back to article Microsoft blasts sueball at Samsung over Android patent royalties

Microsoft filed a lawsuit against Samsung in a US court on Friday, claiming the Korean firm was in breach of an earlier cross-licensing agreement relating to Android technology patents. The two companies sealed their licensing deal in 2011, back in the days when Microsoft was threatening to sue all and sundry over patents …

  1. bigtimehustler

    A big player has sensed a weakness in the Microsoft game of applying these patents, if they force it to court, Microsoft will once and for all have to reveal what the patents are. Good on Samsung!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "A big player has sensed a weakness in the Microsoft game of applying these patents, if they force it to court, Microsoft will once and for all have to reveal what the patents are. Good on Samsung! "

      I think you are rather deluded. Microsoft are highly likely to win this action, and as it's a breach of contract action, the patents in question won't come into it.

      1. Havin_it

        @AC, you make a valid point that others sadly seem too lost in partisan fervour to want to acknowledge. There is absolutely no reason to expect that the patents will be discussed at all: the charges at issue are that Samsung aren't paying the agreed royalties, and (as seems to be their defence) Microsoft are breaking their side of the deal somehow. I don't see how the patents themselves are even relevant to either.

        1. Phil W

          That depends what they're suing for and if the contract specifies the patent.

          If they're suing for breach of contract they would be suing for a penalty for the breach.

          They appear to be suing to get Samsung to continue paying the fees as per the contract, if that is the case then the court will want to see the contract most likely.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "if that is the case then the court will want to see the contract most likely."

            Sure - but the actual patents in question won't even be close to the RADAR - Samsung has already agreed to pay to license them. The only question here is 'is the contract still valid'?

            1. Phil W

              I wasn't suggesting that the court would invalidate the patent, or even invalidate the contract.

              But it may well bring to light what the patents are that Android supposedly infringes.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                @Phil W

                the court will be uninterested in the patents themselves, unless they manage to convince the judge in some way that they are relevant in the question of their contract breach. In this endeavour they will fail, should they foolishly try, for a whole host of reasons.

                Should Samsung succeed (which would be astonishing), MS can still petition the court for the details of the contract not be made public record. Samsung has already agreed not to talk about the details, so the court will readily accept MS's arguments as to commercial sensitivity etc. and Samsung won't have a leg to stand on.

                a) Samsung will in all likelihood lose this case

                b) The patents in the contract will not become public knowledge

  2. Bob Vistakin
    Facepalm

    And here they are!

    Those top secret patents microsoft doesn't want anyone to know about, courtesy of the Chinese government and The Verge.

    1. Anonymoist Cowyard
      Stop

      Re: And here they are!

      And 99% of the are a crock of crap.

      About the only "real" one is the FAT patent, but I would call that bogus, as the only reason we would want to format the SDCard in our phones and cameras using FAT rather than a more suitable file-system is because of desktop Windows dominance. So in effect they are using their dominance in one sector to force an extortion racket in another, which I believe contravenes one of the anti-trust categories.

      The reason Samsung aren't paying is to force the issue in a court of law, that almost everything Microsoft has is worthless.

      1. Bob Vistakin
        Facepalm

        Re: And here they are!

        OMG, you mean such clear, precise and specific gems such as 6947490, "Cellular Radio Communications System" were not in fact invented by microsoft? How about 7440433, "Mobile IP Notification" - surely some well-paid patent attorney advised that one has no prior art whatsoever? Lets not forget 6822664, 7454718 and 7421666, "Browser Navigation for Devices With a Limited Input System", so good it's listed thrice.

        In fact I'd better stop right now and El Reg needs to consult its lawyers about this very forum, lest they fall foul of the stunning breakthrough microsoft first presented to the world with US-2010-0082759-A1, "Communications Grouped As Conversations".

        1. h4rm0ny

          Re: And here they are!

          In fact I'd better stop right now and El Reg needs to consult its lawyers about this very forum, lest they fall foul of the stunning breakthrough microsoft first presented to the world with US-2010-0082759-A1, "Communications Grouped As Conversations".

          That is a title of a patent, not the body. If you actually read the patent (here) and looked at the diagrams you'd see that your comment about having to stop before the Reg forums violated it was wrong. It's quite a specific design for showing nested conversations with accompanying icons that change according to the contents within that hierarchy of nested conversations. Like the patent or not, you've lied to try and support your agenda in saying the Reg forums would violate it. A patent title doesn't have legal weight as to what the patent covers - that's the body of the patent. A title is just that - a short hand to refer to it.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: And here they are!

        "And 99% of the are a crock of crap"

        They sound like a strong list of relevant technology to using a Smartphone to me...which makes sense as many of the licensees are multibillion dollar companies that would fight if they didn't think the patents were enforceable.

        1. Doug 3

          Re: And here they are!

          I find it interesting that only the companies which didn't have any Microsoft Windows licenses fought back and then only signed any kind of deal once something else was put on the table. So it would seem that those NDA's kept Microsoft's Windows licensing partners quiet while they combined or made threats(offers they could not refuse) and making it look publicly like it was just Android patents.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: And here they are!

          If a multi billion dollar company gets pushed by MS over patents they have three choices

          1 Do nothing and let MS take them to court. Costs millions takes years and there will be injunctions to stop them making and selling their devices.

          2 Challenge the patents - same result as 1

          3 Cough up a couple of 100K a year to MS and carry on as before

          Tell me - what would you do? Remember those phones bring in a lot of money and you have shareholders to keep happy.

      3. DougS Silver badge

        @Anonymoist Cowyard

        Blame Google for the FAT thing, there's absolutely no reason why they had to use the FAT filesystem for SD cards in Android. FAT is actually quite ill-suited to getting decent performance out of flash, and Linux already includes other filesystems that are designed for flash.

        SD cards are used in Android phones not for file transfer, but for adding to the installed flash storage, so what the hell difference does it make if your PC can read the card once the phone has formatted it? If it really HAD to, the problem could be easily solved by having people download a free driver from Google. I guess you'd lose the ability to have your phone directly read a card from your camera, but honestly, who the hell does that? Someone could build an app that lets you read FAT formatted SD cards if it was really an issue, and pay Microsoft the royalties (25 cents for each device is the price they charge for cameras) out of the money people would pay for the app (probably a princely $0.99)

        I doubt this patent accounts for much when there are nearly 200 others, but whoever made the decision to use FAT for the SD cards in Android should be fired for incompetence. There was absolutely no reason to do this, and everyone knew that Microsoft had previously asserted ownership of FAT through patents so they should have known it would happen to them. The fact they didn't fix this in Android 4.0 after the lawsuits were already an issue is even stupider on their part.

        1. eulampios

          @DougS

          Upvoted your post, can't agree with your finding though. The Linux kernel has no problem supporting many different fs, like ext* or btrfs etc. It's a pain to mount it automatically on many android devices other than Nexuses. I got to manually mount an ext2 sd card on my rooted noname device. As I understand the custom OEM mount scripts (various subs for fstab) are merely impossible to edit. In my case it's HTC that wrote it.

          So, I guess, the only Google's fault here as in many other areas was not to enforce clear standards onto the OEMs

      4. Fluffy Bunny
        WTF?

        Re: And here they are!

        "the only 'real' one is the FAT patent"

        I am unclear how Micro$oft could patent the FAT file system, since there is so much prior art. Apple computer and otheres were using FAT file systems over thirty years ago.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: And here they are!

          > "the FAT patent"

          That old chestnut!

          "How Linus Torvalds Helped Bust a Microsoft Patent"

          http://www.wired.com/2012/03/ms-patent/

          It's not a particularly strong patent because the mechanism it is based on has been discussed on the Linux kernel mailing list well before Microsoft got around to thinking this up.

          It is a somewhat strong patent presumably because it's difficult to convince a judge that some unpaid nutters on a mailing list could come up with stuff - and share it with the world for free, no less - that Microsoft prides itself dishing out billions in R&D for.

          In Germany the patent's been nullified at the end of 2013 (though I believe there's an appeal to come) partly on the basis of the above.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: And here they are!

            The patent is simple. If you want 8.3 filenames and long filenames with a FAT filesystem then you pay up.

            If you don't want to pay then you use the long filenames only.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: And here they are!

              > The patent is simple. If you want 8.3 filenames and long filenames with a FAT filesystem then you pay up.

              >

              > If you don't want to pay then you use the long filenames only.

              Which means being incompatible to the FAT filesystem, no?

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: And here they are!

        FAT is a lowest common denominator. It works well in Windows (obviously), but also OSX and Linux.

        What else would you use?

        If Apple supported MTP then all external devices could use that to abstract the filesystem type.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    Redmond asserting Android patents

    "Redmond has since inked similar deals with dozens of Android device vendors, all without revealing any dollar amounts or even which patents it's actually asserting"

    "Microsoft’s secret Android patents revealed"

  4. Mikel

    Microsoft is about to discover that they are not the boss any more.

    1. P. Lee
      Happy

      > Microsoft is about to discover that they are not the boss any more.

      Or more accurately, we'll find out exactly how much Samsung want to license other MS tech, like OEM Windows. That would be OEM Windows 8.1...

      You're right, MS may not be the boss any more!

      1. Mikel

        Re: > Microsoft is about to discover that they are not the boss any more.

        Considering how many Samsung parts are in those Lumias, Microsoft might think better of a vicious fight.

        BTW, there is no profit in consumer Windows desktops and laptops. There hasn't been for years. Threatening to cut off that line of business when it makes no profit is a hollow threat.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: > Microsoft is about to discover that they are not the boss any more.

          Different divisions of a huge company. You think they would turn down what could be millions of dollars of business?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: > Microsoft is about to discover that they are not the boss any more.

          "Considering how many Samsung parts are in those Lumias, Microsoft might think better of a vicious fight."

          Nothing that Microsoft couldn't very easily get manufactured elsewhere!

          "there is no profit in consumer Windows desktops and laptops"

          Who told you that? The billions in revenue that Microsoft declare from those sectors begs to differ....

  5. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    If Samsung has the Balls

    to fight MS all the way then they will go a long way towards forgiveness in my eyes (HDD warranty issues).

    Every other victim of these patents will be silently wanting them to succeed as well.

    However, I can't help think that they will roll over and pay up after some sabre rattling. I would love to be proved wrong.

    1. h4rm0ny

      Re: If Samsung has the Balls

      >>"Every other victim of these patents will be silently wanting them to succeed as well."

      Not really. The suit is over non-payment for an agreed contract, it is not about patent validity. Samsung are trying to exploit some loophole based on the MS-Nokia acquisition to get out of the contract, that is all. Other licensors are certainly NOT going to want their biggest Android competitor to be the only one not having to pay licence fees.

  6. nematoad Silver badge
    WTF?

    Oh, really?

    "The chaebol has apparently asked South Korean courts to reduce or eliminate the sums it must make to Microsoft – even though, as Microsoft points out, most of those were granted by countries other than South Korea and they're based on products sold outside South Korea."

    So what? If the US courts think that it is OK to pry into databases held in a foreign jurisdiction then surely it must be OK that agreements signed outside South Korea can be nullified by a South Korean court. Or the clauses in the DRIP Act in the UK which purportedly give the UK government rights to interfere with companies of other counties who do business with the UK.

    Sauce for the goose etc.

    Or would it be better if countries refrained from trying to impose their legal systems on others and instead abide by the bi-lateral and international treaties supposed to govern this sort of situation?

    1. Asylum Sam

      Re: Oh, really?

      I'd move to that planet in a heartbeat.

  7. hammarbtyp Silver badge

    I'll get the popcorn

    So basically Samsung are objecting to funding the development of a mobile competitor. Who'd of thought.

    Let's hope we get our day in court where we can laugh at Microsoft's fantastic patent's in the same way we had fun with Oracle's Java power grab

    1. Ken Darling

      Re: I'll get the popcorn

      "Who's of thought"

      Who'd HAVE thought. There's no verb 'to of'.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I wonder if Lucy Koh has a little spare time to moonlight in S.Korea?

  9. Belardi

    Cool with me

    I would love to see Samsung bite off Microsoft's balls...

  10. john devoy

    nematoad: You're missing the point, bad things are only bad when it's NOT the USA doing them; If America kidnaps and tortures someone thats fine, if someone else does it...they are evil. If the USA decides that privacy laws and human rights don't matter then that's fine, as long it it's only 1 way.

  11. Daniel Palmer

    It sounds like Samsung think there was some clause in the deal bars Microsoft from becoming a direct competitor and since buying Nokia that's what they've become.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Samsung, think? hahaha.

      This is Samsung's normal strategy. They seem to always lose their legal battles (take a look OUTSIDE the computer/phone areas of business for details), but it is generally good business for them.

      Samsung, are one of the great serial offenders of the global corporate world, and many executives of this "fine" corporation have spent time at the big house because of it. Samsung have also swallowed billions in fines (and I am not talking about Samsung v. Apple) for their illegal behaviours.

      Samsung are big, very big, and when they see a competitive advantage in breaching a contract, or simply breaking the law outright (collude, lie, cheat and steal), they do so without compunction. The history of Samsung of the past decades is littered with examples of this type of behaviour.

      I am on MSs side here and Samsung will likely get slapped down for breach of contract. Having entered into the agreement with MS, and having paid every year, they will need to demonstrate some very clear evidence of breach on MS's part to convince the court that their own breach of contract is justified. I rate their chances just above zero.

      1. MrDamage

        Re: Samsung, think? hahaha.

        "Samsung are big, very big, and when they see a competitive advantage in breaching a contract, or simply breaking the law outright (collude, lie, cheat and steal), they do so without compunction. The history of Samsung of the past decades is littered with examples of this type of behaviour."

        And this is different to Microsoft's "Extend, Embrace, Extinguish" philosophy how?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Samsung, think? hahaha.

          Samsung are considerably worse, difficult as that may be for most in here to conceptualise.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Samsung, think? hahaha.

            One of many examples

            http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2006/215199.htm

            There are others, the LCD cartel springs to mind, though I think the execs narrowly avoided porridge.

            The complaint is here.

            http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ag.ny.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fpress-releases%2Farchived%2FLCD%2520Complaint.pdf&ei=IG_fU-zCC7TX4QSml4GgAQ&usg=AFQjCNEap_xFF5x-MYzLlWeEBKaNEgHL8g&sig2=QZhOELTxmbTHQt6ujU22jw&bvm=bv.72197243,d.bGE&cad=rja

            Notice that Samsung was not one of the parties that had already plead guilty on this. As usual, Samsung decided to play it to the end (as they always do), despite knowing full well that were as guilty as sin.

            The list goes on and on and goes back decades.

  12. RyokuMas Silver badge
    Happy

    Never mind...

    Hopefully Samsung will get their Tizen project off the ground and free themselves of both Google and Microsoft into the bargain - plus more choice for the end customers... everyone's a winner!

    ... except, of course, the two wannabe monopolists...

    1. eulampios

      @ RyokuMas

      >>free themselves of both Google and Microsoft into the bargain

      Is Google suing Samsung as well? Why then do they have to "free" themselves of Google? BTW, they don't need Google for Android that much, it's mostly free, have you heard about Amazon?

      Agree with you fully though in case of Tizen that should finally be up and running!

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: @ RyokuMas

        >>"Is Google suing Samsung as well? Why then do they have to "free" themselves of Google"

        Google keep Android tightly under their control through a variety of soft controls. Essentially, Samsung are not free to change it how they want or deploy it with the store that they want without sacrificing some significant hostages that Google holds. There's a good article here: Ars Technica. Google have, imo, done more to subvert Open Source than Microsoft ever managed to.

        If Samsung can get Tizen into the mainstream (and I hope they do because competition is good and it will be good for the Open Source movement on mobile not to be dominated by one large corporation), then they will have a lot more freedom - we'll see competing stores, not just Google play and Samsung will be free to put their own apps on equal selling base with Google's.

        1. eulampios

          @h4rmony

          >>Google keep Android tightly under their control through a variety of soft controls.

          Every developers has some sort of a control over a project, just GNU, Apache foundation or Mozilla have over theirs. Just answer this question, please: can Samsung follow many other companies big and small to "free" themselves from Google and either completely fork Android off the available source code ( mostly maintained by Google), join Replicant, or join Cyanogenmod, or pact with Amazon, B&N or follow the millions of Chinese OEMs? Earlier they could have even gotten together with MS and their (now defunct) Android project.

          Now please tell me, what similar options do Samsung have regarding Windows 8 or WP8? Which source would they be able to use? How can they contribute to it (other than a few device drivers)? Can they fork it or join forces with some other company who've successfully done it before?

          >> sacrificing some significant hostages that Google holds

          And what would these significant hostages be? Let me guess that the hostages would be a few Google logos and trademarks or the participation in the Open Handset Alliance?

          >>Google have, imo, done more to subvert Open Source than Microsoft ever managed to.

          Imho, this is one of the most untrue, unsubstantiated and disingenuous statements ever made about Open Source, Microsoft and Google when used together in one sentence!

          1. h4rm0ny

            Re: @h4rmony

            >>Every developers has some sort of a control over a project, just GNU, Apache foundation or Mozilla have over theirs

            I can take GNU/Linux, Apache or Mozilla Firefox right now and create my own fork of it and I will still have all the functionality of the original and full access to the ecosystem. I don't have to join some Apache Alliance with a whole bunch of terms (including not forking the code base) in order to not be shut out. Acer tried to create a fork of Android and got told by Google to stop it. I cannot see that happening with any of the old school Open Source projects. Google has repeatedly turned existing key apps of Android into abandonware as soon as they are able, replacing them with Closed Source versions. Even the keyboard has been taken in-house. There's a good reason the only big Western commercial alternative Android line (Amazon's newer Kindle devices) come from someone not using it as a phone. Seriously, I linked to a very detailed article on all this. That is a good place to start.

            >>Just answer this question, please: can Samsung follow many other companies big and small to "free" themselves from Google and either completely fork Android off the available source code ( mostly maintained by Google), join Replicant, or join Cyanogenmod, or pact with Amazon, B&N or follow the millions of Chinese OEMs

            At great cost, they can, which is why I wrote "soft controls". Google cannot lock down Android completely (though they've closed sourced large parts of the userspace), but they've been able to create sticks with which to beat those that try. As I referenced, Acer tried to fork, as you suggest is possible, and was stopped by Google promising to shut them out of the ecosystem hard, and Amazon can pull it off because their Kindle devices are not phones. Samsung is the only one that currently has a shot of making a viable phone-based fork of Android because they have the resource to re-invent the whole ecosystem if need be.

            Also, there aren't "millions" of Chinese OEMs selling forked Android. There's a handful who do so because a number of Google services are banned over there.

            >>"Now please tell me, what similar options do Samsung have regarding Windows 8 or WP8"

            I wasn't talking about Windows, I was talking about Android. I don't see the relevance unless you're trying to argue that if Microsoft do something it's okay for other companies to do it. I would respond by saying if Microsoft is your benchmark for ethical behaviour, you need to up your standards.

            >>"And what would these significant hostages be? Let me guess that the hostages would be a few Google logos and trademarks or the participation in the Open Handset Alliance?"

            If you agree to be part of the Open Handset Alliance you sign away your rights to fork the code, use alternate stores and a number of other things. If you refuse to join, you get kicked out of the ecosystem, Google services and in some cases blocked from developing apps that would compete with Google's own. There was a company called Skyhook which developed a location service which meant Google wouldn't be able to harvest user location data from those that used it. Google declared it "incompatible" and forced a choice - forgo much of the established ecosystem or don't use Skyhook. It's very much use of market dominance to exclude competition.

            >>>>Google have, imo, done more to subvert Open Source than Microsoft ever managed to.

            >>Imho, this is one of the most untrue, unsubstantiated and disingenuous statements ever made about Open Source, Microsoft and Google when used together in one sentence!

            Well that may be your "humble opinion" but I back up what I said with a lot of good reasons. Microsoft fought Open Source for years and what did they ever achieve? They managed to make a few companies a bit wary of it with the SCO debacle which did more harm to Microsoft's reputation than GNU/Linux's, and they managed to persuade the occasional local government authority to stick with them when those authorities mostly just wanted to use GNU/Linux and Open Office as a threat to force bigger discounts anyway. Open Source has had far greater effect on Microsoft (open file formats, TypeScript, standards contributions, better security models) than MS have ever really managed to have on Libre Software. Now compare that with what Google managed in a few short years - they've managed to subvert Open Source into something companies cannot fork without great cost to themselves, replace core parts of the ecosphere with closed source software and lock out OEMs from providing their own software stores / sources. They've turned what should be one of the great flowering periods of Open Source into something on a leash. And they've managed to do so whilst being cheered on by people stuck in the Nineties who can't get their heads around anything other than Microsoft being the big threat.

  13. Chulang

    Read this article

    http://company.nokia.com/en/news/press-releases/2013/11/04/samsung-extends-the-patent-license-agreement-between-nokia-and-samsung-for-five-years-companies-will-enter-into-binding-arbitration-to-settle-the-amount-of-additional-compensation

    Correction,Yes Samsung owed Microsoft big time even more than their agreement

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Chulang

      So, business as usual for Samsung

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Nokia own the Nokia phone patents.. NOT Microsoft

  14. OGShakes

    MS v Samsung

    Law - Samsung agreed a deal, now they have changed their mind. They are in the wrong, they should have asked if they can renegotiate the terms.

    Biased comment - If Samsung didn't want to pay, they should have put windows phone on, its free now! And before someone says 'ms is forcing the market by making people pay the price of Google's infringement' this is one of the basic principles of economics, they can sell their stuff for what ever price they like even if that's free. Samsung's position in the phone market is undeserved, had an S3 when it was the latest thing and regretted it after 3 months, my boss had a similar experience of the S4. 6 months in with my Nokia/MS phone and I am already sure I am going to have another one when my contract is up.

    1. eulampios

      Re: MS v Samsung

      >>Law - Samsung agreed a deal,

      And you are informed about all the specifics of this deal? It was an NDA, and you have some connections? Maybe you should be employed by Samsung as a lawyer then

      >> And before someone says 'ms is forcing the market by making people pay the price of Google's infringement' this is one of the basic principles of economics

      The principles of economics fail to stand when there is a fat and impudent monopoly around. It's like certain laws of nature (conservation, Boyle–Mariotte etc laws) -- they remain true until the system is closed, otherwise one can come up with some weird and unexpected contradictions. The infamous US Health System controversy is another example.

      >>Samsung's position in the phone market is undeserved

      Your principles of economics are now gone?

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: MS v Samsung

        >>>>Law - Samsung agreed a deal,

        >>And you are informed about all the specifics of this deal? It was an NDA, and you have some connections? Maybe you should be employed by Samsung as a lawyer then

        I don't think the person you replied to has to be employed by Samsung to say that Samsung agreed a deal. It's a suit for breach of contract. Hard to initiate such a suit without a named contract. Your attack on the poster's credibility is inappropriate. The article itself shows that there was a contract.

        >>The principles of economics fail to stand when there is a fat and impudent monopoly around

        I think it's pretty clear to all that Microsoft don't have a monopoly on the mobile phone market! ;) :D

  15. Elite-Bru
    Facepalm

    Yawn - Microsoft are so bad...

    Sorry, but there seems to be a load of posts MS bashing because people still think they are a big bad company compared to others. Wake up and smell the coffee, Samsung, Apple and loads of other large companies have equally, if not more so, questionable business practices. MS has at least learnt (in some cases) and rather than try to bring everything to court again and again; it has worked with its partners\competitors and arranged for mutual patent agreements. This has granted access to all patents and prevented future repeated litigation like you see with Apple and Samsung. I think they should be admired for at least trying to stay out of court and work with others.

    Samsung have clearly decided to push it but hopefully they will see the folly and it will not even go to court. Both companies share technology with each other and having already agreed to pay the sum it seems strange for Samsung to try to argue against it. They would be better off using those patents to innovate further if they want to distinguish themselves from Nokia\MS.

    As for the hidden nature of those patents, aren't all patents available for public view? You may not know which are covered but it hardly matters. Most patents around Smart phones seem stupid, just take a look at some of the ones Apple claim. The reality is we need a much better way to protect IP whilst encouraging innovation. Perhaps a system similar to drug companies where you have the licence for a while to make your millions and innovate further, then others can create generic versions once the time runs out. This encourages companies to continue to innovate whilst freeing up patents that are fundamental to break into a market in the future for smaller companies.

    1. eulampios

      @ Elite-Bru

      Sorry but it's you that don't understand.

      >>Samsung, Apple and loads of other large companies have equally, if not more so, questionable business practices

      I understand this point about Apple, but fail to do it in case of Samsung. Or is it that both the attacker and the attacked share the same criminal case, hence share equal responsibility?

      >>MS has at least learnt (in some cases) and rather than try to bring everything to court again and again

      Have you heard about the Rockstar patent suit? And MS is really good and equally filthy at NDA business. The reason is they don't want their multiply impeached reputation to suffer even more when details get divulged.

      >>As for the hidden nature of those patents, aren't all patents available for public view?

      If you know the specific numbers, MS never publicized it before. The only light that had been lit on those was this for which Microsoft shouldn't be thanked at all, it's rather the Chinese government that have done.

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: @ Elite-Bru

        >>I understand this point about Apple, but fail to do it in case of Samsung. Or is it that both the attacker and the attacked share the same criminal case, hence share equal responsibility?

        Samsung are a giant of a company with market cap and revenues much larger than Apple or Microsoft, and a history of price fixing, bribery of politicians, judges and prosecutors and habitual massive patent infringement on any one they think doesn't have the resources to go up against them. (And often against those who do, if they think the patent owner might cut their losses rather than risk Samsung's legendary litigiousness). Here's a short article on Samsung: Vanity Fair. There are also accusations of evidence tampering, money laundering... Samsung's revenue alone is about a fifth of its host country (South Korea) which gives you some idea of what a behemoth it is.

        >>Have you heard about the Rockstar patent suit?

        I would imagine pretty much everyone here has and certainly the person you're replying to. Asking a question as if it self-evidently contradicts something they wrote, fails as an argument when it's just an odd question posed in reply to someone's point. What about Rockstar? How is it relevant to this contract breach suit between Microsoft and Samsung? I'd say most of all that Rockstar reflected badly on Google, who turned down an invitation to join the consortium and instead tried to buy the patents exclusively for themselves so they could charge everybody else for use of them.

        1. h4rm0ny

          Re: @ Elite-Bru

          I'm going to add one little anecdote about Samsung, who I believe you are favouring because they are selling Android devices. In 2006 Samsung was sued by Pioneer for infringing their patents on Plasma TV technology. A memo from a Samsung engineer used as evidence showed that they knowingly infringed on the patents. Rather than agree a licencing fee however, Samsung counter-sued and buried Pioneer under suits and appeals. Pioneer was awarded $59million in damages, but got buried in punitive legal actions from Samsung and a few years later shut down the television division, in large part because of this. Ten-thousand people who worked in that division directly or indirectly, lost their jobs.

        2. eulampios

          Re: @ Elite-Bru

          >>revenues much larger than Apple or Microsoft

          Yet with net income (which is more important) either equaling to that of MS' or less than that of Apple Inc's

          >>price fixing, bribery of politicians, judges and prosecutors

          Do you have any verifiable facts, comparative analysis of corrupted Samsung vs. the other corrupted couple, or is it again your another "imo" (like with the one where Google subverts more Open Source than Microsoft ever did)?

          >>habitual massive patent infringement on any one they think doesn't have the resources to go up against them.

          Habitual and massive? Any links? It's actually is "Qui pro quo", " You infringe my patent, I let you infringe mine" Microsoft and Apple are usually out of this rule. They are the ones who use their patents to litigate with others who infringe on "the rounded rectangle" or something even more ridiculous (using their own local courts at their advantage)

          I thought, with as idiotic system, as the software patents currently are (esp. in the USA), every big corporation allegedly infringes on some ridiculous or serious patents of the other. In case of MS or Apple's patents, it's the "rounded corners", "rubber band", "exFAT long filenames", a "desktop hyperlink to a page" . For Samsung, Nokia, Motorola a few others it's mostly on cellular technology patents.

          >>There are also accusations of evidence tampering, money laundering...

          There might be as many equally dubious accusations out there about similar alleged actions of Microsoft (say, in Russia etc) and Apple (say, with Amazon).

          >>How is it relevant to this contract breach suit between Microsoft and Samsung?

          So you know it for sure, I gather? You do sound as a very good Microsoft advocate though, are you aware about all the specifics of the case which was an NDA? If so, please let us all know, first, how have you become informed about this confidential information, and second, please, explain them to us.

          >>I'd say most of all that Rockstar reflected badly on Google, who turned down an invitation to join the consortium and instead tried to buy the patents exclusively for themselves so they could charge everybody else for use of them.

          I'd say, that this is another (a little less) bizarre statement I hear in connection with Google from you. Google never sued anyone first for patents! However they might hate the system they use their patents as defense against other corporations that like to sue when failing to compete in other areas. They are also fully aware that every spare weapon lying around should better be in their position rather than kept by somebody already proven very unfriendly before. Since those would not be as much meticulous and vegetarian as they have been. There was no use of the patents if they collude with the main bullies on the block, such as MS and Apple. These patents would only be good to use, not counter with when them or their partners are being attacked. They might most probably not be able to transfer them to those who make Android and Chrome devices -- the main concern for Google, since MS was not attacking Google directly to sign those "cross licensed" NDAs, but the OEMs. I hope, this sheds some light for you on the Google's logic and actions in connection to those Nortel patents.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @ Elite-Bru

            "All in order to reduce national CO2 outputs to meet a target - a target that most other countries seem to be ignoring, never signed up to in the first place or that they'll miss by miles / decades."

            I posted references as did Har0ny.- learn to read

  16. h4rm0ny

    >>"Yet with net income (which is more important) either equaling to that of MS' or less than that of Apple Inc's"

    I think I've established what I want to establish - that Samsung are a monstrously large world player. And actually Net Income is not a simple thing and necessarily a clear benchmark, which is why I went with Revenue which actually shows the economic size of a company more clearly. But if you want to go with Net Income, check your facts - Samsung is still significantly bigger. 2013, MS had a net income of $22bn. Samsung had a net income of over $8bn MORE than Microsoft. Regardless, I've dismissed any preconception of Samsung as a smaller company that Microsoft might push around. They're significantly the bigger company.

    >>Do you have any verifiable facts, comparative analysis of corrupted Samsung vs. the other corrupted couple, or is it again your another "imo" (like with the one where Google subverts more Open Source than Microsoft ever did)?

    I already linked to a substantial article on Samsung's business practices in the post you are replying to, from a respected and long-standing journalistic source. I've also posted specific examples of Samsung's attitude to intellectual property and its using litigation as a punitive action independent of actual validity to a case. Another poster also provided a couple of references. So why you come back to me with accusations of it being my "opinion", I don't know. Samsung are not a nice company, and I do not see a good reason for you to challenge people on that, other than it undermines a presentation of them as moral victims.

    >>It's actually is "Qui pro quo"

    Actually, it is quid pro quo,. i.e. "something for something". You wrote "whom for something". For what it's worth.

    >>"So you know it for sure, I gather? You do sound as a very good Microsoft advocate though, are you aware about all the specifics of the case which was an NDA? If so, please let us all know, first, how have you become informed about this confidential information, and second, please, explain them to us."

    Well, I read the article.

    The person you replied to said that Samsung had agreed to a deal and you then aggressively demanded to know if the poster had inside knowledge of Samsung or privileged sources. I just pointed out that it was a contract violation lawsuit and you can't have one of those without a contract. Ergo, OP was correct to say Samsung had made an agreement with Microsoft. That's what a contract is. You were wrong to jump down their throat about it with a load of ad hominem suggestions they were just spreading rumours / opinions, and I was right to point that out.

    Also, I find it vaguely ad hominem when you start making remarks about me being a "Microsoft Advocate". It feels very close to you accusing me of being a shill.

    >>"I'd say, that this is another (a little less) bizarre statement I hear in connection with Google from you"

    Well you can find it bizarre if you like, but it remains true. Google was invited to join the Rockstar consortium along with all the other big players, Google instead attempted to buy all the patents for themself rather than sharing a common pool. Both are verifiable fact. There is then the entirely reasonable assumption that if Google had succeeded in the bid and gained exclusive ownership, that they then would have sat on $4.5bn worth of patent portfolio and let every other party use those patents without charge. Their shareholders would have lynched them (in the highly hypothetical scenario that the Google board chose not to want a return on their investment). So it's not possible to challenge the facts, and it's extremely silly to challenge the idea that Google would have paid over $4bn to subsidize Apple, Samsung, et al.

    >>"Google never sued anyone first for patents! However they might hate the system they use their patents as defense against other corporations that like to sue when failing to compete in other areas"

    Google has historically had a very weak patent portfolio which may be why you don't find them launching attacks based on them very often. As the old Chinese expression says: "the eunuch should not take pride in his chastity." Besides, there are plenty of ways of attacking without depending on patents. E.g. if Google infringes on someone else's patents and then pulls their own patents in counter-suing if the infringed upon party objects, you would call Google the defender? Of course you shouldn't. Your too narrow focus on patents ignores that they're just one tool in an arsenal. Google has plenty of others.

    >>"They are also fully aware that every spare weapon lying around should better be in their position rather than kept by somebody already proven very unfriendly before."

    I find your view of Google as some noble entity that wants to buy up weapons so that no-one can use them frankly bizarre verging on cultish. In any case, it's a terrible analogy because as I have already written: if Google had managed to hoard all the Nortel patents for themself as they wanted (Google bid over $4bn for them, iirc), it's not possible that Google would have then turned to Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, et al. and said: "we've just paid $4bn so that you never have to pay any patent licence fees". It's completely delusional for you to base on argument on Google doing this. What Google attempted to do was clear.

    >>I hope, this sheds some light for you on the Google's logic and actions in connection to those Nortel patents.

    I believe I have shown that my own understanding is much clearer (and less clouded by ideas about a giant corporation's nobility) than your own.

    1. h4rm0ny

      >>"There is then the entirely reasonable assumption that if Google had succeeded in the bid and gained exclusive ownership, that they then would have sat on $4.5bn worth of patent portfolio and let every other party use those patents without charge"

      Slight typo in the above and I've missed the edit window. Rather obviously, it should say that Google would not have bought $4.5bn worth of shares and then not charged their competitors licence fees for their use. Love to see that one explained at the annual shareholder's meeting. ;)

    2. eulampios

      at h4rmony

      >>Google has historically had a very weak patent portfolio which may be why you don't find them launching attacks based on them very often.

      Exactly, that is "may be why", it's your own supposition, entirely unsupported by the previous history and might be far from the truth. The fact remains the same: they have never done that!

      >>There is then the entirely reasonable assumption that if Google had succeeded in the bid and gained exclusive ownership, that they then would have sat on $4.5bn worth of patent portfolio and let every other party use those patents without charge.

      The reasoning is all yours entirely! It's called groundless insinuations and with

      >>Their shareholders would have lynched them (in the highly hypothetical scenario that the Google board chose not to want a return on their investment).

      let me ask you why didn't the board lynch Google for the $12.5 bn Motorola acquisition and then reselling it for $2.9 bn leaving the patents to themselves? More so, I am sure reminding the board about the Apple's case against Samsung, Microsoft levying Android and constant undisguised threat to push Android out of business by both of them and Oracle might greatly overwhelm that concern.

      >>I believe I have shown that my own understanding is much clearer (and less clouded by ideas about a giant corporation's nobility) than your own.

      And I respect your own beliefs.

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: at h4rmony

        >>"Exactly, that is "may be why", it's your own supposition, entirely unsupported by the previous history and might be far from the truth. The fact remains the same: they have never done that!"

        There is no supposition on my part here. You have rather oddly adopted a position of trying to establish moral superiority for Google based on them letting their competitors not pay licence fees in a hypothetical scenario.

        I'm making the factual observation that Google has historically had very little ability to do so - which you admit - and that therefore you cannot use inaction to show an actual moral superiority.

        If there is supposition here, it's actually yours that in a hypothetical situation Google would act against its own financial interests. Whilst my argument is entirely factual and quite simple - if someone is unable to do something, you can't hold up their lack of doing it as evidence for how noble they are.

        >>"The reasoning is all yours entirely! It's called groundless insinuations and with"

        I don't see there's any "insinuation" (implying wrong-doing) in saying that if Google bought $4bn worth of patents they would want to make money from that investment. I think that would be very sensible behaviour, myself.

        What you're proposing is a situation where Apple, Samsung, Microsoft et al., are all using patents and so will have to buy those patents or licence them, then Google comes in and pays $4bn so that it can give their competitors free use, saving them money. And you don't think this is silly.

        >>"let me ask you why didn't the board lynch Google for the $12.5 bn Motorola acquisition and then reselling it for $2.9 bn leaving the patents to themselves?"

        Well that was certainly a big balls up on Google's part, but the two scenarios are not alike. One is a situation where Google did at least get some assets and can spin it as a smaller loss depending on the value they ascribe to the patents. And they at least had a plan in that case even if it didn't work out. But the other scenario you seem to consider so plausible is one where Google is actively subsidizing their competitors on an ongoing basis and deliberately turning down revenue. That wouldn't happen.

        >>"More so, I am sure reminding the board about the Apple's case against Samsung, Microsoft levying Android and constant undisguised threat to push Android out of business by both of them and Oracle might greatly overwhelm that concern."

        I hardly think Android is under threat of being pushed out of the market - Android has the largest share. Nor has Microsoft attempted to block the sale of Android with its patents, it's instead licencing fees based on them. I really don't follow the above statement.

        You also seem to set a lot of store by this notion of using patents "defensively". I don't understand the reasoning for this. Take a specific case such as Google's vs. BT. Google infringed on BT's patents so BT brought a suit against Google. Google responded by (rather than paying any licences) launching a counter-suit against BT. The initial wrong would normally be considered infringing on another's intellectual property without paying. However, you present it as moral superiority on Google's part because they used patent's second. It seems an article of faith, rather than logic, that patent usage is the deciding factor in who is the aggressor and who not. If one person kicks another and the other responds with a punch, why is it right to claim superiority for not being the first one to throw a punch? Indeed, suing over patents is inherently a response to aggression because it has to be preceded by an act of infringement.

        >>And I respect your own beliefs.

        I don't actually get the feeling that you do. Also, I've been backing everything up with facts, rather than it just being "beliefs". It's suppositions such as Google would willingly turn down licence fees on $4.5bn of patents if they could, that are classed as "beliefs".

        1. eulampios

          Re: at h4rmony

          >>oddly adopted a position of trying to establish moral superiority for Google

          it's Over Microsoft, Apple and Oracle. Are you calling me Captain Obvious? You already have suggested me to "up my standards" if Microsoft is used as a "moral benchmark". it is also not necessarily "moral", it's profitable for Google. They might simply value their reputation as a very important asset and count those dollars and euros spent on innovation rather on some litigious patent attacks, dubious both from the moral and financial point of view. With all the dominance of Open Source Android over proprietary WP8, iOS etc this view of profitability does really make a lot of sense.

          >> It's suppositions such as Google would willingly turn down licence fees on $4.5bn of patents if they could, that are classed as "beliefs".

          It's based on the prior knowledge of the company behaved so far. It is also based on the fact that they have never done what you deduce they certainly would. it is also based on some other consistent behaviour of Google with bsd licensed vp8 vs mpeg-la's h.264 and Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge.

          Not only do you try applying the measure that is alien to Google so far, the real irony is that this mentality you extrapolate about Google is really Microsoft's, who (I should admit) often justify their patent trollish actions by exactly this legend.

          >> but the two scenarios are not alike.

          I got from our little discussions by now, that it is you that define the likelihoods as well as weight to the facts we use. In it, you seem to be both a participant of the dispute, and the judge bringing in the verdict to the dispute. I am sorry, I disagree with this point of view.

          What assets do Google hold after selling it to Lenovo, other than "intellectual property"? In that mental experiment where you foresee unhappy board bringing Google execs to account, what's going on with those $10 bn? I am anxious to know if they will write this off as a profit or a loss as Microsoft have done with their surface devices?

          1. h4rm0ny

            Re: at h4rmony

            You're not arguing logically. It doesn't matter even if you sincerely believe that Google would act against its own financial interests, you can't establish some moral superiority for Google based on your ideas about what they might have done in an alternate timeline. That's a faith-based argument. Even allowing that subsidizing your competitors by paying for patent use on their behalf shows moral superiority rather than, e.g. insanity.

            You keep ignoring all sorts of details (and numerous parts of my posts which you skip over but never concede, btw). For example, you ignore fundamental differences in circumstances and try to equate non-like things. Certainly Google has not pursued fees for people using VP8 - when they were trying to promote VP8 against an established leader. Might as well argue that Microsoft letting OEMs install Windows Phone 8 for free shows that Microsoft has a stance against paying for software. The Open Patent Pledge - again, something promoted by a company that has historically been very weak in patents and is in their own financial interests.

            Or that only using patents "defensively" shows moral superiority, as if infringing on someone else's intellectual property (such as Google did with BT) and then using the threat of patent litigation to stop people asking for compensation for your infringement is morally superior. That's what "defensively" has meant in Google's case - we infringe and if you ask for money we will "defensively" slap you with patents. You skipped over this once but it still stands and is a fundamental flaw in your argument.

            Though really, this entire argument is now just you trying to show Google as a noble company. You've skipped over most of my points of actual law or technology. Well the nobility of Google and out of nowhere digs at Surface sales figures. I'm typing this on a Surface 2, btw. It's a really great device. It's a shame that good technology gets attacked over popularity.

            1. eulampios

              Re: at h4rmony

              >>You're not arguing logically.

              Why are you appealing to logic? If you decide what logic is, yes indeed, my logic is lame, yours - brilliant. It doesn't appeal to me though, as I said I wouldn't trust your judgement of it. When I was calling some of your statements outlandish and bizarre about Google destroying more Open source than Microsoft have ever done, I never said that you are illogical or irrational. Even after you put so many words in so many sentences trying to prove it, no, I didn't even bother answering it.

              I would call it a "lawyer's logic" in its rather peculiar connotation, where everything can be argued, since the client is always innocent and right.

              I am not a lawyer, I got a PhD in Math, that is why I reason illogically according to you.

              >>You keep ignoring all sorts of details

              As was said, I appreciate you verbosity. However, the quantity is not always necessarily turned into quality.

              >>That's what "defensively" has meant in Google's case - we infringe and if you ask for money we will "defensively" slap you with patents.

              No, it's: "if you think that your stupid patents are infringed on by us, think again, because you already infringe on ours!" Principle of reciprocity again, what is your problem with that, h4rmony? Or did you want Google pay up? Where is that imaginative angry board already?

              >>Though really, this entire argument is now just you trying to show Google as a noble company.

              My entire argument is that Google have shown they are more noble than most other IT company in the same weight class, including your beloved Microsoft.

              >>You skipped over this once but it still stands and is a fundamental flaw in your argument.

              The flaw that is only seen by you might not be a flaw after all. An acquaintance of mine told me about aliens swarming around recently...

              >>out of nowhere digs at Surface sales figures. I'm typing this on a Surface 2, btw. It's a really great device. It's a shame that good technology gets attacked over popularity.

              Since you didn't explain to me how would Google justify the difference between almost $12 and $2 billion dollars to the board, I tried to improvise and gave a few scenarios. You got insulted by that because MS Surface is a wonderful device and you're typing on it, can you scratch that off and get back with a few suggestions how to appease a would-be enraged board anyways?

              1. h4rm0ny

                Re: at h4rmony

                >>Why are you appealing to logic?

                Because logic appeals to me?

                As well as basing your argument on your belief in Google's "nobility" in a hypothetical timeline, you've also yet to make the case why subsidizing your competitors would be morally right in the first place, rather than, e.g. madness.

                Given your evident hatred of Microsoft, I would think you especially would consider Google subsidizing them as not great behaviour.

                >>"If you decide what logic is, yes indeed, my logic is lame, yours - brilliant."

                See, the above doesn't actually address or refute my logic at all, it's just an attack and sarcasm. As are assertions that I'm like a lawyer or a "Microsoft advocate".

                >>I never said that you are illogical or irrational

                Perhaps because none of my arguments depend on a hypothesis that a company is "more noble".

                Even when I briefly examined the moral state of a company (at your invitation) which I did with Samsung, I gave multiple examples and citations of things they had actually done. Whilst you build a case on what Google would do according to you in an alternate timeline.

                >>"no, I didn't even bother answering it."

                And I object to you "not even bothering". I've given numerous answers and evidence in response to your didactic questioning. You never concede, you just skip replies and move to something else.

                >>"I am not a lawyer, I got a PhD in Math, that is why I reason illogically according to you."

                No, it's because you based on argument on your faith that a company would act against its own self-interest for the benefit of its competitors. Faith-based argument is not logic-based argument. I didn't make some generic ad hominem that you were illogical, I gave a clear reason why your argument was.

                >>"However, the quantity is not always necessarily turned into quality."

                What do these sorts of personal attacks add? Nothing.

                >>"No, it's: "if you think that your stupid patents are infringed on by us, think again, because you already infringe on ours!" Principle of reciprocity again, what is your problem with that, h4rmony?"

                That's an argument entirely dependent on patents being "stupid". It assumes that they are worthless and that Google should be able to infringe on other people's patents. I do not consider that a supported assumption and you have not attempted to do so. If patents do have some worth, then the whole moral superiority of using other people's intellectual property without compensation falls apart. See my earlier example with Samsung, btw, of many people losing their jobs in large part because of Samsung's unlicenced use of Pioneer's patents. Patents are not inherently worthless, therefore your argument about "your stupid patents" is at best a circumstantially valid one, not even shown to apply in these circumstances.

                >>"My entire argument is that Google have shown they are more noble than most other IT company in the same weight class, including your beloved Microsoft."

                Beloved Microsoft? If it appears that way to you, it's most likely because you keep throwing flawed attacks at the company, provoking defence of it. I was originally trying to talk about Samsung. I also dispute the idea that Google are "more noble". They act out of self-interest, as pretty much all large companies do, and have done a lot to subvert the Open Source movement as I showed earlier.

                >>"The flaw that is only seen by you might not be a flaw after all. An acquaintance of mine told me about aliens swarming around recently..."

                Again, I give a reasoned argument why something is flawed. You don't tackle my reasoning, but make some disconnected statement accompanied by some weird suggestion I'm guessing is trying to imply I'm delusional.

                >>"Since you didn't explain to me how would Google justify the difference between almost $12 and $2 billion dollars to the board, I tried to improvise and gave a few scenarios. You got insulted by that because MS Surface is a wonderful device and you're typing on it, can you scratch that off and get back with a few suggestions how to appease a would-be enraged board anyways?"

                That's really hard to parse, but I already answered you about why the Motorolla debacle is different. You complain about the length of my posts and then ask me the same question three times! As to the Surface, I wasn't insulted. I just thought it bizarre to suddenly start throwing in attacks on its sales figures when they have nothing to do with the discussion; and I thought it was a shame to mock good technology for being unpopular. I prefer to value something based on technical merit.

                Now, I've just re-read this response before posting it and there's pretty much nothing in it that is actually argument about Samsung or the contract. It's pretty much all about your specific post. And I realize that is because your post contains almost no factual discussion for me to actually respond to. Your post is nearly entirely a series of attacks on me or my writing, and next to nothing about the actual topic. This leads to a rather fruitless discussion. Please engage with my actual points if you see something wrong with them. Counter-arguments of "I got a PhD in Math" are a poor substitute for actual discussion.

                1. eulampios

                  Re: at h4rmony

                  H4rmony,

                  As a response to your Chinese proverb on eunuch's chastity, here's my favorite oriental adage: "No matter how many times you say "halva" , it still doesn't sweeten your mouth". That is no matter, how many times you say that your arguments are logical and solid and mine are false and flawed... it becomes a fact. Are you making yourself believe in that?

                  Well, extrapolating somebody's behavior out of someone else's pattern? that is the pearl of your logic? Try selling this logic to statisticians and actuarial people: "yes, male motorists under 20 tend to be n (n>1) times more reckless when driving, however, it is very logical to assume they will change that risky behavior this year, since most people don't want to die". Closer to me analogy would be, "a function f(x) is identically zero in the interval [a,b], let's assume f(c) =\= 0 for all points c not in [a,b], since most functions are not zeros on R"

                  1. h4rm0ny

                    Re: at h4rmony

                    >>"As a response to your Chinese proverb on eunuch's chastity, here's my favorite oriental adage: "No matter how many times you say "halva" , it still doesn't sweeten your mouth". That is no matter, how many times you say that your arguments are logical and solid and mine are false and flawed... it becomes a fact. Are you making yourself believe in that?"

                    So you're not addressing any of my arguments, but merely making a general statement that something isn't logical just because someone says it is. Whereas what I actually did was give you a clear chain of reasoning and references and nowhere said my argument was right because I said it was. And again from the above, I didn't say your arguments were flawed because I said they were, I gave specific reasons which you again skip over. Whereas you are starting to say things like your arguments are logical because you have a PhD in Maths. (Which is saying your arguments are right because you say they are).

                    >>"Well, extrapolating somebody's behavior out of someone else's pattern? that is the pearl of your logic? Try selling this logic to statisticians and actuarial people: "yes, male motorists under 20 tend to be n (n>1) times more reckless when driving, however, it is very logical to assume they will change that risky behavior this year, since most people don't want to die". Closer to me analogy would be, "a function f(x) is identically zero in the interval [a,b], let's assume f(c) =\= 0 for all points c not in [a,b], since most functions are not zeros on R""

                    Again, no actual details or addressing of the criticisms I made, just an analogy you assert is correct, refusing to engage with the reasons already given why your analogy is flawed.

                    Once again, my reply to you can contain virtually no actual references to Samsung or actual contracts because you are just posting general statements and attacking questions such as "are you making yourself believe that". There is no argument in it to reply to, we just end up discussing your post.

                    1. eulampios

                      Let me try it agin, h4rmony

                      >>So you're not addressing any of my arguments, but merely making a general statement that ...

                      I did address them, this generality was used to explain you that your assertion of my lack of logic doesn't make it true, nor does it add gravity to your argument. Anyone is entitled to his/her opinion, this opinion doesn't make it automatically a fact though.

                      I got constantly labeled as going with my faith rather than logic.

                      >It seems an article of faith, rather than logic, that patent usage is the deciding factor in who is the aggressor and who not.

                      Well not exactly, It's (roughly) akin to the difference from the Plato's and Aristotle's pov on physics. The latter thought that it is more like Math, you need no to very little observation, just get your axioms prepared and theorems proven. The former though thought about importance of experiments and observations. However, in the Ancient Greek case, Aristotle never accused his equally great teacher of going with the faith too much...

                      Again, I was answering to someone attacking Google (as you would call it if it were me bringing up Microsoft if it weren't mentioned originally). My point was that Google were not the one that is suing, it's Microsoft. I also said that based on the Google's history they never attack first and use patents as defense against somebody who's doing just that. You said it was all boloney, completely irrational and illogical, because Google would sure not hesitate to attack for patents first if had enough patents at hand, they of course don't at the moment. $4.5 bn worth of Nortel patents would absolutely sure mandate the board to start attacking them. The original $10 bn amount left over from Motorola acquisition doesn't apply here, because it's a totally different situation (you gotta take my word for this, you pretty much said). Then I am accused of putting Google too high up the moral standards. Okay, it's up to the definitions, I tried explaining it with rather a profitable for them business strategy that I see, you ignored that part though.

                      You also provided two links of articles (you said very trustworthy) on how Samsung was corrupted and Google is evil in enslaving their partners in Android ecosystem. Again, it's you that decided it's a very trustworthy source! You mentioned how it was difficult to break the shackles of Android ecosystem due to the evident loss of most important features there. No specifics on what the features are, though! Amazon was just an exception that proves your rule, they were not attempting to go with a phone because that would require those extremely important features you mentioned earlier. You also made a claim that it was unaffordable to fork Android for a company smaller than Samsung indicating (I am guessing) that those unknown features would cost a great amount. You never tackled both Replicant and Cyanogenmod though, perhaps this would again not apply as according to you.

                      Furthermore, I tried to communicate the idea of reciprocity of "do as you would be done by" kind'a principle. Call it morality or practicality, yet this is was exactly what Google, RedHat or even early Microsoft were doing. You cited the BT vs. Google case (filed outside of UK) to show how evil this position to use the patents of others, not paying for them, while demanding money for their own patents!?! How dare they! Reciprocity doesn't fly here, because you said so!

                      Is this your absolutely solid logic and facts that were able to demonstrate all your points?

                      >>isn't logical just because someone says it is.

                      But it really is when someone is you, right?

                      That's what I am sick and tired arguing with you that you try to be both a participant and the judge, assuming a little too much on yourself. I could just call your most of arguments rubbish and the way you argue as quite double-tongued and disingenuous.

                      Since you're dissing my didactic faculties, I'll share with you of my opinion on yours. Funny, your way reminds me my acquaintance with his UFO sitings. He is so amazing at mixing his (or someone else's) fantasies about the Niburu, Annunaki, Dogons, dogs brought to Earth from Sirius and other bullshit with scientific facts, like stars, planetary systems, super-massive black holes, red shift, big bang, variously shaped galaxies.. he states that it was all known long before science discovered it. It had been written in Mahabharata a few millennia ago. I asked to show one tiny part of it in the book that states the Newton's Second Law.. He said that he can't , because the English translation from Sanskrit is 100% forged! Sorry, but I hear a similar tune in your way of arguing. Not sure if you both realize it, but this logic appears to be disingenuous. One major difference between your way and my friend's is that he is not teaching me on how to argue.

                      >>I actually did was give you a clear chain of reasoning and references

                      The sources are much more reliable than what my acquaintance have provided (not a solid authority for me though), but the fairness in the "chain of reasoning " is pretty similar.

                      1. eulampios

                        erratum

                        I misspoke, it's not "didactic faculties" but "dialectic faculties"

                      2. h4rm0ny

                        Re: Let me try it agin, h4rmony

                        There's a lot of misquoting and misrepresentation in your version of my arguments. I've never termed anything here "evil" and I know that because I don't think in those terms. I'd prefer you stuck to my own words if you're going to describe my position to me.

                        >>Since you're dissing my didactic faculties, I'll share with you of my opinion on yours. Funny, your way reminds me my acquaintance with his UFO sitings. He is so amazing at mixing his (or someone else's) fantasies about the Niburu, Annunaki, Dogons, (several more lines about your friend)I hear a similar tune in your way of arguing. Not sure if you both realize it, but this logic appears to be disingenuous.

                        So if I understand your argument, I am equivalent to someone ranting about UFOs. Very nice. Again, not argument.

                        >>"I also said that based on the Google's history they never attack first and use patents as defense against somebody who's doing just that. You said it was all boloney, completely irrational and illogical, because Google would sure not hesitate to attack for patents first if had enough patents at hand, they of course don't at the moment"

                        No, I never said that - really just quote parts from my actual posts rather than putting them in your own phrasing. That way there wont be silly side arguments where I have to correct your misrepresentations. The reason I said Google using patents "defensively" was not evidence of being more moral is because patents don't have some exclusive status of being the only wrong one can do to another. Again, Google has used other companies IP without recompense. Saying "if you ask for money from us for that, we'll hit you with a patent lawsuit" is not a defensive act, it's using them as a stick to dissuade people from seeking licence fees for infringement, as happened with BT.

                        When Google say they only use patents "defensively", what they mean is they want to be able to infringe on others patent use and wont use their own if other's let them - it's an attempt to devalue patents because Google has historically had very little in the way of patent portfolio. Ergo, it is in their financial interest that patents are not used and always has been. Hence the rhetoric about only using them defensively. You appear to take this as a signifier of moral superiority, but the Realpolitik of it is that Google gains a lot more from infringing on patents than it gains from licence fees on patents, if they can convince people not to use patents. Ergo, it's opening move is always to try and dissuade use of patents.

                        All this is true, so the final question would be why believe the reason is one of principle, rather than financial benefit?

                        >>One major difference between your way and my friend's is that he is not teaching me on how to argue."

                        It is my hope that if I point out that ad hominem and argument by assertion are fallacies and rhetoric, I might get actual argument in its place. To some extent that appears to be working because in this post you have finally gone back to some of my actual posts, so I feel validated in that.

                        >>>>isn't logical just because someone says it is.

                        >>But it really is when someone is you, right?

                        No. As I wrote, there's nowhere that I haven't backed up something I wrote with reasons. This is the third time you've tried to present me as saying my argument is right just because I say it is. So back it up - find any actual statement I've made in this thread where I haven't given a reason for it. IF you can find one, it will be because it's something trivial to verify. IF you can find one. Either back it up or drop these ad hominems.

                        >>"this generality was used to explain you that your assertion of my lack of logic doesn't make it true"

                        Again, I didn't "assert" that your argument was faith-based, I gave reasons why it was. To whit, it depends on Google in an alternate timeline paying $4bn dollars to subsidize their competitors. That is logically an argument based on faith that this would be the case. Even if you believe they would, it remains an argument based on faith rather than evidence. Kindly don't keep pretending that I'm "asserting" things rather than giving reasons. You have attempted to argue that Google would act against its own financial interests and to the benefit of their competitors by referencing a couple of other actions by Google, but neither meet the criteria of being wilfully against Google's own financial interests or deliberately helping its competitors and therefore are poor evidence.

                        You've also three times now failed to explain to me why paying so that your competitors don't have to is "more noble" rather than insanity. If that had actually been Google's desire, they would logically have joined the Rockstar Consortium which would have had the same effect of Apple, Samsung and Microsoft not having to pay ongoing licence fees at less cost to Google. Google could also have then voluntarily payed the licence fees for any other non-partner company as well and still come out with less overall cost than paying for everything themself. You see - it just doesn't add up even if you accept that subsidizing competitors is Google's aim, trying to buy the whole portfolio exclusively still wouldn't be the most cost efficient way of achieving that.

                        The reason you are arguing such an absurd hypothetical is because you set out to prove that Google is "more noble" than other companies (your words) and are trying to make arguments fit that, rather than letting conclusion follow facts. It's also why you are basing arguments on hypothetical timelines in the first place. (i.e. faith-based argument, rather than argument based on historical fact).

                        Do you really not see the weakness of trying to prove that Google are "more noble" than other companies by trying to find evidence that in a hypothetical situation they would do something you consider noble?

                        1. h4rm0ny

                          Re: Let me try it agin, h4rmony

                          >>"Well not exactly, It's (roughly) akin to the difference from the Plato's and Aristotle's pov on physics. The latter thought that it is more like Math, you need no to very little observation, just get your axioms prepared and theorems proven. The former though thought about importance of experiments and observations. However, in the Ancient Greek case, Aristotle never accused his equally great teacher of going with the faith too much..."

                          Your analogy breaks down because I don't consider you Plato nor my teacher. That you liken yourself to either is a little presumptuous, imho.

                          >>"Again, I was answering to someone attacking Google (as you would call it if it were me bringing up Microsoft if it weren't mentioned originally). My point was that Google were not the one that is suing, "

                          The OP you were "answering" said they hoped Samsung would get Tizen off the ground and escape from both MS and Google (which they called wannabe monopolists which they are - that's the nature of business). You questioned why Samsung would need to free themselves from Google. I replied with several examples of how Google uses soft controls to restrict the behaviour of Android OEMs, of previously Open Source parts of the userspace they had turned Closed Source (I gave examples), prevent companies from forking Android - a key principle of Libre Software - using market dominance (again, I gave an example), and excluding apps that were against Google's financial interest (again, I gave examples). None of this depends in any way on Google suing Samsung in this matter.

                          >>"$4.5 bn worth of Nortel patents would absolutely sure mandate the board to start attacking them. The original $10 bn amount left over from Motorola acquisition doesn't apply here, because it's a totally different situation (you gotta take my word for this, you pretty much said)."

                          Did I? Let's see what I actually wrote: "Well that was certainly a big balls up on Google's part, but the two scenarios are not alike. One is a situation where Google did at least get some assets and can spin it as a smaller loss depending on the value they ascribe to the patents. And they at least had a plan in that case even if it didn't work out. But the other scenario you seem to consider so plausible is one where Google is actively subsidizing their competitors on an ongoing basis and deliberately turning down revenue. That wouldn't happen"

                          So I pointed out that one was a badly judged acquisition ($12bn, iirc) that nontheless still resulted in Google being able to sell on part of that acquisition for $3bn and keeping a large patent portfolio where they had almost nothing before. I also pointed out that even though it was badly judged in terms of what they paid, it was at least an attempt to make money for themselves. These things make it a rather different proposition to where billions are spent with the objective of saving their major competitors money in the future and sticking to that on an ongoing basis.

                          So no, I didn't "pretty much say you gotta take my word for it".

                          Btw, by using patents offensively, I take it that means asking for money for use of them (can't really mean anything else). You're aware that as part of the sell of Motorola to Lenovo, Google demanded and got payment for Lenovo's use of their Motorola patents, yes? I.e. Google has demanded money for use of its patents?

                          >>You also provided two links of articles (you said very trustworthy) on how Samsung was corrupted and Google is evil in enslaving their partners in Android ecosystem. Again, it's you that decided it's a very trustworthy source

                          Again, I don't use the world "evil". It has to be something pretty extraordinary to get me to talk in such terms and a company acting in its own financial interests is unlikely to do it. I consider that normal. But the usual re-phrasing of what I wrote aside, yes, my links are both reputable. Ars Technica is one of the finest tech journalism sites currently and Vanity Fair has a long-standing tradition of good journalism. If you wish to discredit these sources, then come out and say so. Don't just make snide insinuations that it's me who "decided they were trustworthy". Tell me why these sites are disreputable or better, point out anything in the articles I linked that is wrong. I'm not appealing to authority here. Show me what in my citations is wrong or stop making nasty remarks about them.

                          >>You mentioned how it was difficult to break the shackles of Android ecosystem due to the evident loss of most important features there. No specifics on what the features are, though!"

                          Again, false. I supported what I wrote with a link to an extensive article on Ars Technica detailing this. And the ecosystem is one of the most important features which I explicitly wrote. Imagine you are Acer and you try to fork Android (as they did). Only to then find that if you dare do this, Google lock you out of the Playstore and therefore pretty much the entire ecosystem. That is what makes it difficult. Google use "compatibility" requirements to enforce this. I wrote that this is why Samsung is the only one with a real chance of breaking Android free of Google currently, because they have the resource to create their own ecosystem (which they are doing with Tizen). I also wrote that this is why only Amazon have been able to break free over here - because their Kindles are not phones. You can find all of this in my posts so do not write "No specifics though" as if I'm just making up conclusions to suit.

                          >>"You never tackled both Replicant and Cyanogenmod though, perhaps this would again not apply as according to you."

                          Correct because I explicitly talked about companies. Show me the Replicant or Cyanogenmod phones in a high street store, or even significant market share of them, and I will cheerfully concede someone else has managed to break Android free of Google. However, this has not happened supporting my point - Google limit the Open Source benefits of Android (free to modify it, open ecosystem) by using other means to make the cost of breaking away too high for commercial entities.

                          I would LOVE to see these take off in the mainstream. I will take Tizen as introducing more variety and competition back into Linux in the mobile world, but I would prefer even more that truly Libre versions were the ones to do it. Samsung just wants to replace Google, not free the software. Sadly, every year projects like Replicant and Cyanogenmod become harder and harder as Google moves more and more of the userspace into Closed Source. Even the keyboard has moved to Closed Source, now. Google leaves behind abandonware increasing the burden on others who would prefer to be separate from Google.

                          It is very sad.

                          1. eulampios

                            Re: Let me try it agin, h4rmony

                            >>Your analogy breaks down because I don't consider you Plato nor my teacher. That you liken yourself to either is a little presumptuous, imho.

                            Neither do I consider you Aristotle. If you didn't get it, it was a gentle allusion to the fact that what you call "faith" in my argument , was an experience, induction, observation, extrapolation after all. In particular, that Google would continue doing in the future what they have been doing before.

                            Instead of admitting that it makes a lot of sense, you are calling it faith-based. Sounds disingenuous to me.

                            >>I replied with several examples of how Google uses soft controls to restrict the behaviour of Android OEMs, of previously Open Source parts of the userspace they had turned Closed Source (I gave examples), prevent companies from forking Android - a key principle of Libre Software - using market dominance (again, I gave an example),

                            "Several" examples was only the soft keyboard. What about a pdf engine (pdfium) that they opensourced? Does this neutralize all your examples?

                            You also mentioned that OEMs cannot set up their own stores or put their apps in the Google's store? Amazon, Samsung apps? Or 30 of these. Do they receive cease and desist letters from Google, or cannot get licensed Google apps?

                            Acer that never forked Android, but tried to ship devices with a forked Alayun OS were warned to be out of OHA, because they were breaking the agreement they committed to when joining it!

                            Prevent companies from using forked Android (incompatible) while staying in OHA?

                            The Google compatibility requirement with those proprietary apps is that the Android iron grip, you and others talk about? Why is it Android ecosystem, it's the particular Google proprietary apps ecosystem. I am not happy about the fact they are proprietary, but isn't it the part of the license. Here's the list of many mobile OEMs, most of them are shipping Android phones, an most of them are not in OHA, which doesn't prevent them from getting those proprietary apps.

                            Here's a Linux mobile journal talking about Acer, Alayun OS and Google. They state that the reason Google is pissed with Alalyun OS that it is incompatible and closesourced.

                            >>how me the Replicant or Cyanogenmod phones in a high street store, or even significant market share of them, and I will cheerfully concede someone else has managed to break Android free of Google.

                            Cyanogenmod is reported to be installed on 12 million devices. Both can be considered forks, but might have no problem with compatibility and are not closesourced, that's why you can use those Google's proprietary apps. I would doubt, that Replicant would use them anyways.

                            >>by using other means to make the cost of breaking away too high for commercial entities.

                            What are the means and what is the cost? Again do you have the figure of the cost of how much it would be? Or it's your own speculation.

                            1. h4rm0ny

                              Re: Let me try it agin, h4rmony

                              >>Neither do I consider you Aristotle. If you didn't get it, it was a gentle allusion to the fact that what you call "faith" in my argument , was an experience, induction, observation, extrapolation after all. In particular, that Google would continue doing in the future what they have been doing before. Instead of admitting that it makes a lot of sense, you are calling it faith-based

                              Google have never, to my knowledge sacrificed their own financial interests in order to subsidize Apple, Samsung et al. This is explained time and again and never refuted, but you continue to insist on arguing that Google are "more noble" because in a hypothetical timeline you believe they would do so. That is why it is a faith-based argument rather than an argument based on evidence. Even the argument that Google only use patents as a defence has been shot down as they have sought (and received) money for the Motorola patents not as a response to patent suits against them.

                              You insist that Google motivation in not using patents is one of principle, despite their historically being extremely weak on patents and one case where it actually was in their financial interest they went ahead and demanded money for their use, not as a defence! You then attempt to project this into an alternate timeline that never happened and claim that Google are "more noble" because of their actions in that timeline. Faith-based argument. Calling me Aristotle doesn't change that.

                              >>>>I replied with several examples of how Google uses soft controls to restrict the behaviour of Android OEMs, of previously Open Source parts of the userspace they had turned Closed Source (I gave examples), prevent companies from forking Android - a key principle of Libre Software - using market dominance (again, I gave an example),

                              >>"Several" examples was only the soft keyboard. What about a pdf engine (pdfium) that they opensourced? Does this neutralize all your examples?

                              There are more examples of soft controls even in the section that you just quoted from me in the actual post! Closed Sourcing keyparts of the userspace of Android, using market dominance to prevent forks of Android. I've also previously linked you to a four-page article on the subject, as well as giving the evidence of Google using their position to shut down competitor apps such as Skyhook. Please look back through my posts and accept that I did not only give one example of Google's soft controls.

                              And to close sourcing the keyboard to Android which you think is so small a thing, you can add Calendar, Camera, Maps, Drive, Gmail. Most of the Android userspace used to be Libre Software. Now under Google nearly the entirety of the standard userspace apps on Android are proprietary. Microsoft nor any other competitor has ever managed to gut so many Open Source projects and replace them with Closed Source as Google has.

                              If you really want to champion Open Source, then you're going to have to start distinguishing between those who say they lead it and those who actually do.

                              And to the apps themselves add a little item such as Google superseding the old Open Android API with their own proprietary one. As someone on LWN.net insightfully put it, this is giving every sign that it's going to be the new win32. Good luck escaping from this proprietary API.

                              You might also note that Google will kick you out of the OHA (and thus from selling devices with PlayStore and their services on) if you also make a non-compliant device. Even if you're hired to make it for someone else! Quick question - when MS were trying to stop Dell selling GNU/Linux laptops did you object? I did. I bet you did too. Google are pulling the same thing with insisting you sell only their version of Android or you can't sell theirs at all. They use the same stick - market dominance. I'm criticising them for this. But strangely you're now determined to argue that Google is "more noble" than other companies. Why the double-standard? To me, you appear to be championing the flag, not the country.

                              1. eulampios

                                it's your speculation...

                                You might also note that Google will kick you out of the OHA (and thus from selling devices with PlayStore and their services on) if you also make a non-compliant device.

                                It is making devices with incompatible forks of Android might kick you out of OHA!

                                And this one : "You might also note that Google will kick you out of the OHA ...and thus from selling devices with PlayStore and their services on"

                                This again is your own speculation entirely! There are a lot of OEMs not participating in OHA. Actually you got exactly the opposite of what it is! According to Arstechnica article "Devices may only be distributed if all Google Applications... are pre-installed on the Device."

                                It is: you can only preinstall the PlayStore if you preinstall all of our applications! So the Google's cabbala exactly precludes you from spending those tremendous amounts of money , you were deploring in all of your posts here, that a company should spend if it wants to get away from the "iron grip" of Google. Not that you provided any figures showing how much would those apps cost a company that decides to go its own independent way....

                              2. This post has been deleted by its author

                              3. eulampios

                                being disingenuous again?

                                >>Quick question - when MS were trying to stop Dell selling GNU/Linux laptops did you object? I did. I bet you did too. Google are pulling the same thing with insisting you sell only their version of Android or you can't sell theirs at all.

                                Yes I did object to Windows Tax back then and still continue to do so! (Do you now still?, I am sure not) I also object to making completely unfair comparisons! That's what I meant when calling to question the ability to deal with inequalities, yours and the rest of Google haters, Microsoft, Apple and Oracle fans. So, lets' see, shall we?

                                1) Windows - a proprietary OS? -yes. Android is mostly Open Source (BSD, GPL etc).

                                And when you would try to bring up the proprietary Google's apps, I counter it with so many things, like MSO (of different types and juices), Exchange, VS, MS Sql server. So you better drop that! I might even drag a photoshop or something :)

                                2) How much is the license (the user pays at the end?): Windows -- a $ variable amount depending on the MS' rocket science pricing scheme; Android -- free, moreover with the source freely available, so go ahead and grab the code.

                                >>They use the same stick - market dominance. I'm criticising them for this. But strangely you're now determined to argue that Google is "more noble" than other companies. Why the double-standard? To me, you appear to be championing the flag, not the country.

                                No, the standards are all yours to multiply! Proprietary -- Open Source, Free --Paid. You and the others make up stating that it is absolutely important that everything that Google ship is free (as in beer) and open source! because pure Android is a trifle, Gmail app, AppStore , voicemail, search and whatever is the real treasure! It's free as in beer, but not libre (unfortunately for me as well), yet equating these two things is utterly unfair and simply hypocritical!

                                Now for a user that buys a Windows preinstalled machine, it's both morally and financially important to be able to get rid of Windows and get reimbursed for the Windows license. This is where all neat things start. It used to be hard but doable with Win XP, Vista and harder with W8. It now became both hard technically to install an alternative OS on a brand new machine, and merely impossible to get the money for the license back from either MS or the OEM. Not only do they make consumers eat their Windows OS, they make'em pay for it in the "bundle" with the whole machine!

                                ==================================

                                (had to edit the original withdrawn post due to spelling)

                                1. h4rm0ny

                                  Re: being disingenuous again?

                                  >>"And when you would try to bring up the proprietary Google's apps, I counter it with so many things, like MSO (of different types and juices), Exchange, VS, MS Sql server. So you better drop that! I might even drag a photoshop or something :)"

                                  When I point out the large ongoing shift of the Android userspace to being Closed Source, and observe that Google are getting new developers to use their own proprietary APIs rather than the Open ones, then saying Microsoft sell proprietary software does nothing to contradict that.

                                  Indeed, it looks like you're arguing if Microsoft do something it's okay for others to do something too. In which case I refer you to my earlier comment that if you're using Microsoft as your benchmark for morality you need to up your standards.

                                  The only reason a counter-argument such as the above would even appear to make sense would be if you had some football fan mentality that isn't interested in the specific subject, etc., but just trying to prove the other "team" is worse than yours. Which given that much of your last few posts have just been generic attacks on Microsoft that don't follow from what I actually argued, appears to be the case.

                                  >>"1) Windows - a proprietary OS? -yes. Android is mostly Open Source (BSD, GPL etc)."

                                  Well, Android's getting less Open Source under Google's control as has been established but anyway... The above is what you post in response to my questioning why you excuse Google for using market dominance to keep OEMs from selling rival OSs at all, whilst you agree that it was wrong for Microsoft to exert the same pressure on Dell. The answer appears to be that you have a double-standard where such bullying is okay if the perpetrator is "mostly Open Source">

                                  I disagree - exploitation of market dominance does not become okay just because you like Google or like that they're using Open Source software. Using your market dominance to stop people selling competitor's software is bad, whoever the parties involved are.

                                  >>"It is making devices with incompatible forks of Android might kick you out of OHA!"

                                  And Google defines compatibility on their own terms. You have to include Google's proprietary API, you have to include all of Google's services. Google sets itself up as judge and prevents forking by squashing any commercial viability of forks. They also mandate the inclusion of proprietary code and their services. That's what "incompatible" means when Google use it. And it's still wrong to threaten OEMs not to sell competing software to your own. FirefoxOS is incompatible with Android too, it would be just as wrong to say an OEM couldn't sell that if they wanted to retain permission to use Google services on their phones. It's irrelevant.

                                  Much of the rest of your replies seem to consist of you saying what I said, but I don't recognize your versions as my own. Also, general attacks on Microsoft which I don't see the relevance of to this discussion other than you're now mainly attempting to prove Microsoft is bad rather than address my points about Google, as if it's some zero-sum game and so long as you can criticize Microsoft it makes Google not bad. Or in the case above, that criticism of Google can be dismissed by saying Microsoft do it too.

                                  And a smattering of ad hominems and accusations of bias such as calling me a "Google hater".

                                  1. eulampios

                                    Re: being disingenuous again?

                                    >>Much of the rest of your replies seem to consist of you saying what I said, but I don't recognize your versions as my own.

                                    Let's see: : >>And this one : "You might also note that Google will kick you out of the OHA ...and thus from selling devices with PlayStore and their services on"

                                    This again is your own speculation entirely! There are a lot of OEMs not participating in OHA. Actually you got exactly the opposite of what it is! According to Arstechnica article "Devices may only be distributed if all Google Applications... are pre-installed on the Device."

                                    1. h4rm0ny

                                      Re: being disingenuous again?

                                      >>This again is your own speculation entirely! There are a lot of OEMs not participating in OHA

                                      Hmm, here's what I wrote:

                                      "You might also note that Google will kick you out of the OHA (and thus from selling devices with PlayStore and their services on) if you also make a non-compliant device"

                                      Here's from the very opening section of the Wikipedia page on the OHA:

                                      "OHA members are contractually forbidden from producing devices that are based off incompatible forks of Android"

                                      So are you suggesting that Google wants the rule in the contract but wont actually enforce it? That they were just kidding? Seems unlikely given that Acer was forced to stop manufacturing devices with a competitor fork on there - even though they were just manufacturing them for a third party, even!

                                      You say that there are "a lot of OEMs not participating in OHA". Saying there are OEMs that aren't part of the OHA doesn't show Google wont kick you out. The presence of OEMs that do this and are part of the OHA is what would logically indicate this. Earlier you said there were "millions of OEMs". That was untrue. Later you linked to a Wikipedia page which was a list of phone manufacturers without any examination of them, just asserting that many of them were Android sellers and many were not members of the OHA. I asked you for the overlap - give me just one phone manufacturer that isn't a tiny niche (2% or more of the market) or isn't selling to a country where Google is banned that is selling both Google Android and an incompatible version. Doesn't exist and all you've been able to do is talk about "lots of OEMs". So if there are lots, just find one that meets my criteria. It's not so much to ask when there are "lots" to choose from. We know big OEMs would like to from Acer and Samsung, but they can't because Google uses its market dominance to squash competition.

                                      If you can't find me a phone manufacturer that fits my criteria, then talking about "lots of OEMs" doesn't refute my argument.

                                      1. eulampios

                                        Re: being disingenuous again?

                                        >>sn't selling to a country where Google is banned that is selling both Google Android and an incompatible version.

                                        1) Okay, what do you mean by "Google being banned"? I know you are talking about China, I understand, the fact that China market is the hugest and Android OEMs leadership is much more pronounced than outside of China. This all ruins your theory. However, what exactly, at least formally do you object with China? Since, Samsung, Lenovo and HTC are on par with ZTE and Xiaomi, Yulong ( see here ). I know also that at least ZTE is an internationally well known company. So according to you, Google must do something about their naughty beahavior to get away from the iron grip. They are not in OHA. Why do they not apply. Explain this to me please with some links and without speculations.

                                        You want to exclude China from the list but took into consideration the Acer-Google accident, while Acer was trying to ship a phone in China.

                                        2) Your original speculation was that Google would not allow to use "the most important " bits of Android, their proprietary apps and AppStore. While it has turned out, they on the contrary won't let you use AppStore without preinstalling most of those, thus imposing their bloody, free (as in beer) apps upon poor little OEMs. You also said it would require huge costs to redevelop them on their own, I am guessing, billions or trillions of $US. Well, I have to guess, since you just surmised out some possibly thin air.

                                        3) BTW, you never responded to the "eunuch's chastity" counterargument (50Kvs 40K patents at some point, where Google had the greater number of them) as well, just wondering what would you say in that case?

                            2. h4rm0ny

                              Re: Let me try it agin, h4rmony

                              >>"You also mentioned that OEMs cannot set up their own stores or put their apps in the Google's store? Amazon, Samsung apps? Or 30 of these. Do they receive cease and desist letters from Google, or cannot get licensed Google apps?"

                              Odd. I recall specifically mentioning Amazon and Samsung at the time. So it's strange that you flag them up as if they are omissions. I recall writing that Amazon can pull this off because they are not selling phones, but just their kindle devices and that Samsung is currently the only OEM with a real chance of breaking Google's lock. I also explicitly mentioned the case of China where they must have a non-OHSA Android because several Google services are against the law there. If you check your "30 of these" you'll see lots of Chinese OEMs. Again, you've simplified my argument to the point it no longer reflects what I wrote. Look back - you'll see I explicitly wrote about significant commercial companies selling in the West. You cannot unilaterally shift the context of what I wrote in your desire to prove me wrong.

                              >>Acer that never forked Android, but tried to ship devices with a forked Alayun OS were warned to be out of OHA, because they were breaking the agreement they committed to when joining it!

                              Aliyun is a fork of Android. Acer tried to sell devices with it on, Google shut them down because Google can take away Acer's licence to sell Android devices that are compatible with Google services. Google can do that whether Acer agree to it or not. Acer's agreement is immaterial from a point of view of whether Google are restricting Open Source or not, it is Google that insists upon the restriction. Don't present this as some sort of bad faith on Acer's part - what matters is that Google forces OEMs not to fork Android (or work with those who do) via their market dominance.

                              >>"I am not happy about the fact they are proprietary, but isn't it the part of the license"

                              It's part of the licence because Google insist upon it, no other reason. It doesn't have to be in there. It is because its in Google's financial interest for it to be in there. Regarding your list of non-OHSA Android OEMs, look at them in detail. Some of them are not even shipping smartphones (e.g. Siemans is on there). Others that are, sell to China where Google can't threaten people with the removal of their services because they're banned there anyway so there's nothing to lose. Instead of giving me a Wikipedia page of mobile phone manufacturers and saying "most of them are shipping Android phones", try to show what would actually be necessary to disprove what I've been saying and find me anyone of significance that is selling to non-Google Android devices to countries other than where Google is banned.

                              By significant, I'll set a generously low bar, let's call it 2% of the market, just to weed out the specialist use-cases that aren't to the general public. My bet is that you wont be able to find an OEM selling non-Google Android that hits that outside of banned countries. And we know that manufacturers would like to, btw. As we know of at least two that want to publically.

                              >>"Here's a Linux mobile journal talking about Acer, Alayun OS and Google. They state that the reason Google is pissed with Alalyun OS that it is incompatible and closesourced"

                              Well yes, it being incompatible with their services is the point - Google want to restrict anything that isn't compatible with them. And to be compatible, you have to support their services. It would be a little like Microsoft blocking the sale of any OS that didn't use .NET. And getting away with it.

                              I couldn't find a reference to Aliyun being Closed Source in the article you linked. I'm not saying it can't be, but there's nothing about any such thing on Wikipedia for it which just refers to it as a fork. In any case, the point is that faced with a viable fork of Android, Google set themselves up as judge and used their market dominance to stop a company from building phones for it. That's very much against the spirit of Libre Software.

                              >>"Cyanogenmod is reported to be installed on 12 million devices"

                              Which constitutes about 0.7% of Android devices out there (based on what I could find references for). And of those 12 million devices, I presume next to none were sold with Cyanogenmod actually on there already? My point is made - we should be seeing lots of phones sold with Cyanogenmod pre-installed. There would be a use for these. But we're not because of Google's OHSA.

                              >>"What are the means and what is the cost? Again do you have the figure of the cost of how much it would be? Or it's your own speculation."

                              I don't have a figure - obviously. You expect me to know the precise amount of money each OEM would lose by not being able to sell Google Android before you accept this? We know logically at least, that it is enough to make companies like Acer start turning down phone contracts and a giant like Samsung to invest in rolling their own rival OS and building entire compatibility layers rather than fork Android which would be a lot easier. So a pretty huge cost, whatever it is.

                              1. eulampios

                                Re: Let me try it agin, h4rmony

                                >>That's very much against the spirit of Libre Software.

                                Ironically, you're wrong, if you grab a GPL code, close it and start distributing to the masses, you're very much liable for prosecution. That is the difference from GPL vs. BSD, Apache and other free software. In your lingo, GPL locks in the free software community. Some BSD zealots might very well agree with you on that though.

                                I also didn't find any clear information on whether Yun OS is OSS or proprietary. But this is pretty much the indication of of it's not free, when its source is not freely available. Rubin and other only concluded that it is a fork based on the fact it runs many Android apps. This article gives more details plus it mentions that Alalyun App Store got pirated apps from Google themselves and GooglePlay. Now, wait a minute, in your logic MS = Google (*), so what does Google do to "protect their intellectual property"? No, they don't sue Alibaba, they just tell one of their partners to abide by the commitment to not do exactly this.

                                Oh, and I forgot, that Google abstain from adultery because they... are a eunuch in the patent sense. Alibaba are sure much more powerful than Google... Or are they?

                                Now let's talk about the chastities more closely... According to this and this, in 2013 Google and Microsoft had 51,000 and 40,000 patents, respectively. This means that if Google is an abstinent eunuch, than Microsoft must be an impotent and a sexually unattractive individual. I know, that you once again have assumed it... There is a difference of 8 months between these two sources, it still puts a great deal of doubt on your theory.

                                ===================================

                                (*) Oops sorry, I forgot that in your theory (and a theory of many others) Microsoft != Google, but Microsoft >> Google (in the good sense).

                          2. eulampios

                            Re: Let me try it agin, h4rmony

                            >>Sadly, every year projects like Replicant and Cyanogenmod become harder and harder as Google moves more and more of the userspace into Closed Source.

                            So you really don't know what is the main difficulty for them? The real difficulty is not in the userspace, mam, it's the kernel, more precisely, it's the device drivers that are binary blobs!

                            More so, that is why the proper GNU/Linux got so little traction there. Linaro, Debian, Mer, Sailfish OS. Some of them have to take the blobs, if they can, like Ubuntu Touch or Sailfish OS. I used a Bodhi Linux (Debian) on a very low-end no-name Allwinner Chinese tablet. It was very nice, it would have been awesome, if there were proper drivers (from Arm and Allwinner). Bodhi now don't support this soc and most arm archs, not because of Google shackles, but because of the SoC OEMs (sometimes including ARM themselves), who don't care about the free software.

                            Being far from perfect, Google should be given their due though. Not that there are no poor decisions made by Google: going with Apache Harmony instead of IcedTea, not ensuring good code for the kernel and letting device OEMs create a big mess there. BTW, I try not to use Google's software if they are not at least mostly open source. So I have Chromium installed on some of my systems, not Chrome. I would prefer Cyanogen or Replicant, but better Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora or Arch, not the stock Android. No disrespect to Google here, "thanks" to OEMs. My next phone would probably be Nexus, since it's better supported by both Ubuntu Touch and Sailfish. A touch device should be able to run GNU/Linux too.

                            1. h4rm0ny

                              Re: Let me try it agin, h4rmony

                              >>"So you really don't know what is the main difficulty for them? The real difficulty is not in the userspace, mam, it's the kernel, more precisely, it's the device drivers that are binary blobs!"

                              No. I wrote that these truly Libre projects become harder every year as Google moves more of the userspace into Closed Source and that remains true. It's hardly going to make things easier, is it? Keyboard, Calendar, Maps, the API itself... Even SMS is going that way. Look at this. Formerly Open Source apps on Android are falling like dominoes. When I said the closed sourcing of basic apps on Android makes things harder for the really Libre versions of Android, that's factually true. Don't try to argue against that!

                              >>"Being far from perfect, Google should be given their due though. Not that there are no poor decisions made by Google: going with Apache Harmony instead of IcedTea, not ensuring good code for the kernel and letting device OEMs create a big mess there. BTW, I try not to use Google's software if they are not at least mostly open source. So I have Chromium installed on some of my systems, not Chrome. I would prefer Cyanogen or Replicant, but better Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora or Arch, not the stock Android. No disrespect to Google here, "thanks" to OEMs. My next phone would probably be Nexus, since it's better supported by both Ubuntu Touch and Sailfish. A touch device should be able to run GNU/Linux too"

                              Good for you - see all that I respect. It's not Open Source software I dislike. It's this partisanship and this enoblement of giant corporations that I'm arguing with you about. I like tech, at the end of the day. That's what I'm about. Btw, no Firefox OS on your list?

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: at h4rmony

                "My entire argument is that Google have shown they are more noble than most other IT company in the same weight class, including your beloved Microsoft."

                In this entertaining thread, I failed to see any evidence of that assertion, while I am personally aware of a great deal of evidence to the contrary, as are the US Department of Justice, the UK Serious Frauds Office and so on. Further, I wonder why you even bother to make it since it is provably untrue.

                Microsoft is, historically, no choir boy to be sure, however you cannot just claim Google is somehow more "noble" on that basis alone, ignoring Google's clear and legally proven behaviours. Like a defence lawyer arguing for a client he knows full well to be guilty, you attempt misdirection - and fail.

                Re-reading the original article, I wonder why Google is even relevant.

                Oh, btw, just because you think patents are "stupid" and by extension worthless, does not make is so.

                patents=stupid != axiom

                1. eulampios

                  @AC

                  >>In this entertaining thread, I failed to see any evidence of that assertion,

                  When did you see your ophthalmologist last time?

                  >>Microsoft is, historically, no choir boy to be sure, however you cannot just claim Google is somehow more "noble" on that basis alone, ignoring Google's clear and legally proven behaviours.

                  Again, you guys got very hard time when dealing with inequalities. All of you most probably would flunk my College Algebra class (saying nothing about the Calculi sequence).

                  1. h4rm0ny

                    Re: @AC

                    >>"When did you see your ophthalmologist last time?"

                    When someone picks up a statement of yours and says they don't see any evidence you've given for your assertion, the way of proving them wrong is to show such evidence. The thing that doesn't help, is just aggressive sarcasm.

                    >>"Again, you guys got very hard time when dealing with inequalities. All of you most probably would flunk my College Algebra class (saying nothing about the Calculi sequence)."

                    Once more, that doesn't actually connect with any argument anyone has actually put, it's just further ad hominem. Studied maths at degree level, btw, albeit modules in a science degree. Nasty little jibes like saying we'd probably fail algebra don't advance any argument and just make you look bad.

  17. Philip Lewis

    h4rm0ny 10 - eulampios 0

    The problem with "ignorant people of faith" is that they are incapable of logic and coherent fact based rational discourse. This thread is an outstanding example.

    1. eulampios
      Thumb Up

      @ Philip Lewis

      >>The problem with "ignorant people of faith" is that they are incapable of logic and coherent fact based rational discourse. This thread is an outstanding example.

      Is that so obvious to you? I see, your great logic capabilities are so outstanding, mon amie, can I ask what is the logic in "10 to 0" score, why is it not "100 to 0" ? Just being curious.

      In my incoherent logic and such poor command of predicates, it was so pretty clear that one Microsoft advocate and another Apple fan, Samsung, ergo Google, Android antagonist would find each other in this tight h4rmonic unity.

      In this particular case, I wouldn't bring the question of logic up at all , if a were you, PL. In that the theory of predicates logic becomes truly a jugglery art, you might very well get:

      "if A implies B and B implies C, A may not imply C at all", since it depends on whether h4rmony deems it applicable/reasonable or not: "Google never attacked anyone for patents first before, but they will very likely will", since h4rmony reasoned it, "Google ended up paying about $10bn for Motorola patents without board chastising the execs for not suing anyone for patents, however have they bought $4.5 bn Nortel patents, it would have certainly happened".

      Brilliant, consistent and complete logic, indeed!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019