket through fear and intimidation.
> What's to say that Microsoft, in it's bid to legitimise it's non-disclosed claims against Android, offered a cash bundle for Samsung and Sony to develop Windows Phone in exchange for S & S to 'license' MS's patents at zero cost?
The fact that Sony don't make a Windows phone? Sorry, but you're reaching now.
>Tell me, if you think it's so obvious that these patents are simply an irrelevant shakedown, why did Samsung and Sony pay for them?
From the little that has been published, I suspect that these agreements are probably wider than just the subset of patents that MS deems Android to infringe and will cover both past, present and future possible infringements - hence why many would sign.
This would also fit with MS's reluctance to actually be too specific about which patents Android may or may not infringe. Google is probably big enough to force MS to go to court and hence actually draw up a complete list of patents it claims Android does infringe and once there force MS, under oath, to say the list is complete (ie. Android does not infringe any other existing MS patents), hence a reason why MS are reluctant to directly take them on.
Time for a class-action lawsuit against Microsoft ... when you buy an Android device, you finance the corrupt Redmond empire.
Up until now, I thought only Asian companies were affected by this and everybody knows that an Asian company has absolutely no chance in the US courts fighting a US company ... but US citizens ?
Come on, there must be some hungry lawyer in the US who could pull this one off ....
"you finance the corrupt Redmond empire"
How is Microsoft any more corrupt than any other big corporate player? The only difference is that Microsoft have been caught on various occasions.
There are much more pressing issues at stake here - like the total erosion of privacy. How about a class action against any organisation that provides a public email service and then reads said emails?
> How about a class action against any organisation that provides a public email service and then reads said emails?
Doomed to failure due to the ToS.
However a class action lawsuit by people who have sent mail to companies or individuals who use GMail in the (reasonable) expectation of privacy - and bear in mind, with GMail for domains there is no way the average punter knows they're sending mail to google.com instead of domain.suffix - only to have their email read by a third party would probably stand some chance of success.
Is your privacy invaded when your email and emails addressed to you are scanned by a spam filter or a malware detection program?
I am guessing your fear is based not on what purpose is it done for but who does it. MS can invade privacy to incriminate a suspect they then lose all their scrupulosity at once, though.
I hope you and the other dogged Microsoft protagonist above get a share of that sweet don't-get-scroogled pie, Microsoft is so lavishly sharing.
As any patent troll claiming that their very character out many millions lines of code is most important piece there. However since it's all done covertly neither do we know what char is that nor whether that car is theirs indeed. There's a strong suspicion, it's MS' exfat long filename patent which they can (ab)use due to their still dominance on desktop market. Validity of this patent was questioned before ( as pointed out below) by Linus Torvalds successfully, so again we don't know how much MS is trolling for and who actually ends up paying, like it had occurred to B&N.
No it means that Google stole Microsoft (and Apple, Oracle, and Nokia) patented technology and added it to their own products without asking.
As Google effectively gives away the products, it is harder to sue them and prove the looses incurred - than to simply sue the manufacturers.
Am I write in thinking that nobody yet has even released a full list of the patent numbers Microsoft say they own in regard to Android? I know it's assumed that the FAT file naming patent is in there as well as others but is there a definitive list of what this extortion is based on?
With the FAT patent (which I believe is specifically about handling long file names) it's my belief that the only reason it's relevant to Android phones is because of SD card handling and gaining compatibility with SD cards that are formatted with FAT. If this is the case surely there's an argument for Google (not that they've been given a chance in court) to argue that this must be considered a standards essential patent.
> With the FAT patent (which I believe is specifically about handling long file names) it's my belief that the only reason it's relevant to Android phones is because of SD card handling and gaining compatibility with SD cards that are formatted with FAT.
That's my understanding as well. There's prior art though, looks like an outstandingly weak patent claim:
"How Linus Torvalds Helped Bust a Microsoft Patent"
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/03/ms-patent/
Given the problem Microsoft has had as of late actually selling Windows 8 machines, surely Dell would have been better placed to tell Microsoft it can shove its patents up its arse or they will stop stocking Windows based devices altogether. Microsoft need as many people on their side as possible in the distribution channels.
"It's not escaped our attention that, rather than get caught up in messy public courtroom feuds, Microsoft has of late leaned on companies until they sign licensing agreements well away from the courts."
Microsoft's strategy has always (and if not literally "always" then for a very long time) been to monetize its patent portfolio. In fact, I can't think of any patent lawsuits that they have initiated other than against those companies that refuse to sign license agreements. The only alternatives that Microsoft, or any company has, when their patents are infringed, are either to seek to license the patents, or have the infringing product removed from the market. And I don't know when they have ever tried to do that; if they have, it certainly has not been recently.
So the sentence quoted makes no sense because Microsoft is doing pretty much what has always done.
From http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html per Gary Reback, IP attorney for Sun Microsystems
My own introduction to the realities of the patent system came in the 1980s, when my client, Sun Microsystems--then a small company--was accused by IBM of patent infringement. Threatening a massive lawsuit, IBM demanded a meeting to present its claims. Fourteen IBM lawyers and their assistants, all clad in the requisite dark blue suits, crowded into the largest conference room Sun had.
The chief blue suit orchestrated the presentation of the seven patents IBM claimed were infringed, the most prominent of which was IBM's notorious "fat lines" patent: To turn a thin line on a computer screen into a broad line, you go up and down an equal distance from the ends of the thin line and then connect the four points. You probably learned this technique for turning a line into a rectangle in seventh-grade geometry, and, doubtless, you believe it was devised by Euclid or some such 3,000-year-old thinker. Not according to the examiners of the USPTO, who awarded IBM a patent on the process. After IBM's presentation, our turn came. As the Big Blue crew looked on (without a flicker of emotion), my colleagues--all of whom had both engineering and law degrees--took to the whiteboard with markers, methodically illustrating, dissecting, and demolishing IBM's claims. We used phrases like: "You must be kidding," and "You ought to be ashamed." But the IBM team showed no emotion, save outright indifference. Confidently, we proclaimed our conclusion: Only one of the seven IBM patents would be deemed valid by a court, and no rational court would find that Sun's technology infringed even that one.
An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"